Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by SaggyWoman, Jan 11, 2009.
Did Jerry Falwell stray from his Fundamental roots?
Now that he is in heaven I am sure he is a true fundamentalist
But his dispensationalism has been corrected..........:saint:
He was saved under the ministry of the Old Time radio program of Charles E. Fuller. Could he have been anything other than a fundamentalist?
Tell me how he specifically defined a "Fundamentalist," and I'll tell you if I believe he strayed away from those roots.
Well, I don't know about the "fundamentalist" part (or dispensationalist part), necessarily today for Jerry Falwell, although I are both the above.
But I'm pretty sure now that everything Jerry Falwell currently holds to is 100% accurate. :thumbs:
My former Pastor Chappell said he was a longtime friend of Falwell's and that Falwell had gone liberal in the past few years...
But I don't think that matters at all now. He is in Heaven, and the differences on earth aren't there.
Better not let it out that you believe that there are liberal people in heaven!!! :BangHead:
That wouldn't set too well with some of our BB friends, now would it?? :smilewinkgrin:
I think there are people who haven't a clue what liberal is, especially if they want to label Jerry Falwell liberal.
Well, Brother Jim, Proverbs 11:25 does say something about the liberal soul being made fat, so maybe..............Nah!
I really don't know anything at all about Jerry Falwell, but every time I hear his name mentioned I think of Mark Lowery.
Amen Jim, Amen.
Liberal as in social gospel?
Falwell long ago stopped being a fundamentalist in the historic sense of the word. He was a fundamentalist only in terms of modern redefinition. But at the same time he wasn't a liberal. Anyone who says he was a liberal, as was pointed out, doesn't know what a liberal is, or at least doesn't know what Falwell was.
As for Fuller, Fuller Seminary was where New Evangelicalism started. It was the seedbed of the widespread turn from fundamentalism, in major part, because of a rejection of separatism.
So what are you saying he was? New Evangelical? If so- I would respectfully disagree.
Larry, JMHO, but I would say your comment is backwards. I think Falwell was a fundamentalist by the historic definition all the days of his life. I would admit that by the modern definition he may have strayed from the fundamentalist camp in later years but as far as maintaining the fundamentals of the faith I would say he was on solid ground. It is the modern definition of fundamentalist that adds things like secondary separation and KVO doctrines. Historic fundamentalism is simply adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and being willing to stand and fight for them.
I followed Jerry Falwell for years and have great respect for the legacy he has left behind. I believe that at the hight of his fame he took his eyes off the kingdom of God and began to care to much about this present world. I believe he strayed from the calling of God to preach the gospel and lead the lost to Christ and instead concerned himself too much with trying to preach morals and win political elections. But I made the same mistake was right there behind him at the same time.
I also believe that he recognized that and moved in his later years to build God's kingdom instead of this one. Time will tell us if the legacy of his church and school will maintain their standards or not.
I think Falwell stopped referring to himself as a fundamentalist about the time he stopped publishing his magazine, Fundamentalist Journal. I think that was in '88 or '89. I suspect he continued to consider himself a fundamentalist but he had little working relationship with anyone else who would identify themself as a fundamentalist.
AGain, speaking merely historically, Falwell's repudiation of separation is one of the key features of the New Evangelicalism.
Many people don't know, or have forgotten, but "New Evangelicalism" was the termed coined by those who desired to separate from the "old evangelicalism" or fundamentalism. They thought fundamentalists were too academically unrespected, too separatist, among other things. In some respects, Falwell certainly fit that description. He repudiated much of separatism as a guiding principle.
Herein lies the issue. Fundamentalism is not about merely "maintaining the fundamentals of the faith." Again, historically speaking, the self-coined "new Evangelicals" held to the fundamentals of the faith, but they did not like hte way that fundamentalists interacted with culture and they did not like their separatism.
KJVO is heresy and no fundamentalist believes it. The very belief in KJVO removes one from the camp of fundamentalism. So called "secondary separation" is really a misnomer. Separation has always been about obedience or disobedience.
Yes, and separation was a part of that fight. Falwell abandoned that to some degree.
This in fact was part and parcel of the new evangelicalism. Fundamentalists were not concerned enough about culture. They were too withdrawn, they were not speaking to the great moral issues of our time, and were only concerned about a personal gospel to save people from hell.
So again, much of the confusion about fundamentalism comes from not understanding history. Historically speaking, fundamentalists did not simply believe the fundamentals. They fought for them and believed ecclesiastical separation was a part of that fight, when necessary.
There is little connection between what Fuller College became and what Charles E. Fuller was. He was one of the foremost preachers of the gospel and fundamentals of the faith over radio. Fuller College did wander off the path theologically and as I understand it they did recover somewhat.
Mr. Falwell, whilst getting involved in other things, perhaps too much so, he remained true to the faith once delivered. He did not become a neo-evangelical. I think maybe his connection with the religious right of politics may have tripped him up a little, but I never heard him NOT preach the gospel and stand up for the essential truth of God's word.