-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Fundamentalism Versus Evangelicalism
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
I try to put the fun back in fundamentalism, but most people pray that Jesus will heal my lame jokes.
I've been around fundamental pastors, evangelists all my life, and I've met some of the Hyper-Fundamentalists this gentleman was speaking of. I'm not one of them, but I do stand firm on the fundamentals of Christianity.
1 Cor. 3:10-11
"According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
As usual, Dr. Bauder hit the nail on the head.
The time lines the good Dr gave for the split between fundamentalism and evangelicalism and the progression of evangelicalism into liberalism is instructive. I doubt it was fundamentalists who have given us all these new English Bible translations along with paraphrases (List Of Bible Translations By Year - Believers Portal) since the ASV in 1901 until the present with no doubt more on the way. If that was God's idea he should have told us and if it was not God's idea it was Satan's and he has found a way to lead modern fundamentalists down the same path as the evangelicals while he dumbs them down. Can a Christian who will not defend the word of God better than this be a fundamentalist?
Last edited:
They can't seem to associate the parallel of the new bibles and the prophesied "falling away".
Historically (until 1970) fundamentalists have acted against liberal Bible translations like the RSV and the TEV rather than specifically standing for the KJV only. Thus, a KJVO position is not part of original fundamentalism.
On another note, I once heard a prominent SBC pastor say that to fundamentalists he admits he is a fundamentalist, but not to broader evangelicals.
On another note, I once heard a prominent SBC pastor say that to fundamentalists he admits he is a fundamentalist, but not to broader evangelicals.
Since KjV only is mentioned and I am one, I will comment on it.
I am sure I did not have an opinion about the KJV in 1970. My position as a KJV only believer has come gradually over a life time of personal study and meditation, beginning for me in about 1973.when I was about 25 years old. Most of the people who are mentioned on this forum as KJV only proponents are people who I have never read at all, like Waite and Darby and several others. I am not going to defend them for their beliefs because their reasons for the position may be different from mine. I purposely never read a single word by Dr Ruckman unless it was a quote by another author I happened to be reading. The reason for that was I often heard others speak of his unflattering and even somewhat malicious (IMO) comments about other preachers, some of whom I loved and admired. So I decided not to read any of his works. Someone gave me a copy of Gail Riplinger's book (forget the title) and about half way through and after I found out the author was a woman, I canned it. I know William Grady personally and have a couple of his books but have not read them. He has been in our church several times but I cannot remember him ever preaching a KJV message. I can say this about him. He has preached a couple messages that has opened my eyes to some truth that was a real blessing to me and I doubt any other preacher knows the subject on which he preached as well as he. I am thankful that I was privileged to hear them. Having said that, I know of a couple instances where he has earned criticism from those who have a tendency to be critics. And Jack Hyles, no thanks. I have heard him preach a number of times and have even read a couple of his books but I don't think I want him to teach me why I should take the KJV only position. I Like David Cloud and appreciate his missionary work and his zeal and have read some of his articles but not his books. I would disagree with his Baptist Bride tendencies and for that reason do not think I would be helped much by reading his commentary. Baptist Bridism (is that a word) is a failure in logic and reason and is a sure indicator that a man is not paying attention to the words he is reading in scripture (even if it is KJV) and being constrained by their context.
On topic:
I am a Christian fundamentalist but I think religious people who actually study their Bible within denominational filters over years and do not believe they have a Bible that is true and dependable on all subjects is an evangelical at best. They surely could not be called Bible believers.
Do you put yourself in the category of Evangelical? Having read your musings over time, I think it is a good fit for you.
37818
Well-Known Member
Only in the sense of being a Fundamentalist. I am opposed to neo-evangelicalism. Is there some point you would like to discuss?
I would not think you did.
Last edited:
We will move this to the "Versions" Forum if a debate evolves. But simply stating your position that the KJVonly sect's view is an attack on the doctrine of inspiration is a legit answer to his question.
I am likewise a historic fundamentalist Baptist who believes God's Word is perfect and ALL English translations are man-made and NOT "perfect". Freedom to state your position on such a divisive modern teaching is allowable on any forum.
Fundamentalism is actually subsumed under "evangelicalism" by church history scholars. New Evangelicalism, on the other hand, was a reaction against fundamentalism and in favor of compromise and fellowship and joint ministry with liberals.
No, not really.I think you should have the right be be what you choose to be without harrassement from me.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Kevin Bauder, in this video, makes no direct mention of the 12-volume work, The Fundamentals—A Testimony to the Truth, that was published and mailed free and postpaid to “every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological professor, theological student, Sunday school superintendent, Y. M. C. A. and Y.C.A. secretary in the English speaking world, so far as the address of all these can be obtained” during the years 1909 through 1917 (250,000 copies). This is a very important work because it made “a new statement of the fundamentals of Christianity” which manifested the changing opinions among Christian fundamentalists as to what Christian doctrines are fundamental to the Christian faith. Indeed, subsequent editions of this work leave out some of the doctrines! I have here in my research library the complete first edition that was published by Testimony Publishing Company in Chicago.
37818
Well-Known Member
An important work.
The Fundamentals - Wikipedia
'The project was conceived in 1909 by California businessman Lyman Stewart, the founder of Union Oil and a devout Presbyterian and dispensationalist. He and his brother Milton anonymously provided funds for composing, printing, and distributing the publication. The project had three successive editors: A. C. Dixon, Louis Meyer, and Reuben Archer Torrey. The essays were written by sixty-four different authors, representing most of the major Protestant Christian denominations. It was mailed free of charge to ministers, missionaries, professors of theology, YMCA and YWCA secretaries, Sunday school superintendents, and other Protestant religious workers in the United States and other English-speaking countries. Over three million volumes (250,000 sets) were sent out.[3]'
And this 4 volumes was published in 1909.
I believe A. C. Dixon was a Baptist.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Dixon was a Baptist pastor who very successfully pastored The Moody Church in Chicago for five years and the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London for eight years—four years of which were during World War I. He also pastored other churches and was a very fruitful evangelist. I have here in my library but one of his books, a first edition copy of The Glories of the Cross.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I disagree with Kevin Bauder’s use of the word evangelical—and I am not alone. For example, the website Best Commentaries | Old and New Testament Bible Commentary reviews, ratings, and prices labels many commentaries as “evangelical” and many others as “critical.” They use the label “evangelical” for commentaries that are theologically conservative or moderate and that leave such issues as source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism to commentaries that are labeled as “critical.” Very good examples of critical commentaries are those in the ongoing International Critical Commentary series commonly referred to the ICC series. The first volumes to be released were the two volumes on Acts written by Paton J. Gloag and published in 1870. Other notable volumes are the volume on Romans by Sanday and Headlam, 1898 and revised several time with the last revision being that of 1905, and the volume on Galatians by Ernest De Witt Burton, 1920. All three of these men were very conservative theologically and the volume on Romans by Sanday and Headlam was the most referenced commentary on Romans for more than one hundred years by conservative evangelical commentators on Romans.
Founding Editors: Samuel R. Driver, Alfred A. Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs
Former Editors: Graham I. Davies, Graham N. Stanton, Christopher M. Tuckett, John A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield
Current Editors (2021–): Stuart Weeks (General) and Jacqueline Vayntrub (Associate)