What was at issue was how the situation was to be interpreted. Stott believed that a new opportunity was occurring both for the advance of Evangelicalism (given its much higher national profile since 1954) and (sic) for a renewal of evangelical influence within major denominations.
Lloyd-Jones believed that both of these objectives could not be achieved at the same time. He saw that for evangelicals to gain ecumenical and denominational acceptance they would have to pay a price which would imperil the very legitimacy of their distinctive beliefs. If evangelical beliefs is in essence, gospel (sic) belief, how can Christian fellowship exist independently of any common commitment to such belief? How can a right belief on fundamentals retain the primary importance which Scripture gives to it if, after all, it is not necessary to salvation? How can evangelicalism be said to represent biblical essentials if one regards as Christians and works alongside those who actually deny these essentials? The effect of such broad co-operation, he argued, would be bound to promote the doctrinal indifferentism of the ecumenical movement."
Taken from Iain H. Murray's Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000, page 45
An interesting issue Gregg, I can remember Billy Graham coming to the City I was brought up in and made a big impact there,
ReplyDeleteYvonne.