regarded as more excellent than fundamentalism. But some of these things are not new at all. Is it actually suppo s ed that historic fundamentalism has had no ‘posi tive witness for God’s redemptive love, wdsdom and power as revealed in Jesus Christ?’ Do they think that its scholarly leaders had no good word for the labors and contribu tions of science? Do they mean to say that there was no careful exam ination of such matters as the work of the Spirit and healing for the body of the Christian? If so, they should go back and read the serious literature of the movement, which could easily be documented. “ On the other hand, some of the alleged trends of the new evan gelicalism are definitely unhealthy. Eor one thing, there seems to be a mortal fear of being against things that are wrong, lest we be charged with a lack of constructive thought and action. But considered ration ally, there is always a destructive side to action which is constructive. It may be necessary to clear away the debris before we can build the new structure. And once construct ed, we may find it an important thing to fight the arsonists who never care what they bum down. The fundamentalists of the past were intensely against some things for the very simple reason that they were irrevocably for some things. The church has a definite twofold responsibility before God: first, we must preach the Word; and second, we must reprove and rebuke all that is false (1 Tim. 4:1-4). “ The major change to be brought about by the new evangelicalism, is a shift from contending for the faith to insistence upon the neces sity of the new birth. This is undoubtedly the worst thing about the entire editorial. In the first place, its implication is false. Do the editors actually suppose that among the leaders of fundamental ism, historically and today, there is no proper insistence on the need of being born again? If so, they are not competent to deal with their subject. On this point, it is only necessary to compare the literature CONTINUED
to Christ and conversing with him to impress him or to be impressed by him.” McClain of Grace S em i n a r y says: “ As for myself, I have never been unwilling to talk with unbe lievers. But through some 40 years of experience, I have found it easier to talk with materialists, agnostics and even atheists than with a group of men who while professing to be Christians are engaged (often sur reptitiously) in trying to destroy the very foundations of the Chris tian faith. Does [anyone] really think that we might ‘profitably engage in an exchange of ideas’ with blasphemers who suggest that our only Lord and Master was begotten in the womb of a fallen mother by a German mercenary and that the God of the Old Testa ment is a dirty bully? Basically, the problem here is ethical rather than theological. We must never for one instant forget that they are deadly enemies with whom there can be neither truce nor compro mise. “ It is both curious and disturb ing today to find ‘evangelicals’ who, while bewailing the belligerence of historic fundamentalism and advo cating a closer rapprochement with the liberals, at the same time spend so much effort and time belaboring and fighting against their own side. It looks sometimes as if they might have gotten lost in the dust of the real battle for the faith.” Conclusion Bjr way of conclusion and sum marization Walvoord states: “ One of the major fallacies of the article is the emphasis it places upon minor issues. If the major trends of evangelicalism are an increased toleration of Pentecostalism, in creased recognition of social respon sibility and the desirability of fel lowship with liberals as advocated by the article, it reveals a drift all too obvious away from biblical Christianity into a compromise with modem liberalism.” McClain: “ The article listed a number of things with reference to which the new evangelicalism is
Walvoord: “ One of the most unfortunate aspects of the article was the expressed need for a re examination and a restatement of the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures in the light of con temporary neo-orthodox theology. There may be need for reaffirma tion of the historic doctrine of in spiration and a clear denunciation of the subversion of the doctrine of inspiration by neo-orthodoxy, but the orthodox doctrine has long since been well defined. Every con ceivable view of inspiration has already found voice in the history of the church. We can no more tamper with this with impunity than we can with the deity of Christ. The neo-orthodox viewpoint completely rejects the orthodox view of verbal inspiration of Scrip ture and it is impossible to restate it to accommodate this denial of neo-orthodoxy without destroying the true doctrine.” Whiting: “Our great need today, as I see it, is not to ‘reopen,’ to ‘re-examine,’ to ‘re-evaluate’ the doctrinal positions which constitute the very foundation and structure of Christianity in its creedal expres sion, but rather to reaffirm and to publicize, with a positivism born of the Word of God, the things that should be surely believed. One of the most disturbing elements in the present situation is the trend ex pressed in a desire for a ‘reopening of the subject of biblical inspira tion.’ Does this bespeak a lack of confidence in the Scriptures? To falter in our faith concerning the authenticity and authority, the in tegrity and inspiration of the Bible is to open wide the door to every vain imag i na t i on , philosophical vagary and psychological eccentri city.”
r
rowing w illingness of evangelical theologians to con verse with liberal theologians. Ryrie: “ There is a difference be tween conversing with a liberal with the purpose of winning him
27
JANUARY 1957
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker