Featured Neo-evangelicalism

Just shows that like Apostle Peter, Billy had some flaws to him, but we all do!

 

Yes we do. But are you and I national leaders? No. Billy had a huge responsibility to lead evangelicals to be saints, holy ones, "set apart for a sacred purpose." Instead, he chose to use his vast influence to denigrate fundamentalism, oppose his fundamentalist background and mentors (John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, Bob Jones Sr.) and friends (Wayne Van Gelderen and others), and make nice with all sorts of heretics: Catholics, theological liberals who opposed the virgin birth and deity of Christ, World Council of Churches hacks, and others. In doing so, he harmed Christ's church and the work of missionaries all over the world.

 

Thank God for the Cross, for while Dr Graham no doubt will have much to answer for, he will still I believe have treasure in heaven!

 

Oh, he'll no doubt have many more rewards than I will, not the least being the 1000s of inhabitants of Heaven who will thank him for preaching the Gospel.

 

Just wonder though the aspect of condoning churches that teach another and false Gospel though!

 

His defenders (I could give original quotes from their letters) defended Billy in the 1950's (and after) by saying, "How can you criticize Billy, since he is winning so many souls to Christ?" And sometimes they would threaten with the idea that God would judge the critic for daring to say something negative about our wonderful Billy, even though it wasn't about Billy himself but his acceptance of cooperative evangelism.

So in Billy's eyes and those of his defenders, he could hang out with those teaching a false Gospel, and it was all right because they were helping him win souls. Billy never grasped the idea of false teachers being wolves.

 

I'm reading a book by Fred Moritz that reprints a press release issued by Ockenga in 1957 titled "The New Evangelicalism."
Ockenga trumpets that his new movement, unlike Fundamentalism, was embracing the Social Gospel:

 

Too bad that he was blind in this one area, as that would make a strange combination of the Lord saving sinners at the Crusade, and then would have them not getting disciples much, if at all at their church!

 

That was somewhat the case. (And Dr. Moritz is an excellent author.) The New Evangelicals would not have said they were teaching the Social Gospel (a liberal concept without the true Gospel), but putting social concern back into their agenda, something they thought fundamentalists had lost (not true).

 

BG did not have converts, he called them enquirers, Very few of those who went forward were saved, although I know some members of my own family were, and they did not become liberals,
I remember reading in a book on false teachers, one chapter was on Modern Jesus Hucksters. One he mentioned was Billy Sunday, of whom it was said "He saved a million souls." The authour went on to ask "How many did he save?" and went on to answer, "Not one,"

 

I believe that New Evangelicals began to take hold in the early 19th century when dispensationalism began to emerge, teaching that the pope is not antichrist, contrary to scripture and the teaching of the church for hundreds of years.

 

I could see the papacy as the False prophet, but not the Antichrist!

 

Historically New Evangelicalism began in the late 1940's, and had nothing to do with dispensationalism. I think you are confusing New Evangelicalism with evangelicalism in different. But evangelicalism itself did not start from dispensationalism in any way, shape or form.

Sorry to say this, but you Brits usually fail to understand American fundamentalism and evangelicalism, as witness James Barr's ridiculous and nasty book, Fundamentalism, which is not really about fundamentalism but about evangelicalism in general.

 

Reminds me of a story attributed to D.L. Moody. He was walking down s street when accosted by a skeptic, who pointed at a drunk lying by the curb and said, "That man said you saved him at the meeting the other night. Now look at him!"
Moody's response: "If I saved him, it's no wonder he's in the ditch. If God had saved him, he would not be there."

 

Another story that I read was that there was a famous London soul winner who was to debate a renown atheist, and when the soul winner stated that for proof, he would bring a 100 sinners saved by God and in a better state now as evidence, and how many atheists could be brought as evidence of being better for it. The atheist just turned aside then and walked away.

 

Oh I understand it only too well. As said I was In the Brethren for some years where dispensationalism was taught so I know it well. I have also been on a number of FB forums and so I understand their teaching, it is so similar to the Brethren that I refer to them as Neo Brethren rather than Baptist.
The Brethren did not start the teaching but early on had close contact with Edward Irving's charismatic movement. In his Morning Watch* magazine, Irving claimed to be the first to preach on dispensationalism on Christmas day ~1825. Later picked up and added to by J N Darby. Until near the end of the 19th century, In the UK barely anyone except the Irvingites, at that time called The Apostolic Catholic Church and Darby's followers believed that.

*Available on Google Books/Google Play

 

Nope. You don't get it. You totally missed what I said about evangelicalism (of which fundamentalism is a part) and new evangelicalism (which is separate from fundamentalism in evangelicalism).

And if you think the Brethren came first and Baptists followed later--as per your "neo-Brethren" label, you don't know the first thing about Baptist history (and I mean the English Baptists, ironically). When the first brethren church came along it was already the 18th century, and there were Baptist churches all over. But you appear to mean the Plymouth Brethren of Darby, and they didn't happen along until the 19th century.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion of new evangelicalism, which was the reaction of evangelicals like Ockenga and others against stricter fundamentalist groups like the Bible Presbyterians of Carl McIntyre (who was not dispensationalist) and various dispensational and non-dispensational Baptists like John R. Rice (my grandfather, a first generation fundamentalist and not a dispensationalist).

As for fundamentalism, it most certainly did not begin with Darby, if that is what you are suggesting. The only genuine church historian who even puts it back into the 19th century is Marsden, and he certainly doesn't name Darby as a founder, though he has a chapter about him.

 

My understanding of new Evangelical is that the doctrines were pretty much same as Fundamentalist in regards to scripture and salvation, just disagreed on association and being separated!

 

They disagreed with fundamentalism on personal separation, ecclesiastical separation, and social action.