Definition and Meaning of "Fundamentalism"

[Trotter]

There's a huge difference between fundamentalism and legalism.

Not in most circles, unfortunately.

 

[Carico]

Not in most circles, unfortunately.

Unfortunately. Nevertheless the distinction remains and it's a big one.

 

[EdSutton]

I believe one really should read THE FUNDAMENTALS: A Testimony to the Truth before jumping too far, too quickly, here.

One can find this at this site.

http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/index.php

There were initially more than 100 essays defending orthodoxy which were contributed to "The King's Business" and from which these 90 were chosen.

Much of what is espoused as "Fundamentalism: today would be foreign to these, the initial "fundamentalists."

Likewise, some of what they would agree to would not be accepted by some of today's 'fundamentalists.'

I'll just say that a strong stand for the truth does not necessarily equate with some of the extremism that has, these days, seemingly come to mark the "Fundamentalist movement" one may see, today.

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

All in good fun. For the past 150 years or so, fundamentalism pretty much entails allowing what God prohibits (government education for our covenant children), and prohibiting what God has allowed (a glass of wine).:thumbs:

Dan V.

First of all, fundamentalism did not exist 150 years ago. Even historians such as Ernest Sandeen who say that as a movement fundamentalism preceded the publishment of "The Fundamentals" (1910-1915) do not put its beginning any where near 1859!!

Secondly, fundamentalism as a movement has never had a stand of any kind in favor of government education. No fundamentalist leader has ever explicitly supported government education to my knowledge. In fact, beginning in the 1970's, there was a strong Christian school movement in fundamentalism. Then in the 1990's a strong home-schooling movement developed in fundamentalism.

I'd like to suggest that you study the history and beliefs of fundamentalism before making such unfounded claims. There have been a number of threads in this forum on the subject over the years with comments from some of us who know the movement intimately. That should help you get started.

God bless.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

First of all, fundamentalism did not exist 150 years ago. Even historians such as Ernest Sandeen who say that as a movement fundamentalism preceded the publishment of "The Fundamentals" (1910-1915) do not put its beginning any where near 1859!!

Secondly, fundamentalism as a movement has never had a stand of any kind in favor of government education. No fundamentalist leader has ever explicitly supported government education to my knowledge. In fact, beginning in the 1970's, there was a strong Christian school movement in fundamentalism. Then in the 1990's a strong home-schooling movement developed in fundamentalism.

I'd like to suggest that you study the history and beliefs of fundamentalism before making such unfounded claims. There have been a number of threads in this forum on the subject over the years with comments from some of us who know the movement intimately. That should help you get started.

God bless.

First, many felt comfortable when primary and secondary education was in the hands of local school boards and not in the hands of teachers' unions and the educational bureaucrats. Then remember, BJU taught teachers as well as preachers from the get go. Further, Luther thought enough of childhood literacy to support schools up to fifth grade in every parish in Lutheran Germany. As he was a sacralist, Luther didn't make a distinction between "public" or "church" education. The same held true for Puritan New England.

I'll deal with the "wine" in another post. Suffice to say our spiritual great-great grands had good reason to go the prohibition rout. Though personally, I favor the abstention position.

 

[Revmitchell]

Unsurprisingly, theological modernists in the 1920s and 30s contested the meaning of Fundamentalism. Rather than seeing Fundamentalists as heroic preservers of sound doctrine, modernists accused Fundamentalists of being narrow-minded, backward pedants who obstinately refused to update Christianity to reflect modern times. In his famous 1922 sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” Harry Emerson Fosdick, modernist pastor of New York’s First Presbyterian Church, argued that “we must be able to think our modern life clear through in Christian terms, and to do that we also must be able to think our Christian faith clear through in modern terms.”

It seems nothing has changed.

 

[John of Japan]

First, many felt comfortable when primary and secondary education was in the hands of local school boards and not in the hands of teachers' unions and the educational bureaucrats. Then remember, BJU taught teachers as well as preachers from the get go. Further, Luther thought enough of childhood literacy to support schools up to fifth grade in every parish in Lutheran Germany. As he was a sacralist, Luther didn't make a distinction between "public" or "church" education. The same held true for Puritan New England.

Well, other than the fact that Luther reigned over his denomination much before the beginning of fundamentalism, you're on target as usual, Squire. But of course you knew that about Luther. :thumbs:

I'll deal with the "wine" in another post. Suffice to say our spiritual great-great grands had good reason to go the prohibition rout. Though personally, I favor the abstention position.

I'm with you here. But I've never read anything that blamed prohibition specifically on fundamentalists the way the Scopes trial was played up as being our fault and failure. That would make an interesting doctoral thesis: The Influence of Fundamentalism in the Prohibition Movement." I suspect the conclusion would be that a broad range of people worked together to bring about prohibition, much like Falwell's "Moral Majority."

 

[kyredneck]

I believe one really should read THE FUNDAMENTALS: A Testimony to the Truth before jumping too far, too quickly, here.

One can find this at this site.

http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/index.php

There were initially more than 100 essays defending orthodoxy which were contributed to "The King's Business" and from which these 90 were chosen.

Much of what is espoused as "Fundamentalism: today would be foreign to these, the initial "fundamentalists."

Likewise, some of what they would agree to would not be accepted by some of today's 'fundamentalists.'

I'll just say that a strong stand for the truth does not necessarily equate with some of the extremism that has, these days, seemingly come to mark the "Fundamentalist movement" one may see, today.

Ed

Thanks for that link Ed. Right off I noticed the photo of Phillip Mauro and sure enough he is a contributor of at least two essays I seen. I have several of his books but 'The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation' (1921), was, to say the least, a book that had a profound effect on my view on eschatology.