What’s “Fundamental” to “Fundamentalism”?

[Dr. Bob]

Maybe the limited "experience" of a young so-called fundamentalist who doesn't understand history trumps all the rest who have lived and pastored for the past 6 decades. How ludicrous.

The freedom of Baptists (no denominational hierarchy) has allowed a SMALL MINORITY with big mouths to elevate false teaching to the level of the fundamentals. Everyone knows that. But everyone knows that is a minority and that bunch is roundly and soundly criticized by the millions who elevate the Word of God and its fundamentals over any lesser issues of separation or cult-like (used by definition) of aberrant doctrine or man-made standeerds, et al,

Fundamentalism is other denominations has long been the persecuted minority. Where I pastored 50+ years ago had an area Free Lutheran Church, a Bible Presbyterian, a Free Methodist, a United Brethren, and a number of Bible or non-denominational churches that were ALL "Fundamentalist" and trying to change the ever-weakening denominations to uphold and defend (earnestly contend for the Faith) the Word that was under siege from liberals. We played Christian schools from these churches and have had pastors weep over the "death spiral" of the fundamentalist cause in their groups.

Unless fundamentalism in our Baptist ranks unite with that same militancy, we will join that slide into a wishy-washy evangelicalism. I will lift the standard of real historic militant fundamentalism high; it is hill on which I will die.

 

[AustinC]

Maybe the limited "experience" of a young so-called fundamentalist who doesn't understand history trumps all the rest who have lived and pastored for the past 6 decades. How ludicrous.

The freedom of Baptists (no denominational hierarchy) has allowed a SMALL MINORITY with big mouths to elevate false teaching to the level of the fundamentals. Everyone knows that. But everyone knows that is a minority and that bunch is roundly and soundly criticized by the millions who elevate the Word of God and its fundamentals over any lesser issues of separation or cult-like (used by definition) of aberrant doctrine or man-made standeerds, et al,

Fundamentalism is other denominations has long been the persecuted minority. Where I pastored 50+ years ago had an area Free Lutheran Church, a Bible Presbyterian, a Free Methodist, a United Brethren, and a number of Bible or non-denominational churches that were ALL "Fundamentalist" and trying to change the ever-weakening denominations to uphold and defend (earnestly contend for the Faith) the Word that was under siege from liberals. We played Christian schools from these churches and have had pastors weep over the "death spiral" of the fundamentalist cause in their groups.

Unless fundamentalism in our Baptist ranks unite with that same militancy, we will join that slide into a wishy-washy evangelicalism. I will lift the standard of real historic militant fundamentalism high; it is hill on which I will die.

Bob, fundamentalist churches have never been persecuted in the United States. My wife comes from Mennonite stock. You want to talk persecution?

Now, certainly fundamentalist chrches get push back. This is almost always due to the judgmental behavior of the fundamentalist church, not the directed persecution coming from other denominations.
God told the exiles in Babylon to pray for the peace of the city that it might go well with them. He didn't call them to fight Babylon and other Jews and be persecuted by fighting them.
The call for the believer is to seek God and strive earnestly for the faith...not against other men, but against the desires of the flesh waging in your own soul.
There is no persecution from fellow believers when you look to Jesus and live in step with Christ. There will be push back when you tell other Christians what to do, how to think, and how to worship.
My experience is that fundamentalist churches start the fight rather than extend grace.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Austin, I've been a Fundamental Baptist pretty much all my Christian life. (one year or so I was a member of a baptistic Bible church.) My Home church, though starting out in the NBC, has been a Fundamentalist church since before Fundamentalism was fun. It was organized in 1881. I graduated from a Fundamental Baptist Bible College (MBBC '81). I was Dr. Cedarholm's driver. So, I know of what I speak.

 

[AustinC]

Austin, I've been a Fundamental Baptist pretty much all my Christian life. (one year or so I was a member of a baptistic Bible church.) My Home church, though starting out in the NBC, has been a Fundamentalist church since before Fundamentalism was fun. It was organized in 1881. I graduated from a Fundamental Baptist Bible College (MBBC '81). I was Dr. Cedarholm's driver. So, I know of what I speak.

Squire, you speak from what you know. I don't doubt that. I speak from what I know and I also have multiple decades of experience to draw from.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The fundamentals of the faith (regardless of denomination) summarized in the past 125 years from the 1895 Niagara Conference to today have been under heavy attack . . . hence the fundamentalist movement to counter the forces of godless evolution and theological liberalism, together known as "modernism".

Those who over the decades may have continued to hold the fundamentals but quit earnestly contending for the faith have slowly drifted away, then spiraled down into a weak "evangelicalism" and even more anemic "new evangelicalism" that are almost impotent to change this world. They now look as bad (or worse) than the modernist world in their worship and lifestyle. And what of modernity? It has morphed ever further from simple liberalism and evolutionary humanism into "post-modern" thought where good is called "evil" and evil called "good".

In 1721 Isaac Watts thought of this continuing battle for faith, long before the conflicts of modernity or liberalism. But he, like Paul in Ephesians 6, drew the analogy with the soldier wielding his sword

Am I a soldier of the cross, a follow’r of the Lamb?
And shall I fear to own His cause or blush to speak His name?

Must I be carried to the skies on flow’ry beds of ease,
While others fought to win the prize, and sailed through bloody seas?

Are there no foes for me to face? Must I not stem the flood
Is this vile world a friend to grace, to help me on to God?

Sure I must fight if I would reign; increase my courage, Lord;
I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain, supported by Thy Word.

I take heart that while we may not always understand each other, and all despise the false fundamentalism of some who elevate leaders and their man-made agenda, we who are true fundamentalists seek to proclaim the truth and then defend the truth of those fundamental, foundational tenets of the Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

Bob, fundamentalist churches have never been persecuted in the United States.

Oh, really? My grandfather was blackballed by the Texas SBC hierarchy when he opposed evolution being taught at Baylor, his alma mater, in the 1930s. He was told he would never preach in Texas again. Lee Roberson, the founder of the fundamentalist Tennessee Temple U., was kicked out of the county association in Chattanooga in 1955 simply for starting a non-approved, fundamentalist school. A professor friend who taught at a liberal SBC seminary told of fundamentalists being mocked from the chapel pulpit. Many other examples could be given--not physical persecution, but persecution nonetheless.

When Billy Graham broke from my grandfather, John R. Rice, in 1957 because Rice opposed Graham having liberals on his NY Crusade committee, Rice was viciously attacked by leading evangelicals, and many New Evangelicals separated from him (a case of the fundamentalist not being the separatist) and shunned him. I'm going to attach a letter from the Zondervan brothers as proof of this last statement (John R. Rice Papers at Southwestern BTS, Box 1).

P. S. Rice and Graham remained friends, though they never worked together again. Graham sent a huge flower wreath to Rice's funeral in 1980. Graham's team was sometimes pretty nasty, though, especially Billy's father-in-law.

 

[Dr. Bob]

When Billy Graham broke from my grandfather, John R. Rice, in 1957 because Rice opposed Graham having liberals on his NY Crusade committee, Rice was viciously attacked by leading evangelicals, and many New Evangelicals separated from him (a case of the fundamentalist not being the separatist) and shunned him. I'm going to attach a letter from the Zondervan brothers as proof of this last statement (John R. Rice Papers at Southwestern BTS, Box 1).

Thanks, John, for another layer of first-hand proof about those who not only would not stand to defend truth, but then separated from those who did stand. That is the history of Fundamentalism.

 

[AustinC]

Oh, really? My grandfather was blackballed by the Texas SBC hierarchy when he opposed evolution being taught at Baylor, his alma mater, in the 1930s. He was told he would never preach in Texas again. Lee Roberson, the founder of the fundamentalist Tennessee Temple U., was kicked out of the county association in Chattanooga in 1955 simply for starting a non-approved, fundamentalist school. A professor friend who taught at a liberal SBC seminary told of fundamentalists being mocked from the chapel pulpit. Many other examples could be given--not physical persecution, but persecution nonetheless.

When Billy Graham broke from my grandfather, John R. Rice, in 1957 because Rice opposed Graham having liberals on his NY Crusade committee, Rice was viciously attacked by leading evangelicals, and many New Evangelicals separated from him (a case of the fundamentalist not being the separatist) and shunned him. I'm going to attach a letter from the Zondervan brothers as proof of this last statement (John R. Rice Papers at Southwestern BTS, Box 1).

P. S. Rice and Graham remained friends, though they never worked together again. Graham sent a huge flower wreath to Rice's funeral in 1980.

Thanks, John, for another layer of first-hand proof about those who not only would not stand to defend truth, but then separated from those who did stand. That is the history of Fundamentalism.

Let's look at John's claims.
Note that in each instance, it was a fundamentalist complaining and calling someone liberal without first going through the fundamental theology of that person or group. I also note that starting a rogue Bible institute would be a cause for reprimand within a denomination.
I would like to see the theological issues that got persons labeled as "liberals." That way we could see if the theological fundamentals were being abandoned or whether it was social mores that got others labeled as liberals.
Continual pointing areas of disagreement and then demanding your way as the only way is going to be met with opposition. Is that persecution? No, it is not. Is it reprimand? Yes, it is.
In this area, unless there were theological fundamentals that were abandoned, the reprimand to fundamentalists would be in order. Why? Because the group is really being separatists. This is seen within the Mennonite community where there is now multiple variations of Mennonite from liberals who deny the deity of Christ, to conservatives who deny electricity and have their own small clans that will not associate with others. Then you have the Hutterites and Amish as separatist groups off from the Mennonites. It all results in a fracturing of fellowship, many times not over the fundamentals of the faith, but instead over petty preferences that are pushed so hard that it causes break up. One side then claims to be persecuted by the other and bitterness takes deep root.

 

[John of Japan]

Let's look at John's claims.
Note that in each instance, it was a fundamentalist complaining and calling someone liberal without first going through the fundamental theology of that person or group. I also note that starting a rogue Bible institute would be a cause for reprimand within a denomination.
I would like to see the theological issues that got persons labeled as "liberals." That way we could see if the theological fundamentals were being abandoned or whether it was social mores that got others labeled as liberals.
Continual pointing areas of disagreement and then demanding your way as the only way is going to be met with opposition. Is that persecution? No, it is not. Is it reprimand? Yes, it is.
In this area, unless there were theological fundamentals that were abandoned, the reprimand to fundamentalists would be in order. Why? Because the group is really being separatists. This is seen within the Mennonite community where there is now multiple variations of Mennonite from liberals who deny the deity of Christ, to conservatives who deny electricity and have their own small clans that will not associate with others. Then you have the Hutterites and Amish as separatist groups off from the Mennonites. It all results in a fracturing of fellowship, many times not over the fundamentals of the faith, but instead over petty preferences that are pushed so hard that it causes break up. One side then claims to be persecuted by the other and bitterness takes deep root.

Again you are showing your complete ignorance of the history. A "liberal" in those days was precisely someone who DID deny a fundamental of the faith, in particular the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the verbal inspiration of Scriptures, the Second Coming, salvation from sin by grace alone. This is not just fundamentalist opinion, it's theological history.

Have you never taken a theology course? The knowledge of what classical theological liberalism is, is basic to a knowledge of theology. SBC theologian in Millard Erickson in his systematic theology (Christian Theology, 3rd ed.) discusses it extensively. I suggest you educate yourself and avoid future embarrassment due to your ignorance.

One particular liberal on Graham's NY Crusade committee was
John Sutherland Bonnell, who had written an article for Look Magazine of March 23, 1954, in which he confirmed that he did not believe in the doctrines of the Trinity, virgin birth of Christ, bodily resurrection, literal Heaven or Hell, or verbal inspiration of the Bible.

I could list dozens of books that verify what I have written. Please, please educate yourself. What would it take to convince you? How about PhD dissertations? In my new biography of John R. Rice I cite the following dissertations, each of which would prove much or all of what I have written here:

Bates, David Keith Jr. “Moving Fundamentalism Toward the Mainstream: John R. Rice and the Reengagement of America’s Religious and Political Cultures.” PhD dissertation, Kansas State University, 2006.

Butler, Farley P. Jr. “Billy Graham and the End of Evangelical Unity.” PhD dissertation, University of Florida, 1976.

Finn, Nathan A. “The Development of Baptist Fundamentalism in the South.” PhD dissertation, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007.

Lyon, Matthew Lee. “John R. Rice and Evangelism: An Essential Mark of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism.” The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, PhD dissertation, 2019.

Moore, Howard Edgar. “The Emergence of Moderate Fundamentalism: John R. Rice and the Sword of the Lord.” PhD dissertation, George Washington University, 1990.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Helps to understand history and not ramble off to an Amish analogy?? Beyond simply uninformed into willful ignorance.

Billy Graham's NY crusade was his open break from fundamental biblical truth into full-blown ecumenicism and a false Gospel being the norm in future crusades. He had Catholic leaders and others who denied salvation by grace alone on his platform - 100% opposite of the message he preached. Huge conflict with bible-believers all over the USA when he had nuns and priests do "personal work" for those who walked the aisle to receive Christ, and when "converts" were then recommended to non-Gospel preaching churches. Billy's message sounded good, but the ramifications of the crusade were horrendous.

It was a "flashpoint" when Christians had to decide how to handle one who CLAIMS to be a fundamental Bible preacher and yet DEMONSTRATES the opposite. Churches in Minneapolis (Billy's home and mine) were incredulous.

 

[JesusFan]

Maybe the limited "experience" of a young so-called fundamentalist who doesn't understand history trumps all the rest who have lived and pastored for the past 6 decades. How ludicrous.

The freedom of Baptists (no denominational hierarchy) has allowed a SMALL MINORITY with big mouths to elevate false teaching to the level of the fundamentals. Everyone knows that. But everyone knows that is a minority and that bunch is roundly and soundly criticized by the millions who elevate the Word of God and its fundamentals over any lesser issues of separation or cult-like (used by definition) of aberrant doctrine or man-made standeerds, et al,

Fundamentalism is other denominations has long been the persecuted minority. Where I pastored 50+ years ago had an area Free Lutheran Church, a Bible Presbyterian, a Free Methodist, a United Brethren, and a number of Bible or non-denominational churches that were ALL "Fundamentalist" and trying to change the ever-weakening denominations to uphold and defend (earnestly contend for the Faith) the Word that was under siege from liberals. We played Christian schools from these churches and have had pastors weep over the "death spiral" of the fundamentalist cause in their groups.

Unless fundamentalism in our Baptist ranks unite with that same militancy, we will join that slide into a wishy-washy evangelicalism. I will lift the standard of real historic militant fundamentalism high; it is hill on which I will die.

No one can deny that Fundamentalists desire to keep the fundamentals of the faith is not a great thing, but can and do judge at times how they were in judgement against fellow Christians just due to how they view kjv, how they dressed and went to movies, were open to having some wine at dinner, and were not pre trib pre mil

 

[Dr. Bob]

No one can deny that Fundamentalists desire to keep the fundamentals of the faith is not a great thing, but can and do judge at times how they were in judgement against fellow Christians just due to how they view kjv, how they dressed and went to movies, were open to having some wine at dinner, and were not pre trib pre mil

Absolutely true, but NOT the op of this thread. Tried to rein in Austin on that issue, to deal with Fundamentalism and NOT the minority who add some rules and man-made standards to those Fundamentals.

Since this matter (addition of man-made standards) is a very real concern, I will start a thread on it and hope you and Austin join in.

 

[AustinC]

Helps to understand history and not ramble off to an Amish analogy?? Beyond simply uninformed into willful ignorance.

Billy Graham's NY crusade was his open break from fundamental biblical truth into full-blown ecumenicism and a false Gospel being the norm in future crusades. He had Catholic leaders and others who denied salvation by grace alone on his platform - 100% opposite of the message he preached. Huge conflict with bible-believers all over the USA when he had nuns and priests do "personal work" for those who walked the aisle to receive Christ, and when "converts" were then recommended to non-Gospel preaching churches. Billy's message sounded good, but the ramifications of the crusade were horrendous.

It was a "flashpoint" when Christians had to decide how to handle one who CLAIMS to be a fundamental Bible preacher and yet DEMONSTRATES the opposite. Churches in Minneapolis (Billy's home and mine) were incredulous.

Billy Grahams gospel is the gospel of scripture. He never wavered. Therefore he held the fundamentals of the faith.
Your judgment of him perfectly exemplifies my point that the fundamentalist movement has not been about fundamental theology, but has been about being a separatist movement bent on telling other believers how wrong and evil they are when those other groups do not kowtow to the social norms required by the fundamentalist movement. Your post is a perfect example of this.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Rather than continue with the tit for tat, this thread is closed.