Featured Your Definition of a Fundamenlist

Written by a secular professor at Macalester University:

Christian fundamentalism, movement in American Protestantism that arose in the late 19th century in reaction to theological modernism, which aimed to revise traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate new developments in the natural and social sciences, especially the theory of biological evolution. In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the mission of Jesus Christ, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists affirmed a core of Christian beliefs that included the historical accuracy of the Bible, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s Virgin Birth, Resurrection (see resurrection), and Atonement (see atonement). Fundamentalism became a significant phenomenon in the early 20th century and remained an influential movement in American society into the 21st century.

Fundamentalist worship practices, which are heavily influenced by revivalism, usually feature a sermon with congregational singing and prayer, though there can be considerable variation from denomination to denomination. Although fundamentalists are not notably ascetic, they do observe certain prohibitions. Many fundamentalists do not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, dance, or attend movies or plays. At most fundamentalist schools and institutes, these practices are strictly forbidden.

During the 19th century, major challenges to traditional Christian teachings arose on several fronts. Geologic discoveries revealed Earth to be far older than the few thousand years suggested by a literal reading of the biblical book of Genesis and the various scriptural genealogies. The work of Charles Darwin (1809–82) and his colleagues established that human beings as a species had emerged over millions of years through a process of evolution, rather than suddenly by divine fiat. Social scientists and philosophers influenced by Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) advocated a parallel theory of progressive social evolution that refuted the traditional religious understanding of human sin, which was predicated on the notion that, after the fall from grace, the human condition was corrupt beyond repair. Meanwhile, some ministers in various denominations ceased to emphasize the conversion of individuals to the religious life and instead propounded a “social gospel” that viewed progressive social change as a means of building the kingdom of God on Earth.

A more direct challenge to traditional Christianity came from scholars who adopted a critical and historical approach to studying and interpreting the Bible. This perspective, known as modernism, treated the books of the Bible—especially the first five (the Pentateuch)—not as simple documents written by a single author but as complex texts constructed by multiple authors from several older sources. Although modernism offered a solution to many problems posed by seemingly contradictory biblical passages, it also raised severe doubts about the historical accuracy of the biblical text, leading scholars to revise the traditional history of the biblical era and to reconsider the nature of biblical authority.

The issue of biblical authority was crucial to American Protestantism, which had inherited the fundamental doctrine of sola Scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”) as enunciated by Martin Luther (1483–1546) and other 16th-century reformers. Thus, any challenge to scriptural integrity had the potential to undermine Christianity as they understood and practiced it. In response to this challenge, theologians at the Princeton Theological Seminary argued for the verbal (word-for-word) inspiration of Scripture and affirmed that the Bible was not only infallible (correct when it spoke on matters of faith and morals) but inerrant (correct when it spoke on any matters, including history and science).

As the theologians at Princeton developed their new approach, John Nelson Darby, one of the earliest leaders of the Plymouth Brethren (a British free church movement emphasizing biblical prophecy and the Second Coming of Christ), introduced a very different theological perspective, called dispensationalism. First taught to the Brethren in the mid-19th century, dispensationalism maintained that history is divided into distinct periods, or “dispensations,” during which God acts in different ways toward his chosen people. The present period, according to dispensationalism, was one of expectant waiting for the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Dispensationalists believed in an apocalyptic millennialism that foretold the Rapture (the bodily rescue of the chosen by God) and the subsequent cataclysmic events of the Last Days, such as the persecutions by the Antichrist and the Battle of Armageddon.

Although most Protestant churches rejected the broad teachings of the Plymouth Brethren, many accepted the “premillennialism” of Darby’s followers. They believed that the next important event in human history would be the coming of Christ to justify and redeem his people and establish them in leadership over a millennial (thousand-year) kingdom.

Singular interest in the Second Coming—an issue promoted by William Miller (1782–1849) and the Adventist churches in the 1830s and ’40s—inspired a popular movement through the Niagara Bible Conference, held every summer at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. Initiated by James Inglis, a New York City Baptist minister, shortly before his death in 1872, the conference continued under James H. Brookes (1830–97), a St. Louis, Missouri, Presbyterian minister and editor of the influential millennial periodical The Truth. Other early millennial leaders included George C. Needham (1840–1902), a Baptist evangelist; William J. Erdman (1834–1923), a Presbyterian minister noted for his skill as a biblical exegete; and William R. Nicholson (1822–1901), who left the Episcopal Church in 1873 and later became a bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church (see Episcopal Church, USA). Near the end of the century, the millennial movement attracted other prominent leaders, such as Adoniram J. Gordon (1836–95), a Baptist minister in Boston; and Maurice Baldwin (1836–1904), the bishop of Huron in the Church of England in Canada.

The millenarians associated with the Niagara Conference also sponsored public conferences in major cities beginning in 1878, such as the International Prophetic Conferences in New York City. Chicago evangelist Dwight L. Moody (1837–99) provided an influential platform for millennial expression in his Northfield, Massachusetts, conferences. Millennialists were also active in the late 19th-century missionary revival that was eventually institutionalized as the Student Volunteer Movement.

Christian fundamentalism | American Protestant movement

 

""Kirsopp Lake, a noted theological liberal, when describing Fundamentalism wrote these words:

"It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the...survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.... The Fundamentalists may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church is on the Fundamentalist side""

-from 1986 Greenville, SC Unusual Publications. The Pursuit of Purity, p 4 David O. Beale.
and
-1993 Independence, MO American Association of Christian Schools. Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism, p 2 Douglas R. McLachlan.
and
-1925 Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin. The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow, p 61-62 Kirsopp Lake.

----------------------------------------

To me it is simple, it all comes down to just how seriously one takes the actual words of the Bible. Even with just one eye open, it is difficult to not see that the Evangelical Movement is being overrun and hijacked by those who have little regard for the Scriptures. If anyone doubts me just pick up a used but like new condition book by Roger E. Olson How to be Evangelical without being Conservative .

 

Big difference would be that Evangelicals would come together to do work of the Lord, so Baptists and presbies and saved arminians, while Fundamentalists tend to just work among themselves only!

 

Reminds me of the story Chuck Swindoll described in grace awakings, when at a bible seminar, 2 pastors meet on a bridge, and started to discuss among themselves. They agreed upon being baptists, upon the Deity of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, second coming, even agreed KJVO, but when one stated held to the Northern branch of Baptists, other tossed him over, yelling "Heretic"

 

GARBC = Grand Army of Rebellious Baptists
IFCA = I Fight Christians Anywhere

Just two fundamentalist groups.

 

What are they holding with theology wise now then?

 

Why were open toed shoes an issue? Never heard that one in any of the fundamentalist circles I traveled in (of course I hadn't heard of "mixed bathing" either until I got into the Carolinas —and then I first thought it had something to do with blacks and whites)....

 

I understand. The Baptist General Conference (now Converge) is slipping away. Open theists like Greg Boyd have ushered in liberalism and the conference has been oblivious.

 

Open Theism? What other heresy is now allowed to flourish in their midst?

 

Ligonier Ministries has been talking about the history of Fundamentalism this past week. Each of the lectures is around 25 minutes. I have thoroughly enjoyed the lectures. Here are the links.

"Fundamentalism" from Ligonier Ministries Renewing Your Mind | Fundamentalism | Apr 28, 2021

"J. Gresham Machen" from Ligonier Ministries Renewing Your Mind | J. Gresham Machen | Apr 29, 2021

"Struggle in American Churches" from Ligonier Ministries Renewing Your Mind | Struggle in American Churches | Apr 30, 2021

 

Speaking in technicality, a fundamentalist is anyone who adheres to the five fundamentals.

That said, I adhere to the five fundamentals, but do not wish to be associated with most fundamentalists. So my exact defintion of one, I don't know. In addition to the five fundamentals & taking scripture a little too literally, they tend to be very very strict on certain matters that have nothing to do with salvation and aren't even biblical, and are strongly associated with King James onlyism. That's about the best description I can give.

 

Forgive me, but if simply adhering to the fundamentals made one a fundamentalist, then men like Billy Graham and Francis Schaeffer and Carl F. H. Henry would have been fundamentalists, but all three explicitly rejected the term and the movement. In truth, a fundamentalist is one who not only holds to the fundamentals but defends them and separates from those who do not accept the fundamentals (theological liberals/modernists).

In the 1950's these men founded New Evangelicalism, a movement that rejected ecclesiastical separation and advocated cooperation with liberals. There was a huge controversy about these matters that ended in 1957 with Graham's New York crusade, and the two movements parting ways for decades. My grandfather, John R. Rice, was a first generation fundamentalist who mentored Graham. Graham then distanced himself from my grandfather by resigning from the board of the Sword of the Lord newspaper, edited by Granddad.

 

That's informative. Why would you say they generally don't want to be associated with fundamentalism?

Years back I left the King James Only doctrine and was shunned by family over that, I had a lot of anger and stuff against IFB and fundamentalists in general. I remember reading a lot of articles on the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicals, and the main difference they cited was legalism and not wanting to be associated with legalism.
I'm not angry anymore btw, but still don't really want to be associated by definition with people who by and large believe things like women can't wear pants and rock music including Christian rock contains messages from Satan.

 

I also remember reading a lot of stuff that claimed that IFB (independent fundamental baptist) churches are all full of spiritual abuse and is a cult, but in my experience......I wouldn't say that's the case. At least not the IFB church I grew up in.
My biggest gripe with them is they elevated the KJVO doctrine as the most important to the point that they consider people who don't subscribe to KJVO to be outside of salvation, and they placed way too much importance on trivial rules and regarding their personal interpretations as fact. But abusive and a cult? I don't think I'd go that far.