What makes a "good" fundamentalist?

Have you ever heard the song "the Old Time religion" it's good enough for me!

The answer to your question is YES!

 

While I do agree that contending/defending the faith was not written as one of the fundamentals, it certainly was a key characteristic of the early fundamentalist movement and not just an adumbration of the modern movement. Had they not stood where they did 100 years ago, we would be down the tubes today. It is not enough to just believe the truth, but we must be willing to stand and defend it as well.

 

Adam,

Worldly contemporary music is not characteristic of fundamental, separated believers. However, just because someone might listen to worldly music it does not necessarily mean they are not a fundamentalist.

Of course continuing to listen to such music might indicates a trend or change of thinking and ultimately position, leading away from fundamentalism. The New Evangelical movement of the 1940s-today is a spirit of compromise that has resulted in many Christians departing from the fundamentalist movement. Much of it began with subtle compromise in areas of belief and practice.

Our goal as believers should not be to see how close to the edge of compromise we can walk and still be fundamentists, but rather how we can be fully committed to God and his holiness. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate...let us cleanse ourselves from all filtiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."

 

It is just as dangerous to walk too far to the right as it is to walk too far to the left.

Listening to contemporary music has nothing to do with adhering to the fundamentals nor with being fully committed to God.

 

SBC,

Are you saying that by walking too far to the right is wrong? Since when is being closer to God wrong? God's standards are steadfast, unmovable. Man's ways are what move away from God. How can one safely stand in the middle if the left is constantly moving away? This pulls the median farther away from God.

And music has everything to do with adhering to the fundamentals. Are we listening to please God or to please ourselves? Just by the few statements about being too far to the right is in itself a sign of falling away from fundamentalism.

 

First, KJVOnlyism is neither Baptist nor fundamental... and it certainly shows a level of group-think that contradicts any notion of "independent". You can't even call it separate since it was formulated by a 7th Day Adventist. If any Bible were going to be the fundamentalist Bible, it would have to be the NASB- translated by conservative, fundamental evangelical believers who signed a statement affirming inerrancy.

Second, music is a difficult issue for me. I avoid CCM because the style is lends itself more to an "eros" type of love more than an "agape" type of love. The artists also seem to be more "professional" and worldly than godly. I believe there is a fairly broad gray area in CCM as far as the quality of the music is concerned but my personal conviction is to remain guarded.

[ January 14, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Yes. Case and point: Pharisees
Paul battled both liscentiousness and legalism.

Being closer to God is not equal to walking as far to the right as possible. Your analogy is faulty. There are people who are much "closer to God" than me who are to the "left" of me on certain issues.

But ours are not.

Can you point me to which of the 5 basic fundamentals has to do with whether I prefer hymns or choruses?

There is a seperate thread that deals with the inherent dangers of fundamentalism. I think you can see one of its greatest threats displayed in your thoughts and words.

 

Pharisees are often pointed to as wrong, which they were. But to compare Pharisees to those on the far right is wrong also. Pharisees were not saved. They were living in the traditions of men. When a person is walking to the right, he is not a Pharisee, as you are incorrect in making this comparison. Paul also told us how to walk a separated life and to live apart from the world. He taught us how to be a peculiar people, and what Holiness is. Many prefer to be called close to God, but will not choose to do that which is right in His eyes. They would rather choose to do what they "feel" is right.

The only point you made was that your standards are moveable, and this I had already pointed out. There is also a thread on the greatest threats to Fundamentalists, some points you should look into.

 

Dr. Bob,

How can these possibly be fundamentalist distinctives when these five things, and even the sixth, could be applied to even Roman Catholics (obviously they add to the above)?

Roman Catholics:

1. Believe in the inspiration of scripture.
2. Believe in the virgin birth.
3. Believe in the vicarious atonement.
4. Believe in a bodily resurrection.
5. Believe Jesus is coming again.
6. Defend and fight for their faith.

Jason

 

Branch:

In your flow of reasoning (or lack thereof), anyone to the right of you is "closer to God" than you are. That being the case, I hope that you have traded in the Ford for a horse and carriage. If not, the Amish have "out-holied" you

And you are right, since I am a fallible & finite human, my "standards" must be constantly evaluated in light of the unchanging truth of the text. And unless you are still wearing robes or a tunic, your standards are different than previous generations as well.

Essential truth never changes. "Standards" (a very subjective term at best) are in constant flux.

A pendulum that swings too far to the right is just as "out of balance" as one that swings too far to the left.

No one is arguing against holiness, etc. The simple point is that legalism is as dangerous a threat as liscentiousness.

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by the "right."

 

Dear Adam,
I agree with what you are saying. I am a fundamentalist. Absolutely, AND my preferred version of the Bible is the NIV. I love the old hymns (hey I am 43, almost 44) but I also enjoy the Newsboys, 4 Him, and other comtemporary Gospel musicians.
The 5 (or 6) fundamentals are what really could and should seperate over. I am looking forward to a reply to the post about Roman Catholism being fundamental. My response is that the big draw back for the RCC is the vicarious atonement. Our atonement can ONLY come through the blood of CHrist. I grew up in a community almost entirely of RCCers and and extended family of mostly Catholics. The practice of their faith was very much tied to works (loosely put), attending mass and confession mostly, and not the blood of Christ. I do sincerely believe that there are born-again Roman Catholics, I know some personally, but not many. Mark

 

A good fundamentalist? Isn't that a oxymoron?

 

Refreshed asked

I'm not Dr. Bob, but I will answer the question. It must be understood that the five fundamentals were set forth within a particular historical context and in response to specific problems that had arisen in the church because of liberalism. Theological liberalism, in the 1920s in the US was, in short, a denial of the supernatural. Liberalism was the product of theologians who thought that science was going to disprove the Bible by showing that the stories in it were false and that the solutions for man's problems were in the natural realm, not the supernatural.
They denied supernatural miracles in the Bible, They denied the supernatural writing of the Bible (inspiration), they denied that Jesus would literally return to earth and personally intervene in human history again. Against the denial of the supernatural, fundamentalists affirmed the supernatural and set forth the five fundamentals; all of which are affirmations of the supernatural.

Thus, fundamentalists in the 1920s responded with a list of supernatural events which one must affirm. However, fundamentalism is not just a list and fundamentalists did more than make a list. They acted. Their act was to declare that liberalism was not Christianity at all (cf. J. Gresham Machen) and to separate from it.

I conclude that in our day, a fundamentalist is not just one who affirms certain doctrines but is willing to seperate even from other believers because he intends to see that true Christianity is passed onto the next generation in the purest form possible.

 

That too

 

I believe worship is to be done in truth and spirit. I do not see where Hymms are more truthful or spiritual than coruses or praise songs.
The KJV was translated about 400 years ago. Correct me if I am wrong, but the english language has changed tremendously in that time frame. Even our understanding of certain words which are still around has changed dramatically. I cannot see where either of these items interfere with fundamentalism. Then again as my 70+ year old father in law puts it if it was good enough for King James, it is good enough for me....

 

Hi Hedied4you;
The word fundamentalist is not about songs it's about following the fundamentals of scripture.I use the KJV and I consider my self a fundamentalist..I also use about 10 other versions mostly because the people whom I talk with use different versions. So I also use them in order to have continuity when discussing the Bible with them. I could go into why I think the KJV is best but this has all been argued so much that I found that those who use the newer versions wouldn't agree anyway.So why argue about anymore.The fundamentals of scripture can't be followed absolutely without accuracy and the newer versions in my opinion are not accurate.Most fundamentalist feel that the KJV is the most accurate and this is why they don't think you are a fundamentalist.No insult intended but I agree with them.
Romanbear
Peace

 

Hey Romanbear, Haven't seen you around much lately?

I have to challenge the claim you make above. Do you have a survey or something to support this claim?

Indeed, I might agree that among "fundamentalists" who let their "feelings" determine their beliefs, most favor the KJV. However this poses a problem. A genuine fundamentalist knows why he believes what he believes- To rely on "feelings" is the antithesis of fundamentalism.

I hope you won't be offended either but I would need more than conjecture to be convinced. Most of the people who think the KJV is pre-requisite for being a fundamentalist are only fundamentalists in the extreme margin themselves... if at all.