Featured Your Definition of a Fundamenlist

The New Evangelical movement of the 1950's plotted a new strategy of engagement with the liberals rather than the fundamentalist strategy of separation from the liberals. The New Evangelical strategy hoped to: (1) win liberals to Christ (which did not happen); (2) unite Christianity in an ecumenical way; (3) gain respect from the liberals for evangelical scholarship (did not happen).

Any history of fundamentalism will describe this process and movement, such as those already listed on this thread. I don't have time right now to find good Internet websites that tell us more. Got to go!

 

LOL I had to go see what they were using the ellipsis to suppress:

"it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians"

 

I have never understood why anyone would want to align with liberals over anything regarding anything much less the Gospel

 

It appears to this casual observer that separation troubles far more than having a local Baptist assembly decide how to practice their faith and dispense their resources as led by our Lord.

 

My issue would be when churches hold King James Onlyism as The Most Important Doctrine and will separate based on churches using other Bible versions. Or separating over trivial matters.

 

One independent fundamental Baptist church I belonged to [from 1970-1978] my Pastor had switched from using NASB (1960, 1962, 1963, . . .) to the KJV over the fact the Greek text used by the NASB and the JW NWT translation are virtually the same Greek text. NASB, "only begotten God," NWT, "only begotten god."

 

The comments of Kirsopp Lake about Fundamentalism -- both negative and positive -- are quite interesting. Here is a bit more.

The most energetic and, I suspect, the largest group, but the least well educated, is the Fundamentalist,1 which has indeed forgotten much of the thought of the past, but has learnt nothing from that of the present. It represents an unwavering attachment to the great traditional doctrines of Christianity. The name “Fundamentalist,” was, I believe, first given to them some years ago when they adopted the “quadrilateral of belief,”—the Infallible Inspiration of Scripture, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the efficacy of the Blood Atonement, and the Second Coming of the Lord. The sudden prominence of this movement is a reaction against the intellectual chaos which has often been allowed to serve as a substitute for liberal theology.

But 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 partial and uneducated survival, of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians. How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of all Scripture? A few, perhaps, but very few. No, the Fundamentalist 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 with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church is on the Fundamentalist side.

At the same time Fundamentalism is not the complete or the intelligent survival of the old theology. The keen metaphysics of the doctrine concerning God and the insight into human nature of the doctrines of sin and of grace are no longer present. The Fundamentalists have zeal, but it is certainly not according to knowledge. Their party is recruited from the “Bible Schools” which in the United States offer a cheaper education for those wishing to be ministers than can be found in Universities or in the Theological Schools that take only college graduates. Men are taught in these schools a very precise theology, are given some admirable practical instruction in the art of speaking, and are inspired with great enthusiasm, partly for the gospel which they preach themselves and partly against the theories which they believe to represent modern science. They are supported by men who know the words of Scripture better than the teaching of science, insist—quite rightly—that the Bible means what it says, and hold that, if the Bible be, as they believe, the revealed word of God, nothing contrary to it can be true or ought to be taught. They are endeavouring to prevent any teaching from being given in state schools or colleges, whether on geology or biology, which conflicts with the Biblical account. The matter is being made a political issue; so many votes can always be secured for the Bible and so few for Science that in some places no political candidate could be elected who does not hold the “Biblical” views, and no teacher in a public institution could retain his position if he favoured evolution.

There has been in America some surprise at the sudden rise of Fundamentalism in the last five years. But no one who has lived, as I have, in Holland can be astonished. The story of Fundamentalism in America is repeating almost exactly the history of the “Anti-revolutionary’’ party in Holland...

[Footnote] 1. This name is commonly used in America; it is not, I think, widely known elsewhere, but it is easy to understand, and I do not know any word to take its place which would be equally intelligible on both sides of the Atlantic.​

From Chapter IV, The Real Divisions in Modern Protestantism, in The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow, Kirsopp Lake, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1925, pp. 60-63

Nor is Lake is always complimentary towards Liberalism, for example:

…It is unusual to find any man who comes from liberal circles with even that elementary knowledge of the Bible which used to be given in every Sunday School and in most homes.

This is not because the Bible has been dropped. It is because, instead of interpreting it in order to show what the writers meant, it is used as a vehicle to convey what the preacher wishes…​

From Chapter III, The Theological Storm in the Nineteenth Century, in The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow, Kirsopp Lake, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1925, pp. 54-55

 

I agree with you and your issue.

 

The Nas faithful to the Greek text, while the Nwt is not!

 

These work for me as the 'shiboleth' of Fundamentalism.

 

What, we kill people who don't believe these very basic doctrines??

 

The issue was the common Greek text. Only begotten God - only begotten god. And other places.

 

If they don't believe these and claim to be Fundamentalists, then they are "dead from the neck up" as far as I am concerned.
(no point wasting your breath trying to explain it to them, they will never understand. They may dress like one of us, but they ain't one of us. Best not let the door hit 'em in the backside on the way out. (and if it's their church, then it is "shake off the dust" time a get to skedaddlein'.

 

In my experience, this is the difference. Fundamentalists wield a sword and attack everything and everyone they believe to be an enemy. They contend for the faith as they see it, often unwilling to consider whether or not their perceived "enemy" might actually be more biblically correct.

 

Your attack is unwelcome here. Not only that, you are doing exactly what you are decrying in this post--broad-brushing us fundamentalists.

"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."
Fundamental Forum Guidelines

 

Examples please?

 

(1) I was generally agreeing with Dr. Bob. He wrote a perceptive comment that the fundamentals (which I happily embrace by conviction) simply make one orthodox. The difference is that fundamentalists live with the "Bible in one hand, sword in the other."
(2) It is something of a broad brush, which is to be expected when you are trying to figure out the difference between those who are simply orthodox and one's who are fundamentalists. Fundamentalists have historically retreated from engaging with those in Christendom with whom they disagree, but when they engage, they attack.

I was around when the Fundamental Baptist Forum was created. It was designed to be a safe space for those who wanted to separate themselves from those with whom they disagree. Yet, the same people who created this little cocoon didn't just stay here, they came out and attacked others. It still happens today.

I have largely ignored this forum, except to see what people are discussing. I rarely participate, since I understand that this is supposed to be a safe space for people who think a certain way. However, when you posted the forum introduction in your comment to AustinC earlier in this thread, I noticed that it is ITSELF a massive BROADBRUSH attack on persons who don't think a certain way:

I have never claimed that the Bible is ANYTHING BUT "true and accurate" and I certainly don't question Jesus ("the Word of God") nor Christian scriptures ("the word of God"). In fact, I am CONSTANTLY appealing to scripture, more so than most whom I debate who gladly embrace the label of fundamentalist. So by the standards stated here, I am entitled to participate.

Notice the words here... The official description of this group claims that there are "liberals" (always used pejoratively around here) roaming through other forums who don't "agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and... question the Word of God." The statement also encourages group members to "battle" those who are outside the group if they feel led.

Sorry, but I guess you are blind to the hypocrisy. You accuse me of a broad brush attack on the forum and quote the forum description that essentially states what I have stated, using a broad brush attack.

 

I would partially change the first to read Biblical inspiration in the original text. Seems fallibility of scripture has become common with so many different translations.
In war the first and most important target is always communications. Take them out first and the war will not last long.
MB

 

But despite your defense, you did attack fundamentalists broadly in a forum specifically designed to rule that out.

Are you aware of the many kinds of fundamentalists there are? Almost any generalization about fundamentalists is bound to be mistaken. There are:

Bible Baptists
GARBC
FBF types
What is commonly called "the Sword crowd"
Bible Presbyterians
Missionary Baptists
IFCA
John MacArthur--no longer with the IFCA, but told my uncles he was a fundamentalist
Some in the SBC who call themselves fundamentalists, but others who are but eschew the term
etc., etc.