# What Makes a Fundamentalist?



## LadyFlynt (Feb 5, 2005)

I have to ask this question. I was raised a fundementalist. I am a very conservative Christian. And I guess, because of that, I still consider myself a "fundamentalist"...But I hear alot of disparagement againe fundamentalism...so maybe it is a matter of terminology I am dealing with. So could you all please give me your definition of what makes a fundamentalist, so I can know if in the Reformed view I am or not?


----------



## yeutter (Feb 5, 2005)

The Fundamentals that were originally published in the beginning of the 20th Century, and repeatedly adopted by the mainline Presbyterian Church, nor were they temperance oriented or dispensationalist. But Josh is right that is what people think about today when they think about fundamentalism.


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 5, 2005)

"Fundamentalist"-- KJV Only, legalism, Pretrib/Premil. That's what first comes to mind, anyway.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 5, 2005)

The religious majority here in America whom define right and wrong by the bibles standards.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 5, 2005)

Fundamentalism 

Fundamentalism as a movement began around the turn of the 20th century. It was a reaction to liberalism and neo-orthodoxy to preserve conservative, biblical Christian truth. The term “Fundamentalism” came about as it was used in a series of pamphlets that were published called The Fundamentals (1910-1915). Two Los Angeles laymen, Lyman and Milton Stewart, who thought that every pastor and theological student should receive them, underwrote these documents. They wanted them to be aware of the contemporary compromises being made by liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. 

Liberal Presbyterianism was fought under the influence of the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church in 1910. They created a doctrinal summary declaring the essential beliefs of inerrancy, Christ’s virgin birth, His substitutionary atonement on Calvary, His miracles, His physical resurrection and the hearing of His love. The battlefield for this liberalism was mainly in the seminaries where J. Gresham Machen of Princeton fought for the truths of orthodoxy. He, in turn, helped to found Westminster Seminary as a conservative alternative to the liberal education. In 1936 he was forced to leave to Presbyterian church because of its increasing liberalism, and founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. 

Equally, liberalism also affected the Baptists. In 1919 the World’s Christian Fundamentalist Association was founded in Philadelphia. The least bothered of the Baptist denominations was the Southern Baptist Convention. In 1932 the GARBC was founded (The General Association of Regular Baptist Churches) who identified five key goals: 1) an association of churches – not a convention, 2) complete separation from any liberal Northern Baptist works, 3) Conformity to the London and New Hampshire Confessions of Faith, 4) The fostering of missions among pastors, and 5) aiding churches in finding sound pastors. 

Other founding denominations and groups at this time in contrast to liberal theology were The American Baptist Association organized in 1925, The Grace Brethren in 1937, The American Council of Christian Churches in 1941, Bible Baptist Fellowship in 1950, and the Independent Fundamental Churches of America in 1930. 

Key ideas surrounding fundamentalism as it emerged was the growing isolation it was conveying from culture. Religious separation demonstrated a movement away from culture and as a result caricatured for their objections to smoking, drinking, movies, card playing, dancing, lodges and the like. Political activism also came to light and the religious right was born who were mainly drawn to fundamentalist ties. Jerry Falwell, for example, founded the Moral Majority in the 1970’s. Theologically, fundamentalism’s key ideas surround 1) the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, 2) the virgin birth and deity of Jesus, 3) the substitutionary Atonement, 4) the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus, and 5) the literal, physical return of Christ. 


From:
An Overview of Contemporary theology
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonContemporaryTheology.htm


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 5, 2005)

Unfortunately, words evolve with culture's conception of them, which is what has happened to the word "fundamentalist," even if it "technically" means one who holds to the cardinal Christian doctrines.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Unfortunately, words evolve with culture's conception of them, which is what has happened to the word "fundamentalist," even if it "technically" means one who holds to the cardinal Christian doctrines.



True. This is why it is so much easier to describe fundamentalists than it is to define what it means to be one.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 5, 2005)

Without in any way detracting from Matt's post, let me add the Machen preferred not to call himself a Fundamentalist, but rather an orthodox Christian, or a Calvinist, or a Reformed creedalist. He said he would gladly take the identifier of "fundamentlaist" and stand with the Fundamentalists in common cause against the liberals. And he did stand, even writing a contribution for the book series on "The Fundamentals".

What he saw as lacking, however, in the movement, was that it was reductionistic. It chose out cardinal doctrines, and placed 100% interest and effort on them. As a result, the rest of the theological edifice was left to fall into ruin. And this is exactly what happened in many "fundamental" churches. The "fundamentals" became everything, and the connective doctrines, that which gave true shape to the Christian theological enterprise, atrophied. Many fundamental churches came to view theology and intellectualism in the church with deep suspicion. After all, the seminary grads and the scientists of the day were leading the attack against their Bible, against Creation doctrine, etc.

In 1915 Machen turned down an offer to teach at Union Seminary in Richmond, in the old Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS). Later in 1926, he refused Columbia, and in 1927 at Bryan University. _Also_ he turned down an offer to teach at the new Dallas Seminary, yep, that one. Fundamentalism might have experienced a different growth track if he had. But he already saw too many differences between their direction and his, and he did not see that arena as one in which he was suited to fight.

And it was the fundamentalist Presbyterians that eventually turned on him heartlessly. In 1936 they ran him out of the Independent Board of Foreign Missions, the very cause for which he stood his ground against the apostates in the PCUSA. Frankly, it killed him. He died Jan 1, 1937. And the same crowd members within his nacent OPC (still the PCA in 1937) deserted the denomination mere months later to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, leaving the OPC even smaller and weaker than before.

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 6, 2005)

Thank you...Bruce and Matt you gave me the serious history of what I needed to know.

So basically one can be a Reformed Fundamental...but due to association should choose another term?

I also have another question that I will start another thread for...basically back to Christian Liberty on its flip side....


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 24, 2005)

Another aspect of Fundamentalism is separation from error. "Secondary" separation is a huge issue within "fundamentalism". I.e. you may be orthodox, but if you associate with someone who is unorthodox then I must separate from you.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 24, 2005)

John Muether was recently at my church for our Fall Reformation Bible Conference. During this visit, some more light was shed for me on Fundamentalism and evangelicalism and the failures of each. First, something that is often overlooked is that it really was evangelicals (i.e. men who were generally orthodox personally) that caused liberalism to overrun the PCUSA and who betrayed Machen et. al. since they opposed throwing the liberals out and even brokered a compromise in the mid 1920's that persuaded them to stay. Of course, only a few years later, the liberal triumph was complete, with "conservatives" of various stripes either leaving or being marginalized. 

Fundamentalists (as well as evangelicals) err by boiling the faith down to a few "essentials" or fundamentals (thus being anti-confessional) and also tend toward being anti-church with the rise of parachurch ministries. This was due to pragmatic concerns at first, but it has certainly had a detrimental effect.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 25, 2005)

It depends on how one uses the word. Historically as Matt and Bruce have noted, it denotes certain theological positions, sociologically, as others have noted, it denotes certain attitutdes (e.g., reductionism). Psychologically, as others have noted it denotes a certain fearfulness of others.

To the latter, I would add "the quest for illegitimate religious certainty" or QIRC. 

I find that fundamentalists defined sociologically and psychologically are often marked by a need for certainty. The interest isn't in truth as much as it is in being "right." There is a difference. One's faith and certainty therein often comes to be defined by being "right." In our movement it frequently manifests itself by the identity of one's view with one's mind with the God's intellect/understanding.

These characteristics do not fit every fundamentalist, but I have found that they do describe significant sectors of the movement and they are found across denominational and confessional boundaries. 

The Reformed confessional movement is profoundly influenced by both QIRC and QIRE (the quest for illegitimate religious experience; i.e., the search for emotional bliss and _immediate_ existential encounter with God).

rsc


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> It depends on how one uses the word. Historically as Matt and Bruce have noted, it denotes certain theological positions, sociologically, as others have noted, it denotes certain attitutdes (e.g., reductionism). Psychologically, as others have noted it denotes a certain fearfulness of others.
> 
> To the latter, I would add "the quest for illegitimate religious certainty" or QIRC.
> ...




This quest for certainty and being "right" is also quite apparent with many Roman Catholics, especially those who have converted from evangelicalism.


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The religious majority here in America whom define right and wrong by the bibles standards.



Ummm....and is there anything wrong with defining right and wrong by the bibles standards?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Bill,
Absolutely not! The question was asked, "What is a Fundamentalist?"

The answer is as I described. You got a problem with that William???
:bigsmile:


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



William? WILLIAM!? No one calls me 'William' except my mother. Mom, is that you?


----------



## turmeric (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The Reformed confessional movement is profoundly influenced by both QIRC and QIRE (the quest for illegitimate religious experience; i.e., the search for emotional bliss and _immediate_ existential encounter with God).



What? I thought we were the Frozen Chosen, who *feel* nothing, at least not religiously. We Think Therefore We're Orthodox! QIRE?
All joking aside, please elaborate, I'm still somewhat new here.


----------

