Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Fundamentalist Christianity

0 views

Skip to first unread message

John the Baptist Jr.

unread,

Jan 21, 2006, 10:44:51 AM1/21/06

Christian movements

This article concerns the self-labelled Fundamentalist Movement in
Protestant Christianity. For other kinds of fundamentalism, please see
the main article, Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement
which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of
Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of
Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily
resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles. This core
set of beliefs was the "line in the sand" drawn by conservative
Christians as they battled against the rise of rationalism, higher
biblical criticism, and liberalism within Protestant denominations.

The nature of the Christian fundamentalist movement, while originally a
united effort within conservative evangelicalism, evolved during the
early-to-mid 1900s to become more separatist in nature and more
characteristically dispensational in its theology.

The secular world's current perception of the term "fundamentalism" is
colored by shifts in meaning on two fronts since the 1980s. First, the
term was used in a negative sense for all Christian groups so deemed by
liberal Lutheran theologian Martin E. Marty in his five-volume
Fundamentalism Project[1] (although recent social science research has
raised questions about his assessment[2]), and (2) during the holding of
a number of Americans hostage in Lebanon, some members of the press
began referring to the Islamic Hezbollah captors as "Islamic
fundamentalists", and consequently the term has increasingly come to
have pejorative connotations of extremism and even terrorism.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Brief history
* 2 Doctrine
* 3 Fundamentalist breakup
* 4 Other beliefs
* 5 See also
* 6 Footnotes
* 7 References
* 8 External links

[edit]

Brief history

A number of evangelicals in the 19th century prepared the way for the
movement. American evangelist Dwight L. Moody (18371899) and British
preacher and father of dispensionalism John Nelson Darby (18001882)
among others propounded ideas and themes carried into fundamentalist
Christianity. There is no single founder of fundamentalism.

The term fundamentalist, in the context of this article, derives from a
series of (originally) twelve volumes entitled The Fundamentals: A
Testimony To The Truth. Among this publication's 94 essays, 27 of them
objected to higher criticism of the Bible, by far the largest number
addressing any one topic. The essays were written by 64 British and
American conservative Protestant theologians between 1910 and 1915.
Using a $250,000 grant from Lyman Stewart, the head of the Union Oil
Company of California, about three million sets of these books were
distributed to English-speaking Protestant church workers throughout the
world.

Important early Christian fundamentalists included Baptist pastor
William Bell Riley, the founder and president of the World Christian
Fundamentals Association, who was instrumental in calling lawyer and
three-time Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan to
act as that organization's counsel in the famous Scopes Trial. Moody
Bible Institute had mainstream appeal, through its presidents R.A.
Torrey and James M. Gray. The views of theologian Cyrus I. Scofield
represented fundamentalism's antagonism to figurative interpretation,
especially as it was used by fundamentalism's liberal opponents to deny
basic elements of the Christian faith, such as the virgin birth or the
bodily resurrection of Christ, and it was through his Scofield Reference
Bible that dispensationalism gradually gained strong adherence among
fundamentalists.

The rise of dispensationalism is an important development distinct from
the roots of the movement. In particular, dispensationalism played no
part in the Old-time religion, as typified by the likes of southern
Methodist revivalist Samuel Porter Jones, an elder associate of Bob
Jones, Sr., founder of Bob Jones University, who later adopted
dispensationalism. B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen were key players
in the fundamentalism-modernist controversy but wrote against
dispensationalism from the standpoint of the Princeton theology, which
many regard as the intellectual roots of the movement before it came
under the influence of dispensationalism.

As the movement developed, premillennialism, dispensationalism, and
separatism began to overwhelmingly characterize the most popular
leaders, which also had an effect on the way that evangelicals as a
whole were perceived by outside observers. Dispensationalism's literal
approach to the Scriptures was increasingly seen as a main protection
against the gradual degradation to theological modernism.
[edit]

Doctrine

The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be
traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (18781897) and, in 1910, to the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into
what became known as the "five fundamentals"[3]:

* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and
human faith
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus
* The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his
premillenial second coming)[4]

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
continue to 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, insisting that books in which the
author is identified must have been written by that author.

Fundamentalists differ from Pentecostals in their strong insistence upon
"correct" doctrine and often advocate separatism (which often also
divides fundamentalists from each other) as opposed to the experiential
emphasis of Pentecostals.

Fundamentalists also criticize evangelicals for a lack of concern for
doctrinal purity and for a lack of discernment in ecumenical endeavors
in working co-operatively 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 Onlyism, the rapture, etc. that critics
argue have no biblical basis). American evangelist Billy Graham came
from a fundamentalist background, but many Christian fundamentalists
repudiate him today because of his choice, early in his ministry
(1950s), to co-operate 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").
[edit]

Fundamentalist breakup

The original 20th century Fundamentalist Movement broke up along very
definable lines within conservative Evangelical Protestantism as issues
progressed. 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. They are fundamentalists in a
sense, but there is a more precise definition for each and they do not
refer to themselves as fundamentalist. In contrast, today's
Fundamentalist Movement looks to the Fundamentalist-Modernist
Controversy for its identity and as its primary historical point of
reference.

Thus, many Evangelical groups may be described as "fundamentalist" in
the broad sense, who do not belong in the "Fundamentalist Movement" in
the narrow sense. Many Evangelicals believe in the doctrine of Biblical
inerrancy, a basic issue of difference in the Fundamentalist-Modernist
Controversy a century ago. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,
for instance, was signed in 1978 by nearly 300 conservative scholars,
including James Boice, Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry
(founder of Christianity Today), Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John
Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl
Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham. Very few if
any of these men fit the definition of or identify themselves with
today's Fundamentalist Movement.
[edit]

Other beliefs

No individual or institution speaks for all of Christian fundamentalism,
which is a religious orientation, rather than an organized movement.
Drawing on their belief in an inerrant Bible and dispensational-literal
hermeneutic, many fundamentalists adhere to young earth creationism and
universal flood geology and ardently oppose alternate approaches such as
old earth creationism and non-theistic evolution, commonly known as
Darwinism. Consequently, some fundamentalists have been active in the
debate over teaching multiple viewpoints of the origin of humans in
science classrooms of public schools in the United States. Additionally,
fundamentalists have aligned themselves with the Christian Right,
advocating prayer in public school and Christian messages in other
public forums, such as displaying the Protestant version of the Ten
Commandments in public spaces. Their failure to achieve their goals in
the public schools has prompted some to take up homeschooling for
religious reasons.

Like many other conservative Evangelicals, some fundamentalists have
been vocal in support of the pro-life movement, which opposes abortion,
human cloning, physician-assisted suicide, and embryonic stem cell
research, and some have spoken against political measures intended to
legalize same-sex marriage or relax sodomy laws. However, there are
large segments of the fundamentalist community whose approach to
politics is based on some form of a theory of international conspiracy
(often fueled by dispensationalist theology) that they believe will
culminate in a one world government under the literal Antichrist. This
approach inclines these fundamentalists toward suspicion of political
power in all of its forms. J. Vernon McGee's famous skepticism of
political action still typifies the movement as a whole, "it's just
polishing brass on a sinking ship"; and in general, they are much more
interested in saving souls, than in political influence. This explains
why they oppose the "social gospel" today advocated by liberals, and
doctrines such as Dominion Theory advocated by some conservatives.
Nevertheless, traditionally, fundamentalists have been very outspoken
against communism, the United Nations and the ecumenical movement
(particularly the National Council of Churches and World Council of
Churches), all of which have been called by some, "Satanically-inspired"
notions of false unity.

Some fundamentalists have endorsed strict codes of conduct that prohibit
even moderate consumption of alcohol and tobacco, dancing, mixed
bathing, gambling, or engaging in secular cultural activities such as
watching movies or listening to rock and roll music. These codes may
also require adherents to dress in certain ways going beyond simple
modesty (for example, by prohibiting women from wearing pants or men
from having long hair). In most cases, fundamentalists draw a connection
between these features of the surrounding culture and the immoral or
unbelieving way of life that they feel is represented by them, and by
avoiding conformity to the secular world in such small but signal ways,
they hope to protect their souls from corruption and call the world to
salvation and holiness, by their example and "testimony."

Because fundamentalism began as a reaction to views coming out of the
academic community, some fundamentalists have become anti-intellectual
to the point of looking down on those with higher education from secular
institutions, though this is certainly not true of all. As an example of
this, some point to what they call the King-James-Only Movement,
referring to fundamentalists who speak strongly in favor of the King
James Version of the Bible and reject both modern translations and more
recently discovered Bible manuscripts because, for instance, those
manuscripts do not contain a reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 and
the scholars who produced the newer translations omit the Trinitarian
part of the verse, which they believe to be corrupted (compare the NIV
footnote[5]) - along with many other evidences of corruption, they
allege.

In contrast, many other conservative Christians believe that a high view
of the Bible's authority leaves them free to consider old earth
creationism, or even theistic evolution. Fundamentalists are often
criticized by fellow Christians, for attaching spiritual significance to
things which are indifferent in themselves, such as old-fashioned
standards of clothing, hairstyles, and recreations. The charge of
legalism is frequently heard, when cultural scruples are perceived as
being elevated to principles of godly living or defacto requirements for
recognition as a Christian. Additionally, other Evangelicals usually
adopt modern translations of the Bible on the basis, first, that they
are in vernacular and therefore understood more accurately by laymen
than the antiquated English of the King James Version; and second, that
the new versions incorporate recently discovered manuscripts, which some
scholars have used to reconstruct what they believe to be a more
accurate version of the Bible than was available to the translators of
the King James Bible.
[edit]

H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.

unread,

Jan 21, 2006, 8:32:42 PM1/21/06

"John the Baptist Jr." <johnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:johnw_94020-BBDA...@News-West.newsfeeds.com...

> Christian movements
>
> This article concerns the self-labelled Fundamentalist Movement in
> Protestant Christianity. For other kinds of fundamentalism, please see
> the main article, Fundamentalism.
>
> Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement
> which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and
> early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
> reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of
> Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of
> Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily
> resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles. This core
> set of beliefs was the "line in the sand" drawn by conservative
> Christians as they battled against the rise of rationalism, higher
> biblical criticism, and liberalism within Protestant denominations.

Nonsense.

The beliefs have always been the core Christian beliefs as affirmed in the
creeds and writings going all the way back to the first century AD.

The challenges to these beliefs are forwarded by those who are unwittingly
leading the church into the great apostasy in the name of false
"enlightenment."

And thus the game begins.

Ike

www.eickleberrybooks.com

Michael Rhodes

unread,

Jan 21, 2006, 11:04:14 PM1/21/06

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:32:42 -0600, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<Xeickleb...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"John the Baptist Jr." <johnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:johnw_94020-BBDA...@News-West.newsfeeds.com...
>> Christian movements
>>
>> This article concerns the self-labelled Fundamentalist Movement in
>> Protestant Christianity. For other kinds of fundamentalism, please see
>> the main article, Fundamentalism.
>>
>> Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement
>> which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and
>> early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
>> reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of
>> Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of
>> Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily
>> resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles. This core
>> set of beliefs was the "line in the sand" drawn by conservative

WHAT?!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

>> Christians as they battled against the rise of rationalism, higher
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>> biblical criticism, and liberalism within Protestant denominations.
>
>Nonsense.

Of course. But what's the deal? Paul taught foolishness. Didn't he
say as much? And foolishness is what the church clings to.

>
>The beliefs have always been the core Christian beliefs as affirmed in the
>creeds and writings going all the way back to the first century AD.
>
>The challenges to these beliefs are forwarded by those who are unwittingly
>leading the church into the great apostasy in the name of false
>"enlightenment."
>
>And thus the game begins.
>
>Ike
>

How about this criticism of a core belief. But it's in the Bible,
though I think it actually came just after the first century AD. I
think it is criticism, by way of sarcasm. But then you would accuse
me of apostasy, while I would respond that you can't do that by only
Paul.

2Pe 3:15 MKJV
(15) And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our
beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom
given to him

"Think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation..." The writer
had to be kidding! Long-suffering as salvation?!! When
long-suffering ends it is because of 1) Repentance, to a change of
ways, or 2) The wrath of God. Neither is out of grace; which Christ
did not teach, by the way. He was never recorded as having said the
word, in any gospel, nor in Revelation. So isn't the depending on
grace (as defined by Paul) exactly what is described, and therefore
could very well be a presumption on God and forcing His
long-suffering? To a fiery end?!

"wisdom given to him..." meaning given only Paul. So why is Paul the
only one who made sure we knew what grace and works were? You can't
accuse me of apostasy according to only Paul -- unless it is obvious
sense and destructive to my neighbor. Then you would have a point.
Grace is not that.

And you do not have a point if it is 'destructive' to a church based
on Paul, even back to Paul's day.

Paul is so beloved, as the writer pointed out; even way back when.
Too beloved.

Know that the author also complained about "the error of the lawless"
in v17, without accusing Paul directly, though lawlessness might be
directly attributed to Paul, and him alone.

So I believe I've found a source of 'apostasy', but with
enlightenment! It is quite rational. Only Paul's words would condemn
it. Fruit (from works that produce) is actually good. Repentance is
good. And depending on grace can be a destructive thing, of course!
The message of the anti-Christ has been discovered. It is Paul who is
not God, Christ is.

The writer (not Peter) prophesied concering the burning of Paul's
works. He is correct, and at least part of it is coming soon, as per
Rev 17-ff. The timing is indicated at the end of Rev ch 16, the
hailstorm on the great city. That occurred during the collapse of the
WTC, as initiated by the beast who is working for our Lord. The Lord
made sure of it. More is to come.

Michael

H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.

unread,

Jan 22, 2006, 12:34:03 AM1/22/06

"Michael Rhodes" <n...@none.net> wrote in message
news:er06t1d01iopcs9ne...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:32:42 -0600, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
> <Xeickleb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John the Baptist Jr." <johnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:johnw_94020-BBDA...@News-West.newsfeeds.com...
>>> Christian movements
>>>
>>> This article concerns the self-labelled Fundamentalist Movement in
>>> Protestant Christianity. For other kinds of fundamentalism, please see
>>> the main article, Fundamentalism.
>>>
>>> Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement
>>> which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and
>>> early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
>>> reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of
>>> Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of
>>> Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily
>>> resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles. This core
>>> set of beliefs was the "line in the sand" drawn by conservative
>
> WHAT?!
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>>> Christians as they battled against the rise of rationalism, higher
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>>> biblical criticism, and liberalism within Protestant denominations.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
> Of course. But what's the deal? Paul taught foolishness. Didn't he
> say as much? And foolishness is what the church clings to.

Your "wisdom" fails by comparison to Paul's "foolishness."

Ike

--
"Many shall come saying...'The time draws near:' Go ye not after them."

******************************

"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.

For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit

www.eickleberrybooks.com

******************************
Remove X from address to reply

Michael Rhodes

unread,

Jan 22, 2006, 9:58:16 PM1/22/06

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:34:03 -0600, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<Xeickleb...@comcast.net> wrote:

It isn't just mine. And here it is again. Will someone, anyone, show
some courage and face it?

I will add to my original reply that without this passage, (if its
'compliment' is removed) then Paul has no supposed original follower
of Christ supporting him in any manner. 2 Peter 3 is no compliment!
Anyway, by no means is 2 Peter considered by everyone as written by
Peter. I agree, for Peter would not have couched his criticism of
Paul in such sarcasm. But someone (like me) was angry enough to write
a letter spitting at Paul, and in a manner so that most would not
shoot it down immediately. It sounds like the wrath of God to me.
Say it ain't so; but in a reasonable manner please, if you can. But I
know you can not.

Michael

H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.

unread,

Jan 22, 2006, 11:38:38 PM1/22/06

"Michael Rhodes" <n...@none.net> wrote in message

news:v0h8t19tn6sagv2hj...@4ax.com...

[snip]

> The writer (not Peter) prophesied concering the burning of Paul's
> works. He is correct, and at least part of it is coming soon, as per
> Rev 17-ff. The timing is indicated at the end of Rev ch 16, the
> hailstorm on the great city. That occurred during the collapse of the
> WTC, as initiated by the beast who is working for our Lord. The Lord
> made sure of it. More is to come.

Oh, great. Another one seeing portents in the newspapers.

Jesus outlines six errors that cause apostasy in the seven letters, and
these give rise to a seventh and an eighth.

1) Ephesus = legalism.
2) Smyrna = disloyalty.
3) Pergamos = "religionism" in high ceremony and idolatry.
4) Thyatira = licentiousness.
5) Sardeis = immaturity.
6) Laodicea = marginalism.

The seventh is to hew out cisterns that hold no water (i.e. to entertain the
notion of "other christs), and the eighth is to forsake the fountain of
living waters (i.e. the one and only Gospel of Jesus Christ).

The portents are not in the newspapers. They're in your local church.

Aaron

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 2:26:57 AM1/23/06

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:32:42 -0600, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<Xeickleb...@comcast.net> wrote:

That is not an accurate definition of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism
is actually marked by the belief that all of the Bible must be
interpreted literally, even the metaphors and the parts where the
Bible says that the visions given by God are symbolic. It also
embraces "Sola Scriptura," which the Bible demounces.

0 new messages