RSS - Posts
It seems like everyone declares themselves to be evangelical, but what does this term really mean? Does it have any historical basis? Who are some that are calling themselves evangelical that really aren’t, and why is it important to defend the historic position? These questions and more are answered in this edition of Rightly Divided with guest Phil Johnson.
Phil Johnson is the director of John MacArthur’s Grace to You ministry, and he also runs the blog Pyromaniacs.
Video: RIGHTLY DIVIDED | Episode 2: Defining and Defending Historic Evangelicalism
Filed under: Being Equipped, The Church | Tagged: Doctrine, Historic Evangelicalism, Phil Johnson
My former pastor had a major downer on evangelical Christians. I remember asking him what an evangelical was (I had perhaps been saved a year) and he replied it was someone who was ‘wordy’. Over time I came to understand that his definition of an evangelical was a Christian who did the following:
1) Placed the Bible above God.
2) Preached law over grace.
3) Put more emphasis on theology, study, knowledge than operating in the gifts of the Spirit.
He came out of two decades in an evangelical church to start his own church after going to Canada to experience the Toronto blessing. I joined his church a week or so after being saved a shade under 8 years ago and left his church a year ago when I realised the foundations (as exposed by their embrace of Lakeland) were not right.
I can’t watch the video above but the interesting thing for me was the imagery that manifested when I saw the question ‘…what does this term really mean?’ It was the exact imagery that my former pastor held to as listed above and reminds me that there is still some influence there.
I will go and search for the correct historical definition of evangelical Christianity and then come back. I would imagine that the clue is in the word and has something to do with evangelism – something my former church were largely fearful of doing.
It’s good to know that others are just as fuzzy on what it means to be Evangelical today. I agree with Phil Johnson that the term has been sabotaged by Rob Bell and other professing Christians, not to mention the media. It’s good to hear Johnson and Lane talk about “historic evangelicalism,” although I still need to learn more about what that was exactly.
At this point, I’m personally inclined to keep it simple and identify myself as a follower of Jesus (or “a follower of Jesus and His teachings”). That’s how I identified myself in Malaysia, where the term “Christian” carries all kinds of unwelcome meanings, and it seems to be a wise move here in the US as well.
The term evangelical has been hijacked in America.
Up until 3 years ago, if someone asked me if i was an evangelical my answer would have been yes. But guys, the term does not mean [to the church and/or to the world] what it did 20 – 30 yrs ago.
According to what it stands for today, im not an evangelical.
me too.