Too new to understand.

I will ATTEMPT to answer your question. The problem as I see it is in how one defines 'fundamentalist" Is it one who holds to the fundamentals of scripture such as: the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, and the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Others say they are fundamentalists and add to these things issues like women not wearing pants, no long hair on men, only using the KJV, and other things. The problem becomes not the word but what the word means to different people. For instance for me if the word is defined as following the fundamentals of the faith I am a staunch fundamentalist, if it is defined as adhering to the other issues, then maybe not so much. As far as I can tell this is where the debate centers.

 

May I recommend reading the many threads on this very subject? That's one of the great things about the Baptist Board. You can learn a lot.

 

I'm probably one who you are talking about that has slammed "fundamentalists".

Ironically I am a fundamentalist in the true sense of the word.

But those in my experience and in the experiences of many others on this thread who use the title most proudly have given it a bad name. These people make a big deal out of standards and such and are often (not always) King James Only, etc...

These guys tend to be legalistic and do mare harm to the cause of Christ than good, IMO.

These are the ones who usually get slammed on here. And rightly so, IMO.

 

Fundamentalism is an historical movement which began in the 1920s (or earlier according to some scholars). The name came from a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which were written by conservative scholars and pastors and paid for by Christian businessmen. Those pamphlets were then sent to pastors around the country. You can find them online at: http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/

The founding fathers of fundamentalism included such men as R. A. Torrey, A. T. Pierson, B. B. Warfield, C. I. Scofield, etc. My own grandfather, well known evangelist John R. Rice, became a fundamentalist in 1927 and was a major force in Baptist fundamentalism.

The early fundamentalists not only believed the fundamental doctrines of the faith (there is controversy about the original lists), but were willing to fight for them. They saw their denominations and fellowships being taken over by theological liberalism, which often opposed fundamental doctrines such as the deity, virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ, and were willing to fight for the truth. Many of those early fundamentalists were disciplined out of their denominations (my grandfather was blackballed by the Texas Baptist Convention), or suffered in other ways for their beliefs.

In the 21st century, the flag of fundamentalism is largely carried by Baptists. A fundamentalist scholar friend of mine believes this is because of the Baptist distinctive of the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. However, there are also other groups which are fundamentalist, such as the Bible Presbyterians.

What most people who oppose fundamentalism object to is our doctrine of "personal separation." We believe that Christians ought to be separate to God from the world, and avoid what we consider to be worldly practices. This doctrine has been held by fundamentalists from the very beginning (contrary to popular belief on this board), as can be seen by the writings of early fundamentalists such as R. A. Torrey and John R. Rice, and the analysis of non-fundamentalist Francis Schaeffer in his landmark book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. As you've noted, fundamentalists are often ridiculed on the Baptist Board for this belief, which opponents of fundamentalism call (with no theological basis) "legalism."

I hope this helps.

 

That's a real laugh! :laugh: Ignorance abounds, eh what?

 

I think John of Japan has carried the historical meaning of fundamentalist very well.

In the early days of modernism, we were prepared to stand for the truth of God's word regardless of the costs.

The largest Baptist University in Canada, McMaster was moved from Toronto to Hamilton because of modernism. Dr. T.T. Shields of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto was expelled from the Baptist Convention because he refused to give in to modernism. He formed his own seminary, which became the base for many Baptist preachers in Ontario and Quebec. The Baptist Convention split over modernism and many independent Baptist churches were formed.

There was a clear distinction between fundamentalism and liberal baptists. We wore the label "fundamentalists" with great admiration. It did refer to the fundamentals of the faith in those days.

Over time, many new classes were formed, and fundamenalism took on a new face. It went from the fundamentals of the faith to include sidelines that didn't exactly fit the term fundamentalist. Many of us shunned that title and went along with evangelical. This name, too, however, took on a new meaning along with neo-evangelicalism. Titles of who we were changed from day to day, but for the most part we stuck with evangelical as opposed to fundamentalist.

For example, we had a problem between American fundamentalists and many Canadian baptists because of our eschatology. We were accepted, but.....sometimes we were quietly labelled modernists because of our amillennialism as opposed to dispensational premillennialism. So, to my liberal friends I was a fundamentalist, but to some of my conservative friends I was a liberal.

Eventually we just ignore labels and get on with our calling and preach the word.

I suggest you do the same and virtually ignore labels. What think you of Christ and His word is the key. Hold firmly to that and nevermind the peripheries.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I would beg to differ.

The 'touch not; taste not; handle not' rules do nothing to prevent one from sinning.

Colossians 2:23- These (rules) have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

 

Take it up with God then. That's His Word that I quoted.

 

So how else do you interpret Colossians 2:20-23?

20If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" 22( referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Rules are good. But keeping them does not make us righteous nor do they keep us from sinning.

 

And, like so many other ruined threads, we begin...

One would think that with all the Bible knowledge on this board, that more of us would realize one of the FIRST and preeminent commands from Jesus was to love one another, but no. We seem to prefer to fight... :BangHead:

 

Well if you don't know the answer to those questions you asked you better get to studying. The words of Mexdeaf are ended.