JD731, do you not believe in evangelism?
Or is there a definition of "evangelical" that I am not aware of?
-
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
Or is there a definition of "evangelical" that I am not aware of?
The term 'Evangelical' has become so debased as to be almost meaningless. The current (soon to be ex) Archbishop of Canterbury would describe himself as an evangelical. It has become necessary in Britain to define one's evangelicalism - 'conservative,' 'Bible-believing' or 'Reformed.' Even the term 'Reformed' now needs to be defined. There are now the 'Truly Reformed' who do not believe anyone is Reformed who does not use the KJV, sings hymns by people who have not been dead for 100+ years or does not practise two or even three (!) stage separation. But there are others who have women pastors, cheerfully hobnob with entirely apostate churches and ministers, and others who, while Reformed in other respects, do not follow Covenant Theology or are Dispensational. Trying to define one's theology succinctly has become a verbal minefield.
Now anyone who is evangelical should also be a Fundamentalist inasmuch as he believes in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, but in Britain almost nobody defines himself as a Fundamentalist. This, I think is because of a misunderstanding about American Fundamentalism. Many Brits think that all Fundies are KJV-only, highly political, isolationalist and don't allow women to wear 'pants.' I have been on this board long enough to know that this is something of a caricature. When I was on holiday in America some years ago, I visited a number of Fundamentalist churches and was blessed by my visits.
I should add that anyone visiting Britain should avoid the United Reformed Church like the plague. It bears no relationship to the American denomination of the same name and is the most liberal grouping in the UK. The few Bible-believing churches among them are urgently seeking ways to leave.
Now anyone who is evangelical should also be a Fundamentalist inasmuch as he believes in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, but in Britain almost nobody defines himself as a Fundamentalist. This, I think is because of a misunderstanding about American Fundamentalism. Many Brits think that all Fundies are KJV-only, highly political, isolationalist and don't allow women to wear 'pants.' I have been on this board long enough to know that this is something of a caricature. When I was on holiday in America some years ago, I visited a number of Fundamentalist churches and was blessed by my visits.
I should add that anyone visiting Britain should avoid the United Reformed Church like the plague. It bears no relationship to the American denomination of the same name and is the most liberal grouping in the UK. The few Bible-believing churches among them are urgently seeking ways to leave.
Last edited:
Great!
It seems to me that we need a definition of fundamentalism here. A fundamentalist historically is not simply one who believes the fundamentals of the faith: the verbal inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, etc. If that were true, then Billy Graham, Francis Schaeffer, and other well known evangelicals would not have specifically stood against fundamentalism, and would have willingly used the label for themselves.
A fundamentalist historically is one who takes a stand against false doctrine, notable liberal theology--which denies the supernatural. An evangelical may or may not take a strong stand against liberalism. Thus, we have the origin of New Evangelicalism in the 1950's, which believed in infiltration rather than separation from liberals. Check it out here: A Brief History of Fundamentalism - Shepherds Theological Seminary - Development
Examples: John R. Rice and J. Frank Norris stood against evolution being taught at Baylor U. and were blackballed for the SBC for their stand. In the North, such men as W. B. Riley stood against the liberalism in the Northern Baptists.
I consider Spurgeon to be the proto-fundamentalist for the stand he took against the "Downgrade Movement" in the British Baptist Union. For his stand, they voted him out, proving that many times in history it was not the fundamentalist who separated, but the evangelicals and liberals who separated from the fundamentalists!
A fundamentalist historically is one who takes a stand against false doctrine, notable liberal theology--which denies the supernatural. An evangelical may or may not take a strong stand against liberalism. Thus, we have the origin of New Evangelicalism in the 1950's, which believed in infiltration rather than separation from liberals. Check it out here: A Brief History of Fundamentalism - Shepherds Theological Seminary - Development
Examples: John R. Rice and J. Frank Norris stood against evolution being taught at Baylor U. and were blackballed for the SBC for their stand. In the North, such men as W. B. Riley stood against the liberalism in the Northern Baptists.
I consider Spurgeon to be the proto-fundamentalist for the stand he took against the "Downgrade Movement" in the British Baptist Union. For his stand, they voted him out, proving that many times in history it was not the fundamentalist who separated, but the evangelicals and liberals who separated from the fundamentalists!
Yes, I believe in evangelism
I think I agree with John of Japan above for a short answer, except for his evaluation of Spurgeon. I have a problem with Spurgeon waffling between being a fundamentalist and being a Calvinist. A true and consistent fundamentalist would separate himself from Calvinism and I do not see any common ground between the two. Having said that, I have respect of how God used him in his day when he was ministering as a fundamentalist.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
John of Japan is absolutely correct on this matter! The extreme form of the doctrines of Christian fundamentalism that is taught in our Baptist churches today come from Reformed theologians, especially Louis Gaussen in his Theopneustie: Ou Inspiration Pleniere Des Saintes Ecritures Published by Delay et Beroud in 1840 and translated into English by David Dundas Scott, and Benjamin Warfield in his The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company in 1948. Prior to the Reformation, the extreme form of the doctrines of Christian fundamentalism that is taught in our Baptist churches today did not exist and the church had very different beliefs regarding Divine inspiration, infallibility of the Scripture, etc.
I would not know about that but if you believe it to be so then carry on. I have learned that someone who defines others as extreme is doing so because those extremists just love God more than the critic..
I am kinda sick of books that people like you quote, rarely ever quoting God, like above.
Why would it be so that a fundamentalist cannot be a Calvinist? I see nothing in Calvinism that forbids one from standing for the fundamentals and rebuking liberalism and other false doctrines. That's what fundamentalism is, fundamentally: standing for the fundamental doctrines and taking a visible stand against liberalism.
I am not a Calvinist to be sure, but I have known fundamentalists who were. My best friend from college is a five pointer, but goes to a non-Calvinist church. (The pastor, a good friend of mine also, is careful about the possibilities, to be sure, but my friend would never split a church with his Calvinism.
In the early days of fundamentalism, some of the strongest fundamentalists were the Presbyterians, such as Gresham Machen, Carl McIntyre, Francis Schaeffer, etc., all Calvinists. Nowadays, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary holds a four point position and is strongly fundamental.
Having said all of that, one of my mentors pointed out that fundamentalism is more suited to Baptists than the denominations, so there is a partial accuracy in what you wrote.
I disagree with the premise that Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists believe the fundamentals as we fundamental Baptists do. They are depraved, they say, to the point they cannot believe the gospel so the invitation to receive the gift of salvation is open to only a very few people because Christ did not die for anyone but them. Because of this, regeneration for them is not because of believing but believing is a result of regeneration and an arbitrary choice of God of whom he is willing to save before anything was ever created or any sinner ever sinned. This is not just foreknowledge but forechoice. This takes away the cross from being central to the salvation of sinners and leaves it being an incidental part of it.
If I believed as they do, then given the choice, I would much rather be numbered in those who were preselected to salvation than to willingly cast my soul upon the testimony of scriptures that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead to save me and anyone who will come to God through faith in him.
Last edited:
Not just foreknowledge, but foreclosure, because sinners are locked out, even though “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners…”.
I believe in foreknowledge and whosoever will. Foreclosure, not so much.
Many fundamentalists I know are strongly Calvinistic/particular Baptists who are mission-minded and evangelistic. I see one every day when I look in the mirror.
I know very few who are Arminian Baptists who claim the "fundamentalist" moniker.
Sadly, I know some Baptists who claim "fundamentalist" are so far from doctrinal truth that they attack the FIRST fundamental - the doctrine of inspiration! Makes me angry at such phonies.
I know very few who are Arminian Baptists who claim the "fundamentalist" moniker.
Sadly, I know some Baptists who claim "fundamentalist" are so far from doctrinal truth that they attack the FIRST fundamental - the doctrine of inspiration! Makes me angry at such phonies.
Briefly, what are some of the doctrines you consider to be fundamental?
The full verbal inspiration of Scriptures (not man-made translations some so-called fundamentalists worship) including all miracles and prophecy that attest its inerrant perfection.
The deity of Christ - virgin birth, sinless life, atoning blood, bodily resurrection, premillennial return
These are the two basic areas on which there is no compromise. Also, I am a historic militant fundamentalist, so therefore hold personally and for fellowship and defend all attacks on it. I stand against theological liberalism, modernism, and godless evolution.
Thank you Dr Bob for your answer.
Have you ever seen and held an inspired Bible in your hands and have you ever read one cover to cover?
Amen! But how do you justify categorizing Calvinism (Reformed) as fundamental, especially with doctrines like irresistible grace, total depravity (inability), and limited atonement?
Last edited:
God gave His exact breathed words. We have them all. Joyfully, I can read them since I know Greek and Hebrew. I find joy in accurate, faithful translations in a number of languages, realizing that all are man-made and thus (by nature) imperfect, especially as languages evolve and word meaning may take a 180 from what was the norm a decade of centuries before.
The fundamentals of the faith are in the Word and in the person of Christ. Please so not conflate/confuse them with any hermeneutical or theological interpretation or view.
[Aside: Cannot imagine a person who doesn't believe in the complete abject incapability of a sinner to do one righteous thing in the sight of God even understands doctrine and that salvation is left to the sinner. Nor that God the Father who is sovereign in salvation's choices, not evil, wicked, fallen man who still, obviously believes he can chose correctly. Nor that God the Son died but it failed to save because a sinner's will was stronger than His will. Nor that God the holy Spirit can be stopped by man? Or that man could somehow lose the eternal salvation God the Father, Son, and Spirit promised (and didn't lie). As Spurgeon said so succinctly, Calvinism IS the Gospel.
But Calvinism has NOTHING to do with the Fundamentals of the Faith. That is a different discussion; confusing the two may be a problem. Trust you can grasp that and feel free to spout off in the Calvinism/Arminian discussion forum where they could shed some light on false doctrine.
]The subject is fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Fundamentalists like me believes that sinners do not have to believe the scriptures to be saved but they must believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore God does not send Bibles to sinners, he sends preachers who believes the scriptures and knows the gospel. Believing the gospel of Jesus Christ makes a fundamental change in the heart of a man and a saved man will believe the scriptures.
Proof of this in the NT era, after gentiles began to be added to the church, is that evangelists began to go into all the world to preach Jesus and his salvation, his gospel, and this before the NT was written but not before gentiles were being saved. These were fundamentalist evangelists and were preaching that the salvation God was offering us was to be received by simple childlike faith to any and all who will receive it.
It was not until evangelism did it's work that Paul, the apostle to the gentiles wrote his letters to those after they were saved by the gospel. There is no record that he ever wrote a single word to unsaved gentiles, It would be unreasonable to think that the unsaved would have any interest in obeying anything Paul had to say. The saved gentiles would need to learn about God and his ways and his doctrines and walk in them so as to please the God who saved them from their sins and has redeemed them. Is this not what Paul said to the Roman believers?
Ro 15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
Salvation depends upon sinners being able and willing to believe the simple gospel of Jesus Christ when they hear it. God has not made his salvation difficult or impossible as your religious system called Calvinism has. Calvinism is not fundamentalism as it is properly defined because it mis defines the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This presupposes that all these translators and paraphrasers are saved people and elect since you have labeled them good and if what you say you believe in the highlighted text is what you actually believe. The likelihood of all the translators of Bibles and paraphrasers being born again is unreasonable to even contemplate.
I have made my point about Calvinism being fundamental to the faith and this is my last post about it here. I totally reject the Calvinistic system of Christianity because it is a different gospel than I believe is taught through Jesus Christ. The Calvinist gospel is not a gospel at all to most of the world. It is bad news for them.
Last edited:
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
What some men believe to be “doctrinal truth” is understood by many other men to be doctrinal error. As we have already seen in this thread, Luke wrote,
Luke 1-1-4. 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)
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. These events are inconsistent with what many Baptist fundamentalists believe about the inspiration of the Bible.
Louis Gaussen in his Theopneustie: Ou Inspiration Pleniere Des Saintes Ecritures Published by Delay et Beroud in 1840 is keenly aware of the problem and unlike most of the scholars who adamantly teach the Reformed view of Divine inspiration does not attempt to slide it under a rug but rather addresses it by writing that the problem is really not a problem but a translation error. That is, he claims that the Greek word ἄνωθεν in verse three should be translated as “from above” rather than as “from the very first” giving us, “I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from above….” Fortunately, no one has ever agreed with Gaussen’s ridiculous translation because the context does not allow for it. There is nothing more important to me than the truth—even when the truth disturbs some people simply because they hold to a tradition rather than Luke’s own words.
Select Bibliography
Bock, Darrell L. - B.E.C. xxxv, 2,148 pages in two volumes, 1994, 1996
Bruce, Alexander B. - Expositor's Greek Testament
Creed, John Martin lxxxix, 340 pages, 1930
Edwards, James R. - xxviii, 831 pages, 2015
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. - xxvi, xxxv, 1642 pages two volumes, 1981, 1985
Geldenhuys, Norval - N.I.C. 685 pages, 1951
Godet, Frederick Louis 574 pages, 1887, Third Edition
Just Jr., Arthur A. - A.C.C.S.N.T. 444 pages, 2003
Leaney, Alfred Robert Clare - H.N.T.C. exe., xii, 300 pages, 1966
Lenski, Richard 1,212 pages, 1946
Manson, William - Moffatt N. T. Com. 282 pages, 1930
Marshall, I. Howard 928 pages, 1978
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm (Mark and Luke) xix, 598 (384 ) pages, 1884 (English) (7/16/84)
Nolland, John (Ch. 1-9:20) - W.B.C. exe., lxvi, 454 pages, 1989
Nolland, John (Ch. 9:21-18:34) - W.B.C. exe., lix, 440 pages, 1993
Nolland, John (Ch. 18:35-24:53) - W.B.C. exe., lxi, 398 pages, 1993
Plummer, Alfred - I.C.C. lxxxviii, 592 pages, 1896
I have all of these commentaries on Luke, and many more, here in my study.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, with this post you deny the word of God in two ways: God says that the crowd in Revelation 7 is 'great' and that no one can count it. You take the liberty of counting it and then disagree with Almighty God by finding it small. But tell me, how does the crowd get either bigger or smaller whether one is Arminian or Calvinistic? The only difference is that you leave it up to man, whereas I leave it up to God and trust His word that the number will indeed be great.
No one is saved by believing in election. Our warrant to believe is not that we are elect, but that we are sinners, and Christ died for such (John 6:40). And all Calvinists that I know of believe that Christ did indeed die to save anyone who will come to God through Him. The problem is that no one will come unless the Holy Spirit opens his heart to do so (John 6:44; Acts 16:14).
Martin, I can't answer this objection because I do not understand what it is. God speaks about 144,00 evangelists he chooses, 12 K from each of the 12 tribes of Israel to go into the world to preach the gospel of the kingdom during the first 3 1/2 years of the 7 years. Then, the key, "AFTER THIS" which would be the second 3 1/2 years when the MAN of SIN kills their converst during what he call the GREAT tribulation. You make this hard because you will not believe the words.
You are being coy here with your wording, Martin. The cross of Jesus Christ is an incidental part of your salvation with the central part being pre world election and regeneration being before believing the gospel. God will not regenerate someone he has not previously elected in your sytematic theology so stop trying to use double talk with me and others. No one, you say, can be saved unless God first regenerates them.
This is not the gospel I believe but I do understand what you teach if you are a Calvinist, hyper or non hyper. I do not accept this teaching as being fundamental Christianity and I do not believe it to be good news and glads tidings for most of the people on this earth who were not elected as you claim to be.
Last edited: