Featured Your Definition of a Fundamenlist

I can see them all now laughing at just how wrong they got in some aspects of their theology!

 

I was an member of some standing in a 500+ member GARBC church in the late 1980s to about 1998. In the 80s our Sr. Pastor was president of our State GARBC Association and a trustee of ABWE. Another member was on the BOT of Ceaderville College. We had Paul Tassell, The National GARBC Represenative and Wendell Kempton, Head of ABWE speak at our church several times during that period.

Still with that background we attended (in I think 1994) a 3 day Promise Keepers Stadium Rally and held PK small groups for several years. A group of us went to a men's retreat held at a non-GARBC church. We were separate but not white knuckle separate. We also used background music tapes in worship. The constitution and member statement of faith contained a clause that members should not drink alcohol as a beverage and any man with divorce or married to a divorced woman could not be a deacon or pastor.

I currently attend a IFBC church. The only difference between the two is the official translation of the Bible used. I suspect that the IFBC church would be a little less likely to sanction something like a PK rally but in all honesty I really don't know for sure. But with all of it's warts, real or imagined, it is really the one of the very few Bible Believing gospel churches in the county.

I would personally rather be called a fundy than an evangelical because even the liberals know that fundementalists stand for the Bible while the evangelicals can be somewhat vague on that matter. So it becomes a matter of standing for the Bible and possibly having to defend a stricter code of behavior vs having to explain an individual stance on the authority or the Bible, the fine points of covenant theology, salvation by grace through faith, the resurrection and return of Christ, missionaries and so forth.

The general direction of the Body of Christ is headed in the wrong direction, it is hard to argue that is isn't. While it is true that there are good solid churches that identify themselves as evangelical not fundamental, I think and at least my personal experience confirms that if a church has as it's main message "Christ and Him crucified" it is more likely to be fundamental than anything else. Not perfect though. Some in this discussion thread while having past experience in a fundamental church or college seem to have an axe to grind.

One of my early mentors referred to GARBC all the time, even when I was involved in it, he called us garbage baptists. This man, whom I still maintain a friendship with, told me he would always be American Baptist USA but spent most of his time in the ministry in a UMC setting. It is with a great deal of constraint I keep from accusing him of being a social liberal, he does personally love the Lord and trusts Christ and the Bible but will give the people what they want not what they need.

 

I don't think I ever met him. Possible but I don't recall.

 

It seems to me as if fundamentalism is the same as "the doctrine of Christ," mentioned in the scriptures. This seems to be about his person. It is interesting that in the gospel of John two doctrines about his person were highlighted. They are capsulized here.

Jn 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

This is what it took in the gospels and it is all it took for the Jews to be justified during the days of Jesus. Every just person in the gospel of John said they believed that Jesus is the son of God. You can check me out on this and see that it is true. This is what the Ethiopian in Acts 8 testified that he believed. So, believing Jesus Christ is the son of God must be a fundamental of the faith. This would certainly require a virgin birth.

However, while believing these two distinct things justified everyone during the ministry of Jesus, it alone will not justify anyone under the new covenant that was instituted at the death of Jesus. Read John 6 here and see that he will raise anyone who believed that up at the last day. Believing it justified the hearers. It is what Peter said he believed. Look!

Jn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Hebrews 9:16
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

No one would doubt that Peter was a justified man. But being a justified man, he did not know anything about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and more than that he did not believe it when an eye witness of the resurrection told him about it. However, justified men cannot be condemned by sin.

Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
(this is at the end of his ministry after over 3 years preaching with these disciples)

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

The new covenant provides for the forgiveness of sins for all justified sinners. Justification is always by faith in what God says to the people to whom he is speaking. He did not require Peter to believe that he will die for his sins and then to rise again on the third day in order to be justified, but he did require him to believe that he was the Christ the Son of God. after the death and resurrection of our Lord one must believe that he, the son of God, died and was buried and rose again as payment for our sins. It is upon this testimony of the sinner that the Holy Spirit, who is the life of God, indwells him because the blood of Christ has washed away his sins and cleared his account. This must be a belief from the heart that will turn a sinner from his sins.

Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

I am a fundamentalist Christian. I have been saved by the grace of God. I fellowship in an independent fundamental bible believing KJV only Baptist church in central Kentucky. I believe a true fundamentalist is one who is instructed out of the scriptures by believing every word, and by being corrected when the words show him to be in error. I believe there are few fundamentalist Christians left in the world today. Most Christians reading my comments will not accept the truth that the apostles whom Jesus chose were justified by their faith but did not have any understanding about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, some going to the tomb to anoint his body after he was crucified and buried and none going there to watch him come out of the tomb alive and in his body, and not believing that he was risen from the dead when they were told. Simple logic of comparing scriptures will cause an honest man to conclude the truths of these passages.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

The doctrine of Christ is the must believe doctrine. This is the scripture teaching of his person and work.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

It is a glorious thing to speak about our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ. Glory to him.

 

The differentiation is between the fundamentals in theology (especially salvation) and the extreme pietism/legalism of many churches that have the name "fundamentalist" in their title.

 

Define legalism.

I would define it as forcing certain standards that are not spelled out in scripture as a test of spirituality. Some churches do that I think.

 

Any attempt to be holy by human actions.

 

How many fundamentalists would read this article and agree since it's written by a woman?

 

I would suggest a slight change. "Any attempt to be holy by human power." Any true sanctification requires action.

 

I'm not impressed, but it has nothing to do with her being a woman. She seems very young, and it shows in her perceptions--her husband was a "pastor in training" at the time of this article. Her sources are not the best. (Gotquestions is an anonymous site, and good colleges don't allow students to use such sites as a source for research papers.) And the definition there is poor. I actually like your definition a lot better: "Any attempt to be holy by human actions." Neat and concise.

You have come close to the definition by MIllard Erickson that I like to cite: “Legalism is a slavish following of the law in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law.”
(Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013, 908.)

And for the record, original fundamentalism had nothing to do with whether a person is male or female

 

That Millard Erickson definition, though not as concise, is to me the best I've read. It explains what the legalist is attempting to do and also what the legalist is unwilling to do.

 

Not me. I am sick of the feminization of our culture. Women with no experience in life and never having defended the Christian faith are hardly the people to be schooling us on the doctrines. Expect itchy feely conclusions from them. We need men who love God enough to obey him and don't mind to take a hit or two for doing it.

 

A woman can be strong mentally and theologically while still being submissive. My Aunt Libby was my pastor Uncle Walt's theological resource. The phrase "weaker vessel" is referring to the body, not the mind. Men will always be stronger than women physically, which is why we have sports competition by DNA gender.

 

My comments were not to suggest that women are in any way inferior to men and I know that their calling is at least as important as that of any man, but it is far different, and for good reason.

 

The article referenced was from a young inexperienced woman.