"The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject unto the Law of God, neither indeed can be; he doth not say, it is an Enemy, but in the abstract, it is Enmity; an Enemy (as one observes) may be reconciled, but Enmity can never be reconciled." --Benjamin Keach (1640-1704)
In the desert I saw a creature, naked, bestial, who, squatting upon the ground, held his heart in his hands, and ate of it. I said, 'Is it good, friend?' 'It is bitter -- bitter,' he answered; 'But I like it because it is bitter, and because it is my heart.'" --Stephen Crane (1895)
"Humility is not a mere ornament of a Christian, but an essential part of the new creature: it is a contradiction to be a sanctified man, or a true Christian, and not humble." --Richard Baxter (1615-1691)
Others define evangelicals as more conservative as compared to mainline or more liberal groups.
Others define Reformed (Calvinist) and non Reformed (evangelical).
That is the definition I tend to go with.
I tend to see Calvinist (Reformed), Mainline ( liberal) , Evangelical ( conservative). I see the Evangelical as made up of Full Gospel, Fundemental, Pentecostal.
Reformed denominations seem to have the word Reformed in the name, Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed Baptist etc.
Mainline are the churches like United Methodist, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist, Wesleyan, Lutheran and etc.
I see rhe Evangelical Churches like, Full Gospel, Bible Based, Independent Baptist, Most Pentecostal, and etc.
There is also the orthodox churches such as Angelican, Episcopalian, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Catholic and etc.
It is hard to group them the biggest differences I see are Liberal versus Conservative or Fundemental, Calvinist and non Calvinist, Pentecostal and non Pentecostal. Whole scripture versus New Testament only, Trinitarians versus oneness or Jesus only.
I think the 6 points above would better define a Christian not what Christian theology they follow.
"Oh, that I might live to see that day when professors shall not walk in vain show; when they shall please themselves no more with a name to live, being spiritually dead; when they shall no more (as many of them now are) be a company of frothy, vain, and unserious persons, but the majestic beams of holiness shining from their heavenly and serious conversation shall awe the world, and command reverence from all who are about them; when they shall warm the hearts of those who come nigh them, so that men shall say, 'God is truly in these men!'" --John Flavel (1627-1691)
"The word 'evangelical' is used in many different ways these days, and there is much debate about its meaning. My preference is for J. I. Packer's six distinctives of evangelicalism, which are endorsed by John Stott and Alister McGrath, all three of whom are prominent evangelical Anglicans.
1. The supreme authority of Scripture for knowledge of God and as guide to Christian living.
2. The majesty of Jesus Christ as incarnate God and Lord, and the saviour of sinful humanity.
3. The lordship of the Holy Spirit.
4. The need for personal conversion.
5. The priority of evangelism for both individual Christians and for the Church as a whole.
6. The importance of Christian community for spiritual nourishment, fellowship and growth."
--Alister E. McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity, Leicester: IVP, 1995, p. 51.
This was murder committed by those that claim Sola Scriptura. Yet Scripture never suggests such action.
That is my point Sola Scriptura is only claimed when it will serve the purpose of the one that claims it. The concept of Sola Scriptura itself is without support in the very scriptures it claims are the only guidelines to follow.
Do I think we should ignore Sola Scriptura? No! But rather than use it as a weapon it should be used to resolve denominational disputes, instead of justifying splitting and forming a new denomination. Jesus prayed for the unity of the church and Sola Scriptura is used to justify divison within the church by those that refuse to seek unity instead of their theological position.
I have not doubt men do try to exploit others on every continent ion the name of Christ.
Do I condone it? Absolutely not! How will it be viewed in the future? Unless the rewriter of history change our history as they have the history of the Reformation I would expect such behavior to be condemned in the future as it is now.
I do pray for the misled, here in America and everywhere I the world.
I especially pray that those that have been told they can live in as the world and still be saved, that they can't lose their salvation will have their eyes open to the truth.