Ignorance is bliss: on the demise of fundyism

[Smith]

As long as there is a *Trail of Blood* mentality with the customary Jack Hyles chaser, IFB Fundamentalism will always be a present reality. As long as there are prisons, there will always be IFB Fundamentalism. As long as there is a King James Version, there will always be an IFB Fundamentalism. As long as there is church/Bible "colleges", there will always be IFB Fundamentalism. I guess what I'm trying to say is, that Fundamentalism is a culture as well as a learned philosophy of which there are always eager students who believe they are one of the 5000 who havn't bowed their knee to Baal.

[Dude]

(01-07-2011 09:06 AM)Darrell Wrote:  

(01-07-2011 12:00 AM)Dude Wrote:  What is Young Reformed exactly? Never heard the term before.

It's sometimes also referred to as New Calvinism.

The young, restless and reformed title (shortened by my to simply Yong Reformed) came from here: http://www.amazon.com/Young-Restless-Ref...1581349408

Thanks much. It was interesting to read the reviews.

[steve95054]

(01-06-2011 04:02 PM)Zoraïde Wrote:  I see churches over here making minor shifts to stay consistently 50 years behind the culture... just relevant enough to survive and continue to attract the crew that think "everything that's wrong with the world today" can be fixed by back-tracking 50 years, but still culturally irrelevant enough to call themselves separated.

This podcast is highly relevant, IMHO. Don't let the title scare you off -- it's actually quite thought-provoking.

[IFB No More]

(01-08-2011 12:36 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  What do you mean by "conservative Reformed"?

Elijah, I think there are some conservative Reformed folks that greatly sound like fundy-ism. There are those who support extreme theonomy - the "Christian reconstructionist" kind. There are those like Doug Wilson who are heavy into the home-schooling movement. They're just reformed versions of IFB - maybe even IFBX. There are fundy-reformed churches like Bible Presbyterians and Free Presbyterians, who are very similar to the BJU-wing of IFB-dom. And in some Reformed Baptist churches I heard of, they are pretty ultra-separatist in their stances and some are even KJV-Only. There are some ultra-Calvinistic reformed churches that denounce not only the theatre, but also movies per se (they believe acting profession = deceiving others = violate 9th commandment = sin). I'm talking about these folks.

And what about New Calvinists? I think some like Mohler and MacArthur are certainly leaning in the fundy direction. Piper, Tim Keller and Mark Dever's doctrine I can accept.

[Elijah Craig]

Agreed on Doug Wilson, etc.

I find it odd that you distinguish between the theology of Mohler and MacArthur, and Dever and Piper. I think they're all "leaning fundy." I see significant personality differences in those men that make some easier to take than others. But in terms of theology I don't think they're all that far apart. MacArthur as a dispensationalist is definitely closer to IFB theology.

I guess I don't think in terms of Mohler being conservative but Keller being moderate. I don't use the word "conservative" that way. I would describe the guys you're objecting to as "hardass."

[exIFB]

MacArthur is no dispensationalist. Like I have said elsewhere, while he might give lip service to the end times theology of dispensationalists, he fails to make any distinction between Israel and the Church, and in practice, is a covenant theologian. In all of his books, the authors he quotes from are all reformed covenant theologians, and he makes every effort to speak ill of dispensationalists of the past, ascribing nearly every heresy of the modern church to them. For example, he accuses Lewis Sperry Chafer of promoting the modern "prayer of salvation" which Chafer never wrote about, and placed much emphasis on the believer "believing", not praying a prayer. It was Finney who did this.

But I must agree with your sentiment mate, they are all Fundamentalists to me. I really enjoy reading Piper when he talks about Jesus and the person of Christ, but when it comes to the Christian life, his message is exactly the same as IFB's - do this, do that, prove you are a Christian by your actions etc - once again, DO in order to BE, and he rarely lets people know who they are in Christ, which will give them power to BE who they are in Christ.

[IFB No More]

(01-09-2011 03:19 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  Agreed on Doug Wilson, etc.

I find it odd that you distinguish between the theology of Mohler and MacArthur, and Dever and Piper. I think they're all "leaning fundy." I see significant personality differences in those men that make some easier to take than others. But in terms of theology I don't think they're all that far apart. MacArthur as a dispensationalist is definitely closer to IFB theology.

I guess I don't think in terms of Mohler being conservative but Keller being moderate. I don't use the word "conservative" that way. I would describe the guys you're objecting to as "hardass."

One pitfall of New Calvinism is their emphasis on practices like being "Gospel-centred" and "Glorifying God". Both may be used as excuses for legalism. Already there are some within the New Calvinist movement that are issuing their concerns: (http://kaleobill.com/?p=727)

[Elijah Craig]

(01-09-2011 07:10 PM)IFB No More Wrote:  One pitfall of New Calvinism is their emphasis on practices like being "Gospel-centred" and "Glorifying God". Both may be used as excuses for legalism. Already there are some within the New Calvinist movement that are issuing their concerns: (http://kaleobill.com/?p=727)

It seems that New Calvinism has been bleeding people for a while. It's just that the movement was so small and the growth rate so large it wasn't obvious until the last couple of years.

[mounty]

I'm glad others are seeing the same thing I am in the "Young Reformed and Restless" crowd. (That's not narcissism - I try to stay away from theological debates in general, but when discussing those things among friends I sometimes think I'm speaking out of my own personal dislikes, and not with any real footing.) Ever since Doran's 2005 conference I've had the sense that the "Young Reformed and Restless" crowd was nothing more than Fundamentalism with a new window dressing. I think the YRR crowd focuses on one aspect of Fundamentalism - its Arminian heritage - and decided to set things straight in that area. The problem was that all the control and structure they'd gotten used to was gone, so they tweaked their church polity to give them the structure they wanted. They became, essentially, Calvinistic Fundamentalists. I have a few friends that went down that road, and honestly they don't look much different from their former fundamentalist selves.

The same holds true for "conservative evangelicals." Some people who get tired of the right fringe of fundyism move to the middle of fundyism and think they're not fundies anymore. After watching some of these newly-rebranded CEs for a few years I don't think they're as far left as they want everyone to believe.

[Elijah Craig]

There is no question that the New Calvinism is academically more credible and not as grotesque. I think that greater respectability and relevance greatly appeals to Fundamentalists who covert to the New Calvinism. I don't deny that there are deep convictions involved, I know there are. But it seems, from personal experience and observation, that they're really hoping they can tweak a few doctrines but remain where they're comfortable.

You're not being arrogant. You're seeing something that's really happening. I'm one of the guys who went down that raod.