Fundamentalisms & Scholarship?

Rhett, perhaps before you say "or 'only' fundamentalists seminaries that is a real academic institution," you ought to check the two following sites and reconsider your statement in light of these: http://www.dbts.edu/ and http://www.bbc.edu/seminary/.

I would interested to hear your reconsidered opinion.

 

Pinch me I think I'm in love. This guy gets it.:thumbs:

 

I've been following Dr. Bauder's articles as well. I agree with him. Fundamentalism needs scholars. Actually, it needs more scholars as it already has some.

Fundamentalism tends to be a "let's get it done" movement and that applies to all the different strains of fundamentalism, and believe me, there are several different strains.

In the last 25-30 years, fundamentalism has seen the rise of seminaries within their ranks, and some excellent seminaries. However, they need to heed Bauder's advice and increase the "life of the mind" within their ranks.

Search out all of Bauder's articles posted on Sharper Iron. He's been writing weekly on that sight for about 3-4 years and he will definitely make you think.

 

Fundamentalist scholars need to write serious theology and doctrinal books. They need to get together and put out a couple of really good commentaries.:thumbs:

 

There are many fundamentalist who have written good books and commentaries. Probably the best NT fundamentalist scholar that I know of is Thomas Schreiner. He teaches at Southern Seminary and has written a great commentary on Romans and a great book on Pauline theology. You should check him out.

 

Both Douglas Moo and DA Carson are good. BTW, Carson is in a league of his own. Scholar par excellence.

 

I think the debate hinges on the definition of "Fundamentalism."

In a classical sense, authors like Schreiner and Carson would be fundamentalists, but I wouldn't consider them Fundamentalists. I think conservative evangelical is a better way of describing them.

 

You're correct. I don't think they're Fundamentalists that sense either.

 

I'd be very surprised if either Moo or Carson considered themselves fundamentalists even in the classical sense.

I would urge all not to generalize about Fundamentalism. As I've said several times on the BB, Fundamentalism, even the IFB movement, is quite diverse. Us "old line" Fundamentalists have always respected sholarship.

In particular the Northern brand of Fundamentalists have had a scholarly bent, and that is the line of Dr. Bauder and CBTS (which dates to 1901, by the way), as well as Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, where my son is working on his M. Div.

Again, there were many noted scholars among the original Fundamentalists of the 1920s-1930s. Just check out some of the names of contributers to "The Fundamentals": Canon Dyson Hague, James Orr, B. B. Warfield, Sir Robert Anderson, etc. Other Fundamentalist scholars of the early days include O. T. Allis, J. G. Machen, etc.

Having said all of that, Dr. Bauder is right. Fundamentalists need more scholars. In particular, as Rhet aptly stated, "I think that the 'Fundamentalist's Movement' actually needs many many scholars to carry on the tradition and to tell the younger generation 'what's what!'"

 

To answer this we have to go back to the "great divide" that occured between Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism beginning in 1957 (Billy Graham's New York Crusade). Things continued to sort themselves out for quite awhile after that, maybe ten years. From that time there was little contact between most Fundamentalists and the rest of evangelicalism. The wounds were deep and painful on both sides. The primary exception was John R. Rice, who maintained his ties with SBC leaders throughout the years.

As for Bauder, I can't speak for him. However, Central has a reputation as a militant Fundamentalist school.

For my part I would include Fundamentalism as a subcategory of evangelicalism--distinguishing New Evangelicalism as a subcategory, also. I would bristle at being lumped with New Evangelicals.

Linking back to the OP and scholarship, few realize that Dallas had a strong Fundamentalist bent well into the '60's, though I wouldn't consider them Fundamentalist now. Robert Lightner, asst. prof of sys. theo., wrote the best Fundamentalist examination out there of New Evangelical theology in 1965, entitled New-Evangelicalism.

 

Personally, I would distinguish the groups.

 

Schreiner is at Southern, a fundamentalist seminary and he whole-heartedly embraces it all. Schreiner says that you have to believe in penal substitution or you aren't an evangelical. There may be more crazy fundamentalists, but Schreiner is definitely a fundamentalist.

 

He absolutely would not consider them to be fundamentalists and they would not consider themselves to be fundamentalists.

 

Schreiner does not embrace "it all" when it comes to the fundamentalist movement that considers ecclesiastical separation to be the "sine qua non" of fundamentalism. Neither he, nor Southern seminary, nor Al Mohler, nor anyone in the SBC is a part of that fundamentalist movement.

 

Well said.

 

Religious labels are relative. From my perspective Southern and Schreiner are fundamentalist; but that's just because I am a conservative leaning moderate.