When dealing with Evangelicals, it is useful to take a step back and ask how did we get to where we are now. The Church of 2000 year has been reduced to a bunch of worldly ahistorical believers, which bear little resemblance to the historic Christian faith (besides formal adherence). Just where have we gone wrong?
This question was brought near to me earlier in my life in the crisis sparked in the church I was raised in. In a crisis, you start to question everything. What if I was wrong in my perception of Christianity all these years? What is truth? The years of searching has led me to reject Evangelicalism in toto. Evangelicalism bears little resemblance to the historic Christian faith; it is a bastardized corruption of true Christianity. As such, I needed to undergo radical change in my beliefs. I threw out, or began to throw out, all I thought I knew about what Christianity is, retaining only the new stuff I have learned and the memorized verses from my earlier days. When I say "everything," I mean everything I could think of. I desired no part in the corruption that is Evangelicalism, although I do acknowledge that to some extent it has had formative influences on me, and I can't eradicate my past.
Existentially, that is why I am not troubled by denouncements of so-called "Christians." I knew how it was from thee inside, and basically, transitioning from Evangelicalism to Reformed is a paradigm shift. It is not a mere "add the 5 Solas and TULIP" to one's theology, as John Frame and the other "Reformed Evangelicals" think. No, it is a fundamental shift in the foundation of one's view of the world. Adding the 5 Solas and TULIP does not make you Reformed, neither does adding any of the Reformed Confessions as a statement of faith (as opposed to a confession of faith). One has to, as it were, undergo, radical heart surgery. One has to pierce the shroud of pietism, rend down the walls of the dialectical swing between mere reason and experience, and rest in the tension between the visible confessing church and the coming church triumphant. Theology is intellectual, but the intellect is not a category alongside others, but a category that informs all the others. Theology IS praxis. What is practical is what God says. We do not apply theology, we live theology. We are the historical Christian Church, not the modern church.
Evangelicalism therefore is almost another religion altogether. Certainly, this is not to deny there are many believers within her, but there is a difference between the individual, and the church. There are true and false churches. Within the true churches, there are purer churches, and churches that are so impure they are almost synagogues of Satan. Evangelicalism belongs in the latter category, very impure churches that are true but almost synagogues of Satan.
Thus, when Evangelicals say anything, they can be treated almost as if it was interaction from another religion. And if one were to consider practice, then this point should be conceded. While in doctrine Evangelicalism is rather biblical, in practice the divergence is so vast from what the Scripture teaches in terms of piety that it literally seems like another religion. In practice, Evangelicalism is almost like a cult, in that they have the same Scriptures but yet are circling the borders of biblical Christianity. When Seventh-Day Adventists can be considered "Evangelicals," when the Word-faith cult can be considered "Evangelicals," then it can be seen that Evangelicalism is closer to those movements than it is to the Bible.
Evangelicals should be treated no differently from how John Calvin and the Reformers treat the Roman Catholicism of his time. Many believers are within her, we recognize their baptisms, but we will strive to call people out from her. There is not found a church worthy of the name, and where the three marks of the true Church are absent, we should call people out from her to join an actual biblical church.