The trouble with Fundamentalism is...

Here is how I feel about that:

1. I think I have a good historical perspective.
I even know some stuff about the East Syrian Church

2. I appreciate scholarship. I don't have much but I
appreciate it in other (nice) folks

3. I'm familiar with the historic confessions

4. I'm concerned with precise formation of Christian doctrine

5. I have pietistic, perfectionist tendencies

6. I make an effort to transform the culture I'm in
(But I'd rather witness to folks toward salvation)

7. I have a penchant for futuristic chiliasm (i.e. pretribulation
premillennialism)

 

A Good article to read about the failure of Fundamentalism in America is:

Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism By Phil Johnson

This by far, is the BEST article on the Moral, Ethical and Doctrinal failures of the Movement.

 

We really aren't interested in the failure of Fundamentalism
-- we are interested in the success.

To succeed we might need to figure out some of the
weakness and figure out how God can make
Evangelical Fundamentalism a Viable Force again.

 

Phil Johnson has no credibility with me due to his slander of John R. Rice when he says, "John R. Rice...insisted that he was a great scholar." John R. Rice never said any such thing. On the contrary, he considered himself first of all an evangelist, and he never referred to himself as a scholar, much less a "great scholar." I knew him intimately, grew up under his ministry, was baptized by him, heard him preach 1000's of times, read all of his books in connection with editing his book of sermon illustrations. I defy Phil Johnson or anyone else to come up with a source for a John R. Rice quote such as Johnson attributes to him.

I found Johnson's article in general to be harsh and shallow. That I could let slide, but slander--no. I find it hard to believe that this careless, slandering man is the heir apparant of John MacArthur.

P. S. I was at the Fundamentalist school Johnson disparages at the same time Johnson was, 1975-1976. I had the exact opposite impression of it from Johnson. I thought it was dynamic and exciting, and I learned so much about living for Christ and dying to self there, topics we often heard in chapel. Tennessee Temple then was led by Lee Roberson, a great and gracious man of God with a huge burden for worldwide missions. The annual TTU/Highland Park Baptist missionary conference was the best I've ever seen or heard of, and I've preached in many myself. There were literally hundreds of missionaries from all over the world and many different boards (not all Fundamental, by the way), and it was in that conference I was called to Japan in 1972. Yet what was Johnson concerned about at Temple in those days? Someone offended him with a sermon against Calvinism. Now I know where his heart was.

 

Brother Ed, I think we need revival. I think we have problems. But I think God is still using us, Praise His holy name.

I'm out of town right now and may not be able to access BB for 10 more days, but I had to check in again to briefly try to refute Johnson.

God bless.

 

Two sides of the coin

Personally, I don't think much of the article and I've read and critiqued it repeatedly. Even Johnson admits that the same charges could be laid against Evangelicalism in general and the non-Evangelicals are in an even deeper moral and spiritual morass. So, why is Phil so interested in critiquing the Fundies?

Furthermore, who determines the standards for success or failure of a movement? Failures of individuals do not necessarily signal the failure of a movement.

Arguably, the Fundamentalists were highly successful in many ways—they built schools, founded rescue missions, formed fellowships, sponsored large conferences, spread the Gospel message through modern media, established children’s homes, won thousands of souls to Christ, stemmed the tide of theological liberalism, wielded political clout, built large churches, ad infinitum. It may appear that the heyday of Fundamentalism is passed but can we fault the movement or its theology or its practices?

A lot of things have changed in America but I don’t think it’s the failure of Fundamentalism. In fact, I will argue that the problems of modern Fundamentalism is not so much its separatism, or its strictness, or its demagoguery, or its other perceived weaknesses as its incorporation and assimilation into the world and modern secular culture. Chew on this awhile and respond thoughtfully.

My problem with ex-Fundamentalists is that they are so critical of the Fundamentalists for being so critical. Their major aim in life seems to be criticizing Fundamentalism. All seem to have a streak of rancor and bitterness—perhaps this is what gave Fundamentalism its bad press. If enough of them leave the movement, perhaps Fundamentalism will be sweet, kind and gentle again. :smilewinkgrin:

 

JOJ , Phil Johnson is not the heir apparent of John MacArthur . If anyone , Rick Holland -- an Associate Pastor will get the nod . I like him .

I think Phil Johnson was answered well by his interaction with Dave Doran of Detroit Baptist Seminary . He penned an article called something like " We're [ Fundamentalism ] Not Dead Yet . "

I praise the Lord for Fundamentalists like Dave Doran and Mark Minnick of Mount Calvary Baptist in Greenville . These and other godly men are biblically sound -- may their tribe increase !

The message that Phil Johnson was not just against Calvinism -- it trashed it with lies and ad homs galore . Wouldn't you be offended if someone did the same with respect to Fundamentalism ? I don't see that you can know where P.J.'s heart was because he was repulsed by an anti-Calvinistic tirade .

 

Agreement with John

I agree with John. Although he was much closer to the aforementioned situation, I do know enough to support his information and conclusion. John is right but Phil is careless, inaccurate and off-base. I will hold my tongue from saying more because it would be disparaging to Phil Johnson. Nuff said.

 

Back up

Rippon, you're pretty strong in your rhetoric too. Can you back up your charges with specific examples?

 

Hi, Rippon. I'm with my son in the library at his seminary in Lansdale, PA, and have a few minutes. We just looked at their fabulous rare book collection. You would have drooled on the books and been asked to leave! :laugh:

Glad to hear this. I got the wrong impression, I guess.

Well said.

Hey, I didn't know we were fellow TTU alumni! Or are we? So you heard the message? Or....?? If your information is second hand, then as Paid said you are using some very strong language.

I have know Dr. Bob Sumner since I was a boy, and he is a man of integrity, even if he is an opponent of Calvinism and thus on your blacklist. :smilewinkgrin: He does have a very ascerbic approach sometimes that can offend, but he is certainly not a liar or dishonest.

My comment about Phil, "Now I know where his heart is," was based on the fact that he viewed his entire Tennessee Temple experience as negative, regardless of the tremendous missions emphasis there. Being a missionary and placing the Great Commission on a very high level in the Christian life, Johnson's comments showed me that his heart, at least while he was there, was not open to world missions.

Gotta go.

 

Amen! Well said.

 

That is one of the most reasonable posts I have ever read on BB!

 

Yup - that about says it all :thumbs:

 

1. It is chalk full of man centered doctrines.
2. it is a haven for sexual deviants. (i ought to know, someone tried to molest me at age 9.)

3. IFB's put more emphasis on the external, than the internal (one's heart)

4. it spawned one of the most cultish movements ever, the KJVO movement...

5. They have an unrealistic view on personal holiness.


and the biggest problem with fundamentalism is....

IT EXISTS!

Thank you, thank you very much, I'm here all week, tell your freinds... :tonofbricks:

 

Full of spite and venom the babbling of an embittered soul

At the risk of sounding sharp, your tone and attitude is reminiscent of the worst spirits and attitudes found in Fundamentalism. Although you may have publicly repudiated the movement, you have retained the language and spirit of the very thing that you decry. You are blinded by your own bitterness and malice. One cannot judge a whole movement by its deviants as you have done. Remember that one of the twelve was a thief and traitor.

Let judgment begin at home before judging others of whom you cannot know their hearts and minds. Enough sin to be purged lies in our own hearts and lives before we begin castigating a whole group full of good, godly people who love God, do good and live righteously. Recant and repent. :tear:

 

This thread reminds me of something I heard many years ago and did not understand until several years later. "You can be a fundamentalist but you don't have to act like one."


What I realized was that I was around fundamentalists who really cared and loved people in tangible ways. Later I saw some who believed the same things I did but added to scripture, were arrogant, and were fruitless in reaching people. I also saw people good at exaggeration. I believe that is the primary difference. So often what is termed as a fundamentalist today is someone who says what they believe and it often sounds like it lines up with scripture but they demonstrate what they really believe and it is not what the Bible teaches. They are too often like the people in James who are creedal people and not living out genuine Christianity.

I am sure every Bible believing church has true believers and fakes.

 

Well said.

When a runner runs a race he keeps focused on the prize and what it takes to win, not the crowd along the track.

 

I got one thing to say to you there buddy.

Go Jump in the lake!