What is the difference between the classic Fundamentalist and the Modern day

John,

Consider Riley who was a stalwart of fundamentalism but who didn't pull out of the NBC until just before his death.

And yes, those who believed in historic Christianity wanted to regain control of their denominations from theological liberals. In that sense they might be called separatists, but historically, they really seemed closer to the Puritans who wished to reform the Anglican church rather than Separatists (pilgrims) who pulled out.

Good chatting with you.

 

Any group that holds to the fundamentals of the faith and works within and across denominations lines to preserve and extend the witness of historic Christianity would be representative of historic fundamentalism.

They may have their own mission agencies, fellowships, etc., but they have a charitable and cooperative spirit toward other expressions of historic Christianity without nitpicking minor doctrinal issues.

Secondary separation issues put many modern fundamentalists outside of the umbrella of historic fundamentalism.

By historic fundamentalism I am referencing the 1920s and 30s.

 

Squire, I've been meaning to ask, will you please take time to explain this a little more? I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean here.

 

Quotes describing the nature of original Fundamentalism:

"Militant theological conservatives, sensing that they were on the brink of losing control of some major denominations (especially the Northern Baptist and Northern Presbyterian) launched a fierce attack on the modernists. Beginning in 1920 the term 'fundamentalists' was used to describe the somewhat diverse cobelligerents in this antimodernist crusade. During this period the term 'fundamentalist' had a broad generic meaning roughly equivalent to militant conservative (for its friends) or belligerent reactionary (for its foes)." The Evangelicals (rev. ed.), "From Fundamentalism top Evangelicalism: A Historical Analysis," by George M. Marsden, p. 146.

"The fundamentalists of 1875-1900 were very outspoken about the apostasy of their times and the sins from which Christians should separate." "The Early Days of American Fundamentalism," George Dollar, Bibliotheca Sacra (V123, #490, Apr 66, 122)

"Harrington is eminently correct in his contention that “Fundamentalism was a militant religious conservatism.” In this he has struck a strong note of the entire movement, its attitude of militancy, opposition, exposing and attacking false teachings, and willingness to defend the faith. Fundamentalism has always been a defense as well as an attack on error. To early fundamentalists the truths they taught were God-given, more precious and more worthy to be defended than anything they knew. Weakness in defense was but a sure sign of weakness in conviction. For them the die was cast and they battled for the literal meaning of every word of the Word. They were sickened to see schools fail to indoctrinate young ministerial students and pupils manned by the untaught and unscriptural managers of ecclesiastical machines. Several paths were open to them (as are open today). They could have been silent and have allowed the decline to go unquestioned and unchecked. They could have compromised and engaged in dialogue with the critics, the humanists, and the evolutionists. They could have refused to be involved, stay sound themselves, and ignore the erosion around them. But these were not the paths of stout fundamentalists, then or now. They were set for the defense of the faith. They were good soldiers of Jesus Christ, not good sports of church picnics." George Dollar, Bibliotheca Sacra (V123 #490, Apr 66, 120)

After quoting five non-Fundamentalist scholars, Fred Moritz writes, "Non-Fundamentalists commonly identify several traits of fundamentalism. They see the following: 1. An emphasis on the inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and authority of the Bible. 2. An opposition to modernism. 3. An emphasis on separatism. 4. A belief in the premillennial return of Christ." Fred Moritz, Contending for the Faith, 15.

"Since liberalism did not believe in the fact that Christ died in history to atone for the sins of men and women, and that this was the only basis for salvation, liberalism was really religious faith in man dressed up in Christian language and symbols. Thus, Machen explained, the only honest thing for the liberal to do would be to leave the churches which were founded on biblical truth." Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 73.

All of these scholars describe early Fundamentalism as seperatist.

 

Yes, the same separatism that conservative evangelicals (new evangelicals in the eyes of self-proclaimed fundamentalists) believe in and practice! Which is my point! Today's "modern fundamentalists" are practicing a form of separatism and exclusivism that wasn't practiced by "classic fundamentalists."

 

All 10,000 "modern fundamentalist" churchs? You sure paint with a broad brush, Paul33. "Modern Fundamentalism" is not near the monolith you are describing. We have: BBF, FBF, SBF, GARB, WBF, FBC of Hammond affiliated churches, BJU-grad pastors (some FBF overlap), Ian Paisley's and Carl McIntyre's groups (not even Baptist!), the IFCA (not Baptist), and I've only just begun! And within some of these groups there are factions.

 

John,

Self-described modern fundamentalists are primarily baptist, or in the case of BJU, baptistic.

These same self-described modern fundamentalists can't get along with each other let alone conservative evangelicals.

The original fundamentalists were unified around doctrine in broad general terms. Today's fundamentalists divide over doctrine, the more narrow it can be defined the better.

The original fundamentalists didn't take a position on eschatology other than Jesus is coming again. Modern fundamentalists require, in most cases, a pre-trib, premillennial DISPENSATIONAL view of the end times in order to fellowship.

John, how can you or anyone else argue that today's modern fundamentalists are the same as those stalwarts of the faith who loved each other across denominational lines and in spite of differences in minor points of doctrine?

 

And I repeat, you paint with a very broad brush here, lumping 10,000 churches into one monolith. I am forced to conclude that you know little about modern Fundamentalism. You are jumping to conclusions, and have no data to back up what you say.

 

why are we not fundamentalists if we believe that God has preserved His Word? I don't understand then.

I thought fundamentalist was one who believes in the fundamentals.....

but are you defining it strictly according to what the first few people who used the term believed?

The issues of preservation of God's word did not even appear on the Baptist radar screen until the late 60s or so.....so the issue is by necessity not part of historical fundamentalist separation issues. So why am I labeled not a fundamentalist today simply because I believe God preserved His Word?

I do hope that this does not mean in your mind that I have to be separated from.

 

John, in discussing "fundamentalism," one by necessity must speak in general terms, or paint with a broad brush, to use your term.

Perhaps you come from a kinder, gentler form of fundamentalism. But the ones who I know who claim to be the "flagship" representative of fundamentalism (BJU, NBBC, MBBC, PBBC) are quick to divide over minor points of doctrine. They also rightly condemn the KJVO crowd. They also reject anyone to the left of them - Piper, Macarthur, etc.

Yes, John, I know quite alot about fundamentalism, both through research and experience having attended both BJU and NBBC.

 

I am not sure that was a universal opinion. The Gap theory has largely been abandoned.

OEC is not the most popular view in genuine fundamentalism today... but one isn't disqualified based on it either. It would relate to how well they accounted for the texts.

Remember, evolution was fairly new and the effects of rationalism were not too distant from their pinnacle in 1900. A book I am reading would shed some light on why even a fundamentalist would be skewed toward OEC during that period: "Darwins God- Evolution and the Problem of Evil".

Yes. The original copies were sent out to Sunday School teachers.

That was before the other denominations wholly departed from The Fundamentals. Fundamentalists that would match the original fundamentalists are mostly Baptists, a few Methodists (in particular non-UMC), and Presbyterians (PCA) in the modern US.

Primarily. And that is a good thing. After many years of trying, fundamentalists recognized that you could not reconcile Genesis as a narrative with evolution. We have also had much time to consider the strengths, weaknesses, and presuppositions of evolution.

Actually no. Many people who would qualify as "fundamentalists" by the original definition would more likely call themselves conservative evangelicals now and would use the term "fundamentalist" to describe themselves "academically" more so than publicly.

That said, according to a trusted pastor friend, says that KJVO's still constitute a very vocal minority of self-professing fundamentalists.

Yes but that is primarily a question of who left who. The original fundamentalists probably wouldn't have associated with new evangelicals, catholics, pentacostals, etc. either.

Those who were Anglican/Episcopalian certainly wouldn't approve of the things happening within that denomination.

 

Paul, this is an example of how you paint Fundamentalism with a broad brush. I looked at the NBBC website, and though they do not actually have separation in their statement of faith, it is in their "articles of faith" (not sure I know the difference.) So yes I am willing to agree with you that they have elevated separation to a fundamental (until I find out what an "article of faith" is. ).

However, I looked at the doctrinal statements of 12 other IFB educational institutions, and ONLY ONE of them had separation in their doctrinal statement. So when you say, "Today, modern fundamentalists have elevated separation to a fundamental, if not the highest fundamental," you are painting with a broad brush, being unfair and unscholarly, IMO.

 

The "articles of faith" is their core doctrinal position. The "statement of faith" is their attempt at being softer and gentler!

Really, it is rather confusing to have "articles of faith" and a slender "statement of faith."

Your last paragraph is correct to some extent. But actions speak louder than words. Just because BJU doesn't speak to separation in its doctrinal statement doesn't mean in practice they haven't elevated it to a position of doctrine.

The whole movement of modern fundamentalism is focused on who one can fellowship with, personally, ecclessiastically, and in the case of NBBC, familially.

Therefore, I don't think that I have painted with a broad brush.

I'll ask you one question to prove my point. Are any fundamentalist organizations/fellowships open to inviting Chuck Swindoll to speak at their next annual meeting? I didn't think so, either! This despite the fact that Swindoll does not cavort with apostates and holds to the fundamentals of the faith.

Therefore, the doctrine of separation is alive and well in fundamentalist institutions. What was a practice in the 1930s became a doctrine by the 1950s and 60s!

 

So fellowship with IFBers is dependent on being a Baptist?

A non-baptist who is completely baptistic in doctrine would be excluded as a guest speaker?

He keeps company with others who believe in the historic doctrines of the faith!

 

Well said, Squire.

 

Personally, I don't think much of Swindoll, so I would not advise any Fundamentalist to have him, regardless of whether or not he fellowships with liberals. And the key question anyway is not whether he fellowships with liberals but whether or not he takes a stand against liberalism. I've not read a word about that in his writings, so how can we know?

I think his Grace Awakening leans towards antinomianism, and have not gotten blessed from the other books I've read--not much depth in my view, and he likes the occasional pop psychology reference (self esteem, etc.), which I oppose.

 

Evangelicals I admire as perhaps being on the same page as the original Fundamentalists: Robert Lightner for his stand against the original New Evangelicalism, Jack Wyrtzen (may even call himself a fundamentalist), Norm Geisler (for his stand against neotheism.

I deliberately exclude MacArthur because of his false doctrine of Lordship Salvation in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus.