What’s “Fundamental” to “Fundamentalism”?

[AustinC]

A problem arises when otherwise good men confuse cultural fundamentalism with Biblical Fundamentalism.

I have no confusion with Biblical Fundamentalism. Look at the great creeds of the faith and you have Biblical Fundamentalism.
Yet, what is observably true and fact in the Militant Fundamentalist movement is that, like the Pharisees of Jesus day, rule upon rule upon rule is added and nuanced so that the actual fundamentals are minimized while the added rules are maximized. Such behavior is pure legalism and is grace less.
So far, no one here has actually showed where the fundamentals of the faith declare abstinence in drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, dancing or playing card games. You can't because these aren't fundamentals. These are added rules that turn peoples eyes off Christ and on to rules and regulations.

Therefore militant fundamentalism has a significant flaw and it essentially will not give up its prideful, rules dominating ways.

I understand that will offend some on this area in the BB. I'm okay with upsetting the status quo when that status quo is not grounded in scripture.

 

[agedman]

I have no confusion with Biblical Fundamentalism. Look at the great creeds of the faith and you have Biblical Fundamentalism.
Yet, what is observably true and fact in the Militant Fundamentalist movement is that, like the Pharisees of Jesus day, rule upon rule upon rule is added and nuanced so that the actual fundamentals are minimized while the added rules are maximized. Such behavior is pure legalism and is grace less.
So far, no one here has actually showed where the fundamentals of the faith declare abstinence in drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, dancing or playing card games. You can't because these aren't fundamentals. These are added rules that turn peoples eyes off Christ and on to rules and regulations.

Therefore militant fundamentalism has a significant flaw and it essentially will not give up its prideful, rules dominating ways.

I understand that will offend some on this area in the BB. I'm okay with upsetting the status quo when that status quo is not grounded in scripture.

I don't disagree.

One of the difficulties of the "fundamental" group of any period of time in Christianity is that they are combating a societal sinful practice in the exercise of rebellion, and that combat becomes a point of believers having to decide to separate from the influences of the world rebellion.

A problem in this combat is that the schemes of evil are not stagnate and not uniformed but on the prowl, disguised, and looking for weaknesses to exploit. During the excesses of one generation, certain standards are established by both the ungodly and the believer to both recognize (by the unbeliever) push back (by the believer) at the worldly influences, and more often such push back is carried generationally. My father's wife was a "flapper" but that did not compel me to dance, but to state such was not a part of my relationship with Christ.

That does not mean that the evil one generation combated is not also present in the next, but that the tension of attack has been shifted by the enemy and the church is perpetually slow in detection and response.

There are certain principles that must remain. One is moderation and another temperate. There are others.

For example:
I am a person who does not consume an intoxicant, and even question the effects of the medications that I do take, because I will not allow some medication to influence who I am. Only God has that authority. I teach that the Lord Jesus did not partake of intoxicants because one who is pure cannot allow even the slightest influence. Therefore, intoxicants did not cross his lips.

However, that teaching doesn't mean everyone must toe the line that I hold myself. It is between them and the Holy Spirit, which I make clear. Drink has been used in Christianity without controversy from the beginning, but so has abstinence from intoxicants as demonstrated by Paul's statement to Timothy.

In the roaring 20's drinking was a social aspect propagated by the ungodly rebelliousness, the same as it is today. The difference is found in the area of rebellion and rebelliousness. The element of flaunting rebellion made a difference.

Same with dance.
Same with mixed swimming.
Same with ....

It is where the enemy is focusing his attitude of rebellion.

A principle from Scripture is given by Paul saying in two places in 1 Corinthians:

“Everything is permissible for me,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me,” but I will not be mastered by anything.​

And in another place:

“Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is edifying.​

Ultimately, the believer must stand up against the worldly encroachment. Each must decide for themself at what level they will say, "This far and no more."

For will we not all stand before the Christ and give an accounting?

I would be totally ashamed to be in the arms of one not my wife, partaking of that which is deceitful, and engaged in rebelliousness flaunting my Christian freedom at the expense of a sterling testimony when my Lord decided to end my time here.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I truly sympathize with Austin and his perspective. He must have had some awful experiences within Fundamentalism to broad-brush all the thousands of fine churches that don't reflect ANYTHING of what he portrays. Sad for his experiences, and on behalf of the millions of militant Baptists who are not mired in added rules and are earnestly-contending-for-the-faith, I would read his posts again as a WARNING of what someone on the outside may judge our churches.

I would HATE for any rules and standards taught by my church or in our church covenant of membership to overshadow/influence negatively any of the doctrinal purity of the Fundamentals of the Faith.

 

[AustinC]

I truly sympathize with Austin and his perspective. He must have had some awful experiences within Fundamentalism to broad-brush all the thousands of fine churches that don't reflect ANYTHING of what he portrays. Sad for his experiences, and on behalf of the millions of militant Baptists who are not mired in added rules and are earnestly-contending-for-the-faith, I would read his posts again as a WARNING of what someone on the outside may judge our churches.

I would HATE for any rules and standards taught by my church or in our church covenant of membership to overshadow/influence negatively any of the doctrinal purity of the Fundamentals of the Faith.

And I sympathize with you, Bob. You seem unable to actually recognize the difference between the fundamentals of the faith and the legalism of fundamentalism. Perhaps it is simply a blind spot.
I have visited many militant fundamentalist churches. Every one was steeped in legalism.

 

[agedman]

I truly sympathize with Austin and his perspective. He must have had some awful experiences within Fundamentalism to broad-brush all the thousands of fine churches that don't reflect ANYTHING of what he portrays. Sad for his experiences, and on behalf of the millions of militant Baptists who are not mired in added rules and are earnestly-contending-for-the-faith, I would read his posts again as a WARNING of what someone on the outside may judge our churches.

I would HATE for any rules and standards taught by my church or in our church covenant of membership to overshadow/influence negatively any of the doctrinal purity of the Fundamentals of the Faith.

Doctrinal purity is so very important.

However, (imo) the biggest problem is the personal integrity and holiness of the believer.

One would think that doctrine would oblige conformity, but it doesn't.

The single most important attribute of the believers is to "love one another."

Where is the cry from American churches concerning the hurting believers in persecution?

It isn't like it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago, even 20 years ago, when the messages of atrocity inflicted upon believers was days late. We have now information in real time, yet is it not true that few are the voices raised in support of those hurting and much more important the cries of earnest prayers lifted for their relief?

How much better to demonstrate the love of Christ then to hold to and exalt doctrinal purity, for by which shall we be truly known?

 

[agedman]

And I sympathize with you, Bob. You seem unable to actually recognize the difference between the fundamentals of the faith and the legalism of fundamentalism. Perhaps it is simply a blind spot.
I have visited many militant fundamentalist churches. Every one was steeped in legalism.

Would it be correct to assume that the legalistic churches you visited did not demonstrate true love for all believers?

I am not an ecumenical thinker, but if a church is not known to the world as a place of Godly love for the believers, then it is lacking an essential.

 

[AustinC]

I don't disagree.

One of the difficulties of the "fundamental" group of any period of time in Christianity is that they are combating a societal sinful practice in the exercise of rebellion, and that combat becomes a point of believers having to decide to separate from the influences of the world rebellion.

A problem in this combat is that the schemes of evil are not stagnate and not uniformed but on the prowl, disguised, and looking for weaknesses to exploit. During the excesses of one generation, certain standards are established by both the ungodly and the believer to both recognize (by the unbeliever) push back (by the believer) at the worldly influences, and more often such push back is carried generationally. My father's wife was a "flapper" but that did not compel me to dance, but to state such was not a part of my relationship with Christ.

That does not mean that the evil one generation combated is not also present in the next, but that the tension of attack has been shifted by the enemy and the church is perpetually slow in detection and response.

There are certain principles that must remain. One is moderation and another temperate. There are others.

For example:
I am a person who does not consume an intoxicant, and even question the effects of the medications that I do take, because I will not allow some medication to influence who I am. Only God has that authority. I teach that the Lord Jesus did not partake of intoxicants because one who is pure cannot allow even the slightest influence. Therefore, intoxicants did not cross his lips.

However, that teaching doesn't mean everyone must toe the line that I hold myself. It is between them and the Holy Spirit, which I make clear. Drink has been used in Christianity without controversy from the beginning, but so has abstinence from intoxicants as demonstrated by Paul's statement to Timothy.

In the roaring 20's drinking was a social aspect propagated by the ungodly rebelliousness, the same as it is today. The difference is found in the area of rebellion and rebelliousness. The element of flaunting rebellion made a difference.

Same with dance.
Same with mixed swimming.
Same with ....

It is where the enemy is focusing his attitude of rebellion.

A principle from Scripture is given by Paul saying in two places in 1 Corinthians:

“Everything is permissible for me,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me,” but I will not be mastered by anything.​

And in another place:

“Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is edifying.​

Ultimately, the believer must stand up against the worldly encroachment. Each must decide for themself at what level they will say, "This far and no more."

For will we not all stand before the Christ and give an accounting?

I would be totally ashamed to be in the arms of one not my wife, partaking of that which is deceitful, and engaged in rebelliousness flaunting my Christian freedom at the expense of a sterling testimony when my Lord decided to end my time here.

Overall, well stated. I would argue that Jesus drank wine and enjoyed it. He went to weddings and danced with the others. He ate and drank with publicans, which outraged the Pharisees.
Paul's instructions in Romans 14 give us the best expression of freedom, yet restraint for the weaker brother. The important thing is to love your brother and not place extra burdens on him that God does not place on him.
If I were in Bob or John's church, I would never drink in their presence as their conscience would likely be pricked. Why would I want to hinder them by my freedom.
To me, that is a fundamental truth. So, in these areas, I may be being militant in this thread. I call for true, biblical fundamentals and the removal of all false restrictions coming from group opinion.

 

[agedman]

Overall, well stated. I would argue that Jesus drank wine and enjoyed it. He went to weddings and danced with the others. He ate and drank with publicans, which outraged the Pharisees.
Paul's instructions in Romans 14 give us the best expression of freedom, yet restraint for the weaker brother. The important thing is to love your brother and not place extra burdens on him that God does not place on him.
If I were in Bob or John's church, I would never drink in their presence as their conscience would likely be pricked. Why would I want to hinder them by my freedom.
To me, that is a fundamental truth. So, in these areas, I may be being militant in this thread. I call for true, biblical fundamentals and the removal of all false restrictions coming from group opinion.

You may assume that He danced with the others and drank intoxicants. I will not spend time arguing that point.

The difficulty I have had in the typical presentation of the "weaker brother" thinking is the implication that a standard held of not participating indicates that person is weak.

That is not true. It is in most cases a matter of one who separates from a lifestyle that would be identified by unbelievers as a compromise to the true follower of Christ.

For example: In the 1920's the flappers would dance in outfits that were demonstratively rebellious to the standards of common decency of the day. Extremely few Baptist churches of any persuasion endorsed dancing because of the association with the rebelliousness flaunting of ungodliness by the world. It wasn't weakness on the part of Baptists, but the matter of living a life in which they considered reflected Godliness.

The same can be said of the vast number of fundamental independent churches of this day. They consider that certain matters of conduct do not reflect Godliness. Therefore, they establish as they see fit the standards of which they conform.

Again, it isn't a matter of weakness, it is a matter of giving no place for the enemy to accuse.

 

[AustinC]

You may assume that He danced with the others and drank intoxicants. I will not spend time arguing that point.

The difficulty I have had in the typical presentation of the "weaker brother" thinking is the implication that a standard held of not participating indicates that person is weak.

That is not true. It is in most cases a matter of one who separates from a lifestyle that would be identified by unbelievers as a compromise to the true follower of Christ.

For example: In the 1920's the flappers would dance in outfits that were demonstratively rebellious to the standards of common decency of the day. Extremely few Baptist churches of any persuasion endorsed dancing because of the association with the rebelliousness flaunting of ungodliness by the world. It wasn't weakness on the part of Baptists, but the matter of living a life in which they considered reflected Godliness.

The same can be said of the vast number of fundamental independent churches of this day. They consider that certain matters of conduct do not reflect Godliness. Therefore, they establish as they see fit the standards of which they conform.

Again, it isn't a matter of weakness, it is a matter of giving no place for the enemy to accuse.

The enemy has no place to accuse. Our only accuser is Christ, who set us free. Therefore, what God has made clean is therefore clean. This is expressed to Peter when he was sent to Cornelius. When we keep trying to figure out what will or won't be something the unsaved will judge us on, we ultimately think that our actions can keep a person out of heaven, even though God tells us that those whom the Father has given to Jesus will never escape him. It shows a disbelief in election and predestination.
Here, then, is the place where legalism puts its claws in the body.

Therefore, flee sin, but don't fret that which God has made clean.
Second, I don't speculate on Jesus drinking wine. He tells us he drank wine with his disciples.

Matthew 26:27-29
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Luke 22:18
For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

It is clear that Jesus enjoyed wine and he is enjoying it again with his family in heaven.

As to these matters, I respect a person's conscience regarding these non-sinful choices and if I cause a person to question their faith by my freedom, I will curtail it for the sake of community. I will, however, call out legalism.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I will, however, call out legalism.

You need to be honest and say you will call out what you FALSELY DEFINE as "legalism" so that it sounds like it is something sinful/evil and you can piously feel more FALSE SPIRITUALITY as you sit in judgment on them. And through 5 pages of this discussion you call the fundamental Baptists "sinners" for having rules in their churches. Hmmm

 

[AustinC]

You need to be honest and say you will call out what you FALSELY DEFINE as "legalism" so that it sounds like it is something sinful/evil and you can piously feel more FALSE SPIRITUALITY as you sit in judgment on them. And through 5 pages of this discussion you call the fundamental Baptists "sinners" for having rules in their churches. Hmmm

Bob, it's not a false definition of legalism. Any rule or regulation enforced in a church that is not found in scripture is legalism. In areas that are not explicit, regulative sins, we must extend grace and not be "militant" about them. Those extra rules may seem good to the group, but they are Pharisaical by nature and can take peoples eyes off Christ while turning their eyes to following rules.
Bob, humans, by nature, like rules. They just want to be told what to do. They want to earn their way to God. That is the appeal of the vast majority of religions. Discipline of body and mind to reach perfection. But, we, the church, know better. We know that adding rules to religion takes away from the fundamental truths of grace.

Bob, you can disagree with me. Fine. But don't think your version of fundamentalism is some greater version of fundamental Christianity than what I believe.

My observation and experience of your so-called militant fundamentalism is that it is filled with extra burden making, rules and thus grace is not first and foremost within militant fundamentalism. Essentially, like the church of Ephesus, fundamentalists have lost their first love.

 

[John of Japan]

And I sympathize with you, Bob. You seem unable to actually recognize the difference between the fundamentals of the faith and the legalism of fundamentalism. Perhaps it is simply a blind spot.
I have visited many militant fundamentalist churches. Every one was steeped in legalism.

Dr. Bob is not a legalist in any way, shape or form. This is a vicious attack.

Why do you even come here? As I have pointed out to you several times before, this place in the BB is not for you, but to give us fundamentalists a refuge from those like you who throw out the "legalist" attack without ceasing.

 

[AustinC]

Dr. Bob is not a legalist in any way, shape or form. This is a vicious attack.

Why do you even come here? As I have pointed out to you several times before, this place in the BB is not for you, but to give us fundamentalists a refuge from those like you who throw out the "legalist" attack without ceasing.

It is no attack on Bob, nor is it vicious.
It is an observation of militant fundamentalism from a person who spent decades in the militant fundamentalist movement.
You and Bob are free to disagree, but since this thread is specifically about the fundamentals of the faith, I am more than in my right to voice my observations of a group that goes far beyond the fundamentals of scripture.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Putting on my Mod hat, no this forum was designed to be a safe haven for fundamental Baptists. It has been true since 2003.

It is no attack on Bob, nor is it vicious.
It is an observation of militant fundamentalism from a person who spent decades in the militant fundamentalist movement.
You and Bob are free to disagree, but since this thread is specifically about the fundamentals of the faith, I am more than in my right to voice my observations of a group that goes far beyond the fundamentals of scripture.

 

[Dr. Bob]

My evaluation of the conflict in this thread -

Fundamental Baptists use "legalist" in classical Pauline theology - one who teaches/practices works to gain or keep salvation. We (I am one) hate "works" religion of the vast liturgical so-called "christian" religion with its rituals and rites, magic water/wafer, and sacraments that all scream 'do this and be a christian" (lower-case "c" used intentionally despite spell check's insistence). We also hate false teaching of doing xyz works to "keep" salvation of the arminian mindset, that man must "do, do, do" or somehow God would withhold His grace and they'd be damned.

I don't "hate", but truly wish that Modern Evangelicals would not discard the theological basis of the term "legalist" word and in its place make up a random definition - strict/literal adherence to man-made, non-theological rules and regulations completely divorced from theological fundamentalism - and claim that this is the purview of Fundamentalists. That muddies the water and sullies the historic theological position into a mire of petty rules that has nothing to do with Fundamentalism.

I concur with the Squire that THIS forum is NOT a "discussion/debate" of other about their so-called definitions or bad experiences with Fundamental Baptists, but as a place FOR Fundamentalists free from such debate.

This thread proves in spades (can a true fundamentalist use a "playing card" figure of speech - YES by theological definition) that non-fundamentalists are simply out of the loop in discussions here about historic fundamentalism and, by policy since we founded the BB, asked not to post here.

 

[agedman]

The enemy has no place to accuse. Our only accuser is Christ, who set us free. Therefore, what God has made clean is therefore clean. This is expressed to Peter when he was sent to Cornelius. When we keep trying to figure out what will or won't be something the unsaved will judge us on, we ultimately think that our actions can keep a person out of heaven, even though God tells us that those whom the Father has given to Jesus will never escape him. It shows a disbelief in election and predestination.
Here, then, is the place where legalism puts its claws in the body.

Have you not exchanged salvation to all irregardless of gender and race with the thinking that believers are free to do whatever?

Peter's experience was about bringing salvation to other nations and not just the Jews.

The enemy is always accusing the brethren. Sometimes it is in disguise such as the Jews in Acts 22, at other times it is those within the assembly itself as in 3 John 1. Often it is the very rulers God set up as in Acts 17, and even our own peers as in Acts 23 and 28.

Revelation 12 shows the accuser as Satan, and the Lord in John 5 expressed how even Moses accuses.

Accusations are a consistent in the believer's life.

I dare say if one has gone without serious accusation against them they are either very fortunate or not a child of the Father.

Therefore, flee sin, but don't fret that which God has made clean.
Second, I don't speculate on Jesus drinking wine. He tells us he drank wine with his disciples.

Matthew 26:27-29
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Luke 22:18
For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

It is clear that Jesus enjoyed wine and he is enjoying it again with his family in heaven.

As to these matters, I respect a person's conscience regarding these non-sinful choices and if I cause a person to question their faith by my freedom, I will curtail it for the sake of community. I will, however, call out legalism.

Reflect on what is the desire, the intent of an intoxicant.

Can one remain pure if one (even at the micro cellular level) is controlled by an intoxicant?

I do not doubt our Lord drank wine. To deny He did would be to deny Scriptures.

What I present is that the Lord did not consume an intoxicant.

Even at the point of crucifixion He refused an intoxicant.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Austin, we WERE talking about fundamentals of the faith and those who are only "nominal" fundamentalists (say they are fundamental but will not defend the Word and oppose error), but that was HIJACKED into talking about non-fundamental issue of some churches that add man-made rules. Then the attack that fundamentalists who contend for the faith are all "evil (I won't call such legalist because words have meaning) was lodged and we cannot let that lie stand.

If salvation were gained or kept by rules, then it is not grace. NNE HERE believes that. If you believe having rules in a church or group or your own life is wrong, then you have lowered yourself to antinomian license. We ALL have rules, but NNE HERE elevates those to matters of salvation that one has to believe.

But you attack those who hold the fundamentals of the faith and you will have every post erased. It is a simple act to protect the PURPOSE of the BB. We have to do it with papists and cultists (used properly) that were either banned or posts out of bounds simple erased. And for goodness' sake, don't play the martyr because YOU have made such false statements.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm going to move on, and say that there may be some room for naming evangelism as a fundamental of us fundamentalists. I might start a new thread on it. Is a person a fundamentalist if they do not believe in and/or practice the fulfilling of the Great Commission?

 

[AustinC]

Austin, we WERE talking about fundamentals of the faith and those who are only "nominal" fundamentalists (say they are fundamental but will not defend the Word and oppose error), but that was HIJACKED into talking about non-fundamental issue of some churches that add man-made rules. Then the attack that fundamentalists who contend for the faith are all "evil (I won't call such legalist because words have meaning) was lodged and we cannot let that lie stand.

If salvation were gained or kept by rules, then it is not grace. NNE HERE believes that. If you believe having rules in a church or group or your own life is wrong, then you have lowered yourself to antinomian license. We ALL have rules, but NNE HERE elevates those to matters of salvation that one has to believe.

But you attack those who hold the fundamentals of the faith and you will have every post erased. It is a simple act to protect the PURPOSE of the BB. We have to do it with papists and cultists (used properly) that were either banned or posts out of bounds simple erased. And for goodness' sake, don't play the martyr because YOU have made such false statements.

Bob, be accurate. Your statement (which I bolded) claims many who believe the fundamentals of the faith "will not defend the Word or oppose error." That is an opinion not based in facts. Every church that believes the fundamentals of the faith stands on the Word of God and defends the faith. The problem is that each denomination creates extra-biblical rules that are not fundamental to the faith, but have become requirements in the denomination. Then, each denomination fights to show their rules are what God would want. Here is the major problem in the church. Pride declares that each denomination is the only one contending for the fundamentals of the faith, when what is being fought for is a bunch of extra-biblical rules that are not fundamental to the faith.

There has been no hijacking. There has been contention to determine what is the actual fundamentals. If you go back, you will see that I laid out the basic fundamentals of the faith that all Christian churches must believe and contend for.
I then state that legalism has no place in the fundamentals of the faith.

 

[robycop3]

Our indy fundy baptist church does NOT follow ANY man-made rules or doctrines of faith/worship. We are governed by Scripture, which we recognize as the highest written authority on earth. For example we don't follow the doctrines of the "word/faith" myth, the "oneness" myth, the "name it/claim it" myth, the preterism myth, or the KJVO myth, to name a few. We have no dress codes, hairstyle rules, etc. our pew Bibles are NKJVs, as that's what our pastor preaches from, but each person may bring & use whatever Bible version(s) one chooses.

As for behavior outside of church, we know GOD is the witness & Judge of everyone's actions 24/7,

We believe our church has 3 functions: To praise, thank, & honor God, to edify and educate believers, & to lead others to Jesus. I believe that's about as fundy as it gets!