The above question may well be considered by
many religionists of the world to be superfluous.
it is an assumed thing, that every professing Christian
knows what it is to be evangelical. Yet, when
we consider the fact that multitudes who call themselves
by this name nonetheless, when compared one
with another, possess as many differing doctrines
and practices as there are cities in Judah, such a
question will not appear so superfluous after all.
In seeking then an answer to the above question, let
us consider the following:
To begin with, it is important to consider momentarily
the abuse the term evangelical has suffered
at the hands of professing Christians. J.M. Pendleton
notes the following concerning this matter:
In this day of spurious liberality and false
charity, much is said about even denominations and
and evangelical churches... There is supposed to be
a wonderful virtue in the epithet evangelical. It is used as
a balm for many a wound, and a plaster for many a sore. Its
application to a denomination is thought to bring
the denomination at once within the pale of
respectability and fellowship. It is used with
an injurious latitude of meaning. It gives currency
to many doctrines and practices which deserve emphatic
condemnation... The religious nomenclature of the age
requires serious revision. It is high time to call things
by names expressive of their properties. The language
of Ashdod should not be heard within the precincts of Zion. Nor
should the language of Zion be employed in describing what belongs
to Ashdod (An Old Landmark Reset, pp 7-8).
These words of Pendleton are both accurate and
powerful, and they are certainly no less applicable
now than they were in 1854. The evident abuse suffered
by the term, evangelical, is that a latitude of meaning
has been imputed to it such as it is not able ultimately to
bear. And this abuse, in turn, has resulted in at least two
further evils. First, it becomes well-nigh impossible to
determine a definite signification for the word evangelical
when one must confront the varying doctrinal and practical
views of all who apply this term to themselves. There are
evangelicals who believe in consubstantiation, baptismal
regeneration, and an indefinite atonement. Other evangelicals
believe in dispensationalism, infant sprinkling, and the gospel
offer concept. But then there are evangelicals who hold to none
of these things. Certainly, the latitude of meaning imputed
to the word evangelical, so that it embraces virtually every
professing Christian under the sun regardless of his doctrinal
and practical views, does not by any means render simple the
task of determining what It means to be evangelical.
Secondly, when one speaks of evangelical denominations, evangelical
churches, and evangelical Christians, currency is given to the notion
that there can be such a thing as more than one kind of denomination,
church, and Christian. For example, we have in the world evangelical
Lutherans, evangelical Reformed, evangelical Anglicans, evangelical
Methodists, and evangelical Baptists. Many more groups,
of course, can be added to this list. But what is
interesting concerning these groups is that despite
the fact each one differs from the others quite significantly
in terms of its own doctrinal and practical standards, when
the adjective evangelical is applied to each denomination the
impression is created that they are in reality at one relative
to the essential core of fundamental gospel truths. Whatever
differences may exist are generally considered to be of a minor
and insignificant nature. An evident ecumenical quality is given
to the term evangelical when used in such a manner. Yet, when we turn
our attention to the Scriptures, they fail to yield any evidence
favorable to the notion concerning the existence of multiple kinds
of denominations, churches, and Christians standing together under the
banner of evangelicalism. Indeed, they show that
there can be no more than one kind of denomination,
church, and Christian than there can be any more
than "one Lord, one faith, and one immersion" (Eph.4:5).
The Scriptures uniformly present before us
but one kind of denomination, church, and Christian.
This then brings us back to our original question.
Having considered briefly both the abuse the
term evangelical has suffered from professing
Christians, and two evils that have resulted from this
abuse, we now turn to consider what the Scriptures
declare concerning what it means to be evangelical.
In essence, to be evangelical means to conform to
both the doctrinal and practical standards of the
Bible. Now this statement is both simple and general,
and thus, we must proceed to more depth and specificity.
The term evangelical comes from the Greek
word euaggelion, which, strictly speaking, signifies
good news or glad tidings. This term is often rendered
in English by the word, gospel (e.g. Mark 1:1 1Thes. 2:4)
Now in the New Testament, the euaggelion
is preeminently connected with the person and work
of Jesus Christ (cf - Lk. 2:10-11), and as such it
is concerned with the doctrine of Christology. But
where we have Christology, so too, we have all other
doctrines from theology proper to eschatology. Thus,
we way speak of the euaggelion (as we would of the
faith) as being comprised of the entire aspect of
divine truth, both doctrinally and practically.
Seeing then that the euaggelion is concerned
specifically with Christology, and more generally
with the entire aspect of divine truth, we must proceed
next to consider what the Scriptures teach concerning
these things. What does God's word declare
relative to the person and work of Christ And what
does the Holy Writ reveal concerning all other doctrinal
and practical matters? In asking such questions, we inevitably
involve ourselves in the necessary practice of hermeneutics. Now in
our hermeneutical pursuit of what the euaggelion is both specifically
and generally, the universal axiomatic law of noncontradiction must
prevail. That is, the Bible cannot be interpreted in such a manner
so as to make it conflict with itself, whether doctrinally or
practically. Then, for example, it cannot be made to teach
simultaneously a limited and an unlimited atonement,
or believer's immersion and infant sprinkling. Now
while space will not permit us to pursue at length
the specific and general aspects of the euaggelion,
we can nonetheless, by way of practical application,
consider two Scriptural truths which clearly demonstrate
by process of elimination just who really are evangelical
and who are not.
First, there is the ordinance of believer's immersion.
The Scriptures demonstrate that true gospel
assemblies are founded upon this ordinance. Hence, all
such assemblies which are not founded upon believer's
immersion cannot be deemed evangelical. And if the
church be not evangelical, then too, the people of
which such a church consists cannot be deemed evangelical. And
if neither the church, nor its members, be evangelical, then too,
the entire denomination consisting of such church and people
cannot be deemed evangelical. These conclusions are absolutely
inescapable. Secondly, there is the doctrine of limited
atonement. The Scriptures declare that Christ died
only for his elect and none else. Hence, for any to
argue for an indefinite atonement, in whatever form
or shape it might take, is to argue for a false Gospel.
Thus, none who hold to such a position can be
deemed evangelical. And as this is applicable to the
individual, so too, it is to the church and denomination.
Now, of course, the examples used here are
but two truths of Scripture. Yet, to be in error on
them is to effect the entire realm of doctrine and
practice, for no truth of Scripture stands in isolation
from the others.
It is evident then from the above discussion that
Baptists who hold to the unadulterated doctrines of
grace are the only ones who can be legitimately and
scripturally deemed evangelical. Such a statement will
undoubtedly incur the wrath of many. Yet the Baptist
cause proves inevitably to be the cause of God and
truth, and we will never be at Scriptural liberty to
apply the term evangelical to anyone else.