On the Tombstone of Fundamentalism

Yeah, I remember when that came out and how mad some folks at Temple were at how they were classified. Didn't Dollar drop that in the 2nd edition (which I don't have)?

Well, that definition of fundamentalism is certainly a minority opinion, as I'm sure you know. What do you say about evangelicals like Francis Schaeffer who, while doctrinally conservative, reject out of hand the fundamentalist label?

 

Rice a wannabe? That's rich. Are you sure you are not letting your personal animus cloud your scholarly judgment? (You have an earned doctorate, right?)

The scholars of fundamentalism (not to mention fundamentalist scholars) are agreed in assigning to Rice a leadership role in the movement. Among others, he mentored Billy Graham in the early days, W. A. Criswell and Jerry Falwell.

There have been at least two doctoral theses by Southern Baptist historians exploring Rice's role in fundamentalism:
Moving Fundamentalism Toward the Mainstream: John R. Rice and the Reengagement of America's Religious and Political Cultures, by David Keith Bates, Jr.
The Emergence of Moderate Fundamentalism: John R. Rice and the Sword of the Lord, by Howard Edgar Moore

I get the impression that you have a negative view of soul winning that even many Calvinists disagree with, such as Spurgeon, who wrote The Soul Winner, and J. I. Packer who used the term positively in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.

But that's moot for this discussion. R. A. Torrey, one of the editors of The Fundamentals, was an evangelist and a committed soul winner. I have his book, The Wondrous Joy of Soul Winning. And as I have pointed out, there were four articles on evangelism in The Fundamentals, including one on personal evangelism by Presbyterian (and thus Calvinist) John Timothy Stone, who over and over referenced "winning men to Christ." Another of the articles was by "Evangelist L. W. Munhall." Another was by Charles Trumball, who referenced soul winning positively. The fourth was by Torrey himself, who as I have said had a very positive view of soul-winning.

So I think it is evident that the founding fathers of fundamentalism wanted soul-winning to be in an important place in their thinking. After all, there is only one article on the virgin birth of Christ, and how important is that in fundamentalism? Going by The Fundamentals, John R. Rice was right to make soul winning part of his definition of fundamentalism.

 

If we take Dr. Dollar's broader definition then do we not blur the lines between New Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, if not erase them all together?

 

I affirm that you have brazenly built a false premise with your absurd proposition.

All regenerate Evangelicals would agree with the five fundamentals -- but most would loathe being called Fundamentalists.

If you like to bandy about theological swear words at the drop of a hat -- then do it some place else. I am not neo-orthodox. Neither are other posters here who differ significantly with you on this matter.

Apply your epithets to actual Barthians -- not orthodox Christians who refuse to bow to your vaunted view of things.

 

I once posted these on the Other Christians Denom. Forum

A Catholic apologist said: We believe in these also.
The only one that you could have an argument with is "blood atonement." But with neo-orthodoxy in full swing they say that they also believe in it.
Are they also Fundamentalist?

 

Tom, the Catholic doesnt know what to believe, rather he is told what to believe by his church unless he grows a backbone & looks for truth. I dont know what Neo Orthodox do or do I care. I just sit here with a bible in my lap & I pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. My assurance is based on that objective.

 

Fundamentalism and American Culture by George M.Marsden offers this view of Fundamentalism in the 1920's.

"Fundamentalism was a loose,diverse,and changing federation of co-belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity into line with modern thought." (p.4)

"While militancy against modernism was the key distinguishing factor that drew fundamentalists together, militancy was not necessarily the central trait of fundamentalists. Missions,evangelism,prayer, personal holiness, or a variety of doctrinal concerns may often or usually have been their first interest. Yet, without militantancy, none of these important aspects of the movement set it apart as "fundamentalist." (p.261)

 

The RCC aspect of this was dealt with in a previous set of posts.

The RCC adds the Apocrypha to the Bible as the word of God.

As TC has said there is also the Magesterium of the Church which heretically (in our view) defines many/most essential biblical doctrine (Trinity excepted).

The RCC requires an ongoing system of sacraments through a sacerdotal priesthood to maintain the once-for-all finished atoning work of Christ in order to keep participants in the state of "sanctifying grace" (even at that one can never have certainty of salvation).

In addition the RCC adds Mary as co-Redemptrix with Christ, Mediatrix of all God's graces and Advocate with God to their dogma.

An one of these (IMO) disqualifies them as fundamentalists.

HankD

 

True, it was an extreme example. I only brought it up because it was brought up in another forum. But there are many other examples that hit closer to home.

The Charismatics: They also believe in the fundamentals of the faith. Would we fellowship with them? Most Baptists have in their statement of faith that they would not have anything to do with that movement. We believe that the tongues movement is in error. So how far down the doctrinal slope do you go before you say: "I will accept your fellowship."
Even the Church of Christ believes those fundamentals but requires baptism for salvation.
If you ask Bob Ryan he will say that he believes all of those doctrines, though he is SDA.

I believe the key is: what are the Baptist Distinctives? What makes us as Baptists distinct from others? For example, not only is the Bible inerrant, but it is the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Once you include the Baptist Distinctives you have narrowed the field by quite a bit.

 

Well OK then.....Reformed Baptists believe in the 5 Points of Calvinism & they consider themselves as Baptists so do you agree with that?

 

I think this is well said DHK. This, essentially, becomes my 'beef' or chagrin with Fundamentalists; that the more important, and I think, more significant, and more effective focus (that of Baptist distinctives), that I wish to share in with fundies, is obliterated by their misplaced focus on their own personal holiness/sanctimoniousness - or mine! :tongue3:

There is much good that we can go on to do together, I think, but they will not allow themselves to be soiled by the likes of me - for instance, currently an SBC'er. By the way, I used to be one ob' 'em. I have Jack Hyles signature, along with Ian Paisley, in the back of a KJV bible. I also attended BJU. What, you may ask, pulled me out of all that? I realized that I was/am a Baptist, and not a Universal churchist, and that is where my loyalties, energies, focus, etc., lie.

 

How can you have distintives when there are so many types of Baptists with different beliefs

 

OK, so do you consider a Calvinist in doctrinal error?

 

You obviously don't know Dr. Bob very well, do you??:laugh::laugh:

 

The people in the pew are sheep to be fed.

 

Not at all.