Do The Reformed and Puritans Hate Fundamentalism?

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What I also find is that fundamentalists, at least IFB ones, hate Calvinists but for some strange reason they give Spurgeon and the Puritans a pass. Can't figure it out.

Perhaps until they read Spurgeon's "Defense of Calvinism".

 

[mothcorrupteth]

What I also find is that fundamentalists, at least IFB ones, hate Calvinists but for some strange reason they give Spurgeon and the Puritans a pass. Can't figure it out.

I don't know about the Puritans, but apparently they think Spurgeon didn't really mean to say all the bajillions of things he said in favor of Calvinism, and that he was just being sloppy with his words. Go figure.

EDIT: My favorite site for all things anti-Calvinist: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/Calvinism/spurgeon.htm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Which I implicitly acknowledged, when I said that in the way we use the word nowadays, it usually refers only to the dominant Arminian-revivalist wing of what was originally called "Fundamentalism."

I never said that there was. I said most fundamentalists are Arminian, to the point that the word has only come to refer to the Arminian wing (and, if you want to be technical, the OSAS wing, too). Moreover, a large number of those who originally subscribed to the Five Fundamentals were Arminian and would never have assented to the thought that the substitutionary atonement was a particular atonement. The force of the credo for substitutionary atonement is an opposition to the liberal-theological theory that Christ only died as a good moral example. There's nothing attached to it that addresses the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. Can you make sense of the atonement apart from particularity? No. But that does not mean that an Arminian cannot confess the fourth Fundamental.

Well, I have no desire to get into a heated argument over what a fundamentalist is, the Wiki article suites me fine. Sure Arminans can confess substitutionary atonement, but they do so inconsistently I think, much like the OSAS Arminian Baptist. Let me briefly explain, why I think substitutionary atonement cannot be consistently held by an Arminian. If Christ's death made it possible for anyone to be saved, then we can only say He died for mankind in general. If Christ died for mankind in general, it cannot be said He actually accomplished salvation for anyone (for if He did everyone would be saved), the accomplishing then is left up to supposed "free choice" and maintaining salvation through works of "free will". No Arminian can rightly say "Christ died for me" because that implies a substitution, and it implies a particular accomplishment.

 

[VCViking]

I had no idea what a Fundamentalist was until I crossed paths with one a few years back. I accepted the common definitions of Fundamentalism used in this thread until I realized I was not a true, Traditional Fundie like the fella I talked with. The more I looked into it the more I realized how stagnate the whole movement is.

Gotcha. I sorta feel the same way but I do like some of their stances but some things they just take too far.

 

[VCViking]

EDIT: My favorite site for all things anti-Calvinist: Was Spurgeon a Calvinist?

Oh boy! Stewart is noting but full of hate. I think he goes to Westboro.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Reading Stewart's articles on Calvinism makes me facepalm, every time.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I don't know about the Puritans, but apparently they think Spurgeon didn't really mean to say all the bajillions of things he said in favor of Calvinism, and that he was just being sloppy with his words. Go figure.

EDIT: My favorite site for all things anti-Calvinist: Was Spurgeon a Calvinist?

That is one terrible site. I do get drawn into reading some of the articles against Roman Catholicism though and find myself agreeing to some degree with him on some points there, not all of course, but even a cheap watch is right twice a day.

 

[VCViking]

Perhaps until they read Spurgeon's "Defense of Calvinism".

My last church, the head Deacon believed anyone who was a Calvinist was not saved and accursed. While in a class he was teaching on Election and Predestination, he started railing against Calvinism and I mentioned "What about Spurgeon? He states, 'Calvinism IS the Gospel'"

He stated, "He did?" "Well...Spurgeon was an anomaly."

 

[VCViking]

Reading Stewart's articles on Calvinism makes me facepalm, every time.

Ever notice how you can't email or contact him. He even hates most IFB people.

 

[desmalia]

Oh boy! Stewart is noting but full of hate. I think he goes to Westboro.

OH, but Westboro is Calvinist, dontcha know? lol :o

Ever notice how you can't email or contact him. He even hates most IFB people.

He's probably one of those "there are no good churches, so I teach myself at home alone" types. They're a real treat.

Anyway, I identify with the fundamentals, and am happy to be called a fundamentalist. I am also most definitely a 5-point Calvinist.

What amuses me is the number of people who adore John MacArthur's teachings and don't know he's Calvinist. My sister called me a couple of years ago in shock when she first found out. She said "did you know he's a Calvinist???". I said "Ya, duuuhhhh". lol. What's nice is that now she's starting to investigate the doctrines and doesn't have that knee jerk reaction against them anymore that we were raised to have in the churches where we grew up.

That's what's happening right now in the western world... As the Lord opens eyes and draws people to His word (whether they come through fundamentalist dedication to His word, through Calvary Chapel, etc.) hearts are being opened to the doctrines of grace, which is really exciting to see! And when you think about it, it's the natural result of believers reading and studying the Scriptures.

 

[drstevej]

Historically Fundamentalism (1920s >) centered on the five fundamentals as the doctrinal essentials. Machen and other Reformed distanced themselves from the movement since it was minimalistic and did not encompass the whole council of God.

Fundamentalism morphed in 1950s > as it adopted a separatist mindset (actually a second degree separatist mindset -- separate from those who won't separate).

I am a historic fundamentalist but am no fan of the fratricidal "fighting" fundamentalists (Hyles, et al.).

Dr. Hendricks was fond of saying, "You can be a fundamentalist, just don't act like one!" -- Selah.

 

[VCViking]

OH, but Westboro is Calvinist, dontcha know? lol :o


He's probably one of those "there are no good churches, so I teach myself at home alone" types. They're a real treat.

Anyway, I identify with the fundamentals, and am happy to be called a fundamentalist. I am also most definitely a 5-point Calvinist.

What amuses me is the number of people who adore John MacArthur's teachings and don't know he's Calvinist. My sister called me a couple of years ago in shock when she first found out. She said "did you know he's a Calvinist???". I said "Ya, duuuhhhh". lol. What's nice is that now she's starting to investigate the doctrines and doesn't have that knee jerk reaction against them anymore that we were raised to have in the churches where we grew up.

That's what's happening right now in the western world... As the Lord opens eyes and draws people to His word (whether they come through fundamentalist dedication to His word, through Calvary Chapel, etc.) hearts are being opened to the doctrines of grace, which is really exciting to see! And when you think about it, it's the natural result of believers reading and studying the Scriptures.

 

[heymikey80]

There's wide agreement with fundamentalists on the items identified as fundamentals.

There's not agreement that they are the only fundamentals.

There's a difference of approach even within fundamentalism on encounters with Christians who disagree on the fundamentals, and many of us evangelicals think the approach should major on redemptive and not divisive discussions as much as possible: "as much as possible be at peace with others."