Reformed vs Fundamentalist Thinking

[blhowes]

Sometimes I stop and reflect on things I use to believe. Today, I was thinking about how, as a fundamentalist, I use to look at/judge others who called themselves Christians, yet obviously weren't fundamentalists. Their love for the world was a dead give away. People who go to church on Sundays, yet during the week their walk doesn't back up their talk - drinking alcohol, going to movies, listening to ungodly music, etc., etc., and etc.

It sure has been nice to meet reformed Christians online at the PB who have challenged that fundamentalist thinking.

1Jn 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jn 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.​

This is a well-known verse in fundamentalist circles. The fundamentalist understanding, or application, of the passage, as you know, is very different from how (some?) reformed Christians understand/apply the passage. As a reformed Christian, how do you interpret and apply this passage to your life?

 

[Hippo]

A problem with certain fundamnetalist mindsets is an implicit dualism i.e. spirit good, physical world bad.

The "world" is often used in the Bible to describe things apart from Christ and in modern reformed thought this passage would be seen to establish the necessity of a Christian Worldview whereby we enjoy the physical reality because and through God, not seperate from him.

Even spiritual pursuits that are seperated from God are sinful, taking pride in your own purity being one of them.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

As Joel Beeke notes in his commentary on 1 John, "Worldliness, then, is human activity without God." Carnality is not measured by what goes into our mouths, but by what comes out (Matt. 15.11) and piety is not measured by our abstention from temporal pleasures (Col. 2.20-23). The fundamentalist mindset is akin to the gnostic mindset which led to asceticism and monasteries. The Reformed understand that all of life is sacred, that is, temporal things are not evil in themselves, neither is non-ecclesiastical employment to be despised if it is lawful, but rather God is glorified in the right use of the things of this world. True godliness is a matter of the heart. Therefore, spiritual pride or neglect is a much greater concern to the Reformed than whether there is a beer in someone's refrigerator at home. The Reformed view themselves as pilgrims traveling through this world with our eyes and hearts lifted heavenward to the next, which is to say, using the things of this world rightly but not setting our hearts on them but keeping our treasure above and our eyes on Christ (Heb. 12.2). As Leland Ryken described the Puritans, they were "worldly saints." John Geree added these remarks to his description:

He was conscientious of equity as well as piety knowing that unrighteousness is abomination as well as ungodliness. He was cautious in promising, but careful in performing, counting his word no less engagement than his bond. He was a man of tender heart, not only in regard of his own sin, but others misery, not counting mercy arbitrary, but a necessary duty wherein as he prayed for wisdom to direct him, so he studied for cheerfulness and bounty to act.

He was sober in the use of things of this life, rather beating down the body, than pampering it, yet he denied not himself the use of God’s blessing, lest he should be unthankful, but avoid excess lest he should be forgetful of the Donor. In his habit he avoided costliness and vanity, neither exceeding his degree in civility, nor declining what suited with Christianity, desiring in all things to express gravity. His own life he accounted a warfare, wherein Christ was his captain, his arms, prayers, and tears. The Cross his banner, and his word, Vincit qui patitur ['He conquers who suffers.']

http://www.puritanboard.com/f118/character-old-english-puritan-non-conformist-john-geree-29474/

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A problem with certain fundamnetalist mindsets is an implicit dualism i.e. spirit good, physical world bad.

The "world" is often used in the Bible to describe things apart from Christ and in modern reformed thought this passage would be seen to establish the necessity of a Christian Worldview whereby we enjoy the physical reality because and through God, not seperate from him.

Even spiritual pursuits that are seperated from God are sinful, taking pride in your own purity being one of them.

As Joel Beeke notes in his commentary on 1 John, "Worldliness, then, is human activity without God." Carnality is not measured by what goes into our mouths, but by what comes out (Matt. 15.11) and piety is not measured by our abstention from temporal pleasures (Col. 2.20-23). The fundamentalist mindset is akin to the gnostic mindset which led to asceticism and monasteries. The Reformed understand that all of life is sacred, that is, temporal things are not evil in themselves, neither is non-ecclesiastical employment to be despised if it is lawful, but rather God is glorified in the right use of the things of this world. True godliness is a matter of the heart. Therefore, spiritual pride or neglect is a much greater concern to the Reformed than whether there is a beer in someone's refrigerator at home. The Reformed view themselves as pilgrims traveling through this world with our eyes and hearts lifted heavenward to the next, which is to say, using the things of this world rightly but not setting our hearts on them but keeping our treasure above and our eyes on Christ (Heb. 12.2). As Leland Ryken described the Puritans, they were "worldly saints." John Geree added these remarks to his description:

He was conscientious of equity as well as piety knowing that unrighteousness is abomination as well as ungodliness. He was cautious in promising, but careful in performing, counting his word no less engagement than his bond. He was a man of tender heart, not only in regard of his own sin, but others misery, not counting mercy arbitrary, but a necessary duty wherein as he prayed for wisdom to direct him, so he studied for cheerfulness and bounty to act.

He was sober in the use of things of this life, rather beating down the body, than pampering it, yet he denied not himself the use of God’s blessing, lest he should be unthankful, but avoid excess lest he should be forgetful of the Donor. In his habit he avoided costliness and vanity, neither exceeding his degree in civility, nor declining what suited with Christianity, desiring in all things to express gravity. His own life he accounted a warfare, wherein Christ was his captain, his arms, prayers, and tears. The Cross his banner, and his word, Vincit qui patitur ['He conquers who suffers.']

http://www.puritanboard.com/f118/character-old-english-puritan-non-conformist-john-geree-29474/

 

[Pilgrim]

There are some fundamentalists who don't fit the portrait portrayed here. But it does seem that too many have majored on minor issues and haven't been quite fundamental enough in other respects.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

What makes it so confusing is that many of the practices that Fundamentalists do believe are not bad. Richard Phillips explains in his blog why he chose to send his 3 daughters to a Fundamentalist school rather than one that's Reformed.

And what makes it so embarrassing for both Reformed and rest of Evangelical christians is that much of what the Fundamentalists do believe in lifestyle are wholesome. One sect of Fundamentalism teaches the girls to never wear pants but only skirts/dresses and only "Jezebels wear makeup." Pretty extreme, in my opinion. But considering what we are witnessing today in the world and in many churches, I can see how the Fundamentalist approach can appear wholesome.

One Southern Baptist church I know of is pastored by a man who was raised United Pentecostal (UPC). Some UPC practices still resides in this pastor. During worship service, he requires all the men to sit on one side of the sanctuary, and all the women to sit on the other side.

 

[Hippo]

Someone once said that if you are not accused of antinonianism every now and then you are not preaching the gospel and there is much truth in this observation.

Fundamentalists see the Reformed as approaching antinonianism and while they are sometimes wrong they are sadly correct more often than we would like.

 

[Pilgrim]

Someone once said that if you are not accused of antinonianism every now and then you are not preaching the gospel and there is much truth in this observation.

I remember Lloyd-Jones saying that but I don't know if it originated with him. The concept basically dates back to Apostolic times (Rom. 6).

 

[Ivan]

Someone once said that if you are not accused of antinonianism every now and then you are not preaching the gospel and there is much truth in this observation.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones was one preacher that said that.

 

[Blue Tick]

Fundamentalists see the Reformed as approaching antinonianism and while they are sometimes wrong they are sadly correct more often than we would like.

In one sense true. However, the Fundy view of the law is distorted. In a broad picture Fundies are more antinomian then Reformed Christians. For instance, the standard in which Fundies use to classify someone antinomian is based on binding the conscience of people where scripture doesn't bind the conscience. I have yet to experience a Fundy criticize a Reformed believer because they failed to apply the decalogue in their life. Fundies see Reformed Christians as "antinomian" because Reformed believers tend to enjoy things of the world to the Glory of God; e.g. the arts, cigars, alcohol, and other "worldly" pleasures.

 

[blhowes]

What makes it so confusing is that many of the practices that Fundamentalists do believe are not bad. Richard Phillips explains in his blog why he chose to send his 3 daughters to a Fundamentalist school rather than one that's Reformed.

And what makes it so embarrassing for both Reformed and rest of Evangelical christians is that much of what the Fundamentalists do believe in lifestyle are wholesome.

I think what bothers me most, looking back to the time when I'd proudly wear the Fundamentalist label, is the way I used (what I think now are) unbiblical standards for judging another person's walk with the Lord. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I agree with you much of their lifestyle is wholesome. I have no problem if people don't want to dance, go to movies, or whatever - to each his own. Its a problem when we use those criteria to judge another's walk.

Truth be told, I suppose I'm still a fundamentalist at heart - I don't drink, smoke, dance, listen to wild rocky music. Not because I believe it to be sinful - its just me, I have no interest in those things. But, if I wanted to, I could.

 

[Iconoclast]

As Joel Beeke notes in his commentary on 1 John, "Worldliness, then, is human activity without God." Carnality is not measured by what goes into our mouths, but by what comes out (Matt. 15.11) and piety is not measured by our abstention from temporal pleasures (Col. 2.20-23). The fundamentalist mindset is akin to the gnostic mindset which led to asceticism and monasteries. The Reformed understand that all of life is sacred, that is, temporal things are not evil in themselves, neither is non-ecclesiastical employment to be despised if it is lawful, but rather God is glorified in the right use of the things of this world. True godliness is a matter of the heart. Therefore, spiritual pride or neglect is a much greater concern to the Reformed than whether there is a beer in someone's refrigerator at home. The Reformed view themselves as pilgrims traveling through this world with our eyes and hearts lifted heavenward to the next, which is to say, using the things of this world rightly but not setting our hearts on them but keeping our treasure above and our eyes on Christ (Heb. 12.2). As Leland Ryken described the Puritans, they were "worldly saints." John Geree added these remarks to his description:

He was conscientious of equity as well as piety knowing that unrighteousness is abomination as well as ungodliness. He was cautious in promising, but careful in performing, counting his word no less engagement than his bond. He was a man of tender heart, not only in regard of his own sin, but others misery, not counting mercy arbitrary, but a necessary duty wherein as he prayed for wisdom to direct him, so he studied for cheerfulness and bounty to act.

He was sober in the use of things of this life, rather beating down the body, than pampering it, yet he denied not himself the use of God’s blessing, lest he should be unthankful, but avoid excess lest he should be forgetful of the Donor. In his habit he avoided costliness and vanity, neither exceeding his degree in civility, nor declining what suited with Christianity, desiring in all things to express gravity. His own life he accounted a warfare, wherein Christ was his captain, his arms, prayers, and tears. The Cross his banner, and his word, Vincit qui patitur ['He conquers who suffers.']

http://www.puritanboard.com/f118/character-old-english-puritan-non-conformist-john-geree-29474/

Andrew ,
I have really enjoyed your last couple of posts,they have been very helpful ,even more so than usual if that is possible
In regard to the original post one thing that happens with believers who read reformed teaching and listen to refromed sermons is that they become much more aware of biblical duties that are laid out in the word of God, that they do not just create a shallow list that can easily be followed in a legal manner. Reformation or setting things right happens as the Spirit works from the inside out. We are no longer serving out of a legal fear, but out of a loving and thankful reverance to God.
I get convicted just reading the table of contents of a book like the Christian directory by Richard Baxter, much less when I see the verses and instruction he offers from the word of God. If we are busy doing what we are supposed to in seeking to be faithful in known duties,ie, being a worshipper, a husband, a father, a church member who actively ministers in the body, a good worker on the job, a friend to those we have weekly contact with, we will not have time or interest to get caught up in Vanity Fair.

 

[DMcFadden]

Yes, Andrew, coming home to a day's worth of unexplored PB postings, I was blessed by some of your posts which were quite insightful and helpful. Thank you, brother.

 

[Scott1]

I'm still working through all the implications of the two views- "fundamentalism" tending toward separatism and Reformed Theology tending toward "transformation." I have found myself leaning the greater part toward "transformation" for quite some time but still reserving a lesser part for sepratism, something like a 60%/40% blend.

More-and-more I see this relates to one's eschatological view.

If one believes that Christ is redeeming culture, one is more transformational.

If one believes Christ is not redeeming culture, that is going to h**l in a handbasket and
that it will continue that way until He returns, one tends toward modern dispensational premillenialism, which is part and parcel of "fundamentalism."

It has helped me to understand that Christ reigns over all creation now, even culture.

Primarily through His Church His reign is being made known.

Consider how few Christians there were in the world (as a percentage) in the first Century compared to today. While there certainly is rampant immorality ascending in our popular culture in this generation, there are right along with it very redemptive things mixed in. And look at how Christianity is impacting other parts of the world where it was previously unknown!

When Christ taught in the New Testament he explained the Kingdom of God. In Acts 1, He ascended into Heaven and was invested with His coronation as King of Kings over all Creation. Nothing is outside of that. His Kingdom was inaugurated and it is a present reality. It will be consummated when He returns the second time to judge all men but it exists now and He is reigning and ruling over everything now, even culture.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

There are Reformed churches one could easily describe as “fundamentalist” – the Protestant Reformed Church, for example. So what is a working definition of fundamentalism for this thread?

Is it “strict separation from the world”, seeing a profound antithesis between the two? Is it adhering to the fundamentals of the Faith, of orthodox (small o) Christianity? Or is one talking of the stereotypes of ignorant backwoods Bible-thumping believers?

My favorite preachers are Reformed, particularly Tim Keller, who go by the Scriptural maxim, “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18), and seek to motivate the believer’s heart (note I said believer’s) with a responding love to God’s first loving us in Christ. Rooted and grounded in the love of Christ (Eph 3:17-19) I stand, and cannot be moved. I am not motivated by fear, of punishment, of loss, of anything. I trust my Lord to discipline me, disciple me, keep me. This view is uniquely Reformed, and it is health.

Next comes – and this is perhaps where the “fundamentalist” issues come in – how do we relate to the culture? As Scott said above, if Christ is redeeming culture, one throws oneself into it, seeing God’s common grace in it, and working to transform / improve it.

If by culture we mean the society and system of the world, and do not see Christ redeeming it, but calling His people out of it, then we may seek to bring justice and mercy into the culture – living waters into a dry and barren land – but with the end of alleviating suffering and calling the elect. As John Bunyan put it, having Pilgrim flee the city of Destruction, and head for the Celestial city.

Christ reigns over culture, but He also reigns over His enemies; it does not mean He is willingly submitted to by either, or that they do not hate Him.

It seems less a divide between dispensational premillennialism and a generic “Reformed theology”, as between an amillennial view of the world increasingly turning against God and His people, and a postmillennial view of the Church transforming culture to God’s glory.

If one separates from the culture in terms of allegiance and lifestyle, though loving it and seeking its good through works of mercy, justice, and being exemplars of excellence in one’s vocation, one can, I think, walk a balance.

Look at Jesus; He exemplified excellence in all He did and was, and they yet hated Him. Sinners naturally hate holiness, except God give them a new nature.

 

[Neogillist]

Someone once said that if you are not accused of antinonianism every now and then you are not preaching the gospel and there is much truth in this observation.

Fundamentalists see the Reformed as approaching antinonianism and while they are sometimes wrong they are sadly correct more often than we would like.

I am not sure what definition and characteristics would best describe the Fundamentalist movement. I think one underlying characteristic would be a strong dispensational premillennial bent, combined with some moralistic teachings and tendencies. The large majority of fundamentalists are dispensational arminians, but with some notable exceptions like John MacArthur, although many dispensationalists are hard-core antinomians who reject lordship salvation, embracing instead easy-believism.

However, I will have to clear the charge of antinomianism from the Reformed Faith, by pointing especially to the puritans, huguenots and other Reformed. Would the Fundamentalists be able to call them antinomians? I don't think so. I think those Christians who typically call themselve "Reformed" nowadays and get charged with "antinomianism" are not truly Reformed in practice.

Someone who is truly Reformed will know how to use every entertainment with moderation and wisdom. Moreover, he will have a strong desire to respect the Lord's Day, avoiding the consumption of alcohol, feasting, and entertainments on that day; likewise the ladies will indeed try to wear modest skirts in church rather than jeans, and the men come in suits. They will also attend worship twice on the Lord's Day just at it was during the Reformation and in the early church. Someone who is Reformed might be best described as a Fundamentalist one day a week, although not a hypocrite the rest of the week, having devotional times about three times a day, being also a very hard worker while avoiding workaholism. As Dr. McMahon points out in his essay, "What does it mean to be reformed, really?" a striving towards holiness is one of the main emphasis of the Reformed Faith, and that involves something completely different than adding moralistic rules to the gospel. Rather, it involves focussing both on the moral law and the fruit of the Spirit, yet not one without the other.

 

[blhowes]

There are Reformed churches one could easily describe as “fundamentalist” – the Protestant Reformed Church, for example. So what is a working definition of fundamentalism for this thread?

Is it “strict separation from the world”, seeing a profound antithesis between the two? Is it adhering to the fundamentals of the Faith, of orthodox (small o) Christianity? Or is one talking of the stereotypes of ignorant backwoods Bible-thumping believers?

I hope I don't mischaracterize our fundamentalist brethren, but what I have in mind when I think of fundamentalism is the way of looking at the scriptures that leads a person to a strict separation from the world. Its a mindset that looks at verses such as these...

Eph 2:1-3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.​

...and concludes that basically everything you did before you were saved was according to the prince of the power of the air (ie., Satan), so after you're saved you stay away from it all. I don't think I've ever heard a fundamentalist preacher state this, but perhaps a good fundamentalist rule of thumb is "If its fun/enjoyable, don't do it"

 

[Hippo]

While seperatism is often present in fundamentalist circles I have always thought that perhaps the key distinctive feature is a withdrawl from science logic and reason as apologetic or evangelistic tools.

 

[Jared]

I don't know exactly where I would be in this scheme. I am not traditionally reformed. What I mean is that I don't wear a suit to church, I usually ear jeans and a T-shirt. That might offend some of you, but I don't think Jesus is offended. He looks at our hearts.

Aside from this, I mostly listen to worship music. And of that, I primarily listen to "Reformed" worship like Keith & Kristyn Getty, Stuart Townend, Sovereign Grace Music, Shane & Shane, Watermark, Chris Tomlin, etc. Also, I listen to some Christian hip-hop, mostly by artists that are "Reformed" and some other stuff like Coldplay, U2, Matisyahu, etc. Then, some other kinds of Christian music like Christian blues, reggae, R&B, jazz, soul, neo-soul, electronic, bluegrass, folk, reggaeton, etc.

However, I have a strong sense that holiness is important and this confuses people sometimes when I explain to them the perseverance of the saints. They hear "once saved, always saved" and I have to explain to them that this is not what is meant by the perseverance of the saints. At least not the way that they have been taught.

Anyway, then when I stress the importance of personal holiness, they look at me like I'm Wesleyan or something. I try to tell them that I take what I'm saying from the Bible and this is also what the Puritans taught, but they still think that I'm either legalistic or antinomian. Isn't that great being called both legalistic and antinomian. Some things never cease to amaze me.

 

[Hippo]

I don't know exactly where I would be in this scheme. I am not traditionally reformed. What I mean is that I don't wear a suit to church, I usually ear jeans and a T-shirt. That might offend some of you, but I don't think Jesus is offended. He looks at our hearts.

Aside from this, I mostly listen to worship music. And of that, I primarily listen to "Reformed" worship like Keith & Kristyn Getty, Stuart Townend, Sovereign Grace Music, Shane & Shane, Watermark, Chris Tomlin, etc. Also, I listen to some Christian hip-hop, mostly by artists that are "Reformed" and some other stuff like Coldplay, U2, Matisyahu, etc. Then, some other kinds of Christian music like Christian blues, reggae, R&B, jazz, soul, neo-soul, electronic, bluegrass, folk, reggaeton, etc.

However, I have a strong sense that holiness is important and this confuses people sometimes when I explain to them the perseverance of the saints. They hear "once saved, always saved" and I have to explain to them that this is not what is meant by the perseverance of the saints. At least not the way that they have been taught.

Anyway, then when I stress the importance of personal holiness, they look at me like I'm Wesleyan or something. I try to tell them that I take what I'm saying from the Bible and this is also what the Puritans taught, but they still think that I'm either legalistic or antinomian. Isn't that great being called both legalistic and antinomian. Some things never cease to amaze me.

This board demonstrates that there is really no such thing as being "typically reformed", what is central is our belief that of the five Sola's of the Reformation the central one on which we base our worship and our theology is Soli Deo Gloria.