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

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by baptistmemes, May 7, 2016.

  1. baptistmemes

    baptistmemes
    Expand Collapse
    baptistmemes

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  2. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    310
    The problem with your definition is many of us Fundamentalists have never gone over to the KJVO camp.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,133
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    What Evangelical English Bible version attacks the Bible and loses or diminishes any fundamental of the faith?

    KJVOism is not and never has been a fundamental of the faith. In fact true fundamentalism is anti-KJVOism.

    What translation attacks the fundamentals of the faith by omissions or changes?

    Why? Give me reasons to accept the KJV as the definitive word of God in English. Please provide evidence to support those reasons.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,647
    Likes Received:
    187
    It's not every day that I hear a new theory on the canon. However, there are lots of problems with this idea,the biggest one being that the chapters and verses to the scriptures were added in the 15th century. The number of chapters in Isaiah was created long after the canon of scripture had been selected by the church.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,133
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    Yes. It was probably Stephen, Cardinal Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury who first put the modern chapter divisions in place in the Latin bible around 1227 AD. The Wycliffe Bible of 1382 was the first English Bible to use the chapter and verse divisions, at least as far as I have been able to ascertain. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,647
    Likes Received:
    187
    Interesting. Didn't know about Langton. I knew about Wycliffe, but I mistakenly recalled the Wycliffe Bible as being 15th century instead of late 14th century.

    I need to brush up on my Bible history. I've never gone into any great depth on it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,133
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    It is a common error probably based on the censorship laws passed by King Henry IV, having been influenced by Archbishop Thomas Arundel, and Henry Knighton, canon at the abbey of St Mary of the Meadows, and one of the most influential men in England, in 1409.

    As bibles copied/printed after 1409 must include the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Canterbury the common practice was to write "Published prior to 1409" on the title page of the English bibles to avoid being accused of violating the ban.

    This led to many people assigning the date 1409 to copies of the Wycliffe bible. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes Received:
    454
    The Constitutions of Arundel banned all translations of the Bible into English. 'It is a dangerous thing to translate the text of holy scripture out the tongue [Latin] into another.....we therefore decree and ordain that no man, hereafter, by his own authority translate any text of the Scripture into English....and that no man read any such....lately set forth in the time of John Wickliffe.....he that shall do contrary shall be punished.'

    These constitutions had been preceded in 1401 by the law De Haeritico Comburendo which committed all followers of Wycliffe to be burned.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. 360watt

    360watt
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2015
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    5
    This is an aside but have you all seen Cliff Klentche talking to someone who says all religions are equal? Cliff points out that religions contradict each other and therefore cannot be equal. This reminds me of fundamentalism because it most closely links with holding to definite truth and not subjective truth. If Jesus is The Way then fundamentalism is surely the way it works!
     

Share This Page

Loading...