1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Roots of Fundamentalism

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not trying to be cocky here, but in light of what you just said, what do you see then as the difference then between a pastor avoiding, say, John Piper, because he is trying to be wise and discerning (Piper's post-trib position or Calvinistic views, for example), and someone applying separation to him (say, beasue of his failure to formally separate from Greg Boyd and the Baptist General Conference)?

    Case in point: do you see this article by Dr. George Houghton at Faith Baptist Theological Seminary- "Are Conservative Southern Baptists Fundamentalists?" as being consistent with the spirit of Historic Fundamentalism, or do you see it as being unnecessarily schismatic and divisive?

    (for the record: I see it as being "wise and discerning," as he complements the conservative movement in the SBC and points out their strentghs, even as he brings into focus the lines of historical and contemporary context that distinguish their movement from the "historic fundamentalists" such as the GARBC.)
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Believe Houghton (I knew both twins at Central and at Denver) is dead wrong in his conclusion. He is making "separation from doctrinal diversity" a 6th Fundamental that has NEVER been a hallmark of historic fundamentalism.

    Historic Fundamentalists WERE separated - but from modernism/liberalism (denying inspiration, virgin birth etc, the fundamentalis of the faith). The separation Houghton speaks of is a far different animal.

    One other point: MANY do not like to be called "fundamentalist" and eschew the label. Probably because so many looney-tunes claim to be "fundamentalist" (adding KJVonly, no slacks on women, etc). That does NOT make them "less" fundamental. In many ways, I don't blame them.
     
  3. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not meant to be a criticism but an observation -- it appears to me you do separate from some who both believe the fundamentals and are separated from modernism/liberalism. And I would argue, therefore, that you practice the same type of separation that you argue against in some of your other posts. The difference, though, is that you separate over different issues.

    Andy
     
  4. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with your caution here. Even as a BJ grad who supports the school, I would hesitate to bring in BJIII in some situations. (Of course, as a layman I don’t get to bring anyone in – I’m just supposing.) But what if one of them asked you to speak at their church or conference or whatever? That would free you from some of your concerns, although perhaps add others. I mainly picked well-known people with “baggage” of some sort. I probably should have picked a fundamental Presbyterian with less baggage, though.


    I would drive three more hours. The good news for you is that the Wilds is building a camp in New England.

    I have strong opinions as to what is right in the Calvinistic/Arminian debate, but I would not necessarily let that hinder me from supporting a fundamentalist speaker who takes a different view. I don’t agree with either Wesley or Whitefield totally, but would promote either, if I had had the chance, along with appropriate cautions.

    I think it depends on the purpose. I would not attend an SBC pastor’s fellowship but I would have no problem having lunch an SBC pastor. I might go to a BBF fellowship even though I don’t agree with their ministry philosophy. Time is a luxury and you need to use it wisely.

    These questions are getting more difficult. You will need special wisdom in some circumstances to know what is right.

    In this case, I would say pretty close but I would not let certain polity issues prevent me from supporting a ministry. For example, we have supported church planters who have elders (rather than deacons only like our church) and who don’t use Baptist in their church name. Some of these things we make too big of a deal over; some things are non-negotiable. To me the non-negotiables include, among other things, music philosophy, doctrinal soundness in the fundamentals, reasonable perspective on the version issue and separation.

    It’s certainly not wrong to bring in such people, even exclusively, but I would not avoid other fundamentalists who may have much to offer in some areas just because they differ from me on historical non-issues.

    Andy
     
  5. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    In what way is the SBC separated from the modernism/liberalism that exists at a Mercer University, for example?


    Andy
     
  6. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    But doesn't Houghton's perspective simply distinguish between the historical heritage of the two groups? It's rather like the difference between the English Pilgrims and Puritans- they had many similar views, but it was the implementation of those views that was the real distinction.

    I am also curious to see how the whole "New Evangelical" dynamic fits in, from your perspective. That has been well in place for over 50 years now- surely enough to warrant some historical perspective.
     
  7. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for responding to my questions, Andy. While I menat them as more illustrative, your answers are very helpful.

    I have tended to spend the bulk of my efforts (and I AM making some very concerted efforts) in developing fellowship with pastors and churches of like faith and practice. As you mention, there are some things that are negotiable, but your standards and mine would match up pretty well. If you ever want a place to retire to, look us up! [​IMG] They don't call us "Vacationland" for nothin' you know!
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As far as I can see the only two on my list with whom I would NOT go to their church or have them in mine (that would be "baptist" of a sort) would be Johnson and Cloud. Both SAY they believe the fundamentals, but both DENY the doctrine of inspiration by their heretical views (evidenced on videotape) on the Word of God.

    It is not personal; the folks I would not cooperate with are doctrinally problematic.
     
  9. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neither Johnson or Cloud deny the doctrine of inspiration. They have doctrinal issues to be sure but they are not modernistic or liberal. They do not deny any of the fundamentals of the faith. The same goes for Ian Paisley. He is not Baptist but his doctrinal positions would be typical of many of the early fundamentalists.

    Andy
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Historic Fundamental - Bible (original autographa) is inspired Word of God.

    Modern heresy - AV1611 English Translation of the Bible is reinspired and the only Word of God.

    This is not a minor doctrinal quirk. It is a blatant attack on the historic fundamentals and the precious doctrine of inspiration. It is akin to White, Russell, Joseph Smith and a host of other cults who claim inspiration for a man-made document.

    I cut no slack on this issue.
     
  11. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think both Cloud and Johnson would deny that they believe in the reinspiration of the Bible in 1611. But regardless, the fundamentals of the faith (that you orginally mentioned) where issued to identify those core beliefs that all true Christians affirm. To deny those beliefs would be akin to denying God and His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. Those who denied the fundamentals were theological liberals or modernists. As much as we both disagree with Cloud and Johnson, they simply do not fall into that category.

    I agree that we need to separate from these men, both for their doctrine and their practice, but I think it is a mistake to say that we are doing it for the same reasons that historic fundamentalists separated from theological liberalism.

    Andy
     
  12. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    I say we should be willing to have fellowship with anyone who would pass this test from Jesus:

    Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. [In today's parlance: He's not in our camp.] 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

    Now, there's nothing wrong with prioritizing fellowship or in being selective. Certainly we should work most closely with those with whom we are in closest theological alignment. There's a difference though between simply not associating with someone as a first-choice (assuming they're not preaching a false Gospel), and between actively trying to discredit or harm their ministry simply because "he followeth not with us" (I'm thinking of some of the "civil-war" attacks on other ministries that we've all been witnesses to over the years).

    In the verses above, John told Jesus that he and the other disciples tried to "shut-down" the other unidentified preacher. How did Jesus respond? He basically told them to leave the other minister alone, and to get on with their own business.
     
  13. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, but at some point, in regard to both doctrine and practice, a ministry's teachings or disobedience means that they are no longer following Christ. At one point in the history of evangelicalism it was enough to ask if they embrace the fundamentals of the faith -- sound doctrine. Now, however, many who are mostly sound in doctrine have embraced unbiblical practices in fellowshipping with theological liberalism and unbelief. Those people and ministries are not following Christ -- unsound in practice.

    There are great teachers and solid expositors out there in broader evangelicalism. Yet, almost to a man, they are decrying the state of their movement - just read some of the things that MacArthur, Hughes, Boice, Murray, and other have written. Unfortunately, these men have rejected the type of biblical separation that would have protected evangelicalism from digressing into its current state.

    Andy
     
  14. HappyG

    HappyG New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will rate them on a scale of -10 to 10 based on the level of excitement that I would have to have these men in my church. Anything below 0 would mean I would not invite them. Just my opinion.

    6 John Piper
    4 John MacArthur
    10 Rick Warren
    10 Bill Hybels
    7 Max Lucado
    -5 Ian Paisley
    -9 Bob Jones III
    -5 Dell Johnson
    ? Dr. John McKnight
    ? David Cloud
    -9 Bill Rice, III
    -10 Wayne VanGeldren, Jr. (have you heard the sermon on "Satan's music of light" or attended the "Holiness Conference")
    ? D. Martin-Lloyd Jones (while living)
     
  15. Bob Colgan

    Bob Colgan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the false gospel Bill Hybels promotes?
     
  16. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hardly think that "Fundamentalism" was the "faith once delivered to the saints". Huh? It was a definite movement confronting specific issues during a definite time of church history. Today, Fundmentalism is rapidly becoming dysfunctional. Modernism, its archenemy, is dead. There are other giants to slay. Why should we hold to Fundamentalism if its time is past? Fundamentalism has lost its meaning in modern context. It's too popular today. Let's start a new movement! ;)
     
  17. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why didn't you include Rbt. Schuler? He's a great entertainer too!
     
  18. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    I call it the "humanistic gospel." Starts with man and ends with man--God is just the errand boy.
     
  19. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That does sound like Bill Hybels, Paid.

    AVL1984
     
  20. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said! A lack of Biblical separation causes confusion for new believers and weaker brethren. Without Biblical knowledge and discernment, they cannot sift the wheat from the chaff. Hence, they are caught up by in unbiblical situations and practices.

    It is one thing to decry the excesses but it is a different matter to do something about them. Separation marks those contrary to Scripture and it gives a clarion call for Biblical righteousness. Biblical separation is not “elitism” but it is demarcation and eschewing of the offender that he may be ashamed and others may benefit.
     
Loading...