Eilers has left a new comment on your post "
Dead Right by Phil Johnson":
I agree with your assessment -- a great article. Here's my thoughts (on the article) for what they are worth.
1. Fundamentalists critique the evangelical or new evangelical movement as if it was a monolithic movement. When the same finger is turned on them they run like crazy to create a movement within a movement (or perhaps movements within a movement). This gives credence to Johnson's argument that there is no true fundamental "creed".
2. Following closely on the lack of a creed, we could say somewhat "tongue in cheek" that our creed (if we had one) would encompass our views of music, KJVO, and dress standards -- not doctrine but practice. This is more clearly seen when Phil makes the point that within the "movement" the ideas of Justification (positive imputation of righteousness) and original sin (ie. Federal or Seminal Headship) are practically denied (in application) if not actually denied (theologically). Along these same lines, while most fundamentalists deny the "pragmatism" of the Evangelical's perspective on music, they bitterly defend their views derived from such "biblical" pragmatists as Finney. These views lend themselves toward both perfectionism (keswick/holiness movement) and pietism (both hermeneutically and practically).
3. Lastly, his point on the anti-intellectualism of the fundamental movement is spot on (see quotation in original post). Unfortunately, the movement has certain presuppositions in place that perpetuate this ignorance (wrong definition of worldliness for starters). This alone is enough motivation to run like mad (I'll leave it there and beg you to allow me to not incriminate myself).
Posted by Eilers to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 8:02 AM
