What’s “Fundamental” to “Fundamentalism”?

[John of Japan]

What is needful, I think, whether one practices every one of these standard of separation from the world or not, and even if one thinks they are disagreement with any of them, should at the very least know and fully understand the Biblical basis for these standards.

Here is the problem if there is one: Claiming these standards and not being able to justify holding to them Biblically.

I certainly agree.

 

[John of Japan]

When we say to our college kids, "No smoking, no alcohol, no porno on your phones, or we'll have to give demerits," what we are really saying is, "We love you and want to protect you from addictions that will destroy your life: lung cancer, kidney disease, drunk driving, failed marriages and destroyed ministry because of porno."

I'm about to go teach Greek 102. I love those kids so much I would die for them: S with her mischievousness, D with his brilliance, E with his stutter, L with her constant joy, and all the rest. It is love that says to them, "Don't do those things. They will destroy you." I back our student handbook. And when they get out, they are free to drink and smoke and the rest if they choose, but they have been warned.

 

[AustinC]

When we say to our college kids, "No smoking, no alcohol, no porno on your phones, or we'll have to give demerits," what we are really saying is, "We love you and want to protect you from addictions that will destroy your life: lung cancer, kidney disease, drunk driving, failed marriages and destroyed ministry because of porno."

I'm about to go teach Greek 102. I love those kids so much I would die for them: S with her mischievousness, D with his brilliance, E with his stutter, L with her constant joy, and all the rest. It is love that says to them, "Don't do those things. They will destroy you." I back our student handbook. And when they get out, they are free to drink and smoke and the rest if they choose, but they have been warned.

I disagree.
You can warn them of the dangers. With pornography you can clearly show them it is sin. With smoking and alcohol you can point out the dangers and advise moderation or no use, but when you start bring judgment upon them, you become a Pharisee who has added burdens that God has never added. You leave grace and teach law. This is clearly legalism.
Your task is limited to warning. God's job is to protect them and guide them. What you call love is actually control and manipulation by virtue of negative reinforcement. It's not love. It's not giving your life for them.
These are adults who need a gracious mentor, not a ruling overlord. (I am not saying you are either one. I don't know you.) Extend Grace.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

These are adults who need a gracious mentor,

The problem is for most of the history of the demerit systems, persons under 21 weren't legally adults. And schools were legally in loco parentis.

 

[Jerome]

many fundamentalist churches fail. They lose sight of the grace God extended to them and fall into the trap of the Pharisees. They add so many extra laws....It was a brother at Bethlehem Baptist by the name of Thomas Schreiner (same person who teaches at Southern Seminary)...who helped me find grace in the Bible and not law. I am so grateful for that short stint up in Minneapolis.

Oh brother.

As you said your guy Schreiner went from there to...SBTS! A school with laws such as 'no use or possession of alcoholic beverages' [Student Handbook, "Discipline Policy"]. It's not "demerits", but "reprimands" there.

 

[AustinC]

Oh brother.

As you said your guy Schreiner went from there to...SBTS! A school with laws such as 'no use or possession of alcoholic beverages' [Student Handbook, "Discipline Policy"]. It's not "demerits", but "reprimands" there.

I really don't know the rules of Southern so I cannot speak to it. If the persons going there agree to the legalism, then they agree. They are adults. What it is not, is it is not grace, nor love. Most often it is leadership being concerned with their perceived reputation and with donors not funding should the school not be perceived as squeaky clean. The result is breaking rules in secret or looking for loopholes to justify actions. It is not, however, grace in action.

 

[DaveXR650]

I could not disagree more. There is a definite doctrine of personal separation in Scripture. Preaching against alcohol (the Bible does address this), and these other things help not to love the world (1 John 2:15), and help to keep from temptation. If a preacher preaches that abstaining from these things makes one righteous, then yes, that is legalism. But simply preaching against their dangers is not legalism. People like you call it that, but it is not legalism according to any theological definition. You can object to such preaching, but it is not legalism.

I know some of the fundamentalist churches went too far. We weren't supposed to eat at Pizza Hut (they sold beer) or shop at Krogers (they had a liquor license). Women wore dresses, even when helping with games at youth group. Then there was the hair, beards, mixed bathing and so on.

I was glad to not think about all that when we moved and went to a different church. But it seems like nowadays Christians have made a deliberate choice to keep up with and out do the world in every area. Shaved headed Calvinists with a craft beer, a cigar and a sleeve of tattoos are just as goofy looking as anything the fundamentalists did. I like the relaxed way people dress for church nowadays but really, a beautiful young lady in tight yoga pants really is distracting, and a pastor who gets up to proclaim God's word in faded jeans with his shirt tail out is showing disrespect. I have also noticed that all Christians now are great students of pop culture and know ALL the latest songs and have seen all the latest programs. And that includes the home school crowd too.

Fundamentalist went too far but there really is a world, flesh and devil to oppose and embracing everything the world says or does as some kind of virtue signal that says "look, I can be a Christian and still be cool isn't the answer either". There has to be some kind of middle ground.

 

[JesusFan]

I am and remain a staunch biblical fundamentalist. Sadly, the movement of fundamentalism has waned in my lifetime and now is breaking and morphing into almost sect-like fragments (often with sect-like militancy on issues far afield from the fundamentals of the faith.

Fundamentalism (the movement) was trans-denominational in 1895 Niagara Conference-1920 R.A. Torrey era. Then the banner was picked up by segments of denominations but dominated until post-WWII by Baptists (with strong leaders like W.B. Riley, T.T. Shields, J. Frank Norris). Sadly, in the past 60 years the movement has had only "lesser lights" to guide, with little unifying influence. This has allowed the unscrupulous to redefine fundamentalism, and each little kingdom proclaim their own "infallible" guru with god-like powers and no accountability.

My thinking of the movement is that it needs a solid base again, starting at the grass-root local church, then expanded thru cooperative efforts already in place (like state conferences, colleges, camps, etc.) to return any consistent and firm theological basis to the name. I am not convinced that will happen.

is the current movement still greatly into separation, even from other brethren who would not agree with some of the very strict living regulations?

 

[JesusFan]

Quick testimonial. I was asked to speak at a conference in the Mountain West on a return to Fundamentalism. I asked if there was a definite listing the fundamentals on which we all agree and from which there would be no deviation by any speaker.

The conference director connected me to the "guru" who was hosting the event. After lauding my question, he listed 8-9 key fundamentals. I said that such a list would be "a starting place", but what was going to be said about each. My area would be on the physical resurrection so knew what would be appropriate.

The host pastor said he was the first speakers (surprise) and set the tone with the fundamental that the Bible as the inerrant/authoritative Word of God for faith AND practice. I thought this a great topic and said so, because of the controversies over church "teaching" one thing while "practicing" another. And influence of charismatic "feeling" trumping the revealed revelation of the Word.

He said there was a bigger issue (that scared me) and continued that by "Bible" it must be made clear that it was only the AV1611 English Bible that was perfect and authoritative. He had written the first "fundamental of the faith" that "The King James Bible was the only perfect preserved Word of God for the world". I stopped him to be sure I understood . . . and sadly, I did.

I bowed out of the conference and shared with all our fellowship to avoid this schismatic event that redefined the fundamentals of the faith.

It seems that the Kjvo was birthed in and still supported to great extent by the Fundamentalists so called!

 

[JesusFan]

John R. Rice quotes about fundamentalism from my new biography of him:

“Be careful who you call ‘brethren.’ Be careful who you compromise with. Be careful who you run with. If you have the wrong kind of friendship, the wrong kind of associate, the wrong kind of companions, then one day it will be the ruin of your whole family. No man can resist bad company, I don’t care how strong you are” (John R. Rice, Preaching That Built a Great Church. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1974), 114.).

“One reason I made up my mind a good while ago not to run with some people who call themselves Fundamentalists but lie, exalt self, are shameful in their private lives is because I couldn’t have evil company. I will not trim corners just to please people. I will run with the Lord’s people. I will not call the other crowd my brethren” (Ibid.).

Much of this depends on how we define what it means to practice separation!

 

[JesusFan]

Here we go again. Why do you keep showing up here if you don't like fundamentalism? Are you aware that there are various factions in 21st century fundamentalism? Please don't broad brush us.

Think that he is referring to those who are Kjvo among Ifb, and those who look down upon those who disagree with their views on living standards

 

[John of Japan]

I disagree.
You can warn them of the dangers. With pornography you can clearly show them it is sin. With smoking and alcohol you can point out the dangers and advise moderation or no use, but when you start bring judgment upon them, you become a Pharisee who has added burdens that God has never added. You leave grace and teach law. This is clearly legalism.
Your task is limited to warning. God's job is to protect them and guide them. What you call love is actually control and manipulation by virtue of negative reinforcement. It's not love. It's not giving your life for them.
These are adults who need a gracious mentor, not a ruling overlord. (I am not saying you are either one. I don't know you.) Extend Grace.

Have you ever actually worked with young people? It doesn't sound like it. If they don't know consequences, they likely won't change. Even at our small college, which is strictly for young people headed for ministry, they need much guidance.

Just had a young future missionary in my office for about ten minutes. I know him well. He would tell you he is thankful for the demerit system. The demerit system actually protects him--it doesn't pile judgement on. It's a wall against sin, a character builder, not a torture chamber. Personally, I thank God for the discipline I've had imposed in my life by parents and by college administrations.

It is clear that you do not understand what legalism actually is, since you equate a demerit system with legalism. You've invented your own definition of legalism that does not fit the normal theological definition.

 

[JesusFan]

When we say to our college kids, "No smoking, no alcohol, no porno on your phones, or we'll have to give demerits," what we are really saying is, "We love you and want to protect you from addictions that will destroy your life: lung cancer, kidney disease, drunk driving, failed marriages and destroyed ministry because of porno."

I'm about to go teach Greek 102. I love those kids so much I would die for them: S with her mischievousness, D with his brilliance, E with his stutter, L with her constant joy, and all the rest. It is love that says to them, "Don't do those things. They will destroy you." I back our student handbook. And when they get out, they are free to drink and smoke and the rest if they choose, but they have been warned.

No problems with those standards, but the big problem is when we take our preferences and conviction and elevate them to the standards of being what the Bible gives to all of the saved

 

[JesusFan]

Have you ever actually worked with young people? It doesn't sound like it. If they don't know consequences, they likely won't change. Even at our small college, which is strictly for young people headed for ministry, they need much guidance.

Just had a young future missionary in my office for about ten minutes. I know him well. He would tell you he is thankful for the demerit system. The demerit system actually protects him--it doesn't pile judgement on. It's a wall against sin, a character builder, not a torture chamber. Personally, I thank God for the discipline I've had imposed in my life by parents and by college administrations.

It is clear that you do not understand what legalism actually is, since you equate a demerit system with legalism. You've invented your own definition of legalism that does not fit the normal theological definition.

Legalism is when we view our preferences and convictions as being the norm for all other Christians

 

[John of Japan]

Legalism is when we view our preferences and convictions as being the norm for all other Christians

Not according to the theological definition I gave above.

 

[John of Japan]

Obviously, folks, a demerit system must be administered with love, or it can be judgmental. I have known of such cases. However, our dean of men and dean of women here are two of the most compassionate people I have ever known in my life. If a young person becomes bitter about the demerits they receive here, it is totally on them. People who do not respond well to discipline are in spiritual danger. Demerits are a form of rebuke, and the Bible says, "Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee" (Proverbs 9:8).

Now I'm done talking about this. I get really tired of ad hoc definitions of legalism.

 

[Dr. Bob]

It seems that the Kjvo was birthed in and still supported to great extent by the Fundamentalists so called!

You are right to say "so called" because the evil of kjvonly sect ATTACKS the first fundamental of the faith. They CALL themselves "fundamental" and deny a "fundamental". Those adherents pose as fundamentalist but are man-centered false teachers usurping the name "fundamentalist"

No fun
All damn
and NO mental

 

[Dr. Bob]

Legalism is when we view our preferences and convictions as being the norm for all other Christians

One of "man's" definitions but NOT God's definition.

Those who view man-made rules/preferences (falsely calling them "convictions") as a way to live are 100% in error BUT not "legalists" by definition

 

[Dr. Bob]

is the current movement still greatly into separation, even from other brethren who would not agree with some of the very strict living regulations?

There are THREE LEVELS of fundamentalism, and all three DIFFER yet retain the name "fundamentalism". That is the confusion.

MODIFIED FUNDAMENTALISM = believe most (not all) Biblical doctrine AND will actively cooperate with apostasy and compromise
Schools: Fuller Seminary, Gordon-Conwell, Trinity College and Seminary, Wheaton, LaTourneau, ORU, Western Conservative Baptist
Missions: Africa Inland Mission, Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Soc., TEAM (The Evangelical Alliance Mission), Far Eastern Gospel Crusade, Greater Europe Mission, Sudan Interior Mission, World Vision, Wycliffe Translators

MODERATE FUNDAMENTALISM = expound all Biblical doctrine BUT will not expose error, and compromise with those who believe such
Schools: Biola, Cedarville, Dallas Seminary Grace Seminary, Cornerstone, Moody, Tennessee Temple, Westminster Seminary
Missions: American Board of Missions to the Jews, Central African Mission, Trans-World Radio, Word of Life Fellowship, Gospel Missionary Union, Back to the Bible

MILITANT FUNDAMENTALISM = expound all Biblical doctrine AND expose all error and compromise and those who believe such
Schools: Maranatha Baptist University, Bob Jones, Clearwater Christian, Faith BBC, BBC Springfield, BBC Clarks Summit, Central Seminary, Calvary Seminary, Detroit Seminary, Pillsbury BBC, Faith Seminary
Missions: Assoc of Baptists for World Evangelism, Baptist World Mission, Baptist International Mission Inc, Baptist Mid-Missions, Baptist Bible Fellowship, Maranatha Baptist Missions, Evangelical Baptist Missions

 

[AustinC]

Have you ever actually worked with young people? It doesn't sound like it. If they don't know consequences, they likely won't change. Even at our small college, which is strictly for young people headed for ministry, they need much guidance.

Just had a young future missionary in my office for about ten minutes. I know him well. He would tell you he is thankful for the demerit system. The demerit system actually protects him--it doesn't pile judgement on. It's a wall against sin, a character builder, not a torture chamber. Personally, I thank God for the discipline I've had imposed in my life by parents and by college administrations.

It is clear that you do not understand what legalism actually is, since you equate a demerit system with legalism. You've invented your own definition of legalism that does not fit the normal theological definition.

Decades of work with young people.
Mentoring discipline and best practice is essential. Providing boundaries is essential. Telling people that drinking, dancing, smoking, gambling, playing card games is a sin...is not providing boundaries. It's taking social mores and turning them into legal reasons why God condemns you. It is Pharisaical.
With my own children, I mentored them with the reasons to be discreet and to discern how non-sinful activities can be used by Satan to create a vice. Therefore, guard your hearts. Since they were underage I said that any government restriction on alcohol or tobacco use is to be upheld since Romans 13 gives us our requirements. I then trusted them. It was really interesting to see them choose to act with discernment rather than me having to crack a whip. None of them ever wanted to go to a school dance (public school) as they found the dancing disgusting. It took me by pleasant surprise.
It is amazing how grace can be mentored and thus law becomes of little concern. As young men and women in college, they have a responsibility to grow into their own walk with God and older Christians can be their mentors.
What I have observed with fundamentalism is a control element that functions on fear rather than love. Young people in fundamentalist churches have been so controlled and not mentored that when they get free from the yoke, they swing to the other extremes. Having attended a fundamentalist Bible institute and then a public university, I found the Christians at the public university were more authentic, more driven to prayer and more aware of obedience to God than the kids in the fundamentalist school. In that school, most kids were busy trying to look good to the leadership while looking for every loophole they could find. My time at public university was much more Godward than at the fundamentalist school.