Five Historic Fundamentals

[By Grace]

BECAUSE THIS IS A HISTORICAL POST, IT WILL HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT

In 1922 the liberal Baptist preacher Harry Emerson Fosdick a guest preacher, preached a world-famous sermon in the First Presbyterian Church in the West Village section of Manhattan called, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win? This was a direct assault upon the traditional views of the Presbyterian Church USA, which maintained that in order for a preacher to be ordained in the PCUSA, the ordinand had to swear allegiance to the Westminster Catechism, and to the Five Historical Fundamentals which were derived from that Confession.

These Five Historic Fundamentals are:

1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. The virgin birth (and the deity of Jesus)
3. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. The authenticity of Christ's miracles

In order to combat what they thought was an attack of their freedom of the pulpit, several Presbyters met in the now-defunct Auburn Seminary in Auburn NY (hence the name for the document) and proposed that the General Assembly of the PCUSA adopt another, less rigid document to which every future
ordinand would swear allegiance.

The document has six sections, of which this is a summary:

1. 1. The Bible is not inerrant. The supreme guide of scripture interpretation is the Spirit of God to the individual believer and not ecclesiastical authority. Thus, "liberty of conscience" is elevated.
   2. The General Assembly has no power to dictate doctrine to the Presbyteries.
   3. The General Assembly's condemnation of those asserting "doctrines contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church" circumvented the due process set forth in the Book of Discipline.
   4. None of the five essential doctrines should be used as a test of ordination. Alternated "theories" of these doctrines are permissible.
   5. Liberty of thought and teaching, within the bounds of evangelical Christianity is necessary.
   6. Division is deplored, unity and freedom are commended.

Referring to the Five Fundamentals as "particular theories", the Affirmation's argument is succinctly summarized in two sentences:

Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.

1. 
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_Affirmation
   

The astute reader will notice that the words "Historic" and "Fundamentals" are downgraded to be mere theories, no different from the ones that are attached to the theological philosophy called "Higher Criticism".

I post this as a background to examine some of the different philosophies that are seen by the posters here on CF. It is obvious to me that there are posters in both camps here, and that is perhaps the underlying reason why there are so many divergent viewpoints, and consequently so many snarky remarks and insults that come up far too often when we seek to defend our "personal turf". In that disagreement, no matter how gentle, or how much Scripture both in and out of context is posted in support of one's position, someone is bound to step on the toes of another, who will inevitably respond by saying "OUCH!"

So before you continue to post any sort of reply, I request that you read the two different positions, and then respond to one of the six possible choices possible which best describe your theological viewpoint: Auburn Confession, Five Historic Fundamentals, Other.

I will be the first to respond, and I vote for the Five Historical Fundamentals

 

[Obadiah]

The OP of this thread does not fit the guidelines of the Apologetics and Theology forum. I am moving it to the lounge.

 

[Edward]

I actually was unfamiliar with the term the five fundamentals so I looked it up and then read the article. Then read your post (doh!) which explained it very well, lol. Anyway, Yes I very much so believe in the five historical fundamentals. I'm not sure yet where you're going with it but it sounds interesting.

 

[By Grace]

The OP of this thread does not fit the guidelines of the Apologetics and Theology forum. I am moving it to the lounge.

Violation 1.3 If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public. reba

 

[Obadiah]

You can not post in A&T unless you follow the A&T Guidelines. You know this already.

 

[Runner]

These Five Historic Fundamentals are:

1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. The virgin birth (and the deity of Jesus)
3. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. The authenticity of Christ's miracles

I don't want to derail this thread, but I would point out that even the Five Historic Fundamentals leave a lot of wiggle room. I'm not a Presbyterian, but if this means the Five Historic Fundamentals "as historically defined by the Presbyterian Church," then there would at least be a common understanding. Otherwise, I could easily say "Oh, yes, I believe in the Five Historic Fundamentals" - and yet mean something quite different by "inerrancy," "substitutionary" and "authenticity" than does someone else who says he or she also believes in the Five Historic Fundamentals.

My interest in theology began when I thought, many years ago, "Exactly how the Atonement works is a bit confusing. I'll spend an afternoon and nail that down." Yeah, right. There are at least five distinct and quite different views of the Atonement. "Substitutionary Atonement" alone encompasses a multiplicity of views. In short, the Atonement is an exceedingly complex doctrine.

My position is that I believe what I believe, and I really don't care anything at all about whether someone else chooses to classify it as the Five Historic Fundamentals, the Auburn Affirmation (never heard of it before) or The Church of What Runner Believes. I think this is true of most Christians - they may nominally be Southern Baptists or Catholics and may more or less believe one or another of the well-established creeds, but deep down they believe what they believe as individuals.

I will say that the two of the five that we here at The Mega-Church of What Runner Believes regard as absolute Christian essentials are the Atonement (regardless of how you choose to think it "works") and the bodily Resurrection. As Paul recognized, without the Resurrection there simply is no Christianity - and without a bodily Resurrection as an actual historical event, you have nothing that deserves to be called a resurrection. Ditto for the Atonement, regardless of exactly how you may think it "works"; if Jesus didn't reconcile humanity to God, Christianity collapses.

The Virgin Birth and the miracles are clearly set forth in the Bible, with little wiggle room. If someone doesn't believe these, it would be legitimate to ask, "If you don't believe in the Virgin Birth and the miracles, what basis do you have for saying you believe anything in the Bible, including the very historical existence of Jesus?" The inerrancy of Scripture is more problematical. Even among those who claim to believe Scripture is inerrant, views are all over the map. Ditto to a lesser extent for the deity of Christ (i.e., the Trinity) - I think it's fairly clear, but with some room for differing views. So if someone believes in the Fall, the Atonement and the Resurrection, I don't know that I would say that any of the others are essentials in the sense of Jesus being likely to say "I never knew you" if your understanding was incorrect. (Now that I think about it, why isn't the Fall one of the Five Historic Fundamentals? Perhaps it is implicit in the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement.)

So I voted for "I do not believe either is correct" because you didn't have an option for "I decline to be pigeonholed."

 

[By Grace]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I would point out that even the Five Historic Fundamentals leave a lot of wiggle room. I'm not a Presbyterian, but if this means the Five Historic Fundamentals "as historically defined by the Presbyterian Church," then there would at least be a common understanding. Otherwise, I could easily say "Oh, yes, I believe in the Five Historic Fundamentals" - and yet mean something quite different by "inerrancy," "substitutionary" and "authenticity" than does someone else who says he or she also believes in the Five Historic Fundamentals.

Technically, you are correct, that this defines the historical beliefs of the Presbyterian Church. However this "Historic Five" has significance that went far beyond the Presbyterian Church. As the struggle between "theological modernism" and "theological conservatism" grew in the 1920s the term "Fundamentalist" expanded to include the churches that were Evangelical and Bible-believing, that is the denotative (naming) meaning of the term.

In the everyday conversation, the common conception (connotative) meaning came to mean the Southern Baptist and Independent Baptist churches. The snake handlers were excluded.

I understand that you might not agree with the terms "inerrancy," "substitutionary" and "authenticity", but I respectfully state that yours is a relativistic approach, and out of the context of the entire scope and purpose of creating the term, Fundamentalist rules out such an approach. Here is why. The term was constructed to differentiate from the relativistic theology of the theological modernist movement and those who believe in Scripture that was inerrant (without any wrong theology or wrong statement of fact) when the original authors wrote the Bible. That was because all Scripture is God inspired. 2 Timothy 15-16.

I plan to deal with the other aspects of your post later...

 

[Runner]

I understand that you might not agree with the terms "inerrancy," "substitutionary" and "authenticity", but I respectfully state that yours is a relativistic approach, and out of the context of the entire scope and purpose of creating the term, Fundamentalist rules out such an approach.

Well, no, it's not that I "disagree" with any of the terms, it's that in the real world they have different meanings to different people. My approach is "relativistic" only in the sense of recognizing that not everyone has the same understanding as a 1920-era Presbyterian or a 1924 Albany Affirmatian (or whatever they call themselves). If the purpose of your original post was merely to identify who shares the understanding of the 1920-era Presbyterians and who shares the understanding of the 1924 Albany Affirmatians - or perhaps to identify the differing perspectives among people who call themselves Fundamentalists (not me!) - then this is a post of a much more limited scope than the next quote below would suggest. The term "Fundamentalist" may "rule out" my approach, but I am simply not a Fundamentalist in any sense of the term.

I post this as a background to examine some of the different philosophies that are seen by the posters here on CF.

That being the case, who cares if my approach "is a relativistic approach, and out of the context of the entire scope and purpose of creating the term, Fundamentalist"? Perhaps you need to restate the intent of your original post?

It is obvious to me that there are posters in both camps here, and that is perhaps the underlying reason why there are so many divergent viewpoints, and consequently so many snarky remarks and insults that come up far too often when we seek to defend our "personal turf".

I would guess there are posters here in way more camps than the two you identify. I see far fewer "snarky remarks and insults" here than on the average Christian-oriented forum. Far fewer. The "other" Christian Forums is, in comparison, a veritable bloodbath that would make me positively giddy if I were an atheist looking for ammunition that Christianity is a fraud. But I would respectfully suggest that to the extent there may be occasional fussin' and feudin' here, it is probably not because Fundamentalists who align themselves with the Five Historic Fundamentals as understood by 1920-era Presbyterians are at the throats of Fundamentalists who align themselves with the 1924 Albany Affirmation.

I plan to deal with the other aspects of your post later...

Fine, but don't feel obligated if your purpose is to explain why I don't qualify as a Fundamentalist.

 

[reba]

I would guess there are posters here in way more camps than the two you identify. I see far fewer "snarky remarks and insults" here than on the average Christian-oriented forum.

 

[By Grace]

Well, no, it's not that I "disagree" with any of the terms, it's that in the real world they have different meanings to different people. My approach is "relativistic" only in the sense of recognizing that not everyone has the same understanding as a 1920-era Presbyterian or a 1924 Albany Affirmation (or whatever they call themselves). If the purpose of your original post was merely to identify who shares the understanding of the 1920-era Presbyterians and who shares the understanding of the 1924 Albany Affirmation - or perhaps to identify the differing perspectives among people who call themselves Fundamentalists (not me!) - then othis is a post of a much more limited scope than the next quote below would suggest. The term "Fundamentalist" may "rule out" my approach, but I am simply not a Fundamentalist in any sense of the term.

When I post about the Westminster Confession, I am referring to a limited audience; it is a theological audience, so naturally in a different context, the word "fundamentalist" means something different.

Thus in both liberal and conservative theological camps the terms "modernist" and "fundamentalists" are understood by the parties involved to each hold to a specific set of beliefs about the Scripture, and of the miracles of Jesus.

That being the case, who cares if my approach "is a relativistic approach, and out of the context of the entire scope and purpose of creating the term, Fundamentalist"? Perhaps you need to restate the intent of your original post?

I am attempting to get a discussion going from representatives of both sides about the merits and assumptions inherent in each camp. So while I may choose one camp over the other, I am not attempting to castigate either side in any manner.

I would guess there are posters here in way more camps than the two you identify. I see far fewer "snarky remarks and insults" here than on the average Christian-oriented forum. Far fewer. The "other" Christian Forums is, in comparison, a veritable bloodbath that would make me positively giddy if I were an atheist looking for ammunition that Christianity is a fraud. But I would respectfully suggest that to the extent there may be occasional fussin' and feudin' here, it is probably not because Fundamentalists who align themselves with the Five Historic Fundamentals as understood by [pre] 1920-era Presbyterians are at the throats of Fundamentalists who align themselves with the 1924 Albany Affirmation.

I will leave the discussions about CARM and other sites alone; it does not contribute to anything here.

What you call "occasional fussin' and feudin' " is not a petty thing because it hinges on the identity that Fundamental Christians (historically speaking) share with each other. Of course, their church polity may differ, but they all share the same things deemed as historic Christianity in common.

But the differences that separate the modernists and the fundamentalist are significant in the way and manner of salvation and in the type and manner of eternal punishment, or being saved, and thus able to be with Jesus Christ in heaven.

Since nothing happens in a vacuum, I presented that history as a background to be able to discuss the theological movements without being uncharitable towards those in the different theological camps.

Fine, but don't feel obligated if your purpose is to explain why I don't qualify as a Fundamentalist.

That is not my purpose in this thread. It is not personal towards anyone, it is to discuss things, and not to lob rocks at another person.

 

[Runner]

When I post about the Westminster Confession, I am referring to a limited audience; it is a theological audience, so naturally in a different context, the word "fundamentalist" means something different.

Thus in both liberal and conservative theological camps the terms "modernist" and "fundamentalists" are understood by the parties involved to each hold to a specific set of beliefs about the Scripture, and of the miracles of Jesus.

I'm probably more deeply steeped in theology and apologetics than 90% of all Christians and certainly than 90% of Internet discussion forum participants (which, I'll admit, is not necessarily a good thing), and if I'm confused about your purposes - which I am - I'm betting others are as well. You appear to want to "lecture" me, but it's not clear to me what your "lecture" is even about. For anyone who wants a quick primer on the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, I would suggest that the Wikipedia article (which is remarkably thorough) probably provides a clearer summary than anything posted so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist–Modernist_Controversy.

You keep referring to "two camps" or "both sides" as though the entire spectrum of Christian belief can be neatly divided into two halves. My point is that this is misguided from the start. There are multiple camps and sub-camps. Within a particular camp or sub-camp there are factions that disagree on definitions or hold at least some idiosyncratic beliefs. This is why there are something like 41,000 denominations, why a substantial percentage of ostensible Christians don't think a substantial percentage of other ostensible Christians are Christians at all, why churches split or dissolve with depressing regularity, and why forums like this require moderators to keep the peace. Surely it is not your ambitious goal to air all differences and somehow achieve the intramural peace and harmony that eluded even the First and Second Century Christians and that has eluded Christendom throughout the ensuing 1,800+ years?

What you call "occasional fussin' and feudin' " is not a petty thing because it hinges on the identity that Fundamental Christians (historically speaking) share with each other. Of course, their church polity may differ, but they all share the same things deemed as historic Christianity in common.

So is what you want a discussion among Fundamentalist Christians regarding their understanding of the Five Historic Fundamentals? If so, why did you say "I post this as a background to examine some of the different philosophies that are seen by the posters here on CF," which suggests a much broader focus, and why did you include "I do not believe either is correct" as one of the categories in your poll?

Are you concerned only about fussin' and feudin' between Fundamentalist Christians that may be jeopardizing the "identity" that you believe they (i.e., the various species of Fundamentalist Christians) "share with each other," which is a much narrower focus than your original post suggested to me? If you are more broadly concerned about fussin' and feudin' between the various species of Fundamentalists, the various species of Modernists and the various species of Others, I would agree that such fussin' and feudin' is not a petty thing - but we hardly need yet another thread to identify those gaping differences and any such thread would inevitably descend into further fussin' and feudin' requiring moderator intervention.

I was/am puzzled because I outlined the positions which place me in the "Other" camp (or perhaps the Modified Fundamentalist camp or even the Quasi-Modernist camp), which seemed to me to fit squarely within the ambit of an "examin[ation of] some of the different philosophies that are seen by the posters here on CF," yet you immediately went into Pontification Mode and suggested I was somehow significantly off-topic.

I will bow out because I don't see this discussion going anywhere, but I would encourage you to clarify your purposes in plain English for the benefit of others.

 

[By Grace]

I'm probably more deeply steeped in theology and apologetics than 90% of all Christians and certainly than 90% of Internet discussion forum participants (which, I'll admit, is not necessarily a good thing), and if I'm confused about your purposes - which I am - I'm betting others are as well. You appear to want to "lecture" me, but it's not clear to me what your "lecture" is even about. For anyone who wants a quick primer on the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, I would suggest that the Wikipedia article (which is remarkably thorough) probably provides a clearer summary than anything posted so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist–Modernist_Controversy.

I am not trying to lecture, as you suggest. I was setting up a historical background for the discussion to follow about the two main camps of thought. That there are some who do not fully follow either camp is a given because there are similarly 4 and 5 point Calvinists as an example, Likewise the Arminian camp has a spectrum of adherents who support this, but not that in the Arminian theology.

You keep referring to "two camps" or "both sides" as though the entire spectrum of Christian belief can be neatly divided into two halves. My point is that this is misguided from the start. There are multiple camps and sub-camps. Within a particular camp or sub-camp there are factions that disagree on definitions or hold at least some idiosyncratic beliefs. This is why there are something like 41,000 denominations, why a substantial percentage of ostensible Christians don't think a substantial percentage of other ostensible Christians are Christians at all, why churches split or dissolve with depressing regularity, and why forums like this require moderators to keep the peace.

Nowhere did I ever hint at such a discussion taking place. My basis of discussion was very selective; I wanted input from the people who feel strongly either way. I an also not interested in any degree of a person being a pseudo Christian because I never mentioned about anyone having an "outward appearance of being a Christian"

Surely it is not your ambitious goal to air all differences and somehow achieve the intramural peace and harmony that eluded even the First and Second Century Christians and that has eluded Christendom throughout the ensuing 1,800+ years?

I take it that you do not like singing "Kum By Ya" around a campfire?

Very clearly I stated my aim for posting that OP. Believe what I say, or don't. But I ask you to stick to the subject as I stated things, and refrain from making stuff up about what I posted. That causes derails.

So is what you want a discussion among Fundamentalist Christians regarding their understanding of the Five Historic Fundamentals? If so, why did you say "I post this as a background to examine some of the different philosophies that are seen by the posters here on CF," which suggests a much broader focus, and why did you include "I do not believe either is correct" as one of the categories in your poll?

I said what I meant to say. I am sorry that you seem not able or willing to understand that.

I said what I wanted to say in six choices for answers. If you did not like the questions that I used, I welcome your constructive criticism.

I skip the rest of the post because I am tired

 

[reba]

The OP of this thread does not fit the guidelines of the Apologetics and Theology forum. I am moving it to the lounge.

The OP does not have the authority to direct the thoughts of others. So it will not be here ... Thread closed