What would you have done in 1957?

I would have chosen to heed the prayer of Jesus and the imploring of Paul and joined the committee.

I would choose to please God rather than men.

 

Fundamentalism has made some wide changes compared to what it once was. I am not sure many evangelicals who preach the word and do not compromise their faith would want to associate with some others who are mean spirited and call themselves fundamentalists. Too often the fundamentalists of today are mean spirited and much like concrete--all mixed up and permanently set. I have noticed they are nothing like the fundamentalists of the past. Today many who call themselves a fundamentalist really do not know their Bible very well.

Not too many years ago I pastored a church that had quite a variety of folks. The church had one major problem. It was nearly extinct. The church was nearly dead because of the people who sat around and argued doctrine without any practice other than having a nice building until they lost their pastor and building and had no money. Not one of them were leading people to Christ and discipling anyone. Then I came and preached about the proof of our faith. Many quieted up. Some left. Some stayed and God gave a tremendous increase. That church was a high point in my life. The church began to pray and ask God for incredible things–often beyond what we thought possible.

When I preached from the gospels and pointed out how Jesus led, some of them didn't like it too well. I had one requirement that all knew about. Before someone would even be considered for any leadership person they must have started their own Bible study and discipled at least one person. Some of those with a big mouth just left and others who wanted to be leaders worked to learn and grow.

James talks about the proof of their faith not just a written statement of faith.

It is easy to recognize the leaders. Leaders lead people. They are noted by those who are being discipled.

 

It is my belief that Christianity has enough of it's own wishy washy Fence sitters, who hold to the attitude that "I'm alright, your alright" frame of mind...! Sometimes it is not popular to stand for the truth...Nor is it edifying to compromise the Gospel for the sakes of "Unity"!

Rom 3:4 By no means: verily let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy sayings, and mayest overcome when thou art judged.

Only Christ Saves!

 

Correct. I'm sure if you ask most on this board, they will label me as one of those liberals, even though I proclaim the following fundamentals.

1) Inspiration, trustworthyness and authority of the Scriptures
2) The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
3) The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5) The authenticity of Christ's miracles

I changed the inerrancy statement not because I believe the bible is errant, but because I believe my statement about the bible is more biblical and accurate than the usual inerrancy statement.

I would not include the premillenial second coming as a fundamental I believe (as some fundamentalists do). I believe his second coming may be premillenial, but that is simply one of many valid interpretations of the relevant passages.

Definitely. While I believe in the above fundamentals, I don't consider belief in my understandings of doctrine to be what makes one a brother in Christ and a child of God. I would call liberals in direct opposition to those fundamentals to be sincerely wrong and hope to dialogue with them biblically as brothers to help us both be more biblical and orthodox in our doctrine. Part of seeing the wrong doctrine of others is being open to the fact that I am also wrong about many things.

If a liberal straight out denies the deity of Christ, I agree that they are in as much error as JWs. I would say that while there are some liberals who hold this position, I would never label all liberal Christians as holding to this position. I would have serious reservations about inviting such a person to the committee. I have no problems with liberals who are willing to challenge concept of the deity of Christ and do not consider that equivalent to denying the deity of Christ.

I would say that the cultural context of this passage warns of folks more like fundamentalists than like liberals. Folks who add extra requirements to being a "brother in Christ" or emphasize legalistic requirements over the grace of the gospel of Christ.

I agree. That was the point of my statement. On both sides, folks felt they were pleasing God rather than men.

Yes you are mis-characterizing me. No, unity is not more important than the doctrine of Christ. Unity is more important than the doctrine of man. Notice John 17:23. Jesus prays for unity so that the world will know that God sent Jesus. Christian unity is a witness to Jesus' diety.

I agree that at some point, separation is required. But biblical separation in the body was always taught with the intent of future reconciliation of the unity of the body. Not the washing of hands and drawing of battle lines that actually happened in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy.

 

I like Golden Dragon's answer.

 

I have a question. I have heard that the denial of Christ's deity is a common position among Christian liberals from fundamentalists.

Having not read many Christian liberal authors, and definitely none who have ever denied the deity of Christ, I would like to know some examples of Christian liberals who have actually held this position and their words describing why. I would also like to know of statistics about the prevalence of this position.

I'll try to dig up some research in Barna and other places. Thanks.

 

Excellent question, John of Japan. BTW, I much appreciated your information and insights on another thread (whose title escapes me now) on the relationship of John R. Rice and the Bob Joneses. I think that Jones, Rice, as well as Wyrtzen made the correct decision in separating from Billy Graham at that point. That doesn't mean that everything Graham or anyone who ever supported him has done since has been bad. It doesn't mean that Jones, Rice, et al are infallible because they made that one correct decision. However, that decision was correct and I think that history will eventually bear this out even as it is doing so now.

 

I would not join. Those who teach error are to be avoided and separated from. (2 Cor 6, 2 John 10, etc.)

I'm am 100% against secondary separation, but this is primary separation. You would be working directly with a liberal who denied the fundamental doctrines of the faith in the same work.

 

I would ask the "liberal" what he believes and that act accordingly rather than labeling all of those who don't exactly agree with my theology liberal. That word has been misused to the extent that it doesn't have much meaning anymore except to decribe anyone you don't like or agree with.

Personally, I wouldn't be associated with an evangelical crusade led by people who denied that Christ was devine. To me that's an absolute requirement. Other theological differences might be ignored but not this one.

It's interesting that you chose this scenario because I accepted Christ at a Billy Graham Crusade in 1956 in Louisville.

 

The balance of eternity is too great to gamble with men's souls. I cannot knowingly engage in any kind of evangelistic service in which others are going to deny the plain plan of salvation when a person comes to make a decision. I would also be lumped in with those who are theologically wrong and it may bring harm to my church and the work that Christ is attempting to accomplish. Simply put, if I cannot fellowship with them, then I could not be a part of this crusade. Billy Graham or not.

 

There are over six billion people in the world that makes over 6 billion flavors.

The proof is in the puddin'

Mean spirited people do not believe the Bible. They are in direct disobience to it. Why would anyone other than a fool want to associate with those kind of people.

My Bible says in 1 Cor. 15:33, "Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals."

My Bible also says in Jn 13:35, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

It also says in Phil. 2:3-8, "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

When you make the statement, "On the other hand, who do the evangelicals have to associate with? They too have their problems: so-called evangelicals who believe in neotheism, universalism, errors in the Bible, neo-orthodoxy etc.' I have to wonder where have you been? There are many godly Christians living for Jesus Christ and discipling others. If you do not know many then start by introducing them to Jesus.

You write as though there are only mean spirited fundamentalists and sweet liberals. I would rather be with those who believe the Bible and love God.

Sometime read http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm118_8.htm

[ October 20, 2005, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

A real fundamentalist

George Mueller's Secret:

"There was a day when I died:

• Died to George Mueller: to his tastes, his opinions, his
preferences and his will.

• Died to the world—its approval or censure.

• Died to the approval or blame of even my brethren and friends.

Since then I have studied only to show myself approved unto God."

 

Some years ago I held a high position in the ministry of a fundamentalist evangelist who preached all over the world to crowds that were much larger than most of Billy Graham’s crowds. This man was an expert at preaching what the crowds wanted to hear and they loved him. I, however, worked with him at his international headquarters and I, like all the rest of those near the top, knew the man for what he really was—an evil, egotistical fool, liar, and thief.

I did not have the pleasure of working directly with Billy Graham, but I did have the pleasure of working with his staff. Billy Graham is a prince among men—Christian men—and I can only wish that I was as faithful to God and His calling as has been Billy Graham. Had I been there with Billy Graham in 1957, I would have made the same decisions as he did, and history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his decisions were in accord with the will of God. But, of course, there will always be those who choose to find fault in others.

It has been my personal observation that fundamentalist Christians tend to be very conservative in their love for God and His people, and that liberal Christians tend to be very liberal in their love for God and His people. But of course there are the ultraliberal freaks who do not know God—men and women with whom neither Billy Graham nor I would have anything to do.

 

I would have chosen to heed the prayer of Jesus and the imploring of Paul and joined the committee.

I would choose to please God rather than men.

</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for this excellent post!