Evaluating Fundamentalist v New Evangelical

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 16, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I wonder if these men are new evangelicals or fudamentalist (in your opinion, of course):

    1. Charles Stanley
    2. John MacArthur
    3. Hank Hannegraff
    4. Jerry Falwell
    5. Jack Van Impe
    6. Ron Rhodes
    7. Norman Geisler
    8. Dave Hunt
    9. John Ankerberg
    10. Charles Ryrie
     
  2. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except for Charles Stanley* and Jack Van Impe (and perhaps Ryrie, depending on how far you take his no-Lordship position), these guys are all orthodox. I would not regard any of them as fundamentalists, however.


    *Some might wonder about why I consider Charles Stanley to be unorthodox. He is on record as stating that conviction of sin is not a necessary part of conversion, only conviction of a felt need is (Source: James White’s blog regarding a recent In Touch program). In another In Touch program, he stated "… [W]ould God send somebody to hell because they did not receive Jesus whom they never heard about, never had the privilege of knowing about? And my answer is: No, he would not" (Stanley, In Touch Ministries, "Reconciling God's Love with His Justice," July 31, 2001).
     
  3. Bob Colgan

    Bob Colgan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    imo The only 2 on the list that I consider fundamentalist John MacArthur and Charles Ryrie.
    But I guess it depends how you define fundamenalist. I don't think the defenision is very clear any more. The church I just left calls them self Fundamentalist but imo there new evangelical. When I first got saved I was a KJO
    so every one was new evangelical to me (I'm not 100% in that camp any more)The only fundamentals where those that read King James Bible ect... But in my definition the 2 I listed above are Fundamintilst the rest new evangelicals.

    Bob C
     
  4. Circuitrider

    Circuitrider
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/circuitrider2.JPG>

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2000
    Messages:
    729
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bless God, that crowd are all compromisers.... :D There are no fundamentalists but me and thee and I am not so sure about thee. [​IMG]

    A little more seriously, most all of those men while preaching the gospel and holding to most if not all the fundamentals, are not separatists. The fundamentalist movement was a movement driven by right doctrine including the doctrine of separation. Though it took a while for that to be worked out, it was a key component. New Evangelicalism began with fundamentalists who refused to practice separation, as a result they rejected it and walked away to start their own movement of compromise.
     
  5. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, New Evangelicalism began by fundamentalists who no longer practiced a type of separation.

    They were willing to overlook certain areas in favor of (supposed) unity.

    To say they did not practice any separation though is not accurate.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Fundamentalism was characterized by militancy on the core doctrines and separation from REAL enemy - modernism/liberalism.

    Neo-evangelical sought dialog with such and a rethinking of fundamental doctrines.

    Hence the distinction still today. All of these men can be judged NOT on secondary or three-way separation, but either (1) militant core doctrine/separation from liberalism or (2) dialog and compromise on the doctrines with liberalism.
     
  7. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    And a repudiation of separation. Harold Ockenga proposed to promote his new evangelicalism through 4 main agencies: (1) Fuller Seminary, (2) Christianity Today, (3)National Association of Evangelicals, and (4) Billy Graham's ministry.

    Fundamentalists separated from Billy Graham because of his lack of separation -- i.e., his ecumenical evangelism and cooperation/fellowship with liberalism. Graham, at that time, was thoroughly orthodox. He was not "the enemy." Yet, Fundamentalists separated from him. Right or wrong?

    Andy
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Separation from the real enemy - modernism/liberalism" is oversimplifying the issue, IMO. There is no such thing as secondary separation. I am not separating from you becuase you fail to separate form someone else. I am separating from you because you are disobedient to God's command of separation. This has become confusing, I think, becuase we try to parse it just right to include our friends and exclude the rest. The issue is obedience. God commands separation from disobedient brethren. If you associate with Billy Graham, you are disobedient. I cannot have fellowship with you without becoming disobedient myself.
     
  9. Bob Colgan

    Bob Colgan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to get off the subject but I don't believe Graham was ever orthodox. I believe many people believe he is because they never studyed alot of his back ground going back with John Rice He made a decision to seperate from fundalism. I believe that was before the KJVO took it over Rice IMO was not a KJVO but he sure didn't associate with liberal christians Graham elected to comprimise nice word for sin.

    Bob
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Sure Graham was orthodox. Orthodoxy in Christian religion is belief in the basic tenets of Christianity - believe in the Bible, Triune godhead, salvation by grace, sinfulness of man, heaven and hell, etc

    You can be a orthodox and not be born again.

    Roman Catholics are orthodox. Billy was orthodox. United Pentecostals are not.
     
  11. Rooster

    Rooster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if Charels Stanley is fundimental or not, but I like listening to him on the radio, you have to admitt, as far as radio, and t.v. preachers go he is not bad, and gives a good message, I would rather hear Charels Stanlely, then any other wana-be praecher on the radio , that I have heard, there may be other excelant preachers on the radio, but I don't get to hear them were I live, and the rest of the people on Dr. Bobs list... I have never heard preach, or read any books by them, so I can't say, who or what they are.
     
  12. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    To be orthodox, one's doctrine must be consistent with the fundamentals of Biblical revelation. Roman Catholic doctrine orthodox? I can hardly believe that you wrote that.

    Andy
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have to contend with this statement. When someone says that God might let Jews into heaven apart from Christ, that is not orthodox and Billy said that in the early 70s. RC's are certainly not orthodox as a whole.

    That is not to say that these did not/do not have some orthodox beliefs. But they also have some heterodox beliefs. And those heterodox beliefs are the problem.
     
  14. Bob Colgan

    Bob Colgan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roman Catholics are Orthodox? How can you say that they believe in works as a means to salvation
    Billy Graham is Orthodox? I read something many years ago that he believed the person in Africa that never hears the Gospel that Jesus Christ saves. Will still be allowed into Heaven I believe he used Romans 1 as his proof. I later heard he has allways heald this view. I thats true (and it's not) then we would be better not to evangilise these people because there going to heaven as long as they never hear the truth.
    Thats not Ortodox


    Bob C
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Andy, sorry we cannot rewrite definition of historic Christian words to suit you (or the others who take umbrage at my simple statement).

    Orthodox = conforming to the Christian faith as formulated in the early eccumenical creeds and confessions. Webster.

    You are trying to say they must be evangelical or even fundamentalist to be ORTHODOX! That is patently false. Those are sub-groups within orthodoxy.

    Heterodoxy would be like the United Pentecostals denying the Trinity or the LDS denying the deity of Christ.

    I will start a thread in the THEOLOGY forum on understanding theological labels where we can all share and learn (and use terms correctly).
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So it is orthodox to believe in a salvation by works? :confused:

    It is orthodox to say that someone can get to heaven apart from faith in Jesus Christ? :confused:

    Prthodox -- Sound in opinion or doctrine, especially in religious doctrine; hence, holding the Christian faith; believing the doctrines taught in the Scriptures; -- opposed to heretical and heterodox; as, an orthodox Christian. (From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. at www.dictionary.com)

    We can hardly say either of the above doctrine are "holding to the Christian faith" or "believing in teh doctrines taught in Scripture."
     
  17. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I stand by my definition. The early eccumenical creeds, besides being extremely misleading, are not sufficient to identify the non-negotiables of the Christian faith today.

    Andy
     
  18. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have to say Dr. Bob has a point here- in the context of history. After all,there is a historical meaning associated with that word.

    While we need to point out the error of Catholicism, we should other terms to use. It can be done.
     
  19. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are several good threads going on concerning Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism/New-Evangelicalism and various famous people. I've enjoyed reading the civil interaction. BTW, does anyone know of a source for obtaining a script of Kevin Bauder's remarks at Beeson? THAT I'd like to read.

    It is problematic to define fundamentalism as the five fundamentals set forth in the 20's. Much has taken place since those days. New issues have arisen that everyone must face up to no matter what label they wish to wear.

    The biggest problems with saying I am a historic fundamentalist in the sense of the five fundamentals is that it ignores the watershed events of 1956 and 1957. In '56, Harold John Ockenga defined and set forth the agenda of new-evangelicalism. In '57, Billy Graham inaugurated the method of new-evangelicalism when he invited liberals and catholics in as sponsors of his NYC crusade. Both Ockenga and Graham held to the five fundamentals. But they definitely rejected the term "fundamentalist".

    At first, those who rejected Ockenga's philosophy and Graham's methods were united. The most prominent in this group were John R. Rice, Bob Jones Sr., and Jack Wyrtzen. All of them were fundamentalists and called themselves by that name. However, disagreements sprung up among them over how to deal with others who participated with Graham and later-and more importantly- how to deal with some who did not participate with Graham, but refused to completely disassociate themselves from him. Rice and Wyrtzen were more loose in their reaction to those who neither participated with nor condemned Graham and his methods. Jones was more strident in disassociating from those who sought to be neutral. The differing reactions among fundamentalists to those who sought to be neutral in the Graham matter is the SINGLE most important trigger in the dividing lines that exist in fundamentalism today. Although subsequent events and issues have futher divided the movement to the point of fragmentation.

    I think the question we might ask ourselves, to determine our own orientation is: "How would I have reacted to believers who neither supported Graham nor condemned him outright?"
     
  20. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following are excerpts from J. I. Packer’s article in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (2nd Edition) on Orthodoxy :

    I think, therefore, that the historical use of the term and its modern day usage line up very well with my original definition. Is official Catholic doctrine orthodox? Not by Packer’s definition. (Of course, he should have referenced his article here before he signed ECT. :eek: )

    Andy
     

Share This Page

Loading...