What is Fundamental?

I think it is adhereing to the "Fundamentals" after all thats where the word came from if I understand it correctly.

 

To me it is not only one that adheres to the fundamentals,but also feels a need to separate themslves from the world in actions and appearance out of their love for their Father in heaven.
Basically an old fashioned, simple, clean minded, clean living child of God that holds to the fundamentals of the Baptist faith.
What Bible? The KJV of course! I have not heard of any big revivals where the Holy Spirit worked through any other version , unless of course you are from Brownsville!

 

Below are a couple of definitions of fundamentalism. The first is based on the origins from the Niagara Falls Conference and the book "The Fundamentals" - circa 1910. The second was drafted by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976.

 

Separation plays a part because it is what the Bible commands. However, a true, historic fundamentalists is someone who holds uncompromisingly with the basic, orthodox Bible doctrines- Virgin Birth, inspiration/infallible/inerrant Bible as given in the originals, literal miracles, historocity and Mosaic authorship of the first five books, etc.

KJVO is a recent aberration and departure from fundamentalism. The godly men who courageously stood up against the liberal charge 100 years ago acknowledged the value of lower criticism and used the ASV, RV, and AV in defense of "The Fundamentals."

 

Scott, you beat me here. A fundamentalist is someone who holds to the literal understanding of biblical doctrine (it is no surprise that when eschatology was considered, they were premillers).

Also, KJVO is not fundamental at all. KJVO questions the integrity of God and twists passages to make them into "promises to preserve the KJV" . Btw, how smart can the KJV translators be when they considered King James a great defender of the faith?

 

Though the current dominant view among fundamentalists is premillennialism, I believe you will find that the historical evidence shows that the early fundamentalist leaders held various eschatological views. Some early fundamentalist leaders, including contributors to The Fundamentals: A Testimony of the Truth are: J. Gresham Machen, James Orr, David Heagle, Philip Mauro, R.A. Torrey, H. M. Sydenstricker, W. J. Eerdman, Charles R. Erdman, A.C. Dixon, H. C. G. Moule, James M. Gray, Dyson Hague, G. Frederick Wright, Franklin Johnson, Sir Robert Anderson, W. H. Griffith-Thomas, M.G. Kyle, William Caven, Louis Meyer, Charles T. Studd, Charles B. Williams, G. Osborne Troop, E.Y. Mullins, G. Campbell Morgan, Bishop Ryle, C.I. Scofield, and Benjamin B. Warfield. It would probably prove quite interesting to learn the various eschatological ideas held by these men (as well as their use of Bible versions and other areas of current controversy among "fundamentalists").

Another link to The Fundamentals: A Testimony of the Truth

 

PTW: The Bible Versions/Translations Debates take place one forum down.


Sue

 

PTW: The Bible Versions/Translations Debates take place one forum down.


Sue </font>[/QUOTE]Sue, we are fundamentalists. This is an issue. So while the KJV issue will not dominate this thread, mentioning it is still allowed. There is only one issue that we are not allowed to talk about on this forum.

 

What fundamentalism WAS and what it IS are definitely two different things. IMHO the animal it has become has done far more harm to the fundamentals of the faith than good. Many of us consider ourselves historic fundamentalists but often refuse to use the term because of the bad rap extremists have given to the name.

 

I'm curious, Dr. Bob. Almost all "fundamentalists" do now and have always held to more doctrines than just the five fundamentals. What constitutes "adding" to them? Or are you just concerned with them adding things that one MUST BELIEVE in order for them to recognize you as a fundamentalist?

 

Fundamentalism was born as a reaction against liberalism. Hence its emphasis has always been to delineate the differences between theologically-conservative Christians and liberals.

I think the reason Fundamentalism has struggled with legalism (as Dr. Bob delineated) stems from it's historically reactionary stance. It's more known by what it is against than what it is for. And when you contuinally focus on errors from the left, you're more likely to fall prey to errors on the right (KJVO, etc.) Better to focus first and foremost on Christ and what we DO believe in the Word.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Now brother PTW has illustrated a good point here, a few posts down he reminds us that we can discuss our preference of Bible version but it must not dominate the thread. IMO he has come very close to breaking his own rule in his words against the KJVO view. We do have a versions forum and any battles over this issue should be taken there. It was discussed in the formative time of this forum that a particular version would not be prerequisite to using this forum. It will be my goal to not allow any arguments over versions here, to do so I must say that I will not allow disparing remarks to be made against other versions that may demonstrate a lack of grace toward our fellow posters.

Murph

 

For those who would like to discuss the relationship of the KJV to fundamentalism, we have this thread: Is KJVO Compatible with Classic Fundamentalism?.

 

Preacher Nathan Knight, if you are serious about your question there is a book you need to get. "A History Of Fundamentalism In America" by George W. Dollar. This book was printed by Bob Jones University Press back in 1973. This will give you a pretty good overview of "Fundamentalism" today. If you can't find a copy let me know I might be able to help you find one.

 

I would like to get a copy of that book. Can you order it through BJU?

Thanks,

GOD BLESS AMERICA