What about Westminster Theological Seminary

Fundamentalist in the strictest definition - yes.

However, many of their positions are false and are to be rejected.

 

Given that fundamentalism, in its current state, is dispensational and pre-millenial, Westminster would not identify themselves with fundamentalists.

On the other hand, you could argue that they are the original fundamentalists. J. Gresham Machen was the first to take a stand against liberalism in a demomination and to take the major step of separating from it to start a new school and a to form new churches. In that sense, if Westminster is not fundamental, there is no such thing!

 

But again, I would remind us that fundamentalism is not simply belief in the fundamentals and separation from theological liberalism. It is separation from false teachers and disobedient brothers. One cannot be a fundamentalist while retaining relationships with enemies of the truth or those who give aid to enemies of the truth. Fundamentalism is, and always has been, about taking sides, both from those who deny the faith and those who consort with them.

Machen split from Princeton over the issues of fundamentalism and helped to start Westminster. But we are far removed from those days. I don't think it is as simple as "Christians" or "liberals" (as Machen's book so ably set forth). Theological life is more complicated these days.

What is being described here as fundamentalism is actually conservative evangelicalism. These two are distinct and should remain such, IMO.

I don't know that much about Westminster. I would suspect they are a good conservative evangelical school.

 

Exactly. The reason adhering to the five fundamentals does not make one a fundamentalist today is that issues have arisen since the 1920s (when the fundamentals were set forth) which the fundamentals do not address. What made them fundamentalists at that time was that they addressed the real and important issues of that time and took a stand. We are fundamentalists today not because we agree with what they said, but because we act in the spirit in which they acted, that is, we look at the issues that face us TODAY, we address them biblically, and take a stand.

 

Bob, There doesn't seem to be too many historic fundamentalists who agree with you, for whatever its worth. The "kindler gentler fundamentalism" is no fundamentalism at all. The old school fundamentalists seem much closer to my position than yours, at least if their writings and teachings mean anything.

Be that as it may, the Scriptures do require separation from disobedient brethren, whatever you want to call it.

 

I tend to agree with Dr. Bob. I think it is unfortunate that the term "fundamentalist" as coined by the greats like Machen, Boyce, et.al., has been hijacked and corrupted in modern times.

In this particular instance, how significant is paedobaptism? Well, significant if you ask (I can't resist) John MacArthur. Not significant according to Martyn Lloyd Jones.

I would allow a WTS faculty member in my pulpit, so long as paedobaptism didn't join him there

 

Wow. I don't know that I'd lump Presbys and all others in with RC or EO. But that's just me

 

I tend to agree with you. I am not ready to throw Presbys out and tread them underfoot, but I am troubled by paedobaptism. Then again, baby dedications in baptist churches trouble me greatly. These are Paedobaptist dry cleaning