1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Definition: "Fundamentalist"

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 19, 2004.

Top Posters
  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is much confusion over this term (and cognate "extreme fundamentalist" and "pseudo-fundamentalist").

    Keep this focused on CHRISTIAN fundamentalism and leave the Ayatollah for another discussion!

    Please share:
    Definitions and practical applications (like what doctrines/people fit in what category).
     
    #1 Dr. Bob, Aug 19, 2004
  2. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Adherents to Niagara and the 'Fundamentals'

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #2 Matt Black, Aug 20, 2004
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is that all?

    We have the historic fundamentals:
    Inspiration of the Bible in the original documents
    Virgin Birth of Christ
    Vicarious Atonement
    Bodily Resurrection
    Second Coming

    But somewhere SEPARATION from liberalism/modernism was the motivating factor for all those guys.

    Do we add that as a 6th fundamental?
     
    #3 Dr. Bob, Aug 20, 2004
  4. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    I adhere to those 5 fundamentals.

    This whole separation thing is new to me -- I never heard of it before coming to the BB, and only in the last week or so. Of course, I have no past or association with official Fundamentalist churches, so I guess that's why.
     
    #4 Marcia, Aug 20, 2004
  5. Optamill

    Optamill New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob,

    I'm not so sure that separation, in the sense it is used by modern Fundamentalists, was the motivation for the authors of the Fundamentals.
     
    #5 Optamill, Aug 20, 2004
  6. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    "Do we add that as a 6th fundamental?"

    No we should not!!

    But, unfortunately I think many "fundamentalists" already have. I absolutely believe all the 5 fundamentals but am still called a liberal by lots of IFB types because I favor critical bible study.

    "Fundamentalist" has become a pejorative term to many becuase it has come to be associated with those who eschew learning and scholarship.
     
    #6 Charles Meadows, Aug 20, 2004
  7. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    While the fundamentals are the beliefs of the fundamentalist, separation has historically been the mode that marks the fundamentalist. Those who adhered to the fundamentals in the 20s ultimately left their respective denominations when they went liberal. Their adherence to the fundamentals required them to take action consistent with their belief and separate.

    When new-evangelicalism arose in the 50s, new-"e"s and fundys separated from each other. Both held to the fundamentals in doctrine, but the fundamentalists said "we cannot co-operate with others who do not hold the fundamentals". Again, the act of separating is what set the fundamentalists apart.

    Today, fundamentalists ARE NOT unanimous in their definition of separation and not all practice it the same way or for the same reason. Nevertheless, everyone who is in the fundamentalist movement today would tell you that they are a separatist and they could tell you what they separate from.
     
    #7 swaimj, Aug 21, 2004
  8. Word Traveler

    Word Traveler New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi guys. I believe the above list describes where I stand. Tho, I'd probably add "inerrancy of scripture", unless "Biblical inspiration" covers that. At the risk of looking dumber than dirt--would someone be so kind as to give me working definitions of "separatist", and "modernist"? :confused: In Christ, WT
     
    #8 Word Traveler, Aug 21, 2004
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When I use the term "modernism" it is in reference to a radical change in theology from the "old" traditional ways that had been standard since Luther and Calvin. Can't recall all the sources I plagiarized for the following:

    Theological Modernism in Christianity is largely an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation. Traditional theological attitudes were reconsidered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Some of the hallmarks of "modernism" are:

    </font>
    • Modernism replaces the literal interpretation and science of the Old Testament and embraced Darwinian evolution.</font>
    • Modernism repudiates the biblical description of the nature of God. The God of the Old Testament is seen as a hateful deity of vengeance and is rejected. This view overlooks the “justice” of God, failing to recognize that Jehovah will punish the rebel.</font>
    • Modernism attacks the scriptural account of creation, suggesting that the Mosaic record is simply an ancient “myth”</font>
    • Modernism denies that man has “fallen” from his holy estate; rather, it asserts that humanity has actually ascended from a brutish state (via the evolutionary process) to its current status.</font>
    • Modernism adopts a “higher critical” attitude towards the Bible, which ignores the testimony of Scripture itself. For example, it is claimed that Moses did not author the Pentateuch, as both Old and New Testament evidence state clearly.</font>
    • Modernism contends that the Bible, as a historical record, is not trustworthy. Advocates of this viewpoint do not hesitate to assert that the Scriptures contain a host of errors of a considerable variety. They believe that the basis of the biblical record is an ancient legendary tradition.</font>
    • Modernism seeks to “de-mythologize” the Scriptures. Anything of a miraculous nature must be explained away as having some natural, though perhaps misunderstood, nature. According to this ideology, for example, Jesus did not walk upon the waves of the Sea of Galilee; instead, he was merely walking in the shallow surf near the coast, and the disciples, from a distance, just thought he was upon the surface of the sea.</font>
    • Modernism asserts that human conduct cannot be regulated by a “rule book,” such as the Bible. Instead, one must individually make his own decisions on ethical issues, letting subjective “love” be the guiding principle in various situations.</font>
    There are additional modernistic traits that might be mentioned, but these will suffice for the present. It hardly needs to be pointed out that “modernism” is actually just another term for infidelity.

    Theological modernism was technically set forth in the writings of such men as F.D.E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and A. Ritschl (1822-1889). Later it was popularized in the works of men like Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969). Fosdick, an American Baptist minister.

    Many religious movements, including modern liberalism rampant in liturgical churches, have been influenced by this insidious philosophy.

    In embracing rather than rejecting these developments, Modernists lead the way towards a general reconsideration of most orthodox positions in Christianity. Those who rejected these developments and who rejected modernist positions tended toward fundamentalism.
     
    #9 Dr. Bob, Aug 21, 2004
  10. GODzThunder

    GODzThunder New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question is why do they seek to change the fundamental beliefs? I think some of them do it just so they can get their fifteen! Another is that I think they are convicted in their sinful life by the truth!
     
    #10 GODzThunder, Aug 21, 2004
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You're right. Modernism was the term in 1900; Liberalism would be parallel term today.

    If you don't accept the Bible (Greek/Hebrew) as authoritative, then YOU become God and set yourself up as the standard. Sad.
     
    #11 Dr. Bob, Aug 21, 2004
  12. Word Traveler

    Word Traveler New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the definition, Dr. Bob. I really wasn't too far off in my thinking! [​IMG] In Christ, WT
     
    #12 Word Traveler, Aug 22, 2004
  13. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    quote;
    If you don't accept the Bible (Greek/Hebrew) as authoritative, then YOU become God and set yourself up as the standard. Sad.

    Correction as per me; If you don't accept the King James Bible (English) as authoritative YOU and YOUR TEACHERS become God and set YOURSELF AND YOUR TEACHERS as the standard.
    II Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
    4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

    SAD, PITIFUL...
     
    #13 psr.2, Aug 22, 2004
  14. Rooster

    Rooster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats not true, in fact wisdom, and knowage are highly esteemed, as long as it is Biblicaly correct, and does not fall into worldly understanding, for exaple: the worldly- Dinosaures like the T. Rex were meat eaters from day one
    fundemmental-Genesis 1:24 (KJV) And God Said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cttle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
    Genesis 1:29 (KJV) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    The worldly view is based upon science, but the fundimental view is based upon the Bible, and Gods truth, that no animal, or beast ate meat, but veggitation like it states in the Bible.
    That is an exaple of the diffrences between worldly knowlage, and spiritual knowlage, that is more accurate than all the worldly scholars.
     
    #14 Rooster, Aug 22, 2004
  15. Rooster

    Rooster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    RIGHT ON, AMEN, PREACH IT PASTOR BOB!!!!! [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    #15 Rooster, Aug 22, 2004
  16. Russ Kelly

    Russ Kelly New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #16 Russ Kelly, Aug 25, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...