Featured What’s “Fundamental” to “Fundamentalism”?

Here we go again. Why do you keep showing up here if you don't like fundamentalism? Are you aware that there are various factions in 21st century fundamentalism? Please don't broad brush us.

 

I think here in lies the problem. Fundamentalism gets painted with a broad brush and, sadly, the crazy ones are the brush that gets painted with.

 

There are two different things.
1) There are fundamental building blocks of the faith. These are absolute truths upon which the church is built. Every church of any denomination that is Godward is built on these truths. Jesus is God come to earth to Redeem sinners, give them faith, and make them children of God.
2) There is an extremely legalistic, rules oriented, law making, grace less, group of churches that have labeled themselves fundamentalists as a means of excluding all other denominations and churches, as though these other churches do not hold the fundamental truths of scripture.

I whole heartedly applaud the first and thus come hear to see others who hold these fundamentals. I equally despise the second for its grace less behavior and I warn against it.

So, let us be of the first group and not of the second group. Let us encourage one another to the gracious fundamentals of scripture and rebuke the ungodly legalism of the fundamentalist movement.

 

That article took an awful lot of words to say - The bible means what it says.

The bible says it.
I believe it.
That settles it.
Congratulations, you're a Fundamentalist.

Other than that, there are few things I would take issue with in the article.I don't understand the position it took with regard to divorce. The rules in the bible about that, are pretty clear to me. Further, I've never been in a 'Fundamental' Baptist Church that debated the issue.

 

Agreed.

Where would we find this group? I could list a whole bunch of different fundamentalist groups without even trying (some very different). Which group do you mean?

These words do not sound like your post that I quoted, which was almost a blanket indictment. Here it is again:

 

The so called essentials of the faith!
Second Coming
Inspiration of scriptures
God is trinity, all 3 are equally God
saved only by Cross of Christ, sin atonement
Physical bodily resurrection
Saved by Grace alone, thru faith alone

 

I stand by my comment. I provided you with the two definitions of fundamental. I explained the legalism and grace less behavior of the vast majority of churches that label themselves as fundamentalists. These churches are overwhelmingly legalist churches that have created a long list of do not do laws for their congregants.

 

I'm sorry you feel this way, that the "vast majority" of us are legalistic and have no grace. Again, I wonder why you come here to this particular forum and hang out with us fundamentalists if that's your opinion.

Having been a fundamentalist all of my life (I'm 70), and preached on deputation and furlough in many churches, I disagree. Yes, there are legalists, and yes there are those who don't know grace, but there are those in every Christian group.

My uncle years ago was the pastor of a large IFB church, but due to various matters decided to leave fundamentalism and take his church with him, and he joined up with some who called themselves "free churches," meaning free from fundamentalism. I asked him what they did at their meetings, and he said wryly, "We criticize the fundamentalists."

 

John, I was raised in an IFCA church and attended a fundamentalist bible institute. The gracelessness and legalism really resulted in a demerit system. Thus, I have a history in this world of fundamentalism. My history points to a group of Pharisees verbalizing grace, but acting under their own law.

 

So because of your experience with one small group you castigate all fundamentalists.

"Demerit system." How horrible! But surely you don't believe that a demerit system ergo = legalism. If so, there was no such thing as a non-legalistic Bible college anywhere in the world until probably the mid-20th century. Wheaton College used to have a demerit system that would make you blanch.

 

Wheaton College was a bastion of fundamentalism when my parents went there in the 1940's. Here are the standards in 1943:

"Wheaton College 1943 Rules
The prospective student signed these to be allowed to go there.
All are required to abstain from alcoholic liquors and tobacco, card playing, dancing, attendance at theaters (including moving picture theaters), and meetings of secret societies. Students who are not willing to cooperate in maintaining the Wheaton ideals of college work and life will be invited to withdraw whenever the general welfare demands it, even though there be no special breach of conduct calling for suspension."

(Alas, I don't remember where I got this.)

 

John, when issues that are not biblically addressed, such as don't drink, don't smoke, don't dance, don't gamble, etc, become law...you have a church of Pharisees.
When Moody went to Britain and met with Spurgeon, he got upset that Spurgeon smoked a cigar. He told Spurgeon, "those things will kill you." Spurgeon, looking at Moody's stomach said, "so will over eating." In the Bible there is a command against gluttony, but no command against smoking cigars. Spurgeon replied, "Tonight, before bed, I will smoke a cigar to the glory of God."

I have many friends from that Bible Institute that came from such fundamentalist churches. Many of them have abandoned the faith or doubled down on the legalism. It really is sad that they never knew the graciousness of a community that helped them persevere in the fight against actual sin instead of legalistic, man-made rules.

 

What is needful, I think, whether one practices every one of these standard of separation from the world or not, and even if one thinks they are disagreement with any of them, should at the very least know and fully understand the Biblical basis for these standards.

Here is the problem if there is one: Claiming these standards and not being able to justify holding to them Biblically.

 

Where is the biblical principle for don't drink when Jesus and his followers drank alcohol? Where's the biblical principle for don't dance when David and Jesus danced? Where's the biblical principle for don't gamble when people gambled in the Bible? Notice that so many of the do nots in fundamentalist circles are not even biblical, yet you would be shunned and ridiculed by the community for breaking the social more's that have no biblical support.
The fundamentals of God's word are those which all Godward churches hold. They are not the legalism of fundamentalism.

 

Of course a church can make a million rules. But those rules are not fundamental to Christianity. This is precisely why many fundamentalist churches fail. They lose sight of the grace God extended to them and fall into the trap of the Pharisees. They add so many extra laws that they place huge weights on the congregants.
It was a brother at Bethlehem Baptist by the name of Thomas Schreiner (same person who teaches at Southern Seminary) and Pastor John Piper who helped me find grace in the Bible and not law. I am so grateful for that short stint up in Minneapolis. It was a providential thing that I wandered into that church.
Brother, I know I have ruffled your feathers. I trust that where we agree is in the fundamental truth of God's redeeming grace that gives us freedom in Christ.

 

I could not disagree more. There is a definite doctrine of personal separation in Scripture. Preaching against alcohol (the Bible does address this), and these other things help not to love the world (1 John 2:15), and help to keep from temptation. If a preacher preaches that abstaining from these things makes one righteous, then yes, that is legalism. But simply preaching against their dangers is not legalism. People like you call it that, but it is not legalism according to any theological definition. You can object to such preaching, but it is not legalism.

Here is a theological definition by a theologian who is not a fundamentalist: “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 then later he quit smoking, and got healthier. Do you actually take the position that smoking does no harm?????

I have many friends who used to compromise with the world, but learned to walk with Jesus and eschew loving the world. But anecdotes prove nothing.

I find it very telling that you object to a demerit system. That tells me you simply don't understand it. A demerit system in a college is certainly not legalism unless it is claimed that such a system produces righteousness. In reality, such a system is designed to protect the students. For example, the rules in our college concerning cell phone use protects the kids from pornography. Do you have any idea how many young people today are addicted? We have students who willingly testify of being addicted, but have gotten free. I myself have strict rules for myself to keep me from such. "Love not the world," brother--it's dangerous.

P. S. I find completely ridiculous the argument that churches should not have rules. Any church which is incorporated has a set of rules called its constitution. Duh!