Who Were the "Fundamentalists"?

[Pegasus]

Over at another site where atheists roam the valleys and hills, there is the use of the term "fundamentalist" to stuff everything in they don't like about Christianity. So where did this term come from and is the modern use of "fundamentalist" even a thread of truth from the original movement?

From the Christian History Institute:

Who Were the "Fundamentalists"?
by Douglas A. Sweeney

During the late 19th century, most of the mainline Protestant churches struggled to cope with the rise of modernism (which favored adaptation to modern views and trends) along with scientific naturalism, higher biblical criticism, and spiritual apathy. Hundreds of thousands of evangelicals left the large denominations, forming smaller churches to combat the sins of the age.

The vast majority of evangelicals, however, stayed with the mainline and tried to purify their churches from within. By the early 1910s, they formed a massive, cross-denominational movement for reform based on a common acclamation of the “fundamental,” or cardinal, doctrines of Christianity.

The most popular list was “The Five Point Deliverance” of the Northern Presbyterians. The 1910 Presbyterian General Assembly ruled that all who wanted to be ordained within their ranks had to affirm the Westminster Confession and subscribe to five fundamental doctrines: 1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, 2) the virgin birth of Christ, 3) the substitutionary atonement of Christ, 4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and 5) the historicity of the biblical miracles.

At roughly the same time, A. C. Dixon, R. A. Torrey, and several other luminaries published 12 volumes of essays called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910-1915). The books, which were mailed to ministers and missionaries around the world, opposed all kinds of modernism, from higher biblical criticism to theological liberalism, from naturalism to Darwinism to democratic socialism. Building on the momentum of the Northern Presbyterians, they rallied people from different Protestant traditions to a least-common-denominator flag of orthodoxy.

The rest of the article here:

https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/who-were-the-fundamentalists/

 

[reba]

Some interesting stuff i have never had a thought about .. Thanks

 

[Pegasus]

Some interesting stuff i have never had a thought about .. Thanks

Interesting that the author of the Spurgeon piece I posted said Spurgeon dusting up the 'down grade' controversy was a failure on his part. Not long after this happened, in the US the Fundamentalist movement took form. IMO, he was a bit ahead of the times in identifying the errors of theological liberalism, which the American fundamentalists took head on in their works. RA Torrey is a great read on any of his works. They are all free on line.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is a good reason for the many denominations out there; the fundementalists separating themselves from the liberal portions of the church.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I see fundamentalism as a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Figurative and metaphorical interpretations are kept to a minimum.
I was discipled to believe this in 1985 at an American Baptist Church where I got saved.
Yet even this denomination is drifting away from these beliefs.

I still believe what I was taught.
I guess I am a fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism is losing a battle with modern society and modern science entering the churches.
We see the debates on these issues right here on this or any other forum.

I don't have the answers for the church as a whole.
I feel I need to share my beliefs and hold firm.

 

[ezra]

I see fundamentalism as a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Figurative and metaphorical interpretations are kept to a minimum.
I was discipled to believe this in 1985 at an American Baptist Church where I got saved.
Yet even this denomination is drifting away from these beliefs.

I still believe what I was taught.
I guess I am a fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism is losing a battle with modern society and modern science entering the churches.
We see the debates on these issues right here on this or any other forum.

I don't have the answers for the church as a whole.
I feel I need to share my beliefs and hold firm.

the answer is to return back to Christ .i have a buddy that belongs to a independent fundamentalist baptist church . they have camp meetings and some good preaching . in his Church there are few things i disagree with . 1, the pastor will not allow any accompany tapes c.d to sing with period. as it might have some drum in it. this is a bit over board .i heard a evang at his church say those ungodly drums? really serious. they allow the guitar and piano ? 2 of the biggest instruments used in country and rock music . i do feel the Church has drifted away . we are the Church Hebrews chapter 2 verse one kjv reads let them slip..i preached a message titled listen to Him . many things we put labels on are not as ungodly as they believe. we should follow the Bible. might i add even though i am ordained though the GEN Baptist .the doctrine of eternal security does not bother me ..provided it is not used as a excuse to sin.... there are many denoms out there that follow the Bible. . interpretations is what we are dealing with. but when one steps away from the the B born again baptized blessed ... walk in the spirit walk in the Light . we have lost the true foundation and ahve began to build upon the sand instead of the rock

 

[ezra]

this is far better than politics which is just about to completely take over

 

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer here

My ordination was in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church in Snellville Georgia. The pastor would not allow percussion instruments to be used because they had no "voice". When quartets would visit if they had drums, he would tell them they were welcome to sing, but leave the drums on the outside, don't bring them in.

I have visited some contemporary worship services and the music and drums drown out the lyrics. I guess my fundamentalism was breaking through, but I understand that we are to worship with Spirit and truth, not music so loud that our insides vibrant and you can't hear the words. That only excites the emotions and not the Spirit.

We could not use "quarterlies" in sunday school. The bible was the only thing that we could teach from. I am not saying that that was bad, but if you had a teacher that had not studied much there was not much taught.

To me, you can be so "fundamental" that you are legalistic and Spiritual. Christianity is not a bunch of do's and don'ts, but a life lived by faith.

 

[Jim Parker]

In response to increasing denial of the basic tenets of Christianity by modern "scholars", Reformed Protestants came up with the 5 tenets of Fundamentalism

1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture

No argument there as long as we keep in mind that what we are reading is a modern, western, English translation of an ancient, near eastern document written in languages that are not longer spoken and at least 1800 years before there was a language called “Modern English.”

We must also keep in mind that “inerrancy” does NOT mean a literal reading of the King James translation as it contains the shortcomings of all translations in to modern (or near modern) English; the nuances and cultural connections of the original languages cannot be “translated.”

Unfortunately, “inspiration and inerrancy” has widely come to be understood to mean a literal rendering of every word in the King James Version. None of the writers who were inspired to write the old and new testament scriptures spoke King James English.

2. The deity of Jesus Christ

Absolutely but questioned or denied by the 19th and 20th century "scholars."

3. The virgin birth of Christ

Absolutely but questioned or denied by the 19th and 20th century "scholars."

4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross

The substitutionary view of the atonement is a development of the Roman Catholic church beginning with Bishop Augustine of Hippo, developed further by the scholastics (in particular Thomas Aquinas) and set down succinctly by Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury in his tract; “Cur Deus Homo.” (Why God Became Man)

It includes the false teachings that:
(a) God created death
(b) Death is God’s punishment of man for sin
(c) God was required by justice to receive satisfaction for Adam’s infinite offense against him.
(d) Satisfaction could only be attained by the slaughter of an infinitely worthy victim.
(e) By faith in Jesus we are saved from God who kill us and throw us into hell if we don’t believe.
(f) Man was created “good” and in the “image and likeness of God.” Therefore, his nature is as God created it: good. However, his will to do good has been damaged by sin which gives power to the lusts of the flesh to continue to sin.

The more ancient teaching of the Church (St, Athanasius, 4th century champion of the Trinity) is:
(a) The wages (result) of sin is death (Ro 6:23) rather than the penalty imposed by God for sin is death.
(b) Death came because Adam was deceived by the devil and enticed to sin. Sin separates man from God and only God has life by nature. Therefore, like a branch separated from the vine will die, so man separated from God will die. (John 15)
(c) God the Logos became man so that “… as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.” (Ro 5:18)
(d) Rather than paying the penalty for infinitely offending God, Jesus Death and resurrection destroyed the Devil’s power over mankind by destroying death’s power to hold mankind forever. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, all of mankind will be raised from the dead immortal and incorruptible, some to eternal life and some to condemnation based on their works being good or evil. (John 5:28-29)
(e) Jesus was born, was crucified, and rose from death to destroy the work of Satan. (1Jo 3:8)

5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

Absolutely but questioned or denied by the 19th and 20th century "scholars."

And that’s my take on fundamentalism.

iakov the fool

 

[andy pandy]

Fundamentally I am a fundamentalist and that is fundamental to what I fundamentally believe. However, I can't fundamentally believe something if the fundamentals of it does not allow me to be quite fundamental in what I believe.

Therefore to be a fundamentalist I have to restrict myself to that which is fundamental to a fundamnetalist belief on the fundamentals of life.