The Roots of Fundamentalism

Good points! However, I am concerned about where Fundamentalism is headed. IMHO, it appears that we are on the same road as Neo-evangelicalism, just forty years later (See note below). Read and compare what we are saying and doing to what the Neo-evangelicals said and did in the beginning. Harold Lindsell’s book, The Battle for the Bible, is a good place to begin. Henry, Lindsell, Ockenga, Woodbridge, et. al. were more Biblical and separated than the average modern Fundie today. The rottenness was not apparent until Daniel Fuller and his buddies (Hubbard, et. al.) came of age (BTW, this is very similar to the Toy case at SBS in the 1800’s but they dealt with the problem by separation—they booted Toy.). No, we don’t need to go back yet we don’t need to follow Neo-evangelicalism either.

So, Dr. Bob, where do you think we ought to go?


(NOTE: Christians are famous (or infamous) for following the world at a distance. In many ways, we are like the world; we are just twenty years or so behind the times. For example, the self-esteem movement is pretty much dead and buried in the secular world but it is alive and kicking in the so-called “Christian psychology.” Somehow, it seems that this ought not be.)

 

You are right and you are wrong. Yes, there was a strong element of ecumenicalism in the original Fundamentalism. And, some orthodox separatists never really joined the Fundamentalists ranks, especially the independents. Many early Fundamentalists came out of the mainline denominations—Baptists specifically from the Northern Baptists. The SBC was never part of this. Later, many SBC churches left and became independent Baptists which are the bulk of the modern Fundamentalist movement as we know it today.

You are wrong in thinking this ecumenicalism is necessarily a good thing. IMHO, this was a weakness of early Fundamentalism. It is, in part, the reason for a lack of cohesion and definition in Fundamentalism today. You can find churches of every stripe and hue claiming to be Fundamentalist.

Your thoughts?

 

Okay, Dr. Bob, let’s take a hypothetical situation. Suppose you and a Fundamentalist Pentecostal (In the South, there a few remaining today.) jointly hold a tremendously successful evangelistic campaign. How do you divide the converts? Do you, a Baptist, send some to the Pentecostal church?

Somehow, I don’t think this is the kind of unity that Scripture promotes. There is a great difference between unity and ecumenicalism. Let the Pentecostals evangelize and let the Baptists evangelize. IMHO, the reason for ecumenicalism is that the preachers just want a bigger crowd and more recognition.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Note that he did not recommend that they join up with him. Furthermore, the question here is clearly one of jealousy and envy.

 

Houghton is right on. The SBC has never been a part of historic Fundamentalism—they were separate from it. If you know the history of the SBC, it was a holdout for orthodoxy long after the other mainline denominations were shot through with liberalism and modernism. Even the modern conservative SBC is not Fundamentalist per se simply because they do not meet some of the Fundamentalist traits (e.g. separatism). On the other hand, there were orthodox men, such as Machen, who were never really in the Fundamentalist camp even though they agreed with the fundamentals. To say the SBC is NOT Fundamentalist is NOT necessarily saying they are modernist or liberal.

Those who label Dr. Houghton divisive or schismatic are either simply ignorant or dishonest. These are buzz words to sting anyone who doesn’t say what one wants him to say. Such comments are asinine.

 

Neither Dell Johnson nor David Cloud believe this. This is a strawman!

 

Dr. Bob,
My impression in reading this was that paidagogos meant your comment was a straw man specifically in reference to David Cloud and Dell Johnson.

Cloud has an interesting article that summarizes and clarifies his position as "KJV Only." While the issue should not, IMHO, define whether or not you are a fundamentalist, I do not believe that Cloud's position excludes him from it, either.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kjvonly.htm

 

But your remark,

was made in reference to this statement:

I have read Cloud and seen the videos, too. IMHO, they do not deny the historic doctrine of inspiration. They do promote an extra-biblical view of perservation, however. Concerning the fundamentals of the faith, however, they are sound -- as far as I know. Cloud has lots of stuff online. Perhaps you could point us to a statement were he denies the historic definition of inspiration. It wouldn't necessarily surprise me.

Andy

 

Both Cloud and Johnson specifically disavow Ruckman. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant when discussing Cloud and Johnson. We cannot hold them to Ruckman’s heresy simply because they concur in preferring the KJV. To do so is rather like associating you with Ruckman because the both of you believe in the virgin birth. Ruckman is the extreme, although the most vocal, of the KJV position. The majority KJVO’s would repudiate him.

 

No, the bulk even today of IFB comes from the heritage of the Northern Baptists. The SBC defectors (like the BBF) are not - thank God - the majority!

It is NOT my thinking it is a "good" thing. I was giving history lessons of what historic fundamentalism (that everyone CLAIMS) was all about. But interdenominationalism is not an evil thing. I actually have found MANY groups that "claim" to be fundamental, and FEW groups that "are" fundamental.

Groups like the Assemblies and Pentecostal who add to the Word of God with new revelation, etc, are NOT fundamental. So cooperating with them on an inter-church level is impossible.

Berean, Bible, IFCA, most E-Free, CMA, a few Covenant and most Baptists would fit the true "fundamentalist" definition. Most others would be more loosely evangelical.

I still preach at and have fellowship with all of the fundamental churches within the above group. </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bob, I was just taking what you had previously posted at face value.

Dr. Bob said:
“If a person believed the "fundamentals of the faith" (1895) and separated from modernism/liberablism, they were a "fundmentalist".

I am. But will I cooperate and have fellowship with ANYONE who likewise is a "fundamentalist"?”

I understand this to mean that traditional Pentecostals who believed the “fundamentals of the faith” were included in this definition. Historically, they were since Dr. Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, et. al. included them in their fellowship and association. Earl Paulk, Sr. (Pastor of Tremont Avenue Church of God in Greenville, SC) served on the BJU Board and WMUU carried his radio program presumably until his death. There was a very friendly, cooperative relationship and fellowship between BJU and the Church of God, Cleveland, TN. Other associations included O. Talmadge Spence (Pentecostal Holiness) who was very close to Dr. Bob, Jr. Roosevelt Miller and many other Pentecostals were BJU alumni. Doug Oldham was a member of the Church of God, Anderson, IN when he was singing for Jerry Falwell and Jerry was still considered in the Fundamentalist camp. They even had a Church of God Sunday School class at BJU. Pentecostals did cooperate in the “trans-denominational” and “inter-denominational” Fundamentalist evangelistic campaigns. There are too many examples to enumerate here.

So, we’re back to the original question. Where do you send the converts from a Fundamentalist cooperative evangelistic meeting that includes Pentecostals?

 

I'm missing the parallel. Could you give a few concrete examples of the "drift" of fundamentalism down the same road as new evangelicalism?

Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]Simple. It is just an attitude, an outlook, and a philosophy. The original concept of neo-evangelicalism was to soften the hardline tactics of the Fundamentalists and to be intellectual, comfortable, and respected in the present world while maintaining orthodoxy. They still held to the fundamental doctrines but they eschewed separation. Perhaps they wanted to shed the pilgrim character of Fundamentalism and separatism. They wanted to be respected and accepted by the secular world. It seems that Fundamentalism is becoming concerned about its image and acceptance by the secular world too. I know that BJU, that fighting bastion of Fundamentalism, is making definite steps to change its image. I don't have time to develop this more fully here and now. What do you think?

 

I don't think this is exactly accurate, either. While many KJVOs might claim not to follow Ruckman the man, many I have met (perhaps unwittingly) would use his arguments and reasoning. And, sadly, many would also make statements to the effect of, "well, at least he's taking a stand on the issue" rather than taking the time to see why his position is so dangerous.

Don't know about Dell Johnson, but at least David Cloud has taken the time to repudiate the likes of Ruckman, Riplinger, and Hyles.

 

I don't think this is exactly accurate, either. While many KJVOs might claim not to follow Ruckman the man, many I have met (perhaps unwittingly) would use his arguments and reasoning. And, sadly, many would also make statements to the effect of, "well, at least he's taking a stand on the issue" rather than taking the time to see why his position is so dangerous.

Don't know about Dell Johnson, but at least David Cloud has taken the time to repudiate the likes of Ruckman, Riplinger, and Hyles. </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps you move in different circles, but most KJVO's that I know vehemently repudiate Ruckman. In fact, I have met only a very few Ruckmanites although there are a few. We requested that one stop attending our church because he was devisive.

Furthermore, they deny his arguments even though some of his minor points may be shared in common. It's rather like associating Hilter's anti-semitism with people who agreed with him in building the Autobahn. Ruckman is the extreme in KJV Onlyism.

 

&gt;&gt;old historic Fundamentalist movement&gt;&gt;

That is a misnomer. To return to, or refuse to stray from, the fundamentals of the Bible, is no movement at all. All that stray are in movements. Those of us who stand firm in the wind of compromise are fundamentalists. The majority choose to stray for convenience or temporary prosperity label us as independent. Hence, Independent & Fundamental.

Fine with me! Obviously, God DOES care about how we do things. Make no mistake... Ind & Fund are all about doctrine, not preferences or grey area. The majority is ALWAYS wrong.

 

So would R.A. Torrey be considered a fundamentalist by todays standards?