What is the difference between the classic Fundamentalist and the Modern day

HEY Bill!

Get back to me when ya' got the answer!

 

I think the largest problem with Fundamentalism is the lack of a clear theology. It held a hodgepodge of beliefs. When one studies Church History one can see that a lack of the study of theology brings about the destruction of church.

The series called "The Fundamentals" is a very good systematic theology. Problem is that too few people have read them, nor can explain what a fundamental is.

 

Yep. Its available online @ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm

 

Not my site...

I only found it. I like finding great theological works online. Helps when one is studying things to be able to cut and paste.

 

classic Fundamentalist
OEC/Gap Theory
The Fundamentals (the series)
In a limited sense ecumenical

Modern day Fundamentalist
YEC
KJVO
strongly anti-ecumenical

 

I'll have to disagree with you here, OleSchoolBaptist. Fundamentalism is not a theology but a position. Fundamentalist theology, as treated in The Fundamentals, was and is nothing more than Bible-believing Christianity.

It appears that you are giving the typical portrayal of Fundamentalists as ignorant. If this is true, I resent it. Some of my mentors in the faith have been highly educated Fundamentalists, who knew their theology well: John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, Fred Moritz, etc.

I just finished an M. A. at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, a very strong Fundamentalist institution. It is accredited and has a high standard of scholarship. Our textbooks were the same as you would find at any conservative Baptist school: Erickson for the systematic theology, McBeth for the Baptist history, etc.

What happened in the 1950's with the rise of New Evangelcalism is that Evangelical theology changed while Fundamentalist theology stayed true to the portrait of Bible-believing Christianity given in The Fundamentals.

How did Evangelical theology change you say? I'm glad you asked! It changed in two major ways.

(1) Evangelicals elevated social action to an equal level with the original fundamentals. This can be seen in the writings of the 1950's founders of New Evangelicalism, in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, etc.

(2) Evangelicals ditched traditional separation, replacing it with a doctrine of accomodation to the surrounding culture. In the ecclesiastical world this meant rapproachment with liberal and neo-orthodox theologians.

New Evangelicals changed. Fundamentalists did not. We are "old school," as the young people like to say nowadays.

 

This is pretty simplistic, mioque. In the first place, many many classic Fundamentalists never accepted the Gap Theory. (Sorry, I don't know what OEC is.)

In the second place, a hugh percentage of modern day Fundamentalism is not KJVO. (Sorry, I don't know what YEC is.) For non-KJVO Fundamentalist schools: BJU (the biggest Fundamentalist U. of all), Maranatha BBC (my grad school alma mater), Pillsbury BBC, Tennessee Temple U. (my alma mater), Central Baptist Theo. Sem., Detroit Bapt. Sem., Calvary Bapt. Sem. (where my son is now), etc.

 

You are right, Plain Old Bill, the word Fundamentalist has been really twisted around. The news media redefines it however they want to, as do some Charismatics, etc. When Bob Jones III was over here in Japan about 12 years ago he said he was discouraged about that, and thought of renaming his position "Bible Believing Christian" (the title J. G. Machen preferred) or "Biblicist."

Having said that, I think I like the term "Historic Fundamentalist." The original Fundamentalists did not just believe in the Fundamentals (whatever list you prefer), they stood for them against liberalism.

Just take a look at the titles of the first seven chapters in The Fundamentals:
Chapter 1. The History of the Higher Criticism
Chapter 2. The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
Chapter 3. The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism Chapter 4. The Bible and Modern Criticism
Chapter 5. The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations
Chapter 6. Christ and Criticism
Chapter 7. Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity

So, the Historic Fundamentalist not only believes the fundamentals, but fights for them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

John of Japan
"This is pretty simplistic, mioque."
"
It's a complete deliberate oversimplification, in truth it's little more than a starting place for what a list of differences might look like.

OEC = Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism* is something of a late development among Fundamentalism, something the movement picked up some decades ago from the Seventh Day Adventists who invented it.

KJVO didn't exist among original Fundamentalism, not that there was no vigorous criticism of translation issues among them. Modern Fundamentalism picked up KJVO (once again) from the Seventh Day Adventists .


*I don't mean the basic believe in a relatively recently created earth&it's inhabitants, I mean the explanation/defense of this notion in scientific terms.

 

Yes I know its more of a position. However wanna be preachers such as Jeff Owens make it out to be more.

Glad to see you are not being dogmatic about what you thought I might mean. I have many books by John R. Rice and somewhere a biography of Monk Parker, and one book by Moritz. I call myself an ole school baptist because I believe the old school doctrines of Baptists. Most of the IFB's I know have no clue what the fundamentals are, let alone how to fight for them.

Congratulations are in order. Maranatha is a great school.

No real problem there...

 

OleSchoolBaptist, sounds like we are on the same page! And you are right, there is a generation of young IFB's who know nothing about their spiritual origins.

 

Hi, mioque. Thanks for the clarifications.

If we're going to get simplistic here, let's add premillenial doctrine. Ernest Sandeen's thesis in The Roots of Fundamentalism was that we should go way back into 19th millenarianism to find original Fundamentalism. I disagree: many conservatives in the Fundamentalist vs. Modernist debates were post-mil. I don't agree with Sandeen.

Another simplistic view is that being a Fundamentalist only means that you believe the fundamentals. This indeed is simplistic, otherwise all conservative Christians would be Fundamentalists.

No, I believe that an unbiased look at those who first consciously called their movement Fundamentalism reveals that (1) holding to the Fundamentals, plus (2) taking a stand against modernism/liberalism are both important. This is what got G. Gresham Machen defrocked, John R. Rice blackballed by the Texas Baptist Convention, etc.

That's my definition and I'm sticking to it! And there are still a very large percentage of Fundamentalists (yours truly included) who would describe themselves this way, minus an exact definition of creationism (though they would oppose evolution on general principles), etc. (Still, point taken on YEC and OEC.)

P. S. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on the SDA origin for the KJVO doctrine among Fundamentalists. I know where you are coming from, via Which Bible?. But IMHO Burgon, Hills, Ruckman (ugh! ) et al had much more influence than Wilkinson. After Fuller, I don't know of any authors who referenced Wilkinson.

 

I also prefer the term "Biblicist" but am not ashamed of my heritage as a fundamentalist.

It was through IFB churches that I was saved, baptised, discipled, and trained. The greatest lesson was the importance of the word of God.

I believe that true modern fundamentalists are Historic Fundamentalists.

 

Bill

You got an answer, yet?