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

Didn't the late Dr vernon Maggee often lament that the biggest problem with modern day fundamentalism was that it was hot per upholding b biblical doctrines, and yet also iceberg cold reflecting love towards the fellow brethren?

 

Think that when separation is taken to an extreme, that one will usually always get to the place of "spiritual legalism"

 

Sounds like a good church!

 

You apparently know nothing of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies of the 1920s-1940s, during which many evangelicals in the major denominations refused to criticize or stand against theological liberalism. Again. you show no knowledge of the New Evangelical movement of the 1950s, which culminated in the 1957 New York Crusade of Billy Graham, who refused to disallow theological liberals from the crusade committee, thus not defending the faith. The New Evangelicals took the side of Graham, refusing to criticize or separate from liberals, and thus split evangelicalism down the middle: Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals.

Thus, virtually all church historians writing about Fundamentalism note that it was a movement opposing liberalism rather than uniting with it, as the New Evangelicals did. The New Evangelicals were genuine Christians who, nonetheless, refused to stand against heresy. Here are some quotes (I could give many more):

“Ideally, a Christian Fundamentalist is one who desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness.”
David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1986), 4.

“Fundamentalism favored the cognitive and ideological battleground. Although the fundamentalists shared the other two movements’ [holiness Wesleyan and Pentecostals] concern for right living and the power of the Holy Spirit, they cared more about fighting for right doctrine.”
Joel Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1997), 5.

"So as we define fundamentalism it means a vigorous defense of the faith, active soul winning, great New Testament-type local churches going abroad to win multitudes, having fervent love for all of God's people and earnestly avoiding compromise in doctrine or yoking up with unbelievers"
John R. Rice, I Am a Fundamentalist, (Murfreesboro, TN: Sword of the Lord, 1975), 10.

“Fundamentalists view themselves as the legitimate heirs of historical New Testament Christianity. They see themselves as the militant and faithful defenders of biblical orthodoxy. They oppose Liberalism, communism, and left-wing Evangelicalism. True Fundamentalists hold strongly to the same basic tenets that they were debating seventy-five years ago. These defenders of the faith range from well-educated professors to backwoods preachers.”
Ed Dobson, Ed Hindson, Jerry Fallwell, The Fundamentalist Phenomenon, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981, 1986), 2.

 

In 1957, a New Evangelical scholar named Harold John Ockenga writes his famous press release in which he distinguished the New Evangelicalism as being opposed to the ecclesiastical separation and personal separation of fundamentalism, and in favor of increased cooperation with liberalism in a strategy of infiltration instead of separation, hoping to win liberals over by niceness. Obviously, it didn't work.

 

Would many Fundamentalists though have issues supporting in public say bible affirming A Mils?

 

Was is it though among the Interdependent Churches more of a breeding ground for things such as Kjvo>

 

Sandeen's history of fundamentalism has it beginning in the millennial conferences of the late 19th century, so in that theory, it is millennial. However, the Presbyterian fundamentalists (Machen et al) may not have been premil, I don't know. One of them, Carl McIntyre, was premil I know.

 

That's a very different narrative from the OP, so I don't think it fits here.

 

I think so! I love it when our pastor says, near the beginning of each sermon, "Please open your Bibles to...".

 

I have discovered that there is even a Presbie Premil denomination, but question was would a Fundamentalist be able to support and partnership with those avocation for a Amil position?

 

I am not accusing Ifb of anything, but does seem to be where Kjvo got it foothold

 

I know your church would not hold to Calvinist doctrines, but dies still seem like a good balanced church from your description

 

Again, you are confusing the fundamentals of the faith, which are upheld by many various denominations, with the fundamentalist movement, which is an entirely different topic.
Fundamentalism is a separatist ideology that picks and chooses its battles based upon its perceived idea that some Christians aren't acting or performing correctly...according to whatever categories they think are correct. Then, if any Christian group does not conform to their position, that other group is given a negative label and ostracized from fellowship out of a fear of falling away. In this movement the social mores of the group make up the main focus of the fundamentals and then bible prooftexts are tossed in to justify the preferred social mores of the group. Anyone opposed to those mores is either kicked out or made guilty so as to conform to what the group demands.

Love and grace are placed in a secondary role to militant order and conformity.

So this thread is specifically titled: What is fundamental to fundamentalism. The answer is...Jesus died for the sins of the redeemed, was buried, and arose again the third day, showing that He had secured the New Covenant.

Everything else is not fundamental. Everything else is added nuance to the fundamentals. This is why the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is so great.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

 

Huh? Really? I'm confusing fundamentalism with the fundamentals? How in the world do you think the movement got started, anyways? By ignoring the fundamentals???? Are you aware of the series of books edited by R. A. Torrey with the title "The Fundamentals." That's how the movement got started. Hello????

So apparently you didn't pay attention to my post at all. How are you supposed to have any credibility if you don't know fundamentalist history?

Do you know what New Evangelicalism is historically?
Are you aware of what battles took place in the Northern Baptist Convention, United Presbyterians? (Are you familiar with the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination, or the GARBC, of the Conservative Baptists?)
Are you aware of the huge controversy over Graham's NY crusade?
Do you know what happened in the SBC and why men like J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice and Lee Roberson left or were ejected?

If you disagree with what I wrote, please enlighten me about your own understanding of fundamentalist history. How did the movement get started, in your opinion?

 

he and I are totally supporting the core Christian doctrines Ifb hold with, just concerned with how they apply there separation mandate among other brethren!

 

It arose due to the concern, rightly so, of modernism and liberalism sweeping into various churches, but somewhere along the way, some in the Movement replace sound orthodoxy with a judgmental attitude towards others who disagreed with their particular views!

 

Aren't you both in churches of the North American Baptist Conference, denomination that's yoked up with the Alliance of Baptists in the 'Baptist Joint Committee', and with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in the 'Baptist World Alliance'?

 

This may be a stated claim, but the movement really isn't that concerned with the fundamental truths of scripture. If it were, it would welcome many denominations rather than exclude them.
The fact is that the fundamentalist movement excludes genuine brothers and sisters in Christ, not because those brothers and sisters aren't redeemed, but solely because those brothers and sisters don't conform to the social mores of the group.

Squire, I have observed it over and over again. You are free to deny this, but your denial is not based in actual experienced life. In actual life, the militancy is against many of God's elect. That is something the fundamentalist movement in which God will judge the leaders and actors who militantly fought against God, not Satan.