Sye Ten Bruggencate is an encouraging brother in the Lord who has taken Presuppositional apologetics to the streets and have taught it in a way most people can understand. In a recent message he sp…
Source: “Be About The Cure:” Sye Ten Bruggencate in JeremiahCry Ministries Conference 2016
In my opinion, it might be a gross understatement to say that we are living in a time of intense turmoil on nearly all fronts, both nationality and internationally, and in every arena (political, cultural, social), the impacts of which are seen and felt inside and outside of the body of Christ, the church. And of course just about everybody has an opinion about what’s causing all the turmoil as well as possible solutions. If you ask the ‘man on the street’ in ‘Anytown’ U.S.A. which issue is the most important you will get all sorts of answers depending on the demographic of the interviewee.
Add a Christian worldview to the mix and we are faced with all of above in light of all what are provided in scripture that speaks to our time, from Old Testament prophecy through Revelation, and all that the Bible speaks of concerning ‘end times’ and the return of Christ to our beleaguered planet. And of course there are various interpretations of just about all of it, from the rapture of the church to the timing of the 2nd coming of Christ. While the Bible doesn’t give us all the details, we sure like to try and figure it all out!
To try and make sense of it all, I had to boil it down to two questions.
1. As a Christian, how am I to think about it?
2. As a Christian, how am I to behave in the midst of it?
As to my thought life, I can ignore it all and just go about my merry way , which is impossible, obsess about, which is unhealthy, or I can remember and take great comfort that God is in complete control of the affairs of men.
19 The LORD has established His throne in the heavens; And His sovereignty rules over all (Psalm 103:19).
3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3).
5 For I know that the LORD is great, And that our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps (Psalm 135:5-6)
“He (God) changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; (Daniel 2:21)
English Bible teacher and theologian A. W. Pink (1 April 1886 – 15 July 1952) had this to say about God’s sovereignty:
“Subject to none, influenced by none, absolutely independent; God does as He pleases, only as He pleases, always as He pleases. None can thwart Him, none can hinder Him. So His own Word expressly declares: ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure’ (Isa. 46:10); ‘He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand’ (Dan. 4:34). Divine sovereignty means that God is God in fact, as well as in name, that He is on the Throne of the universe, directing all things, working all things ‘after the counsel of His own will’ (Eph. 1:11).” – A. W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Swengel, Pa.: Reiner Publications, 1968), p. 27.
With the above passages of scripture in mind, and regardless of what I think about specific issues, I am to think about it all in terms of the Sovereignty of God. We can take comfort that God is not an absentee landlord, nor is he just a bystander who steps in now and again to make sure we don’t blow ourselves up. In the midst of all the turmoil it is God “…who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.” (Eph 1:11-12, NIV)
Concerning my behavior, I suppose I could run away to a survivalist community far from the maddening crowd, grow my own food, keeps lots of guns and ammo while adopting an EMP proof lifestyle (no electricity). I could get involved in any number of causes that have been set up and designed to ‘save the world’. Or I could see what the Bible tells me what I should be doing. The courses of action mentioned in this paragraph are not specifically discussed in the Bible; at least that I can see. At the same time, we are not left in the dark.
First of all, we are to pray; not only for those nearest and dearest to us, but for all men:
“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior.” (1 Tim 1-3, NIV)
The Bible also tells us that as believers we are the salt of the earth and light of the world, in Matthew 5:13-16. We are to let our light shine before others so that they might see our good works and glorify God. So much for going into survivalist mode.
Secondly, as His servants we are follow the guidance the nobleman gave to his servants in the parable of the 10 minas in Luke 19.:
“He (Jesus) said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ – (Luke 19:12-13)
Our ’10 minas’ is the gospel that we have received and believed, and that we are called to share with the lost world around us.
Yes, we are living in times of intense turmoil, but we can take comfort knowing that, in the end God is working out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will and for his glory. As we continue to look forward to the return of Christ and the eternal Kingdom, we can confidently continue to share His gospel with a dying world.
Keep the faith and keep up the fight!
Not really. I know I was a bit sarcastic and snarky with that one, and considering there was a time when I was part of the Charismatic movement, perhaps I should have left it alone. I still have some close Christian friends who are in the Charismatic movement and post a lot of articles from Charisma magazine on Facebook.
I was sucked into the movement as a young prodigal having come back home after spending almost 10 years in the wilderness. I was hungry for everything God had for me and I eagerly latched onto anyone and everyone who, claiming to be ministers of the gospel, told me that God had so much more than Bible reading, church attending, praying Christianity.
Well, since I was into reading and studying the Bible I gradually moved away from that which seemed to be more about my ‘experience’ than objective Bible truth.
So when I see something like the ‘prophet’ with his smartphone and the rest of the false prophet crowd all over God TV (and elsewhere) it bugs me. And someone I have known for years advertises ‘Dead Raising’ training at the church where he is a leader, led by a crew from Bethel Church I want to scream, cry or both.
By now I’ve read and studied the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement from it’s birth in 2nd century Gnosticism to the present day. Since I was there I’m not just one of those low information ‘bashers’.
What bothers me even more than the false prophets at the Azusa Now event was the complete lack of the gospel call to repentance of sin and belief in what I listened to from the speakers, and that’s a problem across most of today’s Protestant evangelicalism. C’ H. Spurgeon summed it up well when he said:
“I do believe that we slander Christ when we think that we are to draw the people by something else but the preaching of Christ Crucified.” – From a sermon preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, October 6, 1889
I’ll leave you with that thought.
Hat Tip in advance to Chris Rosebrough of ‘Fighting for the Faith’, whose podcast audio so enthralled me that I had to listen to the Azusa report three times and take notes!
I knew about the Azusa Now event from having read about it already, but I don’t remember where I found the article. It all went down this last Saturday, 9 April. Fighting for the Faith reported on it and I regularly listen to F4F podcasts.
The podcast began by providing a quote from Jeff Jansen of Global Fire Ministries who had a fantastic experience while driving to the Los Angeles conference site. Says Jansen:
“As we were driving on Interstate 5 to the Azusa Now event on April 9, I saw a large, gold angel standing over LA,” Jansen says. “The Lord said, ‘Just as the 1849 gold rush drew people to California … So 4/9 2016 will mark a new gold rush of divine proportion that will once again draw the nations into revival.” (Charisma News)
The F4F podcast focused on several personalities from various ministries and the pronouncements / revelations / prophesies they delivered to the ecstatic crowd.
First there was Heidi Baker (Iris Global Ministries), who has revelations and visions on a fairly regular basis. She was introduced by Bill Johnson of Bethel Church (home of ‘dead raising teams’ who will train your church). Ms. Baker’s revelation was that God was healing “digestinal” problems/diseases of all sorts (small and large intestines), as well as lots of allergies. Having heard ‘John 6’ in her spirit continually she told the crowd that “some of you feel like you are starving” and can’t eat regular food. The Lord told her that he was going to heal them as they ‘ate Jesus’.
She then prayed that the inflicted ones would rid themselves of the “poison, fluff, and puff”. God was also healing all sorts of addictions from alcoholism to drug addiction, to addiction to medicines (prescription and non-prescription.
She also said there was someone being healed from a twisted knee and a skateboarder being healed of a broken wrist. Those last pronouncements were accompanied by a sudden ‘shakaraba’ utterance while she was prophesying. Such utterances are common with her, actually. She’s a regular on Fighting for the Faith.
Next we had Kris Vallotton (Bethel Church) who began by saying God was breaking the power of suicide that was caused by a ’spirit of insanity’ that put suicidal thoughts into people’s minds. He specifically mentioned a 17 year old named Thompson. God would break the spirit of suicide from him, as well as all from the God TV watchers similarly suffering. He ‘came against’ the evil spirit of suicide afflicting them and an entire generation! In the name of Jesus he released ‘life, visions, dreams, and promises of peace’. He ‘broke the bad visions’ some were having that were caused by the ‘spirit of foreboding’.
Then we were treated to Shawn Bolz from Morningstar Ministries. Morningstar Ministries is led by Rick Joyner, who was instrumental in the ‘restoration’ of Todd Bently (Lakeland Revival) after Todd’s adulterous affair with his nanny, divorce from his wife and marriage to the nanny. Joyner was also one of the NAR prophets who anointed Todd as an ‘Apostle’ at Lakeland.
Back to Shawn……
Shawn appeared on stage to dispense ‘words of knowledge’ and prophesy over some of the thousands in attendance. He even called out people by name and revealed specific things about them and their families! I think he must have received the ‘words of knowledge’ in advance and recorded them on his smart phone because he read from it for the whole 15 minutes he ‘prophesied’. Never mind that thousands of people had registered online and given names and that Facebook can tell us all sorts of things. I actually found the video showing him reading from his smart phone as he was prophesying. I had a hard time believing the F4F account!
Cindy Jacobs, prophetess and founder of Generals International, treated the crowd with a genuine ‘thus sayeth the Lord’ moment by saying “This is that which the prophets foretold!”, referring to the Asuza Now event as a direct fulfillment of OT prophesy.
Todd White, renowned street healer (specializes in lengthening short legs) then prophesied that there is coming a time of great revival where every believer is going to have a ‘prophetic anointing, and perform great signs and miracles wherever we go, even drug stores and other places we go shooing. He kept shouting “Do you want this?” over and over again, along with “The time is now!!!!!” reminiscent of a High School pep rally.
Lou Engle, leader of The Call spoke during the ‘tithes and offerings’ interlude, talking about a new movement called SAFA (Spiritual Air Force Academy) that was birthed at the Colorado Springs Air Force Academy where a group of cadets were very much into fasting and intercessory prayer. An exciting video clip accompanied the short presentation. The SAFA is mostly young people specializing in fasting and prayer who will be removing demons from the heavens and from the darkest places on the Earth. Divine encounters would abound. It was an invitation to ‘sow’ into the SAFA movement.
_________________________
So there you have it………..It was all too fantastic to keep to myself!
Sarcasm aside, I have to say that all of the above are part of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement and all regularly receive great press from ‘Charisma Magazine’, and thousands of professing Christians buy into it all.
Chris Rosebrougn’s candidates for ‘Worst Easter Sermon of the Year’ can be listened to and voted on at ‘Fighting For The Faith’. I’ve listened to 7 canditates so far and they are all about us rather than Christ and His resurrection.
Doppelgangers and Discernment | The Cripplegate
Posted by Tim Barnett on March 03, Stand to Reason Ministries
Many atheists don’t like the term “atheist.” They take atheism to be just the default position. I’ve even heard some atheists state that atheism is not really a belief at all. Rather, they assert it is simply a lack of belief.
Given this redefinition, most atheists are taken aback when theists demand they provide evidence for their atheism. After all, they’ll assert, we don’t demand evidence from people who lack belief in Santa Claus. Moreover, we’re told that everyone who lacks belief in Santa is technically an “a-santa-ist.” However, no one has ever labeled them with that term. Furthermore, the atheist might point out that most people don’t believe in the thunder god Thor (as much as you might like the movie), but no one calls them “athorists.”
Continuing this line of thinking, they will point out that everyone agrees that the athorist and the asantaist aren’t forced to prove that Thor and Santa don’t exist. The burden of proof would actually be on the person who claims that Thor and Santa do exist. Likewise, the theist is told that it’s up to him to prove that God exists. It is not the atheist’s responsibility to prove that He doesn’t.
But is this really what atheism amounts to? Is it merely a lack of belief in God? The answer is a resounding, No! Atheism is not simply a lack of belief. It is not the default position. Let’s get our terms straight. The theist affirms the statement, “There is a God.” The agnostic says, “I do not know if God exists” or “You cannot know God exists.” The atheist affirms the statement, “There is no God.” These are all beliefs.
To say you simply lack a belief about something is to say that you have no beliefs about it. For example, if you asked me, “Who is the best female polo player in Europe?” I wouldn’t know where to start. Why? Because I have no beliefs about the quality of women’s polo in Europe, or any other country for that matter. I truly lack a belief regarding that question.
This is not the case with atheists. People don’t write books about things they don’t have any beliefs about. No one debates about non-beliefs. If they did, there would be nothing to talk about.
This attempt to change the definition of atheism to a lack of belief is a tactic to try to shift the burden of proof. But it won’t work. The belief that there is no God is a belief. And if the atheist thinks it is a reasonable belief, he should have reasons to believe it.
Written by Kevin DeYoung | Sunday, March 31, 2013
The notion that Christ died as our sin-bearing substitute who bore the curse for our sakes is considered, by some, too primitive, too violent, and too narrow. Penal substitution is only a theory of the atonement, just one idea among many, maybe not even a good theory, at the very least not the best or the most important once. I would argue that texts like Isaiah 53, Mark 10, Romans 3, 2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 3, and Philippians 3 demonstrate that Christ is not only our wrath-sustaining Savior, he is also the Lord our Righteousness. The Son’s propiatory sacrifice for sinners is the best news of the good news, the biblical truth that holds the gospel together.
But besides the testimony of Scripture in support for penal substitution, I would point to the history of our hymnody.
Man of Sorrows! What a Name
Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned he stood,
Sealed my pardon with his blood:
Hallelujah! what a Savior!
O Sacred Head, Now Wounded
What thou, my Lord, hast suffered was all for sinner’s gain:
Mine, mine was the transgression, but thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior! Tis I deserve thy place;
Look on me with they favor, vouchsafe to me thy grace.
Ah, Holy Jesus, How Hast Thou Offended
Who was the guilty who brought this upon thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee.
‘Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee:
I crucified thee.
Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed
Was it for crimes that I had done he groaned upon the tree!
Amazing pity! Grace unknown! And love beyond degree!
Stricken, Smitten, and Afflicted
Tell me, ye who hear him groaning, was there every grief like his?
Friends thro’ fear his cause disowning, foes insulting his distres;
Many hands were raised to wound him, none would interpose to save;
But the deepest stroke that pierced him was the stroke that Justice gave.
Ye who think of sin but lightly nor suppose the evil great
Here may view its nature rightly, here its guilt may estimate.
Mark the sacrifice appointed, see who bears the awful load;
’tis the Word, the Lord’s Anointed, Son of Man and Son of God.
What Wondrous Love is This
What wondrous love is this, O my soul, O my soul,
What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this that caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul,
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul!
A Debtor to Mercy Alone
A debtor to mercy alone, of covenant mercy I sing;
Nor fear, with your righteousness on, my person and off’ring to bring.
The terrors of law and of God with me can have nothing to do;
My Savior’s obedience and blood hide all my transgressions from view.
And Can it Be That I Should Gain
And can it be, that I should gain an interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died he for me, who caused his pain?
For me, who him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me!
Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me!
Without penal substitution there is no salvation. And there isn’t nearly as much to sing about.
Kevin DeYoung has been the Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church (RCA) in East Lansing, Michigan since 2004. Kevin blogs at the Gospel Coalition, and this article is reprinted with his permission.
by Jordan Standridge @ The Cripplegate
Have you ever stopped to think about how often you are exposed to God’s word?
Every time you open up the Bible for time with the Lord, the God of the universe speaks. Every time you go to small group and discuss a passage of Scripture He is speaking. When you quote verses in your head that you have memorized, He is talking. When exposed to His word He tells you who He is, He tells you how to live, He tells you what other people are like, He even tells you about the future.
It’s a dangerous thing to be exposed to the word of God, because every time one of two things happens. Either you will become more like Jesus Christ, or you will be hardened to the truth and become cold towards Jesus.
Steve Lawson in his biography of John Calvin says,
“We owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God because it has proceeded from Him alone, and has nothing of man mixed with it.” This was the unshakable foundation of Calvin’s preaching-the authority of divinely inspired Scripture. He firmly believed that when the Bible speaks, God speaks.”
Because of how dangerous it is to be exposed to Scripture, James, the brother of Christ, in James 1:19 is concerned for the Church. He’s already warned them to be prepared for trials, and temptation and now he wants them to be prepared to receive the word of God. In this verse he gives three short imperatives, that will remind us about the importance of how to react to God’s word when exposed to it.
19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
Quick to hear
People have a hard time listening in this day and age. I was recently watching the movie Bambi with my kids. I was shocked by how slow the characters were, how little was going on on-screen. Modern day cartoons are so different. Everything is faster, bigger, brighter, with so much more happening. We just have to face the fact that we have a hard time paying attention. And James wants us to make sure that we are alert and listening each time we come to hear from God.
We need to prepare ourselves beforehand. To hear the word we must be alert. We must get enough sleep, we must pray, we must repent of all wickedness and we must work hard to tune out temptations and distractions so that we can be fully prepared to sit under Scripture.
In James 1:21 he tells us to put aside all filthiness, in other words we need to clean out our ears. You’ve seen a child’s ear full of nasty gunk. I’ve had to clean a couple myself. In the same way we must clean out our wrong presuppositions and replace them with God’s. We must come to the word ready to listen and ready to be changed, because nothing can change us but the word of God.
Slow to speak
In other words, “shut up!” Stop talking to yourself. If when someone confronts you, you right away get defensive and start defending yourself or change the subject, chances are you are talking to fast or not listening. During preaching we are all tempted to think, “Wow I wish ____ was here to listen to this!”, instead of allowing the word of God to break us. Or maybe mid-sermon you’re already thinking about what you’re going to be doing after the service or after Bible study. Or during Bible reading, somehow you read an entire chapter and don’t remember a word that you read because you were thinking about something else the entire time. Stop, shut up and listen to the word.
Receiving the word means that you aren’t so quick to say what you think. You aren’t a talker who gives his opinion on everything before you’re even asked. We need to practice being a listener and practice not talking, because the less you think of what you have to say, the more you’ll think of what God has to say.
If you value your opinion a lot and think highly of yourself then the word won’t mean much to you.
Slow to anger
You must be willing to admit to yourself that you are imperfect. It’s easy at salvation. At salvation we said that we were terrible sinners and we deserve hell. But the sanctification process can only happen if you are willing to continue to say that you are a sinner. That you continue to need help. One of the ways you are able to know if you are receiving the word of God with the right attitude, is if you are slow to anger when confronted with the Bible. Whether it’s the preacher, whether its in your Bible reading, or more appropriate to us maybe, when someone confronts you, we must be slow to anger when faced with the word of God.
How do you react to confrontation?
The key to receiving God’s word is humility. Look at James 1:21 he says, “in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. “
So the point of this passage is to receive the word of God but the only way you will receive rightly is through humility.
· Being quick to hear can only happen if in humility, you realize that you need to hear the word. You are in absolute need of it!
· Being slow to speak can only happen if in humility, you believe that what you have to say is not that important and what’s really important is the Bible.
· And finally, you can really judge your humility when confronted by God’s word and you don’t get angry but humbly admit that you need to change.
So how do we know if we are receiving God’s word and it is bearing fruit in our lives? James 1:22 says that there is a result. You will do what it says! The right response to God’s word will always result in application. When we are exposed to God’s word, if we apply these verses, we will be more than ready to obey our Lord in everything.
By Pastor Gary Gilley, Southern View Chapel
Think on These Things Articles
(Volume 22, Issue 2, Mar/Apr 2016)
I am a Fundamentalist. There I said it. And yet, although I inherited a few guns I don’t know where the bullets are. I don’t hate anyone, not even my neighbor whose cat keeps my songbird population thinned out. Knowing my own weaknesses and sinfulness I refrain from being particularly judgmental of others. Some might call me a “Bible-thumper” but I have not actually thumped anyone with a Bible since junior high when I was trying to impress the girls (I learned many years later that punching girls did not impress them nearly as much as I originally thought). I have some strong preferences and opinions about everything from politics to entertainment (just ask me), but I recognize that not everyone shares all my views and I am at peace with that. I believe in separation from sinful practices and compromising associations, but I do not hide out in a wilderness refuge in an effort to stay as far away from “sinners” as I can. And horrors of horrors, I will tune into CNN as much as Fox News – which may cause me to lose my Fundamentalist membership card in the eyes of some. Nevertheless, I, and those like me, are among the most despised, marginalized, suspected, criticized and misunderstood people on the planet. So it is with good reason that few today want to identify with the label Fundamentalist. When asked how we would like to be identified we might say we are evangelicals, but that term lost all its meaning many years ago. Perhaps “conservative evangelicals” might be better. Yet Fundamentalism is a good word, when properly understood and biblically informed. Unfortunately, even among many Christians, Fundamentalism is an unattractive term and much of the blame lies with Fundamentalists. Part of the problem is this – too often biblical Fundamentalism has been highjacked by cultural Fundamentalists, and few know the difference. But before we look at the important distinctions in more detail we should back up and take an overview of the historical development of Fundamentalism.
The 1800s proved to be years in which evangelicalism was radically changing, especially in English-speaking societies. As the world moved into the nineteenth century, the effects of the Great Awakening under Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield in the 1730s-1740s in America and the Evangelical Revival under the Wesleys in England were largely a memory. Those reading the accounts of these earlier movements of God longed for something similar but many seemed willing to settle for the outward emotionalism of revivalism [1] rather than follow the content-oriented approach of their fathers. Thus, when the so-called Second Great Awakening began in Cane Ridge, Kentucky, in 1800, subsequently spreading throughout much of New England and parts of the American south, it had a very different flavor from what Edwards and his peers experienced. Edwards believed the Great Awakening was a true revival sent by the Lord, but he also knew that intermingled were excesses, pretenders and “false spirits.” What took place in the first half of the nineteenth century flipped the ratio. While there were undoubtedly true conversions and fervor for the Lord, there was much that was little more than fleshly passion. Nineteenth century believers longed for a spiritual experience that the camp revivals and traveling evangelists seemed to provide. A good motivational speaker, such as Charles Finney, could draw huge crowds to hear his messages which often provided sensational, if temporary, results. Churches would be packed during “revivals,” but sadly, after the evangelists had moved on, life returned to normal and church attendance did as well. It did not take pastors long to figure out that if they wanted large, enthusiastic meetings they would have to dump their more subdued method of teaching the Bible and offer revival-style services complete with “new means” that were field-tested and handed down by Finney and other lesser-known revivalists. This soon led to a predictable pattern. People would be whipped into emotional frenzies by evangelists and pastors through the use of new and creative techniques which were devoid of solid biblical content. When the emotions subsided, a new round of similar methods was needed to bring back the “revival.” One critic of the Finney-style revivals wrote in 1858, “Singing, shouting, jumping, talking, praying, all at the same time… in a crowded house, filled to suffocations, which led to people having fits and giving their names as converts but, as soon as the excitement was over, falling away.” [2]
This cycle became so common that certain sections of New England, especially the state of New York, became known as the “Burnt-over District” where the fire of revival meetings had swept so often through some areas that people ultimately had grown resistant to the things of God. To this day, these regions remain perhaps the most spiritually hardened parts of the American landscape. It is interesting, however, that in the mid-1800s many of the major cults that are prominent today emerged from the “Burnt-over District.” In addition, numerous utopian societies arose at the same time and place, each offering some form of heaven on earth. All of these things appear to be the direct result of revivalism of the early 1800s which heavily promoted emotional excesses while minimizing the study of the Scriptures.
All these things dovetailed to create much confusion and division within Christian circles. By the mid-1800s, some were seeing a need to push back and establish criteria by which a true evangelical could be identified. In 1846 “the Evangelical Alliance was formed to bring together the Protestants all over the world who were the heirs of the awakening of the previous [18th] century.” [3] The Evangelical Alliance confirmed the standard conservative doctrines of the faith but offered four important hallmarks of an evangelical:
Those who rejected the doctrinal orthodoxy of the World Evangelical Alliance (as it was also called) attempted to infiltrate it with liberal theology, but when that failed they withdrew in 1894 to form their own organization, The Open Church League, which later was renamed the National Federation of Churches and Christian Workers in 1900. By 1950 the National Federation was reorganized as the National Council of Churches. [5] This breaking away by the liberal factions and the forming of their own organization led ultimately to the demise of the World Evangelical Alliance. It is noteworthy, in light of the common misunderstanding that conservative Christians are the source of most ecclesiastical disunity, that it was the liberals “who separated from the evangelicals to found their own organizations to promote church union among those who rejected the authority of Holy Scripture.” [6] Liberals, both in the past and today, desire unity, but do so at the expense of doctrinal purity. They are happy to join hands with any except those who insist on certain essential truths remaining foundational to unity.
By the last decades of the 1800s liberal theologians (known as modernists in the late 1800s) were bringing German rationalism into English speaking churches, especially in America. Many in these churches, pastors and laymen alike, had long since abandoned the careful study and teaching of Scripture, allowing their churches to become fertile ground for heretical ideas, especially since the liberals often disguised their teachings by using the same words that evangelicals used but giving those words new meanings. Added to these factors was a move from Enlightenment thinking with its preciseness to Romanticism with its impreciseness and emphasis on feeling and experience over theology and Scripture. [7] All of these threads were drawn together during the second half of the nineteenth century to produce a radical makeover in Christianity. The cardinal doctrines held dear by evangelicals since at least the Reformation were now being jettisoned. And with the denial of essential biblical truth came a shift in the focus and purpose of the church. If the incarnation was in doubt and the Scriptures suspect and theology itself under attack, then that left social action as the mission of the church. And thus was born what would be called the “social gospel.”
By the early 1900s, most theological liberals had made social concerns central to their understanding of the gospel. Historian George Marsden writes, “While not necessarily denying the value of the traditional evangelical approach of starting with evangelism, social gospel spokesmen subordinated such themes, often suggesting that stress on evangelism had made American evangelicalism too other-worldly… and individualistic… Such themes fit well with the emerging liberal theology of the day.” [8] “The theology of the day” was increasing acceptance of Darwinian theories, higher critical attacks on the Scriptures and Freudian redefining of human nature. In light of these modern challenges to the Bible and conservative evangelical thought, liberal theologians believed Christianity needed to change to survive. That which was unacceptable to modern man, such as the incarnation, the atonement, creationism, inspiration and authority of Scripture, etc., had to be rejected. That which was acceptable and appreciated by the culture was to be retained and emphasized. Western societies had little problem with the social agenda, and as time moved forward the church accommodated such thinking. Of course not everyone was in lockstep with the social gospel, but by the turn of the 20 th century virtually all the major denominations, schools, seminaries and Christian agencies had been infiltrated by liberal thinking, and by the 1920s they had capitulated almost entirely. The test of orthodoxy had shifted from what one believed to how one lived. As Marsden states it, “The key test of Christianity was life, not doctrine.” [9] Drawing from Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of Christian liberalism, what increasingly mattered was experience and not truth. Renald Showers observes:
“Liberal Protestant advocates of the social gospel declared that the church should be concerned primarily with this world. It should divert its efforts from the salvation of individuals to the salvation of society. The church should bring in the kingdom of God on earth instead of teaching about a future, theocratic kingdom to be established in Person by Jesus Christ… The Church was to save the world, not be saved out of it.” [10]
Conservatives fought against the modernistic drift of Christianity through various means such as booklets entitled The Fundamentals and the writings of such men as Princeton professor J. Gresham Machen. Machen, in his classic book Christianity and Liberalism, called liberalism a different religion altogether. Machen warned during this turbulent period, “What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires.” [11] His insight has proven all too sadly to be true. But neither Machen nor other conservatives were able to rescue the denominations and schools, as Princeton itself officially rejected its doctrinal roots and adopted liberalism in 1929. It was left to the conservatives to either stay within their systems and work to redeem them or separate and start new denominations, schools, churches and ministries. Many took this latter route, with Machen himself starting Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929 and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936. Many others from all denominations would follow suit resulting in the founding of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, the Conservative Baptists, and the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Mission agencies, seminaries such as Dallas Theological Seminary and numerous parachurch organizations would be started during this era. According to Marsden, 26 schools tied to Fundamentalism were founded during the Great Depression. [12] The conservatives focused on evangelism, theological training and discipleship, while the liberals were increasingly defined by the social gospel accompanied by their view of the kingdom. To the liberals the “kingdom was not future or otherworldly, but ‘here and now.’ It was not external, but an internal, ethical and religious force based on the ideas of Jesus.” [13]
The colossal differences between liberals and conservatives were crystallized around the turn of the century with the subsequent division of the two camps occurring in the 1920s and 1930s. At this point the conflict was often referred to as the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy but, as the years rolled by, another division was looming, this one among the Fundamentalists. By the 1940s the question of cultural and social engagement had arisen within the Fundamentalists’ camps. The original Fundamentalists, perhaps oversensitive to the social gospel that was at the heart of liberalism, often pushed away from any form of social action. In time, some felt that they had gone too far and needed to become more involved with the culture and improve society, as well as preach the gospel. This ultimately led to a split within the conservative camp. The Fundamentalists would take on more separatists’ views, that is, they would separate from any who taught false doctrines and, rather than try to infiltrate society, they would live as lights of the gospel calling people to Christ. On the other hand, the opposing position would be termed new (or neo) evangelical. Neo-evangelicals believed that the church had the mandate not only to win and disciple the lost but to engage the culture and make the world a better place to live by changing social structures that cause grief and suffering. Many see 1957 as the year of the official rupture between Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals, for it was that year that the two groups divided over Billy Graham accepting an invitation to conduct a crusade in New York City sponsored by a consortium of conservative and liberal churches. The Fundamentalists opposed Graham while neo-evangelicals made him the face of their movement. [14] Since that time neo-evangelicals have become better organized, more influential, and more widely funded as they have united over many causes, both spiritual and cultural. Evangelicals, however, have not been without their problems. The movement has continued to spread and broaden theologically to the point that defining the word “evangelical” has become an exercise in futility. Conservatives, Pentecostals, Prosperity Gospel proponents, and even many Roman Catholics are all claiming the title evangelical, although the doctrinal beliefs between these factions differ widely. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, perhaps because of their very nature as separatists, have been increasingly marginalized and content to go about the business of fulfilling the Great Commission.
As we have now made the turn into the 21st century we can look back with some insights and some questions. Liberalism, which seemed to have won the day as the 20th century dawned, has lost most of its steam. Evangelicals make most of the waves today, but in order to do so, they have had to increasingly widen their views, practices and doctrines to include those they would have deemed heretical in the mid-1900s. They seem to be united mostly over social action rather than the Great Commission. Without question, it is the Fundamentalists who have been able to safeguard the gospel and the Scriptures, even as they have lost influence in society. As one student of the church has correctly observed, “At root, however, it is a question of how to engage the culture without losing one’s soul. Fundamentalism feared losing its soul and did not engage the culture; evangelicalism feared being different from the culture and is in danger of losing its soul.” [15]
In the 1920s and 1930s differences between conservative and liberal churches came to a head in America. Out of that controversy came new denominations, fellowships, schools, missions, etc., which separated from those who no longer believed in biblical Christianity. These organizations were founded by believers who desired to hold fast and “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). One of the big problems at that time (as it is today) was developing a consensus concerning the essentials of the faith. That is, what doctrinal truths were absolutely necessary? What did all Christians who claimed to be orthodox believe and, conversely, what could be left to individual convictions? In other words, what was non-negotiable in the faith? A series of volumes, published originally in 1909 entitled The Fundamentals for Today (mentioned earlier in this article), were an attempt to answer those questions. Written by some of the finest conservative scholars and church leaders of the day, The Fundamentals addressed the doctrines of Christology and soteriology, but almost one third of the essays concerned the reliability of Scripture. What emerged from this has become known as the Fundamentalist movement. A Fundamentalist was simply one who adhered to the fundamentals of the faith, primarily as described in The Fundamentals. One of those fundamentals was the belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible.
As time moved on, those who would become known as evangelicals split from Fundamentalism. Evangelicals still held to the fundamentals of the faith, but believed there was more room to compromise and work with those who denied some of the essentials. Of course, today there are many sub-groupings under these titles, but that is not our subject. Our point is that, by definition, all Fundamentalists and evangelicals supposedly adhere to the belief that the Bible is the only authoritative revelation from God to man, without error in the original, and is correct in all that it affirms. So how do the two differ?
The primary caricature of Fundamentalism is that it is in essence legalism. Legalism is one of the hot-button words that everyone seems to use and few know what it is – they just “know” they are not personally legalistic (almost no one would say he identifies himself as legalist). In declaring Fundamentalists as legalistic the most common comparison offered is with that of the Pharisees, with the idea that Fundamentalists are modern day Pharisees hung up on external rules, comparisons and judgmentalism. Jesus certainly condemned the Pharisees’ hypocrisy and judgmentalism but the heart of Pharisaic legalism had more to do with their handling of Scripture than rule-keeping. In Mark 7:1-13 (and the parallel passage in Matthew 15:1-9) Jesus’ concern ran much deeper than the practices of the Pharisees – all the way to their handling, or should I say, mishandling of the Word of God.
The encounter (as recorded in Mark 7) between Jesus and the Pharisees took place somewhere in Galilee, probably after the feeding of the 5000. The Pharisees, as a religious sect, followed the teachings of the scribes, who were the official interpreters of the Mosaic Law and the guardians of its sanctity. Their interpretations formed the basis for the practices of the Pharisees. In verses 3-4 Mark, who is writing primarily to Gentiles, adds a footnote of sorts because he realizes that many of his readers will not understand why the Pharisees were angry at Jesus. We are at the same disadvantage. In dispute was the tradition of the elders (v.5). This was a body of minute regulations passed down orally by leading rabbis. Later these traditions were recorded in the Mishna; later still a commentary on the Mishna called the Gemara was added. Together they would make up the Talmud, a Jewish religious book that, in reality, became more important to the Jews than the Scriptures. The oral tradition probably started with the best of intentions. The rabbis, during the intertestamental period, sought to protect the sacred law of Moses by “putting a fence” around it in the form of detailed rules which would regulate every aspect of daily conduct. They developed extremely detailed rituals concerning ceremonial washings of hands and the body. The Law itself required such purification only for the priests under certain circumstances (Lev 16:4, 24, 26; 22:6), and for others on specific occasions such as purification from disease (Lev 14:8-9; 15:5-27). The Pharisees apparently decided that if it was good enough for the priest it was good enough for everybody. And so an elaborate system of washing (the Mishna devotes no less than 30 chapters to the cleansing of vessels) was established. By the time of Jesus, any Jew who wanted to be considered pious followed the Pharisee’s oral tradition.
Today Christians do not officially have an authoritative oral tradition or a written Mishna, but it is not uncommon to develop their own traditions and standards that are elevated to biblical proportions. We will fight, split churches, and demonize fellow believers over styles of music, theater attendance, versions of the Bible, whether women can wear slacks, holiday observances and myriad of other issues. Like the Pharisees we have convinced ourselves that our convictions have the support of Scripture and therefore to not follow them is equal to disobedience to God. When we do so we have moved into the realm of legalism. At this point it is important to determine how Jesus described legalism in Mark seven. According to Jesus legalism is:
Legalism is not having strong convictions, loving traditions or being sticklers for rules. Legalism happens anytime people take away from or trump the Word of God with their own opinions, ideas, convictions or traditions. This would mean that both theological liberals and conservatives could be legalist. The liberal invalidates the Word by saying it is unimportant, old fashioned, out of date, not politically correct or not really God’s Word. Therefore they subtract from the Word and replace it with their own ideas. The conservative, who claims to have a deep love for the Bible, can add his own views and convictions to the Divine Revelation and elevate them to the level and authority of Scripture. Both are legalists, and both are guilty of the sins that Jesus identifies as being the sins of the Pharisees. Today some theological conservatives have fallen into the legalistic trap. These could be defined as “cultural Fundamentalists.”
We are happy to be described as biblical Fundamentalists, but we are anxious to distinguish ourselves from cultural Fundamentalism. We see a number of important differences between the two.
Authority : Biblical Fundamentalism draws its understandings from the clear record of Scripture and believes God’s Word is the final authority on everything it touches (2 Tim 3:16-4:5). Cultural Fundamentalism, much like the Pharisaic legalism described above, tends to add personal, or corporate preferences and convictions to the inspired revelation and, in reality, these additions hold more weight than Scripture in matters of practice.
Sanctification : While cultural Fundamentalism emphasizes rules and regulations either as a means of spiritual growth or a measure of it, biblical Fundamentalism seeks to emphasize walking in the Spirit as outlined in texts such as Galatians 5:16-25.
Leadership : Some Fundamentalists exercise an authoritarian or dictatorial style of leadership which is often characterized by harshness. Biblical Fundamentalists see the importance of leadership but seek to live out the servant leadership style Jesus modelled and espoused in the Upper Room (Luke 22:24-27).
Attitude toward others : Whereas Fundamentalists are often accused of being judgmental and condemnatory toward those who do not measure up to their standard, biblical Fundamentalists seek to call one another to godly living with grace. They recognize their responsibility to restore those who struggle or have fallen into sin, but they also recognize that only the grace of God keeps them from similar failures (Gal 6:1-2). Therefore they desire to show the same grace as the Lord shows them, without minimizing the importance of obedience. Romans 14:1-4 makes clear that even the strongest of believers will differ over certain preferences and convictions which are not clearly defined in Scripture. We are not to look down upon those who do not agree with us nor judge them, for they are servants of Christ.
Separation : All Fundamentalists recognize the importance of the scriptural doctrine of separation (2 Cor 6:14-18) – it is one of the marks that distinguish them from many who call themselves evangelicals. But biblical Fundamentalists do not believe in isolation. They want to be engaged with this world, rescuing people from this “present evil age” (Gal 1:4), being lights in the world who reflect the love, grace and truth of Christ (Matt 5:14-16). The common criticism of Fundamentalists, that they don’t care about this present world, is not true of the biblical Fundamentalist.
Fear : Sadly, some within Fundamentalism have used intimidation to keep the troops in line. As a result the fear of man can be prominent. The biblical Fundamentalist seeks to guard their steps so as to not be a stumbling block to weaker believers (1 Cor 8:1-13), but their main concern is the fear of the Lord and pleasing Him (1 Cor 5:9).
* Recently I was asked to write an article for Voice magazine, the official organ of the IFCA International. This is basically the same article.
[1] Revivalism could be defined as an attempt to orchestrate a spiritual awakening through man-made techniques, and manipulation in contrast to revival which is often defined as a genuine movement of God.
[2] David W. Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism, the Age of Spurgeon and Moody (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p.106.
[3] Ibid., p.21.
[4] See ibid., pp.22-40.
[5] Robert Lightner, Church-Union, a Layman’s Guide (Des Plaines, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1971), pp.31-32.
[6] Ibid., p.62.
[7] See Bebbington, p.166.
[8] George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p.29.
[9] Ibid., p.34.
[10] Renald E. Showers, What on Earth Is God Doing? (Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 2005), pp.79-80.
[11] George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p.137.
[12] Ibid., p.194
[13] Ibid., p.50.
[14] George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, p.73.
[15] John H. Armstrong, General Editor, The Compromised Church (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1998), p.27.
The Battle Cry 