Fundementalism and neo-evanglicalism

[The Biblicist]

I believe Satans reaction to the Great Awakenings in the United States in the 1700's was liberalism spawned in America by those primarily graduating from German seminaries of higher criticism.

In the late 1940's another movement arose that determined to infiltrate liberal Christianity instead of separating from it as the Bible clearly teaches. This movement was sphereheaded by Billy Graham and his crusades which invited liberal Christian leaders to take part in his crusades. Some call it "neo-evanglicalism." Fundementalism was a response to neo-evanglicalism and their anti-Biblical principle of incoporation with heretics instead of separation.

 

[SolaSaint]

What about Charles Finney, shouldn't we look further back than Billy Graham?

 

[The Biblicist]

What about Charles Finney, shouldn't we look further back than Billy Graham?

The reason I referred to Billy Graham is because he is the most popular expression of neo-evangelism. There are several before him but the movement was systemized from those professors at Fuller Theological Seminary in California and then given its most visible popular expression in Billy Graham.

 

[ktn4eg]

I believe that it was Finney (in the early 1800's) who popularized what we now call the "Invitation" @ the end of your average IFB Church's sermon.

Not being critical of the basic concept of the invitation, but (just like anything else! :smilewinkgrin it CAN be abused! EXAMPLES:

1) ".....Now folks, I know we've already sung 'Just As I Am' 67 times, but we're NOT going to stop singing it til SOMEONE comes forward!!" :BangHead:

2) "....Peter denied Jesus 3 times! We're only going to sing 'Have Thine Own Way, Lord' just THREE times. If ANY of you are still standing in your pew after the third time, well, the rest of us will know WITHOUT A DOUBT who the "CHRIST-DENIERS"are in THIS congregation!!!! :tear:

Yep, I've actually witnessed these kinds of heart-rending pleas!! (& I'd venture 2 say that some of U out there in BB Land have 2!)

(OTOH, I've also witnessed some very good invitations too! :thumbsup

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that it was Finney (in the early 1800's) who popularized what we now call the "Invitation" @ the end of your average IFB Church's sermon.

Not being critical of the basic concept of the invitation, but (just like anything else! :smilewinkgrin it CAN be abused! EXAMPLES:

1) ".....Now folks, I know we've already sung 'Just As I Am' 67 times, but we're NOT going to stop singing it til SOMEONE comes forward!!" :BangHead:

2) "....Peter denied Jesus 3 times! We're only going to sing 'Have Thine Own Way, Lord' just THREE times. If ANY of you are still standing in your pew after the third time, well, the rest of us will know WITHOUT A DOUBT who the "CHRIST-DENIERS"are in THIS congregation!!!! :tear:

Yep, I've actually witnessed these kinds of heart-rending pleas!! (& I'd venture 2 say that some of U out there in BB Land have 2!)

(OTOH, I've also witnessed some very good invitations too! :thumbsup

My exact feelings!

 

[The Biblicist]

My exact feelings!

However, the rise of the modern fundementalist movement was a reaction to the the Billy Graham type of neo-evangelism that incorporated heretics instead of separating from them. Fundementalism presented certain defined fundementals designed to identify and separate from what they viewed to be heretics - 2 Thes. 3:6.

 

[Salty]

However, the rise of the modern fundementalist movement was a reaction to the the Billy Graham type of neo-evangelism ...

according to this article - it started about 1910

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No worries Biblicist. My wife threw Billie's Books where they belong. In the garbage.

 

[billwald]

Billy Graham taught a generic Christianity that probably in the long run created more trouble than it solved - specifically what half of you complain about - that "believing in" is all that matters. As long as one "believes in" he has fire insurance.

 

[Deacon]

Billy Graham taught a generic Christianity ...

The task of an evangelist is to evangelize - not to disciple!

Billy Graham's campaigns attracted large crouds from many different backgrounds - He welcomed everyone while he preached the gospel of Christ.

My grandmother accepted Christ under the ministry of Billy Sunday - while generally conservative, Billy Sunday was quite ecumenical in his approach in his later years.

Evangelists know it's the gospel that matters first - doctrine comes later.

Rob

 

[SolaSaint]

I think taht is right Rob.

 

[DHK]

What about Charles Finney, shouldn't we look further back than Billy Graham?

Charles Finney was a heretic. He was the father of Oberlin theology and the President of said college. Concerning invitations his philosophy was the ends justifies the means. Get them down the aisle any way you can.
Finney didn't believe in a sin nature. All were born basically good. He believed in entire sanctification and it would be possible to create a community of Christians who would never sin. It never happened.
He held to some very quirky and unorthodox beliefs.

 

[drfuss]

My older sister went forward in a Billy Graham crusade back in the 1950's and was told to go to her Pastor for further guidance. She contacted her liberal Methodist pastor who told her that she was okay before she went forward, and she did not need that experience. She continued in the Methodist church. However, her conversion lasted even though the rest of the family were not born again Christians. Years later, her influence encouraged the rest of the family to accept Christ while visiting another denomination.

 

[SolaSaint]

It just goes to show, no one can know someone elses heart condition. Many could have been saved at BG Crusades or not. God can use many different ways to bring His elect into His Kingdom. I would goes as far as saying some with the RCC are saved through their preaching and teaching.

As a teacher, my biggest worry is that I may lead someone to a false conversion. I know I cannot save anyone, but I don't want to convince someone to make a decision, I just want to convince them of the truths of Scripture and the gospel. I think modern fundamentalism is trying to be the Holy Spirit instead of seed sowers. IMO

 

[Alive in Christ]

Good grief', this thread seems to be a disaster waitihg to happen

Pitting liberal theology up against the fundamentlists

The mods are probably preparing for the worst! :laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Good grief', this thread seems to be a disaster waitihg to happen

Pitting liberal theology up against the fundamentlists

The mods are probably preparing for the worst! :laugh:

Yeah, and since I don't like either, I don't plan to participate.

But I'll read.

 

[The Biblicist]

Good grief', this thread seems to be a disaster waitihg to happen

Pitting liberal theology up against the fundamentlists

The mods are probably preparing for the worst! :laugh:

Fundementalism as a movement was in reaction to neo-evangelism as a movment. Neo-evangelism tried to be a bridge between fundementalism and liberalism - with the attempt to evangelize liberalism by infiltration within instead of separating and evangelizing from without as did fundementalists.

However, the attempt of neo-evangelism proved that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump and the only way to avoid it is to "purge OUT the old leaven" rather than infiltration. Neo-evangelism became liberal and thus failed in its design by its founders.

But have we learned from history that the Bibical principle is the best to follow and it calls for bible believers to "come out from among them" not fellowship with them?

 

[Yeshua1]

However, the rise of the modern fundementalist movement was a reaction to the the Billy Graham type of neo-evangelism that incorporated heretics instead of separating from them. Fundementalism presented certain defined fundementals designed to identify and separate from what they viewed to be heretics - 2 Thes. 3:6.

How would you make the decision though to determine who is a heretic?

Is Billy Gragham? DL Moody?
JI packer/John Stott/RC Sproul?

This can be a very slippery slope, as my Bible tells us to not hangwith those claiming to be Christians, but have a false gospel/Jesus, but what about baptists, calvinists, Arminians, pentacostalists etc?

 

[The Biblicist]

How would you make the decision though to determine who is a heretic?

Is Billy Gragham? DL Moody?
JI packer/John Stott/RC Sproul?

This can be a very slippery slope, as my Bible tells us to not hangwith those claiming to be Christians, but have a false gospel/Jesus, but what about baptists, calvinists, Arminians, pentacostalists etc?

One can be a true child of God and yet be wrong on many issues. However, heretics are those who are wrong on issues that are essential to be saved and/or essential to serve God acceptably.

For example, Billy Graham I believe is a saved man but his evangelistic methods and many of his doctrines are unbiblical. God has genuinely saved people in nearly all denominations but they are cumbered with many false doctrines and practices. However, there are some (Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, and the like) are nothing but religious charletons.

 

[SovereignMercy]

Bib, So Jesus is the author but not the Finisher of our faith?

God is as sovereign in the elect's sanctification as He is in our justification.

I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

Billy is buddies with most of the people at the end of your list. I know not worshipping Billy is anathema to the BB. Somehow people here even think he is a baptist. Then why does he tell people to come forward instead of being baptized? Billy fits the description below. Especially since Mormons are no longer a cult to him and Franklin.

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.