The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals ^ | R. C. Sproul

[CCWoody]

***FWIW, I'm working on the "Five Fundamentals for the Fortress of Solitude" while I post. I'll try to have it up as a thread tonight, for commentary.***

Did I guilt you into it? I'm just curious cause I want to know what works for future exploitation. ;^)

Woody.

[Vernon]

Any Action of Will, is necessarily a Work. Work = Action, Action = Work

Nice try, but it will not work!

"Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

According to your hypothesis, they healed themselves! I don't think so.!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Nice try, but it will not work! "Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. According to your hypothesis, they healed themselves! I don't think so.!

Nope. According to my "hypothesis" (aka, the Teachings of Scripture), their Faith was created in them by the monergistic Action of the Holy Spirit.

After all, Faith is not something a Man gives to God, it is something God gives to certain, chosen Men. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Faith is wholly a Gift from God.

[Alex Murphy]

We'll be waiting.... and thanks for playing.

Might as well give him his year's supply of Rice-A-Roni now, OP.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Did I guilt you into it? I'm just curious cause I want to know what works for future exploitation. ;^)

Yes. And yes, that will do it.

Working on L... gimme -- oh, another 30-40 minutes all told. (It's not much work, I just want the wording to be fairly good on the Rough Draft so we don't have to refine it too much on the Thread)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

The name "Fundamentalist" was popularized by a series of books that were written by Bible-believing men for expounding the Fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Published over a five-year period from 1910-1915, the series, titled The Fundamentals, was composed of 90 articles written by 64 authors. With the financial backing of a wealthy Christian businessman, hundreds of thousands of copies of The Fundamentals were distributed to Christian workers in the United States and 21 foreign countries. The articles defended the infallible inspiration of the Bible, justification by faith, the new birth, the deity, virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and other Bible truths. Not only did The Fundamentals address the heresy of Modernism, but also of Romanism, Socialism, and the Cults, as well.

The battle grew hotter as the years passed and as modernistic thinking increased in popularity in American denominations, theological schools, and Christian organizations. Many Bible-believers, realizing that liberalism, having become rooted, could not be effectively resisted (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9), separated themselves from groups which were giving Modernism a home. They formed new churches, denominations, and organizations.

Some have concocted a position that Fundamentalism historically was not militant or separatist, but was merely a belief in "the five fundamentals." That this is a serious perversion of history is clear from the following facts.

We must note at the outset of these considerations that Fundamentalism has never been a monolithic movement. It has never had one definition only. It has taken many different forms. There have always been those who have worn the Fundamentalist label who have shied away from the heat of the battle, who have refused to obey the Word of God and separate from error. Describing Fundamentalism is like the ant describing the elephant; one’s description depends somewhat upon one’s perspective. Even so, to claim that Fundamentalism was NOT characterized by militancy for truth, to claim that fighting and separating have NOT been a significant aspect of historic Fundamentalism, is to fly in the face of history.

1. THAT HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM WAS MORE THAN THE AFFIRMATION OF "THE FIVE FUNDAMENTALS" IS ADMITTED BY ITS HISTORIANS.

George Marsden gives this overview: "By the 1930s, then it became painfully clear that reform from within could not prevent the spread of modernism in major northern denominations, more and more fundamentalists began to make separation from America’s major denominations an article of faith. Although most who supported fundamentalism in the 1920s still remained in their denominations, many Baptist dispensationalists and a few influential Presbyterians were demanding separatism" (Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, p. 7).

George Dollar, one of the few historians of the Fundamentalist movement to write from the standpoint of a genuine Fundamentalist, gives this definition: "Historic fundamentalism is the literal interpretation of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-biblical affirmations and attitudes" (Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 1973).

Dollar divides Fundamentalism into three periods. From 1875-1900 conservative leaders raised the banner against Modernism within the denominations. From 1900-1935 these struggles resulted in men leaving their denominations to form separate churches and groups. "They were the architects of ecclesiastical separation." From 1935-1983 the second generation Fundamentalists continued the battle from outside of the mainline denominations and had the New Evangelical movement to contend with. It is plain that this historian, who has given a significant portion of his life to the examination of these matters, identifies historic Fundamentalism with earnest militancy and biblical separation.

Dr. David O. Beale, who has written one of the most thorough histories of Fundamentalism from a Fundamentalist perspective, gives this definition: "The essence of Fundamentalism ... is the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures. ... The present study reveals that pre-1930 Fundamentalism was nonconformist, while post-1930 Fundamentalism has been separatist" (Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, Bob Jones University Press, 1986, p. 5).

I give one more illustration of the definition given to Fundamentalism by its historians. Again, we use a Fundamentalist author. John Ashbrook has deep roots in the Fundamentalist movement. His father, William, was brought to trial by the Presbyterian denomination because of his stand against Modernism. After his separation from Presbyterianism, William Ashbrook established an independent Fundamentalist church. He wrote one of the most incisive books on New Evangelicalism entitled Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism. The first edition of this work appeared in 1958. His son, John, after a period of toying with New Evangelicalism as a young man, became a solid Fundamentalist leader in his own right. His book New Neutralism II: Exposing the Gray of Compromise is, in this author’s opinion, the best book in print on the subject of New Evangelicalism. In looking back over the Fundamentalist movement since the 1930s, how does John Ashbrook define Fundamentalism? "Fundamentalism is the militant belief and proclamation of the basic doctrines of Christianity leading to a Scriptural separation from those who reject them" (Ashbrook, Axioms of Separation, nd., p. 10).

Those today who deny the militancy and separation of historic Fundamentalism are trying to rewrite history. Instead of admitting that they are NOT old-line Fundamentalists, that indeed they have repudiated biblical Fundamentalism, have compromised the Word of God and adopted New Evangelicalism, these revisionists are trying to redefine Fundamentalism to fit their backslidden condition.

2. THAT HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM WAS MORE THAN THE AFFIRMATION OF "THE FIVE FUNDAMENTALS" IS PROVEN BY THE FACT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM.

If it were true that historical Fundamentalism was a mere exaltation of "the five fundamentals," the New Evangelical movement of the 1940s would have made no sense at all. New Evangelicalism has always held to "the five fundamentals." In fact, as we have seen, one of the fathers of New Evangelicalism has noted that there at least several dozen fundamentals! The keynote of New Evangelicalism was the repudiation of the separatism and other negative aspects of old-line Fundamentalism.

In his history of Fuller Theological Seminary, Reforming Fundamentalism, historian George M. Marsden makes it plain that Fuller’s early leaders were consciously rejecting the negative aspects of old-line Fundamentalism. The title of Marsden’s book itself is evidence of the militant character of historic Fundamentalism. It is clear to honest historians that the Fundamentalism fifty years ago was characterized by MILITANCY, by a willingness to deal with the NEGATIVES, and by SEPARATION, and it was this fact that brought about the New Evangelical movement.

Marion H. Reynolds, Jr., late director of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association in Los Osos, California, had a rich heritage in the Fundamentalist movement. His father was an early Fundamentalist leader and Marion himself has been in the forefront of Fundamentalism for at least forty years. This man knows the true history of American Fundamentalism inside out. In replying to the charge by Jack Van Impe that today’s Fundamentalist leaders have left their heritage and that Fundamentalism of old was not a militant confrontation with error but more a positive affirmation of the doctrinal heart of Christianity, Reynolds gives the following overview of Fundamentalism’s history:

"(1) The first generation fundamentalists were battling unbelief in their own denominations BEFORE the liberals had gained control. Separation from disobedient brethren was not the issue as it was later to become. (2) Along with the love and appreciation the first generation fundamentalists showed to each other as they stood shoulder-to-shoulder against a common foe, there were plenty of tears, heartaches, trials, misunderstandings and disappointments as some fundamentantalists weakened in the heat of the conflict and opted for `more love’ rather than continued confrontation. First generation fundamentalists fought a valiant battle but they did not labor in the `ideal situation’ which Dr. Van Impe imagines it to be. (3) After some 30 years of the historic struggle between first generation fundamentalists and liberalism within the denominations, true fundamentalists, recognizing that the liberals could not be removed, obeyed the command of the Lord to `come out and be separate’ (2 Cor. 6:14-18). As a result, new churches and denominations were established and fundamentalism was used of God to preserve the purity of the Word and the Gospel. (4) It was in the early 1940’s that a further separation occurred and the evangelical movement was born. It was at the time that the very same spirit and attitude now being advocated by Dr. Van Impe was the moving force in the launching of the evangelical movement. From that time forward the continuing battle between fundamentalism and liberalism has been complicated by this third movement, evangelicalism, which took an in- between, compromised position. Claiming to hold to the fundamentalist position doctrinally, evangelicalism advocated a `more positive position’ and a `broader fellowship.’ A major issue then, as it is today, revolves around the question of how to treat brothers who walk disorderly and whether or not it constitutes `disorderliness’ for a brother to remain in fellowship with those who deny the Fundamentals of the Faith. True fundamentalists believe that all brethren who fellowship with false teachers are definitely disobedient and are walking disorderly. Therefore, the command to separate from such disobedient brethren is no less important to obey than God’s command to separate from false teachers" (M.H. Reynolds, Jr., "Heart Disease in Christ’s Body: Fundamentalism ... Is It Sidetracked?" Los Osos: Fundamental Evangelistic Association, nd.).

3. THAT HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM WAS MORE THAN THE AFFIRMATION OF "THE FIVE FUNDAMENTALS" IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALIST ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS.

Consider The Fundamentalist, published by J. Frank Norris, a powerful Fundamental Baptist leader of Texas. Independent Baptist historian George Dollar describes Norris’s The Fundamentalist in this way:

"The Fundamentalist alarmed and alerted ... Reading the 1920-1930 back issues of The Fundamentalist, one can almost see the smoke and hear the battle cries of those times" (Dollar, The Fight for Fundamentalism, published by the author, 1983, p. 3).

Norris’s paper is representative of that entire generation of Fundamentalism in that it was a generation noted for its bold militancy for the truth.

The following definition of Fundamentalism was given by the World Congress of Fundamentalists, which met in 1976 in Usher Hall, Edinburgh, Scotland:

A Fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who--

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible.

2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so.

3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible.

4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith: The doctrine of the Trinity; the incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; the new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; the resurrection of the saints to life eternal; the resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death; the fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ.

5. Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every creature.

6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth.

7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

The World Congress of Fundamentalists summarized their definition in this way: "Fundamentalism is militant orthodoxy set on fire with soulwinning zeal."

As we noted at the beginning of this study, many varying definitions of Fundamentalism have been given through the years, and the truth of the matter is that Fundamentalism has taken a great variety of forms. As a movement, it has been largely interdenominational, yet many independent, separatist churches, such as independent Baptists and independent Bible churches, have accepted the label. Regardless of this variety, though, one of the chief hallmarks of Fundamentalism--its very essence, if you will--has always been a MILITANCY for the Faith of the Word of God. Anyone who is not truly militant in standing for the Truth has no title to biblical Fundamentalism.

We close with the words of G. Archer Weniger, who showed the fallacy of the view that Fundamentalism is merely a concern for "the five fundamentals"--

"The five fundamentals have only to do with the Presbyterian aspect of the struggle with modernism. ... The bulk of Fundamentalism, especially the Baptists of every stripe who composed the majority by far, never accepted the five fundamentals alone. The World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, founded in 1919, had at least a dozen main doctrines highlighted. The same was true of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, which originated in 1920. A true Fundamentalist would under no circumstances restrict his doctrinal position to five fundamentals. Even Dr. Carl F.H. Henry, a New Evangelical theologian, listed at least several dozen doctrines essential to the Faith. The only advantage of reducing the Faith down to five is to make possible a wider inclusion of religionists, who might be way off in heresy on other specific doctrines. It is much easier to have large numbers of adherents with the lowest common denominator in doctrine" (G. Archer Weniger, quoted in Calvary Contender, April 15, 1994).

BigMack

[P-Marlowe]

That is the problem for them, isn't it. It's not that God simply allowed certain evil to take place, but that God commanded it and decreed it to happen. They see no difference between God's permissive will and God's perfect will.

I believe that the scriptures teach that it is God's perfect will that all should be saved. It is God's permissive will that only those who positively respond to his prevenient grace will be saved.

The worst sin a person can commit is to reject the gospel message. But the Calvinist believes that the rejection of the gospel message by those who will perish is as much God's perfect will as the acceptance by those who will be saved. Any verses (such as 1 Tim 2:4) to the contrary are just not translated correctly, (Where have I heard that before?).

Yep, It seems that to some people "all is of God." All the evil is of God. All the Good is of God. Some are willing to admit that this is their belief. Others would rather lash out at the messenger rather than face the implications of their doctrine.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Scratch that estimate.... I just finished "I" and still hafta append the Scripture Proofs (I'm trying to limit each proof section to five key scriptures; we can always add an addendum).

Gimme a little while more.

[Vernon]

"...monergistic...

It has been said, and I will clean it up, if you can't snow 'em with facts, snow 'em with "baloney." As I said, it simply will not work without doing extreme violence to scripture, and to the most Holy faith once delivered to the Church.

Given present theological movement, Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism will be nothing more than a historical aberration.

What makes the difference? Peoples lives being touched by the presence of the Holy Spirit with life giving faith, not some dying and soon to be dead systematic based on "twisting and turning" ever plain and simple scripture.

[Vernon]

"...append the Scripture Proofs...

Hang on everyone...proof-texting is on the way! Sounds like more of the same to me!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The name "Fundamentalist" was popularized by a series of books that were written by Bible-believing men for expounding the Fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Published (by Presbyterians, at their own personal expense) over a five-year period from 1910-1915, the series, titled The Fundamentals, was composed of 90 articles written by 64 authors.... etc.

They left that part out. Just thought I'd mention it.

1. THAT HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM WAS MORE THAN THE AFFIRMATION OF "THE FIVE FUNDAMENTALS" IS ADMITTED BY ITS HISTORIANS.... THAT HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM WAS MORE THAN THE AFFIRMATION OF "THE FIVE FUNDAMENTALS" IS PROVEN BY THE FACT OF NEW EVANGELICALISM.... THAT HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM WAS MORE THAN THE AFFIRMATION OF "THE FIVE FUNDAMENTALS" IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALIST ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS.... et cetera

No one's claiming that "The Five Fundamentals" of "the Princeton Theology" (propounded, codified, financed, and published by Calvinist Presbyterians) were the sum total of Fundamental Doctrines; just the central locus from which the Fundamentalist Movement grew.

Following "The Five Fundamentals", you had the twelve-volume series "The Fundamentals" shortly thereafter (also Presbyterian in its propagation, financing, and publishing).

All of which simply proves -- without the Good Seed of "The Fundamentals" planted by the Calvinists, the IFBC's would just be IBC's. Arminian Root Beer, but without the Fundamental Root.

[Alex Murphy]

What makes the difference? Peoples lives being touched by the presence of the Holy Spirit with life giving faith, not some dying and soon to be dead systematic based on "twisting and turning" ever plain and simple scripture.

Yes indeedy, there's nothing like a post from Vernon to keep the mood light and the spirit happy! Thanks, Vernon!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It has been said, and I will clean it up, if you can't snow 'em with facts, snow 'em with "baloney." As I said, it simply will not work without doing extreme violence to scripture, and to the most Holy faith once delivered to the Church. Given present theological movement, Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism will be nothing more than a historical aberration.

Romans 11: 4 - 5 -- But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal”. In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.

What makes the difference? Peoples lives being touched by the presence of the Holy Spirit with life giving faith, not some dying and soon to be dead systematic based on "twisting and turning" ever plain and simple scripture.

So...

...Is the presence of Faith in the Heart, a gift which is implanted into the heart by the action of the Holy Spirit, or not?

Hmm?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

They see no difference between God's permissive will and God's perfect will.

If God wills to Permit a thing, is He imperfect for having so willed its Permission?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

All of which simply proves -- without the Good Seed of "The Fundamentals" planted by the Calvinists, the IFBC's would just be IBC's. Arminian Root Beer, but without the Fundamental Root.

LOL...You guys kill me and America wouldn't be here if it weren't for you.

Say by chance was it you guys that invented the Internet instead of Al Gore?

ksen do you see what you have crawled in bed with?

Thanks for playing. LOL

BigMack

[P-Marlowe]

OP, I don't believe you are in the same category as many of the GRPL's. You seem to understand that there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will. There are some here who actually believe that God not only controls what good happens, but is fully in control and at the helm of everything bad that happens. In other words God's decree extends not only to good, but also to evil. Thus every sin that is committed is committed through the active decree and will of God, i.e., that God actually affirmatively WANTS those sins committed.

I see a lot of the GRPL's who criticize the (FR 5th's) because the (FR5th's) think that what Adam did in the Garden of Eden was "a good thing." Yet these same GRPL's insist that God created Adam for the specific and sole purpose of having him sin in the garden of eden, thus what Adam did, was literally "good" in God's eyes.

There is a paradox there, isn't there OP? How do you solve the paradox and yet keep your high view of God's sovereignty? Is all evil decreed, or is it merely allowed?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

LOL...You guys kill me and America wouldn't be here if it weren't for you. Say by chance was it you guys that invented the Internet instead of Al Gore? ksen do you see what you have crawled in bed with? Thanks for playing. LOL BigMack

Well, if "true" Fundamental Baptists necessarily reject Calvinism...

...Nothing's stopping you from removing all those naughty (Presbyterian-promulgated) copies of "The Five Fundamentals" and the twelve-volume "The Fundamentals" series from your IFBC bookshelves.

See, BigMack, you can laugh all you want... but you can't laugh away the historically-Calvinist genesis of the entire Fundamentalist, "Princeton Theology" movement.

Once again... thanks for playing.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

...Nothing's stopping you from removing all those naughty (Presbyterian-promulgated) copies of "The Five Fundamentals" and the twelve-volume "The Fundamentals" series from your IFBC bookshelves.

Don't have them, don't need them, I got a Bible, you should own one if you don't and listen to what God says in his Word to us, don't really need men to tell me that Calvinism is false, God in His Word thru His HS told me that.

And really this "one trick pony" you guys are riding (Calvinism) is just about rode to death, you should give the little feller a rest...LOL

Thanks for playing

BigMack

[Vernon]

...Is the presence of Faith in the Heart, a gift which is implanted into the heart by the action of the Holy Spirit, or not?

Certainly not in the way you propose. The prevenient grace of God NEVER forces or takes control of anyone against their will. That kind of action, even in a fallen world, is criminal and punishable by law.

[CCWoody]

***Given present theological movement, Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism will be nothing more than a historical aberration.***

And, when that complete Apostasy happenes, where there is absolutely no sound Calvinistic doctrine taught, then the end will come.

Woody.