study on fundamentalism in America

I will be looking forward to your post.:wavey:

 

For your study, please consider these links. I just now am in the middle of a study of my own. I called it.."The gospel of "according to me""

Are the Fundamentalists in need of reform?

Hyper-Fudamentalist will focus on themself, not God

The gospel can overcome self-holiness

Self-holiness must be replaced with the expression of the gospel in all of life

More will coming each week.

Please leave all feedback at the reply form at the bottom of each link.
I need as much input that I can get for all.

Thanks..

 

I appreciate the thoughts in these articles. I am, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a fundamentalist, a traditional fundamentalist. I think the issues addressed are worthy of our study.

 

I am unashamedly a traditional fundamentalist as well. I agree. There are some good thoughts here that need to be taken seriously by many.

 

I'm right with C4K and 4His_Glory on Fundamentalism. Hey, it's almost like we three have a connection somehow. :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

 

I 'fourth' those sentiments!

 

I admit I haven't read the articles yet, but based on the titles I think I'll agree with many things in there.....I'll get to them soon.

I wanted to say though, a few weeks ago I attended Pastor's School in Hammond....didn't want to say anything before because I honestly don't like to start *things*. But each morning Pastor Schaap had frank discussions with the whole group on the state of today's fundamentalist movement. Some of it was very hard for many of those guys to hear, I'm sure, but they took it well I think. And I believe that you all here would have been glad that it was said. I daresay that the articles JArthur posted are probably going to correllate well with that, too.

I know many people here HAVE said what Pastor Schaap pointed out.....but the people there needed to hear it from someone they knew and trusted, and who they knew cared about them. So I'm glad he did.

I'm rambling......sorry........but I wanted you to know how things are looking in Hammond lately.

He talked about how fundamentalists have fallen down on soulwinning - getting into the whole "repeat-after-me" thing which some have tripped up on.

He talked rather frankly about how for many the focus has become attacking those who differ in minor things.....or those who look different then us.

There was much more, but I hear the kids downstairs......:laugh: I'm sure I'll be back.

 

Study.....

James Bellar states in his Book, "The Coming Destruction of the Baptist People", that fundamentalism started out different than what it is now. If I am correct in my synopsis of his writing, he states that the "Fundamentalist" at first was a person who was in the catholic Reformed Church or Presbyterian Church and took a stand against the "Modernist" movement of the early 1900's. This position was birthed in Europe where the debate was hot and heavy in their ranks. He then suggests that joining in the movement has caused a problem with our view of Baptist History. His position is that the "Fundamentalist" movement in America among the Baptist's has caused us to forget our American Baptist Heritage.

( I am in danger here of stating someone else's position and then not being able to defend it as well as they or....even stating it as well as the originator does. I know the position is going to get whipped up on and Mr. Bellar is not here to defend himself.)

He states that (generally) more is known about Moody (originally Congregationalist) and others like him in American Church History than say Obadiah Holmes or Issac Backus in our best Independant "Fundamental" Baptist Colleges. ie....Hartland, Hyles Anderson, Crown, ect.... He also relates that the average "Fundamental Independant Baptist" church member would know more about the non-baptist evangelists than the early American Baptist preachers who served the Lord, preaching the Word of God, seeing revival and souls won to Christ.

If Mr. Bellar is correct, I am not a "Fundamentalist", I am a historic Baptist. I want no part of the catholic Reformed doctrine.

Bartimaeus

 

What Is Fundamentalism?

Generally, yes. However, there has never been an official list of the fundamentals. The series of pamphlets from which the movement took its name, called "The Fundamentals," dealt with far more than five doctrines. The various lists of 5 stem back to the millennial movement of the late 19th century, which some evangelical scholars state as the beginning of the movement. Most, though, put the movement as beginning in the 1920's.

No it is not. However, a Fundamentalist will stand on and fight for the fundamental doctrines, so separation is a logical result of the Fundamentalist position.

No it is not, but it soul-winning has always been vitally important to Fundamentalists.

This is the teaching that all forms of Christianity are equal, and Bible-believing Christians should fellowship and cooperate with other forms of Christianity such as Catholicism, liberalism, etc. Fundamentalists are by definition anti-ecumenical.

I see trivialization as the biggest danger to fundamentalism. By this I mean the tendency of many fundamentalists to major on the minors rather than standing for the Fundamentals.

The second danger I see is a Fundamentalism that forgets its roots. We need to remember what the movement was originally about.

The third danger I see is abandonment of our duties in obeying the Great Commission (soul-winning, missions), or alternatively interpreting it wrongly (not dealing in depth with the prospect about his or her eternal soul, or not practicing follow up).

Liberalism stems from 19th century German higher criticism, which in turn stemed from rationalism. Higher criticism taught that the Bible should be treated just like any other book. They did this by questioning such things as the authorship, authenticity and origin of the various books of the Bible. So the foundation of liberalism is to doubt the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible. This leads to such things as denying the inerrancy of the Bible, or the deity, virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, a liberal is one who denies the fundamental truths of the Bible, in particular the doctrine of inspiration and the doctrines of Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that we are to reject liberals as antichrists, and not fellowship or cooperate with them (2 John 9-11, 2 Cor. 6:14-18, etc.). :type:

 

I totally agree.

Jim..it has been a while since I have read your articles.
I will be sure to get to those again!

 

Thanks dale...

Good to talk with you again. I have been busy planting a church in our area. We hope the spread the same idea throughout the southern part of the state, if God leads. Please pray we stay faithful to His calling.

In Christ...James

 

To me, any time you ask about "fundamentals" of "Fundamentalism," you are asking about the secular practices of some form of the "visible" church. Such "fundamentals" are man-made and, as we've seen, depend on what kind of man you are talking to. :laugh:

The fundamentals of the true church are in Eph 4:3-6. The true body of Christ shares all these beliefs and the identification of "fundamentals" beyond these are attempts to do what Eph 4:12-14 says -- bring "unity of the knowledge and faith of Christ" so that we GROW and are not tossed around like children.

Obviously, many "isms" are not succeeding in this as we note how many denominations there are today who agree on almost no fundamentals.

Losing sight of the gospel wherein abide the fundamentals of true faith as described in Eph 4:3-6.

Realize there is a governmental-disciplining aspect to the church as regards secular life. But it is just as clear that no believer has to put himself in subjection to any spiritual authority but the Holy Spirit (God and Christ) and that he/she ought to be looking for the best church for them to advance the kingdom of Christ in their own lives and in the lives of others, Eph 4:12-14.

But there are, for instance, some who need more external discipline because they have none within them (I've actually heard this from a brother). For them it is not a bad strategy to go to what some might view as fundamentalist.

skypair

 

Very interesting! I will have to get this book and check this out.

 

Are you taking a post-modernist view that truth is what's truth for you? You have no reasoning or support. This means nothing except that you may believe it. So what? I fail to see your connection and I wonder if you understand "Fundamentalism" in the historical and theological sense.

This appears to be one man's opinion on what constitutes the "fundamentals." What kind of man are you? :laugh: You shall be judged by the same judgment by which you judge others.

Wrong! If they deny the deity of Christ, then they are not Christian. Thus, all Christians and Christian denominations agree on at least one "fundamental." This is not my opinion but it is God's Word (I John 4:4:1-4; II John 1:7). J. Gresham Machen convincingly argued in Christianity and Liberalism that liberalism is not true Christianity but it is another religion although it professed to be Christian.

So, what are your fundamentals? Unity? Do you unite with everyone using the name Christian even if they deny the deity of Christ? the resurrection? the blood atonement?

How do you know this?

Is this your opinion or do you have some Scriptural support?

 

Wow, are we ever "off on the wrong foot!" :laugh: You do realize that "faith" and "practice" can be divided, don't you -- spiritual vs. secular?

When we "practice" what we don't "believe," it is called "hypocrisy," right? And when we endeavor to make people adhere to derived secular standards (as the Pharisees did) when, in fact, "all things are lawful but not all things are expedient," 1Cor 6:12, 10:23, we drag their spirits back to the "flesh" and the "law" that condemns --- and to hypocisy because none can keep the "law" by the "motions of the flesh."

An example (I'm still not sure you understand what I am saying) would be the fundamentalist rule about not dancing. Does the Bible say that? Will I "justify" myself if I never dance? Isn't is supposed to work the other way -- I understand the word and believe it in my spirit and that, not the church's tenets, is my Authority for my secular behavior?

The historical and theological sense of any Christian "ism" is always described in how Christ works out into their particular secular behaviors -- either in integrity or hypocisy. But calling them "Christian" by no means insures that they believe in the saving "fundamentals" of Eph 4:3-6.

Mormons don't. JW's don't. You have to make your "fundamentals" of faith more restrictive if you want to find the "Spirit and in Truth" church, paids.

IOW, they are "secular" Christians. Did you read Eph 4:1-3? Those are my fundamentals.

And what this thread is about seems to be in addition to Eph 4:1-3. Separation, soul-winning, etc. are secular activities by which some churches hope to insure "purity" within the secular/temporal behavior of their members. But taking those first 2 "fundamentals" to their obvious and best conclusion, they ought to go off and live in a monastery and set up a no contact, soul-winning website. :laugh:

No. The way to unite everyone who believes in the fundamentals of Eph 4:1-3 (all the saved) is to bring them under the increasing Authority of the Holy Spirit through the word of God, Eph 4:12-14 (the "increase-decrease" method that John the Bapist annunciated). It involves growing in the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ -- not of the knowledge and faith in more secular "fundamentals."

skypair

Unity? Do you unite with everyone using the name Christian even if they deny the deity of Christ? the resurrection? the blood atonement?How do you know this?Is this your opinion or do you have some Scriptural support?[/QUOTE]

 

I don't know that it's the wrong foot to disagree with someone. As for spiritual and secular, I don't buy your take.

Mormons and JW's are not Christians; they are still lost in their false religions and sins. This is clear from Bible, the Word of God, if you accept a literalist hermeneutic.

You are right that I don't understand what you are trying to say. It's too muddled for me. On the other hand, you simply glossed over or ignored my points. Hence, I see no further use in arguing with you. :wavey: