Falwell still a fundy?

Some folks say that he "turned" liberal when he led his church to join the SBC

 

Again, historically, new evangelicalism (the term they gave themselves) was not an abandonment of the faith or the gospel. With due respect, Jim, when someone says he didn't become a new evangelical because he remained true to the faith, it reveals a misunderstanding of what the issues were.

The issue between new evangelicals and old evangelicals was not the gospel or doctrine, in most cases. It was about how one relates to those who do not hold to the gospel and right doctrine.

 

The original New Evangelicals were closely linked with Barthianism. At least this was true when it was first formed by Carl F.H. Henry in his monthly magazine, Christianity Today.

They were attempting to recognize Barth's concept of the Word and the word. Barth couched his belief system in evangelical terminology whilst justifying the German Rationalism, from which he came.

New Evangelicalism used that terminology, whilst remaining evangelical.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Not to change the subject Jim, but how do you define Neo-Orthodox?

 

quote: Not to change the subject Jim, but how do you define Neo-Orthodox?
--------------------------------------

Thomas, Neo-orthodoxy believes that the word is established by experience as opposed to the word, the Bible being the innerrant word of God in the originals.

Obviously it is more complex than that, but it stems from this concept.

It is foundational in liberal theology and is the basis for Barthianism. We only know the Word in the word as we experience the Word.

Modern liberals will talk about their experience in Jesus and yet deny the basic and fundamental doctrines about Jesus. He can be just man, God's man, and one can still experience the essence of this God-man in history. Hence, a liberal may preach a sermon and sound as evangelical as they come, but not reaching first base.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes.

I went to a memorial service last week. The pastor spoke about God and Jesus and read from the Bible. There was some discussion about the departed persons activities with the church.

Missing from the service were words like: sin, salvation, everlasting life, repentence, atonement, resurection, gospel (1 cor 15), hope, faith in Christ, God in the flesh, and so on.

I read a few of the pastors printed sermons, she quoted Barth on the last four Sundays, and most likely does every week. This was in a beautiful mainline church building. Really makes me appreciate my little plain old country church.

 

I'm A Heretic?????????

Sooo...Pastor Larry....what you are saying below...if I get you right ....is that IF I believe I have a Perfect,Preserved Bible that I believe is without proven,demonstratable error,that I hold as the absolute authoritative Word of God (KJV) THEN I AM A HERETIC??????? Well, I'm not about to turn this into a KJVO discussion and I won't debate the matter with you or anybody else but I do wish to register my displeasure and tell you that I am deeply offended by your "definition". Personally,I AM a fundamentalist regardless of your spurious so-called "definition". If I EVER get to the place where I believe like you do I'll hang up my faith and go back to the world because if there is even 1/2 of one mistake in that Book then our faith is in vain. And THAT is my humble opinion. AS to Falwell....he might have compromised some of his Fundamentalist"standards" towards the end but he kept "the faith" and I'll agree with bro.Roger that now that he is in heaven he is 100% Fundamentalist now...he is also 100% RIGHT about everything too.....In closing I must say that you better be careful about throwing that heretic label around....that is way too extreme...besides you are taking it upon yourself to call probably millions of Born Again,Bible Believing Christians who believe they have an error-free authoritative Bible heretics. Personally,I'm not that brave or presumptuous .

Greg Perry Sr.

 

I think I was pretty clear in what I said. and I think history and theology have plainly declared that what I sadi was right. You can register your displeasure all you like, but your displeasure is not with me but with the Bible, which does not teach what you believe. There is a whole forum here with concrete proof of that.

One of the key doctrines of fundamentalism was the doctrine of the Bible, and the position you hold is not what the Bible teaches about itself. Fundamentalists have always believed only what the Bible says about itself. Since you have added to that, you are, by definition, not a fundamentalist. You can no more change the meaning of the term than anyone else can.

Remember, a fundamentalist holds to the truth revealed in the Bible and fights for it. A person who believe that one translation alone is the only Word of God in English does not believe the Bible since the Bible teaches no such thing.

If you believe like I do, you will never get to the place of believing there is even 1/2 of one mistake in the Bible.

I am very careful about throwing that term around. As a fundamentalist, I have a duty to speak the truth and warn others. The truth is that people of your persuasion are generally (not always) schismatic, which is what heretical meant in the Scripture and history. Again, there is a whole forum here with concrete proof. They are also "heretical" in the sense that they believe something that is contrary to what the Scripture reveals. So I don't think it is extreme at all.

I believe I have an error-free authoritative Bible. I am not a heretic. I was pretty specific in what I said and intentionally so.

I don't think it has anything to do with presumption, though it might have something to do with courage. But I don't think we can stand by and let the doctrines of Scriptures be trampled on, even by well-meaning and sincere people.

But thanks for your comments, Greg. It gives us a great opportunity to be reminded that the Bible itself is at the heart of fundamentalism. We must have a right doctrine of the Bible for that is the entryway into fundamentalism, as I see it.

But let's not detract from the matter at hand here.

 

The common terms of yesteryear have changed overtime. A Fundamentalist of 1950 is not the same as a Fundamentalist of to-day. Yes, back then we had no argument with beng called a fundamentalist as we defended the Word against modernism. By the 60's, however, the term Fundamentalist embraced all kinds of extemes, including pentecostalism. We altered out stance of old to Evangelical. Even that term outlived itself as modernists were calling themselves evangelical as they embraced Barthianism along with their extreme liberalism.

I believe in the fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints of old, but I could not wear the label fundamentalist, even though I have been called that by my liberal colleagues.

A lot of things have changed since I first went to Bible College in 1945. Terminology is one of those changes.

Even in the early days we did not claim inerrancy for the KJV (any variety) but only for the original manuscripts. We did feel that we had enough evidence for reliability in the KJV to learn of God and develop sound doctrine.

Cheers,

Jim

 

This is certainly true, which was part of the reason behind my comments about the history of the issue.

For instance, a lot of people think that fundamentalists were the newcomers who separated from the new evangelicals. It was actually the other way around. The new evangelicals (called such to distinguish themselves from the old evangelicals) separated from the fundamentalists.

By the same token, a lot of people think that fundamentalism is only holding to the fundamental doctrines. Yet most of the original new evangelicals did. They recognized that fundamentalism did more than hold to the doctrines. They allowed their commitment to those doctrines to determine how they related to others who did not hold them. This was really what was happening in the FF which later became the FBF, if my memory serves me correctly.

Many of these misconceptions can be fairly easily dispelled with a bit of history, however.

 

An aside question....Didn't Mr. Falwell lead his independent Baptist Church into membership with the Southern Baptists? No inference, just seems I recall this happening.

The fact, Newevangelicals started quoting Barth as if Barth was a leading evangelical theologian. This was a criticism hurled at Chistianity Today and that magazine backed off given Barth so much press.

Barth lined up with Union Seminary in NY. It was a leader amongs the liberal of the liberals.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Leaving It Alone

Pastor Larry.... I respect your right to believe whatever you choose to believe . I just plainly disagree with you about the Bible issue. You have believed the "evidence" you chose to believe and I have believed the evidence (and a certain amount of logic)that I chose to believe and just like two different "versions" of the Bible can't both be right (things that are different are NOT the same),we (you and I) can't take two different positions and both be right. I am not trying to make this a Bible version debate but I do agree with the gist of one thing you said,and that is that what we believe about the Word of God is foundational to everything else we believe. As to Dr.Falwell...although I do believe he was personally "fundamental" in his personal belief system and loved the Lord sincerely, I personally believe that his late-life compromises in his organization and ministries can be traced to the fact that he and his ministries started moving away from the use of the Authorized King James Bible and embraced many of the newer versions. People like him and Rick Warren,James Dobson,Joel Osteen,John Piper,John MacArthur and others all demonstrate the same compromising moves away from the old paths and the old Book that lead toward the New Evangelical "distinctive" of caving into the culture,embracing non-separatism,so-called contemporary "christian" music and other worldly forms of so-called "worship".Personally,I know deep in my heart that the Spirit of God has borne witness to the truth within me. My only real desire at this point in my life is to draw near to God in faith and surrender,die to this despicable flesh I am clothed in and somehow,someway be filled with the Spirit and by His power display the fruits of the Spirit spoken of in Galatians 5:22-24. I don't wish to be sucked up in the gathering vortex of compromise as the one-world church of the great whore fills up its ranks for the end-times. Many who think themselves to be wise will wind up being deceived.

May God's Mercy be On Us All,
Greg Perry Sr.

 

==The very idea that Falwell compromised is just plain silly. I agree with others in this thread that Falwell got off track with political activism for a few years. However he returned to his main callings and that was that. He never, not once, strayed from the Biblical truths. I put emphasis on Biblical because KJVO is not Biblical. Though many who hold to it are dear, Godly men and women, KJVO is a man-made teaching not found in Scripture. Also, point of fact, I believe Jerry Falwell always used the KJV in his preaching/teaching. I don't think I ever heard him use any other translation. So you are wrong when you say that he moved away from the KJV. He may have moved away from the unBiblical KJVO position, but he never moved away from the KJV.

==That has to be one of the most amazing, erroneous, things I have ever read on one of these forums. Anyone who would put John MacArthur in the same list as Osteen and Warren either knows nothing about MacArthur or knows nothing about Osteen and Warren (etc). John MacArthur is a solid Bible teacher/preacher. He sticks with the Scriptures, verse-by-verse, point-by-point, and does not compromise. He certainly has not caved into culture.

==God gave us His Word for a reason. How do we know something is true? Not by our feelings, our heart, or our gut, but by the Word of God. The Word of God is God's revelation to man. All things in life and doctrine must be tested by the Word of God. Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone! The Holy Spirit of God will bear witness of nothing that is not found in His Holy Word. KJVO is not in Scripture, it is not in His Holy Word, it is a theory that some men have invented (just like the Catholic Church did with the Vulgate).

 

==Yes, Falwell moved Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University in line with the Southern Baptist Convention. It seems like this was done in the 90s.

 

He did this because theConservative Resurgence brought the SBC back in line with Dr. Falwell's own conservative theology.

An IFB church in Paducah has done the same thing.

 

Thank you very much. I thought it had happened

Why do people keep insisting we have a King James BIBLE. It is only a translation; a version.

And I think I heard chicken little cry last Sunday when I quoted from an RSV

Cheers,

Jim

 

That's fine, but do you agree with the Bible? That is the only thing that matters. And simply put, the Bible does not give a particular version as the only word of God, and the Bible clearly testifies that perfect preservation and identical translation is not a part of biblical bibliology. So on this matter, the case is undeniable that you don't agree with the Bible.

And that is fundamental to being a fundamentalist. You can't add doctrines to Scripture and still be a fundamentalist.

Right, but we can use two different translations and both be right.

I don't think that's true at all with respect to the reason. I think he moved away and made some compromises in order to have a bigger crowd.

Piper and MacArthur don't belong in this group.

Furthermore, there are many fundamentalists who do use a modern translation. So modern translations has nothing to do with compromise.

But remember, if the truth "in you" isn't the same truth that is "in the Bible," your truth isn't true. And Satan can deceive us even when we have good motives.

This is excellent, and I wish that all shared this desire. I would simply remind us that it has nothing to do with a translation of the Bible.

 

If Jerry Falwell was a fundamentalist, Jerry's is the people's eyes more than God's eyes. An example of what Gregory Perry Sr answered:

I agree with his response. I did not see how Jerry is a real fundamentalist. Not only the Bible version, but Jerry's ministry included the SBC. The problem with "TODAY" churches is to please men more than God.

 

Yep, the local SBC church had a rock concert a few weeks ago....now if that isn't moving to the "world", I don't know what is.

I am a Liberty Univ DLP student. I got good solid Bible teaching in the required courses. I have no dispute with the professor's lessons....they were biblically accurate and correct. (I am KJV only and I made it clear in each theology class, but was never insulted or ridiculed about it like I have been in this forum)

My gripe is the focus on the world....what the world wants and needs seems to be the driving force of the school....rock concerts, sports....
all just to get more students. We all need to do more soul-winning and less compromising.

Debbie Mc

 

Well, like this forum does often it comes back to your definition of fundamentalist.

There is nothing about music style or Bible versions that is a fundamental of our faith.

If your definition of fundamentalist is someone who uses only the King James Bible and condemns contemporary Christian music then you would exclude many Christians who are in fact fundamentalists, but it is your definition of fundamentalist, not their beliefs that are skewed.

Did he believe the fundamentals of our faith? Did he believe in the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, and imminent return of our Lord Jesus Christ? Did he believe in the inerrancy of scripture? Did he believe in the miracles of Christ as described by scripture? Was he willing to fight for these beliefs and separate himself from others who did not share them?

I do not believe there is any argument about the first of those. If you want to argue that Jerry Falwell was not a fundamentalist the only valid argument I can see is in the question of separation. If you feel that association with the SBC involves a compromise of this then you are very missinformed about the SBC and you need to review the Baptist Faith and Message.