Conservative Fundamentalism versus Moderate Liberalism

by Charles Spain                                                                                                                                     Vol. III, No. 8, December 1990

The basic difference between those who consider themselves conservative and those who classify themselves moderate or liberal is that the conservatives believe the entire Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 is the very, inspired Word of God without any error. Therefore it is the inerrant (without error), infallible Word of God.

On the other hand the liberal position is that the Bible contains the Word of God but all of the Bible is not the Word of God. That is, parts of the Bible are God's Word, but through the centuries other parts were injected by man and are, therefore, not the inspired Word of God. Every man is left to his own wisdom and intelligence to decide which parts are man-injected and which parts are God's. Therefore every man is an authority within himself in determining which words are God's and which words are man's.

I, personally, believe that all of the Bible is the very Word of God. I have accepted it as God's handbook for my soul and the foundation for all matters in my life, my faith, and my practice. I accept it as very truth.

Now there are many passages that I do not understand and could doubt, but when I realize I am finite and God is infinite, I accept, through humble faith, every word.

On the basis of my absolute dependence on the Bible to guide and direct my life, if I believed that any part of the Bible was not the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I would feel that I could not rely on any of it because I am not wise enough or intelligent enough to differentiate between that which is inspired and that which is not.

In the early years of the twentieth century some American Bible scholars became infatuated with the theological thinking of some Swiss -German scholars including Barth, Bultmann, the German-American Niebuhr, and others. One of the American theologians was Harry Emerson Fosdick who became the foremost leader of the Modernist Liberal movement in the 1920's, and it was he who largely led the Northern Baptist Convention (now the American Baptists) to become the liberal denomination it is today.

It was during this time that the liberals began to deride those who believed all the Bible from beginning to end by calling them Fun-DAM-mentalists. Fosdick and others began a strong movement to keep his convention from becoming fundamental.

To understand exactly what Fosdick and the liberals believed and still believe, I want to quote some of his own statements from his autobiography, For the Living of These Days (Harper and Brothers, 1956). "I could have gladly affirmed my faith that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain the Word of God, and certainly I could not have applied the word `infallible' to the whole Bible."

"My sermon, ‘Shall the Fundamentals Take Over?’, was a plea for tolerance. I stated the honest differences of conviction on such matters as the virgin birth of Jesus, the inerrancy of the scriptures, and the second coming of Christ." (page 145)

"I said frankly what the modernist position on some points was: the virgin birth no longer accepted as historic fact, the literal inerrancy of scriptures incredible, the second coming of Christ from the skies an outmoded phrasing of hope."

Before he became pastor of the Park Avenue Church in New York, he was asked to be the pastor of a Presbyterian Church. In stating the difference between what he believed and the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church he said, "The report specified five doctrines in particular that were contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church, in particular the inerrant Bible, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, the physical resurrection of Christ with the same body in which he suffered, and Christ's supernatural miracles." (page 146)

Many pastors and churches in the Northern (American) Convention became enamored with these liberal teachings, and they began preaching and teaching them.

The purpose of the Christian church is found in the Great Commission of our Lord, "Go-Preach- Win-Baptize-Teach-Train."

The only way we can measure results is by statistics. This, being so, indicates that the American Baptist Convention is dying. Without the redemption by the blood of the Lamb and the resurrection and coming again of our Lord, their theology becomes what it was intended to be from the modernist beginning, a social gospel whereby mankind gets better and better by social changes until life becomes "heavenly." It is basically what we today call secular humanism, lifting one's life by one's own bootstraps.

Some liberals claim that it is the fruit and not the roots that really matter. It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you bear fruit. I contend that, in order to produce good and abundant fruit, we must have the proper root, which we believe is a solid grounding in the inerrant Word of God.

Let's compare the fruit of the American Baptist Convention and that of the Southern Baptist Convention, taking into account that prior to World War II the American Convention had in its territory two-thirds of the United States population, and the Southern Baptist Convention covered only 19 states with just one-third of the country's population.

Let's look at the records of the period from 1913 to 1987.

In 1913 the American Baptist Convention had 13,245 churches; in 1987 they had 5,757... a loss of 7,488. The Southern Baptist Convention had 24,171 churches in 1913 and 37,286 in 1987 ... a gain of 13,115.

The American Baptists baptized 66,712 in 1913, but only 21,660 in 1987. During the same period Southern Baptists baptized 137,396 in 1913 and 338,495 in 1987.

In membership the American Baptists in 1913 had 1,525,869; in 1987 it was 1,561,774 ... an increase of but 35,905 in the 74 year period. In contrast, Southern Baptists in 1913 totaled 2,522,633, in 1987 14,727,757 ... an increase of 12,205,124.

There are more Southern Baptists in Texas than members in the whole American Baptist Convention.

So we ask, "Quo Vadis, Southern Baptists?"

Do we want to follow the path of liberalism, or do we want to be sure that our roots stay indelibly grounded in the impeccable, inerrant, infallible Word we always have believed?

Do we want to move onward and upward in continuing to be one of God's instruments in bringing the people of the world to Him?

We are at the crossroads. The choice is up to us.