What Makes Evangelical Theology "Evangelical"?

What makes evangelical theology “evangelical”? More basically, what is “evangelicalism”? Is it important to know what makes evangelical theology “evangelical”? If theology is of any real value to evangelicalism, what should it look like? Is theology itself important?

Though Alister McGrath contends that evangelicalism today is concerned with theological purity,[1] it seems that R. Albert Mohler and David Wells’ diagnoses that evangelical theology is ill-defined and fringe is probably correct:

It is not that the elements of the evangelical credo have vanished; they have not. The fact that they are professed, however, does not necessarily mean that the structure of the historic protestant faith is still intact. The reason, quite simply, is that while these items of belief are professed, they are increasingly being removed from the center of evangelical life where they defined what that life was, and they are now being relegated to the periphery where their power to define what evangelical life should be is lost.[2]

Despite the disagreement upon evangelicalisms current state, the consensus of scholars agree upon the importance of theology. However, none puts it quite as well as David F. Wells:

We all have our theologies, for we all have a way of putting things together in our own minds that, if we are Christian, has a shape that arises from our knowledge of God and his Word. We might not be conscious of the process. Indeed, we frequently are not. But at the very least we will organize our perceptions into some sort of pattern that seems to make sense to us. The question at issue, then, is not whether we will have a theology but whether it will be a good or bad one, whether we will become conscious of our thinking processes or not, and, more particularly, whether we will learn to bring all of our thoughts into obedience to Christ or not.[3]

Understanding the nature of evangelical theology is important primarily because evangelicalism is a movement within Christendom, not a specific denomination defined by creeds. Those within evangelicalism must understand what they believe and therefore what makes them evangelical. If they fail to comprehend this, evangelicalism as a movement will be void. Since those known as evangelicals are some of the main proponents of the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, if evangelicalism loses its purpose and self understanding major setbacks could occur in the proselytization of all the peoples of the world.

When seeking to understand what makes evangelical theology “evangelical,” one is faced with endless views and differing understandings of the history and origins of evangelicalism. Understanding the history and origin of the movement is what leads to the final conclusions drawn by each party. As Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy comment, “There is, of course, no universally accepted definition of ‘evangelicalism.’ Evangelicals themselves express strong disagreements over this matter.”[4] They are correct in saying this. Here a will mention three understandings of what the basis is for developing evangelical theology.

One view, advocated by J.I. Packer and Thomas Oden, sees there to be a good deal of consensus among evangelicals. In their view, evangelicalism is defined as follows: evangelicalism is the body within Christianity that agrees that God has given the Gospel, which has always been His eternal plan and has come with His power. This has been revealed in The Bible, the sixty-six books that compose the Old and New Testaments, which is divinely inspired and comes with God’s authority, is the completed revelation of God, is sufficient, inerrant, and infallible, and is Christocentric. [5] Francis Schaeffer claims that belief in inerrancy of Scripture and claiming to be Christian necessarily went together until recently.[6]

Evangelicals are those who believe in the unity, distinction, and equality of the Triune God, and believe that He is sovereign over all, creator of all, infinite, uncreated, loving, and the judge of all. They believe humans are created both male and female in God’s image, yet are

sinful and face the wages of sin, death and separation from God. Humans are rebellious and lost in a depraved state of sin in which they are unable to please God, and they under God’s condemnation. In this state of sinfulness, humankind transgresses God’s holy standard.[7]

They also hold that evangelicals believe in the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and His unity and perfection in these natures. Christ gave His life as a sacrificial/substitutionary death to save all who trust in Him alone. He rose from the dead physically, in a glorified body and has ascended to the right hand of God the Father where He makes intercession for His own until He returns to judge the earth and fully establish His kingdom. Those who trust in Christ are saved by grace alone through faith alone, as Christ takes the penalty of their sins and they receive Christ’s righteousness. They are those who are reborn, who repent of sin, and receive the release from the bondage of sin and the adoption as heirs of God. Those who trust in Christ are saved past, present, and future from sin and death. Christ is the one way to heaven and the only mediator between God and man.[8]

Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit is coequally God and applies the work of Christ. The Spirit indwells believers and gives them new life and is their assuring witness that they are Christ’s. Through the Holy Spirit Christians are in a process of continual sanctification through their lives, as they are called to live holy lives. The Spirit imparts gifts to all believers and gives them the ability to overcome the enemy.[9]

Believers are to fellowship corporately in the unity of the Gospel as the Church, the body and bride of Christ, to worship and observe His ordinances. Believers are to be socially responsible and to tell all the peoples of the world about salvation and judgment. They await the return of Christ and the hope that is to come at His return, when the dead will be resurrected, the believers unto eternal life and the unbelievers to eternal damnation.[10] At the least, evangelical theology is rooted in the Protestant Reformation and is marked by the five solas: “sola Scriptura, which means ‘Scripture alone’; solus Christus, which means “Christ alone”; sola gratia, which means ‘grace alone’; sola fide, which means ‘faith alone’; and soli Deo Gloria, which means ‘glory to God alone.’”[11] Thus, evangelical theology is any theology that is in line with these doctrinal tenets.

Another view is one that takes a more minimal approach to who is defined as evangelical. In this view, the evangelical audience holds that Scripture is the final arbitrator of theological truth, though not necessarily the inspired, authoritative, inerrant word of God. However, evangelicals can have disagreements on God’s providence and foreknowledge, whether Christ relinquished His divine prerogatives when He became human, whether hell is unending torment or annihilation, and on the atonement of Christ (penal substitution, the destruction of Satan and his work, or moral government atonement).[12]

This view appears to stem out of the National Association of Evangelicals’ attempt to facilitate unity among conservative Protestants. It seems to work merely off of Carl F. H. Henry’s simplistic view that evangelicalism consists of all those who believe the gospel consists of “an acknowledgement of human sin, redemption through Christ, and the need for conversion.”[13] Under this view of evangelicalism, any view that falls within these loose parameters, from Open Theism, N.T. Wright’s views on Paul’s theology of justification, and Charles Finney’s rejection of original sin[14] to Calvinism and Lordship Salvation, is considered to be in the realm of evangelical theology.

A third view is that of Karl Barth. Barth recognized evangelical theology as coming out of both the New Testament and the Protestant Reformation. However, evangelical theology is “primarily and decisively” Biblical. “Such theology intends to apprehend, to understand, and to speak of the God of the Gospel.” [15] “Evangelical theology is modest theology, because it is determined to be so by its object [God], that is, by him who is its subject.” Such theology cannot boast that it is the only correct theology. Rather, it is dependent upon human existence, faith, and reason. It is seeking to know God through His deeds in history, though He is not an “absolute” God. This God “exists neither next to man nor merely above him, but rather with him, by him, and most important of all, for him.” “It is concerned with God as the God of man, but just for this reason, also with man as God’s man.”[16]

As has been demonstrated above, it is extremely hard to develop a clear definition of evangelicalism for a number of reasons. One reason is that there is no consensus among leading scholars as to what issues are important for evangelicalism to define and require for membership. A second reason it is so hard to clearly identify evangelicalism is that there is no official membership that makes a person or a group evangelical. Though there are many groups within the bounds of evangelicalism, such as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and the Evangelical Theological Society that meet to discuss issues facing modern Christianity, there is no unifying governing body that decides and enforces the standard for evangelicalism.[17] Rather, evangelicalism is a movement, a “coalition”[18] of people, groups, and denominations that claim to be conservative Christian. Since it is a movement, as Roger Olson says, evangelicalism should be defined by its core, not its boundaries.[19]

Because evangelicalism is not a denomination held together by creed, but a movement, a multi-denominational/interdenominational fellowship held together as a loose confederacy, evangelicalism is not concerned with issues of church polity, how the sacraments are observed, the role of women in ministry, eschatology, or traditional Arminian and Calvinist topics. Rather, in accordance with what seems to be the modern usage of the word “evangelical” by pollsters, [20] I have concluded, on the basis of the many views of evangelicalism (rejecting Karl Barth’s views) that the definition of what binds evangelicalism together and gives a standard by which evangelical theology is to be measured is as follows. Evangelical theology is theology that sees the Bible as being inspired by God and the final arbiter for faith and practice. Evangelicals believe in the Triune God, and that Jesus is God incarnate and the only way for salvation. They believe that man is sinful and that salvation from sin comes only by God’s grace through a conversion experience that brings them into Christ. In light of this, evangelicals view evangelism and missions as necessary to bring people to salvation.

How one defines evangelicalism comes out of two presuppositions. The first is what is considered to be the accepted history of evangelicalism. The second is how we should view evangelicalism today, or what etymological evolution has occurred. According to Michael Horton, “evangelicalism has traditionally had pretty wide boundaries,” as it came out of the reformation and accepted both Wesley and Finney.[21] If this is accepted, and today evangelicalism responds in the same way by keeping its boundaries wide, then this minimal theological consensus is rightly sufficient.

I however, believe that evangelicalism needs to be defined further if it is to be a movement that has any theological thrust behind it and is not merely superficially cohesive. There is much debate and disagreement today in evangelicalism about issues such as open theism. Issues such as this could cause great divisions in evangelicalism that could keep evangelicals from supporting one another when it comes to proselytizing. If such occurred, evangelicalism would fail to be “evangelical,” since the movement was developed for the purpose of defending and propagating “the essential truths of the Bible.”[22]

It seems to me that evangelicalism needs to be defined by the view held by Packer, Oden, and Boice outlined above. Evangelicalism needs to reform its theology if it is to continue with its task. It needs to not only make merely converts to Christianity, but rather disciples, “teaching them to observe all” that Jesus has commanded and taught them (Matthew 28:19-20). People in the movement could be confused by the doctrinal dissensions and differing views and the splits that occur because of them; especially with issues such as open theism. For this reason, those who take the orthodox views on God’s sovereignty and immutability and on justification need to further define evangelicalism to exclude the views that diverge from classical orthodoxy, or they need to separate from evangelicalism and take on another name and establish a more clearly defined movement.

Objections:

The first objection is that Alister McGrath, a proponent of this view, “suggests that correct evangelical theology can only be found in the Reformation and consequently, it is this theology that will preserve evangelicalism.”[23] However, such a view would force many evangelicals to denounce their theologies or to no longer be included as evangelical. “The assertion that evangelicalism is tied to the Reformation suggests that all evangelicals everywhere should share the same convictions.”[24] “McGrath’s version of evangelical identity would include among the core commitments a Reformed accent that stands in some tension with… transdenominationalism (which really seems to mean “transconfessionalism”).”[25] This view would make it difficult, if not impossible for there to be any significant diversity within evangelicalism.

A second objection is that if evangelicalism is to survive postmodernism, according to Stanley Grenz, it must leave its “epistemological foundationalism” views. Grenz defines foundationalism as “the acknowledgment of the seemingly obvious observation that not all beliefs (or assertions) are on the same level; some beliefs (or assertions) anchor others.” Foundationalist theology conceives human knowledge as being built upon a foundation and built up like a building.[26] In Grenz’s view, an evangelical theology that is based upon foundationalism, such as the theology of the reformation, should be rejected. Citing William James, Grenz claims “truth is made, just as health, wealth and strength are made, in the course of experience.” This is because there is no “universal human reason,” reason is “person specific” and “situation specific.”[27]

In Grenz’s view, there are three determining factors which evangelicalism must use to develop its theology: the community, Jesus Christ and the Triune God, and eschatology. Theology must be developed within the community of believers because theology is a conversation. “Not only is theology a conversation, it is a specific conversation. Viewed from the conversational perspective, theology is the ongoing process whereby participants in the faith community together seek to articulate what ought to be the Christian belief-mosaic.” The Church must decide together what the Christian meaning of the text is for the community. The central interest of Christian theology is God: “the Father and creation; the Son and reconciliation; and the Spirit, redemption, and consummation.” This must all be worked together in the final motif: eschatology. Christian theology “speaks of the God who is bringing creation to its divinely intended goal.”[28]

A third objection is raised by D.G. Hart, as he responds to the evangelical theological dilemma with this solution: “Instead of trying to fix evangelicalism, born-again Protestants would be better off if they abandoned the category [of evangelicalism] altogether.” He asserts that “evangelicalism is largely a constructed ideal without any real substance.” [29] He claims it is merely “an abstraction created to bring together a variety of different Protestants for certain religious and social ends.” According to Hart, “evangelicalism as a religious identity is at best vague and at worst hollow.” If evangelicalism was abandoned as a religious label, there “might be a better recognition of the fullness of Christian teaching.” [30]

Hart’s view seems to coincide with that of William Abraham who says evangelicalism is an “essentially contested tradition.” Abraham notes that it is the common practice in evangelicalism “to define evangelicalism by drawing ‘up a list of essentials or fundamentals that are the essence or heart of the tradition.’” According to Henry Knight, “This approach is not so much wrong as superficial. It fails to recognize within the evangelical tradition an ‘intense debate and contest about how best to develop and explain its essential ingredients.’”[31] If Knight is correct, and this is merely superficial, then perhaps Hart is correct in deconstructing and advising his readers to throw out the label “evangelical” rather than seeking reform.

Defense:

In reply to the first objection, “The assertion that evangelicalism is tied to the Reformation suggests that all evangelicals everywhere should share the same convictions. This assertion simply cannot be supported since the Reformation was a response to the context of its time. Simply rooting evangelicalism in the Reformation negates the fact that evangelicals share the same history as the rest of Christendom.”[32] By rooting evangelicalism in the Reformation, it is given a strong foundation upon solid, classical orthodox Christian beliefs. The Calvinistic assertions of the Reformation do not have to be criteria for defining evangelicalism, as Packer’s and Oden’s assertions do not consider such issues as how far God’s sovereignty in salvation extends.

Evangelicalism needs a solid Biblical framework from which to grow and mature. As Alister McGrath himself says, “Christian theology is under an obligation to pay respectful and obedient attention to the biblical testimony and allow itself to be shaped and reshaped by what it finds expressed there. Theology therefore has both catechetical and apologetic facets, just as it has immense relevance to spirituality and ethics.”[33] The theological precepts that have been put forward above by Packer, Oden, and Boice set up a feasible basis in which evangelicals can confidently work toward these ends.

This basis for evangelicalism gives a good framework in which evangelicals can converse about theological issues with a clear understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable. Such conversation could help both sides of doctrinal issues to get a better rounded view and to gain a holistic Biblical theology. As Ronald Mayers asserts, “Orthodoxy, has usually been, and should always be, determined by the balance that the Bible indicates in the various doctrinal issues that the church must explain and elucidate to her members. This has not always been the case in American evangelicalism and fundamentalism.”[34] This lack of balance and theological arrogance, when a lack of balance is such, shows the flaw in the sinful conversants, not the theological framework.

In response to objection three, the movement of evangelicalism is not really the problem. Evangelicalism is “rooted in Reformational theology, Puritan-type pietism, and eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ideals of evangelistic outreach,”[35] to which it needs to return.

It seems that R. Albert Mohler is correct when he states that “evangelicalism in the 1990s [and the twenty-first century for that matter,] is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. The older evangelical concern for individual religious experience has often been asserted at the expense of theological clarity.” “Although early evangelicalism was never monolithic, its essential core was well established.” “Evangelical integrity is essentially tied to evangelical conviction.”[36]

It seems that Wells, Mohler, and Boice are correct that evangelicalism has let down its “theological defenses,”[37] theological concern has disappeared in modern evangelicalism and “has been dislodged from its center,”[38] and the void that has formed is being filled by everything from postmodern thought to feminism. Evangelicalism needs to be well defined, not eliminated. It needs to allow for imaginative theology, [39] but it does not need to be held captive by ill-definition and heresies.

“Evangelicals have always been ‘Bible people.’ Evangelicalism typically has championed excellent preaching, personal Bible study, general biblical literacy—all in the name of the unique authority of the Bible for our belief and practice.”[40] For evangelicalism to continue in this great tradition, it needs to have a well defined theological framework. Evangelicals need to be clear and in agreement with one another on central issues dealing with God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Salvation, and the role of the Church. However, as J.I. Packer asserts, “It is vital to realize that truth is for people, and therefore, the pastoral function of theology is ultimately primary [for evangelicalism].”[41] That is what makes evangelical theology truly “evangelical.”

---

[1] Alister McGrath, “Evangelical Theological Method: The State of the Art,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 17-20.

[2] David F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 108.

[3] Ibid, 3.

[4] Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 7.

[5] James I. Packer and Thomas C. Oden, One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 35-57.

[6] Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), 45.

[7] Packer and Oden, 58-70.

[8]ibid. 71-92, 130-146

[9] ibid. 93-110

[10] ibid. 111-129, 147-159

[11] James Montgomery Boice, What Makes a Church Evangelical? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 17.

[12] Body and Eddy, 3-4, 7.

[13] D. G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 24-25.

[14] John H. Armstrong, True Revival: What Happens When God’s Spirit Moves? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2001), 185.

[15] Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), 5.

[16] Ibid. 6-12.

[17] D.G. Hart, 177.

[18] Ibid. 186.

[19] Modern Reformation Magazine, “The Nature & Future of Evangelicalism: A Dialogue Between Michael Horton and Roger Olson,” (2003), section 4 [on-line]; accessed 9 November 2004 available from http://www.modernreformation.org; Internet.

[20] Hart, 176.

[21] [21] Modern Reformation Magazine, section 3.

[22] Hart, 30

[23] Michael Cooper, . “What Is, and Who Defines, Evangelical Christianity?”, (2003), Alister McGrath [on-line]; accessed 9 November 2004; available from http://www.opensourcetheology.net; Internet.

[24] ibid., Weaknesses of an Evangelical Identity Based Upon the Reformation.

[25] Roger E. Olson, “Reforming Evangelical Theology, in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method,” ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 204.

[26] Stanley J. Grenz, . “Articulating the Christian Belief-Mosaic: Theological Method after the Demise of Foundationalism,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 107-136, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 110.

[27] Ibid., 115-120.

[28] Ibid., 120-121, 130, 134.

[29] Hart, 16-17.

[30] Ibid. 187-88.

[31] Henry H. Knight III, Future for Truth: Evangelical Theology in a Postmodern World, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 17.

[32] Cooper, Weaknesses of an Evangelical Identity Based Upon the Reformation

[33] Alister McGrath, “Engaging the Great Tradition: Evangelical Theology and the Role of Tradition,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 139.

[34] Ronald B. Mayers, Evangelical Perspectives: Toward a Biblical Balance, (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1987), 1

[35] James I. Packer, “Maintaining Evangelical Theology,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 183.

[36] R. Albert Mohler Jr., ““Evangelical”: What’s in a Name?” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis: Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel, ed. John Armstrong (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 31-32, 36.

[37] Ibid. 36

[38] Wells, 106

[39] Trevor Hart, “Imagining Evangelical Theology,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 192-200.

[40] John G. Stackhouse Jr., “Evangelical Theology Should Be Evangelical,” in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 46.

[41] James I. Packer, “Maintaining Evangelical Theology”, 184.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Armstrong, John H. True Revival: What Happens When God’s Spirit Moves? Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2001.

Barth, Karl. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

Boice, James Montgomery. What Makes a Church Evangelical? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999.

Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Grenz, Stanley E. “Articulating the Christian Belief-Mosaic: Theological Method after the Demise of Foundationalism.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 107-136. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Hart, D. G. Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Hart, Trevor. “Imagining Evangelical Theology.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 191-200. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Knight, Henry H. III. Future for Truth: Evangelical Theology in a Postmodern World. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997.

Mayers, Ronald B. Evangelical Perspectives: Toward a Biblical Balance. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1987.

McGrath, Alister E. “Evangelical Theological Method: The State of the Art.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., (15-37). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

McGrath, Alister E. “Engaging the Great Tradition: Evangelical Theology and the Role of Tradition.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 139-158. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. ““Evangelical”: What’s in a Name?” In The Coming Evangelical Crisis: Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel, ed. John Armstrong, 23-44. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

Olson, Roger E. “Reforming Evangelical Theology.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 201-207. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Packer, James I.. “Maintaining Evangelical Theology.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 181-189. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Packer, James I. and Thomas C. Oden. One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004.

Schaeffer, Francis. The Great Evangelical Disaster. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1984.

Stackhouse, John G., Jr.. “Evangelical Theology Should Be Evangelical.” In Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 39-58. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Wells, David F. No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

INTERNET

Cooper, Michael. 2003. “What Is, and Who Defines, Evangelical Christianity?” Retrieved 9 November 2004 from http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/72?PHPSESSID=5dda853f35a58ea8322d502 3b31e432f; Internet.

Modern Reformation Magazine, 2003. “The Nature & Future of Evangelicalism: A Dialogue Between Michael Horton and Roger Olson.” Retrieved 9 November 2004 from http://www.modernreformation.org/mhro03dialog.htm; Internet.