What is the difference between the classic Fundamentalist and the Modern day

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Paul33:

Social action is not a negative! We are required by the gospel to be concerned about the whole person when we witness.

Of course social action is not a negative (at least most of the time)! You missed my point. My point was that evangelicalism changed with the introduction of New Evangelicalism in the 1950's.

Fundamentalism has changed, too, absolutely! It's been almost 100 years, after all! My goal in this thread is to discuss exactly what the OP talked about. I'd like to do this in a scholarly manner, with reference to the historical data as compared to the modern data. Getting all hot and bothered about it is boring.

Are you with me? Do you have access to a good library with sources about the genuine historical data? (Hopefully not just the Internet! )

 

[Bro. James]

There are two fundamental scriptural doctrines which can be followed from the first assembly started by Jesus even until today:

1. Scriptural Baptism

2. Closed Communion

This history is written in the blood of those who have practiced such things and much of the history has been torched. There is much to be gleaned from a study of "Anabaptists".

The term "modern" does not apply. The above referenced groups are "in the world, but not of the world", just like Jesus said. The world hates the followers of Jesus, as do the churches of the world.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[John of Japan]

And once again, James, you make me say: Huh? What are you trying to say that applies to this topic?

 

[Bro. James]

Subject: Fundamental Baptists, past and present.

Listed are two fundamental doctrines which have made fundamental Baptists fundamental throughout the age.

The difference between then and now is there are not many fundamental Baptists practicing these fundamental doctrines any longer; in fact, some never have. This is a fulfillment of prophesy: the end shall not come until there be a falling away first;... they will not endure sound doctrine, but will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[John of Japan]

Closed communion as a fundamental doctrine? I don't think so. Absolutely no historical or Biblical proof on that one. I dare you to start a thread on it--you'll be blown away!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The differences arise from how one parses the phrase

I stand for truth and I stand against error.

I don't try to compare "the classic Fundamentalist and the Modern day" in a strict manner. To do so in my opinion is like trying to fight the current war with the last war's tactics and weapons. While the struggle against error remains, the issues in conflict are not necessarily the same.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:

Social action is not a negative! We are required by the gospel to be concerned about the whole person when we witness.

Of course social action is not a negative (at least most of the time)! You missed my point. My point was that evangelicalism changed with the introduction of New Evangelicalism in the 1950's.

Fundamentalism has changed, too, absolutely! It's been almost 100 years, after all! My goal in this thread is to discuss exactly what the OP talked about. I'd like to do this in a scholarly manner, with reference to the historical data as compared to the modern data. Getting all hot and bothered about it is boring.

Are you with me? Do you have access to a good library with sources about the genuine historical data? (Hopefully not just the Internet! ) </font>[/QUOTE]John, I didn't think I was getting hot and bothered.

Also, I think I've already defined the fundamentalism of the 1920s. These men and women who believed the fundamentals of the faith were IN the denominations. They banded together across denominational lines to defend the fundamentals of the faith. Separation wasn't even on the radar screen at the time.

Today, modern fundamentalists have elevated separation to a fundamental, if not the highest fundamental. Whole lists are developed in the various so-called fundamental institutions that identify who one can fellowship with without compromising and therefore becoming a new evangelical.

My point is that there is a large section made up of historic fundamentalists and alleged "conservative evangelicals" that carry on the banner of historic fundamentalism and fellowship across denominational lines. This clearly is not the fundamentalism of NBBC, MBBC, PBBC, BJU, etc. which separates over minor doctrinal issues such as dispensationalism, pre-trib rapture, music styles, KJV preference, etc.

 

[Bro. James]

That such a doctrine(closed communion) has been practiced by Catholicism for centuries is still evident in their faith and practice--that should be sufficient historical proof of existence.(I do not bow to the Holy See; I am just pointing out the historicity of "closed communion".)

That such was practiced prior to Nicea can be gleaned from scripture: one loaf, one body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism--all meaningless with the teaching of universal visible/invisible church.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Here is a question.Is there any truly Biblical fundamentalist recognizable organisation(in the historic sense)around today?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Here is a question.Is there any truly Biblical fundamentalist recognizable organisation(in the historic sense)around today?

Considering that it is almost 100 years since "The Fundamentals," the social and religious scene has changed completely. I'm going to have to ponder on this one, Bill.

We have a Japanese Thanksgiving celebration today with our sister church. Going to be busy! Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, everyone.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Paul33:


John, I didn't think I was getting hot and bothered.

Also, I think I've already defined the fundamentalism of the 1920s. These men and women who believed the fundamentals of the faith were IN the denominations. They banded together across denominational lines to defend the fundamentals of the faith. Separation wasn't even on the radar screen at the time.

Today, modern fundamentalists have elevated separation to a fundamental, if not the highest fundamental. Whole lists are developed in the various so-called fundamental institutions that identify who one can fellowship with without compromising and therefore becoming a new evangelical.

My point is that there is a large section made up of historic fundamentalists and alleged "conservative evangelicals" that carry on the banner of historic fundamentalism and fellowship across denominational lines. This clearly is not the fundamentalism of NBBC, MBBC, PBBC, BJU, etc. which separates over minor doctrinal issues such as dispensationalism, pre-trib rapture, music styles, KJV preference, etc.

Hot and bothered? Of course not! Not with statements like "extreme and bitter separation." I'm going to call you on some things here.

(1) Please give historical evidence of this supposed bitterness by Fundamentalists in the early days. Try to do it without using the typical whipping boys of J. Frank Norris and Carl McIntyre. I say those men were the exceptions not the rule, and I can give historical evidence.

(2) Give proof that Fundamentalists have elevated separatism to a fundamental. Got any doctrinal statements to quote? Got a reference to one of those lists of who to separate from that you are talking about?

Gotta go, or I'd have more questions.

 

[Paul33]

John, you are really showing your ignorance here.

NBBC won't send music groups to churches that are part of the BGC, even though most of these churches are "fundamental" in doctrine.

Read NBBC doctrinal statement to discover their "doctrinal" stand on separation.

The bitterness that existed between two fundamentalists, John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Sr. should be enough to prove that fundamentalists separated from each other, and when they did so, they were often bitter and extreme!

John, you know better.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Again, it goes to how you parse the phrase I quoted above. We can properly state most folks referred to in this discussion Stand for the Truth. The problem arises in how a person defines and practices Standing against error.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Paul33:
John, you are really showing your ignorance here.

NBBC won't send music groups to churches that are part of the BGC, even though most of these churches are "fundamental" in doctrine.

Read NBBC doctrinal statement to discover their "doctrinal" stand on separation.

The bitterness that existed between two fundamentalists, John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Sr. should be enough to prove that fundamentalists separated from each other, and when they did so, they were often bitter and extreme!

John, you know better.

Please look again, Paul. I am looking for the history of the "early days" here. The 1970's may be "early days" to you, but it is part of my adult life.

I want historical evidence of the so-called bitter spirit that supposedly characterized the Fundamentalists of the 1920s-1930s. Bob Jones Jr. was a little boy and John R. Rice was doing tent evangelism and starting SBC churches as a fresh young evangelist in Texas. (And by the way, the bitterness there was one-sided. John R. Rice was not bitter about Jones, but sad. After Jones started the personal attacks, Rice never again wrote articles about the problem or discussed it in public.)

As for NBBC making ecclesiastical separation a fundamental, I'll check it out. I admit that having been in Japan for 24 years there is a lot I don't know about American religion. However, I'll say in advance that I don't think one example will prove your point. I'm also going to look at the doctrinal statements of many fundamental institutions.

 

[Paul33]

John, you are proving my point.

Historically, fundamentalists of the 20s did not have a bitter spirit towards each other. They banded together across denominational lines. That's my point.

Today's fundamentalism separates not only across denominational lines but within ecclesiastical streams (independent fundamental baptists separting from Baptist General Conference baptists).

The only "issue" causing the separation, in most cases, is not a difference in doctrine or practice, but merely because one baptist church is in the BGC and the other is not.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Paul33:
John, you are proving my point.

Historically, fundamentalists of the 20s did not have a bitter spirit towards each other. They banded together across denominational lines. That's my point.

Today's fundamentalism separates not only across denominational lines but within ecclesiastical streams (independent fundamental baptists separting from Baptist General Conference baptists).

The only "issue" causing the separation, in most cases, is not a difference in doctrine or practice, but merely because one baptist church is in the BGC and the other is not.

Really, Paul, you must read your own posts! Your original post on this thread said, "Historic fundamentalism didn't really hold to separation. They originally tried to regain control of their denominations without separating! It was only after some of the fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations that they 'elevated' separation to the level of a 'fundamental.' New evangelicals (and many who were/are not) reacted to this extreme and bitter separation by not wanting to identify with this new expression of fundamentalism."

When do you think it actually happened that some Fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations? (Not to mention those who were forced out by the liberals and moderates, which issue you have never addressed) The same Fundamentalists who hung together so nicely in fighting liberalism were out much earlier than you seem to think.

The Baptist Bible Union was formed in 1923. Machen left Princeton Seminary and helped found the Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. Machen was then defrocked in 1934 and helped start the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936.

These early Fundamentalist separatists have been slandered as being mean-spirited and nasty people. They were not. They were noble men of God who stood for the truth of the Word of God against liberalism and suffered the consequences.

I ask you again to give me an example of an early separatist Fundamentalist who was "extreme and bitter" (your words) in his separation. There were exceptions such as McIntyre and Norris--I admit that. But there have been such people in every movement. The example of a few does not negate the movement.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Here is a question.Is there any truly Biblical fundamentalist recognizable organisation(in the historic sense)around today?

Bill, I'm still thinking about this. To give credit where credit is due, Paul33 has really stimulated my thinking and I'm doing lots of research right now. Of course Paul may want to deny any knowledge of my presence!

To give a preliminary answer to this question, I am with Squire in that I don't think it is possible to make direct parallels. However, I believe I can say what organizations are NOT Fundamentalist in the historic sense. Any organization nowadays that has added or subracted from the original fundamentals as described in the original series of pamphlets with that name, is not historic fundamentalist, IMO.

In particular, any Fundamentalist organization which has added the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture to their doctrinal statement (however they state it) is not Fundamentalist, IMHO. Likewise, any evangelical organization which adds social action to their doctrinal statement, or by the same token adheres to the Laussanne (sp?) Covenant which does so, is not an heir to the original Fundamentalists. Change your doctrinal stand and you change your emphases.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
John, you are proving my point.

Historically, fundamentalists of the 20s did not have a bitter spirit towards each other. They banded together across denominational lines. That's my point.

Today's fundamentalism separates not only across denominational lines but within ecclesiastical streams (independent fundamental baptists separting from Baptist General Conference baptists).

The only "issue" causing the separation, in most cases, is not a difference in doctrine or practice, but merely because one baptist church is in the BGC and the other is not.

Really, Paul, you must read your own posts! Your original post on this thread said, "Historic fundamentalism didn't really hold to separation. They originally tried to regain control of their denominations without separating! It was only after some of the fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations that they 'elevated' separation to the level of a 'fundamental.' New evangelicals (and many who were/are not) reacted to this extreme and bitter separation by not wanting to identify with this new expression of fundamentalism."

When do you think it actually happened that some Fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations? (Not to mention those who were forced out by the liberals and moderates, which issue you have never addressed) The same Fundamentalists who hung together so nicely in fighting liberalism were out much earlier than you seem to think.

The Baptist Bible Union was formed in 1923. Machen left Princeton Seminary and helped found the Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. Machen was then defrocked in 1934 and helped start the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936.

These early Fundamentalist separatists have been slandered as being mean-spirited and nasty people. They were not. They were noble men of God who stood for the truth of the Word of God against liberalism and suffered the consequences.

I ask you again to give me an example of an early separatist Fundamentalist who was "extreme and bitter" (your words) in his separation. There were exceptions such as McIntyre and Norris--I admit that. But there have been such people in every movement. The example of a few does not negate the movement. </font>[/QUOTE]John, I think that we are in agreement on this point!

Machen and others who were forced out didn't separate willingly.

There were others who left on their own and then became antagonistic towards those who didn't separate.

But by the time Ockenga coined the term neo-evangelical, the rhetoric was getting quite loud. Separation from those who didn't separate became the rallying cry.

Today, missionaries who served with the CBA Foreign Mission Board are ostracized from their relatives for being under the banner of the CBA.

Sad, really sad. NBBC is one of the leading culprits along with BJU, etc.

Again, John, I think we agree. The early fundamentalists were not bitter. But by the 40s and 50s there was a lot of bitterness. This attitude of separating from others over percieved association with new evangelicals extends into the modern day fundamentalist movement as represented by NBBC.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Originally posted by Paul33:

John, I think that we are in agreement on this point!

Machen and others who were forced out didn't separate willingly.

There were others who left on their own and then became antagonistic towards those who didn't separate.

But by the time Ockenga coined the term neo-evangelical, the rhetoric was getting quite loud. Separation from those who didn't separate became the rallying cry.

Today, missionaries who served with the CBA Foreign Mission Board are ostracized from their relatives for being under the banner of the CBA.

Sad, really sad. NBBC is one of the leading culprits along with BJU, etc.

Again, John, I think we agree. The early fundamentalists were not bitter. But by the 40s and 50s there was a lot of bitterness. This attitude of separating from others over percieved association with new evangelicals extends into the modern day fundamentalist movement as represented by NBBC.

Well, Paul, I think we agree to a degree until we agree to disagree.

Seriously, we do agree somewhat. However, there is a hitch. You said that the early Fundamentalists were not separatists, and one faction only became separatists later. Frankly, when this thread started I had not made up my mind about that. Honest!

However, the more research I do the more I am convinced that the early Fundamentalists were indeed separatists. The truth is, I can't find a single scholar who says they were not, and 4 or 5 who say they were! And think about it. If they opposed modernism/liberalism so strongly, they wanted the liberals out of their denominations, didn't they? That's separatism.

Concerning Machen, look again at the dates up above. Machen first withdrew, separated if you will, from Princeton to found Westminster. Then after that his denomination separated from him. Ouch!

Now here is a place where I've come to agree with you, when I hadn't thought much of it before. As you say, there was a faction of Fundamentalists who left or were kicked out of their denominations. They stayed separatist. Then there was a faction that stayed in their denominations. This faction ceased being separatists. However, unfortunately my research says in most cases that the major motive for this was simply denominational loyalty. Two historical examples of this are missionary to China Jonathan Goforth, and N. Baptist J. C. Masee.

I've come to realize there was a third group of early Fundamentalists which were already in a way separatists. This group is the evangelicals who had already started a non-denominational movement dating to the Bible conferences of the late 19th cent., working through Bible institutes such as Moody and Biola.

"And that's our news for today. Goodnight from Japan."

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Here is a question.Is there any truly Biblical fundamentalist recognizable organisation(in the historic sense)around today?

Bill, I've decided I'm not qualified to answer this, due to having been in Japan too long. I really don't know what is going on in the States in such organizations as the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship or Southwide Baptist Fellowship, or most Fundamentalist colleges. All I can say is, I do believe Baptist World Mission is staying true to the original Fundamentalist principles.

Here is something extremely ironic, though. As has been pointed out on another thread, Norm Geisler, one of the founding members of the Evangelical Theological Society, has withdrawn (separated!) from the society over the decision to allow Clark Pinnock and his heresies to stay in!! And Geisler was one of the original New Evangelicals!! It's deja vu all over again, and back we go to the '20's!