Any Fundamentalists here?

[sentipente]

RC provided this definition of fundamentalism from Wikepedia to support the claim that some formers are fundamentalist in their thinking. What say you?

Religious fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.

 

[StormyOne]

I think all those who are saying "show me from the bible" or "let's have a little bible study" on it, would seem to qualify as a fundie. Their statements suggest that they view the bible as the final voice on any given issue... so if the bible says it, then its settled..... that raises some interesting issues but those with that mindset won't see it.....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

RC provided this definition of fundamentalism from Wikepedia to support the claim that some formers are fundamentalist in their thinking. What say you?

Religious fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.

I think that RC offered only a tiny snippet from a very long wikipedia page that included the following:

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist Evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and AmericanProtestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among conservativeevangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

The term has become to some a pejorative term for historic Christian doctrine while to others it has become a banner of pride.


The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)

In particular, fundamentalists reject the documentary hypothesis—the theory held by higher biblical criticism that the Pentateuch was composed and shaped by many people over the centuries. Fundamentalists assert that Moses was the primary author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Some fundamentalists, on the other hand, may be willing to consider alternative authorship only where the Biblical text does not specify an author, though maintaining that books in which the author is identified were written by that person.

The Christian fundamentalist movement evolved during the early-to-mid 1900s to become separatist in nature and more characteristically dispensational in its theology.
Fundamentalists also criticize evangelicals for a lack of concern for doctrinal purity and for a lack of discernment in ecumenical endeavors in working cooperatively with other Christians of differing doctrinal views, even though some fundamentalists had been accused by their critics for doing the same (esp. embracing doctrines such as dispensationalism, "King James Only"-ism, the rapture, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. that critics argue have no biblical basis). [Note: the term "fundamentalist" is not synonymous with the term "evangelical."]

The fundamentalists emphasised the command to "be ye separate" and adopted a conservative social outlook that avoided many items deemed to be sinful, worldy, or inappropriate or sinful for christians.


Whilst there is some variation in approach, most fundamentalists will share a majority of the following views:

• rejection of popular music including rock and roll and contemporary Christian music - seen as worldly and associated with immorality
• dancing is prohibited - seen as associated with immorality and immodesty
• visiting the cinema or theatre is unacceptable - perception is that content is unchristian and lifestyles of performers are immoral
• modest and traditional dress styles are required - women must not wear trousers, men must not have long hair or wear earrings
• no drinking of alcohol or smoking tobacco - seen as worldly and associated with immorality
• traditional gender roles - male headship, woman's role is to raise children - seen as the Biblical model
• no sex outside of heterosexual marriage, opposition to homosexuality - seen as immoral and prohibited by the Bible
• abortion is unacceptable - seen as murder (in some cases, all forms of birth control are opposed)

They tend also to support conservative American politics, with one notable exception - the general consensus opposes school vouchers, on the basis that such vouchers, if accepted by church-operated schools, would allow the government a "foothold" into the teachings and practices of the individual church and give it authority to dictate what could and could not be taught.

The original 20th century Fundamentalist Movement broke up along clearly defined lines within conservative Evangelical Protestantism as issues progressed. Many groupings, large and small, were produced by this schism. Neo-evangelicalism, Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalism, the Heritage movement, and Paleo-Orthodoxy have all developed distinct identities, but none of them acknowledge any more than an historical overlap with the Fundamentalist Movement, and the term is seldom used of them.

For example, American evangelist Billy Graham came from a fundamentalist background, but parted company with the movement because of his choice, early in his ministry (1950s), to cooperate with other Christians. He represents a movement that arose within fundamentalism, but has increasingly become distinct from it, known as Neo-evangelicalism or New Evangelicalism (a term coined by Harold J. Ockenga, the "Father of New Evangelicalism").

The "new" fundamentalists, who rarely self-identify as such, draw their identity from a missionary zeal to convert people to Christianity combined with socio-political activism to prevent influences deemed unchristian from entering society. They have both similarities and differences with the original fundamentalist movement.
They differ from the original fundamentalist movement in various areas, accepting modern bible translations and typically holding charismatic or pentecostal beliefs. They are less separatist both towards culture and other christians. For example, christian forms of popular music (contemporary christian music), dance (worship dance), drama, and cinema are all widely accepted. Whilst they strongly disagree with doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church for theological reasons. In recent years there has been an increase in political cooperation between individuals in both groups on certain social issues of mutual concern, such as in opposing abortion.

However, the relationships between Fundamentalist Christians and others are still often strained due to historical/cultural perceptions and strongly divergent views on a number of theological issues.

The term fundamentalism has hence become less well defined. Many evangelical groups may be described as "fundamentalist" in the broad sense, but do not regard themselves as members of either fundamentalist movement. For example, many Evangelicals believe in the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, a basic issue of difference in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy a century ago.
​

Since "fundamentalism" is much broader than RC's posts suggests and seems to encompass a wide range of definitions (some of which would fit any number of groups--including many progressive SDAs), I hardly think that most former SDAs fit perfectly into the definition of "fundamentalist" as set out in the Wikipedia page.

BFA

P.S. Due to space restrictions, I removed a few sections of the Wikipedia page, especially those relating to history. You can read the entire page by doing a search for "Wikipedia Fundamentalist Christian." I did not alter any of the text other than removing certain portions to limit the length and adding bold text for emphasis.

 

[sentipente]

BFA, I think you are confusing the general definition of a fundamentalist with the various manifestations of fundamentalism. I hope you are not doing that deliberately to shy away from what you are.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BFA, I think you are confusing the general definition of a fundamentalist with the various manifestations of fundamentalism. I hope you are not doing that deliberately to shy away from what you are.

Please read the Wikipedia article once again. There are a number of "definitions of fundamentalist" set out in that article and each one includes a slightly different set of beliefs and behaviors. I don't know whether to shy away from or embrace the term, because it would seem that any number of Christians could be connected with the term (including many progressive SDAs). The term (like the word "cult") is simply too vague to be useful.

One thing is certain: There are many, MANY connotations connected with the word "fundamentalist" that are directly cited in the Wikipedia page that have no bearing whatsoever on what I believe or the standards I live by.

Would you care to provide a clearer definition of the term than the multiple definitions cited in the Wikipedia page?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I think all those who are saying "show me from the bible" or "let's have a little bible study" on it, would seem to qualify as a fundie. Their statements suggest that they view the bible as the final voice on any given issue... so if the bible says it, then its settled..... that raises some interesting issues but those with that mindset won't see it.....

Does truth exist? If it does, what is the appropriate way to search for truth?

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Would you care to provide a clearer definition of the term than the multiple definitions cited in the Wikipedia page?

BFA

You aren't listening. This is what I placed in the OP for our consideration.

 

[DeanM]

Labels . . .

I once ran a few quizzes in CF among "like minded" folks. Surprisingly, even the folks of the same labels had widely divergent answers to that quiz.

So, what's a fundamentalist? It's a label that largely means that you can still not expect any two of them to see eye to eye.

What's the point of the label?

I have no idea.

 

[StormyOne]

Does truth exist? If it does, what is the appropriate way to search for truth?

BFA

God would be the "ultimate" truth. Humans will never be able to know all there is about God. There is no "one" to search for truth, I believe there are multiple ways to gain knowledge about God... is that what you are asking?

 

[sentipente]

Does truth exist? If it does, what is the appropriate way to search for truth?

BFA

The best way to search for truth is to question everything you think you know.

 

[Sophia7]

Please read the Wikipedia article once again. There are a number of "definitions of fundamentalist" set out in that article and each one includes a slightly different set of beliefs and behaviors. I don't know whether to shy away from or embrace the term, because it would seem that any number of Christians could be connected with the term (including many progressive SDAs). The term (like the word "cult") is simply too vague to be useful.

One thing is certain: There are many, MANY connotations connected with the word "fundamentalist" that are directly cited in the Wikipedia page that have no bearing whatsoever on what I believe or the standards I live by.

Would you care to provide a clearer definition of the term than the multiple definitions cited in the Wikipedia page?

BFA

I agree that the term fundamentalist is not useful. I don't like labels anyway. I've never considered myself a fundamentalist, and I don't really care what anyone else thinks I am.

 

[sentipente]

The question is, What do we accept or reject from the definition given in the OP?

 

[Avonia]

Does truth exist? If it does, what is the appropriate way to search for truth?

BFA

In every way that God makes itself known - which is looking everywhere and questioning everything. Fundamentalists sometimes mistake one source for The Source.

 

[Avonia]

RC provided this definition of fundamentalism from Wikepedia to support the claim that some formers are fundamentalist in their thinking. What say you?

Religious fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.

A fundamentalist looks at everything that speaks to the fundamental laws of God. The Bible tells only one small part of the overall story. That would be a religionist, not a fundamentalist.

 

[sentipente]

And the plot thickens.

 

[Adventtruth]

Does truth exist? If it does, what is the appropriate way to search for truth?

BFA

And that is what I have been saying all along and that is whats important...truth!

But what you find in many and a host of others here is relativism. You find theories. Nothing is absolute unless it seems true to ones perspective of morals and values and ethics...this personal truth or subjective truth has to come from a persons mind and senses. The bible is no good for people like this unless it appeals to their emotions and mind. Their sufficiency is wrapped up in their emotion, feelings and senses and not in the bible and surely can't be wrapped up in all that Christ has said as found in the bible.

I was told of the words of Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900) who said

" Since there is no God to will what is good, we must will our own good. And since there is no eternal value, we must will the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs."

Many are saying the same when they deny the objective truth of the bible.






AT

 

[Adventtruth]

Labels . . .

I once ran a few quizzes in CF among "like minded" folks. Surprisingly, even the folks of the same labels had widely divergent answers to that quiz.

So, what's a fundamentalist? It's a label that largely means that you can still not expect any two of them to see eye to eye.

What's the point of the label?

I have no idea.

I agree there is no point to some of these labels...funamentals especially.

Wikipedia has listed a date for the term and some of the ideas, but some of these same ideas came over from England with the puritans and pilgrims. So its safe to label them where fundies as well. I wonder if they would Label Luther a fundamental?

AT

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So if one does not like labels, then one must not like language, because words are all labels for ideas. Labels being words are used to express ideas. Fundamentalism came from those who followed or were in agreement with the publication called "the Fundamentals" it does not refer to the Amish or Martin Luther. As you noticed in the Wikipedia article some fundamentalists don't like that the word has been corrupted to be used for things like Islamic fundamentalists. The Islamics did not have a book that pointed out what had to be the beliefs that made one a fundamentalist.

The term was just applied to them in a derogatory way for someone who was steeped in a particular tradition, who were actively afraid of modernity and not willing to look at anything other then their particular world view.

A person can be a racist even while denying they are racists. The label just expresses the attributes of someone. It does not mean that just because they deny a label they cannot be the kind of people that label describes.

 

[FreeinChrist]

RC provided this definition of fundamentalism from Wikepedia to support the claim that some formers are fundamentalist in their thinking. What say you?

Religious fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.

Seems to be a variety of definitions of "fundamentalist" in use. The Fundalmentalist Christian forum defines our belief...but I think "fundamentalist" has been used in this forum for one who is traditional SDA. Others in other forums use "fundamentalist" for any religious extremist. One fellow wrote that as a Catholic, he is a fundamentalist.

Labels are often very vague and "fundamentalist" seems to be one that can mean many things.

 

[Avonia]

I do wonder if some would go to the Bible with God standing in the room.

Sometimes religious fundamentalists aren't so good at understanding fundamentals.

Why go only to the Bible to see God's law when God's law is constantly in action everywhere around you?

We are in the middle of a most grand laboratory, but we are obsessing about the course textbook.