Fundamentalist

[antiaging]

A fundamentalist is a christian that believes in the fundamentals of the Christian faith as defined in the New Testament. [Based on the conservative protestant movement started in 1910, to oppose modernism.] Modernism was an attempt by liberals, to reconcile the teachings of Christianity with the findings of science, especially evolution.

A fundamentalist believes:
The inerrancy, infallibility and literal truth of the bible.

The virgin birth and complete deity of Jesus Christ.

The physical ressurection of Christ and all dead.

The atoning sacrifice for the sins of the World, by Jesus' death on the cross.

The second coming of Christ in bodilly form.

The way I look at it, the real believers are the fundamentalists.
If these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then this is what Christians are supposed to believe.

 

[Deacon]

That's too simple a definition.

Written as it is, I would be considered a fundamentalist.

But Fundamentalism is not just believing in the fundamentals!

IMO, it has become a ridged, sepratist movement, almost pharisaical in it's beliefs concerning translations, personal actions and preferences.

Many of the early fundamentalists that definded the movement would be (and are) ostracised by those who consider themselves fundamentalists today.

Rob

 

[steaver]

Many of the early fundamentalists that definded the movement would be (and are) ostracised by those who consider themselves fundamentalists today.

Rob

This world has a sad way of consistantly redefining terms. This is why I just stick to Christian since this term originated from the scriptures and is forever defined by the scriptures. The world my try and does try to redefine Christian in their own minds, BUT we have the scriptures to forever prove them wrong!

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[trustitl]

I think the following speaks to this issue. It might not on the surface, but see if you can follow my thought:

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool

In every group there are certain things that can elevate you within that group. If you are a good old boy, wearing a NASCAR hat and chewing Skoal will help. Listening to come country music is also a must.

In the hood the right kind of coat, shoes, and the way you talk sets you apart. Listening to gangsta rap is also a must.

Most fundamentalist groups have their own wardrobe, lingo, and music. I know this is a generalization and that is my very point. I am sure you are saying "I'm not one of those'. Why we would want to take on these man-made labels continues to amaze me.

When Paul addressed the Corinthian church he had to alert them to this very issue. Being known by anything save Christ is of no value. It is much easier to find the "best" group or label and put it on, but we need to be willing to put on Christ, and Him alone. This sound simplistic I know, but consider it and see if you can see how the body of Christ has been hurt by this.

"He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

"Ye are Christ's and Christ is God's".

Deacon is right: " it has become a ridged, sepratist movement, almost pharisaical in it's beliefs concerning translations, personal actions and preferences."

That is not to say that you are or any individual fundamentalist is. But the meaning of words change and when we take on a label we need to be willing to see what it means to people. I even struggle with the term "Christian" because it is a lable that implies certain things that are not true about me. We will all be known by our actions anyway no matter what label we are called.

I think it is a sign of our imaturity that we want a label applied to us. Look at teenagers. They are often looking to labels on clothes, sports teams, or music groups to define themselves. It works so they keep doing it. But in reality they are merely exposing that they need something to stand on other than who they are.

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

I am not calling you immature because I don't even know you. I am addressing an issue that concerns me and I feel needs to be addressed.

God bless.

 

[skypair]

A fundamentalist believes:
The inerrancy, infallibility and literal truth of the bible.

The virgin birth and complete deity of Jesus Christ.

The physical ressurection of Christ and all dead.

The atoning sacrifice for the sins of the World, by Jesus' death on the cross.

The second coming of Christ in bodilly form.

The way I look at it, the real believers are the fundamentalists.
If these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then this is what Christians are supposed to believe.

First, Welcome to BB, anitaging! :wavey:

That list is a good one. Only thing is, right now "fundamentalism" is being associated with radical Islamic terrorism, too!

And the extension of that inference and by a minority of Christians' practice thereof is that we "judge" the world rather than go forth to save the world.

I think this is why the label "evangelical" has been substituted for "fundamentalist" of late.

I do believe in unity of the body first around the Spirit (Eph 4:3) through salvation and then centered on our "knowledge and faith of Christ (Eph 4:13) of which there are certainly those truths you point to and some would include many more as we attain to the measure of the stature of Christ.

Thanks for opening the topic. God bless you.

skypair

 

[Ed Edwards]

The definition of Fundamentalist given in the
Opening post is in my 1976 Dictionary.
It came from a set of books sent free to
many pastors about 1910-1920 called
THE FUNDAMENTALS.

About 1985 'fundamentalist' became to
mean those of any of the book religions
that adhere strictly to their book.
Constructs like "Fundamental Muslim
Cleric Anarchist Leader" became possible.
(how could a Muslim be Fundamentalist
under the definition that includes this:
"movement within American Protestantism" ?)

About 1995 the meaning of 'Fundamentalist'
= 'bigot of any kind' came into being.

This all seems totally phony to me, but much
like what Rush Limbaugh calls the 'drive-by media'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
sidenote:
I consider myself a Fundamentalist using the definition
given in the OP. However, I belong to
a local church that is a member of the Southern Baptist
Convention /SBC/.

I get some literature from the Conservative Baptist
Fellowship /HQ is in my town/ -- individuals can be
members of the CBF. Individuals can NOT be members
of the SBC - only churchs, associations (frequently
a couple of US counties), State Organizations, etc.

 

[Melanie]

In the Catholic Church there is a term of Cafteria Catholics...those of a liberal, modern persausion who select the things that suit and ignore the things they do not like.......

 

[Jillian]

A fundamentalist is a christian that believes in the fundamentals of the Christian faith as defined in the New Testament. [Based on the conservative protestant movement started in 1910, to oppose modernism.] Modernism was an attempt by liberals, to reconcile the teachings of Christianity with the findings of science, especially evolution.

A fundamentalist believes:
The inerrancy, infallibility and literal truth of the bible.

The virgin birth and complete deity of Jesus Christ.

The physical ressurection of Christ and all dead.

The atoning sacrifice for the sins of the World, by Jesus' death on the cross.

The second coming of Christ in bodilly form.

The way I look at it, the real believers are the fundamentalists.
If these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then this is what Christians are supposed to believe.

Amen to that.

Oh and fundamentalists dont support unity with ROME!

 

[Jillian]

In the Catholic Church there is a term of Cafteria Catholics...those of a liberal, modern persausion who select the things that suit and ignore the things they do not like.......

Not all are liberals...

Some of them reject things they know are nonsense like indulgences and Purgatory.

Some arent liberals, some are proto Protestants at home watching Charles Stanley.

 

[billwald]

>The inerrancy, infallibility and literal truth of the bible.

This is inferred by some but not taught in the Bible.

"Literal truth" obviously not correct. The trees of the field will not clap their hands. The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. A seed does not die before it sprouts.

 

[BobRyan]

"Fundamentalists" are sometimes confused with those who reject all but "the 1611 King James" as if Paul only spoke English -- rather than also speaking Greek...

But it is FAR more applicable to find the BROAD division along the lines of the OP to include the following.

Fundamentalist --
1. Believes the Bible is trustworthy and without error.
2. Accepts the book of Genesis as factually accurate in details.
3. Accepts the miracles of the Bible as "factual".
4. Insists on a sola-scriptura test for all doctrine.

That alone will result in a rift right down the Christian church center pew a mile wide.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jillian]

"Fundamentalists" are sometimes confused with those who reject all but "the 1611 King James" as if Paul only spoke English -- rather than also speaking Greek...

But it is FAR more applicable to find the BROAD division along the lines of the OP to include the following.

Fundamentalist --
1. Believes the Bible is trustworthy and without error.
2. Accepts the book of Genesis as factually accurate in details.
3. Accepts the miracles of the Bible as "factual".
4. Insists on a sola-scriptura test for all doctrine.

That alone will result in a rift right down the Christian church center pew a mile wide.

in Christ,

Bob

I am not a KJV onlyist, or a Ruckmanite that declares the KJV as new revelation.

But I do know there is a problem with those who followed false Bibles translated by Hort and Westcott and the NIV is so horribly translated it takes many parts out.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Most fundamentalist groups have their own wardrobe, lingo, and music. I know this is a generalization and that is my very point.

I agree. What started as a statement of faith - holding to the fundamentals of the faith as stated in the OP - has turned into a Christian sub-culture. There is a certain dress code, certain Bibles are deemed appropriate (KJV preferred if not only) and only certain songs are used in worship (conservative hymns only). There are certain lifestyle issues too.

So instead of focusing on the Gospel (or even finely-tuned doctrinal issues), we get to focus on important things like "Is it OK for women to wear jeans?" or "How long is long hair for men?" or "Is it OK to go to the movies?"

As stated before, I think that's why a lot of churches moved away from "fundamental" to "evangelical" though that term is so broad it can now mean almost anything.

 

[trustitl]

FOS
As stated before, I think that's why a lot of churches moved away from "fundamental" to "evangelical" though that term is so broad it can now mean almost anything.

Even in the group under this more palatable name there exists "standards". It is the nature of organizing around anything other that the TRUTH. Both of these groups have a lot of truth, but they add to it and it becomes a work of man.

I Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

FOS
As stated before, I think that's why a lot of churches moved away from "fundamental" to "evangelical" though that term is so broad it can now mean almost anything.

Even in the group under this more palatable name there exists "standards". It is the nature of organizing around anything other that the TRUTH. Both of these groups have a lot of truth, but they add to it and it becomes a work of man.

I Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Sorry -- don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Rippon]

I am not a KJV onlyist, or a Ruckmanite that declares the KJV as new revelation.

But I do know there is a problem with those who followed false Bibles translated by Hort and Westcott and the NIV is so horribly translated it takes many parts out.

Rippon here . You need to visit the Bible Versions/Translations forum sometime . You are in need of some education regarding the NIV translation and the subject of W&H . And , you had better be careful about uttering nonsense about "false Bibles" . That can rightly get you in trouble here -- fair warning .

 

[John of Japan]

Wow. To a real fundamentalist who grew up in the movement starting in 1951, there are so many misconceptions all ready in this thread that it's hard to know where to begin.

(1) Fundamentalists do not just believe a set of fundamental doctrines. We stand for them and fight for them. If simply believing a set of doctrines was enough, leading evangelicals like Billy Graham, Francis Schaeffer, etc. would not have taken pains to say they were not fundamentalists!

(2) Evangelical and fundamental are not synonyms. Fundamentalism is considered by church historians to be a branch of evangelicalism.

(3) None of the fundamentals included the preservation of Scripture. The verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture was the stand fundamentalists took until the late 1970's, when the preservation issue started heating up. Therefore, as a self-appointed historian of fundamentalism I don't consider it to be a fundamental. (I knew personally many of the early leaders of fundamentalist, starting with my grandfather John R. Rice, one of the original fundamentalists. Don't force me to start dropping names! :smilewinkgrin: )

(4) Many fundamental groups do not mandate the KJV. (See #3.) Examples: Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, Bible Presbyterians, GARB, IFCA, etc.

(5) The IFB movement (independant fundamental Baptist) is not the only type of fundamentalist out there. Many non-Baptists are fundamentalists.

(5) In fact, there are many differing groups of IFBs, and even within the group they do not agree on issues such as the KJV: FBF, BBF, GARB, SBF, WBF, IBFI, etc.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree. What started as a statement of faith - holding to the fundamentals of the faith as stated in the OP - has turned into a Christian sub-culture. There is a certain dress code, certain Bibles are deemed appropriate (KJV preferred if not only) and only certain songs are used in worship (conservative hymns only). There are certain lifestyle issues too.

Too many generalizations here, friend. Fundamentalism is a lot bigger and less defined than you appear to think.

So instead of focusing on the Gospel (or even finely-tuned doctrinal issues), we get to focus on important things like "Is it OK for women to wear jeans?" or "How long is long hair for men?" or "Is it OK to go to the movies?"

Actually, virtually all fundamentalist groups focus on the Gospel very strongly. That is why among evangelical missions, the only group increasing annually in the number of missionaries being sent out. (I can prove this for Japan by the JEMA missionary directory, if not the rest of the world.) And again, the great majority of books being published on personal evangelism nowadays are written by fundamentalists. Check out the Sword of the Lord Publ. catalog sometime--book after book on evangelism.

As stated before, I think that's why a lot of churches moved away from "fundamental" to "evangelical" though that term is so broad it can now mean almost anything.

Exactly. People who call themselves evangelical now believe in such heresies as annihilationism, open theism, etc.

P. S. I call Spurgeon the prototype fundamentalist. Are you aware of the Downgrade Controversy?

 

[John of Japan]

>The inerrancy, infallibility and literal truth of the bible.

This is inferred by some but not taught in the Bible.

If it is "God-breathed" (Greek theopneustos) as the Bible claims to be, then it is not merely inferred to be inerrant and infallible, it is taught to be.

"Literal truth" obviously not correct. The trees of the field will not clap their hands. The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. A seed does not die before it sprouts.

Fundamentalists typically hold to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation (as do conservative evangelicals). This means that yes, we usually interpret literally unless the meaning is clearly symbolic or metaphorical or a simile. Your examples of the mustard seed or the death of a seed therefore are irrelevant, since they are clearly symbolic and/or hyperbole.

 

[Palatka51]

Fundamentalists typically hold to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation (as do conservative evangelicals). This means that yes, we usually interpret literally unless the meaning is clearly symbolic or metaphorical or a simile. Your examples of the mustard seed or the death of a seed therefore are irrelevant, since they are clearly symbolic and/or hyperbole.

JJ, You are so correct in all of your above posts and I personally want to thank God for your reasoned dissemination of fundamental faith. Your posts have calmed down the spirit of wrath that was building in my heart toward the attacks of the foundational faith where with I came to know Christ as my Savior,

1. Hearing of the Word of God through the KJV
2. Response to the Word by repentance.
3. Believing in the death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth for remission of my sins.
4. Obeying the call of the Holy Spirit to go into the world preaching the Gospel to all creatures.
5. God's Grace, that helps me understand that even though folks may look different and respond unlike I have, may experience this wonderful Grace through Jesus Christ our Lord as well.

How can anyone attack what can not be broken?