Definition of "fundamentalist?"

[CompSciGuy]

Hi,

I see the term “fundamentalist” used a lot on these forums and I was wondering if there is a coherent definition of the term. Most often, I will see this term applied to conservative or moderate Protestants in general. From my understanding of the term “fundamentalist,” I don’t know if this designation fits for a lot of Protestants. When I think of a “fundamentalist,” I think of someone who

1. Is Protestant and of course believes in sola scriptura, in addition to one or more of the following:
2. Typically believes the earth is 6,000 years old
3. Spends a lot of time bashing other denominations
4. Is typically anti-catholic
5. Typically has a bunch of rules about not drinking alcohol or listening to rock music, or about women wearing pants
6. Thinks that Jack Chick tracts are the world’s second greatest theological masterpiece next to the holy Bible

and things of this nature. Is this an accurate understanding of how you perceive a fundamentalist? What are some of your definitions?

 

[Della]

Fundamentalists of every stripe believe they, and they alone have the truth–that there is no truth of any kind in any other group than theirs.

This is not the teaching of the Church. Rather the Church teaches that the whole of the truth necessary for our salvation subsists within it. But, truth is truth no matter who speaks it/discovers it/proclaims it.

Fundamentalists also believe that only they are truly inspried by God.

Once again, this is not the teaching of the Church. Christ said that the Spirit goes where he pleases like the wind that blows through the trees. We can see his manifestation wherever he touches human hearts with the fire of his love.

Fundamentalists have no love for anyone except those who agree with them/believe as they do.

Not so the Catholic faith. We are to love all men, good, bad, or indifferent.

 

[1ke]

Properly speaking, a Fundamentalist is one who adheres to The Fundamentals as described by Baptists and Presbyterians in the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century.

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

Although associated with evangelicalism, not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

 

[JustaServant]

The fundamentalist movement began in the early part of the 20th century as a reaction against the growing liberalism in mainline denominations. The early fundamentalist conferances included almost every Protestant denomination.
Fundamentalism exists in the fog of a false history (which is why they discourage educated inquiry) and ‘separation’. They believe they are ‘Bible based’ and all other denominations reject the Bible and salvation.
The CC, they believe is ‘anti-Bible’. When one looks at the world from this point of view, it is difficult to break through it. ‘Separation’ keeps them from a wider world and in fear. They are convinced of their rightness and your wrongness and they will do whatever they can to break your will.

There are three basic types of fundamentalist baptists:

1. The Jerry Falwel, Liberty University variety.
I attended LU and can safely say they are the most reasonable kind (that may shock some people). They would fit into the " ‘New Evangelicals’ Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson" types you mention. Hard-core fundamentalists do not consider them to be fundamentalists (for a variety of reasons I will not bore you with explaining, not the least of which is that they (GASP) use modern english versions of the Bible.

***2. The Bob Jones University variety. ***
They range from Calvinist to Arminian in theology. They tend to be more intellectual, but very elitist and racist. Their numbers are dwindling however, Two pastors I sat under were from BJU.

3. The Hyles-Anderson College, KJV-only variety.
These are the wide-eyed fanatics. These are the haters. Very anti-intellectual, cultic, abrasive, paranoid…I could go on, but you get the picture. The third group I have encountered, even preached in a few of their churches, but I avoided them.

All three Falwell, Jones, and Hyles are gone now. But their legacy continues. All three are little islands to themselves. They put up walls so no opposite POV comes in.
Defeating the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist sect (cult would be a better word) can only be done on an individual basis, and only when the Holy Spirit directs the path for the individual.
Fortuntely, IFBs are a dying breed. The number of people in thier churches rarely are in the triple digets. Most are a small handful of people.
The reason why is obvious: thier doctrine of separation. They separate, not just from all those ‘apostate denominations’, but from each other as well.
When one is born of division, all that can be produced is more division. They will continue to ‘separate’ and divide until they are no more.
You don’t have to ‘defeat’ them.
They’re doing it themselves.

 

[BrianH]

The fundamentalist movement began in the early part of the 20th century as a reaction against the growing liberalism in mainline denominations. The early fundamentalist conferances included almost every Protestant denomination.
Fundamentalism exists in the fog of a false history (which is why they discourage educated inquiry) and ‘separation’. They believe they are ‘Bible based’ and all other denominations reject the Bible and salvation.
The CC, they believe is ‘anti-Bible’. When one looks at the world from this point of view, it is difficult to break through it. ‘Separation’ keeps them from a wider world and in fear. They are convinced of their rightness and your wrongness and they will do whatever they can to break your will.

There are three basic types of fundamentalist baptists:

1. The Jerry Falwel, Liberty University variety.
I attended LU and can safely say they are the most reasonable kind (that may shock some people). They would fit into the " ‘New Evangelicals’ Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson" types you mention. Hard-core fundamentalists do not consider them to be fundamentalists (for a variety of reasons I will not bore you with explaining, not the least of which is that they (GASP) use modern english versions of the Bible.

All three Falwell, Jones, and Hyles are gone now. But their legacy continues. All three are little islands to themselves. They put up walls so no opposite POV comes in.
.

Liberty University has over 73000 students now. The seminary included(s) Anglicans, Methodists (like me), Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, and an assortment of others. Other POV are absolutely considered.

 

[nickybr38]

Oh! I see! So basically a fundamentalist is one who worships the Bible?

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi,

I see the term “fundamentalist” used a lot on these forums and I was wondering if there is a coherent definition of the term.?

I think the definition comes from those who describe themselves as Fundamentalists, subscribing to what they consider to be the fundamentals of Christianity, as defined by their own leadership, sola scripture, literal interpretation of Genesis, being two of them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ’s miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

By the late 1920s the first two points had become central to Fundamentalism.
the article is accurate in the main and you will see the term was first used by a Baptist pastor to describe the movement.

Oh! I see! So basically a fundamentalist is one who worships the Bible?

no as stated, he is one who adheres to what he defines as the fundamental requirements of the faith.

 

[JustaServant]

the article is accurate in the main and you will see the term was first used by a Baptist pastor to describe the movement.

The term “fundamentalist” was first coined by a newspaper reporter in the 1920s.
Source: In Pursuit of Purity, Bob Jones University Press (straight from the horse’s mouth).

“Fundamental” refers to the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith. The problem with fundamentalists is that they are rather choosy about what those “fundamentals” are, taking away fundamentals they disagree with (Sacraments, Eucharist), and adding (Rapture, Premillenialism), “fundamentals” that have never been a part of the Historic Christian faith.
Fundamentalists are “anti-creedal”, they will not acknowledge the historic creeds of the Church claiming: “The Bible is our creed”, which becomes very subjective. To claim “sola scriptura” presents problems because each person interprets that phrase, and the Bible, differently. There simply is no authority. Without any authority, many fundamentalists fall into the heresies of the past.
Many fundamentalist churches have a “doctrinal statement”. The problem comes from the “doctrines” within it that were never part of Historic Christianity

 

[puzzleannie]

The term “fundamentalist” was first coined by a newspaper reporter in the 1920s.
Source: In Pursuit of Purity, Bob Jones University Press (straight from the horses mouth).

the point is fundamentalists are self-described; the term should not be used by others in a derogatory fashion to condemn entire classes of persons who adhere to various Christian beliefs and practices.

The term fundamentalism was coined by Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 to designate Christians who were ready “to do battle royal for the Fundamentals”; the term quickly was adopted by all sides. Laws borrowed the term from the title of a series of essays published between 1910 and 1915 called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. The term “Fundamentalism” entered the English language in 1922, and is often capitalized when referring to the religious movement.[1]

it is a movement, not a denomination that one joins or belongs to.

 

[nickybr38]

I think the definition comes from those who describe themselves as Fundamentalists, subscribing to what they consider to be the fundamentals of Christianity, as defined by their own leadership, sola scripture, literal interpretation of Genesis, being two of them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ’s miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

By the late 1920s the first two points had become central to Fundamentalism.
the article is accurate in the main and you will see the term was first used by a Baptist pastor to describe the movement.

no as stated, he is one who adheres to what he defines as the fundamental requirements of the faith.

It was meant as a joke after seeing the definition of a fundamentalist.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Oh! I see! So basically a fundamentalist is one who worships the Bible?

To be fair… No. But they do hold tenaciously to the doctrine of sola scriptura, even though it is - ironically - not supported by Scripture.

Christmas Peace,
Robert

 

[Georgia]

To be fair… No. But they do hold tenaciously to the doctrine of sola scriptura, even though it is - ironically - not supported by Scripture.

Christmas Peace,
Robert

You are pretty much right in reflecting the fundamentalism that was my home for many years. We often said “If it’s not in the Bible, we don’t believe it.” Any teachings with which we disagreed and that had no biblical support were considered more than suspect.Of course, we had things that were not in the Bible, but we did not notice.

We could not drink alcohol. We could not dance. Both are found in the Bible. Women could not wear pants to church. Men could not have long hair when it was fashionable. A quote about it being a shame for men to have long hair was mentioned, but I cannot remember where it originated. Anyway, you get the picture.

 

[AleksOD]

I think modern fundamentalists are biblical literalists. Which is a shame, since we all believe in fundamentals of the Bible, but not all of us interpret every word of it literally.

 

[ltwin]

From Wikipedia:

Christian fundamentalism, also known as Fundamentalist Christianity, or** Fundamentalism**,[1] arose out of British and American Protestantism in the late 19th century and early 20th century among evangelical Christians.[2] The founders reacted against liberal theology and militantly asserted that the inerrancy of the Bible was essential for true Christianity and was being violated by the modernists.

As an organized movement, it began in the 1920s within Protestant churches — especially Baptist and Presbyterian — in the United States in the early 20th century. Many such churches adopted a “fighting style” and certain theological elements, such as Dispensationalism.[3] . . .

It was basically a reaction against the liberalization of mainline Protestantism. So there is sort of a theological spectrum. At one end of the spectrum you have Fundamentalist Protestants, in the middle you have Evangelicals, and at the other end of the spectrum you have liberal mainline Protestants.

Evangelicals are distinguished from Fundamentalists by being more open to modern society.

 

[cheese_sdc]

• Inability to think, doubt, or question religious information and/or authority
• Black-and-white, good/bad, either/or simplistic thinking: one way or the other
• Shame-based belief that you aren’t good enough or you aren’t doing it right
• Magical thinking that God will fix you/ do it all, without serious work on your part
• Scrupulosity: rigid obsessive adherence to rules, codes of ethics, or guidelines
• Uncompromising judgmental attitudes: readiness to find fault or evil out there
• Compulsive or obsessive praying, going to church or crusades, quoting scripture
• Unrealistic financial contributions
• Believing that sex is dirty; believing our bodies or physical pleasures are evil
• Compulsive overeating and/or excessive fasting
• Conflict and argumentation with science, medicine, and education
• Progressive detachment from the real work, isolation and breakdown of relationships
• Psychosomatic illness: back pains, sleeplessness, headaches, hypertension
• Manipulating scripture or texts, feeling specially chosen, claiming to receive special messages from God
• Maintaining a religious “high”, trance-like state, keeping a happy face (or the belief that one should…)
• Attitude of righteousness or superiority: “we versus the world,” including the denial of one’s human-ness.
• Confusion, great doubts, mental, physical or emotional breakdown, cries for help

lexpages.com/SGN/paschal/religious_addiction.html

 

[andrewstx]

Hi,

I see the term “fundamentalist” used a lot on these forums and I was wondering if there is a coherent definition of the term. Most often, I will see this term applied to conservative or moderate Protestants in general. From my understanding of the term “fundamentalist,” I don’t know if this designation fits for a lot of Protestants. When I think of a “fundamentalist,” I think of someone who

1. Is Protestant and of course believes in sola scriptura, in addition to one or more of the following:
2. Typically believes the earth is 6,000 years old
3. Spends a lot of time bashing other denominations
4. Is typically anti-catholic
5. Typically has a bunch of rules about not drinking alcohol or listening to rock music, or about women wearing pants
6. Thinks that Jack Chick tracts are the world’s second greatest theological masterpiece next to the holy Bible

and things of this nature. Is this an accurate understanding of how you perceive a fundamentalist? What are some of your definitions?

I would agree with 1-4, but I think #5 is a bit of exageration.

I was born and raised in a fundamentalist denomination and left.

They think that the bible is to be litterally interpretted except for “this is my body” and suddenly they go symbolic.

This particular group said that God based the church on the bible alone (even though the bible wasn’t canonised until the late 4th century) and when people stopped obeying the bible to the tee God withdrew and their was no true church until the 1800s.

Yes they are puritanical anything fun is forbidded and so is beauty in the church.

 

[andrewstx]

Oh! I see! So basically a fundamentalist is one who worships the Bible?

Actually that is very true in the denomination I was raised in (churches of Christ). Instead of saying the bible says they say “God says” thereby making the bible God for them.

For everything they do in church they must have “authorisation” or permission from the bible.

The bible does not give permission for organs in the church, so they sing accapella. The same goes for candles, vestments, statues and icons. So they are all forbidden.

They do not even celebrate Christmas and Easter since the bible does not “authorise” them.

If this is not worshipping the bible, then what is it?

 

[Calgar]

Hi,

I see the term “fundamentalist” used a lot on these forums and I was wondering if there is a coherent definition of the term. Most often, I will see this term applied to conservative or moderate Protestants in general. From my understanding of the term “fundamentalist,” I don’t know if this designation fits for a lot of Protestants. When I think of a “fundamentalist,” I think of someone who

1. Is Protestant and of course believes in sola scriptura, in addition to one or more of the following:
2. Typically believes the earth is 6,000 years old
3. Spends a lot of time bashing other denominations
4. Is typically anti-catholic
5. Typically has a bunch of rules about not drinking alcohol or listening to rock music, or about women wearing pants
6. Thinks that Jack Chick tracts are the world’s second greatest theological masterpiece next to the holy Bible

and things of this nature. Is this an accurate understanding of how you perceive a fundamentalist? What are some of your definitions?

Okay, so fundamentalist is a derogatory term?

When I think of fundamentalist I think of someone who follows the fundamentals of Christianity such as: The inerrancy of the Holy Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth and that Jesus was sinless, died on the cross for man’s sins, rose again and ascended to heaven.

When I think of a non-fundamentalist I think of those who support abortion, homosexuality, and the like.

If you’re trying to find some derogatory terms you can use to harrass Christians there are others out there that I’m sure you already know and don’t need to have defined for you.

 

[JustaServant]

Okay, so fundamentalist is a derogatory term?

When I think of fundamentalist I think of someone who follows the fundamentals of Christianity such as: The inerrancy of the Holy Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth and that Jesus was sinless, died on the cross for man’s sins, rose again and ascended to heaven.

When I think of a non-fundamentalist I think of those who support abortion, homosexuality, and the like.

If you’re trying to find some derogatory terms you can use to harrass Christians there are others out there that I’m sure you already know and don’t need to have defined for you.

Hmmm…why do you bring the word ‘Christian’ into the conversation? What are you inferring?
Oh, and anyone who is a non-fundamentalist (which encompasses a large part of Part of Protestant Christianity) must support abortion, homosexuality…?
Oh please explain that one.

 

[JustaServant]

it is a movement, not a denomination that one joins or belongs to.

Using the strict definition of the word, fundamentalist churches ARE a denomination.
The word has to do with association, not church government.