IS FUNDAMENTALISM ENOUGH?

[1watchman]

We hear talk often about fundamentalism and conservatism and liberalism, etc. The real issue seems to be whether we are fully scriptural ---that means Bible-only in all our understandings of everything dealing with God and His testimony and expectations ---would you say? I see our need is to be taking "all the counsel of God" and "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" as God shows us. That would bring what God intends: being of "one accord"; "like mind"; expressing the "one body in Christ"; and "no schism" in the body.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Probably not.

"Fundamentalism" implies 'fundamentally' believing the Bible. Which usually means 'believing only the Bible ONLY the way I understand it'.

A Christian does - as you mention - need to 'take all the counsel of God', which includes discovery and understanding of how God's Universe works AND logic and clear thinking, and, 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth' as it was given and intended to be understood.

The Bible is accurate and true in all it says, in the context of what it addresses and actually says. What is NOT discussed either in the scope or wording of the Bible should not be assumed to mean the missing bits do not exist.

In truth, I do not think any one discipline, such as 'fundamentalism' or 'social awareness' or 'self-denial' or 'piety' (in the visible sense) is 'Enough'.

 

[1watchman]

We hear talk often about fundamentalism and conservatism and liberalism, etc. The real issue seems to be whether we are fully scriptural ---that means Bible-only in all our understandings of everything dealing with God and His testimony and expectations ---would you say? I see our need is to be taking "all the counsel of God" and "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" as God shows us. That would bring what God intends: being of "one accord"; "like mind"; expressing the "one body in Christ"; and "no schism" in the body.

Most so-called Fundamentalists, I find, seem to mean to stand firm on what certain verses they like say, and then they are often found in a dilemma because they do not embrace "all the counsel of God" and are concluding things in error by not "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (e.g. failing to distinguish between the OT and NT; not seeing what the Church is; not appreciating that God is speaking through His Word, etc.). I hear them then say: "we can only do what God shows us" (which often is really imagining things from ideas rather than Scripture). This failure in trying to stand on Fundamentalism comes from being fundamental about certain things only. This matter is taken up quite well I find, at the Biblecounsel web site on the Internet and can help one get it all straight ---which goes beyond trying to be a "fundy", and comparing Scripture with Scripture to see the full intent of God. Well, we all certainly need to cry to God to teach us and keep us from going astray ---right?

 

[DeaconDean]

Has anybody took the time to read any history on "fundamentalist" or "Fundamentalism"?

What really brought "Fundamentalism" to the forefront was Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

One of the very first people in America to embrace and teach a mixture of creationalism and evolution was Crawford H. Toy.

After the Civil War, Toy went the prestigious University of Berlin (1866-1868) where he was exposed to Darwin's theology. Being influenced also by the discipline of "Higher Criticism",

" Toy began to see Darwin's theories as truth revealed by God "in the form proper to his time." Shaped by the historical-critical method of studying scripture that had been popularized in Europe by Julius Wellhausen, Toy came to believe that the writers of the New Testament—using a rabbinical hermeneutic of their day—misunderstood the original meaning of several Old Testament passages (e.g., Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 53) when they placed a christological emphasis on them."

Source

Because of Darwin, many started to believe in evolution, and still do. Fundamentalists are well known mainly because of their stance that the Holy Scriptures should be taken literally. And they did/do especially when it comes to the creation account.

Ever seen the movie "Reap the Wind"? It was based loosely on what happened in the 1920's (?) during what became known as the "Scopes Monkey Trial".

I am probably one the last true Fundamentalists.

There are three things for Fundamentalists are known for:

a) a strict literal interpretation of the bible.

b) the Premillinennialism

c) Dispensationalism

Oh well, so much for the history lesson.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[redleghunter]

We hear talk often about fundamentalism and conservatism and liberalism, etc. The real issue seems to be whether we are fully scriptural ---that means Bible-only in all our understandings of everything dealing with God and His testimony and expectations ---would you say? I see our need is to be taking "all the counsel of God" and "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" as God shows us. That would bring what God intends: being of "one accord"; "like mind"; expressing the "one body in Christ"; and "no schism" in the body.

Please define fundamentalism.

Thanks.

 

[1watchman]

I think the dictionary can define that for you, and it speaks of beginnings; and I believe I defined it in my posts, as well as did the paper posted, as what man generally means by it in their applications.

 

[1watchman]

As to the basic question posted here ---since "fundamentalism" is interpretive, we would be left to useless debates, so the real question might be such as: Is Bible-only enough? That, of course will also be debated by mis-interpretations of various Bible verses, but at least it is on more solid ground, would you say?

For those who truly want a Bible-only fellowship, they will look for a gathering worldwide which holds to "no schism in the body" universal (1 Cor. 12:25) as God enjoins us. I submit that there is such a fellowship from that revival in 1827 AD, where it appears clear to some of us that God set about to recover Church truth as He ordained from that revival of the Gospel in 1400 - 1500 AD; which freed saints from the tyranny of the RC religion.

Since saints were mostly without literacy and the written Word, they copied much of the rituals, hierarchy, programs, ceremonies, rules, etc. which they had learned over a thousand years of RCR rule. Thank God for His continued work to recover Church Truth in circa 1800 AD. One can read much about all this work at the site: www.biblecounsel.homestead.com and ask questions there for further study and prayer, and where such gatherings might be today. Look up always, for God cares for His own always!

 

[DeaconDean]

As to the basic question posted here ---since "fundamentalism" is interpretive, we would be left to useless debates, so the real question might be such as: Is Bible-only enough? That, of course will also be debated by mis-interpretations of various Bible verses, but at least it is on more solid ground, would you say?

For those who truly want a Bible-only fellowship, they will look for a gathering worldwide which holds to "no schism in the body" universal (1 Cor. 12:25) as God enjoins us. I submit that there is such a fellowship from that revival in 1827 AD, where it appears clear to some of us that God set about to recover Church truth as He ordained from that revival of the Gospel in 1400 - 1500 AD; which freed saints from the tyranny of the RC religion.

Since saints were mostly without literacy and the written Word, they copied much of the rituals, hierarchy, programs, ceremonies, rules, etc. which they had learned over a thousand years of RCR rule. Thank God for His continued work to recover Church Truth in circa 1800 AD. One can read much about all this work at the site: www.biblecounsel.homestead.com and ask questions there for further study and prayer, and where such gatherings might be today. Look up always, for God cares for His own always!

I really want to reply to this, but trying to find the group/denomination your referring to is about as easy as nailing jello to the wall.

Between 1790 and 1840 there were a lot of things happening here in America. One of the most notable was the Second Great Awakening.

And on the immediate heels of that was several "splits". One of the most notable was the Campbell-Stone Movement, and the Plymouth Brethren.

The Campbell-Stone movement gave birth to the Restoration Movement or as they are known today, "No Creed But Christ".

Another was the Plymouth Brethren.

And then there was Charles Grandison Finney. (Prudence dictates I remain silent on this person)

And we can also point to the building issue of slavery and the last time both Northern and Southern Baptists essentially agreed in the New Hampshire Confession of 1833. Shortly after that, Northern and Southern Baptists split radically.

Lets not forget Seventh Day Adventists.

Or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

And there was "Christian Science".

And there was "The Oneness of God and the Deity of Jesus Christ".

And then we come to the "Holiness Movement".

So I am wondering to what group you are referring to?

God Bless

Till all are one.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[1watchman]

You seem to be lumping a lot of sects together, Dean. If you would like to get a good picture of that revival of 1827 AD ---referred to as the "brethren movement", the site at www.biblecounsel.homestead.com often shows the history there. One can ask questions there about Church history.

 

[DeaconDean]

You seem to be lumping a lot of sects together, Dean. If you would like to get a good picture of that revival of 1827 AD ---referred to as the "brethren movement", the site at www.biblecounsel.homestead.com often shows the history there. One can ask questions there about Church history.

Let me say this, in seminary, I took "A History of Christianity", and "Southern Baptist Heritage".

I looked up the "revival of 1827", and the above movements came between 1790 and 1840.

I looked at your web-site, it never revealed what group or denomination, or anything else they aligned with. If they did and I overlooked it, please point it out to me.

You said:

I submit that there is such a fellowship from that revival in 1827 AD, where it appears clear to some of us that God set about to recover Church truth as He ordained from that revival of the Gospel in 1400 - 1500 AD; which freed saints from the tyranny of the RC religion.

Since saints were mostly without literacy and the written Word, they copied much of the rituals, hierarchy, programs, ceremonies, rules, etc. which they had learned over a thousand years of RCR rule. Thank God for His continued work to recover Church Truth in circa 1800 AD.

So like I said, what is the "group/denomination" or whatever you call them that came from the "revival of 1827?

What "rituals, hierarchy, programs, ceremonies, rules, etc" have Fundamentalists, Baptists, Presbyterians carried over?

What "work to recover Church Truth in circa 1800 AD?

Are we to believe no group/denomination etc, got anything correct after 1500 to 1800, and the only group to get it right came out of the "revival of 1827"?



God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Baptist History Homepage; Remarkable Revivals and Revivalists of the 19th Century.

By Samuel H. Ford, Ford's Christian Repository, December 1900

"THE FOURTH.

The next revival began in 1827, and, like the two which next preceded, continued about three years. This period covered the flood-tide of the Campbellite agitation. The excitement was greater than it had been since the beginning of the century. Several of the prominent Baptist preachers had fully accepted the teaching of Mr. Campbell, while others were confused, and strongly inclined to the great reformation. Great activity prevailed in religious circles all over the State. The followers of Mr. Campbell labored zealously to induce the people to be baptized, but more zealously to proselyte Baptists to their new views. One of them boasted that he had baptized 600 sinners, and capsized 1,500 Baptists within a single year. This was the spirit that generally prevailed. The movement was more enthusiastic propagation and reception of Campbellism than a spiritual revival. Something more than 15,000 were added to the Baptist churches in Kentucky. But it is to be feared that a majority of them were not converted according to the Baptist meaning of the term. When the Campbellites were cut off at the close of the revival, they carried a large proportion of the new converts with them. Indeed the violent activities of this great religious upheaval may be regarded as the birth-throes of the Campbellite sect in the Mississippi Valley.


But while this revival greatly weakened the Baptists, for the time, it was not barren of important results. It convinced the churches that they were destitute of a ministry capable of successfully defending their faith and practice. They had at that time, a number of brilliant pulpit orators; but they had only two educated preachers in the State. To supply this deficiency they resolved to establish an institution of learning for the purpose of educating young preachers. Accordingly, they procured a charter for Georgetown College in 1829. Another want emphasized by this great religious awakening was a general organization of the Baptist forces for the purpose of promoting Home Missions. The proposal to form such an organization met much opposition from the churches. But it was finally effected, by the constitution of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, in 1832, which was succeeded by the General Association of Baptists in Kentucky, five years later. A considerable number of Baptists had been infected by Mr. Campbell's heresy, before the revival of 1827 began. But they had been permitted to remain in the churches, with the hope that they would be reclaimed. But, during the revival, they became so aggressive and defiant that they could no longer be tolerated. Accordingly, in the fall of 1830, they were severed from the Baptist denomination and henceforth constituted an independent sect."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.