EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY continued ing in evangelistic zeal. He points out that “ one of the outstanding characteristics of the fundamental ist movement, particularly from 1914 into the 1930’s, was vigorous evangelism.”
edge and understanding of the uni verse of God. Because of these two factors the believer must exercise extreme caution before accepting as valid any of the pronouncements of modem science as they become tan gent to the testimony of the Bible.” Willard M. Aldrich: “ I believe the article does disservice to tme evangelicalism, however, in imply ing that we agree with its statement that ‘the scientist was regarded as the arch enemy of the fundamental ist.’ Fundamentalism has with good cause stood firm against the opposi tions of science falsely so-called. And is there any less need today to oppose materialistic philosophy, me chanistic psychology and evolution ary ethics, all of which are bound up with a false science?” Walvoord: “ The article is signif icant of the tendency among evan gelicals to regard science and phil osophy as authoritative and schol arly and to adjust their interpreta tion of Scripture to conform to it. The history of the church over many centuries has shown that in the end undue conformity of Chris tian doctrine to science and philos ophy is subversive to biblical Chris tianity and destroys it.” w y illingness to re-ex amine beliefs concerning the work of the Holy Spirit. Merrill F. Un ger says: “ One wonders how ‘healthy’ this spirit can be when the current conclusion on these sub jects, particularly among modem Holiness and Pentecostal groups, is the direct result of flagrant viola tion of the.aimplest and most ele mentary dispensational distinctions. In the light of the tendency to slip away from the moorings of sound dispensationalism, the present spir it of willingness on the part of Cal vinists, Arminians; Pehtecostals and Holiness groups to work together and to exchange views on such a matter as the work of the Holy Spirit is understandable. The truth is that when the time distinctions of Scripture are ignored the Calvin-
editors begin with a blunt affirma tion that in the case of historic fundamentalism what started out ‘as a high level theological discus sion degenerated into a cat and dog fight.’ Now it is true that there have been plenty of such fights in the ranks of the fundamentalists; but also, for that matter, among the modernists. But the central controversy of fundamentalism has never been a mere cat and dog fight. Even its more intelligent op ponents have been able to see that clearly. Do some think that the great fundamental truths of Chris tianity are no longer under serious attack and that fundamentalists in general are no longer concerned about these weighty matters? If so, they do not know enough about current history to render a judg ment of much value.” The specific areas of discussion on the matter of the changing evan gelical theology were several. We will discuss them one by one. F M riendly attitude toward sci ence. For the new evangelicals science has somehow come forth in new and shining armor. On this score John A. Witmer warns: “ Evangelical scholars must con stantly hear in mind that modem science is still controlled basically by a materialistic or naturalistic philosophy of the universe and by an empirical philosophy of knowl edge, both of which are at heart atheistic or at least agnostic con cerning the existence of God and His relationship to the universe and man'as revealed in His Word. Con sequently, there is a fundamental antagonism between the viewpoint df science and that of the biblical believer which must of necessity remain until modem science aban dons its present philosophical foun dation. We must remember that science, despite its humanly as tounding advances in recent years, is still a finite, fallible human area of study which has only begun to scratch the surface of the knowl
James H. Christian says: “ In some of the points it seems that what is changing is not evangelical theology but rather some of the attitudes present in evangelical the ology or among its theologians. A second general observation is that trends in certain restricted areas are represented as indicating gen eral trends. Now it is true that the trends of a minority may be indica tive of things to come within a larger group, but this fact has not been clearly stated nor sufficiently taken into account.” John F. Walvoord states: “ The article is a distorted picture of mod ern evangelicalism. While we all deplore certain characteristics of the fundamentalist movement, the stampede to declare ‘I am an evan gelical but not a fundamentalist’ is too often motivated by the desire to escape the onus of a specific theol ogy in favor of an undefined evan gelicalism. The fact that modem liberals today sometimes call them selves evangelicals makes it possible for anyone to accept this label with out incurring opposition.” Gerald B. Stanton in similar vein declares: “ Surely to divide such brethren into two camps, one fun damental and the other evangeli cal, is unrealistic and most unneces sary. The reasons set forth to sub stantiate the distinction are entire ly inadequate. Holy rollers and snake handlers' have called them selves fundamentalists; therefore, all others are to forsake the term! But, do not these elements on the so-called ‘lunatic fringe of Chris tianity’ also call themselves Chris tian and American? Must we for sake these terms also? The needed correction is in the realm of bibli cal interpretation and doctrinal commitment and not upon the inci dental level of terminology.” These general introductory ob servations must close with the state ment of Alva J. McClain: “The
24
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker