What would you have done in 1957?

Plain Old Bill wrote,

There are many millions of Pentecostal Christians who are fundamentalists to the core and they are very much aware that their brothers in sisters in Christ in the Charismatic Movement who are fundamentalists are indeed fundamentalists. That is not to say that everyone in the Charismatic Movement is a fundamentalist, many of them are moderates and some of them are liberals, but those who are fundamentalists do not cease to be fundamentalists just because they are part of the Charismatic Movement.

 

I am not saying Pentecostals are not fundamentalist.Some are as you said and some are'nt.
When I speak of Charismatics I think in terms of Bennie Hinn,Kenneth Copeland,Hagin,Creflo Dollar,that is the group I am referring to.The we are little christs,name it and claim it variety.There is only one Christ and to claim otherwise is heretical.

 

Copeland and Hagin are Word-of-Faith preachers who are a subset of the Pentecostal movement which many within the Pentecostal movement dissociate themselves from and label as heretical. Hinn also has Word-of-Faith influences but has been trying to dissociate from the movement as well. Never heard of Creflo Dollar but a quick Google seems to suggest he is also Word of Faith.

Most references to the Charismatic movement refer to the influence of the pentecostal movement on more traditional denominations (ie Baptist, Methodist, Mennonite, Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, etc).

Wikipedia - Charismatic movement

 

Then you understand what I mean about there being a defference between charismatics(WoF) and Pentecostals.

 

Plain Old Bill wrote,

I have been spit upon, **inappropriate suggestion removed**, strangled, and shot at—therefore, your comments did not hurt my feelings. Thank you for sharing with me how you really feel. Some people appreciate the stand that I take for the truth and the manner in which I take the stand, and others do not.



[ October 22, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

John of Japan wrote,

I have swallowed nothing. You have no idea who I am, where I got my education, the extent of my education, or anything else about me because I do not share those things on this message board. I do know, however, what is and what is not generally considered to be Christian fundamentalist theology and I know that Christian fundamentalism and the Charismatic movement are not mutually exclusive. And I know this for an absolute fact. Plain Old Bill may think that I am excessively brash and arrogant, and you may think even worse of me, but I do know for an absolute fact that Christian fundamentalism and the Charismatic movement are not mutually exclusive. I also know for an absolute fact that the evangelist of whom I wrote in my earlier post preached Christian fundamentalist theology.

 

Have you read Fosdick’s book, The Man From Nazareth, or have you limited your reading of Fosdick to hate literature written by arrogant, pretentious bigots who take pleasure in tearing down men of God? Fosdick was more liberal in his theolgy than I am, but does that make him any less a man of God? I don’t believe it does.

With whom was God more pleased, Harry Emerson Fosdick or John R. Rice? I don’t know the answer to that question—and neither do you!

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

John of Japan wrote,

Billy Graham's position is a reflection of his character.

Billy Graham has accomplished two very important things that no other evangelist in the history of the world has accomplished:

1. The bringing together of Christians from all over the world and from very many Christian denominations and view points for the purpose of proclaiming the Gospel to the world in a very effective manner.

2. The performance of his duties as an evangelist in such an upright and Godly manner that he has earned the admiration and respect of the heads of state and the heads of churches around the world.

This is not emotionalism—these are incontrovertible facts of history.

As you may have noticed, I do not have a great deal of respect for individuals who represent themselves as being Christians and yet maliciously attack men of God whose theological perspective is different than theirs. Many times on this message board I have defended the Roman Catholic Church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Charismatic Christians, Pentecostal Christians, and other Christians who have been the victims of bigotry and willful ignorance on the part of those who choose to malign them.

You have posted no information at all that even remotely suggests that Billy Graham acted inappropriately in his relationship with liberal Christians. Indeed, you have launched your argument on the premise that liberal Christians are lesser Christians than fundamentalist Christians, but you have posted no data whatsoever to establish that liberal Christians are lesser Christians than fundamentalist Christians.

Personally, I am a conservative evangelical with some leanings toward a moderate point of view. Most of my Christian colleagues are liberal—not ultraliberal, but liberal in their theology. Nonetheless, they are true and genuine men of God who love God and the Bible and who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible and sharing their knowledge of the Bible with others. My particular specialty is New Testament exegesis, and the vast majority of the men and women working in this field today hold very strongly to at least some liberal points of view, but they do not hold to those liberal points of view because they love God any less than anyone else or because they have any less respect for the Bible than anyone else, but because the data, as they understand it, points very strongly to conclusions that today are labeled by many evangelicals as being liberal.

In my early days when I was serving as the senior pastor an interdenominational, inner-city church, I learned the importance of treating other people with respect. Indeed, I learned that when I treated the most base and calloused of criminals with respect, they not only respected me—they listened to me and they believed the Gospel that I shared with them. When evangelical Christians malign their brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to liberal views, their very attitude has the affect of causing their liberal brothers and sisters to associate conservative views with Satan rather than God. Billy Graham had a host of reasons for aligning himself as he did with liberal pastors and churches, and we could discuss these reasons in great detail, but as long as a man is looking for faults in Billy Graham’s ministry rather than seeking to honestly understand it, he will never understand it—and debating with such a person is futile.

 

There is a difference between Charismatics and Pentecostals. But you have placed WoF under the wrong group. WoF are a subset of Pentecostals and not Charismatics.

This article Wikipedia - Word of Faith suggested WoF is a subset of both Pentecostals and Charismatics. Either way, using WoF preachers to characterize either group is misleading.

 

CraigByTheSea wrote

Could you cite places and dates where this occured? Craig, if you think about the largest-attended sporting events that are held in the world, none attract a crowd of 500,000. Not the Super Bowl, not the Indianapolis 500, not the Daytona 500, I could go on. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a place where 500,000 people would fit. I have a quite better than average knowledge of the history of fundamentalism and I'm really curious as to where and when this happened and who the evangelist was.

 

I will go with your definition as I am certain that not all charismatics are WoF.However not all charismatics are pentecostal some are baptist,catholic,methodist,luthren,and some"Bible churches".This I know for a fact from personal friends in each group.
By the way nobody I know is attacking Billy Graham.I personally admire him and what he has done.The question being asked is what you would have done in 1957 when Dr. Graham decided to work with people who were not a part of the fundamental movement(in the classical R.A. Torrey sense).That is all.Nobody is calling him a bad man or unchristian.Nobody is questioning his devotion or love of God.Nobody is accusing him of being apostate or heretical.They are simply asking if you could or would be willing to work with some of the groups that Dr. Graham has chosen to work with.Some here would take away the choice of free association and critisize you for not holding thier view.I can disagree with someone without critisizing them or bregrudging thier work.I can disagree with someones theology and still fellowship with them as long as they are right on the fundamentals.But I can also choose not to work with them for whatever reasons I may have.If somebody chooses to get upset with me over that it is thier problem not mine.I can and do pray for people I disagree with on certain theological subjects but I pray for them because I know the sincerity of thier heart and they are close enough not to be heretical.I would'nt go to thier church and sit under thier preaching and teaching.I would'nt work with them on a crusade.But I would love them in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior and I would pray for them.

 

I agree. I stated this in my original post down this hi-jack.

 

I agree. I haven't seen anyone attack BG in this thread. I've seen it in many other threads on BB before but not this one .... yet.

 

When we label ourselves we must remember that everybody to the left of us will think we are conservative,fundamental,or part of the relgious right,everybody to the right of us will think we are conservative,modernist,or some flavor of liberal.Most people do not agree with our perception of ourselves.

 

Sooooo

Who is the fundamentalist that preached to more people than Billy Graham?

 

Whew! This kitchen is too hot for me.

I'm outa here!

HankD

 

Please don't confuse the use of religious language with true Christianity. Many liberals use Christian jargon, and can even write some devotional books that read OK, as Fosdick did. However, when you dig into what these people believed about Jesus, then you have to conclude that they compromise the essentials of the faith. Many religious people will use the same words, but pour different meanings into the language. So you can't always depend on what they mean based on a few quotes about Jesus.

Someone mentioned Nicea......anyone that denies the concepts that were spelled out at Nicea and Chalcedon has a false view of Jesus. Those teachings are essential.

 

That is what I plan to do, dig into what these people believed and see if what fundamentalists claim about them is true.

Based on my research so far, I think the hockey score would be something like Liberals leading over Fundamentalists 3-1. I'll look into the books mentioned by John of Japan when I get a chance. If anyone has full quotes (not sound bites taken out of context) of any of these folks we are discussing, I would really appreciate it.