Would you consider this person an evangelical?

[angus]

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?

[Bono]

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.

[Gabu]

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?

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.

[12th Doctor]

Christiananity, or at least the true form os Christianity, which we call Calvinism, teaches salvation by faith alone.

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.

[Bono]

Geez, smiley ommission is really a serious offense.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Kodratos]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

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

to answer the question: no

[Nation]

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.

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 ) 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"?

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

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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

to answer the question: no

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.

[NHPolitico]

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?

[Bono]

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.

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.

[Bono]

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

Actually, most of protestand denominations stopped carng about Sola Fide long ago, to embrace a kind of legalism. The Fight for Sola Fide

[Kodratos]

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?

[Silent Hunter]

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

[John Dibble]

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?

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.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[John Dibble]

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.

[angus]

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?

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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?

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

[Gabu]

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.

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.

[NHPolitico]

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?

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

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.
 

[NHPolitico]

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.

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.