Nine Tenets of Fundamentalism

May I make just one rabbit trail comment? Paragraph VII tweaks me just a bit. In the area of Central Florida that I live in, there is no shortage of Baptist churches. More than a few use the language of the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals in their doctrinal statement. While I am an amillennialist, I would never use my eschatological position to cause division in the local body. However, a few of the churches we visited require agreement and adherence to their doctrinal statement which includes paragraph VII or some variation of it. If the doctrinal statement said, "This is what we teach and you agree not to teach contrary" I would view that as sufficient. Eventually, we found a church that does just that. They are premillennial but accept my view as orthodox, although I cannot teach contrary to what the church believes.

 

So, is one no longer fundamentalist unless they subscribe to the 9 points?

 

Most of what they added to get from 5 to 9 points is found in the Nicene Creed ... so I would probably double check scripture and your beliefs if you find yourself objecting to the Trinity, or the Virgin Birth or the Deity and Humanity of Christ [Just saying ...]

Now the Premillenialism rubbed me the wrong way (and I am pre-millenial) because that does not seem an issue that ranks up there with the others as an Essential Truth of the Faith. Amillenials and post-millenials are no less Christian than Pre-millenials.

 

Thanks. My disagreement is with Premillennialism and Dispensationalism.

 

I figure the 'best case scenario' is the Premillenials get to say "I told you so" to everyone else as we are all raptured together. The 'worst case scenario' is that the Post-Tribulation Rapture was correct and we are all arrested by the anti-Christ and forced to watch the entire 'Left Behind' series as torture before we are executed for our faith.

The 'most likely case' is that we got almost nothing about the end times correct. After all, who would have read the OT and expected a Virgin to give birth to a Messiah that was going to be Crucified as God's great 'Half-Time' plan? I would not have been predicting that in 100 BC.

 

To my knowledge, no fundamentalist scholar or leader has ever listed dispensationalism as a sine qua non of fundamentalism. I certainly don't list it that way, though I teach it.

 

While I highly respect Dr. Clearwaters, and as you know I teach dispensational theology, there were quite a few non-dispensationalists who wrote contributions to The Fundamentals. And I just skimmed the Scofield article in the volume, and he doesn't even mention the word "dispensation."

Now if one must be dispensational premil to be a fundamentalist, many leaders of the movement would be left out, including such men as Warfield, Machen, John R. Rice, and dare I say it--you?

 

May I say that fundamentalism has changed quite a bit since the early years (if you put it as starting in 1917). While it was a pretty big tent back in those days, those who are self-named fundamentalists nowadays are perhaps 95% premillennial Baptists, with the notable exceptions of the IFCA and the Bible Presbyterians (which are both premil but not Baptist ).

A scholar friend of mine suggested that the reason for that development is that Baptists, believing in the autonomy of the local church, are best suited to be fundamentalists, since they can stand for the faith without losing their churches.

Concerning the idea that a premil position is necessary for fundamentalism, I lean that way but am not going to be dogmatic. Ernest R. Sandeen in his history of the movement, The Roots of Fundamenalism, has as his subtitle "British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930." His premise is that fundamentalism grew out of the premil conferences of the late 1800's, and he makes an excellent case for that.

 

And we are agreed here.

Indubitably!

 

I would prefer it to be seen as holding to the Second Coming event as still Future, and with the physical resurrection of the dead in Christ.
Living open the timing of the event, but denying pretierism take on it!

 

There are fundamentalist baptists which are, of course, premillennial, but do not hold that the coming of Christ is now imminent. Of course it will be imminent upon the event of His coming. Those who hold the now imminent return of Christ would not consider those who do not hold that view as fundamentalist. I am my self post-trib.

 

VII is a hangnail that probably needs to be clipped to

VII. We believe in “that blessed hope,” the personal, bodily and imminent return of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

Admittedly VII would still be a problem area for full preterists.