Post Number: 437
|Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2011 - 7:14 am: || |
I remember I had this question a couple of years ago because people on this forum would always refer to evangelical Christianity....
Now that the Talbot articles have been reprinted in Proclamation, I wonder if some Adventists are wondering what "Evangelical" means.
Someone else posed the question to me: Who care if Adventists are considered Evangelical or not? Who cares how Adventists are classified? Some lurkers may be wondering the same thing...
My answer to that is, apparently the GC people care 'cause they make a concerted effort to appear and be accepted as another evangelical denomination. And I think most of the members have taken the bait as well...
So, how would you define the term "evangelical"?
Post Number: 346
|Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2011 - 7:40 am: || |
The whole "Adventism is not Evangelical" argument really didn't mean a whole lot early in my study out. I had been conditioned to think of "evangelical" as a bad word. I had no idea that the denomination even wanted to appear evangelical, nor did I even know what evangelical actually meant. I only knew it meant to me "bad theology". Actions that I now would classify as "appearing evangelical" were at that time compartmentalized a something completely different than the evangelical topic. I was better than that evangelical nonsense.
As I now understand it, "evangelical" was a label made at some point to differentiate from "fundamentalist" over an area of theology that I no longer can remember (and I think is no longer part of the modern definition anyway). Now, I see it as more of a catch all for anyone who isn't completely liberal or cultic... kinda synonymous with "mainstream". I'm probably incorrect in this, but it is my perception.
I am curious what the context/working definition was at the time of the Talbot article though.
Post Number: 288
|Posted on Friday, April 08, 2011 - 6:18 am: || |
I was just becoming a teenager in Takoma Park when all the debate about whether SDAs were a cult, or evangelical christians or not. I remember hearing things about it, there were some articles in the Review etc, but I don't know what the exact points of the debate are/were. I think what I absorbed was an attitude of 'Hurray, we're not a cult; THEY said so.' It was wanting to be accepted by the larger group, as normal. Yet still retain the 'distinctives' - the 'weird doctrines' did not mean we could not be acceptable. We would join the 'mainstream' of christianity & leave the cults behind!
It is not a factor in my leaving or finding another church, but I too have wondered who or what are the Evangelicals?
Post Number: 27
|Posted on Friday, April 08, 2011 - 7:22 am: || |
To me it is basically the churches that are between the "moderates" and the "liberals". Though some "moderate" churches are considered evangelical too.
I remember a speaker (nonSDA) came to the seminary once and made a comment like "us evangelicals..." I remember looking at someone and saying since when are Adventists evangelicals. I think I too probably had a negative view of the term at the time, but I also had to wonder why he labeled the Adventists that because I had always thought that Adventists are more of the "fundamentalist" type Christians (regardless of their errors they are basically considered fundamentalists Christians because of the do's and don't in their fundamental beliefs.).
Post Number: 438
|Posted on Friday, April 08, 2011 - 8:48 am: || |
What helped me was the discussion we had here: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/9268.html
Evangelical: Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: a belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again"); some expression of the gospel in effort; a high regard for biblical authority; and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
As opposed to crazy liberals or crazy fundamentalists (smirk), evangelicals are focused on the Gospel.
Post Number: 28
|Posted on Friday, April 08, 2011 - 9:43 am: || |
As if crazy is a bad thing.
Post Number: 153
|Posted on Friday, April 08, 2011 - 10:00 am: || |
I think the media actually hi-jacked the terms we used to describe groups of Christians (e.g., fundamentalist, evangelical, orthodox,etc.) and redefined them so they all have a pejorative dint to them when they are used.
I also think as Adventists, because we thought everyone was wrong anyway we didn't pay attention to the labels and just lumped all SUNday worshipers int he same category, "misguided".
Post Number: 7198
|Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 10:54 pm: || |
I think the word 'Evangelical' has evolved to indicate mainstream Christianity in the English language and the English language does evolve over time.
I think a better question is what is a Christian? Christian is a word that should never evolve into a meaning that encompasses every Tom, Dick and Harry who puts his britches on one leg at a time. People will argue that they are a Christian, including Adventists. There are many who lay claim to that title falsely.
Most people who lay claim to that title stands on two legs, but a Christian, in truth, stands on four legs or pillars, the four pillars of Christianity which are these:
1. Believe that Christ died and rose the third day. 1 Cor 15:1 and Romans 10: 9,10
2. Sola fide, by faith alone.
3. Christ deity.
4. Absolute and complete atonement for our sins at the cross.
If there is one of these left out in your life, then if you claim yourself a Christian,then you are a liar and a thief and frankly, I get darned tired of people miss using the word.
All Evangelicals may not be Christians, but all Christians, are Christians and its very easy to identify one, because he stands solidly on the four pillars of his Christian faith and he cannot be moved or swayed one little bit.Now you can argue your theology til your blue in the face and the cows come home, but you cannot prove by the Bible that either one of these is wrong, they all stand or they all fall at once, there just is no middle ground here.
With these four things firmly planted in a Christians heart he'll stand against hell, the devil and all his neighbors and their dogs who try to tear it down, and they won't even mess his hair. The Christian that has these things down deep in his heart will still be standing when they lay the false teachers in their hell bent grave and you can take that to the bank.
Jesus said this about himself:John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
He also said:John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Those pillars will stand firm and Jesus is the center of those four pillars and the center holds.
My theology is built around those four pillars and you can throw hell at me on a toothpic and I'll never back down.
Post Number: 1736
|Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 9:31 am: || |
What if someone else has four different pillars supported by Bible verses too?
Post Number: 7201
|Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 11:46 am: || |
You can get four verses thrown together to try and prove anything you want, in fact Adventists are great at that.
Jesus deity, resurrection, atonement, faith, all foretold by the prophets and brought to pass by God, it is Gods doing Hec, and nomatter how many proof text you bring to bear, man cannot undo it, nor destroy what was done.
During the Roman Catholic inquisition men and women were burned, beheaded, imprisoned, tortured, tied in animal skins and worried by lions and hyenas until they died, all to try and make them recant. A pregnant mother was stripped naked and gutted in front of her two sons, Stephen is another example, once this becomes a part of you, nomatter what they do to you, it will do them no good at all. men have tried to destroy this from the very beginning but to no avail.
Post Number: 911
|Posted on Friday, April 15, 2011 - 11:31 am: || |
Good points River,
It isn't about throwing together a couple of texts (or in this case 4). It requires those texts to be used in a manner consistent with their immediate literary context. It requires the plain and straightforward understanding of those passages. And it requires those passages to be used in a manner that is consistent with the other Biblical texts on the subject. So it is true that anyone can throw together a few texts to say what they want, There are limits to whether these are an accurate way to assemble the verses. This is the difference between the Evangelical pillars you described and the pillars of the SDA church.