Question about Christian denominations

[Greta]

The "what religion?" poll reminded me that I've been meaning to ask you all about something that has confused me for awhile. I'm sorry if this sounds like a dumb question. But I honestly don't know. What exactly makes someone an "evangelical" Christian? How is this different from other types of Christianity? Which denominations fit this description? I hear this term used so much, and I have come to realize that I have no clue what it actually means!

 

Thanks :)

[PiCO]

The "what religion?" poll reminded me that I've been meaning to ask you all about something that has confused me for awhile. I'm sorry if this sounds like a dumb question. But I honestly don't know. What exactly makes someone an "evangelical" Christian? How is this different from other types of Christianity? Which denominations fit this description? I hear this term used so much, and I have come to realize that I have no clue what it actually means!

 

Thanks :)

 

This link looked good to me. It's an evangelical website.

[Greta]

Thanks PiCO! You know, I actually did google this some months ago when I first wondered about this, but somehow I didn't manage to find anything that clear and helpful. So I appreciate your help!

[Joanne]

IMO and IME, the use of the term evangelical usually means a higher level of activity in actively spreading the Word of the Gospel, of seeking to encourage people to become saved.

 

Often, but not always, Evangelical also comes with a more conservative Christian perspective.

 

Baptists tend to be evangelical in operation; Presbyterians (USA) do not. My DH's son has gone through the (Baptist) mission board to train to be a missionary in Africa. His main focus and intent is to introduce Christ to the unsaved. A missionary from a less evangelistic denomination might go with the primary focus of building homes, providing medicine, and pray for the opportunity to speak about Christ. An evangelical missionary goes to share about Christ and will likely provide help also. ;)

[Greta]

Thanks Joanne. That was a nice, concise explanation. That always helps. :)

[Nestof3]

Greta, honestly, as a Christian, I don't know what it means. It drives people crazy when they ask what denomination I am and I cannot tell them. I just try to read the Bible and try to forget what I would deem "traditions of man" -- and try to live my life according to it. I don't know what to call that.

[VaKim]

Greta, honestly, as a Christian, I don't know what it means. It drives people crazy when they ask what denomination I am and I cannot tell them. I just try to read the Bible and try to forget what I would deem "traditions of man" -- and try to live my life according to it. I don't know what to call that.

 

Ditto. I hate all the labels and categories, and I don't fit into ANY of them. So everybody hates me. :D

[Chris in VA]

*I* don't hate you, VaKim!

 

Hee Hee!

[PariSarah]

. . . I would say that evangelicalism can function as a movement within denominations, as well as a characteristic of an entire denomination. So, you'll run across evangelical Presbyterians and Methodists and Catholics (not a denomination, I know!!) even though there is not a church-wide commitment to evangelism in those churches.

 

I also often see the word functioning as short-hand for "No, we really, actually believe this stuff." People who use it are distinguishing themselves, rightly or wrongly, from people whose Christian faith seems not to make an impact on their daily life--from what they see as the "Sure we're Christian, but that doesn't mean anything" crowd. Sometimes it's an apt distinction; sometimes it's a misunderstanding.

[Lolly]

IMO and IME, the use of the term evangelical usually means a higher level of activity in actively spreading the Word of the Gospel, of seeking to encourage people to become saved.

 

Often, but not always, Evangelical also comes with a more conservative Christian perspective.

 

 

:iagree:This is how I would also define it.

[Tarheel Heather]

Handbook of Denominations helped me when we moved. It was at our library, very interesesting!

[VaKim]

*I* don't hate you, VaKim!

 

Hee Hee!

Yay!! One person doesn't hate me!! :lol:

(But that is probably just because you don't really know me.) :D

[snickelfritz]

I know the info link that was posted said the evangelical included both types of pd views.

 

But, I've wondered if much of people's views on evangelism, seeker-sensitive, etc.... is shaped by their view on predestination.

 

Just some musings.

[PariSarah]

I know the info link that was posted said the evangelical included both types of pd views.

 

But, I've wondered if much of people's views on evangelism, seeker-sensitive, etc.... is shaped by their view on predestination.

 

Just some musings.

 

. . . among Calvinists and Arminians. Most evangelical-leaning denominations are in the Calvinist tradition, but the Wesleys were deeply evangelical while rejecting Calvinist notions of predestination, and there is still a strong (if tiny!) strand of evangelicalism in United Methodism.

[Remudamom]

We go to a PCA church, which is evangelical. Ds went on a couple of mission trips. We would attend a CRE church if there were one close enough to make it doable.

 

I don't think using a particular denomination is labeling. I do think we need a "rabid reformed" church though....any takers? 8)

[VaKim]

We go to a PCA church, which is evangelical. Ds went on a couple of mission trips. We would attend a CRE church if there were one close enough to make it doable.

 

I don't think using a particular denomination is labeling. I do think we need a "rabid reformed" church though....any takers? 8)

 

I wasn't meaning "labeling" in a bad sense. Categorizing might have been a better word. For example, I am Baptist, but most Baptists think I am wrong because I am Calvinist. Except for reformed Baptists, who think I am wrong because I am not reformed enough (my eschatology and ecclesiology doesn't match.) I am Calvinist enough that some would call me Hyper Calvinist, though it isn't really true, but not reformed enough to agree with any confessions, etc. Maybe I am just a mess. :lol:

[Pata]

In my humble opinion, evangelical is any church that preaches the Bible and believes in the gospel message.

[Greta]

Thank you all so much for your thoughts. I think I need a "Christianity for Dummies" book -- is there such a thing? :D I didn't know Catholicism wasn't considered a denomination, and I have no idea what a PCA church is. You may be surprised, therefore, to hear that I actually was raised Christian! But in a rather unusual denomination. And I wasn't taught anything at all about the rest of Christianity. So I get easily confused with all the subdivisions and labels. And I am just flabbergasted when I hear some Christians say that those people aren't "real" Christians. :confused:

[H.S. Burrow]

The "what religion?" poll reminded me that I've been meaning to ask you all about something that has confused me for awhile. I'm sorry if this sounds like a dumb question. But I honestly don't know. What exactly makes someone an "evangelical" Christian? How is this different from other types of Christianity? Which denominations fit this description? I hear this term used so much, and I have come to realize that I have no clue what it actually means!

 

Thanks :)

 

 

This is not a "dumb question". FWIW growing up I was always told that the "only dumb question is the one not asked". ;)

I'm a Christian, was raised a Christian and I don't know what it means. After reading the responses to this thread I'm beginning to think that it depends on who you asked as to what it means.

I really liked Joanne's response and thought "aha! I get it now!" and then read the others and started getting confused again. :confused:

[Greta]

This is not a "dumb question". FWIW growing up I was always told that the "only dumb question is the one not asked". ;)

 

I was sure when I first posted that even though people would probably be too nice to actually say it, some would no doubt be scratching their heads and wondering if I've been living under a rock. But now I see that the issue is rather complicated, so I don't feel so dumb after all! :D

[Spy Car]

I'm very confused about this myself. Particularly, as it relates to various streams of "Protestant" thought.

 

In recent weeks, thanks to this forum and other readings, I've been reading quite a bit about "Reformed/Calvinist" ideas about salvation coming through "election" versus choosing Jesus as ones savior through what amounts to "free will" or personal choice.

 

In my limited understanding (and please forgive me if I'm in error, as I undoubtedly am to some degree) those who follow a Reform theology essentially believe that people are too depraved to choose God/Jesus/Salvation of their own accord, and thus must be chosen by God (through the Holy Spirit) and that election comes through no particular virtue or goodness on the part of the chosen, rather the "election" is strictly as result of God's unknowable Grace, and this gift of Grace is generally (always?) believed to be "predestined" by God.

 

Some will be chosen (or "elected") and some will not. But the matter is basically not one of personal choice, it is God's choice.

 

This contrasts from Evangelical beliefs (as I understand them) that essentially anyone can be "saved" by choosing and professing Jesus as his or her personal savior and though consciously embracing the Christian faith. It perhaps could not be said that God (or the Holy Spirit) had nothing to do with the conversion or "born-again" experience, but the emphasis (as I understand it) is more on the personal responsibility of the individual in embracing their faith.

 

Beyond this, it gets too complicated for me to fully understand. I assume that one who believes themselves to be saved though "election" in the Reformed sense could be an "evangelist" to a degree, but that they (the human person) would only be an agent of the Holy Spirit who would be using them in God's work to bring Grace to another person God has already selected to be saved. Where an Evangelical might believe they could, though his or her own efforts and zeal (combined with God's support), help bring salvation to one who otherwise might never have been saved.

 

Have I completely botched this?

 

I hope (fervently) that I shed more light than darkness here, and please (anyone reading this) correct anything I have misconstrued, as I'll take it as an act of charity and not a criticism.

 

Bill (who knows he's on shaky ground :D )

[PrairieAir]

This is a question I've had for a while, too. In this area there are many Christian homeschoolers who describe themselves as evangelical, but act in a manner which I would not consider evangelical. The people I'm talking about are very conservative in every sense of the word. They are very wary of people who do not have their exact brand of faith and that faith seems to spread into every area of their lives. I'm talking what TV shows you watch or whether you even watch TV, how you dress, etc. They seem to shut out those who believe differently rather than reaching out to them. I would have thought someone who describes themselves as evangelical would reach out to others with the gospel. Surely evangelical can't mean only reaching out to those who already know and believe.

 

We had a very nasty confrontation and group upset once. I talked about it several times on the old boards. The rest of the group took issue with a family who was not Christian and with our family for being friends with them. One man felt our family hindered Christian training, discipleship, and practice within the group. My husband questioned how he could say this when he had had in-depth conversations about the Bible with almost every person in the room including the non-Christian family. (They were good conversations and not arguments!) Dh said he thought that this had been described as an evangelical group and that he had always sought ways to share God's Word and His love with all people, believers and unbelievers alike. The comment was made that perhaps we were too evangelical:001_huh:, and most of the group nodded in agreement.

 

We've seen this again and again. I don't know if it's unique to this area or an attitude which is more widely spread among evangelicals. This is the reason for my confusion over the use of the term, though. I would love to hear from people who describe themselves as evangelical and know what you believe separates you from Christians who do not describe themselves as evangelical as well as how you apply those principals in your everyday life.

[muffinmom]

. . . I would say that evangelicalism can function as a movement within denominations, as well as a characteristic of an entire denomination. So, you'll run across evangelical Presbyterians and Methodists and Catholics (not a denomination, I know!!) even though there is not a church-wide commitment to evangelism in those churches.

 

I also often see the word functioning as short-hand for "No, we really, actually believe this stuff." People who use it are distinguishing themselves, rightly or wrongly, from people whose Christian faith seems not to make an impact on their daily life--from what they see as the "Sure we're Christian, but that doesn't mean anything" crowd. Sometimes it's an apt distinction; sometimes it's a misunderstanding.

 

Spot-on, PariSarah. (Tried to give you rep, but alas I've given you too much lately.)

[Greta]

Jenni, I've been asking questions here and absolutely not qualified to answer yours. But I can't help but wonder if what you're speaking of is the difference between evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity? While evangelical is more "reaching out", perhaps fundamentalist is more of a "protect the flock" mentality???

[Bess]

I'm very confused about this myself. Particularly, as it relates to various streams of "Protestant" thought.

 

In recent weeks, thanks to this forum and other readings, I've been reading quite a bit about "Reformed/Calvinist" ideas about salvation coming through "election" versus choosing Jesus as ones savior through what amounts to "free will" or personal choice.

 

In my limited understanding (and please forgive me if I'm in error, as I undoubtedly am to some degree) those who follow a Reform theology essentially believe that people are too depraved to choose God/Jesus/Salvation of their own accord, and thus must be chosen by God (through the Holy Spirit) and that election comes through no particular virtue or goodness on the part of the chosen, rather the "election" is strictly as result of God's unknowable Grace, and this gift of Grace is generally (always?) believed to be "predestined" by God.

 

Some will be chosen (or "elected") and some will not. But the matter is basically not one of personal choice, it is God's choice.

 

This contrasts from Evangelical beliefs (as I understand them) that essentially anyone can be "saved" by choosing and professing Jesus as his or her personal savior and though consciously embracing the Christian faith. It perhaps could not be said that God (or the Holy Spirit) had nothing to do with the conversion or "born-again" experience, but the emphasis (as I understand it) is more on the personal responsibility of the individual in embracing their faith.

 

Beyond this, it gets too complicated for me to fully understand. I assume that one who believes themselves to be saved though "election" in the Reformed sense could be an "evangelist" to a degree, but that they (the human person) would only be an agent of the Holy Spirit who would be using them in God's work to bring Grace to another person God has already selected to be saved. Where an Evangelical might believe they could, though his or her own efforts and zeal (combined with God's support), help bring salvation to one who otherwise might never have been saved.

 

Have I completely botched this?

 

I hope (fervently) that I shed more light than darkness here, and please (anyone reading this) correct anything I have misconstrued, as I'll take it as an act of charity and not a criticism.

 

Bill (who knows he's on shaky ground :D )

 

I think you've explained it pretty well.

[Greta]

Wow, very interesting Bill! I hope those who know will confirm or refine your explanation. I know less than nothing, but it sounds good to me!

[PrairieAir]

This contrasts from Evangelical beliefs (as I understand them) that essentially anyone can be "saved" by choosing and professing Jesus as his or her personal savior and though consciously embracing the Christian faith. It perhaps could not be said that God (or the Holy Spirit) had nothing to do with the conversion or "born-again" experience, but the emphasis (as I understand it) is more on the personal responsibility of the individual in embracing their faith.

 

...Where an Evangelical might believe they could, through his or her own efforts and zeal (combined with God's support), help bring salvation to one who otherwise might never have been saved.

 

 

See, the first paragraph quoted here describes pretty well what I believe. I can kinda go along with the second portion quoted except that I believe if a person hungers and thirsts after righteousness, they will be filled. In other words, God will find a way for them to learn about Him whether through other people or direct revelation (think Saul on the road to Damascus), or whatever other way He devises. I guess it's the "one who otherwise might never have been saved" portion I would not entirely agree with. I don't claim to be an Evangelical or even know what one is though:D

 

Jenni, I've been asking questions here and absolutely not qualified to answer yours. But I can't help but wonder if what you're speaking of is the difference between evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity? While evangelical is more "reaching out", perhaps fundamentalist is more of a "protect the flock" mentality???

 

This is what I would have thought, too, GretaLynne, but I'm talking about people who describe themselves as evangelicals. I'm truly confused!

[angela in ohio]

I'm very confused about this myself. Particularly, as it relates to various streams of "Protestant" thought.

 

In recent weeks, thanks to this forum and other readings, I've been reading quite a bit about "Reformed/Calvinist" ideas about salvation coming through "election" versus choosing Jesus as ones savior through what amounts to "free will" or personal choice.

 

In my limited understanding (and please forgive me if I'm in error, as I undoubtedly am to some degree) those who follow a Reform theology essentially believe that people are too depraved to choose God/Jesus/Salvation of their own accord, and thus must be chosen by God (through the Holy Spirit) and that election comes through no particular virtue or goodness on the part of the chosen, rather the "election" is strictly as result of God's unknowable Grace, and this gift of Grace is generally (always?) believed to be "predestined" by God.

 

Some will be chosen (or "elected") and some will not. But the matter is basically not one of personal choice, it is God's choice.

 

This contrasts from Evangelical beliefs (as I understand them) that essentially anyone can be "saved" by choosing and professing Jesus as his or her personal savior and though consciously embracing the Christian faith. It perhaps could not be said that God (or the Holy Spirit) had nothing to do with the conversion or "born-again" experience, but the emphasis (as I understand it) is more on the personal responsibility of the individual in embracing their faith.

 

Beyond this, it gets too complicated for me to fully understand. I assume that one who believes themselves to be saved though "election" in the Reformed sense could be an "evangelist" to a degree, but that they (the human person) would only be an agent of the Holy Spirit who would be using them in God's work to bring Grace to another person God has already selected to be saved. Where an Evangelical might believe they could, though his or her own efforts and zeal (combined with God's support), help bring salvation to one who otherwise might never have been saved.

 

Have I completely botched this?

 

I hope (fervently) that I shed more light than darkness here, and please (anyone reading this) correct anything I have misconstrued, as I'll take it as an act of charity and not a criticism.

 

Bill (who knows he's on shaky ground :D )

 

Actually, the opposite of Reformed is Arminian, not Evangelical. My PCA Church (also Presbyterian, but far from the Presbyterian Church (USA) already described) is both Calvinist and Evangelical. They describe different things. Evangelical refers to the need for a personal salvation through Christ, Arminianism and Calvinism describe two different beliefs of how that comes about. Evangelical also implies a need to evangelize - spread the Word - that is common to both some Calvinists and some Arminians, just with different beliefs about how it is accomplished.

 

You third paragraph is on eof the best descriptions of the doctrines of the Reformed faith I have ever seen, though. :)

[angela in ohio]

This is what I would have thought, too, GretaLynne, but I'm talking about people who describe themselves as evangelicals. I'm truly confused!

 

Yep, anyone can call themselves anything they like. It doesn't mean they are. :)

[angela in ohio]

PCA is Presbyterian Church in America. It is one of the more conservative denominations under the heading Presbyterian. Presbyterian refers to the way the church is organized.

[VaKim]

I'm very confused about this myself. Particularly, as it relates to various streams of "Protestant" thought.

 

In recent weeks, thanks to this forum and other readings, I've been reading quite a bit about "Reformed/Calvinist" ideas about salvation coming through "election" versus choosing Jesus as ones savior through what amounts to "free will" or personal choice.

 

In my limited understanding (and please forgive me if I'm in error, as I undoubtedly am to some degree) those who follow a Reform theology essentially believe that people are too depraved to choose God/Jesus/Salvation of their own accord, and thus must be chosen by God (through the Holy Spirit) and that election comes through no particular virtue or goodness on the part of the chosen, rather the "election" is strictly as result of God's unknowable Grace, and this gift of Grace is generally (always?) believed to be "predestined" by God.

 

Some will be chosen (or "elected") and some will not. But the matter is basically not one of personal choice, it is God's choice.

 

This contrasts from Evangelical beliefs (as I understand them) that essentially anyone can be "saved" by choosing and professing Jesus as his or her personal savior and though consciously embracing the Christian faith. It perhaps could not be said that God (or the Holy Spirit) had nothing to do with the conversion or "born-again" experience, but the emphasis (as I understand it) is more on the personal responsibility of the individual in embracing their faith.

 

Beyond this, it gets too complicated for me to fully understand. I assume that one who believes themselves to be saved though "election" in the Reformed sense could be an "evangelist" to a degree, but that they (the human person) would only be an agent of the Holy Spirit who would be using them in God's work to bring Grace to another person God has already selected to be saved. Where an Evangelical might believe they could, though his or her own efforts and zeal (combined with God's support), help bring salvation to one who otherwise might never have been saved.

 

Have I completely botched this?

 

I hope (fervently) that I shed more light than darkness here, and please (anyone reading this) correct anything I have misconstrued, as I'll take it as an act of charity and not a criticism.

 

Bill (who knows he's on shaky ground :D )

 

Actually, the opposite of Reformed is Arminian, not Evangelical. My PCA Church (also Presbyterian, but far from the Presbyterian Church (USA) already described) is both Calvinist and Evangelical. They describe different things. Evangelical refers to the need for a personal salvation through Christ, Arminianism and Calvinism describe two different beliefs of how that comes about. Evangelical also implies a need to evangelize - spread the Word - that is common to both some Calvinists and some Arminians, just with different beliefs about how it is accomplished.

 

You third paragraph is on eof the best descriptions of the doctrines of the Reformed faith I have ever seen, though. :)

Just about exactly how I was going to respond to him. (Spy Car is a him, isn't he?):)

[Spy Car]

Actually, the opposite of Reformed is Arminian, not Evangelical. My PCA Church (also Presbyterian, but far from the Presbyterian Church (USA) already described) is both Calvinist and Evangelical. They describe different things. Evangelical refers to the need for a personal salvation through Christ, Arminianism and Calvinism describe two different beliefs of how that comes about. Evangelical also implies a need to evangelize - spread the Word - that is common to both some Calvinists and some Arminians, just with different beliefs about how it is accomplished.

 

You third paragraph is on eof the best descriptions of the doctrines of the Reformed faith I have ever seen, though. :)

 

Angela, first your over-praise make me blush :blush:

 

Can you help flesh out my incomplete understanding.

 

I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that Arminianism shared certain aspects with Reformed theology, such as the belief that salvation comes through unmerited election or "Grace", and this gift of salvation the result of God's will not human will?

 

And that while not saying "Evangelicals" (with a capital E) are the opposite of "Reformed", isn't there is a wide difference in perception of how salvation comes about? With (to put it too roughly) Evangelicals believing they knock on the door, where the Reformed believes the door knocks on them? :D

 

So isn't the concept of "evangelizing" a little different between the two streams? With one stream believing evangelists might play a role in actualizing God's will (though the Holy Spirit) by being agents through which the Holy Spirit brings the gift of unmerited Salvation.

 

Where, most Evangelicals would believe anyone could potentially come to Christ and become Saved?

 

Bill

[Chocobean]

To those curious about "what kind of chritian am i?" or "what denomination should I join?", a little quote from the preface to CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity"

...I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.

 

[The central points of the Christian faith, or 'mere Christianity'] is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. ...But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: 'Do I like that kind of service?' but 'Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular doorkeeper?'

 

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still In the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

 

(the book is online here http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mc00.htm)

[Greta]

Thank you Angela!