Talk Elections

There is a guy named Steve. He was raised a Methodist and is still a member of The United Methodist Church. On Sunday's he attends an Episcopal church. When he visits his Catholic brother he attends a Catholic church, where he is friends with the priest there. He has never spoken ill of another Christian denomination. He has never claimed to be a part of the Christian-right, nor has he ever affiliated himself with any evangelical group. He has never belonged to an evangelical church in his life.

He does however pray regularly, and is open about his faith. He often seeks guidance in the Bible. For this he is accused of being a fundamentalist wacko, a follower of Robertson and Falwell.

Is he evangelical?

Does he try to convert anyone and everyone?

If yes, yes, he is.
If no, no, he is not.

(Is he from the South?  This will change my answer... Southern Methodists are typically quite evangelical)

Sounds like a good Christian to me. Does he respect the choice of non-Christians not to be Christian?

Ilikeverin, no he doesn't try to convert people, and no he isn't really from the south.

JohnDibble, he does respect the choice of others to be non-Christians. He has non-christian/non-religious friends and often speaks well of Jews and Muslims.

Is he an arminian? Does he attend revivalist concerts worship services?
If so, than he is. If not, he probabily isn't.

I'm not a Greek major, but as I understand the term, it means something like:  relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels.

so, yeah.  but then I'm no religious scholar.  Anyone know what the word 'evangel' or 'evangelical' means?  Here's a webster's definition:  emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.

once, again.  yes.

Ilikeverin, what you smoking?  It's not an insulting term, or shouldn't be.  It's like Socialism, or Fascism, Republican, or Democrat.  Just a word that, while having emotionally charged nuance to some, needn't be an insulting word to anyone.

He doesn't attend revivals or Christian Rock concerts(he's more of a country fan). He isn't Arminian either.

Yes.  According to the Left, all Christians who are serious are evangelical, racist wackos, regardless of their veiws on tollerance or their denomination.

p.s. I don't think that evangelical is a bad word or an insult, but it has basically become one.

While I never said that right out, congrats, you got my [not-so-]subtle undertone :)

Yes, I think evangelicalism (I doubt that's a word :P) is a bad thing, because, to me, it suggests that you think your religion is out-and-out superior to another, not just different.

How can one be a part of any religion at all, whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or just all around "Christian", unless they believe it to be the "most correct"?  That isn't saying that other people are going to Hell.  It is amazing how wacked out and intollerant the Left's veiw of the world is when it comes to religion and religious people.

Zen, on the other hand, refers to 'enlightenment through direct meditation'

Funny how all these different sects of Buddhism bash each other, calling each other 'the lesser vehicle' and 'elitist' and 'bastardized forms of true buddhism'

apparently different sects of christianity do that too.

Nothing wrong with being Zen.  Nothing wrong with being Evangelical.

the more I read your post, the more convinced I am that he is an evangelical protestant.  and there's nothing wrong with that.  So tell those assholes calling him wackos to get their minds out of the gutter.  They're intolerant.  I smell the beginnings of a Final Solution with regards to the Christian Right.  Y'all better step up to the plate and speak out if you don't want yourself marginalized by those intolerant 'secularists' and rounded up and sent off to gas chambers.  You're thinking:  No, it can't happen here.  Think again.  It can.  I'll speak out as much as I can, but being an agnostic I can't say that have a personal investment in the matter.  You'd better speak out for yourselves.

(end of rant)

We are called to preach God's word.
Romans 10: 14-15
 14   How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15   And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

1 Corinthians 1:21
 21   For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Then, I stand by my earlier statement - he's just a good Christian. Christianity teaches tolerance, and even if he preaches his ways to others, he respects the right of others to decide on their own, and gets along with them as his fellow man.

Sure, we can preach, but it seems to me that most evangelicals, while saying how good Christianity is, also say how bad the person's current religion is.  Or how they're atheist and are thus going to Hell.  Or some such.

(Anyway, I'm with Dibble on this one)

I never said I don't believe it's the 'most correct'.  I said I don't think there is a 'best' religion.

Until proven otherwise, I think Methodism is the 'most correct' religion, but I don't want to force that on other people.

Just a good Christian, who sees beyond the denominational rows.

Intolerance begets intolerance, unfortunately. True Christians are tolerant, but there are those who claim to be Christian but do not really follow the religion's teachings. For instance, there is a group that comes on my college campus every now and then and they tell people 'repent or burn' and they tell women that they need to go be subservient housewives or they'll go to hell too. So, of course some people are going to take offense, and as is human nature they will often hate those that offended them, and sometimes group those who are in the same group, even though they are different.

And to rant a bit from the other side:  Just don't start trying to replace the teaching of science in public schools with religion.  You'll just engender more intolerance if you try to blur the line of separation between church and state.  Not that the intolerance is excusable, but, under those circumstances it's predictable.

Also, see the article I stole from the Dallas Morning News in the "Democrats and Religion" thread. 

And I'm not with Dibble on this one.  We're so goddamned politically correct that we're afraid to call a spade a spade.  If he's truly 'evangelical' as we understand the word.  Then why not embrace it?  Just like a Zen Buddhist is no more or less Buddhist than other Buddhists, or just as Wahabbi Muslims are no more or less Muslim than other Muslims, and just as Reform Jews are no more or less Jewish than Orthodox Jews, Evangelical Christians are no more or less Christian than Roman Catholics or Mormons or Mainstream Protestants, or Copts or anyone else. 

okay, this time for real:  end of rant  :)

Christiananity, or at least the true form os Christianity, which we call Calvinism(EDIT: ;D ), teaches salvation by faith alone. That means that everyone who does not become regenerate through God's grace in Jesus Christ does not have possibility of salvation. Why are we bad because we preach that in which we believe?

Yeah, but you gotta realize the manifestations of Calvinism in this country (e.g., Southern Baptist Convention, BMAA, etc.) are about a world apart from the calvinists in the 'bible belt' of Holland, for example (as the dutch refer to Limberg, etc.)  Day and Night.  Also, you're right that the Romans bastardized Christianity in a way that might be offensive to the purists, but that doesn't make Catholics any less Christian than Protestants.  Again, this is the same silliness that goes on in all religions.  The fighting in Iraq, for example, once we leave will be an example of this phenomenon.  Just watch.  Surely, neither the Christ, nor the Buddha, nor the Prophet Mohammed, nor Moses would want to see such intra-religious squabbles and some sects calling other sects 'lesser vehicles.' 

Baptists aren't Calvinists, Presbyterians and the Reformed Chuch are.

Yup, and some Congregationalists also(not UCC congregationalits, I even have trouble calling that a 'church', but NACCC (http://www.naccc.org) congregationalists and independent ones). Also some Baptists, whom mostly call themselves Primitive Baptists (http://www.pb.org/) Some Baptists in the SBC are actually Calvinists too, but Calvinism is not on teh denomination's statement of faith.

Hmmm.  Seems I'm in over my head.  I find Religion, like economics and politics, a fascinating subject, but I always manage to humiliate myself when I get around religious (or economic or political) scholars.  At the risk of further embarassment, I thought that, since they seemed to agree on predestination, the main point of contention between Luther and Calvin was simply a controversy about the Last Supper, and a general disdain, by the latter, of scholasticism.  In this sense, aren't SBC and BMAA churches somewhat calvinistic?

Baptism derivated from Anabaptism, which is the branch that the Amish and Mennonnite Churches, and the Quakers belong to. The anabaptist movement was target of both Luther and Calvin's condemnation. Altough, the Baptist doctrine this days is much more Calvinis-friendly, most Baptists espouse Arminianism, or Weslseianism.
Actually, the difference between Luther and Calvin themselves was not that great, altough Calvin was much more intransigent. The real breakaway between Lutheransn and Calvinism happened when Melanchton removed double predestination from Lutheranism. And besides, Luther never focused as much n predestination as Calvin did. Also, they differed in matters of Church governance, and on limited attonement.

so you call Calvin the true Reformer?  and calvinism the true christianity?  you dismiss other forms of protestantism as bastardized in some way?  And where does that leave Mormons, Copts, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians?  That is, does your brand of Christianity put them with the Muslims, Jews, Hindu, atheists and various other infidels?  At least in terms of lacking grace or salvation?

I forgot to add a semi-sarcastic smirk when i wrote that about Calvinism being the only true form of Christianity. It is the most true, but I don't ay other Christians won't get saved. If God predestined someone to believe in Christ, it does not matter what denomination he belongs to, as long he has faith, he belongs to the Invisible Church. this obviously rules out all those non-Christians who haven't been regenerated by God's grace. Of course, we can be sure of no salvation besides our own, so we have to preach the Word and treat all respectfully. Let the Glory of God show through us, however imperfectly we may reflect it. :)

Well, no, since the definition of an "evangelical" is one who is "a member of an evangelical church or party" and you explicitly stated that he wasn't.

I wouldn't care if he was, though.  An evangelical church, as defined in Dictionary.com, is simply one "that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith."  It sounds from the look of it that that group would actually be against converting other people, making the label very false when it's attached to people like Jerry Falwell.

Of course, there's another definition of "evangelical" that says, "Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous", which would fit Jerry Falwell, although I'm not sure which came first: the label or the defintion.

At any rate, I hate labels.  Labels are overrated.  Labels mean nothing.  Labels are the antithesis of rational discourse, and, as such, I go out of my way to make sure that I neither use them nor make judgements based upon them.

Well, you just proved this man's point.  Personally, I think Calvanism is BS, but I would not go around telling anyone that Catholism is the "true" form of Christianity no matter how much I believe that to be true.  Personally, I take offense to your comments, but you have every right to be as big a moron as you want to be.

Geez, smiley ommission is really a serious offense.

Well, I'm sorry, but the truth is that all of Calvanism is based on one word that was added to the bible simply because Luther thought that it should be there:

Man is saved by faith alone

The word "alone" appears nowhere in any of the original texts that exist today.

The faith v. works argument will rage on forever.

Personally, I think both the Protestants and the Catholics/Orthodox(group of which I am a member) are guilty of partisanship on this issue.

If someone has faith then they will perform good works. They cannot have faith and not perform good works. However works does not necissarily mean faith is present.

So the answer is you need both, not just faith alone, but the faith aspect is more important.

AHAHAHAHAHA, thanks for the laugh. I guess my left wing extremist self must consider myself an evangelical racist wacko.

to answer the question: no

I think the best one is the correct one.

And if your religion says that there is only way to God, I would definitely try to get the word out. There's a difference between being open about your faith and "forcing" it on someone.

And, if someone is open about his faith, prays regularly, and talks to non-Christians about Jesus, then yes, Steve would qualify as an evangelical. I don't consider being evangelical to be a bad thing at all, considering I'm one myself.

Well, your pretty rare in that respect then.  I know that you have expressed your Christianity in the past.  I respect that all the more because it is all to rare for someone of your admittedly exreme political leanings.

Neither Methodists nor Episcopalians are evangelicals. Evangelicals claim to be born again. They are much more conservative than those two liberal denominations.

Where is Opebo with his hate filled diatribe?

Have you ever read Romans 3? Even if we take out the 28, the works alone still stands.
And what about Romans 3: 1-5
 1   What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2   For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3   For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4   Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5   But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Actually, most of protestand denominations stopped carng about Sola Fide long ago, to embrace a kind of legalism. The Fight for Sola Fide (http://www.internetmonk.com/solafide.html)

I have a confession to make. The guy's name isn't Steve, it's George. He was born in Connecticut, moved to Texas, and now he lives in Washington D.C.(1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to be exact).

Still think he isn't evangelical?

Nice one, Kodratos. I'll have to pass this round.

So you're a lying sinner? You're going to burn for this. ;)

Seriously though, I don't have any problem with Bush as an individual. Policy is where I disagree with him. Also though, none of us know him personally so none of us can really know what kind of person he is.

I'd say this person is a committed Christian

I'd consider myself an evangelical but I would take issue with being defined as a fundamentalist because I associate fundamentalism with the political right.

Dave

In case you missed it, Kodrastos confessed this person is actually Bush.

clever.  very clever.

I still say it depends on your definition.  I was trying to get someone to give me one.  I found several in the dictionary that fit, but I'd like to hear a good definition from a person who really considers themselves to be an evangelical christian.  If such a person could provide a definition, then maybe we could put this issue to rest.

What's George's definition?  I'll leave it up to him to say.

you never mentioned that he claims to be a born again.

I don't have a problem with people that talk about their religion.  Who I have a problem with is people that try to convert me every single time they see me even after I've said that I'm not interested.  It's like getting spam that you can't delete before reading.

Bush is a Methodist in Name Only. He goes to the United Methodist Church, but he's no true fit in the national United Methodist Church at all.  The early Methodists were more fundamentalist and fanatical and that tradition is where Bush belongs. John Wesley was an evangelical Methodist. Those kind of Methodists have left the church now and are in other denominations.  Bush is an evangelical. He's not a Methodist, though. Bush is a Southern Baptist like Billy Graham.

Oh, dear Lord.  King James?  Come back to me when you have a real translation of the Bible.  This is how that passage read in the original text:

1
1 What advantage is there then in being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2
Much, in every respect. (For) in the first place, they were entrusted with the utterances of God.
3
What if some were unfaithful? Will their infidelity nullify the fidelity of God?
4
Of course not! God must be true, though every human being is a liar, as it is written: "That you may be justified in your words, and conquer when you are judged."
5
But if our wickedness provides proof of God's righteousness, what can we say? Is God unjust, humanly speaking, to inflict his wrath?

Ever read James 2: 14-26?


14
6 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.


This, of course, comes from the book that both Luther and Calvin wanted removed, simply because they knew that it disagreed with their message.

If you are going to believe in Sola Scriptura, the least you can do is get a decent bible that goes back to what was acctually said in the earliest known texts.
 

1. An emphasis on the conversion experience. The conversion is also called being 'saved' or the "new birth" or being "born again" after John 3:3 (Evangelicals are sometimes referred to as "born-again Christians" because of this emphasis.)

2. The use of the Bible as the primary and infallible source of God's revelation to man, and therefore the ultimate religious authority.

3. Encourage evangelism, that is the act of sharing one's beliefs in the gospel with others in order to convince them to convert, either in organized missionary work or through personal evangelism.

4. A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross, especially as the means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.


No one would view these as central tenets of modern Methodism.

Well.. lions in a coliseum would be more quaint.

you're thinking quite a bit about lions lately

screw it, I say Steve, or George, fits every definition I've seen of 'evangelical' including NHpolitico's.  but I am generally in a slim minority on this thread.  not unusual. 

By the way NHpolitico, I believe Clinton was the only Southern Baptist president we have had.  As far as I know, Bush is not.

I think I read that Reagan was the first candidate to use the phrase "born again."  And he did so effectively against Walter Mondale, who would not claim to be "born again" in a debate in 1984.  I have not read that the current president uses the phrase.  Still, he fits the descriptions you outline in 2-4, and in the Webster's definition I presented earlier.  And, from a cursory glance of a modern english version of the third chapter of the Gospel according to Saint John, he fits that too, if you consider the post-40th birthday party hangover a 'revelation'

Yes, I agree. I think a lot of Christians don't know exactly how to preach or witness their faith -- and end up getting people even MORE turned off to Christianity, which is not what we want.

Ok, I'll use Young's Literal Translation AND American Standart Version(anything but the NIV)

YLT

Romans 3: 27-28
 27   Where then [is] the boasting? it was excluded; by what law? of works? no, but by a law of faith:
28   therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

ASV
Romans 3: 27-28
 27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith.
28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

YLT
Romans 4:1-5
 1   What, then, shall we say Abraham our father, to have found, according to flesh?
2   for if Abraham by works was declared righteous, he hath to boast -- but not before god;
3   for what doth the writing say? `And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;'
4   and to him who is working, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt;
5   and to him who is not working, and is believing upon Him who is declaring righteous the impious, his faith is reckoned -- to righteousness:

ASV
Romans 4:1-5
 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God.
3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

Also,

YLT
Ephesians 2:8, 9
 8   for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift,
9   not of works, that no one may boast;
ASV
Ephesians 2:8, 9
 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not of works, that no man should glory.

Calvin's comments on James 2: 17
17. Is dead, being alone. He says that faith is dead, being by itself, that is, when destitute of good works. We hence conclude that it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name. The Sophists plead this expression and say, that some sort of faith is found by itself; but this frivolous caviling is easily refuted; for it is sufficiently evident that the Apostle reasons from what is impossible, as Paul calls an angel anathema, if he attempted to subvert the gospel. See Galatians 1: 8
On 18-19
18. Yea, a man may say. Erasmus introduces here two persons as speakers; one of whom boasts of faith without works, and the other of works without faith; and he thinks that both are at length confuted by the Apostle. But this view seems to me too forced. He thinks it strange, that this should be said by James, Thou hast faith, who acknowledges no faith without works. But in this he is much mistaken, that he does not acknowledge an irony in these words. Then ajlla< I take for "nay rather;" and ti<v for "any one;" for the design of James was to expose the foolish boasting of those who imagined that they had faith when by their life they shewed that they were unbelievers; for he intimates that it would be easy for all the godly who led a holy life to strip hypocrites of that boasting with which they were inflated.1

Shew me. Though the more received reading is, "by works," yet the old Latin is more suitable, and the reading is also found in some Greek copies. I therefore hesitated not to adopt it. Then he bids to shew faith without works, and thus reasons from what is impossible, to prove what does not exist. So he speaks ironically. But if any one prefers the other reading, it comes to the same thing, "Shew me by works thy faith;" for since it is not an idle thing, it must necessarily be proved by works. The meaning then is, "Unless thy faith brings forth fruits, I deny that thou hast any faith."2

But it may be asked, whether the outward uprightness of life is a sure evidence of faith? For James says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works." To this I reply, that the unbelieving sometimes excel in specious virtues, and lead an honorable life free from every crime; and hence works apparently excellent may exist apart from faith. Nor indeed does James maintain that every one who seems good possesses faith. This only he means, that faith, without the evidence of good works, is vainly pretended, because fruit ever comes from the living root of a good tree.

19. Thou believest that there is one God. From this one sentence it appears evident that the whole dispute is not about faith, but of the common knowledge of God, which can no more connect man with God, than the sight of the sun carry him up to heaven; but it is certain that by faith we come nigh to God. Besides, it would be ridiculous were any one to say, that the devils have faith; and James prefers them in this respect to hypocrites. The devil trembles, he says, at the mention of God's name, because when he acknowledges his own judge he is filled with the fear of him. He then who despises an acknowledged God is much worse.

Thou doest well, is put down for the purpose of extenuating, as though he had said, "It is, forsooth! a great thing to sink down below the devils." 3

And On 20-26
 

20. But wilt thou know. We must understand the state of the question, for the dispute here is not respecting the cause of justification, but only what avails a profession of faith without works, and what opinion we are to form of it. Absurdly then do they act who strive to prove by this passage that man is justified by works, because James meant no such thing, for the proofs which he subjoins refer to this declaration, that no faith, or only a dead faith, is without works. No one will ever understand what is said, nor judge wisely of words, except he who keeps in view the design of the writer.

21. Was not Abraham. The Sophists lay hold on the word justified, and then they cry out as being victorious, that justification is partly by works. But we ought to seek out a right interpretation according to the general drift of the whole passage. We have already said that James does not speak here of the cause of justification, or of the manner how men obtain righteousness, and this is plain to every one; but that his object was only to shew that good works are always connected with faith; and, therefore, since he declares that Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.

When, therefore, the Sophists set up James against Paul, they go astray through the ambiguous meaning of a term. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he means no other thing than that by faith we are counted righteous before God. But James has quite another thing in view, even to shew that he who professes that he has faith, must prove the reality of his faith by his works. Doubtless James did not mean to teach us here the ground on which our hope of salvation ought to rest; and it is this alone that Paul dwells upon.1

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, "Shew to me thy faith," etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known.

22. By works was faith made perfect.2 By this he again shews, that the question here is not respecting the cause of our salvation, but whether works necessarily accompany faith; for in this sense it is said to have been perfected by works, because it was not idle. It is said to have been perfected by works, not because it received thence its own perfection, but because it was thus proved to be true. For the futile distinction which the Sophists draw from these words, between formed and unformed faith, needs no labored refutation; for the faith of Abram was formed and therefore perfected before he sacrificed his son. And this work was not as it were the finishing, or last work. Formerly things afterwards followed by which Abraham proved the increase of his faith. Hence this was not the perfection of his faith, nor did it then for the first time put on its form. James then understood no other thing, than that the integrity of his faith then appeared, because it brought forth that remarkable fruit of obedience.

23. And the Scripture was fulfilled. They who seek to prove from this passage of James that the works of Abraham were imputed for righteousness, must necessarily confess that Scripture is perverted by him; for however they may turn and twist, they can never make the effect to be its own cause. The passage is quoted from Moses. (Genesis 15:6.) The imputation of righteousness which Moses mentions, preceded more than thirty years the work by which they would have Abraham to have been justified. Since faith was imputed to Abraham fifteen years before the birth of Isaac, this could not surely have been done through the work of sacrificing him. I consider that all those are bound fast by an indissoluble knot, who imagine that righteousness was imputed to Abraham before God, because he sacrificed his son Isaac, who was not yet born when the Holy Spirit declared that Abraham was justified. It hence necessarily follows that something posterior is pointed out here.

Why then does James say that it was fulfilled? Even because he intended to shew what sort of faith that was which justified Abraham; that is, that it was not idle or evanescent, but rendered him obedient to God, as also we find in Hebrews 11:8. The conclusion, which is immediately added, as it depends on this, has no other meaning. Man is not justified by faith alone, that is, by a bare and empty knowledge of God; he is justified by works, that is, his righteousness is known and proved by its fruits.

25. Likewise also was not Rahab. It seems strange that he connected together those who were so unlike. Why did he not rather choose some one from so large a number of illustrious fathers, and join him to Abraham? Why did he prefer a harlot to all others? he designedly put together two persons so different in their character, in order more clearly to shew, that no one, whatever may have been his or her condition, nation, or class in society, has ever been counted righteous without good works. He had named the patriarch, by far the most eminent of all; he now includes under the person of a harlot, all those who, being aliens, were joined to the Church. Whosoever, then, seeks to be counted righteous, though he may even be among the lowest, must yet shew that he is such by good works.

James, according to his manner of speaking, declares that Rahab was justified by works; and the Sophists hence conclude that we obtain righteousness by the merits of works. But he deny that the dispute here is concerning the mode of obtaining righteousness. We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness; we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God.3

Reagan was a Presbyterian. It's higly unlikely that he would use those words, altough it's allways possible.

I have no time to discuss this right now, only to say that you originally quoted the wrong verse and that was the sourse of the confusion.  I will get back to you on this.

Yes, I noticed it later. I'm sorry, my bad.

My point was that he is regardless of what he calls himself.

at the risk of stepping in over my head again, I really don't think it works like that. 

and here's a link for the Reagan soundbite.  I stand corrected.

REPORTER: Mr. President, would you describe your religious beliefs, noting particularly whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian and explain how these beliefs affect your Presidential decisions?

REAGAN: Well, I was raised to have a faith and a belief and have been a member of a church since I was a small boy. In our particular church we didn't use that term born- again so I don't know whether I would fit that - that particular term. But I have, thanks to my mother, God rest her soul, the firmest possible belief and faith in God. And I don't believe - I believe, I should say, as Lincoln once said, that I could not - I would be the most stupid man in the world if I thought I could confront the duties of the office I hold if I could not turn to someone who was stronger and greater than all others; and I do resort to prayer. At the same time, however, I have not believed that prayer could be introduced into an election or be a part of a political campaign, or religion a part of that campaign. As a matter of fact I think religion became a part of this campaign when Mr. Mondale's running mate said I wasn't a good Christian. So, it does play a part in my life. I have no hesitancy in saying so. And as I say, I don't believe that I could carry on unless I had a belief in a higher authority and a belief that prayers are answered.

REPORTER: Given those beliefs, Mr. President, why don't you attend services regularly, either by going to church or by inviting a minister to the White House, as President Nixon used to do, or someone to Camp David, as President Carter used to do.

REAGAN: The answer to your question is very simple - about why I don't go to church. I start - I have gone to church regularly all my life. And I started to here in Washington. And now, in the position I hold and in the world in which we live, where embassies do get blown up in Beirut, we're supposed to talk about that in the - on the debate the 21st, I understand. But I pose a threat to several hundred people if I go to church. I know the threats that are made against me. We all know the possibility of terrorism. We have seen the barricades that have had to built around the White House. And therefore, I don't feel - and my minister knows this and supports me in this position. I don't feel that I have a right to go to church, knowing that my being there could cause something of the kind that we have seen in other places; in Beirut, for example. And I miss going to church but I think the Lord understands.

MODERATOR: May I ask the audience please to refrain from applause. Can we have your second question?

REPORTER: Mr. Mondale, would you describe your religious beliefs and mention whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian and explain how those beliefs would affect your decisions as President.

MONDALE: First of all, I accept President Reagan's affirmation of faith. I'm sure that we all accept and admire his commitment to his faith and we are strengthened all of us by that fact. I am a son of a Methodist minister, my wife is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister, and I don't know if I've been born again, but I know I was born into a Christian family, and I believe I've sung at more weddings and more funerals than anybody ever to seek the Presidency. Whether that helps or not I don't know. I have a deep religious faith, our family does, it is fundamental, it's probably the reason I'm in politics. I think our faith tells us, instructs us about the moral life that we should lead, and I think we're all together on that.

What bothers me is this growing tendency to try to use one's own personal interpretation of faith politically, to question others' faith, and to try to use instrumentalities of government to impose those views on others. All history tells us that that's a mistake. When the Republican platform says that from here on out we're going to have a religious test for judges before they're selected for the Federal court and then Jerry Falwell announces that that means they get at least two Justices of the Supreme Court, I think that's an abuse of faith in our country. This nation is the most religious nation on earth. More people go to church and synagogues than any other nation on earth, and it's because we kept the politicians and the state out of the personal exercise of our faith. That's why faith in the United States is pure and unpolluted by the intervention of politicians, and I think if we want to continue as I do to have a religious nation, let's keep that line and never cross it.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Mr. Barnes, a question? We have time for rebuttal now.

REPORTER: I think I have a follow-up.

MODERATOR: Yes, I asked you if you did. I'm sorry I thought you waived it.

REPORTER: Yes. Mr. Mondale, you've complained just now about Jerry Falwell, and you've complained other times about other fundamentalists in politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall your ever complaining about ministers who are involved in the civil rights movement, in the anti- Vietnam War demonstrations or about black preachers who've been so involved in American politics. Is it only conservative ministers that you object to?

MONDALE: No. What I object to - what I object to - what I object to is someone seeking to use his faith to question the faith of another or to use that faith and seek to use the power of Government to impose it on others. A minister who is in civil rights or in the conservative movement because he believes his faith instructs him to do that, I admire. The fact that the faith speaks to us and that we are moral people hopefully I accept and rejoice in. It's when you try to use that to undermine the integrity of private political - or private religious faith and the use of the state is where for the most personal decisions in American life - that's where I draw the line.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Now, Mr. President. Rebuttal.

REAGAN: Yes, it's very difficult to rebut, because I find myself in so much agreement with Mr. Mondale. I, too, want that wall that is in the Constitution, separation of church and state, to remain there. The only attacks I have made are on people who apparently would break away at that wall from the Government side using the Government, using the power of the courts and so forth, to hinder that part of the Constitution that says the Government shall not only not establish a religion, it shall not inhibit the practice of religion, and they have been using these things to have Government, through court orders, inhibit the practice of religion. A child wants to say grace in a school cafeteria, and a court rules that they can't do it. And because it's school property. These are the types of things that I think have been happening in a kind of a secular way that have been erroding that separation, and I am opposed to that. With regard to a platform in the Supreme Court, I can only say one thing about that. I don't - I have appointed one member of the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, I'll stand on my record on that, and if I have the opportunity to appoint any more. I'll do it in the same manner that I did in selecting her.

MODERATOR: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal, please.

MONDALE: The platform to which the President refers in fact calls for a religious test in the selection of judges. And Jerry Falwell says that means we get two or three judges. And it would involve a religious test for the first time in American life. Let's take the example that the President cites. I believe in prayer. My family prays. We've never had any difficulty finding time to pray. But do we want a constitutional amendment adopted of the kind proposed by the President that gets the local politicians into the business of selecting prayers that our children must either recite in school or be embarrassed and ask to excuse themselves? Who would write the prayer? What would it say? How would it be resolved when those disputes occurred? It seems to me that a moment's reflection tells you why the United States Senate turned that amendment down. Because it will undermine the practice of honest faith in our country by politicizing it. We don't want that.

MODERATOR: Thank you Mr. Mondale.

The early Methodists were Evangelical (in the old sense) but certainly wouldn't have shared Bush's political views. More in the morning. Need sleep now.

Weren't the African Americans in some slave uprising going to kill all the whites except for the Quakers and the Methodists in the area because we opposed slavery?

- Evangelical
Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.

- Evangelical
Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.

- Evangelical
-- Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland.
-- Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.