My Theory Of Fundamentalism/History: Dynamic, Not Static, Definition

Ephesians 5
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

This theory is based on the concept of "purifications". Which I made up as a logical conclusion of Ephesians 5:26: God further purifies the church in some ways when it is by the Word, hence simply an older purification of does not apply anymore.

A purification consists of: Either a Holy Spirit or Biblical application to a previous impure (or less pure) thing. Usually triggered by a more complete understanding of the Word, for example, once before, not all books of the Bible were in the same place. The collection of 66 books (based on Isaiah's 66 chapters) was in itself a purification, as finally a complete word is available in one place. The Reformation was a partial purification of history, as was the Great Awakenings, etc. Purifications are not perfect, but they make whatever impure thing beforehand, more pure.

The "old" (more correctly, a previous purification) definition of Fundamentalism:
Fundamentalism is based on Fundamentals of the Faith derived from the Word: virgin birth, resurrection

Pros:
More Christians (non-Baptist and otherwise) can identify with this fundamentalism

Cons:
Used by many to hearken to some nostalgic old days of fundamentalism which I think is misguided.
(I believe that the notion "older is better" to be greatly overrated in some contexts)
Corrupt translations and such attack the Bible in that it is possible those fundamentals can be lost in the translated text.

More recent accepted definition (more recent purification) of Fundamentalism:
Fundamentals based on and about a defined Word: KJV Only-ism

Pros:
Would explain why Fundamentalism isn't about the Fundamentals of the Faith anymore, but the KJV.
It is a fundamentalism more fundamental than the older definition as it is about a fundamental defining fundamentals.
Add more prophetic fulfillment to bolster the case of the KJV, in addition to Ecclesiastes word of the king, Psalms seven purifications [1], Jeremiah wicked king pattern, etc.

Cons:
Critics would argue that fundamentalism is only based on the older pointed out fundamentals of the faith. (But then they don't understand this dynamic theory of fundamentalism)

Why is this a correct purification and hence, why KJV-based Fundamentalism should be the definition of Fundamentalism today instead of the older one based on Fundamentals?:
We derive the "Fundamentals of the Faith" from the Fundamental of the Faith, which is the Bible.
Why? The Bible is the only definitive and objective resource we have of revelation.

Hence, the core fundamental of the Bible instead of assuming that the fundamentals of the faith is assumed.
The Bible talking about the Bible is meta and can be used to identify which version is the Word of God.
If there is no definitive Word of God, there are no "Fundamentals of the Faith", as translations do attack the fundamentals by omission or changes.
The King James Bible is the best candidate for a definitive Word of God as supported by many holistic points.
(Point may be argued elsewhere)

Also, Ephesians 5 ties back to the Word purifying, hence, the definition must define the Word of God.

Hence, that is why the definition of Fundamentalism (early 20th century Fundamentalism) is outdated, and the later definition (KJV-based Fundamentalism) be accepted.

Samuel Garcia [2]
The Independent Funny Baptist


Footnotes
---
1 Also, the theory of purifications can be applied to the KJV itself, in the aforementioned Psalms seven purifications prophecy, ie the seven English translations that resulted into the King James version. Which is why the KJV is superior to the Geneva, Tyndale, etc. the older English versions it was built on.

The theory of purifications can also be applied to Dispensationalism and Pre-Millenialism, to defeat the "historical church" argument. History is not the judge of doctrine, it is the Bible, hence Dispensationalism is a purification, as well as Pre-Millenialism, as both are a result of an application of the Bible to the Bible.

2 Also, I never codified this until now, but it's been swimming in my head for the past year, and I thought it would be best to write it down here instead of a piece of paper.