Overlap of Fundamentalists and Confessional Particular Baptists

[ParticularWife]

Most Fundamentalists are not Calvinistic, yet a significant number do resonate with aspects of Reformed and Lutheran theology. Fundamentalists uphold: the inerrancy of the Bible's autographs; the full humanity and divinity of our Lord, born of a virgin; Christ's atoning death on the cross for our sins; His bodily resurrection; and His eventual return to judge the Earth. It is also noteworthy that many Fundamentalists are Baptists.

I believe all of these things, do I qualify as a Fundamentalist? Is there something distinctive to Fundamentalists that separates them from a Gillite?

 

[ParticularWife]

I found some articles. The more recent ones are more friendly to fundamentalism.
What Can We Learn from Christian Fundamentalists? Michael Haykin Responds:

The term “Fundamentalism,” for many in our culture a word with exclusively negative associations, was birthed in the 1910s and 1920s in connection with a desire to affirm the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith in the face of the 19th and early 20th century liberal denial of various orthodox doctrines. As such, Fundamentalism points us to the important task that confronts the Church in every generation...

Fundamentalism and the New Conservative Evangelical Identity:

In recent years, however, the landscape of evangelical Christianity in North America has changed considerably. The gap between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism is narrowing and a new conservative evangelical identity is beginning to emerge. The defection from fundamentalism continues despite the fact that there is a definite corrective among many fundamentalist leaders. In addition to this, there is a growing tension in the broader evangelical church creating a more conservative right-wing evangelicalism that one writer has identified as a “resurgent fundamentalism.”

Fundamentalism and Reformed Theology

1) The inspiration and verbal inerrancy of Scripture
2) The Deity of Christ and the virgin Birth
3) The substitutionary atonement
4) Justification by faith
5) The physical resurrection
6) The bodily return of Christ at the end of the age.
7) Christ performed miracles

 

[Teemo]

Does Eternal Security make the list?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Most Fundamentalists are not Calvinistic, yet a significant number do resonate with aspects of Reformed and Lutheran theology. Fundamentalists uphold: the inerrancy of the Bible's autographs; the full humanity and divinity of our Lord, born of a virgin; Christ's atoning death on the cross for our sins; His bodily resurrection; and His eventual return to judge the Earth. It is also noteworthy that many Fundamentalists are Baptists.

I believe all of these things, do I qualify as a Fundamentalist? Is there something distinctive to Fundamentalists that separates them from a Gillite?

They worship the Pastor no matter of his performance

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Does Eternal Security make the list?

Let’s hope so for both religious communities.

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe all of these things, do I qualify as a Fundamentalist? Is there something distinctive to Fundamentalists that separates them from a Gillite?

No. And by the way, what is meant by "the inerrancy of the Bible's autographs". Is that different than the idea that every word of scripture was inspired by God as written in the original language?
And you cannot be a Gillite and a fundamentalist. At least not an IFB. (I am aware that "The Fundamentals" were written not by IFB's but I am assuming you are referring to the common usage of the term "fundamentalist" nowadays.)

 

[xlsdraw]

I'm simply a Bible Believing Baptist that tries to yield myself to the teaching of the scriptures by the influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I measure all teaching and instruction the Berean way.

I do not identity myself with: men outside the Bible, creeds, movements, or labels like: Particular, General, Reformed, Calvanist, Armenian, Evangelical, Primitive, New Fundamentalist, ect..........I'm simply a Bible Believing Christian, which in the present state, would be deemed a Fundamentalist.

I believed in my heart, and confessed with my mouth the Lord Jesus in a Southern Baptist Church as a 7 years old child. I was baptisted by emersion in my families local Baptist church a month or so after I was born-again.

I've been a member of an Independent Fundamental Bible Believing Baptist church for the last 8 years. It's a match to what I believe.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm simply a Bible Believing Baptist that tries to yield myself to the teaching of the scriptures by the influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I measure all teaching and instruction the Berean way.

I do not identity myself with: men outside the Bible, creeds, movements, or labels like: Particular, General, Reformed, Calvanist, Armenian, Evangelical, Primitive, New Fundamentalist, ect..........I'm simply a Bible Believing Christian, which in the present state, would be deemed a Fundamentalist.

I believed in my heart, and confessed with my mouth the Lord Jesus in a Southern Baptist Church as a 7 years old child. I was baptisted by emersion in my families local Baptist church a month or so after I was born-again.

I've been a member of an Independent Fundamental Bible Believing Baptist church for the last 8 years. It's a match to what I believe.

Ah … anyone who is a member of a Baptist Church in particular is one who believes his church is the Church of Jesus Christ, endeavoring to attain at all times to the doctrines and practices of the true church as are outlined in the New Testament. speaking for my specific community only, we do not claim that we are perfect any more than any of the New Testament churches were perfect, but we do strive to teach only that which God's Word teaches and to practice only that which God's Word instructs us to practice. That’s it, that is the agenda!

 

[ParticularWife]

men outside the Bible, creeds, movements, or labels like: Particular, General, Reformed, Calvanist, Armenian, Evangelical, Primitive, New Fundamentalist, ect..........I'm simply a Bible Believing Christian, which in the present state, would be deemed a Fundamentalist.

I am very much a proponent of creeds and systematic theology, and I think we can see evidence of this in the earliest church.

And by the way, what is meant by "the inerrancy of the Bible's autographs". Is that different than the idea that every word of scripture was inspired by God as written in the original language?

No. The exact formulation of inerrancy varies across denominations and time, but all classical creedal and evangelical Christians affirm something to this effect.

 

[JesusFan]

I am very much a proponent of creeds and systematic theology, and I think we can see evidence of this in the earliest church.

No. The exact formulation of inerrancy varies across denominations and time, but all classical creedal and evangelical Christians affirm something to this effect.

The big error in modern churches have been to take the 2 extremes of we are "just the bible only", so no need to have any Creeds nor Confessions, or to exult them to being in a practical sense equal to scripturas, as we would be quoting and citing Calvin, luther, et all more times than the bible itself

And inerrancy means that when first penned down, were perfect in all areas mentioned in them period, as each word was inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself direcly

 

[DaveXR650]

No. The exact formulation of inerrancy varies across denominations and time, but all classical creedal and evangelical Christians affirm something to this effect.

OK. What I was not understanding was that some believe the teachings and prophesies are correct but that there may be minor non-essential errors. Also, there is a tendency in fundamentalism to lean toward literal interpretations of scriptures that others believe are intended as stories or symbolic representations. None of that would be acceptable to a fundamentalist.

I am very much a proponent of creeds and systematic theology, and I think we can see evidence of this in the earliest church.

Then you would not be accepted as a fundamentalist. The main central point of fundamentalism in the IFB version is quick separation from anyone who disagrees. They are nice people but you would not last long.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The big error in modern churches have been to take the 2 extremes of we are "just the bible only", so no need to have any Creeds nor Confessions, or to exult them to being in a practical sense equal to scripturas, as we would be quoting and citing Calvin, luther, et all more times than the bible itself

And inerrancy means that when first penned down, were perfect in all areas mentioned in them period, as each word was inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself direcly

Agreed regarding your reference to the Holy Spirit, however when people begin quoting this one and that one and stressing a fan favorite with each post as scripture or continuing to quoting a particular confession , written in the 17th century… nice but unfortunately perhaps it need updating amending, whatever. A particular pet peeve with me is defending theologians that I know did irreparable damage to existing churches (mostly up North that I’m aware of) by introducing doctrinal changes into the church in order to modify/change the belief system of said church. Consequences of that were church closings. I don’t know that there are any Particular and Primitive Baptist church in The NY and NJ area that survived that devastation… nice going Fuller!

 

[ParticularWife]

...introducing doctrinal changes into the church in order to modify/change the belief system of said church. Consequences of that were church closings. I don’t know that there are any Particular and Primitive Baptist church in The NY and NJ area that survived that devastation… nice going Fuller!

I have read a little bit about this now, and this is my impression:

Fundamentalism's trajectory shows it began as a conservative coalition across various denominations, including many Reformed churches. It eventually fragmented, with the more doctrinally robust elements, such as the OPC, charting their path, while much of the remaining Fundamentalist movement became associated with Pentecostal, Baptist, and non-denominational traditions.

The original controversy was whether we have a divinely revealed religion or a human construct. Modernism's naturalism seem to have been what triggered the Fundamentalist movement. Originally it was not anti-intellectual or against cultural engagement. It included many Reformed theologians. J. Gresham Machen's battle on liberalism was later but directly related.

It seems that after the war, Fuller tried to bridge Fundamentalism and the broader evangelical movement. It tried to push against the nonacademic reputation of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, but ended up having people ask whether they believed in Biblical inerrancy. It seems that, by now, they've become fully accommodationist with modernist and liberal churches.

I'm sympathetic with both sides, I don't respect some of the seminaries out there that don't teach even the basic Gospel, but I think that means we need our own seminaries. A pastor should be intellectually competent and broadly educated in some liberal or theological issues. I don't necessarily mean he has to go to school, but please educate yourself in the trivium or something.

 

[DaveXR650]

. I don’t know that there are any Particular and Primitive Baptist church in The NY and NJ area that survived that devastation… nice going Fuller!

Are you referring to Andrew Fuller, who died in 1815 or the guy that founded Fuller Theological Seminary. I am getting confused.

It seems that after the war, Fuller tried to bridge Fundamentalism and the broader evangelical movement.

This is the Fuller Seminary guy, right?

 

[ParticularWife]

Are you referring to Andrew Fuller, who died in 1815 or the guy that founded Fuller Theological Seminary. I am getting confused.

This is the Fuller Seminary guy, right?

Yes, I'm talking about the early 20c.

 

[ParticularWife]

I found a couple of other articles about Fundamentalism and Reformed churches. According to this writeup, there was a period when the non-liberal Presbyterians and Reformed influenced Baptists were aligned.

“Some of the better known leaders who have described themselves as both Calvinist and fundamentalist have been Carl McIntire of the American Bible Presbyterian Church, D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Ian Paisley of the Northern Irish Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and J. Oliver Buswell of Wheaton College. J. Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J. I. Packer and John Stott were Protestant theologians with moderate associations to the movement. Those in the reformed fundamentalist tradition draw upon the lives and works of Protestant ministers, particularly from the Anglosphere, of sundry centuries. John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, J. C. Ryle, John Wesley, George Whitefield, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, G. Campbell Morgan, were evangelical inspirations for McIntire, Paisley and others.”

From Reformed Fundamentalism. The content is sourced from the Hand Wiki.

Clearly Reformed interviewed an academic writing on fundamentalism.

“Are evangelicals and fundamentalists really all that different? What is a fundamentalist anyway? And, to paraphrase Harry Emerson Fosdick, did the fundamentalists win or lose the last century? Join in as Kevin interviews two evangelical scholars about their new edited volume, The Oxford Handbook of Christian Fundamentalism.”

 

[JesusFan]

I have read a little bit about this now, and this is my impression:

Fundamentalism's trajectory shows it began as a conservative coalition across various denominations, including many Reformed churches. It eventually fragmented, with the more doctrinally robust elements, such as the OPC, charting their path, while much of the remaining Fundamentalist movement became associated with Pentecostal, Baptist, and non-denominational traditions.

The original controversy was whether we have a divinely revealed religion or a human construct. Modernism's naturalism seem to have been what triggered the Fundamentalist movement. Originally it was not anti-intellectual or against cultural engagement. It included many Reformed theologians. J. Gresham Machen's battle on liberalism was later but directly related.

It seems that after the war, Fuller tried to bridge Fundamentalism and the broader evangelical movement. It tried to push against the nonacademic reputation of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, but ended up having people ask whether they believed in Biblical inerrancy. It seems that, by now, they've become fully accommodationist with modernist and liberal churches.

I'm sympathetic with both sides, I don't respect some of the seminaries out there that don't teach even the basic Gospel, but I think that means we need our own seminaries. A pastor should be intellectually competent and broadly educated in some liberal or theological issues. I don't necessarily mean he has to go to school, but please educate yourself in the trivium or something.

Very important book written believe in 1970's, by Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, as he showed that Fuller Theological Seminary started to cave in on Bible inerrancy and went to a limited inspiration viewpoint, and that caused their seminary to really drop the ball and started to echo out into fellow groups like the SBC, who faced and fought battles on just how inspired the bible was

 

[ParticularWife]

Very important book written believe in 1970's, by Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, as he showed that Fuller Theological Seminary started to cave in on Bible inerrancy and went to a limited inspiration viewpoint, and that caused their seminary to really drop the ball and started to echo out into fellow groups like the SBC, who faced and fought battles on just how inspired the bible was

The subject is of some interest to me because, among other reasons, the USA (and parts of Asia) are the main places where highly Biblical, Protestant Christian views are found in denominations and churches. Much of the continental and Anglosphere Calvinistic and mainline churches have modernized, liberalized, and collapsed in membership, youth catechism, and attendance.
I would like to, without compromising on my conscience in Biblical matters, like to have a more open dialogue with Fundamental Baptists, Calvinistic Pentacostals, and so forth. I think if a church is demonstrating gospel ministry and responsible eldership then we can at least work with them on some things.
I am well aware of segments which are quick to anathematize and others which compromise too much. This is not an easy situation to navigate. Yet I believe many of these people are actually gospel preaching Christians, and also my neighbors, I would like to have some kind of agreement on helping each other where we do agree.
I think the Evangelicals took some wrong turns in the past, but many of them seem to be coming around in recent decades.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Just a note: "Historic Fundamental Baptists" today are TRUE fundamentalists. Don't confuse us (I am proudly a fundamentalist and a particular Baptist) with the hodgepodge of "fringe" Baptists that are called by detractors as "fundamentalists". We are confessional, historic, educated, and saddened by the fringe lunacy (KJVonly sect, worship pastor, hate everyone). Many of us ARE militant fundamentalists, as earnestly contending for the faith IS a mark of historic fundamentalism.

We hold the sword not in vain, but we try to attack liberalism, modernism, and godless evolution as contrasted with the phony-fundies who stab each other in the back.

You'll notice a number of open fundamental Baptists on the BB. We who STARTED the BB in 2000 would ALL be proudly called fundamental Baptists. But alas, other not-so-fundamental (and not-so-baptistic) Baptists are here by our tolerance.

 

[John of Japan]

Most Fundamentalists are not Calvinistic, yet a significant number do resonate with aspects of Reformed and Lutheran theology. Fundamentalists uphold: the inerrancy of the Bible's autographs; the full humanity and divinity of our Lord, born of a virgin; Christ's atoning death on the cross for our sins; His bodily resurrection; and His eventual return to judge the Earth. It is also noteworthy that many Fundamentalists are Baptists.

I believe all of these things, do I qualify as a Fundamentalist? Is there something distinctive to Fundamentalists that separates them from a Gillite?

Something missing in most definitions of fundamentalism is that we are separatists. We separate from and stand against liberalism of all kinds. Dr. Bob said this well by quoting Jude v. 3: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

If a believer accepts all the fundamentals of the faith, but does not take a stand for Christ and against theological evil, he or she is not a fundamentalist. If you were to ask Billy Graham in Heaven if he was a fundamentalist, he would say that he was not one from the late 1950s on, because he accepted theological liberals to sit on his campaign committees (beginning in NY in 1957) and had them sit on his platform and pray for the meetings. (Pretty sure Billy is now a fundamentalist! )