Thread: The Temptation of Influence

on the HB

This is an excellent article, Dr. Clark.

I have one question though. You stated the following:

The pressure is immense to conform to the theology, piety, and practice of the evangelicals. There is not a great “market” in North America for Reformed confessionalism. There are at least 60 million American evangelicals. There are probably no more than one half million confessional Reformed folk. Put another way, the evangelicals are at least 120 times larger than NAPARC.

Is it possible that there is a sizeable plurality of evangelicals within NAPARC that are part of the issue?

I think it's correct to characterize evangelical and Reformed as two entirely different entities, although I have no idea what an evangelical is anymore. I know I'm not one.

Originally Posted by Zenas

I think it's correct to characterize evangelical and Reformed as two entirely different entities, although I have no idea what an evangelical is anymore. I know I'm not one.

I believe the gospel, therefore, in the Biblical sense, I am an evangelical.

I sometimes say that I am "evangelical" but not "an evangelical." The definition of the word is, as we all know, highly problematic in the contemporary period. As I see it the troubles are traceable to the 18th century. The New Siders were not particularly interested in being bound to the confession. For them religious experience trumped confession. Be that as it may, there is an important sense in which confessionalists are evangelical. We are so in the same way the Protestants were. One of the first adjectives used of the Reformers was "evangelical."

I think Darryl Hart makes a good point when he says that there isn't really anything such as "evangelicalism" any more. There are two many particularities among the evangelicals to speak of a unified entity "evangelicalism" any more.

As to evangelicalism within NAPARC, absolutely its an issue and so is fundamentalism. Those are, in my view, the two great issues. The antidote for both is confessionalism.

What's a 'New Sider' ?

Originally Posted by Seb

What's a 'New Sider' ?

That's Ron Sider after his position was made to look silly by Chilton's book...

Originally Posted by Seb

What's a 'New Sider' ?

the real answer:

check Muether & Hart here, in New Horizons and a very important work by Charles Hodge, here.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Seb

What's a 'New Sider' ?

the real answer:

check Muether & Hart here, in New Horizons and a very important work by Charles Hodge, here.

Thanks.

Separated at birth? You be the judge!

ps. If you're not logged in, this post makes less sense than most of my posts as the other pic only shows up to those who are logged in.

- amaaaazing!

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Separated at birth? You be the judge!

ps. If you're not logged in, this post makes less sense than most of my posts as the other pic only shows up to those who are logged in.

oh my

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Separated at birth? You be the judge!

ps. If you're not logged in, this post makes less sense than most of my posts as the other pic only shows up to those who are logged in.

oh my

I didnt notice that this link had already been posted by Dr. Clark earlier. I am sorry for any confusion, I would like to say that I profited greatly from reading this entry and I am ever more encouraged by it in my confessionalism.

Great post Dr. Clark.

Really intellegent article. I especially liked - "Of course it’s a Faustian bargain. By making such a bargain Reformed folk have allowed others to define them. " Thanks for posting. It's nice to see people that care anymore. Sometimes I feel that the visible church is in permanent apostasy, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Of couse I do know Church History all too well, and it is the Lord who build's His Church. Thanks - Tim

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

I think Darryl Hart makes a good point when he says that there isn't really anything such as "evangelicalism" any more. There are two many particularities among the evangelicals to speak of a unified entity "evangelicalism" any more.

Yes, I enjoyed Hart's book very much on this issue. My quibble with this discussion about evangelicalism is that it tends to neglect evangelicalism outside of the USA (like Australia and the UK).

The problem is that of definitions generally. Is someone an evangelical just because they call themselves one? This is what Hart assumes. However, Barth, for example, called himself "Reformed". Liberals in the PCUSA would call themselves "Presbyterian".

If we go with what people call themselves then we're dealing with a sociological definition. If we're using the term as originally defined by Luther or subsequently by the 18 century awakenings we're using an historical definition. Perhaps the discussion could be clarified somewhat by speaking of contemporary versus historic evangelicalism. For example, I'd be unhappy to be known as the former, but very happy to known as the latter.

Hart wants to abandon the term "Evangelicalism" because it's now meaningless in his context. That may be well and good. But Hart seems to abandon the concept as well, which is a pity. He has neglected something important here: historic evangelicalism (a la Luther) especially emphasizes that the gospel (evangel) is not simply one doctrine amongst many, but the central doctrine of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:3-4), and all other doctrines should be defined in relation to it. Such a definition then produces critical emphases in a theological system (bible-based, crucicentric, conversion-oriented, mission-focused etc).

Every blessing.