# Fundamentalism



## LawrenceU (Jun 24, 2011)

As we know words and phrases have both denotative and connotative definition. Fundamentalism is one such descriptor. I am curious at how you explain fundamentalism to someone. That description would not be what it looks like. Rather, it would be what is the underlying philosophy, rationale, and / or applications. Of course I am talking about Christian Fundamentalism. (Let me go ahead and ask that someone please not post that Christian Fundamentalism is an oxymoron or some other such thing.)


----------



## Christopher88 (Jun 24, 2011)

Fundamentalism is personal work based holiness with man made laws that leads to a perfect relationship with God and in some circles salvation.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 24, 2011)

During the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy in the early 1900's it basically meant a militant defense of the faith. In that sense, confessionalists like Machen qualified as a fundamentalist, although I understand he eventually came to dislike the term due to its imprecision. Also, in that sense, to more moderate and liberal professing Christians who would deny inerrancy and who would often deny other fundamentals of the faith, everybody on this board is a fundamentalist. For example, you will be called a fundamentalist if you believe what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, women pastors, six day creationism, etc. 

Fundamentalism in its early days mainly consisted of Baptists and Presbyterians, with a smattering of Methodists and others. It also originated as mostly a Northern movement as well. If I recall the term was coined by the Baptist leader Curtis Lee Laws, who called for a a "battle royal for the Fundamentals." There was also the publication of the multi-volume _The Fundamentals_, which included articles by early fundamentals on a large number of topics and which included contributions by several Reformed leaders, including Warfield. The famous Five Fundamentals originated in the Northern Presbyterian Church. So early on, it was by no means an exclusively Baptist movement and even today, while Baptists are by far the largest group, (as well as dispensationalists) you still have some Presbyterians (whose ranks among fundamentalists have also often included dispensationalists) and others as well. The Bible Presbyterians have always been identified with fundamentalism, but they have undergone several schisms since their founding. Baptists came out of the Northern Baptist Convention in successive waves, founding GARBC, the Conservative Baptists and other groups. 

There were (and are) fundamentalists in the South too, like J. Frank Norris, who were arguably more "extreme" than many of their Northern Brethren. The Southern Baptist Convention, like the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS) generally held the line against the most extreme liberals but gradually gave way to neo-orthodoxy by mid-century, leading to their own battles over orthodoxy. 

While fundamentalism always stressed separation from apostasy, by the 1950's, fundamentalism also became focused on separation, namely "secondary separation." This means separating from "erring brothers" who themselves affirm the fundamentals of the faith but who are not separated from liberals, heretics, etc., instead cooperating with them in various forms of ministry. This policy was largely a result of Billy Graham's policy in the mid 1950's of cooperating with non-evangelicals in his "crusades," including liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics. Other related developments included the founding of Fuller Seminary, the National Association of Evangelicals and Christianity Today. Taken as a whole, this was the beginning of the New Evangelical movement, something more confessional Reformed types have had their issues with as well. See Robert Godfrey's "The Myth of Influence." (However, there are several NAPARC denoms in the NAE, including the PCA and the RPCNA.) The New Evangelicals wanted to leave behind the legalism of the fundys and also what they saw as a lack of scholarship, a lack of social engagement, etc. (The charge was that fundamentalists largely departed from the public square after the Scopes trial.) 

Fuller Seminary is a notable failure in that within less than a generation they were denying inerrancy, resulting in the departure of several of the founding faculty. (I don't think anything has to be said about CT.) The "Conservative Resurgence" in the Southern Baptist Convention is the most notable success by conservative evangelicals who affirmed inerrancy, many of whom were strongly influenced by Carl F.H. Henry, one of the founders of the New Evangelicalism. (The Southern Baptist Graham remained aloof from that controversy.) 

I think it's fair to say that the evangelical/fundy split was a disaster for both sides, as evangelicals have increasingly shown a lack of discernment leading to compromise in many cases while fundamentalists began focusing on fighting fellow believers, a good many of whom affirmed most if not all of the same beliefs and have in many cases largely abandoned the militant defense of the faith of their forefathers, which focused on engaging those who denied the fundamentals of the faith. Ironically then, it has been the more conservative evangelicals as well as the Reformed who have engaged unbelieving and apostate scholarship and trends. 

By the above standard, Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a fundamentalist since he would not cooperate with Graham for the same reasons when he came to the UK and he later separated from Packer and Stott due to their ecumenism. But he is perhaps better termed an evangelical separatist as his rhetoric wasn't as militant as typical American fundamentalists of the same era, he didn't have the same standards of dress, etc. My understanding is that in general, fundamentalists in that day were largely Arminian as well. With regard to Lloyd-Jones and separation from non-evangelicals, see Vol 2 of Iain Murray's biography of him as well as Murray's _Evangelicalism Divided._ John MacArthur would be a latter day American evangelical separatist who is of course not separatist enough for the fundamentalists because he is not separated from Southern Baptists and due to the "worldly" music at his Resolved conferences, etc. 

I'm not that personally acquainted with many fundys, but no doubt it has been characterized over the last 50 by hyper-separatism, legalism and since about the 60's and early 70's, King James Onlyism. While the churches are independent, various schools and seminaries hold a considerable amount of influence in the movement. Bob Jones University is perhaps the most well known fundamentalist school. It is actually considered more of a moderate fundy school, being non King James Only, etc. It would be inaccurate to state as Chris has above that all fundamentalists propound personal work based holiness, but what we might call "fencing the law" and enforcing what some would consider legalistic standards of dress and conduct have certainly been prominent. Ironically, many fundamentalists, while having strict behavioral standards, also tend to reject Lordship Salvation in favor of a "free grace" approach. 

There is actually a resurgence of Calvinism among Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB) which is no less controversial than the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC. Today it's questionable if there really is a coherent fundamentalist movement, much the way that the term evangelicalism really has little or no meaning. 

The Free Presbyterian Church (N.I. and now USA) would also be considered fundamentalist and has had a longstanding relationship with BJU. 

Charlie and some others here with more of a personal background with fundamentalists could tell you more.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 24, 2011)

> ... work-based holiness



I'm surprised. Doesn't it all stem from that set of booklets defining protestant orthodoxy written at the beginning of the 20th century? And they couldn't have taught works-based anything, could they?

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

...missed yours, Chris


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 24, 2011)

*Overview of Fundamentalism*

Fundamentalism is the belief that Christians have a spiritual duty to separate, both personally and ecclesiastically, from both false brethren and from all those who hold fellowship with false brethren, and from all those who hold fellowship with those who hold fellowship with false brethren.

Historically, it worked out like this. The original "fundamentalists" were all who opposed the modern liberal theology. They varied widely. You could include people like Machen in this group, though their confessional commitments certainly kept them separate from the mainstream fundamentalist culture. Over time, differences began to emerge among the fundamentalists. One group, calling themselves neo-evangelicals, "differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life." 

This effectively divided the earlier fundamentalism into three segments: 
1. The fundamentalists who, though still anti-modernist, were pursuing the strategy of neo-evangelicalism. These were based largely in Fuller Seminary. Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, and Billy Graham are prime examples. 

2. The fundamentalists who were _militantly_ opposed both to modernism and to neo-evangelicalism. This group became modern fundamentalism. Bob Jones University, Hyles-Anderson College, the Sword of the Lord newspaper, and a host of other churches and organizations make up this conglomerate.

3. Those who, while not sufficiently motivated to become neo-evangelicals, were not particularly opposed to them either. Many free church groups, such as those associated with Dallas Seminary or the SBC would fall here.

The powder keg was the northern Billy Graham crusades. Liberals are false brethren. Billy Graham ran crusades, in which some sponsors were liberals. Fundamentalists separate from Billy Graham and everyone who works with or sponsors Billy Graham. They further separate from anyone who refuses to take the same stance that they do toward Billy Graham and his associates. Notice that modern fundamentalists effectively reduce the three groups to two, us and them. The gigantic middle group gets lumped in with the neo-evangelicals.

However, although the "doctrine" of separation has always been the stated reason for fundamentalism, the real reasons extend far beyond differences of ecclesiology. For one thing, fundamentalists strongly opposed racial integration, which Billy Graham was pushing just before the big break. For another, fundamentalists equate people who approach "personal holiness" differently than they do with people who teach false doctrine. So, you could be kicked out of a fundamentalist college or church for drinking alcohol, listening to Christian contemporary music, and in some cases for going to a movie theater or for (if you are a woman) wearing pants. So, it would be a mistake to separate too strongly the "doctrines" of fundamentalism from its culture. They certainly do not.

Some bibliography:

Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden (excellent overall treatment by a non-fundamentalist)

Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism by Roland McCune (probably the best case made by a fundamentalist for fundamentalism)

The Dividing Line by Mark Sidwell (brief exposition of fundamentalist principles by a fundamentalist)

A History of Fundamentalism by George Dollar (by a fundamentalist; this will convince you they are crazy)

---------- Post added at 09:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 AM ----------

However, there are rifts in modern fundamentalism. This article, written by a former pastor of mine, offers some help in sorting out what sort of fundamentalist you may be dealing with.

A Christian Fundamentalist Travel Guide


----------



## Kevin (Jun 24, 2011)

Some good overviews above. I would second the recommendation for Dollar & Marsden. Both of their books are good.

I grew up in an IFB world & attended 2 of their schools (PCC & TTU). The defining character in my opinion is not doctrinal, but sociological. The doctrines have shifted in a major way in the past 90 years, so understanding what the "Fundamentals of the Faith" were in 1920 does not help you in understanding the movement.

For a place to start I would recomend the following books; 
God's Choice: The Total World of a Fundamentalist Christian School: Amazon.ca: Alan Peshkin: Books, 

Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World: Amazon.ca: Nancy Tatom Ammerman: Books, 

and Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church: Amazon.ca: James M. Ault Jr.: Books.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

The defining characteristics of a "fundamentalist" are; 

1) one that holds all beliefs with an equal fervor.
2) a certainty that one is never wrong.
3) never questioning those in leadership.
4) conviction that those in the outgroup are diabolically influenced. In other words, no one "simply disagrees".
5) extreme susceptibility to conspiracy theories.
6) anti-intellectualism.
7) self-referential credentialing. (Dr A agrees with me, we both agree with Dr S, and they both agree with me, ergo I am correct!)
8) virtually no limit to how far you will go in attacking critics. No collegial debates, the "faith/gospel" is always "at stake".


----------



## Fly Caster (Jun 24, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> As we know words and phrases have both denotative and connotative definition. Fundamentalism is one such descriptor. I am curious at how you explain fundamentalism to someone. That description would not be what it looks like. Rather, it would be what is the underlying philosophy, rationale, and / or applications. Of course I am talking about Christian Fundamentalism. (Let me go ahead and ask that someone please not post that Christian Fundamentalism is an oxymoron or some other such thing.)



How I would explain it would depend on who I'm explaining it too. The core trait of Fundamentalism is a high regard for the authority of scripture, one that I share with them. In this regard, to most of the world I am a Fundamentalist, and I don't see that as a label to be ashamed of. Honestly, because of their high regard for scriptural authority, sometimes I feel more affinity with my fundamentalist brothers than I do with some (barely) Reformed folk who get soft here. So if I were discussing with a nominal Christian, or an unbeliever, I would start with this view of scriptural authority and affirm my commonality with them before discussing differences. If I were explaining to another Christian, I would point out our differences in worship, soteriology, eschatology, etc.

Having said that, I would note two things: 1) Fundamentalists aren't always consistent with how this high view of Scriptural authority is applied, and 2) Sadly, Fundamentalism has to some degree been hi-jacked by a number of people who share some of the characteristics listed in posts above-- although I believe that it is wrong to paint Fundamentalists as a whole as being abusive and legalistic. On the first point, the Law of God is downplayed (mostly due to the influence of Dispensationalism). There remains a true, deep desire for Holiness-- and scriptural commands for separation are taken seriously-- but with the lack of focus on God's Law, things get muddled and lots of extra "standards" start creeping in. After a few generations of this, it starts taking a toll. There isn't a lot to explain about the second point-- one needs only to look at the legacy of Jack Hyles and a number of other men who built corrupt, controversy-riddled "empires," claiming for themselves to be the true representatives of Fundamentalism.

I know you said asked for a description that "would not be what it looks like," and probably haven't done that. I've been in Fundamentalism, had a strong (and sinful) reaction to it, become Reformed, but have grown to be humbled and become thankful for my Fundamentalist upbringing (in God's providence); to appreciate the good points, and yet strongly oppose the bad.

As an aside, even though I have a deep aversion to ecumenism, I wish that Reformed pastors and elders would seek out Fundamentalist pastors to build relationships with. I'm not suggesting that pulpits be shared, but something more like meeting for prayer together and discussions over lunch. Yes, there's a lot of bad apples out there, and a pastor might have to try out a few before one is found where a meaningful dialogue could take place. My experience is that most of these guys have a grossly-mistaken notion about our Reformed and Calvinistic principles (and I'm not sure that we sometimes aren't much better when it comes to theirs). As a lay-person, some of my best, most rewarding Christian experience has come from doing this with some Fundamentalist brothers who have become dear friends. It means swallowing a little pride and not going after converting him on something like alcohol in the first conversation. It means finding common ground to build on, but with a mutual agreement on the authority of scripture, what better place can we hope for with which to start? Seems to me that we have more in common there than we do with some "Reformed" guy who claims that science must interpret the first three chapters of scripture.


----------



## Tripel (Jun 24, 2011)

I'll admit to probably not knowing the denotative definition. 

When I use the word, I simply mean it as constructing a hedge of additional rules, practices, and beliefs that are not commanded by God, all in attempt to not even approach worldliness.


----------



## Fly Caster (Jun 24, 2011)

Tripel said:


> I'll admit to probably not knowing the denotative definition.
> 
> When I use the word, I simply mean it as constructing a hedge of additional rules, practices, and beliefs that are not commanded by God, all in attempt to not even approach worldliness.



Most Christians today would seens the "Sins Forbidden" in the 10 Commandments sections of our Larger Catechism as "a hedge of additional rules, practices, and beliefs that are not commanded by God." ex-Q.139---"... lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays..."

It isn't good to disparage with such a broad brush. It's better to commend their desire to be "unspotted from the world" and, by word and example, show them a better way.


----------



## Tripel (Jun 24, 2011)

Fly Caster said:


> It isn't good to disparage with such a broad brush. It's better to commend their desire to be "unspotted from the world" and, by word and example, show them a better way.




First of all, I don't think my connotative definition was disparaging at all. 

Second, if someone definitively calls something sin where God has given us freedom, that person is in err. Desiring to be holy is commendable, but adding to God's law is certainly not.


----------



## Reformation Monk (Jun 24, 2011)

I'm going to throw out something a little different here. 

I believe that "traditionally" --- Fundamentalism was mainly used to refer more to the dispensationalist churches. 

But now, I am seeing it widely used by Liberal Christians to refer to anyone who holds to a more literal approach to Scripture. 

So in most mainstream Evangelical circles now, Reformed Christians, Baptists and independent Baptists would all be considered Fundamentalists. Even your "Traditionalist" Catholics are considered Fundamentalists. 

Basically, it's the same meaning that would be used for a Fundamentalist Muslim or Buddhist. 

I have been referred to as a "fundamentalist" in the PCUSA church by many because I believe in the inherency of Scripture, I'm a young earth creationist, I believe in Original Sin and the Atonement ... etc.. etc... therefore I'm a fundamentalist.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 24, 2011)

I believe that . . .


The Bible is inerrant
The _Textus Receptus_ represent the best NT Mss. 
And that therefore the KJV version is the best English translation
The earth was crated in six literal days
Christ was a historical figure
Christ was who he said he was
Christ rose bodily from the grave
Women should submit to their husbands as unto the Lord
Women are barred from the pastoral office
Women's dress should be distinguished by its modesty
Headcovering in worship is biblically mandated (I Cor. 11:2-16)
Many of these convictions have earned me the epithet "fundamentalist."

However, I also believe that 

While defending the "fundamentals" is absolutely essential, we must resist the tendency of doctrinal reductionism. 
We must also remember that while every biblical doctrine is important, they are not all equally important. 
And lastly, that while dressing modestly, homeschooling your kids, and other ways in which we eschew worldliness are wonderful, we do these thing because of the salvation that has been wrought in our hearts by the gospel not in order to merit that salvation which is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.


----------



## Reformation Monk (Jun 24, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I believe that . . .
> 
> 
> The Bible is inerrant
> ...



Nope sorry Rev..... you're no longer a "fundamentalist", You're an "extremist!"   ... jk. 

I really didn't know anything outside of the PCUSA for most of my life... well into my thirties. Then by God's Providence; one lone "Calvinist" decided to join our Church. He didn't identify himself as such; he just seemed a little different, so I invited him over for dinner and after that, we wound up meeting almost weekly. 

I had absolutely no idea that there were other ways to look at the Bible, but after awhile I started to see the truth behind his doctrine. 

This lead me to start exploring other churches. 

I was totally amazed and almost awestruck when I stepped into my first "Reformed PCA" Church. They practiced the regulative principle of worship, only singing the psalms, all the men were in suits with buzz cuts and all the women had head coverings.... they weren't playing around. 

This was when it really hit me, when I really started to understand the difference between self centered worship and God centered worship. 

..... they used the ESV though.


----------



## Kiffin (Jun 24, 2011)

Good summaries. I, myself, am a product of American Fundamentalism.. Though I appreciate what Fundamentalism has done for the church, I believe the movement's original intent has been dumbed down to defending cultural conservatism...

Anyways, for a little comic relief, look what I found skimming the back of one of my church history books. Look at the page numbers for "Fundamentalism."

View attachment 2101


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 24, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism by Roland McCune (probably the best case made by a fundamentalist for fundamentalism)



I agree this is a very good book. I picked it up on sale at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary of all places! I've been meaning to do a review of it. Mark Dever was given this book by the fundamentalist pastor Mark Minnick. Dever said he agreed with almost all of it until he got to McCune's chapter on separation. 

However, the book is arguably a decade or two out of date in some respects even though it was published ca. 2004. It fails to take into consideration recent developments in the Southern Baptist Convention and I think it would have been significantly enhanced had this development been addressed. But Dr. McCune's thoughts on MacArthur would also apply to the SBC, and even more in that case. The SBC as a whole is clearly more "New Evangelical" than MacArthur and those of a similar mindset given several prominent Southern Baptist leaders being involved with things like Evangelicals and Catholics Toghether (ECT) and the Manhattan Declaration. But in fairness, the book was written before many young fundamentalists (many of them Calvinistic) began to question the separatist views and shallow theology of their forefathers.

Dr. McCune is clearly Calvinistic, although also dispensationalist, as are most fundys today. He has an extended treatment of apologetics in which he sets forth Van Tillianism as a better approach than the more evidential approach of Ockenga and others. He also has a good treatment of the state of the unevangelized and is critical of John R.W. Stott's "incarnational ministry" that is so popular among the missional and contextual types today.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 24, 2011)

> But now, I am seeing it widely used by Liberal Christians to refer to anyone who holds to a more literal approach to Scripture.



I've seen that a lot, average Evangelical, especially conservative Envangelicals as "fundies".


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 24, 2011)

Kiffin said:


> Good summaries. I, myself, am a product of American Fundamentalism.. Though I appreciate what Fundamentalism has done for the church, I believe the movement's original intent has been dumbed down to defending cultural conservatism...
> 
> Anyways, for a little comic relief, look what I found skimming the back of one of my church history books. Look at the page numbers for "Fundamentalism."
> 
> View attachment 2101


 That's funny!!!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 24, 2011)

Kiffin said:


> Good summaries. I, myself, am a product of American Fundamentalism.. Though I appreciate what Fundamentalism has done for the church, I believe the movement's original intent has been dumbed down to defending cultural conservatism...



This is something that the fundamentalist Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Seminary has pointed out quite eloquently. He notes that the "conservatism" of most fundamentalists when it comes to music, etc. basically amounts to a defense of what was popular during the Victorian Era and perhaps even more recent than that in some cases. Thus, some of the alleged "New Evangelicals" (perhaps more properly termed, conservative evangelicals) are more "conservative" with regard to music, although they would be a small minority of evangelicals.

As a side note, the term fundamentalist has become a pejorative among evangelicals (even some Reformed and Reformed leaning) for anyone who is more strict on a certain issue than the accuser is. It's a convenient way to label someone when the accuser is either unable or unwilling to engage the issue(s). This would include the kinds of things listed by C.M. Sheffield. In a somewhat extreme case, I've literally had a Southern Baptist doctoral student (and now instructor in theology) tell me that 6 day creationism and inerrancy are "fundamentalist" ideas and defend the likes of Longman, Enns, and N.T. Wright. Of course you've got Westminster Seminary graduates who do the same thing as many were students of Longman and/or Enns.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 24, 2011)

Maybe we should start using the terminology IFBC [(Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church) and I do stress the Independent] instead of just Fundamentalist. That would clearly separate the two thoughts in my mind.

A true Fundamentalist, In my humble opinion, is someone who is immovable on certain doctrines essential to a proper profession of faith. They will not compromise to grow a bigger congregation or not offend certain liberal trends or denominations.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 24, 2011)

To extend Lawrence's question, if I may...

Some have mentioned that fundamentalism is more socio-cultural than doctrinal. How would you describe fundamentalism in regards to North (PCUSA-OPC-BPC)
and South (PCUS-PCA)? Are there categorical differences or just differences in degree? Other than the segregation issue, are there are other issues that we can contrast regionally?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 24, 2011)

RAS said:


> To extend Lawrence's question, if I may...
> 
> Some have mentioned that fundamentalism is more socio-cultural than doctrinal. How would you describe fundamentalism in regards to North (PCUSA-OPC-BPC)
> and South (PCUS-PCA)? Are there categorical differences or just differences in degree? Other than the segregation issue, are there are other issues that we can contrast regionally?



BPC is fundamentalist. Some recently split from the BPC because the BPC dared to have some very preliminary talks with the OPC regarding the possibility of fraternal relations at some point in the future. 

OPC is confessionally Reformed. To some who are not of that persuasion it will look "fundamentalist" to some degree since they only cooperate with other confessionally reformed churches. To those of a broader mindset, not everything in the confession is that important. The OPC began as "fundamentalist" generally speaking (in the sense of being anti-modernist) but within a couple of years of its founding, the BPC split off once the differences between the camps became clear. The OPC and especially WTS were strongly influenced by non Americans coming in early on, like John Murray, Ned Stonehouse and Cornelius Van Til. This was not welcomed by many who eventually left for the BPC. Believe it or not given today's attitudes, things like the use of beverage alcohol in moderation was a big issue in American Presbyterianism in the early 20th Century. The OPC also didn't have the interest in becoming immersed in politics the way that Mcintire did.

The PCA is more broadly evangelical as seen by their membership and leadership in the NAE and other reasons. But there are a good number of confessional men there too. But the denomination as a whole is broader. There are comparatively few Sabbatarians in the PCA compared with the OPC. They are more broadly evangelical in part because of how long it took for them to come out of the PCUS. There were more disparate reasons for coming out compared to the Northerners in the early 20th Century, partly because the apostasy took longer to manifest itself. (I'll leave out the segregation issue since you are looking for other issues besides that.) 

Later, you had in the early 80's the "Joining and Receiving" into the PCA of the RPCES, an evangelical Presbyterian denomination, part of which had come out of the BPC in the 50's. They were more Northern in geography and in outlook, rejecting things like the Spirituality of the Church. They also had deaconnesses and If I recall correctly were allowed to keep them, an issue that is apparently bigger now than ever in the PCA

As for the mainlines, the PCUSA (I think it was the UPCUSA for parts of the 20th C.) went liberal first, although there were a good many evangelicals in it for a long time and there are a few left even now for various reasons, in many cases due to concerns over property. It seems that a fair number of the evangelicals who stayed in were dispensationalist, like Barnhouse. Many in the broader evangelical party even in the beginning wasn't that interested in fighting the liberals to the point of doing things like filing charges. Some of the evangelicals may have been unconfessional themselves, like perhaps teaching dispensationalism or being Amyraldian. 

The PCUS it seems retained more of an evangelical flavor for a longer period of time, although it had its fair share of liberals too by the 60's if not well before. They adopted the 1903 Northern Presbyterian revisions to the WCF some time around mid century, maybe in the 40's. From a theological standpoint, I think the big issue in the formation of the PCA was moreso neo-orthodoxy, as it was in the SBC generally speaking. (But in many cases neo-orthodoxy was a stepping stone to eventually and publicly embracing outright liberalism.) The founding of RTS preceded the founding of the PCA by a few years, just as had been the case with WTS and the OPC. Covenant Seminary originated with the RPCES.


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 24, 2011)

Fundamentalism is that which is held to by Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists, specifically speaking and at its basic level, are those who hold to the 5 fundamentals (hence their name).

5 Fundamentals
1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity of Jesus Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 24, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> Fundamentalism is that which is held to by Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists, specifically speaking and at its basic level, are those who hold to the 5 fundamentals (hence their name).
> 
> 5 Fundamentals
> 1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
> ...



Thats not generally what we mean by fundamentalists than.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 24, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> Fundamentalism is that which is held to by Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists, specifically speaking and at its basic level, are those who hold to the 5 fundamentals (hence their name).
> 
> 5 Fundamentals
> 1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
> ...



In my humble opinion, when someone denies point #1, it is an open door to place #2-5, and any other doctrine on to shaky ground.


----------



## JohnGill (Jun 24, 2011)

Kevin said:


> Some good overviews above. I would second the recommendation for Dollar & Marsden. Both of their books are good.
> 
> I grew up in an IFB world & attended 2 of their schools (PCC & TTU). The defining character in my opinion is not doctrinal, but sociological. The doctrines have shifted in a major way in the past 90 years, so understanding what the "Fundamentals of the Faith" were in 1920 does not help you in understanding the movement.
> 
> ...



I would also add the following:

9) Double, triple separation
10) Putting forth man-made standards in place of God's standards
11) No CCM/Rock music
12) Overall lack of doctrinal understanding by those in leadership; Discipleship consists in teaching others how to share the gospel; Systematic theology is disdained and those who show an interest are ridiculed.
13) Generally easy-believism
14) Anti-Calvinist
15) Difficulty with apologetics or a dismissal of apologetics
16) Emphasis on tithing
17) Eisegesis vs Exegesis aka hobby horse preaching
18) If you're not studying to become a pastor/preacher, missionary, or evangelist you are looked down on. Same goes for singles serving God.

The following is a list of preachers within what has become known as fundamentalism:

Donald Waite
David Cloud
Jack Hyles
Jack Schaap
Paul Chappell

Good link to many of those in Independent Fundamentalist Baptist circles: Videos By Maze Jackson

Here is a link to Cloud's: The Calvinism Debate. Keeping track of all the fallacies in this speech is very difficult but worthwhile.

Caveat: not all churches who claim the title "fundamentalist" hold to these beliefs. Some hold to some or none, but in the public eye the term "fundamentalist" has become associated with the views of the speakers I have linked. Search Lester Roloff, Jim Vineyard, Jack Hyles, and Ron Williams to see why this view of "fundamentalist" is in the public eye. Another good search term would "100% Hyles". Bob Jones University and Liberty University should be compared to Hyles-Anderson College and West Coast Baptist College. I am not applying the former and the latter are the same. In comparing the two groups you will see a difference in the term fundamentalist.

These are the type of churches I used to attend until God gave me understanding of the Doctrines of Grace. I have a few friends who came out with me. The response by the pastor of one such church to our no longer attending was, 1 John 2:*19* They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

In doing the above searches be forewarned that there are some rather graphic titles that will come up. There is some talk of those within the movement trying to steer it back towards a Biblical foundation.

It is also within the IFB movement that charges against MacArthur denigrating the blood of Christ are still thrown about.

To me the biggest difference between IFB preaching and Reformed preaching (Hyles vs Beeke) is that while Reformed preaching seeks to exposit scripture, IFB preaching seeks to manipulate through emotional techniques similar to Finney.

At the same time, the IFB church I attended does have the bravery to go out every week and try to evangelize. They also walk with signs out in front of the local infanticide clinic every Monday.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 24, 2011)

> It is also within the IFB movement that charges against MacArthur denigrating the blood of Christ are still thrown about.



Oh ya I forgot about that, didn't some worldwide IFB churches get together to say MacArthur is a heretic? Kinda breaks the point of being independent.


----------



## JohnGill (Jun 24, 2011)

Rufus said:


> > It is also within the IFB movement that charges against MacArthur denigrating the blood of Christ are still thrown about.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ya I forgot about that, didn't some worldwide IFB churches get together to say MacArthur is a heretic? Kinda breaks the point of being independent.





> *IV. FUNDAMENTAL LEADERS ARE DISTURBED ABOUT THE FALSE TEACHING ON THE BLOOD*The September/October, 1986 issue of the *News Bulletin* of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America contains two highly significant items, about the blood of Christ. While I am not a member of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, I heartily commend them for speaking out on the blood of Christ.
> First, there is an outlined Bible Study entitled, *"The Blood Of Christ - I Peter 1:18-19."* Although it is unsigned, this excellent study takes up almost two pages. It may well have been written by Don Jasmin, their Research Secretary. In my view, it blows MacArthur's foggy position right out of the water.
> Second, it contains a resolution passed by the World Congress of Fundamentalists, meeting on the campus of Bob Jones University, August 4-8, 1986. While MacArthur's name is not mentioned in the Bible Study or in the Resolution, there is no doubt in my mind as to why they are speaking out at this very time. While MacArthur is trying to make out like fundamental leaders are in agreement with him on the blood, we venture to say that there are many fundamental pastors who are deeply disturbed over his stand. We believe that there are many who want to distance themselves from the false teaching of John MacArthur.
> Below we are reproducing word for word the resolution mentioned above. It is clear and plain. There is no foggy and misleading words contained in it. Any Christian can understand it, but the same cannot be said for MacArthur's views.
> ...



From: John MacArthur Exposed!

The refutation of the above can be found here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 25, 2011)

Rufus said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Fundamentalism is that which is held to by Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists, specifically speaking and at its basic level, are those who hold to the 5 fundamentals (hence their name).
> ...



Well...  That's not my problem that "you" don't mean what it is supposed to mean. I guess as postmoderns "you" can make it mean whatever you want.


----------

