Define fundamentalist

[Luke2427]

I know we have a thread that gives us "some definitions" but I want to see where the members on this board stand.

What do you consider to be the necessary elements in the practices and preaching of a person for him to call himself a fundamentalist today?

I know what fundamentalism was when it began. But I think observant and thinking people realize that most who proudly bear the title today are a far cry from those original fundamentalists.

To keep from being accused of posting a loaded question I will identify what I think.

I think the modern fundamentalist, by and large, is a pope. I think he is someone who has built hedges about hedges about the law and has and proclaims many positions which are not logically connected to Scripture. His disdain for the sufficiency and authority of Scripture and willingness to preach his preferences as the Word of God makes him a pope.

 

[John of Japan]

I think the modern fundamentalist, by and large, is a pope. I think he is someone who has built hedges about hedges about the law and has and proclaims many positions which are not logically connected to Scripture. His disdain for the sufficiency and authority of Scripture and willingness to preach his preferences as the Word of God makes him a pope.

Yep, this is certainly the way to get us fundamentalists to debate you about what fundamentalism is: viciously attack us in the very first post.

 

[Luke2427]

Yep, this is certainly the way to get us fundamentalists to debate you about what fundamentalism is: viciously attack us in the very first post.

If that does not describe you then it is not an attack on you, is it?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I think the modern fundamentalist, by and large, is a pope. I think he is someone who has built hedges about hedges about the law and has and proclaims many positions which are not logically connected to Scripture. His disdain for the sufficiency and authority of Scripture and willingness to preach his preferences as the Word of God makes him a pope.

I believe you are on to something and you are right in your assessment. Fundamentalists are often those who have quit listening to anyone other than them self, and that does make them a pope ... [note little p]. To me they appear unwilling to admit they do not have all the answers ... thus, there is no way for God to teach them new things, new ways, deeper truths than they already understand.

I do not, like John, see the OP as an attack, but a statement of how one person sees a group. In fact, Luke's response lends credence to the OP and to my statement of those who have quit listening. By not listening it also mean not continuing critical thinking. By critical thinking I do not mean criticizing, but examining and contemplating seeking new, deeper truths of God. And, no this is not an attack either.

In our society we have gone far too far in adopting the stance that anyone who I do not agree with is an enemy. Actually we can all learn from each other. But we have to be open to discussion and respectful to each other. This is a change that has taken place during my lifetime. I believe, and am thinking this over, it is a by-product of the "me generation" that was brought into our world by the baby boomers.

 

[John of Japan]

If that does not describe you then it is not an attack on you, is it?

I'm a self-confessed fundamentalist. This is an attack on my movement, therefore an attack on my mentors and my many friends in the movement, therefore an attack on me. If it is not an attack, then you need to redefine your "definition of fundamentalism." Your definition fits no fundamentalist I know, including the radicals, and I am a missionary with a fundamental board, supported by 48 churches, have preached in 100s of churches, and correspond daily with many fundamentalists of all stripes.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm a self-confessed fundamentalist. This is an attack on my movement, therefore an attack on my mentors and my many friends in the movement, therefore an attack on me. If it is not an attack, then you need to redefine your "definition of fundamentalism." Your definition fits no fundamentalist I know, including the radicals, and I am a missionary with a fundamental board, supported by 48 churches, have preached in 100s of churches, and correspond daily with many fundamentalists of all stripes.

Then you define fundamentalist for us, John. And tell us how your definition separates you from the vast majority of Southern Baptists today.

 

[John of Japan]

Here are what the fundamentalists I was mentored by are like:

Charles Himes, my father, preached the Word for 60 years and died saying "I want to go home." His "sugar stick" sermon was "It Pays to Serve Jesus," and his personal view of his greatest accomplishment was his set of lessons on the Life of Christ.

John R. Rice, my grandfather, was known for weeping when he preached about Jesus and the need for people to get saved. He wrote over 200 books and pamphlets, but his best sellers were his book on prayer (400,000 copies), and his little book about Heaven, 500,000 copies or more.

Jim Norton, who God used to get me to Japan, was a missionary for about 46 years. He is known to this day for his fierce compassion for the souls of the lost. Walking down the street with him was always a challenge. Chances are he'd be off witnessing for Christ to someone in the middle of your sentence.

Monroe Parker, the director of my mission board when I joined, was an evangelist with the best balance of zeal and knowledge I've ever known. He once saw revival break out in a city in Kentucky so wicked that its nickname was "Hell," but when I rode with him one day I took a look at his Greek NT, which was worn to a frazzle.

 

[John of Japan]

Then you define fundamentalist for us, John. And tell us how your definition separates you from the vast majority of Southern Baptists today.

I'm not a Southern Baptist, I'm an independent. And if I define fundamentalist for you, chances are you will continue to viciously attack us as you did in the OP. I don't find you to be reasonable. You may remember calling my doctrine of Christ "degraded," or something similar. So why should I debate you?

 

[Luke2427]

I'm not a Southern Baptist, I'm an independent. And if I define fundamentalist for you, chances are you will continue to viciously attack us as you did in the OP. I don't find you to be reasonable. You may remember calling my doctrine of Christ "degraded," or something similar. So why should I debate you?

Then, frankly, why did you post?

Either debate or keep to yourself. This is not a drive by posting site where we release our emotions. It is a debate site.

I don't think you are reasonable. I think your posts are emotional rahter than rational.

I have several of your grandfathers books here in my library. I think he was a great man. I think you are far too sensitive. Perhaps you woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

 

[Luke2427]

Then, frankly, why did you post?

Either debate or keep to yourself. This is not a drive by posting site where we release our emotions. It is a debate site.

I don't think you are reasonable. I think your posts are emotional rahter than rational.

I have several of your grandfathers books here in my library. I think he was a great man. I think you are far too sensitive. Perhaps you woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

One more thing. It was your view on Sovereignty I criticized- not your whole doctrine for goodness' sake.

You compared God being King to the human office noting that many times human kings were completely powerless in prison and slaves.

I told you that was a horrible anecdote to describe the office of King which the Almighty occupies- I said it because it was.

I hope, as a matter of fact that you have recanted that awful perspective on the office of King as it relates to God.

But I do not doubt that this terrible perspective on Sovereignty is why you do not ascribe to lordship.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm not a Southern Baptist, I'm an independent. And if I define fundamentalist for you, chances are you will continue to viciously attack us as you did in the OP. I don't find you to be reasonable. You may remember calling my doctrine of Christ "degraded," or something similar. So why should I debate you?

And another thing. Why should you NOT debate me? Because I disagree with you??? Because I criticize your position??

You do know what debate is, don't you?

 

[John of Japan]

Then, frankly, why did you post?

You attack fundamentalism, I defend. Why is that hard to understand?

And what's wrong with getting a little emotional when someone attacks like you did?

If you didn't mean to evoke emotions, then why did you use language in your OP such as: pope, disdain, etc.?

 

[Luke2427]

You attack fundamentalism, I defend. Why is that hard to understand?

And what's wrong with getting a little emotional when someone attacks like you did?

If you didn't mean to evoke emotions, then why did you use language in your OP such as: pope, disdain, etc.?

Your whole point was emotional and a little ridiculous. No one said there were not fine men in the movement. As a matter of fact, I was careful to use terms like "by and large". Your post did not address the op at all. It did not make a single argument. It simply played the victim and tried to paint me out as a bully for engaging in dialogue about what modern fundamentalism is.

Now either get on topic or lets discuss this further in private.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I would like for John to give us his definition of fundamentalism. I expect it is the classic one. But, IMHO, that is not the aim of this thread. Rather, I see it as an examination of how the movement has evolved more into an attitude than the following of a set of beliefs.

Let me give you a rather extreme example, a true example never-the-less.

One Sunday morning a man, his wife and children entered our church. I happened to be at the door greeting people. His first statement was not a 'good morning', or 'God bless you', or 'how are you today'. Rather it was a loud and hostile sounding, "This isn't one of those liberal churches is it? In my Bible women are not to be in authority and wives are to submit to their husbands." I thought this a strange first statement from someone visiting the church.

This an extreme example of a bad fundamentalists attitude, at least IMHO. But, it is this type of attitude that the majority of the American public see in many who claim they are fundamentalists. It is not a set of beliefs that is proclaimed, but an anti-attitude. And that is bad for the world of Christ.

 

[John of Japan]

But I do not doubt that this terrible perspective on Sovereignty is why you do not ascribe to lordship.

This is another vicious attack. I believe with all my heart in the lordship of Christ, as I said on that thread over and over. Anyone who read your post here would think I opposed Christ's lordship. I most emphatically do not.

 

[Luke2427]

This is another vicious attack. I believe with all my heart in the lordship of Christ, as I said on that thread over and over. Anyone who read your post here would think I opposed Christ's lordship. I most emphatically do not.

"vicious"????? Are you serious?????

You sound like a battered wife taking the stand testifying against an abusive husband.

You are truly over the top this morning.

 

[Luke2427]

This is another vicious attack. I believe with all my heart in the lordship of Christ, as I said on that thread over and over. Anyone who read your post here would think I opposed Christ's lordship. I most emphatically do not.

Let me tell you why I think you won;t define it and feel at perfect liberty to correct me if I am wrong.

I think you cannot define it as I asked because you cannot give any definition that makes the "fundamentalist movement" stand out from modern SBC's unless your definition falls under my description of them in the op.

You can either define fundamentalists and be unable to distinguish them from SBC's

...or...

You can define them in such a way that they fit into the description of popes who speak ex cathedra in their own movement.

This is why, I think, you are avoiding defining fundamentalists. Not because I am a big bad bully viciously attacking heavenly people.

 

[John of Japan]

I would like for John to give us his definition of fundamentalism. I expect it is the classic one. But, IMHO, that is not the aim of this thread. Rather, I see it as an examination of how the movement has evolved more into an attitude than the following of a set of beliefs.

For you I'll define. Fundamentalism is a movement that not only believes in the fundamentals of the faith, but believes the Bible commands to stand for the fundamentals and "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Let me give you a rather extreme example, a true example never-the-less.

One Sunday morning a man, his wife and children entered our church. I happened to be at the door greeting people. His first statement was not a 'good morning', or 'God bless you', or 'how are you today'. Rather it was a loud and hostile sounding, "This isn't one of those liberal churches is it? In my Bible women are not to be in authority and wives are to submit to their husbands."

This an extreme example of a bad fundamentalists attitude, at least IMHO. But, it is this type of attitude that the majority of the American public see in many who claim they are fundamentalists. It is not a set of beliefs that is proclaimed, but an anti-attitude. And that is bad for the world of Christ.

I've known similar fundamentalists. But anecdotes prove nothing about a movement. In order to prove fundamentalism to be wrong, you must prove that its basic position of contending for the faith leads logically to such actions. I don't believe it does.

Where some fundamentalists go astray is broadening their list of what a fundamental doctrine is, and adding minor doctrines or standards to their list. I'll admit there are a few who do so. But the belief that we should contend for the faith, as Jude put it, does not lead to such positions.

 

[Luke2427]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
For you I'll define. Fundamentalism is a movement that not only believes in the fundamentals of the faith, but believes the Bible commands to stand for the fundamentals and "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).


I've known similar fundamentalists. But anecdotes prove nothing about a movement. In order to prove fundamentalism to be wrong, you must prove that its basic position of contending for the faith leads logically to such actions. I don't believe it does.

Where some fundamentalists go astray is broadening their list of what a fundamental doctrine is, and adding minor doctrines or standards to their list. I'll admit there are a few who do so. But the belief that we should contend for the faith, as Jude put it, does not lead to such positions.

How does this distinguish you from SBC's John?

What makes the IFB's ANY different at all concerning the fundamentals than the SBC's if this is your definition?

 

[John of Japan]

How does this distinguish you from SBC's John?

What makes the IFB's ANY different at all concerning the fundamentals than the SBC's if this is your definition?

Sorry, can't answer this. No SBC'ers live near me, there are no SBC missionaries anywhere near me, I haven't preached in an SBC church for years. So I really don't know much about what is going on in the SBC.

I will say that the local Japanese Baptusuto Renmei church (the Japanese group started by the SBC) has a pastor that doesn't believe the miracles of the Bible are literal, among other liberal beliefs. And I take a stand against that church's liberalism as a fundamentalist.