Defining Fundamentalism

[timf]

Another thread posed these questions and I thought it might not be a bad idea to start a new threat to answer them;

So, what is a "Fundamentalist"?
And, could I be one?

The term "fundamentalist came into popular usage in response to a series of books that were printed to bolster Sunday School teachers against the rapidly spreading ideas of Marxism, Darwinism, Freud-ism, and related doctrines of secularism.

In 1909 California businessman Lyman Stewart and his brother Milton conceived of an idea to collect essays of what they regarded as core Christian doctrines called The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth. These were to be provided free of charge to pastors, missionaries, and Sunday School teachers. The 90 essays were sent out to 250,000 people from 1910 to 1915.

This massive distribution lead to the widespread usage of the term fundamentalist to refer to someone who would reject the changes being urged on them and retain their core values. Since then the term has been appropriated to almost anyone who is not inclined to change.

If one sees the post civil war era of prosperity and the associated spread of the university system as the ascendancy of the religion of secularism (the worship of man in general and self in particular), one can understand that the legions of so-called experts claiming that creation did not happen, Jesus did not perform miracles, and that the Bible was really unreliable represented a tidal shift that many would view as alarming.

Today the term fundamentalist is used as an insult by those who equate it with simple-minded provincialism, under developed intellectual ability, and even representing danger insofar as they see in it an obstacle to that which they desire to achieve.

Ironically the term is also used as a sort of badge of honor by those who see it as representative of having resisted the seduction and corruption by the religion of secularism.

When the term fundamentalism was first widely employed, the primary threat to Protestant Christianity was seen as Romanism, cults like Christians Science and Mormanism, and the then modern (secularist) doctrines of evolution, psychology, and socialism.

100 years later most who call themselves Christian believe in some form of evolution, accept Christian psychology, and think nothing of collectivization. Today many who call themselves Christian think the acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, and women as pastors is just fine.

To determine if you are a fundamentalist would require you to determine who is using the word and how they are using it.

Anyone can make a list of doctrines and declare that those who agree with x number are acceptable and those who do not are unacceptable.

You can look at the list someone else has made and determine if what you believe matches what they have declared. Some of the more common points that are measured are;

1. Is the Bible true (literally), true (figuratively), occasionally true, or not that reliable. (a subset of this is if a particular version of the Bible the only one that is true).

2. Did God create the world in six literal days?

3. Should we seek worldly acceptance and even prominence, should we shun the world, should we be in but not of the world?

4. Is there a literal hell and do people who have rejected Jesus go there?

5. Should women be pastors?

6. Do you need to be baptized to be a Christian?

7. Is abortion murder?

The problem with fundamentalism is that it is usually arrived at under fire almost like those who cling to a life preserver or for the Christian who is under siege. When we are driven to a defensive position, we tend to cling to doctrinal bullet points and then use these to clobber each other. It is not only in the last 100 years this has happened. The early church had confessions and creeds to which they clung and also served to hinder.

If we live in a Christian "bunker" and only allow those in who have already come to agree with our fundamentals, we leave those who are still learning and searching out in the cold. Too often we practice Christianity as if it were an exclusive club and only those who passed muster can be allowed in.

Christianity and the Bible are not so fragile that we need to lock them up to protect them. We are the ones who are weak and vulnerable. Many mistake fundamentalism as the antidote to a corruptive society and the hostile religion of secularism. Our real protection lies in Christian maturity (Christ-likeness).

Ephesians 4:11-14 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

I consider myself a fundamentalist (not as the media portrays us, as dangerous, bigoted, stupid, and murderous) but simply as trusting in the Bible and Jesus. I find it useless to get sucked into arguments with those who evangelize (bully) for secularism. I do not wish to argue with other Christians who have been attracted to secularized Christian doctrines.

I have found that a humble heart that seeks truth will always grow closer to Jesus and less vulnerable to the deceptions of the world. Those who declare their "truth", whether Christian or secular, and attack those who do not agree often find frustration.

I have found that fundamentalism is best represented not from a sniper shooting at any deviation, but from a heart so close to Jesus that the strange doctrines of the world can find no purchase.

 

[prov1810]

Fundamentalism is a reaction to modernism, which is the rejection of the supernatural in liberal theology. They denied the virgin birth and the reality of miracles and other things. It would be one thing if modernists created new denominations when they did this, but they were trying to influence existing denominations and there were many splits. I believe that theological liberalism is always trying to slither in and it should be crushed underfoot. Give them no quarter.

A person can be a low-church protestant with a very conservative theology and yet not be a fundamentalist. One fundamentalist distinctive is the doctrine of separation. First separation is separation from the world, and second separation is the refusal to fellowship with Christians who are perceived to be worldly or theologically compromised.

I am sort-of-fundamentalist. There are some disagreements: many fundamentalists are Arminian, but I am Calvinist; they are opposed to contemporary worship music, but I love Hillsong and Chris Tomlin etc; they are cessationist but I am continuationist. So I hesitate to call myself a fundamentalist.

On the other hand, "fundamentalist" is now a term of abuse and we should wear this term proudly to show the world that we are not defeated and not embarrassed.

 

[cubanito]

Well written and generally correct timf, thank you.

As an agnostic I came to believe explanations of origins offered by secularists were incompatible with the most simple priciples of science that could be factually tested. PV=nRT, which encapsulates the simple principle that a gas in avacuum expands, and does so more rapidly the more it is heated, made the spontaneous formation of stars from hyrdrogen in a vacuum an ABSURD proposition. Similarly, learning about the chirality of most organic molecules, coming on my own to the understanding of "irreducible complexity" and many other facts which made my biology testbook read as written by fools made me totally reject the "Darwinian" propaganda being taught in my public schools.
Collectivism, well, I escaped communist Cuba where I saw THE most prosperous country of the new world (per capita richer than the US) turned into a third world shambles. Grew up pretending to be normal in school from grade 1 through 4, lest the Cuban Govt. take me by force from my parents if they found out I was, well, "gifted". (they took one of mycousins away from his family by force and he wasn't as intelligent as me). Hard to sell me on Fabian collectivism when I spent my early childhood living out the book 1984 for real. Can you imagine the fear of going to school that someone will note you know more than normal and be taken away from your family? Believe me, I do NOT trust Government, so I guess as an agnostic I was not much inclined to trust them when they told me to forget what I KNEW gases did and pretend stars form from gas in contradiction to all known physical processes.

As I had rejected "macroevolution", "collectivism" and so much of our modern secularist long before anyone asked me to take the Bible seriously; I find it odd, very odd, that anyone would try to harmonize Scripture with lies.

I am a fundamentalist because I am by nature a skeptic bordering on cynicism. To this day I read the Bible LOOKING for mistakes and points of disagreement. Yes, I acknowledge it is True, but as the OP said, it is no fragile thing, the Scriptures. The harder I hit them, the clearer it's Truth rings. The more intellectual acid and comtempt I pour on them, the brighter they shine as the crud of commentaries burns off.

The Word of God is mightier than I, in this I rest as I wrestle AGAINST it. For it is in the the struggle to find an error that I instead find Truth, and the comfort that Truth is greater than I. There is nothing else I have set my mind to that I have not demolished.

Thank GOD that "He is there, and He is not silent." As to how so many can believe the absurdities that pass for science these days is beyond me.

For example, did y'all know that Galileo was incorrect? The best fit to the data observed was not the Copernican system, it was Tycho Brae. Galileo fudged many of his observations and outright lied in advancemnt of the Copernican system, which was wrong. It was not until Kepler modified orbits from circles to ellipses that a heliocentric system could be constructed that made a fair approximation.

However, the Earth does not go around the sun. The Earth travels in a straight line, the pace it travels being curved, so even now a "heliocentric" system is incorrect. Whoever the observer is, to that observer belongs the center of the universe. Thus, it is quite proper when I say "the sun rises and revolves around me" today.

Oh the fun and games, the fun and ganmes of it all!

 

[1watchman]

Certainly "fundamentalism" is interpretive, and my brand of it is Scripture-only (which often brings forth a barrage of attacks by the sectarian crowd); but I really find one will be less likely to go astray if they hold to the Word of God, rather than the innovations and speculations of religious intellectuals. That is not a popular path, but I find it works well, and I believe is the way to honor God.

 

[Jack Koons]

Another thread posed these questions and I thought it might not be a bad idea to start a new threat to answer them;

So, what is a "Fundamentalist"?
And, could I be one?

The term "fundamentalist came into popular usage in response to a series of books that were printed to bolster Sunday School teachers against the rapidly spreading ideas of Marxism, Darwinism, Freud-ism, and related doctrines of secularism.

In 1909 California businessman Lyman Stewart and his brother Milton conceived of an idea to collect essays of what they regarded as core Christian doctrines called The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth. These were to be provided free of charge to pastors, missionaries, and Sunday School teachers. The 90 essays were sent out to 250,000 people from 1910 to 1915.

This massive distribution lead to the widespread usage of the term fundamentalist to refer to someone who would reject the changes being urged on them and retain their core values. Since then the term has been appropriated to almost anyone who is not inclined to change.

While there are many "stories", and/or opinions as to when and why the name "fundamentalism" came into existence and use, it needs to be understood that those holding at least these fundamental views, existed prior to the development of the term "fundamentalism" itself. The key here (in my opinion) is that there were certain individuals who thought it necessary to 'key a term' (if you would), to identify themselves as a separate group, from those who has allowed certain changes (considered by them as liberal) to enter into their beliefs.

If one sees the post civil war era of prosperity and the associated spread of the university system as the ascendancy of the religion of secularism (the worship of man in general and self in particular), one can understand that the legions of so-called experts claiming that creation did not happen, Jesus did not perform miracles, and that the Bible was really unreliable represented a tidal shift that many would view as alarming.

It is my opinion that the above mentioned ("religious secularism"), has infiltrated nearly all of our Bible colleges.

Today the term fundamentalist is used as an insult by those who equate it with simple-minded provincialism, under developed intellectual ability, and even representing danger insofar as they see in it an obstacle to that which they desire to achieve.

Ironically the term is also used as a sort of badge of honor by those who see it as representative of having resisted the seduction and corruption by the religion of secularism.

When the term fundamentalism was first widely employed, the primary threat to Protestant Christianity was seen as Romanism, cults like Christians Science and Mormanism, and the then modern (secularist) doctrines of evolution, psychology, and socialism.

100 years later most who call themselves Christian believe in some form of evolution, accept Christian psychology, and think nothing of collectivization. Today many who call themselves Christian think the acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, and women as pastors is just fine.

To determine if you are a fundamentalist would require you to determine who is using the word and how they are using it.

Anyone can make a list of doctrines and declare that those who agree with x number are acceptable and those who do not are unacceptable.

You can look at the list someone else has made and determine if what you believe matches what they have declared. Some of the more common points that are measured are;

1. Is the Bible true (literally), true (figuratively), occasionally true, or not that reliable. (a subset of this is if a particular version of the Bible the only one that is true).

2. Did God create the world in six literal days?

3. Should we seek worldly acceptance and even prominence, should we shun the world, should we be in but not of the world?

4. Is there a literal hell and do people who have rejected Jesus go there?

5. Should women be pastors?

6. Do you need to be baptized to be a Christian?

7. Is abortion murder?

This is a good place to start.

The problem with fundamentalism is that it is usually arrived at under fire almost like those who cling to a life preserver or for the Christian who is under siege. When we are driven to a defensive position, we tend to cling to doctrinal bullet points and then use these to clobber each other. It is not only in the last 100 years this has happened. The early church had confessions and creeds to which they clung and also served to hinder.

If we live in a Christian "bunker" and only allow those in who have already come to agree with our fundamentals, we leave those who are still learning and searching out in the cold. Too often we practice Christianity as if it were an exclusive club and only those who passed muster can be allowed in.

Fundamentalists do not live in a "bunker", allowing only those who "agree" to come in: fundamentalists, rather, reach out to a lost world with with uncompromising truth, which is often looked upon as obsolete, and dogmatic. It must be show however that God gave "commandments", not "suggestions".

Christianity and the Bible are not so fragile that we need to lock them up to protect them. We are the ones who are weak and vulnerable. Many mistake fundamentalism as the antidote to a corruptive society and the hostile religion of secularism. Our real protection lies in Christian maturity (Christ-likeness).

Again, fundamentalists do not "lock up" Christianity and/or the Bible, we proclaim both boldly.

Ephesians 4:11-14 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

I consider myself a fundamentalist (not as the media portrays us, as dangerous, bigoted, stupid, and murderous) but simply as trusting in the Bible and Jesus. I find it useless to get sucked into arguments with those who evangelize (bully) for secularism. I do not wish to argue with other Christians who have been attracted to secularized Christian doctrines.

I have found that a humble heart that seeks truth will always grow closer to Jesus and less vulnerable to the deceptions of the world. Those who declare their "truth", whether Christian or secular, and attack those who do not agree often find frustration.

I have found that fundamentalism is best represented not from a sniper shooting at any deviation, but from a heart so close to Jesus that the strange doctrines of the world can find no purchase.

I would not claim that true fundamentalism represents itself as a sniper shooting at any deviation; however, it is needful that fundamentalism clearly identifies itself with statements such as the 1644, 1646, 1689 London Baptist Confessions.

Jack

 

[SoulBap6]

fundamentalism = Fundamentals of the Bible Doctrine according to the KJV
The Bible is the Breath of God and as such taken Literally and Figuratively.
There our many different and strange Doctrines, with little or no Basis from the Bible.
Many will say they believe in the Fundamentals but have add the secular Opinions.
Commandments our not subject to debate they our commandments to be followed.
When people do not want to follow the rules. They call it legalism as an excuse.
Church has two ordinances Baptism and the Lord supper.
Salvation is a Gift of God not of works. Baptism shows the Spiritual transformation in a person it does not save them. Salvation is one time and we our sealed till the day of Transformation. After one is saved the expects us to live and work for him.
As a Fundamentalist we learn what the Bible has to say and follow the Bible.
It is true we distance our selves from the secular worlds life styles. Especially the Opinions
of those that our secular with religion mixed in try not to bring in those opinions in the church.

 

[phydaux]

Wow. Lots of, IMO, odd views of fundamentalism here.

To be a fundamentalist you have to accept the "KJV only" view? Not so far as I know.

Fundamentalists don't accept modern music? Again, not in my experience.

Fundamentalists are cessationist? Many mainline Pentecostal denominations are strongly fundamentalist.

I have also heard the story about how the term can be traced to a series of articles written to combat the "creeping modernism" of the late 1800s.

As someone who considered himself a staunch fundamentalist, and yet also someone who understands the value of not "majoring on the minors," I look to the great christian creeds as my guide, notably the Nicene Creed.

In the Nicene Creed you have the trinity, the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, and the return in glory.

 

[cubanito]

Wow. Lots of, IMO, odd views of fundamentalism here.

To be a fundamentalist you have to accept the "KJV only" view? Not so far as I know.

Fundamentalists don't accept modern music? Again, not in my experience.

Fundamentalists are cessationist? Many mainline Pentecostal denominations are strongly fundamentalist.

I have also heard the story about how the term can be traced to a series of articles written to combat the "creeping modernism" of the late 1800s.

As someone who considered himself a staunch fundamentalist, and yet also someone who understands the value of not "majoring on the minors," I look to the great christian creeds as my guide, notably the Nicene Creed.

In the Nicene Creed you have the trinity, the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, and the return in glory.

I agree with you. Historically the term does trace to that series of articles from the 1800s

Also the KJV only ect are not defining or even majority among fundamentalists.

JR

 

[Faith.Man]

Wow. Lots of, IMO, odd views of fundamentalism here.

To be a fundamentalist you have to accept the "KJV only" view? Not so far as I know.

Fundamentalists don't accept modern music? Again, not in my experience.

Fundamentalists are cessationist? Many mainline Pentecostal denominations are strongly fundamentalist.

I have also heard the story about how the term can be traced to a series of articles written to combat the "creeping modernism" of the late 1800s.

As someone who considered himself a staunch fundamentalist, and yet also someone who understands the value of not "majoring on the minors," I look to the great christian creeds as my guide, notably the Nicene Creed.

In the Nicene Creed you have the trinity, the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, and the return in glory.

I agree with you here up to a certain extent. But I do not elevate the various creeds to a position above or equal to the Bible. Creeds need to trace their roots back to the Bible to be accepted. That's the reason I do not refer myself to be reformed. Creeds are great summaries of beliefs, but they do not replace God's word.

I read a lot of different commentaries. No matter what the commentary is teaching, I always return to the source. (And the source is NOT the KJV of 1611). The NASB is probably the best, most accurate translation getting us close to the original autographs. The HCSB, ESV and NIV are very good too for general reading and studying. Detail study drives me back to the NASB.

 

[phydaux]

"But I do not elevate the various creeds to a position above or equal to the Bible."

One of the things I am fond of saying is that Christianity isn't something that any of us has invented in our basement.

One of the blessings of reading the various creeds from over the ages is you see how they are all in agreement. There is a unity that is shown, how down through the ages Athanasius, the saints at Nicaea, the saints at Westminster, they were all in agreement over what the Gospel was. Bless God, there truly is unity in the Body of Christ.

Such a blessing, to know that the Gospel as I understand it is the same Gospel that they understood, that the Jesus I worship is the same Jesus they worshiped, and that the "fundamentals" of that Gospel have remained the same down through the ages.

 

[SoulBap6]

God has not changed the fundamentals of Christianity our the Same Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of Christ. Has not changed, It is not my opinion that counts but the word of God what it tells us. Too many IMO's Fundamentalism believe's in a Heaven and a Hell. That is written in the scriptures and Salvation is spelled out in the the Bible not my opinion Gods opinion and Told by Jesus Christ. When we follow the basics and the fundamentals it is a very small line Matthew Chapter 7. Tracking so for as to what has been said in this Thread.

The opinion stated is just that Opinion well i think the Bible said this or that. The Bible is 8th Grade reading. I think the opinions of the Bible our clear about what it is saying. The sad part is those that want to justify their opinion against the Bible. When we forget the Basics or foundation of our faith The line has to be drawn in the sand sometimes people have the wrong impression. The History of our Church as fundamentalists has many different stories. The fact of the matter is Fundamental Baptist our fundamentalist but when we say it and use it as a way to label our church. In this case we our being identified as fundamentalist. Which goes against Catholic Church completely and Christianity is not catholic period. When we see the number of wrong ideas about fundamentalism which our either myth or just a out right lie's but we our hated for our believe Judo- Christanity when Religions try to blend in or our made part of another church. So if you ask what is fundamentalism it is not religion it is a relationship with Jesus and the Basics to obtain the relationship.

 

[Jack Koons]

God has not changed the fundamentals of Christianity our the Same Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of Christ. Has not changed, It is not my opinion that counts but the word of God what it tells us. Too many IMO's Fundamentalism believe's in a Heaven and a Hell. That is written in the scriptures and Salvation is spelled out in the the Bible not my opinion Gods opinion and Told by Jesus Christ. When we follow the basics and the fundamentals it is a very small line Matthew Chapter 7. Tracking so for as to what has been said in this Thread.

The opinion stated is just that Opinion well i think the Bible said this or that. The Bible is 8th Grade reading. I think the opinions of the Bible our clear about what it is saying. The sad part is those that want to justify their opinion against the Bible. When we forget the Basics or foundation of our faith The line has to be drawn in the sand sometimes people have the wrong impression. The History of our Church as fundamentalists has many different stories. The fact of the matter is Fundamental Baptist our fundamentalist but when we say it and use it as a way to label our church. In this case we our being identified as fundamentalist. Which goes against Catholic Church completely and Christianity is not catholic period. When we see the number of wrong ideas about fundamentalism which our either myth or just a out right lie's but we our hated for our believe Judo- Christanity when Religions try to blend in or our made part of another church. So if you ask what is fundamentalism it is not religion it is a relationship with Jesus and the Basics to obtain the relationship.

I agree.

Many years ago I was part of a fellowship that began to turn ecumenical, a small group of us broke off to keep things 'fundamental'. Within a year, those whom we had separated from wanted to join us again; the majority (against my consent) allowed them to return. Within a few years, we were back where we were previously.

There is a need to return to thus saith the scriptures. (And yes, I am referring to the old KJV.)

Jack

 

[greentwiga]

God has not changed the fundamentals of Christianity our the Same Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of Christ. Has not changed, It is not my opinion that counts but the word of God what it tells us. Too many IMO's Fundamentalism believe's in a Heaven and a Hell. That is written in the scriptures and Salvation is spelled out in the the Bible not my opinion Gods opinion and Told by Jesus Christ. When we follow the basics and the fundamentals it is a very small line Matthew Chapter 7. Tracking so for as to what has been said in this Thread.

The opinion stated is just that Opinion well i think the Bible said this or that. The Bible is 8th Grade reading. I think the opinions of the Bible our clear about what it is saying. The sad part is those that want to justify their opinion against the Bible. When we forget the Basics or foundation of our faith The line has to be drawn in the sand sometimes people have the wrong impression. The History of our Church as fundamentalists has many different stories. The fact of the matter is Fundamental Baptist our fundamentalist but when we say it and use it as a way to label our church. In this case we our being identified as fundamentalist. Which goes against Catholic Church completely and Christianity is not catholic period. When we see the number of wrong ideas about fundamentalism which our either myth or just a out right lie's but we our hated for our believe Judo- Christanity when Religions try to blend in or our made part of another church. So if you ask what is fundamentalism it is not religion it is a relationship with Jesus and the Basics to obtain the relationship.

There is so much added to the concept of fundamentalism on this thread. I like your return to the basics.

When I was a missionary, we had two lists. One was from the basic concept of fundamentalism out of the Niagara convention. There were 5 concepts:

• Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
  
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

We could work with any group that held to these fundamentals. To join the mission, we had to hold to a 10 point list. We had Mennonites, Baptist, Presbyterians, and others in the mission.


Notice the lack of statements about women preachers, the specific translation of the Bible, or whether God created through evolution or in 4,000 BC.


The focus is and must be on Jesus. Legalism: you must do this or that to be a Christian is forbidden. Salvation is through Jesus' work alone and the Christian life is attained by walking with Jesus.


I have belonged to many Protestant denominations during my life because they all accepted fundamentalists and taught the Bible. The points that separated them were unimportant to me.

 

[NannaNae]

This thread is just amazing. I love most of you and like you too..

I am a fundamentalist because I am by nature a skeptic bordering on cynicism. To this day I read the Bible LOOKING for mistakes and points of disagreement. Yes, I acknowledge it is True, but as the OP said, it is no fragile thing, the Scriptures. The harder I hit them, the clearer it's Truth rings. The more intellectual acid and comtempt I pour on them, the brighter they shine as the crud of commentaries burns off.

The Word of God is mightier than I, in this I rest as I wrestle AGAINST it. For it is in the the struggle to find an error that I instead find Truth, and the comfort that Truth is greater than I. There is nothing else I have set my mind to that I have not demolished.

Thank GOD that "He is there, and He is not silent." As to how so many can believe the absurdities that pass for science these days is beyond me.

but this was someone who knows the same Jesus that I do ... the hard way.. one fight after another that he proved to me who He was and thus he won my heart by winning my mind.
Salvation is a Change of psyche not a prayer or seat at a certain pew and a certain church.. and only wrestling with Him is going to change our psyche , our psyche must come into agreement with him.
"Come let us reason"... then and only then is our sins changed .
Cubanito that was so cool a post, thank you . and thanks to all.. very cool thread , so far anyway..
so ding ding let's let the wrestling with Him continue! because he wins and He only is worthy to receive glory and honor!

 

[NannaNae]

I meant the same side of jesus..

 

[DeaconDean]

I look to the great christian creeds as my guide, notably the Nicene Creed.

In response, Dr. Jimmy Draper once said:

A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,
but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.​

Ernest Reisinger wrote:

DANGERS OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS​

One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.

Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.

The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/re...goodnews02.htm

Nuff said.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Faith.Man]

"But I do not elevate the various creeds to a position above or equal to the Bible."

One of the things I am fond of saying is that Christianity isn't something that any of us has invented in our basement.

One of the blessings of reading the various creeds from over the ages is you see how they are all in agreement. There is a unity that is shown, how down through the ages Athanasius, the saints at Nicaea, the saints at Westminster, they were all in agreement over what the Gospel was. Bless God, there truly is unity in the Body of Christ.

Such a blessing, to know that the Gospel as I understand it is the same Gospel that they understood, that the Jesus I worship is the same Jesus they worshiped, and that the "fundamentals" of that Gospel have remained the same down through the ages.

And there were differences too. Do a Google search.

 

[Job8]

Certainly "fundamentalism" is interpretive, and my brand of it is Scripture-only (which often brings forth a barrage of attacks by the sectarian crowd); but I really find one will be less likely to go astray if they hold to the Word of God, rather than the innovations and speculations of religious intellectuals. That is not a popular path, but I find it works well, and I believe is the way to honor God.

Hello to All,

I have just joined this forum, and I have examined both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (now Neo-Evangelicalism and even moving into the Emergent Church Movement). I believe that those who believe that the written Word of God (66 books in the KJV) is inspired, inerrant, infallible, and preserved by Divine Providence, should really call themselves "New Testament Christians" or "Biblicist Christians".

Those who held to Fundametalism have gradually diluted their positions and what used to be Fundamentalism is no longer in existence (by and large).

 

[Jack Koons]

Hello to All,

I have just joined this forum, and I have examined both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (now Neo-Evangelicalism and even moving into the Emergent Church Movement). I believe that those who believe that the written Word of God (66 books in the KJV) is inspired, inerrant, infallible, and preserved by Divine Providence, should really call themselves "New Testament Christians" or "Biblicist Christians".

Those who held to Fundametalism have gradually diluted their positions and what used to be Fundamentalism is no longer in existence (by and large).

Job,

Simple, to the point, and true. However, most of "fundamentalism" is in denial of everything you just said. That is the very reason not one person here has addressed why the position of the authors of the 1878 Niagara Creed for Fundamentalists used the term "in the originals", when referring to the "inspiration" of the Scriptures (leaving out any stand on preservation); while the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession addressed BOTH inspiration AND preservation.

Jack

 

[phydaux]

So much of what I read here reminds me of when I was a young Christian in the Navy, far from home and trying desperately to find agape fellowship with the other Christians aboard my ship who were from many different backgrounds.

It was often a struggle, because many of us had slightly different perspectives about things like End Times or The Holy Spirit, and often I am sure some brothers grieved the Lord in their fervent desire to please Him.

I remember distinctly one brother was getting married to a wonderful young sister, both of whom we had all served together with for several years. Many of us were greatly rejoicing over this, because we had watched over the two or so years as these two young people met, fell in love, and made the commitment to each other to become man and wife. I remember asking one brother if he planned on going to the wedding, and I'll never forget his reply:

"Not if it's in an apostate church I'm not."

This was from a fine young brother who deeply loved the Lord. He was from a mainline, very fundamentalist, denomination. The couple was getting married in a non-denominational church that was every bit as fundamentalist as his, but has a slightly different perspective on a minor issue. But his readiness to point the finger and yell "Burn the witch!" grieved my heart at least, if not the Lords.

I'm reminded of the old saying:

"In essentials Unity. In nonessentials Liberty. In all things Agape."

And I look to the great creeds to see just what those essentials are.

"The creeds are NOT scripture! You're elevating man's work to the level of God's inspiration. Heretic! Burn the witch!"

Sigh... No, by looking to the creeds I am not putting them in place of scripture. They are simply a teaching tool to help finite man understand an infinite God.

I would like to exhort all my forum brothers to rightly divide the Word, and to speak the truth in love.