Pardon the lenght of this. I will try to shorten it and then cease from such long posts. I love this topic however because I think it is so important to the maintenance of a pure bride for the Savior. It is of immense historical significance.
Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
I honestly believe if the resurgence had not taken place, most SB would have left the convention.
I hope that is the case.
On a side note, I almost find it humorous to hear IFBers speak of blind loyalty. I know nothing of your personal history or preferences, ...
I agree with that. You obviously don't know much about me
... That whole divine blood and KJVO stuff is enough to make me lose my dinner ... Unfortunately there are a lot of "fundamentalists" who do exaclty what you say and I would say the same thing to them that you would -- Get in line with Scripture.
Even in your example of inspiration and inerrancy, there is such a diverse opinion in the evangelical circle as to the exact definition of the word inerrancy that a dogmatic definition lends itself to the biases and beliefs one's own presuppositions.
CS Lewis had some other issues besides this one. However, I am not of the opinion that inerrancy is as slippery as it might seem. People don't reject inerrnacy because they don't understand it or because of the mountain of evidence against it. They reject it for other reasons (like personal beliefs). The downfall at Fuller came as a result of this issue, largely (was not this the reason for Black Saturday?). The fundamentalists were too narrow minded for the academics. Since FTS wanted academic respectability, this was one doctrine that could be "redefined." Hence you had people arguing for limited inerrancy -- which is like being a little bit pregnant -- either you are or you aren't. IT wasn't long before other issues followed inerrancy.
Early "new evangelicalism" was simply a return to the evangelical movement of the prior century. As I stated earlier, it has evolved into something different, but the earliest movement was an effort to combat protestant liberalism by returning to the evangelical roots of the Reformation.
I totally disagree. Early new evangelicalism (c. late 1960s) was a departure from the evangelical movement of the prior century. Until the first decade of the 1900s, there were two categories, something Machen indicated in his book "Christianity and Liberalism." There was no third category. Ockenga's concern was that fundamentalism was becoming socially and culturally irrelevant because of its firm commitment to evangelical doctrine and its emphasis on heart change rather than social involvement. He was concerned that the church was becoming marginalized and negative. He proposed that there be a "new evangelicalism" that was more socially involved, more academically respectable, less separatistic. That was not the issue of the prior century.
]How come every branch of fundamentalism calls itself the "historic" element? Once again, one can see why the term evangelical is so popular. If there is one term that is equally as undefined as evangelical, it has to be the term fundamentalist. If a fundamentalist is one that adheres to doctrines defined in The Fundamentals, count me in. However the term has evolved to include much more.
I don't think it evolved to include much more. I think recent years (last 50 or so) it has devolved from its original meaning, becoming something that historically it never was. Early evangelicalism was devoted to a militant stand for doctrine and exposure and separation from those who denied it. It was laid out much of the what those fundamentals were in the booklets of the same name. Through the years, fundamentalism unfortunately more about standards than about truth.
In 1957, Ockenga outline the following differences between NE (new evangelicalism) and F(fundamentalism) in a press release.
1) NE was willing to handle the social problems that F evaded.
2) NE had a change of strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration.
3) NE was willing to meet intellectual problems in the framework of modern learning.
4) NE practiced a positive proclamation of the truth in distinction from error without delving into personality involved in the error.
I am not convinced these were all valid reasons and they failed as the last 50 years have shown. The church has not had great social impact. Infiltration has resulted in the weakening of doctrine rather than the strengthening of it. The framework of modern learning has created unbelief becuase it was not driven by Scriptural commitments. Hence there is not one major school or seminary that has remained true to it doctrinal heritage. Failure to expose error resulted in a tolerance of error and hence a welcoming into the church of error.
Later on in 1978, Ockenga gave different reasons (in Evangelical Roots, edited by Kantzer [who I believe Thomas said is his uncle]). Here Ockenga said, 1) Fundamentalists were not Christian in their attitude of defending the faith. 2) Fundamentalists had a wrong strategy, i.e., separation in the interests of a pure church; 3) Fundamentalist social theory was governed by dispensational eschatology and thus was too pessimistic about the world. Other wrote attacks on fundamentalism (e.g. Carnell).
John Woodbridge, son of Charles Woodbridge (from FTS in the old days who warned about the problems of the new evangelicalism) was asked if he thought that his father was right. He said he was. It was an admission by a NE that the philosophy of NE had failed. The question is, we have 50 years of laboratory experiements that show NE to be a failing philosophy. Why continue with it?
However, we are a bit off track about the SBC. You continue,
I would be very interested in seeing your demonstration of how the majority of the SBC falls outside the parameters of what it means to be a historic evangelical.
At the very root level, a failure to separate from unbelief and apostasy and from disobedient brothers. Failure to separate resulted in the problems that necessitated a resurgence. Had the SBC churches kept more control and more awareness of the problems involved, such events probably would have never taken place. It was a lack of accountability to the churches that caused the problem. As I said however, the resurgence has given hope that the SBC will return to its more fundamental roots. Only time will tell.
I again must run with this brief discussion.
