Featured Your Definition of a Fundamenlist

I think of Fundamentalist in a similar way to the Wesley boys "Methodist" movement. There is a strict structure to the process.
Therefore, when I think of fundamentalist's, I think of synergistic legalists who tend to miss grace and act much like Pharisees.
This is, of course, a generalization as each individual that labels themselves as a fundamentalist is different. Some are much more grace oriented while others have a whole series of demerits in hand and ready to judge.

 

There are three theories about the origin of fundamentalism. Whichever theory you hold, it must include militant defense of the fundamentals.
(1) That there have always been fundamentalists (depends on how you define the term).
(2) That it began with the premillennial conferences of the second half of the 19th century.
(3) That it began with the denominational battles of the early 20th century, particularly among the Northern and Southern Baptists, and the Presbyterians.

I hold to (3). I also define the fundamentals a little differently. To me, the fundamentals are those doctrines said in the NT to be sine non qua. In other words, if there is opprobrium involved if one does not hold to said doctrine.

1. A Biblical Christology (virgin birth, deity, humanity of Christ, second coming (2 John 9-11)
2. The Gospel (substitutionary atonement, resurrection, no works (1 Cor. 15:1-8, Gal. 1:8-9)
3. An inerrant, verbally inspired Bible (in the originals, not a translation; Rev. 22:18-19)

 

I will agree with the comparison if you say that both are revivalist movements.

This is pretty simplistic and critical. Please note that this "Fundamentalism" forum on the BB was placed here so us fundamentalists did not have to endure such attacks every time we discuss our movement. Note that calling us "Pharisees" is accusing us of not being born again, which is against BB rules.

Your charge of "Phariseeism" is an old one and a nasty one. Billy Graham's father-in-law Nelson Bell wrote attacks using this kind of language against my grandfather and other fundamentalist leaders back in the late '50's. He was a great missionary but a lousy controversialist. Saying we are Pharisees simply avoids the issues.

But frankly, I'm not sure you understand what legalism is. What is your definition?

It certainly is a generalization. Glad you admit that. And such generalizations avoid the issues and insult people needlessly.

 

Baptists are not the only fundamentalists. There are the IFCA, the Bible Presbyterians, many of the Bible Church movement, etc. However, as one fundamentalist leader told me once, fundamentalism works better with Baptists, who believe in the autonomy of the local church, making it easier to take a stand against liberalism.

 

It may be a revival of "do not handle and do not touch."

You have jumped to an accusation I did not make regarding salvation. God knows who is saved and who is not. We see Peter falling into legalism with his Jewish brothers who were pushing law plus gospel. Paul rebuked them all. I would not question Peter's salvation, nor would I question yours.

Nelson Bell was spot on. (By the way, I attended an IFCA Bible School so I know the concepts of fundamentalism quite well. The school was all about rules and demerits for breaking its many rules.)

In this situation I would see legalism as an attempt to express a desire for holiness by following strict rules and guidelines that have been plucked from the Bible and declared essential to holy living.

Books have been written, detailing the issue. How could it be anything other than a general comment here in a discussion board.

I guess I didn't realize there were pockets in the BB that were restricted. Perhaps you could ask the site owners to hide your forum and only allow those who apply for membership and abide by the rules of the fundamentalist code.

 

Meaning?

What I did was carry your charge out to its logical conclusion. Pharisees opposed Jesus and were not born again. Thus, to call another Christian "Pharisee" is to paint them as being lost and without Christ.

So, if a school has rules they are legalists? Really??? I've never heard of a college without rules, Christian or secular. In fact, the public high school I attended had rules, and you could get kicked out without too much trouble. All fundamentalist, evangelical, liberal, neo-orthodox, or secular schools have rules. And you can get kicked out by breaking them.

The truth is, all duly constituted churches have rules, too. They are enshrined in what is called a church constitution.

This is a typical misunderstanding of legalism. Here is a theological definition by a theologian in the SBC: "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., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).

Personally, I don't follow the idea that rules make one holy--yet I am a fundamentalist by conviction. Where I teach, we have rules to protect us, not to make us holy, and that is often proclaimed from the pulpit. In fact our staff evangelist just preached on that exact thing yesterday in chapel.

Please read "Fundamentalist Forum Guidelines" in the sticky threads to this forum. It says:

"Welcome to the Fundamental Baptist Forum, we hope you enjoy posting here. This forum was born out of a cry from many who despaired that their conservative and traditional views were constantly being attacked. It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate. Those who see things more liberally than we do can still be found on other forums so if you feel led to battle them then please do so."

 

Think biggest thing that I have observed is a rigidity towards others believers who refused to be as much into separating from culture and others as they were practicing, almost as if unless you hold to exactly as they did, wonder about salvation!

 

Do you desire no dialogue. That's fine.
I laid out how Peter was rebuked by Paul for adding unnecessary burdens to the gospel. I explained my experience in a fundamentalist Bible School. I presented my definition of legalism and how it compares with the Pharisees. I am not responsible for you imagining things I never said and thus jumping to conclusions. This will be my last comment in this thread. You are welcome to live here as you wish.

Peace

 

Well, don't go off in a huff. I'm fine with as much dialogue as you wish. I merely explained my position. This is, after all, a debate thread. One says what they think, then others debate them.

Concerning legalism, your definition is not the standard theological one, as I think I demonstrated, but a definition made popular by opponents of fundamentalism such as yourself. Wouldn't you like to debate my contention that simply having rules does not make one a legalist? Apparently you still think that rules = legalism. Care to prove it?

 

Would you agree with my take on this issue of what it means to seperate would be a main issue?

 

Yes, indeed.

 

Is there an inherit, absolute difference between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical to the extent that one CANNOT claim to be one or the other? IMHO there seems to be a movement away from one calling him/her self a Fundamentalist but doesn't mind to be labelled an Evangelical. Is it because our society seems to have latched onto the concept that MOST Fundamentalists tend to go "off the deep end" in secondary issues, e.g., the exact date for the Rapture. or the exact role the US will play during the Tribulation, or since one association sponsors one particular college/seminary whose conduct code varies a little bit from that of another college/seminary, etc.? That's my observation over the past few decades, am I right or wrong on this?

 

My differences between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical would be in the areas of education, and also in how one views culture and society and how one views what separation means!

 

In the 1800's most Puritan leaders saw that their own offspring were straying from the Puritan position(s) on almost everything (Including the Puritans' demand that only they should control their govt-controlled "State Church," which was probably the reason why most NE Baptists were forced out of Mass (& too one needs to understand that these Puritans were NOT exactly the same as the Pilgrims who came to America's shores some 10 years before the bulk of the English Puritans did.) While Mass (In the North) & Va (In our South) took the principle role in our nation's Independence Movement, both had "State" (i.e., Government-controlled) churches. In esp Mass, her "Church Leaders" came up with what is called the "Half-Way Covenent" which allowed non-professing Christians to become church members (hence "Citizens") of Mass, but still were not permitted to hold leadership positions in her State Church (Mass didn't rule on our 1st Amendment till the late 1830's.). This probably explains why Baptists were hounded out of Mass & eventually formed RI. ANYWAY, this compromise set the stage for further downgradings of their church until it evolved into the mess that prompted "The Great Awakening," etc., which did slow SOME elements of social disbeliefs, but not ALL of them. Ultimately Mass became the vehicle by which the liberal theologians eventually controlled most of the seminaries, etc. Harry Emerson Fostick (sp ?) was among the leading Bible-deniers, and, here in TN, we had the Scopes' "Monkey" Trial (Which, BTW, did rule in favor of the Bible's position on how we came to be,). So, one can conclude that we Baptists (as well as others) more-or--less were in the forefront of the "Individual Soul Liberty" movement.

 

The word Fundamenalism is a very emotional term.

There are actually 2 meanings of the same word and are often intermingled which causes great confusion IMO

1. Adherence to the Fundamentals of the faith ie Inspiration, Diety, Atonement etc. No Xian should have a problem here

2. #1 plus side items such as dress codes (you either dress this way or else. I have actually heard the black suit white tie thing but it was back in the day), no alcohol, open toed shoes for women card playing of any kind. Etc. while those who attempt to both accept and deny their adherence for salvation,the best thing would for them to allow the believers conscience to be their guide unless blantantly obvious and yes I have seen that as well.

Most would deny they believe it, if not then why fo down that road?

 

Liberals will take other positions that fundamentalists have that they disagree with and try to make fundamentalism about those things.