The Decline of Fundamentalism (Christian)

[bgwilkinson]

"All the squabbling and extreme legalism eventually sullied the term fundamentalism. Intellectually and temperamentally, these fundamentalists utterly abandoned the high ground that the fathers of the movement had held so tenaciously. As a consequence the movement succumbed to a subtle depreciation of doctrine. The published material from this side of fundamentalism is notable for its total lack of any significant works with real doctrinal or biblical depth. The term fundamentalist became exclusively linked with this militant group."

http://www.gty.org/blog/B151106

I have been watching this happen the last 50 years. I believe he is right on target.

 

[Bob H]

"All the squabbling and extreme legalism eventually sullied the term fundamentalism. Intellectually and temperamentally, these fundamentalists utterly abandoned the high ground that the fathers of the movement had held so tenaciously. As a consequence the movement succumbed to a subtle depreciation of doctrine. The published material from this side of fundamentalism is notable for its total lack of any significant works with real doctrinal or biblical depth. The term fundamentalist became exclusively linked with this militant group."

http://www.gty.org/blog/B151106

I have been watching this happen the last 50 years. I believe he is right on target.

New Evangelism is alive and well in America. We're going the way of England.

 

[Bruh]

"All the squabbling and extreme legalism eventually sullied the term fundamentalism. Intellectually and temperamentally, these fundamentalists utterly abandoned the high ground that the fathers of the movement had held so tenaciously. As a consequence the movement succumbed to a subtle depreciation of doctrine. The published material from this side of fundamentalism is notable for its total lack of any significant works with real doctrinal or biblical depth. The term fundamentalist became exclusively linked with this militant group."

http://www.gty.org/blog/B151106

I have been watching this happen the last 50 years. I believe he is right on target.

You have perfectly described the direction of your current church you so faithfully attend.

 

[bgwilkinson]

"All the squabbling and extreme legalism eventually sullied the term fundamentalism. Intellectually and temperamentally, these fundamentalists utterly abandoned the high ground that the fathers of the movement had held so tenaciously. As a consequence the movement succumbed to a subtle depreciation of doctrine. The published material from this side of fundamentalism is notable for its total lack of any significant works with real doctrinal or biblical depth. The term fundamentalist became exclusively linked with this militant group."

http://www.gty.org/blog/B151106

I have been watching this happen the last 50 years. I believe he is right on target.

You have perfectly described the direction of your current church you so faithfully attend.

I can not take credit for those words, they were penned by John MacArthur in his book, Reckless Faith, published in 1994.



We were taught not to listen to him because he was a Calvinist and hated soul-winning the holy grail of our church.

Yes I see things with understanding I didn't have in the early 90s.

 

[Bruh]

"All the squabbling and extreme legalism eventually sullied the term fundamentalism. Intellectually and temperamentally, these fundamentalists utterly abandoned the high ground that the fathers of the movement had held so tenaciously. As a consequence the movement succumbed to a subtle depreciation of doctrine. The published material from this side of fundamentalism is notable for its total lack of any significant works with real doctrinal or biblical depth. The term fundamentalist became exclusively linked with this militant group."

http://www.gty.org/blog/B151106

I have been watching this happen the last 50 years. I believe he is right on target.

You have perfectly described the direction of your current church you so faithfully attend.

I can not take credit for those words, they were penned by John MacArthur in his book, Reckless Faith, published in 1994.



We were taught not to listen to him because he was a Calvinist and hated soul-winning the holy grail of our church.

Yes I see things with understanding I didn't have in the early 90s.

Yes, and it is very very sad that your church continues down that same road. And the current pastor is not changing anything.

Well, John Wilkerson is not KJVO.................

 

[Matthew1323]

In my opinion, attempting to have more of an emphasis on Christ and less on man is a MAJOR difference from the past at FBC.  No, they have not arrived to what they need to be, but I have to give them kudos for this difference that I believe that JW is attempting to accomplish.

If the members and leaders are able to recognize this and are willing to continue to make the needed changes in this area,  I believe that they then will be able to progress in other areas, so that they can truly become a functioning member of Christ's Christianity.

 

[Izdaari]

 

[biscuit1953]

"An aggressive effort is being made to divest ?the fundamentals? of key evangelical distinctives. Influential voices within evangelicalism are urging us to pare back the essentials to the barest possible statement of faith, and these voices can be heard across the spectrum of evangelicalism. Appeals for broader tolerance and more inclusivism have come from charismatics, dispensationalists, Calvinists and Arminians, Reformed and Lutheran leaders?so-called evangelicals of almost every stripe."

This is from the same article the OP posted.  I attended a church while in the Marine Corps that preached against women wearing boots, men wearing wedding rings, birthdays, any form of celebrating Christ's birth, changing one word in the King James Version or associating with anyone who used a modern translation, women wearing makeup or stockings etc.  Though this may have been fairly extreme compared to most IFB churches, it was symptomatic of how so much emphasis was placed on outward appearance with no grace shown to those who disagreed with them. 

Do some people actually believe John MacArthur to be a "New Evangelical" because he doesn't agree with the likes of Jack Hyles?  I also believed John MacArthur was an extreme Calvinist until I started actually reading the comments in his study bible and realized how many of the things I had read such as he denied the blood of Christ and taught infants burned in hell were nonsense.  I don't agree with everything MacArthur says or does but can anyone name one person outside of themselves they agree with 100%?  I thought it was a very good article.

 

[Izdaari]

Do some people actually believe John MacArthur to be a "New Evangelical" because he doesn't agree with the likes of Jack Hyles?  I also believed John MacArthur was an extreme Calvinist until I started actually reading the comments in his study bible and realized how many of the things I had read such as he denied the blood of Christ and taught infants burned in hell were nonsense.  I don't agree with everything MacArthur says or does but can anyone name one person outside of themselves they agree with 100%?  I thought it was a very good article.

I own a MacArthur Study Bible in NASB. Beyond the basics of Christian orthodoxy, I don't agree with him much at all. But more than his actual doctrine, I disagree with his "my way or the highway" approach to everything. The man's as much a narcissistic egomaniac, incapable of ever admitting he might be wrong, as Obama or Trump.

 

[Bruh]

"An aggressive effort is being made to divest ?the fundamentals? of key evangelical distinctives. Influential voices within evangelicalism are urging us to pare back the essentials to the barest possible statement of faith, and these voices can be heard across the spectrum of evangelicalism. Appeals for broader tolerance and more inclusivism have come from charismatics, dispensationalists, Calvinists and Arminians, Reformed and Lutheran leaders?so-called evangelicals of almost every stripe."

This is from the same article the OP posted.  I attended a church while in the Marine Corps that preached against women wearing boots, men wearing wedding rings, birthdays, any form of celebrating Christ's birth, changing one word in the King James Version or associating with anyone who used a modern translation, women wearing makeup or stockings etc.  Though this may have been fairly extreme compared to most IFB churches, it was symptomatic of how so much emphasis was placed on outward appearance with no grace shown to those who disagreed with them. 

Do some people actually believe John MacArthur to be a "New Evangelical" because he doesn't agree with the likes of Jack Hyles?  I also believed John MacArthur was an extreme Calvinist until I started actually reading the comments in his study bible and realized how many of the things I had read such as he denied the blood of Christ and taught infants burned in hell were nonsense.  I don't agree with everything MacArthur says or does but can anyone name one person outside of themselves they agree with 100%?  I thought it was a very good article.

On the blood.

I told a man some time back that I was reading a JM book this man says be careful he denies the blood of Christ.

I said to him, how do you know this? His answer was, I've heard he does. My answer back to him, I have the book at my house that proves he hasn't denied the blood and just because Jack Hyles said it doesn't mean it's so.

His wife didn't like that....

 

[Izdaari]

I said to him, how do you know this? His answer was, I've heard he does. My answer back to him, I have the book at my house that proves he hasn't denied the blood and just because Jack Hyles said it doesn't mean it's so.

Jack Hyles says a lot of things that ain't so.
Way more than JM, whom I sorta kinda respect, despite his errors and his attitude.

 

[bgwilkinson]

"An aggressive effort is being made to divest ?the fundamentals? of key evangelical distinctives. Influential voices within evangelicalism are urging us to pare back the essentials to the barest possible statement of faith, and these voices can be heard across the spectrum of evangelicalism. Appeals for broader tolerance and more inclusivism have come from charismatics, dispensationalists, Calvinists and Arminians, Reformed and Lutheran leaders?so-called evangelicals of almost every stripe."

This is from the same article the OP posted.  I attended a church while in the Marine Corps that preached against women wearing boots, men wearing wedding rings, birthdays, any form of celebrating Christ's birth, changing one word in the King James Version or associating with anyone who used a modern translation, women wearing makeup or stockings etc.  Though this may have been fairly extreme compared to most IFB churches, it was symptomatic of how so much emphasis was placed on outward appearance with no grace shown to those who disagreed with them. 

Do some people actually believe John MacArthur to be a "New Evangelical" because he doesn't agree with the likes of Jack Hyles?  I also believed John MacArthur was an extreme Calvinist until I started actually reading the comments in his study bible and realized how many of the things I had read such as he denied the blood of Christ and taught infants burned in hell were nonsense.  I don't agree with everything MacArthur says or does but can anyone name one person outside of themselves they agree with 100%?  I thought it was a very good article.

On the blood.

I told a man some time back that I was reading a JM book this man says be careful he denies the blood of Christ.

I said to him, how do you know this? His answer was, I've heard he does. My answer back to him, I have the book at my house that proves he hasn't denied the blood and just because Jack Hyles said it doesn't mean it's so.

His wife didn't like that....

Some can't handle the truth.

 

[Izdaari]

Jack Hyles says a lot of things that ain't so.

Not recently.

Being incarcerated does tend to limit one's audience.

 

[Ransom]

Being incarcerated does tend to limit one's audience.

Jack Schaap is incarcerated.

Jack Hyles is interred.

As the bard said, nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it.

 

[Bruh]

On the blood.

I told a man some time back that I was reading a JM book this man says be careful he denies the blood of Christ.

I said to him, how do you know this? His answer was, I've heard he does. My answer back to him, I have the book at my house that proves he hasn't denied the blood and just because Jack Hyles said it doesn't mean it's so.

His wife didn't like that....

When at HAC, I sat in Liberty Square reading JM's book, Lordship Salvation.  No one said a word to me.

I'm sure you hid it well.

 

[Izdaari]

Being incarcerated does tend to limit one's audience.

Jack Schaap is incarcerated.

Jack Hyles is interred.

As the bard said, nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it.

So Schaap is in prison, and Hyles is in the ground?
That would limit his audience too!
Unless he's undead! Do we need to call Buffy?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Being incarcerated does tend to limit one's audience.

Jack Schaap is incarcerated.

Jack Hyles is interred.

As the bard said, nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it.

So Schaap is in prison, and Hyles is in the ground?
That would limit his audience too!
Unless he's undead! Do we need to call Buffy>

Actually he is about 6 feet up in a concrete box with a marble cover that is ventilated out the back.

 

[Izdaari]

What the Hyles happened to the formatting of this page?
That's super annoying! Did Hyles do that?
If so, he is undead, and we do need to call Buffy!
Can anybody fix it?

 

[BALAAM]

What the Hyles happened to the formatting of this page?
That's super annoying! Did Hyles do that?
If so, he is undead, and we do need to call Buffy!
Can anybody fix it?

Yes, it is annoying. You can go back to the old format but I forgot exactly how I did it.

 

[Izdaari]

I don't think it was you.
I think it was some silly person posting a 2048 x 1536 image,
not knowing or caring that one that big would break the formatting.