Good Definition of Reformed Theo. vs. Evan Theo?
Can anybody give me a good definition contrasting the two? With some major differences in worship, Bible teaching, spiritual gifts, etc?
I'm having a hard time deciphering the two..
Comments
-
As one who grew up in the Reformed Faith, I don't see the differences as primarily theological. Evangelicalism is a primarily American movement that puts proclaiming the Gospel in order to reach the lost (with an understanding of conversion as a personal commitment to Jesus resulting in being born again) at the top of the priority list. Evangelicals can be Calvinists or Arminians, and can be found among cessationist Baptists to flaming Pentecostals. At least I've heard folks from all those stripes refer to themselves as Evangelicals.
Some from my denomination (Christian Reformed Church) consider themselves Evangelicals, even though we are an established denomination with clear historical ties to the Reformation in the Netherlands. Others would be appalled by the association.
As a movement Evangelicalism grows out of American Fundamentalism, and is a response to a perceived (at least) spiritual malaise and lack of evangelistic fervor of many so-called 'main-line' churches.
In other words, the differences aren't so much theological as practical. And trying to define Evangelicalism is very difficult beyond some of the broad brush strokes I've given it here. Maybe someone else can do better.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Reformed = someone who follows Reformation teaching, particularly Calvin (the key theologian of the Reformation) with his emphasis on God's sovereignty.
Evangelical = someone who emphasises the (entire) Bible as the Word of God and (only) authority for Christian doctrine and practice, in contrast to liberal theologicans (so after the time of the Enlightenment.)
A quick summary:
a) "What are the unique features of Reformed Christianity? ... Calvin’s gave the assurance of the impregnability of God’s purpose."
Source:
Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd ed., 257 (Dallas, Tex.: Word Pub., 1995).b) "The Age of Reason saw a dramatic spiritual renewal in Western Christianity called the Evangelical Awakening."
Same resource, page 331.0 -
Richard - If I may, I'd like to add a little more perspective to one comment.
This is your comment. - "As a movement Evangelicalism grows out of American Fundamentalism, and
is a response to a perceived (at least) spiritual malaise and lack of
evangelistic fervor of many so-called 'main-line' churches."My perspective - Evangelicalism also wanted to distance itself somewhat from fundamentalism.
0 -
From my seminary (WTS California) notes, as taught by John Frame:
1. The reformed faith is evangelical--it holds that God is a person; that man was made in the image of God and wilfully disobeyed God's command and became worthy of death; that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man, was born of a virgin, worked miracles, fulfilled prophecy, literally and physically suffered and died for our sin, was raised physically from the dead and will come again (literally and physically) to judge the world and to gather his people; that salvation from sin comes to us by receiving the free gift in Christ by faith in Christ, and not from our good works; that Scripture is the inerrant word of God; and that prayer is not mere meditation but a genuine conversation with our creator and redeemer.
2. All reformed are evangelical, but not all evangelicals are reformed. That is, there are some teachings that the reformed faith holds that evangelicalism does not hold (see below).
3. The reformed faith is predestinarian: (1) Man is totally depraved and cannot do anything really good, that is capable of pleasing God. In his fallen state, man has no goodness in thought, word or deed and thus is incapable of contributing anything to his salvation. (2) God unconditionally elects (chooses) people for salvation, but he doesn't choose them because of any goodness in them or even because he foresees that they will one day believe. Rather, he elects out of totally unmerited favor or grace. (3) The atonement is efficacious, that is, it accomplishes its purpose. When Christ dies for someone, that person is saved. Not everyone is saved, and so Christ did not die for everyone. Christ's atonement does not open up the mere possibility that man will be saved. Admittedly, this is undoubtedly the single most controversial point of the reformed faith. (4) God's grace cannot be resisted by the creature; it will surely accomplish its purpose in those whom God has elected. (5) If you are born again by the Spirit of God, justified, and adopted into God's family, you cannot lose your salvation. God will keep you.
4. The reformed faith holds to the comprehensiveness of God's covenant lordship. The relationship between God and man, both OT and NT, is a covenant in which God is the Lord and we are his people.
Note: Obviously, there is more to be said about all of this. I share this not to be controversial; I intended to provide Michael with an answer to his question as helpfully as I could.
Humbly bowed before the cross,
Bill
0 -
In my limited experience, I would disagree with the statement that all Reformed are Evangelicals. There are ethnic groups that are historically either Reformed or Lutheran and when the association is based on ethnicity, often (but not always) it is not Evangelical or a mixed bag. I have been in a church that transitioned from independent Evangelical to Reformed and I can assure you that there was a big difference in terms of Evangelical values. This was in France though and might differ from the situation in other countries.
Still even in North America I noticed these common features: a big difference between Reformed churches (those with a big "R") and many other churches in the Evangelical world is their ecclesiology. For instance, their understanding of baptismal practices involves a covenant ecclesiology that has affinities with Roman Catholicism and Lutherans but is quite different from say, Baptists.
As seems to be the case with large historical European protestant groups, tradition and liturgy is much more important than it is for later and originally smaller movements. For instance, they would be more familiar with and conceptually comfortable with the idea of sacraments as opposed to ordinances.
Additionally, the ecclesiology and traditions is also reflected in their polity including their interchurch relationships. Synods would call more on historical theology than perhaps would some other groups among the Evangelical world. Then of course, by definition, their theology reflects the emphases of Jean Calvin including a very strong predestinarian emphasis and very classic historical Protestant soteriology.
The European heritage means also that European modes of expression and thinking are more prevalent in Reformed writings than they would be in non-European groups. Theology is much more abstract and not as concrete as North American expression and theology can be. This means that at times one may walk away from reading an article and wonder really what difference this all makes whereas the opposite extreme found on our side (North American) is pragmatic theology that can be lacking in depth (again with many exceptions on both sides).
But then of course, nowadays, there are bound to be many exceptions and strange mixes, like this Reformed Charismatic church I paid a visit once. It was an understandable, but somewhat odd and unexpected mix.
Blessings,
Francis
0 -
Michael Bennett said:
Can anybody give me a good definition contrasting the two?
As you can tell from my posts of PBB's, I have been grappling with the credal statements that represent both traditions. I have come to the inclusion that many apparently "simple" theological terms have definitions that resemble "it means what I say it means" - with every "i" taking their own position. Perhaps I exaggerate slightly, but I find the responses on this thread fascinating.
You might be interested in a white paper "America's Definition: What is an Evangelical?" http://www.ellisonresearch.com/releases/0908_ERWhitePaper.pdf
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
There are some interesting posts related to defining evangelical just posted here
0 -
Michael Bennett said:
Can anybody give me a good definition contrasting the two? I'm having a hard time deciphering the two..
Michael,
Your question is good but it is very difficult in a sense because there are so many different flavors and definitions on the continuum. We can speak of Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism,Amyraldianism (aka Hypotheical Universalism), Weslyanism, Arminianism, 2-3-4 point Calvinism, Calvinism, "hyper" calvinism (often just used as a perjorative), and so forth. And just to confuse everything even further, there are those who hold to an Evangelical Theology who, if they truly understood the position, would probably identify more with the Reformed side (and vice versa).
Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the sine qua non which distinguishes the two sides is this:
A Reformed Theologian would say that life (or regeneration, or the new birth) MUST precede faith whereas an Evangelical Theologian would say that faith MUST precede life.
Understand that, and armed with a good book on the History of Theology, and you are on your way to understanding the distinctions between the two.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Hey thank you so much! Everything you all posted really helped me out
0 -
JRS,
I think that you put it in a nutshell, thanks. At the heart of reformed theology is a God who
initiates, or causes, all and man is the benefactor in spite of who and what he
is (which is a whole other subject). When trying to explain the difference
in my theology to friends from my past circles I put it simply: God is sovereign
and man is not, but I admit a bit too simplistic.Here is one quote from B.B. Warfield that sums up a
great deal of this subject for me personally. Although he is referring to
Calvinists, I see it describing the heart of reformed theo as a whole.“The Calvinist is the man who has seen God, and who, having
seen God in His glory, is filled on the one hand with a sense of his own
unworthiness to stand in God’s sight as a creature, and much more as a sinner.
And on the other hand, with adoring wonder that nevertheless this God is a God who
receives sinners.”0 -
jeff beard said:
“The Calvinist is the man who has seen God, and who, having
seen God in His glory, is filled on the one hand with a sense of his own
unworthiness to stand in God’s sight as a creature, and much more as a sinner.
And on the other hand, with adoring wonder that nevertheless this God is a God who
receives sinners.”This quote would apply to others who don't agree with Calvinism or reformed theology as well. I know a great many dispensationalists and a great many who would not put themselves in either a calvinist nor arminian camp who would heartily agree with the tenets of this statement.
0 -
Brilliantly succinct. It can't be stated any better.JRS said:A Reformed Theologian would say that life (or regeneration, or the new birth) MUST precede faith whereas an Evangelical Theologian would say that faith MUST precede life.
Understand that, and armed with a good book on the History of Theology, and you are on your way to understanding the distinctions between the two.
Now the problem I wrestle with is not being unable to distinguish between the two but in finding my footing. I've read many good books but none answer everything. Even the greatest theologians leave questions unanswered. It reminds me of Roland Bainton's biography of Luther, "Here I Stand" -- Maybe 400 years from now somebody will write my bio and explain where my feet rested in this landscape. [*-)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew
Your
reply was also very well put. What came first, the chicken or the
egg? What came first, faith or life? Many on this forum probably have
a ready answer. I am thankful for the privilege of owning Libronix to
consult many on this question, as well as the Word of God. And we seem
to have some fairly good responses to the difference between the two
movements.0 -
Thanks for asking this question. I spend allot of time in South to Mid Michigan and if there is 10 Reformed Churches, there are 1,000. I was wondering what they believed.
Wilson Hines
0 -
Mark,
Yes, I agree, "reformed" does not have a corner on reverence and
humility. Thanks for clarifying, I must be more careful. Perhaps due to
my previous path of evangelicalism, and what I currently find practiced in
local churches, Warfield's words draw a stark difference between the more
common movement in the American church and the historical theology and
orthopraxy of the reformation. My hope is that Warfield's description would be
received and deeply applied, more than with mere verbal and skin deep acknowledgement
in the evangelical faith. It has/is a simple reminder for me of proper theology
and anthropology in a nutshell.btw: a worship meeting of 50 local Baptist
churches that I attended last night included a half dozen clowns, with one of them
jumping out of a cake down in front of the stage. I was invited to give a ministry
presentation between the “worship” songs and …the clowns. Back to Warfield’s words.0 -
jeff beard said:
btw: a worship meeting of 50 local Baptist churches that I attended last night included a half dozen clowns, with one of them jumping out of a cake down in front of the stage. I was invited to give a ministry presentation between the “worship” songs and …the clowns. Back to Warfield’s words.
Jeff, I am sorry to say "I feel your pain," and raise it 10x.
Clowns, time travel with Jesus, Bible Safari, Noah's Zoo, youth ministries "that Rock"...........The 1970s church kids have aged (-not matured) and now require bistros in Bible school, overhead video projections, rock bands in worship service, & Christian singles dating services. Ours is a " ( insert name of favorite video console here ) " generation. Francis Schaeffer warned of this in "The Great Evangelical Disaster" available on Logos here:
http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/cwfs .
The loss of reverence for God and loss of humility for our miserable estate is across all of Christianity. We need to pray for revival instead of clowns in cakes. (I am also a Baptist but see this everywhere in American Christianity.)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Allen Browne said:
Calvin (the key theologian of the Reformation)
Allen,
While I agree that Calvin was a major key theologian of the reformation, I would not call him the key theologian of the reformation. Don't forget the person who started it all Martin Luther, and we cannot forget the others like Zwingli, Knox, Owen, Melanchthon, and Pascal. While these other theologians might not be as well known, they too had a huge impact of the reformation.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I have come to the inclusion that many apparently "simple" theological terms have definitions that resemble "it means what I say it means" - with every "i" taking their own position. Perhaps I exaggerate slightly, but I find the responses on this thread fascinating.
You might be interested in a white paper "America's Definition: What is an Evangelical?" http://www.ellisonresearch.com/releases/0908_ERWhitePaper.pdf
So true an observation! I think everybody should read that white paper you referenced. (Thank you, MJ for sharing it.) Here is a teaser to convince everybody it is time well spent in reading it:
The graph of How Americans Define "Evangelical" shows only 1% define the term as "They follow Christ" -- sad statistic.
Billy Graham, "I think there are evangelicals in the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox churches."
Rich Cizik on "evangelicals"-
1) Bible is authoritative, infallible, inerrant
2) born-again experience, conversion
3) shares this message, witnessing ----Tell me, do reformed churches not believe these three points??I have a missionary friend of the reformed faith who does door-to-door witnessing, street preaching and lifestyle evangelism. He seems to be much more evangelical than many of my fundamentalist, "evangelical", non-reformed friends.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I have a missionary friend of the reformed faith who does door-to-door witnessing, street preaching and lifestyle evangelism. He seems to be much more evangelical than many of my fundamentalist, "evangelical", non-reformed friends.
The word Evangelical has lost all meaning. What good is a word if you have to define it every time you use it because your definition isn't the same as the next guys definition?
The word is often defined in contrast to something else
Evangelical (justified by faith alone) vs Roman Catholic
Evangelical (cooperation) vs Fundamentalist (separation)
Evangelical (conservative) vs Liberal
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
jeff beard said:
My hope is that Warfield's description would be
received and deeply applied, more than with mere verbal and skin deep acknowledgement
in the evangelical faith.Jeff
Your comments have been very good and this whole discussion has been good. I would tend to say that Warfield's statement once defined evangelicalism. It no longer defines the movement and as others have pointed out, it is hard to define evangelicalism today. The movement has been set adrift trying to be inclusive and has set a worldly course to which there is no turning back. But Warfield's statement is still true, and while many in Christendom may reject it, the Lord knows those who are his. And those who are his is not defined by a man named movement or theological box. Christ is the Savior and he knows whom he has saved and he knows who are wearing masks.
0 -
I know this is an old post, but I just want to assert that man's categorization and definitions are a moving target, and therefore unimportant. We are taught certain things unequivocally via God's word. Other things we just do not, will not, and cannot understand comprehensively. Nor should we expect to. Our job is to obey and be taught by the Holy Spirit those things which God wants us to understand, and to make sure our theology and church life rests on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. We should vigilantly refuse to be impressed with historical figures, and judge their teaching with the same criticism (as regards conformity with apostolic teaching) that we would the teaching of a first-year youth pastor. In other words, where the Bible is ambiguous, we must remain ambiguous, until we can see the resolution of the paradox. And that is a gift only the Spirit of God can give. We must also remember that, if we feel we have understanding about some issue, it's not our job to build a schism (i.e. a denomination) around it.
0 -
Welcome to the forums Kevin. Despite this thread, our focus is on Faithlife software and resources, with the guidelines available at http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx . If you're a Logos user this is a great place to learn to use it more effectively.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I know I shouldn't, but 2009 was the 'day' the music died (Libby of course). And the best definition in Logos.com is that evangelical is whatever everything else isn't (book assignment by tradition).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Yes, Kevin, welcome to the forums. This thread was written before guidelines became available. I agree with MJ Smith who has written that the forums are a great place to learn about Faithlife software and resources.
0 -
Kevin Wells said:
I know this is an old post ...
+1 Welcome [:D]
Thankful for Christian Discourse where this definition could be discussed more.
Thankful can use Logos or Verbum to search for articles (Logos 4, 5, 6, & 7 have been released after Libronix 3)
(reformed,evangelical) NEAR theology
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Mark said:
Your comments have been very good and this whole discussion has been good. I would tend to say that Warfield's statement once defined evangelicalism. It no longer defines the movement and as others have pointed out, it is hard to define evangelicalism today. The movement has been set adrift trying to be inclusive and has set a worldly course to which there is no turning back. But Warfield's statement is still true, and while many in Christendom may reject it, the Lord knows those who are his. And those who are his is not defined by a man named movement or theological box. Christ is the Savior and he knows whom he has saved and he knows who are wearing masks.
Here is a good discussion on evangelicalism from a useful book you can get on Logos called Evangelical Theology by Michael Bird
Here's a promo video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtXofha3kxw
From the book:
What is an evangelical? The term evangelical can be used in diverse ways. For some it is a pejorative term meaning basically the same as fundamentalist. For others it is largely a cultural term describing those aligned with a particular social, political, and moral bent associated with conservative American politics. When I refer to evangelicalism, I am referring to a historic and global phenomenon that seeks to achieve renewal in Christian churches by bringing the church into conformity to the gospel and by promoting the gospel in the mission of the church.1
In my reckoning, six key factors led to the formation of modern evangelicalism.1. The Protestant Reformation with the rediscovery of the doctrines of grace over and against medieval Catholic notions of salvation through merit and penance.
2. The convergence of Puritanism and Pietism in North America and the British colonies that brought together diverse groups in shared social and religious causes like seeking revival and working for the abolition of slavery.
3. The missionary movements of the last two centuries with newly planted churches established in the Majority World.
4. The liberal versus fundamentalist controversies of the early twentieth century over core Christian doctrines.
p 20 5. The separation of “evangelicals” from the fundamentalist movement in the mid-twentieth century.2
6. In the last quarter of the twentieth century there has been a steady decline of Christianity in the West and a surge of evangelical Christianity in Asia, Africa, and South America. This surge has led to increasing interaction between the Western and Majority World churches through more affordable international travel and because of increasing access to the Internet, so that churches and organizations are becoming more readily aware and influenced by what is happening in other parts of the world. The international representation in the World Evangelical Alliance and Lausanne Covenant shows that evangelicalism is a truly global phenomenon.3Evangelicalism as a theological ethos can be defined by a number of cardinal points. One way of summarizing these points is the “Bebbington Quadrilateral”:4
• conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted to faith in Jesus Christ
• activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be proclaimed to others and expressed in a commitment to service
• biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible as inspired and authoritative
• crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the crossI think Bebbington’s scheme holds true enough, though I would want to add a few nuances, such as that “biblicism” is not bibliolatry, and “crucicentrism” does not mean ignoring the resurrection. We also need to add something on respect for historic Christian orthodoxy (what I call the “catholic” dimension of evangelicalism).5
Another summary of the cardinal points of evangelicalism is given by Alister McGrath:• the supreme authority of Scripture for knowledge of God and as guide to Christian living
• the majesty of Jesus Christ as incarnate God and Lord, and the Savior of sinful humanity
• the lordship of the Holy Spirit
• the need for personal conversion
• the priority of evangelism for both individual Christians and for the church as a whole
• the importance of Christian community for spiritual nourishment, fellowship, and growth6I have written this volume in the first place for the benefit of evangelical churches who embrace this general pattern of belief and practice. It is a gospel-centered theology for Christians who seek to define themselves principally by the gospel. What we need, as a matter of pastoral and missional importance, is an authentically evangelical theology—that is, a theology that makes the evangel the beginning, center, boundary, and interpretive theme of its theological project.
Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 19–21.0
