Fundamentalist?

[Luke2427]

In order to be a fundamentalist, can one believe that the best way to do missions is through a denominational hierarchy- or does this disqualify one from being a fundamentalist?

Can one warmly embrace evangelicalism and be a fundamentalist?

Can one be a fundamentalist and despise dispensationalism and rapture theology (or any eschatological derivative of Darby's and Scofield's novel eschatology)?

Can one be a fundamentalist and be a died in the wool Calvinist?

Can one be a fundamentalist and think teetotalism is dumb and that the Bible clearly teaches moderation?

Can one be a fundamentalist and believe that Baptists were born the first time in the 17th century and that there was no such animal before John Smythe?

Can one be a fundamentalist and think Billy Graham was right and John R. Rice was dead wrong?

 

[SolaSaint]

I don't consider myself a Fundamentalist but I believe in the fundamentals of the faith, am I a Fundy? What exactly makes a Christian a Fundamentalist?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I'm editing your original post for ease of answering it. My reply is interspersed and in italics:

In order to be a fundamentalist,

• can one believe that the best way to do missions is through a denominational hierarchy- or does this disqualify one from being a fundamentalist?

Technicly, yes. As, there are Fundamental Presbyterians and Methodists; who by definition denominational in their ecclesiology. Among the Baptist, no. But, that's only because back in the day for many good and sufficient reasons the SBC didn't have any truck with the Fundamentalist movement. In the NBC, missions were foundational in the split.

• Can one warmly embrace evangelicalism and be a fundamentalist?

Not really. Again, it goes to practicality. Fundamentalism foundationally is a seperatist movement within the larger sphere of Evangelicalism.

• Can one be a fundamentalist and despise dispensationalism and rapture theology (or any eschatological derivative of Darby's and Scofield's novel eschatology)?

Yes, though one of the Fundamentals is the belief in the bodily return of Christ in judgement. This should be read as allowing for any of the eschatological models.

• Can one be a fundamentalist and be a died in the wool Calvinist?

Yes

• Can one be a fundamentalist and think teetotalism is dumb and that the Bible clearly teaches moderation?

Total abstentsion is not a Fundamental. Though there are many who would like it to be.

• Can one be a fundamentalist and believe that Baptists were born the first time in the 17th century and that there was no such animal before John Smythe?

This is a matter of Baptist history and not a matter of Fundamentalism

• Can one be a fundamentalist and think Billy Graham was right and John R. Rice was dead wrong?

No. There were many men from a variety of backgrounds who separated from Billy Graham. They did so for reasons of their own and not because J.R. Rice lead them to do so.

I hope this helps.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm editing your original post for ease of answering it. My reply is interspersed and in italics:

I hope this helps.

A couple of things:

The evangelical response. Why? Why the need to separate from evangelicalism?


Billy Graham- what did he do that disqualifies any of his supporters from being fundamentalists.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Have you taken a look at the state of our corner of the world 1948-1968? If not, take a look. The Billy Graham situation is rooted in that era. Today we are simply dealing with the aftermath. The same applies to your Evengelicalism question.

A couple of things:

The evangelical response. Why? Why the need to separate from evangelicalism?


Billy Graham- what did he do that disqualifies any of his supporters from being fundamentalists.

 

[Luke2427]

Have you taken a look at the state of our corner of the world 1948-1968? If not, take a look. The Billy Graham situation is rooted in that era. Today we are simply dealing with the aftermath. The same applies to your Evengelicalism question.

Is there not a succinct answer to the questions without me having to read a book? I already have a ton of books I need to read.

Can you not hit the high points?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Luke, the matters you are looking at are the results of battles fought, won, and lost dating back to at least the 1920s (in the Northern Baptist Convention and movement). I recommend David Beale's In Search of Purity (American Fundamentalism since 1850). Take your time and read up on the topic. The key is we Fundamental Baptists in 2013 didn't just pull our positions out of our ears in the last twenty five years.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, the matters you are looking at are the results of battles fought, won, and lost dating back to at least the 1920s (in the Northern Baptist Convention and movement). I recommend David Beale's In Search of Purity (American Fundamentalism since 1850). Take your time and read up on the topic. The key is we Fundamental Baptists in 2013 didn't just pull our positions out of our ears in the last twenty five years.

So then the answer is "No."

You can't just hit the high points.

Forgive me, but it seems that you wish for them to remain purposefully ambiguous.

I want to know what Billy Graham did during Rice's lifetime that was so bad. I doubt that it WAS that bad.

And you tell me to read a book?

I want to know what two or three things about evangelicalism (DHK considers himself evangelical, BTW) disqualifies one in evangelicalism from being a fundamentalist.

And you want me to read a book?

I am this very hour finishing up a book critique on Christianity's Dangerous Idea by Alister McGrath for Church History class. It is a 500+ page book. I don't have time to read a bunch of other books- UNLESS you can tell me what is in them that is worth reading- succinct specifics.

I especially don't have time to read books that I doubt seriously are going to be that scholarly to begin with (are these volumes on par with "Trail of Blood" and other such silliness?).

If you want to help, summarize the points and THEN tell me to read them for further info. Give me specific evils of Billy Graham (BTW, I know of plenty of them SINCE Rice- but I want to know what he did that was so liberal or bad during John Rice's days that warranted the censorship.)

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm going take a quick guess here that part of the problem between Fundamentalists and Billy Graham was that he was willing to work with and involve people from other denominations in his crusades.

I suspect that there were conservative Baptists who held their tongues about that, for the simple reason that Billy preached the gospel pretty straight--and many confessed Christ under his preaching.

 

[agedman]

Luke,

If you acknowledge that there are/were plenty ("BTW, I know of plenty of them SINCE Rice") what makes you think that the man who worked along side Billy might not have perceived what you now know?

Why call into question Rice, when you have (by your own admission) "plenty" from which to draw your own separation reasons?

 

[agedman]

Luke,

There was a thread that addressed this part of John R. Rices experience that occurred here a few months ago.

JohnofJapan spent a considerable number of pages documenting factual events of Dr. Rices life in those posts.

Perhaps you can write JofJ and ask what threads they occurred in and read through them for the highlights of this and many other areas concerning John R. Rice.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Luke, Dr. Graham had issues with more men than just Dr. Rice (e.g. the Bob Jones', Richard V. Clearwaters, Arno Q. Wenigar, Sr., B. Myron Cedarholm, Ed Nelson, et al.) . The following is as its very best a bare bones outline:

• the BG controversy dates back to the 1950s.
• initially BG had Fundamentalist support.
• the ignition event was BGs inclusion of Modernists and Liberals in his New York City Crusade in 1957.
• since 1957 he continued to have men on his platform from Modernists to Russian Orthodox priests at the Moscow Crusade. (Evangelical Christian-Baptists of the former Soviet Union opposed him on this point alone.)

As for In Pursuit of Purity, I'm not suggesting you read it cover to cover. But, you might find a useful chapter or two. The book gives a good over view of the movement on its various battle fronts.

I would add, I don't expect you to drop everything and rush off to read IPP. I do expect you to see there is more to this topic than what you perceive at the moment. Also, you need to accept the need for further research.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Nope, remember Fundamentalism crosses denominational boundaries. We separated from Dr. Graham because he allowed Modernists, Liberals, and other deniers of the Gospel to take prominent parts in his crusades.

I'm going take a quick guess here that part of the problem between Fundamentalists and Billy Graham was that he was willing to work with and involve people from other denominations in his crusades.

I suspect that there were conservative Baptists who held their tongues about that, for the simple reason that Billy preached the gospel pretty straight--and many confessed Christ under his preaching.

 

[evangelist6589]

In order to be a fundamentalist, can one believe that the best way to do missions is through a denominational hierarchy- or does this disqualify one from being a fundamentalist?

Can one be a fundamentalist and think Billy Graham was right and John R. Rice was dead wrong?

So those Way of the Master Evangelists are disqualified heh? Yes IFB ignore and disapprove of the WOTM evangelists. WOTM was ignored, neglected, and such at BJU and in all IFB churches I attended. One church sold some of Comforts books in their bookstore, but failed to use the principles taught in his books in their street evangelism. They were against open air preaching, and against using the LAW to convict the sinner. It made no sense why they would sell his books, but not use what was taught. Such foolishness...

Regarding the second question. Both are wrong as both teach "easy-believism" and are no way Calvinist.

 

[Tom Butler]

Nope, remember Fundamentalism crosses denominational boundaries. We separated from Dr. Graham because he allowed Modernists, Liberals, and other deniers of the Gospel to take prominent parts in his crusades.

Thanks, Squire, for the additional clarification. You are correct.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Nope, remember Fundamentalism crosses denominational boundaries. We separated from Dr. Graham because he allowed Modernists, Liberals, and other deniers of the Gospel to take prominent parts in his crusades.

David Cloud adherent?

 

[prophet]

Nope, remember Fundamentalism crosses denominational boundaries. We separated from Dr. Graham because he allowed Modernists, Liberals, and other deniers of the Gospel to take prominent parts in his crusades.

Yes, it does, and it has poisoned the Baptists with Protestant (RCC) error.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Nope, remember Fundamentalism crosses denominational boundaries. We separated from Dr. Graham because he allowed Modernists, Liberals, and other deniers of the Gospel to take prominent parts in his crusades.

David Cloud adherent?

Not neccessarily. The divisions over DG's modernist and RCC platform and supporters came to a head in 1957 with his New York Crusade. David Cloud would not have been even twenty in 1957.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, Dr. Graham had issues with more men than just Dr. Rice (e.g. the Bob Jones', Richard V. Clearwaters, Arno Q. Wenigar, Sr., B. Myron Cedarholm, Ed Nelson, et al.) . The following is as its very best a bare bones outline:

• the BG controversy dates back to the 1950s.
• initially BG had Fundamentalist support.
• the ignition event was BGs inclusion of Modernists and Liberals in his New York City Crusade in 1957.
• since 1957 he continued to have men on his platform from Modernists to Russian Orthodox priests at the Moscow Crusade. (Evangelical Christian-Baptists of the former Soviet Union opposed him on this point alone.)

As for In Pursuit of Purity, I'm not suggesting you read it cover to cover. But, you might find a useful chapter or two. The book gives a good over view of the movement on its various battle fronts.

I would add, I don't expect you to drop everything and rush off to read IPP. I do expect you to see there is more to this topic than what you perceive at the moment. Also, you need to accept the need for further research.

Could you clarify "BG"?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

BG=Billy Graham. I'm a two finger typist and I wanted to shorten the name as often as I figured I would need to type it on this thread.

Could you clarify "BG"?