An Answer To
Is Evangelical Christianity Changing ?
A symposium, article edited by Charles L. Feinberg, Director, Talbot Theological Seminary
Stanton and Dr. Arthur B. Whiting of Talbot Theological Seminary; Dr. Clarence E. Mason of Phila delphia Bible Institute; Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, Dr. Merrill F. Unger and Dr. John A. Witmer of Dallas The ological Seminary. As far as pos sible the observations of the con tributors have been allowed to re main without editorial correction or change.) — ED. feel that the attitude toward the word fundamental is symptomatic of the whole problem. The article seems unaware that in informed circles years ago, the lunatic fringe of fundamentalists was clearly dis tinguished as having no real rela tionship to the basic issues. The controversy was seen to be between belief and unbelief, supematural- ism and naturalism. The article’s viewpoint is slanted to give an un natural stigma to the word funda mentalism. In proportion as men shrink from the word I believe they reveal either a lack of understand ing of its true significance or some degree of unwillingness to bear the stigma of standing athwart the ‘modem’ viewpoint.” He rightly takes strong exception to the charge that fundamentalism may be lack-
Dr. Samuel H. Sutherland, Presi dent of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, Inc.; Dr. Willard M. Al drich, President of Multnomah School of the Bible; Dr. Alva Mc Clain, President of Grace Theologi cal Seminary; Dr. John F. Wal- voord, President of Dallas Theolog ical Seminary; Dr. James H. Chris tian, Dr. Donald G. Davis, Dr. Charles L. Feinberg, Dr. Gerald B. tithesis set up between ‘Ye must be bom again’ and ‘Contend earnestly for the faith.’ Would they deny their duty in the latter respect?” Notice the confusion even in the title of the original article. Through out the article there is an attempt to differentiate between fundamen talists and evangelicals; then it moves on to a discussion of the changes in evangelical theology, yet spends its time pointing out the failings of fundamentalism. Donald G. Davis says: “ There have always been differences in de tails between those who have stood for the defense of historic Chris tianity. I do not see a single trend in this article which is new. True, some of them are stronger today than ever before.” Clarence E. Mason observes: “ I
(Note: In the March, 1956 issue of “Christian Life” there appeared a symposium article under the ti tle “ Is Evangelical Theology Chang ing?” Because it was felt certain important views were not repre sented in the article, the editors of T h e K in g ’ s B usiness asked several Christian leaders to comment on the items treated in the article. Those who have contributed are: u ^ nquestionably, instability and ferment characterize our day. The theological world has been no exception to this state of affairs. For some time liberal theologians have been reviewing their bankrupt po sition, and in some notable cases making remarkable admissions con cerning fundamentalism. Now the Christian public is being afforded a reappraisal of fundamentalism from some of the members of its ranks. Is this re-evaluation reason able and is it valid? Immediately we are afforded a change in nomen clature. As S. H. Sutherland ob serves: “ Embarrassed fundamen talists now wish to be known as evangelicals. There is a false an
CONTINUED
23
JANUARY 1957
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker