impleri

i think Phil Johnson (link)is kinda revisioning the whole “authentic Christianity” thing to coincide with his Reformed stance. He does this by using the solas as a kind of bludgeoning tool and not really making any kind of historical case for his definitions (which, admittedly, is beyond the scope of his discussion on fundamentalism according to him, but is it?). The thing that gets me is this “and every other truth essential to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone”. That’s like saying “and anything i have currently left out that i may feel at a later time to be presupposed in order to make something else out to be heretical”. Later, he says “because Roman Catholicism formally and emphatically rejects both sola Scriptura and sola fide.” As one having been raised Catholic, attended Catholic high school, gone through early catechism, etc, i don’t find that to be the case from Rome. That may be the case for some catholics, but i don’t see them rejecting either.
When he gets to fundamentalism, he says “it was once a good word.” With whom? Those who wanted that label? Those at the Niagara Conference? These people rejected nearly any notion of modern “science”. To say that “it was once a good word” seems a bit revisionistic as the people who first used the word were reacting against Darwin. i’m sure that anyone taking antibiotics cannot be a “fundamentalist” in the historic sense of the word. Anything that has to do with evolutionary science (which includes medicine) was considered evil without thought. That is myopia, not some “good militancy.”
Furthermore, when Phil says:

OK? So I am trying to use both those terms—evangelical and fundamentalist—in their historic sense, and not let the enemies of evangelical and fundamentalist principles (or even the visible movements that have coopted the two terms) define them for us. The truth is, neither term is really very useful any more because of the baggage they carry. But I don’t have any alternative terms to suggest, so I wanted to be careful to let you to know at the outset—for the sake of this seminar—what I mean when I use those words during this hour.

Here, i believe he sounds more like a relativist than he may be willing to admit. He says quite plainly that others cannot define a term and sticks to his own definition, then labels it as the “historic” one. That is not a very good practice if one truly wants to describe a true historic definition. In fact, aside from a few references to the Bible, his definitions are totally lacking in any historic substance. Again, not good for a “historic” definition. On a side note, he says that neither term is very useful because of the baggage they carry, but when one argues the same point with the term “Christian”, people such as Mr. Johnson get rather upset with the whole thing.
i will not discuss Mr. Johnson’s definition of “neo-evangelical” aside from this one point: it is made to be a broad stroke to make anything beyond what Mr. Johnson believes in as “heretical”.