Fundamentalism Versus Evangelicalism

[MrW]

I don’t consider evangelicalism and fundamentalism to be opposed.

 

[John of Japan]

I don’t consider evangelicalism and fundamentalism to be opposed.

In most ways they are not; in church history fundamentalism is subsumed as a variety of evangelicalism. However, the typical non-fundamentalist evangelical will oppose the personal separation of fundamentalism, and most will agree to cooperation with non-evangelicals in mass evangelism (something fundamentalists strongly oppose), etc.

The earliest New Evangelicals (Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, Billy Graham, etc.) advocated a strategy of infiltration in regards to liberals. The whole thing blew up at the time of Graham's 1957 New York Crusade, and at that time many evangelicals separated from fundamentalists, and vice versa. For the story from the fundamentalist side, see Ch. 13 of John R. Rice: The Last Revivalist of the 20th Century.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

I don't really see anything here for me to answer. You're just talking a about your own position and how you came to it.

 

[Godisgracious1031]

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.

I have about the same opnions, KJB only, read and watched many stuff. Agree with their stance on the version issue, thier doctrines on other stuff, some agree, some not. Just read the Bible study.

 

[JD731]

I don't really see anything here for me to answer. You're just talking a about your own position and how you came to it.

I think that is a fair assessment John of Japan. The op creator posted a video that said, "why I am a fundamentalist." My first post, number 7, suggested that Evangelicals promotes an unending line of new Bible translations (my opinion). The preacher in the video is making the point that he believes there is a difference in fundamentalists and evangelicals and I agree with him. I think Fundamentalists generally take a much more narrow view of the scriptures, believing that God has addressed the subject in his word. We fundamentalists believe the word of God are pure words. How could they not be if they are accepted as the words of God. What modern writer has enough insight into the mind of God to edit him?

But I knew this thread is not going to get any traction on this forum because the Baptists on here are for the most part Reformed. They are neither evangelicals or fundamentalists and I can't imagine any of them caring much about the subject. None of them have responded and the thread is about dead now and two fundamentalists, you and I, are left talking.

My greater point is that it is dangerous to read all these books and histories and opinions of men and draw ones theology on Bible doctrines from them. This thread begins with what Kevin Bauer thinks, and of course he is a Doctor. My comments are about what I think. All the NT authors were fundamentalists and all other later disciplines were divisions from them.

This reminds me of what John wrote in or about 90 AD when he wrote his first epistle to the little children. He said this;
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Paul said this in 51 AD;
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Who would believe this mystery has not been refined in 2k years? Evangelicals are not doing much to expose it, if you ask me.

 

[Godisgracious1031]

We should be fudemntal on Bible beliefs and evangelize. Any denomin will evangalize but the JW/Cath def have the wrong doctr, good to have both

 

[Craigbythesea]

Evangelicals believe what Luke wrote in the first chapter of his gospel,

Luke 1:1. Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4. so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (NRSV)

Too many fundamentalists believe that that is, at best, liberalism at its core.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Too many fundamentalists believe that that is, at best, liberalism at its core.

Huh? Might need to explain to us slow fundamentalists

 

[JD731]

Evangelicals believe what Luke wrote in the first chapter of his gospel,

Luke 1:1. Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4. so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (NRSV)

Too many fundamentalists believe that that is, at best, liberalism at its core.

BIBLE GATEWAY
Search - acts 8:37 New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)

Passage results

No results found.​

No valid results were found for your search. Try refining your search using the form above.
To find out more about refining searches and using the search form effectively, visit the frequently-asked questions page.

Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and also the Acts of the Apostles to the same man, Theophilus.. I am going to say you are a typical evangelical.
In my Bible in verse 3 of Luke, he said he had perfect understanding from the VERY first. Not just the first, but the very first. You say he had to carefully investigate before writing to Theophilus. Investigating seems to be something Theophilus could have done for himself. There is no doubt in my mind that Luke was numbered with the 70 chosen elders of Luke 10 (he is the only gospel writer to mention these) which makes him a follower of Jesus Christ from the very first. See the qualifications for a prophet in Acts 1.

I am sorry but I cannot even imagine in my mind that one of the four gospel writers had to investigate the events he wrote about, They were eye witnesses.



Ac 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

I think your evangelical crowd has caused the seed of doubt to blossom in these last days as the leaven works. Just my opinion.

 

[John of Japan]

Huh? Might need to explain to us slow fundamentalists

Yeah, I'm not sure what he is saying either.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You say he had to carefully investigate before writing to Theophilus.

I have neither said nor implied such a thing! I simply quoted verbatim what Luke wrote,

“I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,”

Luke is here telling Theophilus that he (Luke) decided “to write an orderly account” for him “so that [he] may know the truth concerning the things about which [he had] been instructed. In order to assure Theophilus that his account will be accurate, he tells Theophilus that he had investigated “everything carefully from the very first.” We have here a precisely written statement by Luke concerning events that took place sometime in the first century.

 

[JD731]

I have neither said nor implied such a thing! I simply quoted verbatim what Luke wrote,

“I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,”

Luke is here telling Theophilus that he (Luke) decided “to write an orderly account” for him “so that [he] may know the truth concerning the things about which [he had] been instructed. In order to assure Theophilus that his account will be accurate, he tells Theophilus that he had investigated “everything carefully from the very first.” We have here a precisely written statement by Luke concerning events that took place sometime in the first century.

1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.


My point is made. There is no need for investigation for someone who has perfect understanding of the ministry of Jesus because he was an eye witness from the very first. The purpose stated is so Theophilus can know of these things for certain, first hand. So, he begins at the very beginning, with the birth of John;

5 ¶ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

The gospel of Luke was written in 59 AD.

Your translation does not say the same thing and proves the mystery of iniquity spoken of by Paul continues to work.

That is all I have to say to you on this subject.

 

[Craigbythesea]

My point is made. There is no need for investigation for someone who has perfect understanding of the ministry of Jesus because he was an eye witness from the very first.

There is no evidence of any kind (your unsupported hunch is NOT evidence) that Luke was an eyewitness from the very first. Indeed, the evidence that Luke was NOT an eyewitness from the very first is incontrovertible. Luke himself tells us that he performed an investigation in order to learn what he was not present to see for himself. Moreover, all of the eyewitnesses from the beginning were Jews, not Gentiles, as was Luke. Furthermore, Luke’s account of the ministry of Jesus differs greatly from that of Matthew, a dyed-in-the-wool Jew—especially on the matter of divorce and remarriage, and ancient cosmology where Matthew’s account is in perfect harmony with the teaching of the Jewish rabbis up till the 7th century whereas Luke’s account is contrary to the teaching of the Jewish rabbis but in perfect harmony with the teaching of the Greek scholars of the time. Additionally, the apostle Paul testifies to the outstanding character of Luke,

2 Tim. 4:9. Do your best to come to me soon,
10. for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.
11. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful in my ministry. (NRSV)

I have spent many thousands of hours with the Apostle Paul, and his words “only Luke is with me” chill me to the bone! I am so very thankful for Luke’s faithfulness to his friend.

 

[David Lamb]

1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.


My point is made. There is no need for investigation for someone who has perfect understanding of the ministry of Jesus because he was an eye witness from the very first. The purpose stated is so Theophilus can know of these things for certain, first hand. So, he begins at the very beginning, with the birth of John;

But Luke wrote about "those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word";" he doesn't say that he himself was an eyewitness:

“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us,” (Lu 1:1-2 NKJV)

 

[John of Japan]

Boy has this thread devolved, especially considering that this particular forum was created years ago so that we fundamentalists could have a place to flee from those opposed to fundamentalism!

 

[JD731]

But Luke wrote about "those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word";" he doesn't say that he himself was an eyewitness:

“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us,” (Lu 1:1-2

Sometimes David, I read things that are incredible to me. Jesus Christ chose from among the citizens of Israel officers of his earthly kingdom that he came to set up. This kingdom will be after the model of Moses, who had 12 heads, one over each tribe, and 70 elders who were chosen as helpers in this kingdom. Has it ever occured to you to ask the question why Jesus chose 12 apostles and 70 elders to rule with him in the kingdom of heaven?

He tells those with inquiring minds, here;

Mt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

V30. The Jews rejected his kingdom and so he formed a gentile church. The church will be formed first although his original intentions is to establish his kingdom first. It was" at hand" until Matthew 12.

This does not mean that God has scraped his plans for the everlasting kingdom of Christ on the throne of David.

But, you don't believe any of this, do you? Fundamentalists believes it.

Luke was a constant companion with Paul during his ministry and the events of the Acts and no one ever accused him of being a gentile.

I will start a new thread later to discuss this.

 

[JD731]

I don’t consider evangelicalism and fundamentalism to be opposed.

They are different but there is a moderator, I think. The most important thing for God is not always the most important thing to us. He wants people to be saved first and foremost, and the gospel will do the job. Two passages illustrates this, I think.

Mk 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Ph i:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

I am glad for the evangelicals who preach the gospel of Jesus Christ but I am not going to join up with them. There are rewards in heaven for faithfulness.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I will start a new thread later to discuss this.

Advice: Be sure to make a NARROW TOPIC on any thread. Many run amok talking about anything and everything unless the way is strait and gate narrow.

 

[John of Japan]

I have neither said nor implied such a thing! I simply quoted verbatim what Luke wrote,

“I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,”

Luke is here telling Theophilus that he (Luke) decided “to write an orderly account” for him “so that [he] may know the truth concerning the things about which [he had] been instructed. In order to assure Theophilus that his account will be accurate, he tells Theophilus that he had investigated “everything carefully from the very first.” We have here a precisely written statement by Luke concerning events that took place sometime in the first century.

Are you somehow implying that fundamentalists don't know how to research? Bauder is a well known fundamentalist scholar. There are many others. James Price got his PhD in Hebrew from Dropsy, and was an OT editor of the NKJV and the HSB. My son is a recognized scholar in Petrine studies with a PhD from SEBTS, with two books and many journal articles published. (He also does editing for Logos and has done peer review for a leading evangelical journal. Kostenberger is now a BJU prof. I could go on.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Are you somehow implying that fundamentalists don't know how to research?

No, of course not!