Can you be...

[John of Japan]

Your average "fundamentalist" has very little, if any, knowledge of fundamentalist history. It certainly isn't taught in "hardcore" independent, fundamental Baptist churches (I refer to Hyles as one type, and only one, of several). As such, many "baby" Christians in those types of "fundamentalist" churches grow into Christian maturity believing that altar calls have always been around; good fundamentalist men should wear a tie and every woman a dress; every truly saved member of the church should be out on Thursday evenings and Saturday mornings, and working the bus routes on Sunday; and if you ain't preaching against something, you ain't preaching correctly. If you fail in one of these areas, then there's something wrong with your walk; and God help you if you fail in more than one.

Having strict standards doesn't make you a fundamentalist, any more than being a fundamentalist means you have strict standards. It's when the two get mixed up, and the focus is on the standards instead of the fundamentals, that the problems occur. And those unable to distinguish the two, such as go2church, see only the strict adherence to standards by a group that calls themselves fundamentalists, and mistakenly identify fundamentalism as a focus on standards rather than biblical fundamentals.

This isn't a problem with history; it's a problem with perception. I myself know an outstanding preacher, who's as fundamental as they get; but that church also uses standards to "weed out" those that they don't believe properly represent the church. They've gone beyond fundamentalism, and are guilty of asking people why they pluck corn on the sabbath.

As for me and mine, my wife and daughters wear dresses at all times; for no other reason than because scripture says "dress modestly."

P.S. - This is one of the reasons I like the Baptist Board: being challenged to defend my beliefs, and wondering if I have the courage to change those beliefs if/when shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Capiche, go2church?

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?

 

[Don]

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

 

[John of Japan]

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:

 

[av1611jim]

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

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

 

[Don]

go2church, are you still reading? Paying attention?

 

[John of Japan]

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

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

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!

 

[go2church]

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

 

[Squire Robertsson]

go2church: I've used this illustration before and you misunderstood it the last time, but I'll try it again.

This is a Fenian (Irish nationalist) pub and you are an Orangeman upset by the seemingly continual play of "The Rising of the Moon." I am sorry we (Funndamentalists) vex your righteous soul. You may just want to pay your bill and walk over to the Bill and Mary (the non-Fundamental Baptist forums on the Board).
****
Yes, it is a matter of historical record. Fundametalism is "miliant" movement. Initially, it was a "non-conformist" movement in the various denominations. It still is in the SBC. However, in the early 1930s Fundamentalism became a seperatist movement.

I agree that in many cases there was unnecessary heat in the separation. But, at a certain point, separation becomes a Scriptural mandate. I'll let other list the passages in Romans, Corinthians, the Pastoral Epistles, the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. If I wanted to be harsh about the matter, I'd ask this question. "What part of come out from among them and touch not the unclean thing don't you understand?" It is on how a person puts this and other verses into practice we disagree.

 

[go2church]

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)?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SNIP I agree that in many cases there was unnecessary heat in the separation. But, at a certain point, separation becomes a Scriptural mandate. SNIP

I think we can agree on this. Please keep in mind me and mine come out of the old Northern Baptist Convention. We pretty much hold to the doctrine we held to before the NBC was organized. We didn't change the Convention did.

Much of the heat comes from men re-fighting the battles of the past or casting current problems as the same as a battle of the past. A case in point is the controversy over the use of the Authorized version. Much of the killing heat comes from casting situation as the exact same battle we fought with the Liberals and Modernists over the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Men forget history doesn't repeat its self, but it does at times rhyme.

As for not posting on this forum, please be our guest. However, please stop banging into the furniture.

 

[John of Japan]

Still here...
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?

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.

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

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.

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

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).

 

[tinytim]

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?

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

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)

 

[go2church]

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

 

[Plain Old Bill]

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

 

[John of Japan]

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

Which one leads to the other, and how?

 

[John of Japan]

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)

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

 

[tinytim]

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

It never led me to the other...

 

[tinytim]

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.