A fundamentalist is anyone who gets his direction from primary or "fundamental" sources. For example, in the sock market a fundamentalist ignores trends and such and focuses on the intrinsic value of the stock and company
Stock-Picking Strategies: Fundamental Analysis | Investopedia
As such, the core that defines a Christian fundamentalist is, or should be, elevation of the central documents of Chrisitnity above ANY other sort of authority. These documents are contained in the JEWISH canon of the Old Testament, finished before the arrival of Chirst AND the New Testament.
I am just wanting to make sure I understand you correctly: Are you denying the Canon of the New Testament?
Thus what any man, whether he wears a funny hat (Pope, Archbishop or Patriarch), a white lab coat (scientist) or jumps around screaming that he/she has "a word from the Lord" (charismatic) is SECONDARY to whatever is written in the Bible. Oh, and confessional Churches like my own PCA make it very clear that documents like the Westminster Confession have written within them that they are derivative, secondary documents and if there be a contradiction between them and the Bible, the Bible is to be followed every time.
I suppose the simple solution would be, to simply insure that the confession doesn't contradict the Bible. (Or would that be too easy, and make too much sense?)
In this we have the example of JC who answered every temptation of Satan and most difficult questions by His detractors by first stating "It is WRITTEN..." followed by a direct quote from the old testament (the Bible of His day).
While JR has an excellent point, we must not ignore the fact that Jesus established the New Testament by expanding upon the Old Testament Law of Moses (which is still God's Law), by the use of the term "but I say unto you".
Matthew 5: 21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
I do understand that Jesus said, "it hath been said"; nevertheless, he is still referring to the Mosaic Law.
As such "Islamic fundamentalists" are usually NOT, as they place one of the Hadith (or Sunna) on equal footing with the unholy Koran. A true Islamic fundamentalist would not contradict the demonic Koran by doing such things as explicitly targeting non combatant women and children. Neither can an Anglican nor Roman "catholic" be rightly called a fundamentalist as they also elevate oral tradition above what is Bible. Jesus was CONSTANTLY at odds with the Pharisees because, like modern Judaism, the tradition of Rabbis were of greater import than the Law of Moses, or anything else in the Old Testament.
I completely understand the "oral tradition" of the Catholics; but I would like you to be a bit more specific in regards to Anglicans. I believe that if we were all honest here, every 'church' has a few 'traditions' in their 'practice' of faith.
Unfortunately, many who call themselves Christian fundamentalists are not either! For example, in his early years John McArthur taught complete abstention from alcohol for all Christians which is CONTRARY to Scripture. While he still is very negative on alcohol, he has sort of backed off from that given the many of Biblical passages that actually state that, for example, "Do not drink only water, but have some wine for your stomach [Timothy]" and the command to drink at passover. Sometimes you see the absurdity of "fundamentalist Churches" that ban all members from dancing and women from wearing pants. So unfortunately a LOT of self-described fundamentalists substitute legalism and the traditions of men for the Bible.
I will not dive into "legalism" here, that is a different thread altogether.
There's eve some who are absurd enough to think the only Bible is the KJV translation
While this absurd statement was directed at me, the real absurdity is in the lack of understanding of this issue, from otherwise very educated people. I for one do not believe the “only Bible” is the King James translation. I would be a fool to believe that the word
of God only exist in the English language. But since I am aware of the meaning of JR's statement; I offer the following for clarification (even though I have shared it many other times):
I believe the King James Bible is the only Bible that properly represents the word of God for English-speaking people.
Since 'absurdity' has been brought in this thread; what is really absurd, is to say that one believes the inerrancy of the scriptures “in the originals”, and then state that the Bibles we hold in our hands, is full of errors; while simultaneously declaring that our 'error filled Bibles' are to be the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice.
Jack
