Tyler Robbins 's Response to Don Johnson (pt. 1)

Fair enough, but I have these quibbles:

1. I wouldn’t define fundamentalism in opposition to unbelievers as mere unbelievers (“defend it against unbelievers”) but as professed believers. The way you word this seems to define it as opposition to those who don’t even claim to be Christian. Yet in fact, even liberal Christians are in some senses separate from this group. So you are at least unclear here.

2. You seem to be missing a key points in Oats:

“From the middle of the twentieth century on, fundamentalism may be defined as those Bible believers who desire to maintain a purity of doctrine and personal life and stand in positional and doctrinal opposition to various forms of compromise.”

This can only refer to the split between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Someone who is an evangelical may well be separated (to some degree) from modernism, but he has also compromised himself with it in some way. (BG compromise is the favorite whipping boy.)

When Dr. Oats says:

“I suggest that a fifth stage [of the fundamentalist movement] is now present: the separation of conservative evangelicalism from the left wing of evangelicalism, along with the reunion of some elements of fundamentalism with the right-wing of evangelicalism.”

This is the convergence, where “some elements of fundamentalism” are willing to drop their guard or cease to separate over evangelical compromise.

By doing so, they are creating something new, which we are calling the Convergence. It is not the same as Fundamentalism.

Bro. Johnson wrote:

This can only refer to the split between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Someone who is an evangelical may well be separated (to some degree) from modernism, but he has also compromised himself with it in some way.

This is a good point, and I planned to address this divide at the beginning of my next article. I thought about tackling it in this piece, but decided it was already long enough! I’ll get to it. It’s important.

Don said:

Someone who is an evangelical may well be separated (to some degree) from modernism, but he has also compromised himself with it in some way.

This seems to me to be begging the question. Who decides that person X has remained ‘compromised’? I mean, I could argue that some FBFI members are compromised because of associations they have with others on the FBFI Board who are KJV Only. So who is watching the watchmen, and how is any of this criteria objective in any way?

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the questioninvolves using a premise to support itself.

If someone is separate from modernism, that means he isn’t himself a modernist. His theology/philosophy is distinct. If he has at the same time compromised himself with modernism, he has made some kind of connection with it that belies his non-modernistic theology/philosophy.

Classic example, as I stated, was Billy Graham. He wasn’t a modernist, yet he joined himself to modernists and made compromises with them that were not consistent with his theology.

My point is that compromise defines evangelicalism today and you can point to many conservative evangelicals who still maintain ties with modernism that compromise their position. Example: the Duke McCall ongoing connections at Southern, the BG School there, the signing of the Manhattan Declaration, etc.

You may object to fellowship with King James Only individuals, but that is hardly compromise with modernism.

You may object to fellowship with King James Only individuals, but that is hardly compromise with modernism.

I would argue that the KJV Only position is far worse than ‘compromise with modernism’. It attacks God’s character, the veracity of His Word, and undermines the foundations of Christianity with the oldest trick in our recorded Book - “Yea, hath God said” (Genesis 3:1). Instead, we make alliances and celebrate men who who tell us that if we don’t read the King James, we don’t read the Word of God. And then we praise our ability to ‘stand for the truth of God’s Word’.

But at least the KJV Only people look, act, and sing like ‘we’ do. So compromise with some doctrinal aberrations is OK, as look as we all have the right title or…something.

[Don Johnson]

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.

If someone is separate from modernism, that means he isn’t himself a modernist. His theology/philosophy is distinct. If he has at the same time compromised himself with modernism, he has made some kind of connection with it that belies his non-modernistic theology/philosophy.

Classic example, as I stated, was Billy Graham. He wasn’t a modernist, yet he joined himself to modernists and made compromises with them that were not consistent with his theology.

But Don, you argue that:

Someone who is an evangelical may well be separated (to some degree) from modernism, but he has also compromised himself with it in some way.

Your point is that an evangelical is compromised because they because they remain connected to modernism in some way. So you are, in fact, using the premise of being connected to modernism to support your argument that they are ‘compromised’. That’s what begging the question is.

This is the key point from my article which will frame the issue going forward, as I discuss Bro. Johnson’s “marks of a convergent:”

We appear to agree on what a “fundamentalist” is. It is an interdenominational movement which stands for Biblical truth against pagan unbelief and theological compromise. However, Bro. Johnson has also written that a “convergent” is not a fundamentalist. Therefore, we should expect his “marks of a convergent” to reflect some basic defection or capitulation to apostasy and/or theological compromise – the very thing the fundamentalist movement has always fought against.

A few random thoughts…..may or may not be helpful…….

So actually I think the “convergent” articles from our FBF friends is helpful. It clearly marks out a position that spells out where the FBF is and where it continues to head. If indeed these men speak for the FBF at large then the FBF position is ….. 1) if you are a conservative who marks yourself out as “evangelical” vis-a-vis “fundamentalist” you are not “with us”…. or if 2) you are a “fundamentalist” who is willing to have continued fellowship (at some level) with these conservative “evangelical” than that means you are not really a fundamentalist….and you are not with us and…… you are this other thing (“convergent”). Quick Statements:

1. The FBF is bleeding so many younger leaders my guess is this is more a tactic to try to keep the young and not-so-young from moving on. The message to younger FBF types is, “If you hang with these evangelicals you aren’t one of us!” My message to the younger FBF types is “that’s OK guys”….come on over to the IFCA! (The GARBC might even be happy to take you!). We in the IFCA are historic fundamentalists who are angry all the time (Type A = Angry all the time). Just a word to my FBF friends. So….you’ve done this before….remember…..”Psudo-fundamentalist.” It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. You will continue to bleed until your position is better and Biblical.

2. The standard for unity and fellowship is something different than these men are defending. The NT position is we have unity on the gospel and when a brother is clearly “disobedient” (not “different”) then we work through the levels of unity/separation. It frankly matters not to God if a brother calls himself Fundamentalist, Evangelical, etc…..what matters is what he believes and how he practices.

3. The FBF get’s it wrong when it says only they believe in separation……or that convergent or conservative evangelical’s don’t believe or practice separation. That is so off it’s actually embarrassing. Do you guys read anything that is happening outside of your FBF bubble? There has been all kinds of Type B and Type C fundamentalists who have separated from all kinds of compromising and ecumenical evangelicals but you guys miss it because some of these men have a drum set in their church building…..Have you missed the elephant room discussions….and John MacArthur and friends taking on Charismatic evangelicals, etc…..? The Southern Baptists kicking out liberals and evangelicals who are overtly ecumenical?

4. This definition of fundamentalism makes the standard of unity “us” as opposed to the work of Christ. It is a false and dangerous version of unity and frankly is not different than other denominations.

5. I would argue that Fundamentalism historically has been something other than these FBF men are presenting. Historically a fundamentalist is someone who holds to the faith (gospel plus orthodoxy) and then defends that militantly. This militancy can either take on the form of fighting within a group…..or leaving a group. Both forms of militancy are Biblical and can be defended from the text of Scripture……which if you want to see look up what many of us wrote 10 years ago during the Type A, B,C and Young Fundamentalism discussions.

6. A word to you FBF men. You need to understand this….very few actual fundamentalist or militant conservative evangelicals care what you call them or how you paint them. You guys have so painted yourself in such a corner and you come off so arrogant to other conservative men….most men in other groups have given up trying to work with you. They are simply walking away……and not because of compromise…..but because of their loyalty to the gospel and Christ’s body.

7. I am thankful for the FBF men who try to balance truth with love, and embrace the gospel and a commitment to real discipleship. For you men in the FBF who have a healthy and more Biblical view of your other brothers in Christ…..I hope you can have an influence of these FBF men who have decided they have the authority to chop up the body of Christ by their own view.

Straight Ahead!

jt

1. We “aren’t” angry all the time……

2. Only God knows if you are arrogant. My point is the way you paint others comes off to many as arrogance.

Sorry for the need for clarity.

Straight Ahead…..still!

jt

Jay, I think you are just attempting to ignore the obvious. An evangelical is not a modernist. No one accuses them of being a modernist. But an evangelical (since the 1950s) has adopted a stance that is compromised with modernism in some way. This is is the defining distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. You are simply trying to confuse the terms so as to make them meaningless.

Don said:

Jay, I think you are just attempting to ignore the obvious. An evangelical is not a modernist. No one accuses them of being a modernist….This is is the defining distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. You are simply trying to confuse the terms so as to make them meaningless.

I find little to no value in drawing arbitrary distinctions within the body of Christ over terms as nebulous as they are being (re-)defined. Either you follow Christ and fulfill the Great Commission, or you don’t. Some people I can agree with and support, some I have to be more skeptical and stand-offish towards, and some I can’t work with or are simply not believers. I really do not have a desire to label people into the three or four different groups (fundamentalist, evangelical, convergent, modernist) that we seem to have to need for this entire conversation to make any sense.

I wonder if the biggest issue here - at the root of it, really - is how much these categories actually matter. Right now, it’s looking like it doesn’t matter a whole lot. Separation matters, of course, and doctrinal purity is critical. These terms, on the other hand…are not so important, because a person with an aberrant view of Bibliology is ok as long as he’s a ‘fundamentalist’ (whatever that means).

Maybe one of the best reasons for paying attention to convergents / evangelicals is that they aren’t constantly carving up the body of Christ like bite sized hunks of turkey for a meal with other believers. They preach, they teach, they disciple, and while they have flaws - some of them massive flaws - they don’t engage in silly debates like this.

to say that terms can’t be defined. The definitions we are talking about have a very clear historical significance. There is no confusion in the matter. The question still remains, and has remained since the beginning of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy: Is it legitimate to join forces with modernists to accomplish any gospel/orthodox objective? Many Christians have said “Yes” in answer to that question.

That answer led to the defeat of the fundamentalists in the 1920s.

That answer led (ultimately) to the defeat or at least marginalization of fundamentalism since the 1960s.

It continues to be the question today.

The KJO allusions are simply red herrings (to talk about logical fallacies) in an attempt to further confuse the issue.

[Jay]

Don said:

Jay, I think you are just attempting to ignore the obvious. An evangelical is not a modernist. No one accuses them of being a modernist….This is is the defining distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. You are simply trying to confuse the terms so as to make them meaningless.

I find little to no value in drawing arbitrary distinctions within the body of Christ over terms as nebulous as they are being (re-)defined. Either you follow Christ and fulfill the Great Commission, or you don’t. Some people I can agree with and support, some I have to be more skeptical and stand-offish towards, and some I can’t work with or are simply not believers. I really do not have a desire to label people into the three or four different groups (fundamentalist, evangelical, convergent, modernist) that we seem to have to need for this entire conversation to make any sense.

I wonder if the biggest issue here - at the root of it, really - is how much these categories actually matter. Right now, it’s looking like it doesn’t matter a whole lot. Separation matters, of course, and doctrinal purity is critical. These terms, on the other hand…are not so important, because a person with an aberrant view of Bibliology is ok as long as he’s a ‘fundamentalist’ (whatever that means).

Maybe one of the best reasons for paying attention to convergents / evangelicals is that they aren’t constantly carving up the body of Christ like bite sized hunks of turkey for a meal with other believers. They preach, they teach, they disciple, and while they have flaws - some of them massive flaws - they don’t engage in silly debates like this.

Jay,

I think you expressed some of what I feel with the whole label and categories thing. On the spectrum, some on the left of me might consider me a (historic) fundamentalist. Others on the right of me might consider me a (compromising) evangelical. To my lost neighbors I simply want to be a disciple of Jesus, a Christian. When they ask me that’s how I describe myself (of course after that there are multiple layers of explanation and I am regarded as an alien creature by many).

If what Don says is true, i.e., - “But an evangelical (since the 1950s) has adopted a stance that is compromised with modernism in some way. This is is the defining distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism.” - then I must not be an evangelical in the eyes of militant separatists. And as someone who cares little for labels, that’s fine with me. I am thankful today that I enjoy fellowship and unity with believers from whom I might’ve separated in the past when I still practiced unbiblical degreed separation.

Steve

Don provided this clarification in his initial reply to your response:

I wouldn’t define fundamentalism in opposition to unbelievers as mere unbelievers (“defend it against unbelievers”) but as professed believers.

I think this is a very important clarification.