Fighting Fundamentalism

[John of Japan]

No, he was serious.

Then he's in serious trouble with God. I'll pray for him.

 

[John of Japan]

There are some very good studies on "neo-evangelicalism" on line. I was looking for the last one I read to cite it, since it was well written but I could not find it.

Interesting. I'll have to check it out. I didn't think anyone used the neo-evangelical term anymore.

 

[Eric B]

The separatists do. "Neo-" and "new-" are used interchangeably.

yep. they just come up with their own way of spreading the Gospel instead of just doing it God's way. obedience IS what defines a Christian. when a Christian wants to do it their way... it just shows their rebellion.

its a shame that a Christian wants to 'fight' another group of Christians who may believe that the KJ is the Word of God and not the NIV, or choose not to lie to their kids about santa claus, or they choose to separate from error instead of joining error...

he doesn't know how right he was before when he said, 'fighting fundamentalism is satanic'...

The problem is often both the way they go about demouncing the so-called "new/neo" evanglicals, and the fact that not all of their issues of "separation" are biblical or "God's way".

Like the KJV issue. And then, there's music. In many cases, the more modern Christians have gone overboard with the new translation of the day, or the new "hard" music style or new worship style or entertaining technique of the day, or associating with some who they shouldn't, or watering down, etc. But the "old-liners" seem to think all of their ways were Biblical, and many of them weren't.
It's like the same thing I'm pointing out in the political debates, people fail to see their own tendency to sinfulness, and then turn up the volume of pointing out the other side's error, and then the other side reacts, and maintains their stance.

 

[John of Japan]

The separatists do. "Neo-" and "new-" are used interchangeably.

The separatists I'm associated with don't normally use the "neo-" term anymore. I don't remember hearing it or reading it for many years.

The problem is often both the way they go about demouncing the so-called "new/neo" evanglicals, and the fact that not all of their issues of "separation" are biblical or "God's way".

Like the KJV issue. And then, there's music. In many cases, the more modern Christians have gone overboard with the new translation of the day, or the new "hard" music style or new worship style or entertaining technique of the day, or associating with some who they shouldn't, or watering down, etc. But the "old-liners" seem to think all of their ways were Biblical, and many of them weren't.
It's like the same thing I'm pointing out in the political debates, people fail to see their own tendency to sinfulness, and then turn up the volume of pointing out the other side's error, and then the other side reacts, and maintains their stance.

I don't think such blanket condemnations of separatists are useful. There are many different fundamentalist groups with different emphases, different attitudes and different definitions of spirituality. Lumping them all together as you have done here is not accurate historically or in reference to present reality.

 

[John of Japan]

he doesn't know how right he was before when he said, 'fighting fundamentalism is satanic'...

How strange that in opposing fundamentalism as being "unloving," people like you and adisciplinedlearner use such vicious language about fellow believers.

Fortunately for evangelicalism, noted evangelical leaders believe that fundamentalism is a necessary part of the larger picture.

Here is where John Piper gives "20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists"-- http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1251_20_reasons_i_dont_take_potshots_at_fundamentalists/

Again, here are some quotes from Francis Schaeffer, who specifically rejected fundamentalism and went with the New Evangelicals. He wrote in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster:

"Since liberalism did not believe in the fact that Christ died in history to atone for the sins of men and women, and that this was the only basis for salvation, liberalism was really religious faith in man dressed up in Christian language and symbols. Thus, Machen explained, the only honest thing for the liberal to do would be to leave the churches which were founded on biblical truth" (p. 73).

"When a denomination comes to a place where such discipline cannot operate (He means denominational discipline for false doctrine--JRH), then before the Lord her members must consider a second step: that step, with regard to the practice of the principle of the purity of the visible church, is with tears to step out" (p. 87).

“I used to shift away uncomfortably when I was called a ‘fundamentalist,’ because of the negative connotation which had become attached to it. But now it seems that as soon as one stands in confrontation against that which is un-biblical (instead of accommodation), as soon as one takes such a stand, one is automatically labeled ‘fundamentalist.’ That is the way Kenneth Woodward used it in Newsweek—as a put-down. And when Bible-believing Christians who are brothers and sisters in Christ get taken in this way by the connotation of words, it is much sadder” (p. 143-144).

 

[Eric B]

I don't think such blanket condemnations of separatists are useful. There are many different fundamentalist groups with different emphases, different attitudes and different definitions of spirituality. Lumping them all together as you have done here is not accurate historically or in reference to present reality.

OK, that may be true, and sorry about that. It's just that those I have seen, and who most loudly claim to be "separatists" hold on to those views I mentioned, and even claim they are in fact the "dividing line" between themselves and "new-evangelicals".

BTW, my old pastor, actually RevKev, who most likely doesn't post here anymore, used to refer to KJVO's as "New-fundies". He was an example of someone who seemed to fit into the "separatist" camp, but was more level headed, not KJVO, traditional in music, but didn't seem to badger others over it.
He had claimed that KJVO'ism was a relatively newer development in fundamentalism, which I found ironic. (But then, they did not have so many new translations a long time ago, so there would not be as much for them to react to, and the ASV and RSV were not as different from the KJV as all the newer ones).
But many separatists today have taken the KJVO position. I know the BJU/Tenessee Temple circle doesn't; the last I heard. Sword of the Lord (John R. Rice followers) used to not be KJVO, but gradually began adopting it when I was receiving the magazine in the late '90's.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is a certain tension when dealing with advocates of liberalism or heretics that is not present so much when dealing with those who have been honestly led into these errors by its defenders. I really believe there is a much stronger demonic presence (1 Tim. 4:1). It is a difference between dealing with the hardened deceivers versus the deceived. The former calls for a much tougher love that is many times interpreted as "unloving." It is the difference that many times calls for "rebuking sharply" versus mildly rebuking by presenting questions and problems before the deceived in order to lead them out that deception.

Some circumstances we can walk away from when it comes to an impass between the false teacher and ourselves. However, when the minds and hearts of other sheep are involved or those of our own flock it calls for more severity in the fight for the faith. I am not saying it is ever right to act wrong but I am saying that the intensity may be interpreted as unloving when in fact it is that "sharp" rebuke of tough love. What do you think?

How strange that in opposing fundamentalism as being "unloving," people like you and adisciplinedlearner use such vicious language about fellow believers.

Fortunately for evangelicalism, noted evangelical leaders believe that fundamentalism is a necessary part of the larger picture.

Here is where John Piper gives "20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists"-- http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1251_20_reasons_i_dont_take_potshots_at_fundamentalists/

Again, here are some quotes from Francis Schaeffer, who specifically rejected fundamentalism and went with the New Evangelicals. He wrote in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster:

"Since liberalism did not believe in the fact that Christ died in history to atone for the sins of men and women, and that this was the only basis for salvation, liberalism was really religious faith in man dressed up in Christian language and symbols. Thus, Machen explained, the only honest thing for the liberal to do would be to leave the churches which were founded on biblical truth" (p. 73).

"When a denomination comes to a place where such discipline cannot operate (He means denominational discipline for false doctrine--JRH), then before the Lord her members must consider a second step: that step, with regard to the practice of the principle of the purity of the visible church, is with tears to step out" (p. 87).

“I used to shift away uncomfortably when I was called a ‘fundamentalist,’ because of the negative connotation which had become attached to it. But now it seems that as soon as one stands in confrontation against that which is un-biblical (instead of accommodation), as soon as one takes such a stand, one is automatically labeled ‘fundamentalist.’ That is the way Kenneth Woodward used it in Newsweek—as a put-down. And when Bible-believing Christians who are brothers and sisters in Christ get taken in this way by the connotation of words, it is much sadder” (p. 143-144).

 

[John of Japan]

OK, that may be true, and sorry about that. It's just that those I have seen, and who most loudly claim to be "separatists" hold on to those views I mentioned, and even claim they are in fact the "dividing line" between themselves and "new-evangelicals".

I have no idea how wide your face is in fundamentalism (a Japanese idiom meaning someone who knows many people). In my experience (supported by 48 churches, preaching in many more on furlough), the loud mouths in fundamentalism are a small minority. I know many gracious and gentle fundamentalist pastors and others who, nevertheless, oppose compromise with liberalism, the wrong kind of music and the rest.

BTW, my old pastor, actually RevKev, who most likely doesn't post here anymore, used to refer to KJVO's as "New-fundies". He was an example of someone who seemed to fit into the "separatist" camp, but was more level headed, not KJVO, traditional in music, but didn't seem to badger others over it.

Like I just said.... :thumbs:

He had claimed that KJVO'ism was a relatively newer development in fundamentalism, which I found ironic. (But then, they did not have so many new translations a long time ago, so there would not be as much for them to react to, and the ASV and RSV were not as different from the KJV as all the newer ones).

Your old pastor is right. KJVO is a relatively new development. Ruckman didn't write his first book on the subject until 1970 as I recall, the same year Fuller came out with his landmark Which Bible? At that time fundamentalism was already 50 years or more old (depending on which theory you follow about the beginning of the movement).

Edited in: fundamentalists of the day, including John R. Rice and others, strongly stood against the RSV, which was translated by liberals and had liberal readings like "young woman" instead of "virgin." However, they did not fight the ASV, and even used it on occasion. Men who later turned KJVO like Jack Hyles taught that the original Greek and Hebrew were inspired, not the translation. Hyles "corrected the KJV" his 1967 commentary on Revelation.

But many separatists today have taken the KJVO position. I know the BJU/Tenessee Temple circle doesn't; the last I heard. Sword of the Lord (John R. Rice followers) used to not be KJVO, but gradually began adopting it when I was receiving the magazine in the late '90's.

BJU is not KJVO, though their circle is very different nowadays from Tennessee Temple. But no, TTU is not KJV. I remember Dr. Roberson announcing from the chapel pulpit in about 1974 that no arguments about Bible versions would be allowed on campus, because nascent KJV Onlyism was appearing.

Maranatha BBC, Northland BBC, Central Seminary, Central East, Calvary Seminary, Detroit Seminary and other fundmentalist institutions are also not KJVO.

The Sword, however, has come out solidly KJVO in recent years, even saying that the KJV is inspired--thus opposing Jack Schaap of Hammond FBC, interestingly enough.

 

[John of Japan]

There is a certain tension when dealing with advocates of liberalism or heretics that is not present so much when dealing with those who have been honestly led into these errors by its defenders. I really believe there is a much stronger demonic presence (1 Tim. 4:1). It is a difference between dealing with the hardened deceivers versus the deceived. The former calls for a much tougher love that is many times interpreted as "unloving." It is the difference that many times calls for "rebuking sharply" versus mildly rebuking by presenting questions and problems before the deceived in order to lead them out that deception.

Some circumstances we can walk away from when it comes to an impass between the false teacher and ourselves. However, when the minds and hearts of other sheep are involved or those of our own flock it calls for more severity in the fight for the faith. I am not saying it is ever right to act wrong but I am saying that the intensity may be interpreted as unloving when in fact it is that "sharp" rebuke of tough love. What do you think?

I agree with your assessment. As a fundamentalist I believe in strongly rebuking heresy, and that includes the liberal who doesn't believe in the virgin birth just as much as the Mormon. This is where fundamentalists and new evangelicals still differ. John R. Rice called such liberals wolves in sheeps' clothing, a very Biblical way of saying it, of course. New evangelicals call the liberals "brother."

However, new evangelicals as I'm sure you know advocated from the start infiltration into liberal ranks, ostensibly to lead the liberals to Christ. So, to put it the Biblical way, the shepherd infiltrates the wolves so he can make them sheep.

By standing strongly against such compromise, we will be called unloving. But then God is completely holy as well as being completely love. I'm willing to stay outside the camp of wider Christianity and be called unloving so that the sheep I lead will not be deceived by the wolves.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Amen brother!!! Amen!

I agree with your assessment. As a fundamentalist I believe in strongly rebuking heresy, and that includes the liberal who doesn't believe in the virgin birth just as much as the Mormon. This is where fundamentalists and new evangelicals still differ. John R. Rice called such liberals wolves in sheeps' clothing, a very Biblical way of saying it, of course. New evangelicals call the liberals "brother."

However, new evangelicals as I'm sure you know advocated from the start infiltration into liberal ranks, ostensibly to lead the liberals to Christ. So, to put it the Biblical way, the shepherd infiltrates the wolves so he can make them sheep.

By standing strongly against such compromise, we will be called unloving. But then God is completely holy as well as being completely love. I'm willing to stay outside the camp of wider Christianity and be called unloving so that the sheep I lead will not be deceived by the wolves.

 

[brucebaptist]

How strange that in opposing fundamentalism as being "unloving," people like you and adisciplinedlearner use such vicious language about fellow believers.

Fortunately for evangelicalism, noted evangelical leaders believe that fundamentalism is a necessary part of the larger picture.

Here is where John Piper gives "20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists"-- http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1251_20_reasons_i_dont_take_potshots_at_fundamentalists/

Again, here are some quotes from Francis Schaeffer, who specifically rejected fundamentalism and went with the New Evangelicals. He wrote in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster:

"Since liberalism did not believe in the fact that Christ died in history to atone for the sins of men and women, and that this was the only basis for salvation, liberalism was really religious faith in man dressed up in Christian language and symbols. Thus, Machen explained, the only honest thing for the liberal to do would be to leave the churches which were founded on biblical truth" (p. 73).

"When a denomination comes to a place where such discipline cannot operate (He means denominational discipline for false doctrine--JRH), then before the Lord her members must consider a second step: that step, with regard to the practice of the principle of the purity of the visible church, is with tears to step out" (p. 87).

“I used to shift away uncomfortably when I was called a ‘fundamentalist,’ because of the negative connotation which had become attached to it. But now it seems that as soon as one stands in confrontation against that which is un-biblical (instead of accommodation), as soon as one takes such a stand, one is automatically labeled ‘fundamentalist.’ That is the way Kenneth Woodward used it in Newsweek—as a put-down. And when Bible-believing Christians who are brothers and sisters in Christ get taken in this way by the connotation of words, it is much sadder” (p. 143-144).

you misunderstood my comment about 'opposing fundamentalism is satanic'...

i was not agreeing with ADL. i was opposing his entire post about 'fighting fundamentalism'...

 

[moral necessity]

Justification by faith can be counted as a fundamental of the faith. Justification by faith ALONE cannot be so counted. It is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

I'm shocked at this! Why not spit directly on Christ himself?

I wonder why you spend so much time and effort at arguing such things on this board. Is it for the thrill of debate, or a genuine concern for the sheep you think are deceived? It is the Spirit who enlightens scripture, which cannot otherwise be understood (I Cor. 2:14). Prayer would be a much better use of one's energy, if they thought scripture was not being understood after several explanations (Phil. 3:15). And, prayer with humility might even lend to the opening your own eyes, to perhaps see blindness in certain areas that you thought you never had, for scripture says that we all see through a mirror dimly at best (I Cor. 13:12).

Blessings and prayers.

 

[John of Japan]

you misunderstood my comment about 'opposing fundamentalism is satanic'...

i was not agreeing with ADL. i was opposing his entire post about 'fighting fundamentalism'...

Aha. I understand now. Sorry about the mixup.

 

[Eric B]

Edited in: fundamentalists of the day, including John R. Rice and others, strongly stood against the RSV, which was translated by liberals and had liberal readings like "young woman" instead of "virgin." However, they did not fight the ASV, and even used it on occasion.

OK, I remember from reading Doug Kutilek's treatment of the subject that they used the ASV, but I wasn't sure of which other old translation. I assumed the RSV, because that was prominent and seemed to be similar. I forgot about the whole "young woman" issue.
It seems these sorts of groups also accpe thr NKJV, where the true KJVO's don't. The later Swords are also where I first heard of Gail Riplinger, as they had started running her ads. The articles at the time did not seem to be attacking Bible versions (IIRC), but the fact they were running the ads made me assume they must have been turning to the KJVO position.

Since "new-fundies" sounds like a distinction as big as "new-evangelicals"; are there any other areas where this "new" group differs from traditional fundies?

 

[John of Japan]

OK, I remember from reading Doug Kutilek's treatment of the subject that they used the ASV, but I wasn't sure of which other old translation. I assumed the RSV, because that was prominent and seemed to be similar. I forgot about the whole "young woman" issue.
It seems these sorts of groups also accpe thr NKJV, where the true KJVO's don't. The later Swords are also where I first heard of Gail Riplinger, as they had started running her ads. The articles at the time did not seem to be attacking Bible versions (IIRC), but the fact they were running the ads made me assume they must have been turning to the KJVO position.

The fundamentalists of the 1950s -- 1970s would attack liberal translations such as the RSV, TEV, NEB, etc. I have a number of pamphlets from those years. John R. Rice strongly attacked the RSV while referring sometimes to a rendering of the ASV, calling it "perhaps the most accurate of all versions" in Dr. Rice, Here Is my Question (p. 59). On the same page he calls Phillips "a sorry paraphrase, inaccurate, irreverent," and he discusses several other translations either positively or negatively. However, he read and preached from the KJV to the end.

Since "new-fundies" sounds like a distinction as big as "new-evangelicals"; are there any other areas where this "new" group differs from traditional fundies?

I'm not ready personally to buy into the "new-fundies" designation yet. I believe that some factions of fundamentalism are in a state of flux right now, and the future will tell, but I still see a lot of interaction and cooperation. For example, Ron Hamilton was at Hammond a couple of years ago.

The KJVO issue is the big one, of course, but I don't see any other issues right now that will divide fundamentalism. The current issue that may cause a permanent rift among KJVO groups is the question of whether or not the KJV should be referred to as inspired. Dr. Smith of the Sword and others say that it is inspired, The Dean Burgon Society, Jack Schaap of FBC Hammond and others take the opposite position.

In the center of that controversy is Gail Riplinger. Personally, I never understood how fundamentalists could give such a radical, woman preacher such respect, but there you have it. They are fighting about her, and the DBS is taking a very strong stand against her after selling her whole song and dance up till last year. Go figure!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't. I don't believe in the heresies of the RCC, and Baptists existed before the Reformation. I am not a Protestant.

I keep hearing you say that but what is a Protestant? A Protestant is one who protests against Roman Catholicism. You might want to amend your definition of yourself.

 

[Tom Butler]

I keep hearing you say that but what is a Protestant? A Protestant is one who protests against Roman Catholicism. You might want to amend your definition of yourself.

DHK's definition is correct. Protestants are those which came out of the RCC during and following the Reformation. Baptists did not. Their spiritual ancestors were around for a long time before the Reformation.

 

[Sindy]

When I was an independent Baptist pastor, I was a very militant, belligerent, fighting fundamentalist. Later, I learned that the spirit of the fighting fundamentalist originated not with my then-heroes J. Frank Norris and J. R. Graves, but with unloving, hateful men like Martin Luther. I asked God to forgive me for having such a bad spirit and prayed that He would make me the most loving Christian that I can be. I am still growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ and have a long ways to go in becoming more Christ-like, but I at least have this as my life's goal.

Fighting fundamentalism is Satanic in nature.

I have not read all the posts in this thread but personally I
never thought of Martin Luther King as being hateful.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

I did not say Martin Luther KING was hateful, but Martin Luther. I cannot say if King was hateful or not.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Martin Luther had some extreme points of view especially towards the Jews.