Evaluating Fundamentalist v New Evangelical

Lets see'
Josh McDowell or J.I. Packer since Josh is a
New Evangelical and I would figure his def. would read as is stated. I'll go with J.I. Packer.

Bob C

 

Catholicism is not orthodox, Dr. Bob. The problem is that you have used the wrong dictionary. A modern Websters does not come from Noah Webster. Pastor Larry gave you Noah Webster's definition, "Sound in the Christian faith, believing the genuine doctrines taught in Scripture." That does not describe Catholicism.

 

They are both neo but I'd still go with Packer. Not that McDowell is saying anything substantially different. The real question is what are the basic tennets of Christianity? And, frankly, justification by faith alone is a basic tennent. Christianity does not exist apart from that tennent. And, therefore, you cannot be orthodox and reject that tennet at the same time.

Now, Dr. Bob has come up with a six statment "creed" by which he judges orthodoxy. That creed is not sufficient. The early ecummencial creeds are not sufficient, either. Why were, as Packer says, creeds explicating this 'rule' multiplied? They were multiplied because of the new unorthodox heresies. The "fundamentals" that we hold so dear are simply another attempt to define orthodoxy.

Andy

 

swaimj,

I don't know if a transcript of Bauder's comments are available on the web or not, but they did publish the proceedings of that conference in book form.

link to the book on Amazon.com

If all of us on Baptist Board buy it, it just might make it into the top 500,000 Amazon best sellers!

 

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, maybe because I'm not that familiar with the tactics of Rice or Wyrtzen.

Andy

 

Rice and Wyrtzen continued to associate with believers and ministries which stayed, or attempted to stay nuetral on the Billy Graham method/ministry/philosophy. Bob Jones and others separated from these believers as well. This disagreement came to a head in the late sixties when Bob Jones announced that John R. Rice was no longer welcome to speak a B.J. University. This created two strains within fundamentalism. Of course, some fundamentalists tried to stay nuetral in THAT fight which created further division...etc....

 

I’m not sure how quoting from a standard theological reference book and a respected, well-known theologian amount to sucking an opinion or definition out of my thumb. But here are two more references for good measure:

If you want to say that RC teaching on the trinity or the deity of Christ is orthodox, I might be able to go along with that. If you want to talk about orthodox Catholics (i.e., Catholics consistent with the teachings of the Catholic church), I can accept that, too. I have even used the phrase “orthodox Mormonism” before. But unqualified, “orthodox” means soundness of faith. The Catholic teaching on salvation is not orthodox – it is unsound; it is not consistent with the revelation of Scripture. The test of orthodoxy does not ultimately rest on adherence to a creed, ancient or modern, but to Scripture.

Andy