# What's a fundamentalist?



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 7, 2007)

What makes someone fundamental?


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 7, 2007)

eternallifeinchrist said:


> What makes someone fundamental?


Fundamentalist has various connotations, and sometimes carries a pejorative sense. So, the word itself is a misnomer. In a sense, it's often utilized to delienate dispensationalist evangelicals. On the other hand, in the early twentieth century, orthodox Presbyterian stalwarts like J. Gresham Machen were dubbed a "fundamentalist." Originally, before it lost its lustre, it described the type of Christian who was firm in his adherance to orthodox doctrine and the core tenets of the faith on Christology and Soteriology.

The stigma to the word owes to liberal use of it. Their belief in cultural and religious relativism seeing all religious-value systems as inherently equal and relative to one another. This belief compels them to devote their secular antagonisms to _religious fundamentalism_ in general. Hence, so called Christian "fundamentalist" televangelists are ironically disparaged in the same vein as militant "fundamentalist" Islamic clerics. Thus, a stigmatism to the embrace of this term develops.

Most Christians I see that are called fundamentalists these days or describe themselves as fundamentalists—seem kind of flaky too me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2007)

As Ryan has pointed out, it used to have a historical meaning behind it. It refers to those who were rejecting the liberalization of theology in mainline Protestantism. Fundamentalists wanted to affirm 5 key issues that modernists were denying:
1. the inerrancy of the Bible, 
2. the Virgin birth, 
3. physical resurrection, 
4. atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and 
5. the Second Coming. 

The movement, as movements do, made for some strange bedfellows. Because Seminaries were the breeding ground for this liberalism, Bible believing Christians started to become suspicious of higher education since their kids were leaving for training believers and coming back as unbelievers. Hence, those that continued in the movement tended to be anti-intellectual and much of modern, conservative Evangelical inherits this "just me and the Bible" mentality as well as an eschewing of theological preparation. 

You can kind of sense the angst now, though, because the Internet makes it impossible to insulate kids from the world's ideas as they once were. I think many of the fundamentalist institutions have had to start becoming more serious about education and taking their heads out of the sand but there is a tension between their roots and where they're trying to go. Witness how they handle the men within their midst that discover Reformed theology and want to reason from the Scriptures. They're typically anathemetized within the group because debate and discussion is not a skill that most fundamentalists have.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Chuch is very interesting because it grew out of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. My former Pastor's father-in-law was the pastor of an OPC in San Francisco that used grape juice during the Lord's Supper because there were some really old ladies that had been a part of the prohibition movement.

When J. Gresham Machen founded Westminster Seminary and helped to found the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (originally called the Presbyterian Church in America before the mainline sued), there were some fundamentalists that "joined the cause". Fractures formed early when the fundamentalists realized that Machen was, in the end, a Presbyterian and believed more than 5 fundamentals. It's pretty hard to form a Church around a Confession with only 5 things like the above after all. The Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) was an offshoot and split off from the OPC because they wanted to be more fundamentalist than Presbyterian.

Anyhow, that's a nutshell. This is actually a pretty decent article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist


----------



## SRoper (Jun 7, 2007)

Fundamentalism is a rejection of historic confessions to make way for a new minimalist confession that only contains the "fundamentals." Fundamentalists saw the historic confessions as needlessly divisive in the struggle against liberalism.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 7, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Fundamentalism is a rejection of historic confessions to make way for a new minimalist confession that only contains the "fundamentals." Fundamentalists saw the historic confessions as needlessly devisive in the struggle against liberalism.


 That's right, which is why I question why most contemporary Reformed thinkers would even want to embrace the appellation "fundamentalist" as a badge of self-description given the popular connotations of it. The frame of theology that a church embraces shouldn't be for pragmatic reasons, so as to allow for bridge-building coalitions with other denominations ostensibly to mount a concerted apologetics opposition to unbelieving heretics. 

Ostensible conservative Christian Protestant reactionaries to liberal theologians have been remarkably shallow throughout the twentieth-century, and don't always muster the most articulate, logically coherent, or thoughtful responses. One reason I think they are blown in the tempest winds is that they stripped themselves of their doctrinal distinctives, and eventually lose their doctrinal and intellectual rigor altogether, in their embrace of minimalist confessions.

One of the unfortunate downsides to wrestling with someone in an intelectual battle, is that you are sometimes influenced by them indirectly. Hence, conservative Christian evangelicals become more obsessed about holding the public square, and taking it back from the _liberals_, rather than doing something meaningful like evangelizing. Take Bryan at the Scopes trial. Bryan's intellectual gafts gave the pagan H.L. Mencken reason to mock him and other Christians.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 7, 2007)

Back in '65, (I don't remember it, I was 10) Time magazine reported on a large convocation of ministers and students that met at Harvard Divinity. The article was titled, "Love in place of Law". This was the birth of the 'new morality' and the "All you need is love" sentiment that pervades the mainstream churches now.

They quoted verses from Paul's writings and said basically that we were now delivered from the law and they set up a false dichotomy between love and law. Those who would not embrace this silly sentiment were labeled 'fundamentalists' because we wouldn't agree to a 'new morality' we were happy with the old one.

What Scott said is absolutely accurate because the creeds were the codification of law (God's decrees). Many churches had already left their creeds behind and this 'new morality' gave them the validation they were seeking.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 7, 2007)

I was just wondering about the OPC too. Thanks! Muy interesante.


SemperFideles said:


> As Ryan has pointed out, it used to have a historical meaning behind it. It refers to those who were rejecting the liberalization of theology in mainline Protestantism. Fundamentalists wanted to affirm 5 key issues that modernists were denying:
> 1. the inerrancy of the Bible,
> 2. the Virgin birth,
> 3. physical resurrection,
> ...


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 7, 2007)

Yeah, that happens in Internet chat sites. Got to stick with the gospel. Thanks for your explanation.


Puritanhead said:


> One of the unfortunate downsides to wrestling with someone in an intelectual battle, is that you are sometimes influenced by them indirectly. Hence, conservative Christian evangelicals become more obsessed about holding the public square, and taking it back from the _liberals_, rather than doing something meaningful like evangelizing. Take Bryan at the Scopes trial. Bryan's intellectual gafts gave the pagan H.L. Mencken reason to mock him and other Christians.


----------



## weinhold (Jun 8, 2007)

Alvin Plantiga says a fundamentalist is "the stupid sumbitch [_sic_] whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine."

George Marsden says a fundamentalist is "an evangelical who is angry about something."


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 8, 2007)

> George Marsden says a fundamentalsit is "an evangelical who is angry about something."


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 8, 2007)

Jerry Falwell (1993-2007)

Well, I'm sure since this "fundamentalist" saint's passing that he is no longer "angry" about bleeding heart liberals, homosexuals and the ACLU now that he is in Heaven. 

It's not like I didn't hear enough name-dropping about bleeding heart liberals, homosexuals and the ACLU, in just about every other convocation sermon while attending Liberty. 

Shi'ite Baptists... ugh I mean Southern Baptists everywhere continue to look for the leadership void to be filled by a new "fundamentalist" cleric "who is angry about something."



> George Marsden says a fundamentalist is "an evangelical who is angry about something."


----------



## beej6 (Jun 8, 2007)

I always chuckle a little when I hear or read the word "fundamentalist" - I suppose people around me wonder what the heck I'm thinking. As has been alluded to above, the history of the OPC shows that, at least at the beginning, that a confessional Presbyterian would have some sympathies with a turn of the century fundamentalist. 

The Rev. Alan Pontier (OPC, now in Big Bear Lake, CA) once preached at my former church and used the word in exactly the above context. He dropped his voice down low and almost whispered, "...fundamentalist."


----------



## blhowes (Jun 8, 2007)

I've heard *FUN*da*MENTAL*ist preachers say that fundamentalists are known for being too mental (always reading/studying their Bibles) and not enough fun (no drinking, smoking, dancing, movies, etc) by non-fundamentalists.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 8, 2007)

So if you have a high view of the Sabbath and don't drink or smoke...don't go out dancing...and really love reading the Scriptures...but go past the five points and are reformed...then they are not a fundamentalist? A Calvinist can hold to the five teachings, but a fundamentalist cannot hold to Calvinist teachings??? Just trying to unravel this one...


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 8, 2007)

George Marsden in his book, _Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelism_, says that fundamentalism was originally just the name for the militantly conservative wing of evangelical Christianity. Marsden says, "What chiefly distinguished fundamentalism from earlier evangelicalism was its militancy toward modernist theology and cultural change (Page 66 of the above book)". The term, "fundamentalism", gradually took on a more limited meaning. By the 1960's, a fundamentalist was a separatist. Fundamentalists stayed separate from mainline denominations, the holiness movement, and the pentecostal movement. Most of those who call themselves fundamentalists today are separtist Baptist dispensationalists.


----------



## shelly (Jun 8, 2007)

If you want to get a good look at basic middle of the road fundamentalists and learn about them then go and take a look at http://www.sharperiron.org/

If you want to take a look at the mean as a snake brand then go check out http://www.fundamentalforums.com/index.php 

be careful


----------



## blhowes (Jun 9, 2007)

eternallifeinchrist said:


> So if you have a high view of the Sabbath and don't drink or smoke...don't go out dancing...and really love reading the Scriptures...but go past the five points and are reformed...then they are not a fundamentalist? A Calvinist can hold to the five teachings, but a fundamentalist cannot hold to Calvinist teachings??? Just trying to unravel this one...


As you can see from the thread, the definition of a fundamentalist has changed somewhat over the years. I think being a fundamentalist and being a Calvinist could go hand-in-hand if you define it as it was during the early struggles with liberalism. The two may not go together so well if you define it as Curt said:

Most of those who call themselves fundamentalists today are separtist Baptist dispensationalists.​
Since 'fundamentalist' is just a label, a person may find that as they become more Calvinistic in their beliefs that the label just doesn't accurately represent what they believe anymore. Sometimes people become less of a separatist when they become reformed. Sometimes they change and don't consider themselves dispensationalists anymore. Sometimes they change and no longer consider themselves baptistic. When one or more of these fundamentalist distinctions changes in the person's life, given the above definition, they may decide that the label just doesn't fit anymore.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 9, 2007)

Ahhh. So these three things sort of define fundamentalists today...


blhowes said:


> As you can see from the thread, the definition of a fundamentalist has changed somewhat over the years. I think being a fundamentalist and being a Calvinist could go hand-in-hand if you define it as it was during the early struggles with liberalism. The two may not go together so well if you define it as Curt said:
> 
> Most of those who call themselves fundamentalists today are separtist Baptist dispensationalists.​
> Since 'fundamentalist' is just a label, a person may find that as they become more Calvinistic in their beliefs that the label just doesn't accurately represent what they believe anymore. Sometimes people become less of a separatist when they become reformed. Sometimes they change and don't consider themselves dispensationalists anymore. Sometimes they change and no longer consider themselves baptistic. When one or more of these fundamentalist distinctions changes in the person's life, given the above definition, they may decide that the label just doesn't fit anymore.


----------

