Is Fundamentalism Merely a Belief in “The Five Fundamentals”?

[rsr]

Not an especially edifying discussion on that thread.

Some reject the term Fundamentalist because of the non-fundamental accretions that have attached themselves to some of its its practitioners. Others gladly accept the appellation because it means they accept the fundamentals of the faith.

Me, I'm either a neo-fundamentalist or a classical evangelical. Heck, maybe even neo-orthodox with an emphasis upon the sovereignty of God and his absolute "otherness," the sinfulness of mankind and primacy of the Word of God and the word of God.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I think not. I know you too well to put you in the same category as Karl Barth.

maybe even neo-orthodox

 

[rsr]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. No, I'm not quite Barthian, but there are worse places to be in what passes for American Christianity these days, which often seems to be either bound to salvific ritualism, treats God as a cosmic ATM or wants to enlist the Everlasting for political purposes (and this is true on the right and left). Barth at least recognized that God is God and we are not. Sad that this elementary observation seems to be out of fashion.

 

[JamesL]

This concocted capitalization-is-oh-so-significant classification scheme was answered in this thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/church-standards.100964/#post-2249140

Likewise the well-then-it's-the-suffix-ist-that-matters spiel.

Sometimes it's not always easy to nail down an error and give it a name.

 

[JamesL]

Not an especially edifying discussion on that thread.....

Yes, I think that thread blew up because a number of people don't understand the phrase "from what I've seen"

Seems like Jerome might be one, too. Seems

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. No, I'm not quite Barthian, but there are worse places to be in what passes for American Christianity these days, which often seems to be either bound to salvific ritualism, treats God as a cosmic ATM or wants to enlist the Everlasting for political purposes (and this is true on the right and left). Barth at least recognized that God is God and we are not. Sad that this elementary observation seems to be out of fashion.

Think that Barth was scared though to take his theology to its logical end, that being Christian Univerasalism!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I think that thread blew up because a number of people don't understand the phrase "from what I've seen"

Seems like Jerome might be one, too. Seems

Think that it blew up due to some calling out calvinists/Reformed as not being brothers in Christ!

 

[Jerome]

Read it again:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/church-standards.100964

There was NO mention of 'calvinists/Reformed' just a descent into namecalling. One who wouldn't buy into his 'capitalization-based' personal definition of Fundamentalism was attacked as a "church hopper" among other nonsense.

Words mean things. Can we get back to an objective discussion of the OP?

 

[Yeshua1]

Read it again:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/church-standards.100964

There was NO mention of 'calvinists/Reformed' just a descent into namecalling. One who wouldn't buy into his 'capitalization-based' personal definition of Fundamentalism was attacked as a "church hopper" among other nonsense.

Words mean things. Can we get back to an objective discussion of the OP?

Sounds good to me.

 

[Jerome]

https://books.google.com/books?id=p_d6wT7lTw8C&pg=PA96

"Stewart Cole (1931) carelessly made the assertion that the Niagara Conference adopted the five fundamentals, but the only statement produced by the Niagara group was issued in 1878 and contained fourteen points. The Niagara Conference adopted no five-point statement. See Ernest R. Sandeen, "Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism," Church History (March 1967): 79. Fundamentalist historian George W. Dollar noted that serious injustice has been done to Fundamentalism by associating the movement only with the "Famous Five" and ignoring other important articles of faith."

 

[Jerome]

https://books.google.com/books?id=nTsq_ktTQkcC&pg=PA26

"The so-called 'five points of fundamentalism' did not provide a blueprint for fundamentalists as many scholars have assumed....Norman Furniss, who provided the second major historical account of the fundamentalist movement, regarded the five points as the 'sine qua non of fundamentalism' (1954: 13). Sandeen, however, correctly perceived that fundamentalists had no preference for five over above another number of articles (1970b: pp. xiv-xv)."

 

[TCassidy]

There were originally 90 essays published as "The Fundamentals" by BIOLA in 1909-1915.

Those original essays were edited by A.C. Dixon, then later by R.A. Torrey.

The original essays were as much polemical (attacking false doctrine) as apologetic (defending true doctrine).

Some of the false doctrine attacked included Higher Criticism, Modern Philosophy, Modern Criticism, Modern Science, Evolution, Deutero-Isaiah, the Late Date of Daniel, Millennial Dawn (Jehovah's Witnesses), Mormonism, Christian Science, Modern Spiritualism, Romanism, Socialism and several others I can probably no longer remember.

But the original essays also emphasized a lot of things as being fundamental to the faith that we usually don't consider to be fundamentals. These would include Books necessary for every preacher's library, Prayer, Missions, the Sunday School, Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, Consecration, Satan and His Kingdom, Money, the Importance of Preaching, Daily Bible Reading/Study, and many others.

But what must be remembered is that the fundamentals did not fall from heaven complete, but rather developed over several decades centering on the Niagara Bible Conferences and its successors. At the 1883 Conference it was agreed that:

1. All prophecies are to be taken literally.
2. The second coming is imminent.
3. Romanism is the Babylon of Revelation.
4. Prophecy must be given a central place in theology, evangelism, missions, and personal living.

(A History of Fundamentalism in America, Dr. George W. Dollar, BJU Press, 1973, page 41)

Personal note: I put great stock in Dr. Dollar's writings as being historically accurate even though he may not have agreed with all that transpired at the Conferences. I had the privilege of sitting under his teaching and tutelage while he was Chairman of the Department of Church History and later Dean of Faculty at Central Seminary.

After seminary we remained friends until the time of his death from cancer at age 89. He was one of the most brilliant men I have ever known.

To be continued.

 

[Yeshua1]

There were originally 90 essays published as "The Fundamentals" by BIOLA in 1909-1915.

Those original essays were edited by A.C. Dixon, then later by R.A. Torrey.

The original essays were as much polemical (attacking false doctrine) as apologetic (defending true doctrine).

Some of the false doctrine attacked included Higher Criticism, Modern Philosophy, Modern Criticism, Modern Science, Evolution, Deutero-Isaiah, the Late Date of Daniel, Millennial Dawn (Jehovah's Witnesses), Mormonism, Christian Science, Modern Spiritualism, Romanism, Socialism and several others I can probably no longer remember.

But the original essays also emphasized a lot of things as being fundamental to the faith that we usually don't consider to be fundamentals. These would include Books necessary for every preacher's library, Prayer, Missions, the Sunday School, Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, Consecration, Satan and His Kingdom, Money, the Importance of Preaching, Daily Bible Reading/Study, and many others.

But what must be remembered is that the fundamentals did not fall from heaven complete, but rather developed over several decades centering on the Niagara Bible Conferences and its successors. At the 1883 Conference it was agreed that:

1. All prophecies are to be taken literally.
2. The second coming is imminent.
3. Romanism is the Babylon of Revelation.
4. Prophecy must be given a central place in theology, evangelism, missions, and personal living.

(A History of Fundamentalism in America, Dr. George W. Dollar, BJU Press, 1978, page 41)

Personal note: I put great stock in Dr. Dollar's writings as being historically accurate even though he may not have agreed with all that transpired at the Conferences. I had the privilege of sitting under his teaching and tutelage while he was Chairman of the Department of Church History and later Dean of Faculty at Central Seminary.

After seminary we remained friends until the time of his death from cancer at age 89. He was one of the most brilliant men I have ever known.

To be continued.

TheO{ wonders if Fundamentalism is sam as holding to the Fundamentals of the Faith, I would say tha wemust also include the seperating mindset, as both themand Evangelicals agree pretty much on essentials of theFaith, but not in how to apply that into daily living sdame way!

Fundamentalists to melike Reformed and calvinists, as Reformed practice and honor whole calvinistic theology, while calvinistic Bpatist mainly agree with Sotierology viewpoints/5 points of Grace!

 

[TCassidy]

Continued:

At the 1886 conference the original affirmations were expanded to include:

1. A strict literalism in interpreting the bible, particularly its prophecies.
2. An all-consuming interest in the coming of the Lord and His Kingdom to be established on the earth.
3. A clear-cut picture of the enemies of prophecy in schools of spiritualizers, postmillenarians, and figurative interpreters.
4. A continuing exposure of Romanism as the great enemy of the Truth and the true Church, setting the stage for the coming of Babylon the Great.
5. The central place of Israel in the future Kingdom.
6. Increasing wickedness, with all the world heading toward the period of the Great Tribulation.
7. Judgments and rewards awaiting Christians.
8. A special study of the activities of Antichrist.
9. The peculiar delusions of the present day.
10. A constant rejection of men's opinions in all matters of truth and practice and constant reliance on plain scriptures.

On the last day of the conference these new affirmations were passed as a resolution in the following form:

1. Absolute authority of the word on doctrine and duty.
2. The literal fulfillment of the prophetic words about His second coming.
3. The second coming is "everywhere in the Scriptures represented as imminent and may occur at any moment."
4. The world will not be converted nor become a reign of peace before His coming but "only at and by His coming in power and glory will the prophecies concerning the progress of evil and the development of Antichrist, the times of the Gentiles, the ingathering of Israel, the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and the transfiguration of His living saints, receive their fulfillment, and the period of millennial blessedness its inauguration."
5. The duty of the church is to watch and pray, work and wait, to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature and thus hasten the coming of the day of the Lord.
6. "The doctrine of our Lord's premillennial advent, instead of paralyzing evangelistic and missionary effort, is one of the mightiest incentives to earnestness in preaching the Gospel to every creature until He comes.

(A History of Fundamentalism in America, Dr. George W. Dollar, BJU Press, 1973, page 44-46)

These Affirmations continued to be expanded year after year finally resulting in the 90 essays published by BIOLA.

So it is not improper to list 5 or 7 fundamentals as long as it is kept in mind that "The Fundamentals" did not limit the fundamentals of the faith to 5 or 7 or even 14.

And not all Christians who are "fundamental" would accept all of that which is expounded upon in "The Fundamentals."

More to come.

 

[Jerome]

Regarding the list of five that Stewart Cole erroneously credited to the Niagara Prophecy Conference and that HankD cited here earlier:

https://books.google.com/books?id=JChnDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA308

"The 'five points of fundamentalism,' in the classic form they were given in Stewart Cole's history (see above, Chapter XIII, note 30) seem to appear first in the Christian Century XL (August 16, 1923), p. 1040. The classic five points, then, appear to have been formulated by liberals, while fundamentalists' own lists varied in number and content."

 

[Happy]

Is Fundamentalism Merely a Belief in “The Five Fundamentals"?

Fundamental is simply the CORE BASICS of "something".

Fundamentalist is simply a person who BELIEVES the CORE BASICS of "something" and ADAPTS (via actions) to the CORE BASIC beliefs of "something".

For the purpose of this thread ~ the "something" is the Scripture IN the Bible.

More specifically for the purpose of this thread ~ the CORE belief has been presented as a QUESTION, a CHALLENGE to those WHO have " presented " the CORE Basics of Scripture IS LIMITED to FIVE highlighted points.

Personally I agree with the Challenge in the OP. BECAUSE, I find presenting such a topic as "the Find Fundamentals"; is misleading; BECAUSE they ARE Limiting.

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). [1]


The restored soul?
The quickened spirit?
The willingness to Drink from the same cup of indignation as Jesus did?

 

[HankD]

Fundamental is simply the CORE BASICS of "something".

Fundamentalist is simply a person who BELIEVES the CORE BASICS of "something" and ADAPTS (via actions) to the CORE BASIC beliefs of "something".

For the purpose of this thread ~ the "something" is the Scripture IN the Bible.

More specifically for the purpose of this thread ~ the CORE belief has been presented as a QUESTION, a CHALLENGE to those WHO have " presented " the CORE Basics of Scripture IS LIMITED to FIVE highlighted points.

Personally I agree with the Challenge in the OP. BECAUSE, I find presenting such a topic as "the Find Fundamentals"; is misleading; BECAUSE they ARE Limiting.

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). [1]


The restored soul?
The quickened spirit?
The willingness to Drink from the same cup of indignation as Jesus did?

Of course.

It could go on and on and on...

The Five Fundamentals are the prologue.

HankD

 

[Mike Stidham]

Yes and the danger (if you can call it a danger) leads to folks wanting to add more and more to the 5 until one has a creed or a Statement of Faith or a long document e.g. a church constitution.

We are Baptists supposedly a non-creedal people.



HankD

And yet I was in Lifeway tonight looking for an Acts commentary and found a study curriculum on "The Apostle's Creed"...

 

[HankD]

And yet I was in Lifeway tonight looking for an Acts commentary and found a study curriculum on "The Apostle's Creed"...

Fake apostles?

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Fundamental is simply the CORE BASICS of "something".

Fundamentalist is simply a person who BELIEVES the CORE BASICS of "something" and ADAPTS (via actions) to the CORE BASIC beliefs of "something".

For the purpose of this thread ~ the "something" is the Scripture IN the Bible.

More specifically for the purpose of this thread ~ the CORE belief has been presented as a QUESTION, a CHALLENGE to those WHO have " presented " the CORE Basics of Scripture IS LIMITED to FIVE highlighted points.

Personally I agree with the Challenge in the OP. BECAUSE, I find presenting such a topic as "the Find Fundamentals"; is misleading; BECAUSE they ARE Limiting.

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). [1]


The restored soul?
The quickened spirit?
The willingness to Drink from the same cup of indignation as Jesus did?

AND jesus full Humanity!