Fundamentalism... what it is

[FSSL]

I am committed to historic fundamentalism. It is an ideology and I hold to its tenets, just in case some of you were wondering.

Now, I am NOT what many of you are, but I am certain I am not alone. This is why I am starting this thread. "What sets fundamentalism apart from other ideas?" "What are the bare essentials of fundamentalism?"

--Some believe it is an ideology that means you stand on the KJV as the exclusive word of God.
--Some believe it is an ideology that is a subset of being Baptist.
--Some say it is an ideology that means you separate.

If you study the various confessions, you will probably be surprised.
--Fundamentalism belongs to no particular denomination. It has included Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and Episcopalians.
--Fundamentalism rejected the idea that the KJV is the exclusive word of God.
--Fundamentalism separates, but it separated on entirely different basis than the modern fundamentalist (i.e., not able to have Bruce Ware speak at your college).

Fundamentalism is really a commitment to the word of God against Modernism.
--The Niagara Bible Conference, 1878, had a 14 point confession.
--The Presbyterians, in 1910, had a 5 point confession.

There are multiple confessions that lay out the doctrinal positions of various fundamentalists. So, my approach to understanding "fundamentalism" is to compare the above confessions and find the common denominators.

The Niagara Bible Conference confession is more strict and includes the idea of having to be a premillinealist. Though I am, I do not view that as a defining tenet because other fundamentalists are not premillineal.

Here is a good graphic which illustrates the key points that are important to any fundamentalist.

 

[pastorryanhayden]

I'm reading "4 Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism today" (on vacation) and I find Bauder's view compelling.  I'd say its a commitment to biblical separation from anyone who denies the gospel (or a doctrine foundational to it) carried out consistently.  I do not believe for an instant that the only fundamentalists are self-identified fundamentalists.

 

[FSSL]

I'm reading "4 Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism today" (on vacation) and I find Bauder's view compelling.  I'd say its a commitment to biblical separation from anyone who denies the gospel (or a doctrine foundational to it) carried out consistently.  I do not believe for an instant that the only fundamentalists are self-identified fundamentalists.

Hmm... I should read that, myself. I am not much of a Bauder fan, but will certainly read that.

 

[rsc2a]

I'm reading "4 Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism today" (on vacation) and I find Bauder's view compelling.  I'd say its a commitment to biblical separation from anyone who denies the gospel (or a doctrine foundational to it) carried out consistently.  I do not believe for an instant that the only fundamentalists are self-identified fundamentalists.

"biblical separation" - What is that?
"the gospel" - What is that?
"doctrine foundation to [the gospel]" - What are those?


I don't ask this to be snarky. Many people have differing ideas about each of these topics, so a definition that uses those words needs to be clear what is meant by said words.

 

[rsc2a]

I tend to go with the five points from 1910 along with an acceptance of the three/four ecumenical creeds (on either side of the filioque clause) and the solas as a simple definition for historical fundamentalism.

It's amazing what would not fall under "historical fundamentalism" along with what would based on this.

Edited to add: I have seen different phrasings for point #1 in the 1910 list. Some I would agree with, others not so much (at least not with caveats).

 

[FSSL]

I tend to go with the five points from 1910 along with an acceptance of the three ecumenical creeds (on either side of the filioque clause) and the solas as a simple definition for historical fundamentalism.

It's amazing what would not fall under "historical fundamentalism" along with what would based on this.

I agree.

Defining fundamentalism too strictly will create issues where there really are none. The 1950's controversy in the Conservative Baptist Association was about "premillinealism" and people split over that. It is admitted, by a few voices today, that hanging onto premillinealism as a defining characteristic of fundamentalism was excessive.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=FSSL]I agree.

Defining fundamentalism too strictly will create issues where there really are none. The 1950's controversy in the Conservative Baptist Association was about "premillinealism" and people split over that. It is admitted, by a few voices today, that hanging onto premillinealism as a defining characteristic of fundamentalism was excessive.[/quote]

Or...*cough, cough*...the first couple chapters of the Bible.

 

[pastorryanhayden]

I'm reading "4 Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism today" (on vacation) and I find Bauder's view compelling.  I'd say its a commitment to biblical separation from anyone who denies the gospel (or a doctrine foundational to it) carried out consistently.  I do not believe for an instant that the only fundamentalists are self-identified fundamentalists.

"biblical separation" - What is that?
"the gospel" - What is that?
"doctrine foundation to [the gospel]" - What are those?


I don't ask this to be snarky. Many people have differing ideas about each of these topics, so a definition that uses those words needs to be clear what is meant by said words.

Biblical separation - Romans 16:17, 2 John, Jude 3 etc.  A marking, avoiding and denial of fellowship to those who deny the gospel and a contending for orthodox doctrine and practice.
The gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the justification of repentant, believing sinners
Foundational doctrines - any doctrinal change that undermines the person of Christ or the authority of scripture.

That's my take on it.

 

[FSSL]

Or...*cough, cough*...the first couple chapters of the Bible.

As much as I want to ban you evolutionists from this forum forever! I must admit... you are correct

 

[rsc2a]

I'm reading "4 Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism today" (on vacation) and I find Bauder's view compelling.  I'd say its a commitment to biblical separation from anyone who denies the gospel (or a doctrine foundational to it) carried out consistently.  I do not believe for an instant that the only fundamentalists are self-identified fundamentalists.

"biblical separation" - What is that?
"the gospel" - What is that?
"doctrine foundation to [the gospel]" - What are those?


I don't ask this to be snarky. Many people have differing ideas about each of these topics, so a definition that uses those words needs to be clear what is meant by said words.

Biblical separation - Romans 16:17, 2 John, Jude 3 etc.  A marking, avoiding and denial of fellowship to those who deny the gospel and a contending for orthodox doctrine and practice.
The gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the justification of repentant, believing sinners
Foundational doctrines - any doctrinal change that undermines the person of Christ or the authority of scripture.

That's my take on it.

In order to avoid sidetracking the thread, I'll just say that you have a very large tent you call "fundamentalist".

 

[pastorryanhayden]

I'm reading "4 Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism today" (on vacation) and I find Bauder's view compelling.  I'd say its a commitment to biblical separation from anyone who denies the gospel (or a doctrine foundational to it) carried out consistently.  I do not believe for an instant that the only fundamentalists are self-identified fundamentalists.

"biblical separation" - What is that?
"the gospel" - What is that?
"doctrine foundation to [the gospel]" - What are those?


I don't ask this to be snarky. Many people have differing ideas about each of these topics, so a definition that uses those words needs to be clear what is meant by said words.

Biblical separation - Romans 16:17, 2 John, Jude 3 etc.  A marking, avoiding and denial of fellowship to those who deny the gospel and a contending for orthodox doctrine and practice.
The gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the justification of repentant, believing sinners
Foundational doctrines - any doctrinal change that undermines the person of Christ or the authority of scripture.

That's my take on it.

In order to avoid sidetracking the thread, I'll just say that you have a very large tent you call "fundamentalist".

Agreed. 

It's my understanding of Fundamentalist history that fundamentalism and evangelicalism were once synonyms (and still are in other parts of the world) and that it wasn't until the late 50s and early 60s when some evangelicals decided to distance themselves from fundamentalists.  I don't think it's fair to assume that all those who are self-identified evangelicals have left the fundamentalist ideal. 

So yes.  It's a pretty big tent, and there are a lot of people in it who probably don't even want the label.

 

[Reformed Guy]

[quote author=FSSL]I agree.

Defining fundamentalism too strictly will create issues where there really are none. The 1950's controversy in the Conservative Baptist Association was about "premillinealism" and people split over that. It is admitted, by a few voices today, that hanging onto premillinealism as a defining characteristic of fundamentalism was excessive.

Or...*cough, cough*...the first couple chapters of the Bible.
[/quote]

The difference here is the issue of Authority, and it's a mighty big difference.

Three men could have a very similar high view of the authority of scripture and one could be a premillenaliast, another an amillenialist and the third (the correct one) a postmillenialist.  None of them have necessarily called scripture's authority into question.

That is not nearly the same as the guy who wants to trump the creation account of Genesis 1&2 with the spurious claims of evolution.

 

[rsc2a]

I'm reading "4 Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism today" (on vacation) and I find Bauder's view compelling.  I'd say its a commitment to biblical separation from anyone who denies the gospel (or a doctrine foundational to it) carried out consistently.  I do not believe for an instant that the only fundamentalists are self-identified fundamentalists.

"biblical separation" - What is that?
"the gospel" - What is that?
"doctrine foundation to [the gospel]" - What are those?


I don't ask this to be snarky. Many people have differing ideas about each of these topics, so a definition that uses those words needs to be clear what is meant by said words.

Biblical separation - Romans 16:17, 2 John, Jude 3 etc.  A marking, avoiding and denial of fellowship to those who deny the gospel and a contending for orthodox doctrine and practice.
The gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the justification of repentant, believing sinners
Foundational doctrines - any doctrinal change that undermines the person of Christ or the authority of scripture.

That's my take on it.

In order to avoid sidetracking the thread, I'll just say that you have a very large tent you call "fundamentalist".

Agreed. 

It's my understanding of Fundamentalist history that fundamentalism and evangelicalism were once synonyms (and still are in other parts of the world) and that it wasn't until the late 50s and early 60s when some evangelicals decided to distance themselves from fundamentalists.  I don't think it's fair to assume that all those who are self-identified evangelicals have left the fundamentalist ideal. 

So yes.  It's a pretty big tent, and there are a lot of people in it who probably don't even want the label.

Pretty big? It would include every group that acknowledges the ecumenical creeds.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=FSSL]I agree.

Defining fundamentalism too strictly will create issues where there really are none. The 1950's controversy in the Conservative Baptist Association was about "premillinealism" and people split over that. It is admitted, by a few voices today, that hanging onto premillinealism as a defining characteristic of fundamentalism was excessive.

Or...*cough, cough*...the first couple chapters of the Bible.

The difference here is the issue of Authority, and it's a mighty big difference.

Three men could have a very similar high view of the authority of scripture and one could be a premillenaliast, another an amillenialist and the third (the correct one) a postmillenialist.  None of them have necessarily called scripture's authority into question.

That is not nearly the same as the guy who wants to trump the creation account of Genesis 1&2 with the spurious claims of evolution.[/quote]

Yes. It's exactly like that.  :-X

 

[FSSL]

That is not nearly the same as the guy who wants to trump the creation account of Genesis 1&2 with the spurious claims of evolution.

My gut wants that so bad... I wish there was a clear, definitive position on creation that has been held by fundamentalists in incontrovertible terms.

However, even our fundamentalist fathers, of the past, held to what is now considered evolutionary thought. If a person denied the "image of God in man," that was the fundamental touchstone which came from Genesis 1-2.

Evolution/Creationism "reconciliations," Theistic Evolution, Gaps, Reconstruction and such found many adherents in fundamentalism.

 

[pastorryanhayden]

I'm reading "4 Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism today" (on vacation) and I find Bauder's view compelling.  I'd say its a commitment to biblical separation from anyone who denies the gospel (or a doctrine foundational to it) carried out consistently.  I do not believe for an instant that the only fundamentalists are self-identified fundamentalists.

"biblical separation" - What is that?
"the gospel" - What is that?
"doctrine foundation to [the gospel]" - What are those?


I don't ask this to be snarky. Many people have differing ideas about each of these topics, so a definition that uses those words needs to be clear what is meant by said words.

Biblical separation - Romans 16:17, 2 John, Jude 3 etc.  A marking, avoiding and denial of fellowship to those who deny the gospel and a contending for orthodox doctrine and practice.
The gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the justification of repentant, believing sinners
Foundational doctrines - any doctrinal change that undermines the person of Christ or the authority of scripture.

That's my take on it.

In order to avoid sidetracking the thread, I'll just say that you have a very large tent you call "fundamentalist".

Agreed. 

It's my understanding of Fundamentalist history that fundamentalism and evangelicalism were once synonyms (and still are in other parts of the world) and that it wasn't until the late 50s and early 60s when some evangelicals decided to distance themselves from fundamentalists.  I don't think it's fair to assume that all those who are self-identified evangelicals have left the fundamentalist ideal. 

So yes.  It's a pretty big tent, and there are a lot of people in it who probably don't even want the label.

Pretty big? It would include every group that acknowledges the ecumenical creeds.

To that I would disagree on the grounds of point 3.  I would say the denial absolute authority of scripture is a doctrine that undermines the gospel (which would exclude Roman Catholicism which puts the papacy and church tradition on par with the Bible) , I would say adding anything to the gospel (i.e. the sacraments) is a foundational doctrine to the gospel.  I would say that denial of every nearly every miracle in scripture is a foundational doctrinal error. (And ones that change the nature of Christ.)

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=pastorryanhayden]To that I would disagree on the grounds of point 3.  I would say the denial absolute authority of scripture is a doctrine that undermines the gospel (which would exclude Roman Catholicism which puts the papacy and church tradition on par with the Bible) , I would say adding anything to the gospel (i.e. the sacraments) is a foundational doctrine to the gospel.  I would say that denial of every nearly every miracle in scripture is a foundational doctrinal error. (And ones that change the nature of Christ.)[/quote]

In order not to sidetrack the thread, I will only say that: Regarding your first two examples, you should really read Catholic writings to understand Catholic theology. What you stated above isn't in line with anything that the Catholic Church teaches. And your third point makes absolutely no sense for someone that would profess an agreeance with the creeds.

If you want to start a thread to discuss these, I'll happily go into more detail.