In most cases, it would be a tautologous event in the news cycle: «Evangelicals sign document
teaching evangelical doctrine.»
Not exact matches
While
Evangelicals greatly respect the way in which the Catholic Church has defended many historic Christian
teachings against relativizing and secularizing trends, and recognize the role of the present pontiff in that important task today, they believe that some aspects of Catholic
doctrine are not biblically warranted, and they do not accept any claims of infallibility made for the magisterial
teachings of popes or church councils.
Without denying the place that Protestant reformers occupy in
evangelical faith, it should be said that classic Christian
teaching, whether in the realm of
doctrine or ethics, is best defined not against the backdrop of the sixteenth century, but rather in the light of the broader apostolic tradition.
Among
evangelicals, so much emphasis has been placed on the
doctrine of substiutionary atonement that the focus has shifted away from FOLLOWING the life and
teachings of Jesus (in order to be saved from sin) to simply BELIEVING in the death and resurrection of Jesus (in order to be saved from judgment).
Radio ministers not only kept
evangelical doctrine before the people; they made it clear that legions still built on the firm foundation and walked on the ancient pathways, and would
teach their children to do the same.
As
Evangelicals, we saw this
teaching as implicit in the
doctrine of justification by faith alone and tried to express it in biblical terms.
It took me a long time to realize that not only did these assumptions misrepresented the
teachings of the Catholic Church, but they contributed to that common narrative that plagues much of evangelicalism — that people are damned for having the «wrong»
doctrine (and by «wrong,» I mean «not
evangelical.»)