On the Tombstone of Fundamentalism

TCassidy, you said:

If you said "There is not now, and there has never been a fundamentalist movement", that would make sense. But to say, as your wording indicates "There is a fundamentalist movement, and there never was a fundamentalist movement", makes no sense. Your subject and your predicate are not in agreement.

 

No, TCassidy, it is your sentence that is incoherent. Your sentence structure is incorrect and the sentence makes no sense. If you have a competent grammarian on your staff, please consult them and they may be able to help you communicate what you actually mean.

 

I understood what he meant.

It's like applying a kind of Granville Sharp Rule to English syntax.


HankD

 

Huh?
Please explain what you consider the the subject and predicate of his sentence to be.

 

The sentence has two parallel subjects. Subject one is "There is". Subject two is "and there never was". The predicate is "a fundamentalist movement. So subject one with the predicate says "There is a fundamentalist movement", and subject two with the predicate is "and there never was a fundamentalist movement". Both of these statements cannot be true. The sentence is incoherent.

 

No offense to anyone, but I've seldom seen so much confusion about fundamentalism in one thread on the BB. I do agree with much of what TCassiday has said, though.

First of all, if you don't define fundamentalism correctly, your argument is dead in the water. Fundamentalism is not just believing the fundamentals (whatever your list may be), but standing up and fighting for them. This is what differentiates the movement from New Evangelicalism. (Read any standard history of the movement.) If fundamentalism meant only believing the fundamentals, all true Christians would be fundamentalists.

Here is John R. Rice's definition: "So as we define fundamentalism it means a vigorous defense of the faith, active soul winning, great New Testament-type local churches going abroad to win multitudes, having fervent love for all of God's people and earnestly avoiding compromise in doctrie or yoking up with unbelievers" (I Am a Fundamentalist, p. 10).

Here's how John Witmer defines it: "Fundamentalism began as a positive movement, a stand for the fundamental doctrines of historic, orthodox Christianity. In its best expressions it still remains the same. But separatism was forced on the fundamentalists in the mainline Protestant denominations as they became persona non grata to the modernist majority" (Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan–Mar 1979)

Secondly, I really get really tired of the old "fundamentalism is legalism" charge. It's ridiculous and not theologically correct. Note the standard definition of legalism as defined by SBC systematic theologican Millard Erickson: “Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., p. 990). No fundamentalist believes in salvation by works.

So maybe you still want to define legalism as a bunch of rules, contray to the theologians. That's also a dead end. So fundamentalists have standards (call them rules if you have to, I don't care) of personal separation. You have a bunch of rules in your church too. It's called constitution. And the old church covenants were "legalism" too if you think fundamentalists are legalists.

 

Here is what KJVO and ardent anti-Calvinist Lloyd Streeter has said "John R.Rice had a passion for souls, but was a theological train wreck."

Yes, those who contributed articles for The Fundamentals would agree with you.

 

Wow, Dr. Bob actually talking to little old me! That's a first. I don't recall you ever replying to a single one of my posts, even directed to you.

An aside: I must point out for anyone who might misunderstand here and swallow whole Dr. Bob's opinion: John R. Rice did teach standards of personal separation, as did ALL the original fundamentalists. (To give just one example, R. A. Torrey railed agains "the theater" in his books.) But John R. Rice was never, ever KJV only. In fact he wrote various articles against that doctrine.

Hey, I'll agree with you on one thing, Dr. Bob, and that is that JRR was not a theologian, and he never claimed to be. Rather, he was an apologist. But he was definitely a major leader of fundamentalism, as much as you may hate that. So his definition carries weight.

As for soul-winning, you are apparantly against that being included as an emphasis in fundamentalism. Unfortunately for your view, there were various articles in The Fundamentals (which you earlier referenced mistakenly as being the source of the common list of 5 fundamentals) about soul-winning, so it was part of the vision of the original leaders and founders of the movement:

"The Doctrines that Must Be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism" by L. W. Munhill
"Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, or Winning Men to Christ One by One" by John Timothy Stone
"The Sunday School's True Evangelism" by Charles Trumbull
"The Place of Prayer in Evangelism" by R. A. TorreY (a primary leader in original fundamentalism

There were also several articles about missons, but I'll not list those.

And I agree with the rest of your post.

 

Wrong. See my above list of four articles in The Fundamentals on evangelism.

Do you guys actually own The Fundamentals in order to back up your statements, or do you just expect everyone to swallow your unfounded opinions?

 

Now, for those who think fundamentalism is dead, the only way you can say that is to accuse us non-KJVO, pro evangelism fundamentalists (the majority of those who are self-professed fundamentalists) of claiming the name without the positions.

My mission board, Baptist World Mission, was founded by the fundamentalists who came out of the Northern Baptists back in the day, solid fundamentalists all. I claim one of them, Dr. Monroe Parker, as a mentor. He was the BWM director when I joined the board in 1977, and I defy anyone knowledgeable about fundamentalist history to say Monroe Parker wasn't a fundamentalist of the first rank. The next two directors, Fred Moritz and now Bud Steadman, have followed squarely in Monroe Parker's footsteps.

For anyone then to say our board and the hundreds of missionaries and the more than 6000 churches (yes, 6000) that support our missionaries are not fundamentalist is to attempt to sever with a nasty knife our historical heritage.

Now, if BWM has more than 6000 fundamentalist churches (not all Baptist by the way) supporting us tells me that at a conservative estimate there must be 10,000 or more fundamentalist churches in the USA alone! Not dead at all, folks. Put away the gravestone, you won't need it.

I'm giving actual quotes, facts and figures. You who believe fundamentalism to be dead, do you have anything other than personal opinion?

Check out the BWM history etc. and then tell me fundamentalism is dead: http://www.baptistworldmission2.org/learning-center/our-history-stand.html

Oh, and by the way, Dr. Myron Cederhold was a prominent BWM board member until he died. Was he a fundamentalist, Dr. Bob, hmm? I remember riding in the car with him to a meeting and truly enjoying the fellowship as he told me a story about John R. Rice--who he actually knew and was friends with. That must really grate on Dr. Bob, but it's true.

 

However, David Beale, in his book "In Pursuit of Purity," American Fundamentalism Since 1850," would disagree with that definition of Fundamentalism. He states on the first page of his first chapter, "Defining Fundamentalism:

Going with that definition it fits only George Dollar's militant fundamentalist type.

 

Spirituality is obedience to Christ.

 

That was completely uncalled for. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You said in the original post which I responded to :Which of the six fundamentals do you most abhor and want to be the first to die?

I said that you were just being sarcastic and that your whole premise was flawed.

Your remarks are worse than whatever fiction you are railing against.