Nine Tenets of Fundamentalism

[rlvaughn]

More often than not, we define as or identify Christian Fundamentalism with five points of faith clarified by the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference and the Presbyterian Church USA in 1910. The five “essential and necessary” articles were identified thusly by the 1910 PCUSA: (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, (2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, (3) the substitutionary atonement of Christ, (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and (5) the reality and historicity of miracles recorded in the Scriptures. The 1895 Niagara Conference put it like this: (1) inerrancy of the Scriptures, (2) deity of Jesus Christ, (3) virgin birth of Jesus Christ, (4) substitutionary theory of the atonement, of Christ, and (5) physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ. Often we list them this way today:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
2. The Virgin Birth of Jesus
3. The Substitutionary Blood Atonement
4. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus and His Saints
5. The inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures

In The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, Richard Clearwaters mentions the doctrinal statement of the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals (1919), which was also the doctrinal statement of The Sunday School Times (pp. 136-137). These nine are:

I. We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as verbally inspired of God, and inerrant in
the original writings, and that they are the supreme and final authority in faith and life.
II. We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
III. We believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, and is true God and true man.
IV. We believe that man was created in the image of God, that he sinned and thereby incurred not only
physical death, but also that spiritual death which is separation from God, and that all human beings are
born with a sinful nature, and, in the case of those who reach moral responsibility, become sinners in thought, word, and deed.
V. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice: and that all who believe in Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood.
VI. We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord, in His ascension into heaven, and in His
present life there for us, as High Priest and Advocate.
VII. We believe in “that blessed hope,” the personal, premillennial and imminent return of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ.
VIII. We believe that all who receive by faith the Lord Jesus Christ are born again of the Holy Spirit, and
thereby become the children of God.
IX. We believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, the everlasting blessedness of the saved,
and the everlasting, conscious punishment of the lost.

Christian Fundamentalism is about the fundamentals of the Christian faith. The nine tenets tease out the simpler five fundamentals. Clearwaters said at the time he wrote that the nine tenets were “the Scriptural embodiment of what the Central Conservative Theological Baptist Seminary stands for without any tongue in our cheek.”

 

[TCassidy]

Richard Clearwaters

My homiletics professor.

Central Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary

My alma mater.

 

[Reformed]

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

May I make just one rabbit trail comment? Paragraph VII tweaks me just a bit.

In my opinion, premillennialism is not part and parcel of Fundamentalism, but I may be in a minority thinking that way.

 

[1689Dave]

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

 

[rlvaughn]

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

Some people may think so. That is not my point. But I do think the Conference and its 9 tenets were a watershed moment in the Fundamentalist movement, which helped set its direction for years to come (in my opinion).

The World Conference on Christian Fundamentals convened in Philadelphia Music Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 25 to June 1, 1919. Over 6,000 people attended this meeting which William Bell Riley compared in importance to Martin Luther’s ninety-five theses “The importance of this occasion exceeds the understanding of its originators. The future will look back to the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals, held in Philadelphia, May 25, to June 1, 1919, as an event of more historical moment than the nailing up, at Wittenberg, of Martin Luther’s ninety-five theses.” Fifteen different teachers presented twenty-five addresses. These were later published in God Has Spoken: Twenty-Five Addresses. W. B. Riley (1861–1947) was chosen as president of the organization. They adopted the nine-point doctrinal statement which is given in the first post.

 

[atpollard]

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.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

 

[atpollard]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

Dr. Clearwaters was a meticulous scholar (Ph.D. in Ancient Greek Literature from the University of Chicago Divinity School where he studied under Dr. Edgar Goodspeed).

He included Dispensational Premillennialism as one of the fundamentals because the original 12 volumes of "The Fundamentals" included that teaching, the most famous article being written by C.I. Scofield. Also bear in mind that the man who funded the printing and publication of The Fundamentals (sent free to over a quarter million preachers/teachers) was Lyman Stewart, founder and President of Union Oil Company. As the old saying goes, "follow the money."

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks. My disagreement is with Premillennialism and Dispensationalism.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Dr. Clearwaters was a meticulous scholar (Ph.D. in Ancient Greek Literature from the University of Chicago Divinity School where he studied under Dr. Edgar Goodspeed).

He included Dispensational Premillennialism as one of the fundamentals because the original 12 volumes of "The Fundamentals" included that teaching, the most famous article being written by C.I. Scofield. Also bear in mind that the man who funded the printing and publication of The Fundamentals (sent free to over a quarter million preachers/teachers) was Lyman Stewart, founder and President of Union Oil Company. As the old saying goes, "follow the money."

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?

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

I just skimmed the Scofield article in the volume, and he doesn't even mention the word "dispensation."

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was not asserting that Scofield wrote on dispensationalism in "The Fundamentals," but that Scofield, one of the most well known Dispensationalists, was a contributor to "The Fundamentals." (Not to mention the final editor, R.A. Torry who was a committed Dispensationalist.)

Many of the contributors to "The Fundamentals" were Dispensationalists (which, oddly enough, at that time, was dominated by Presbyterians), and, of course, many were not. And thus I too disagree with Doc. Being a Dispensationalist does not make one a Fundamentalist, nor does it bar one from being so. It is, as far as Fundamentalism is concerned, a peripheral issue.

And, might I add, in all humility, of course, that your grandfather and I are both thoroughly Fundamentalist. (He, now, more so than me.)

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was not asserting that Scofield wrote on dispensationalism in "The Fundamentals," but that Scofield, one of the most well known Dispensationalists, was a contributor to "The Fundamentals." (Not to mention the final editor, R.A. Torry who was a committed Dispensationalist.)

Many of the contributors to "The Fundamentals" were Dispensationalists (which, oddly enough, at that time, was dominated by Presbyterians), and, of course, many were not. And thus I too disagree with Doc. Being a Dispensationalist does not make one a Fundamentalist, nor does it bar one from being so. It is, as far as Fundamentalism is concerned, a peripheral issue.

And we are agreed here.

And, might I add, in all humility, of course, that your grandfather and I are both thoroughly Fundamentalist. (He, now, more so than me.)

Indubitably!

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[rlvaughn]

Just to clarify, the doctrinal statement (nine tenets) of the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals (1919) does not mention dispensationalism, but does mention the premillennial return of Christ.

Richard V. Clearwaters figures in later, when in his book The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise he wrote that the nine tenets were “the Scriptural embodiment of what the Central Conservative Theological Baptist Seminary stands for without any tongue in our cheek.” (page 137)

 

[37818]

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.

 

[HankD]

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.

 

[HankD]

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