Can you be...

Don, may I ask then how you would define Fundamentalism? I agree that having or not having certain standards does not make one a Fundamentalist. What then does, in your opinion?

 

Holding to the fundamentals of the faith, such as the ones I outlined previously.

 

Okay, I thought that was your position, I just wanted to make sure.

Historically, Fundamentalism has been more than just holding to the fundamentals of the faith. If Fundamentalism was just holding to the Fundamentals of the faith, then many Evangelicals (good men, actually) who have consciously rejected the term (in print and often) would be Fundamentalists, such as: Billy Graham, Carl Henry, Francis Schaeffer, etc.

To give just one example, Schaeffer originally joined J. Gresham Machen, Carl McIntyre and B. B. Warfield in their exit from the Presbyterians over their stand against liberalism in their denomination. However, Schaeffer later came to believe the Fundamentalists were too harsh and rejected the term. He tells this story in his book The Great Evangelical Disaster, and clearly says why he is not a Fundamentalist, though no one would accuse him of not holding to the fundamentals of the faith that you have listed.

As you may know, the term Fundamentalism was invented based on a series of pamphlets printed from 1910 to 1915 and sent free to pastors, missionaries, etc. You can buy these pamphlets now in various one or two volume editions. The blurb on the back of my copy says, ""Written to combat the inroads of liberalism into the Christian church, The Fundamentals literally stirred the world in defense of the historic Christian faith." So Fundamentalism began with a mandate to fight against liberalism as per Jude v. 3, earnestly contending for the faith.

I could take time and explain how the battle went against the Northern Baptists liberals, in the SBC, among the Lutherans, etc. But surely what I've said so far will satisfy you that Fundamentalism means more than simply believing the Fundamentals, it means standing and fighting for them. :type:

 

Very well said John. Very succient and precise. Well done.

(Of course; you have an "insiders" view! insert winky)

 

go2church, are you still reading? Paying attention?

 

Yeah, I remember when those Fundamental pamphlets started arriving in our mail box...well, maybe I don't go that far back. :tongue3: But I do remember staying with the whole Rice clan at a motel in Florida owned by Carl McIntyre!

 

Still here...


"Historically, Fundamentalism has been more than just holding to the fundamentals of the faith. If Fundamentalism was just holding to the Fundamentals of the faith, then many Evangelicals (good men, actually) who have consciously rejected the term (in print and often) would be Fundamentalists, such as: Billy Graham, Carl Henry, Francis Schaeffer, etc."

Interesting considering I have been told numerous times that I have the wrong idea of fundamentalism, yet now you claim it is more then just holding to the fundamentals of the faith...so which is it? Could you please define the more?

"But surely what I've said so far will satisfy you that Fundamentalism means more than simply believing the Fundamentals, it means standing and fighting for them."

So if you don't fight you're not a fundamentalist, interesting considering the words of Jesus to love our enemies and turn the other check. Also, what are you fighting for? If fundamentalism is more than just holding to the fundamentals of the faith...how do you know if you have won the fight or even if you have lost

Are you sure I the one who doesn't understand fundamentalism? Because from your own words it seems as though you have to be exactly what you claim you are not to be a fundamentalist. A legalist

 

As an administrator are you telling me to leave this forum?

It is my contention that fundamentalism, though perhaps rooted in a desire to challenge liberalism has now grown to be today a "battle" on secondary issues and therefore destructive to the greater Christian faith.

Are you saying "battles" over secondary issues are not destructive to the Christian faith (I don't think so)? Or are you saying those battles do not represent fundamentalism as you know it or believe it to be?

If the later, why the division between evangelism and fundamentalism in the minds of fundamentalists? When you place the core of their beliefs together they match up very close, yet most fundamentalists are not willing to cooperate with evangelicals (my experience in Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas)?

 

I have given a clear definition, and have never once claimed that it was just holding to the fundamentals. Suppose now you give us your definition--something a little bit more precise than you have so far, please.

Oh, come now. You previously said on this thread, "I will say what I feel needs to be said when I feel it needs to be said. Fundamentalists are not exempt nor are they the only target of my criticism. For example prosperity gospel teachers and materialistic Christians where all in the target this past Sunday."

So you obviously believe in fighting spiritual battles. "Target" is hardly a gentle, non-combative word.

Yes, Fundamentalists "fight the good fight of faith" (1 Tim. 6:12), earnestly contend for the faith (Jude v. 9), put on God's armor and struggle with wickedness (Eph. 6:12), and try the spirits to identify and reject false prophets (1 John 4:1). And the fight will not end until Jesus comes back to reign.

You previously said, "At the heart of fundamentalism is legalism, the need for control and strict adherance to prescibed set of beliefs." By this, your own particular definition of legalism, I am still not a legalist. I have absolutely no desire for control over you or anyone else. You can show no where on this thread or in any of my writings where I have advocated or sought control over anyone.

I will admit to strict adherance to a prescribed set of beliefs. But all Biblical Christians do so, not just Fundamentalists. At the Lausanne Congress of evangelicals in 1974, Francis Schaeffer (who is not a Fundamentalist) declared in his message that Biblical inerrancy is absolutely necessary to be an evangelical. The Lausanne Covenant itself says, "We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirely as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" (No Final Conflict, by Schaeffer).

But your definition of legalism is flawed, and not the normally accepted one in Christian circles. You obviously made it up yourself. Here is the definition I gave on p. 1 of this thread, and by it I am no legalist: “Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).

 

I personally like that definition JOJ...
But I love Erickson's writings....

I consider myself a old line fundamentalist. (shhhh... people on here think I am a liberal!)
I hold to each of the fundamentals that were written in The Fundamentals
But beyond believing in them, I will stand and fight for them...

Now the newer beliefs of the neo-fundamentalists... or as others call them the UFOs, I will not approve of them, until they meet the fundamentalist test: Is it in the Bible?

 

Excellent, tinytim! That test will eliminate anything secondary for a Fundamentalist--or a Baptist, or any Christian!

Yeah, Erickson's good. His systematic theology that I quoted is the best one I've seen. I have a rare one by him, The New Evangelical Theology (1968). It's very informative about the things in this thread, the differences between fundamentalism and new evangelicalism.

 

I would suggest Go2Church read"Tthe Fundamentals" edited by R.A. Torrey,then read "A History of Fundamentalism in America" By George Dollar,then come back and hold this conversation again. I think we are talking apples while he is talking oranges.:godisgood: We are talking classic fundamentalist and he is talking UFOism(ultra-fundamentalist onlyist/ism)

 

On some level I would be willing to contend that one leads to other.

 

Do yourself a favor and read the books. The Fundamentals can be read on line for free just go to the Baptist start page.

 

Which one leads to the other, and how?

 

Reading these two books will give anyone a great grasp of Fundamentalism's history and beliefs through the 1970's. :thumbs:

 

It never led me to the other...

 

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[1]

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[2]

Now how many of us will stand firm on these beliefs?
I will.