Definition of "fundamentalist?"

[JustaServant]

Independent, Fundamental Baptist

Fundamentalists love the designation “independent, fundamental Baptist”. The problem, first, is this:
1.Independent.
They are not “independent (which to them means non-denominational)”.
The term “denomination” generally referred to Protestant churches for the sake of “denominating” themselves from other Protestant churches. “Independent, fundamental, Baptist” churches are a denomination because it is a name applied (“denominated”) to these churches. It has nothing to do with the form of church government. Each church is connected by a “Bible college” or a “camp”.
2.Fundamental.
“Fundamental” refers to the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith. The problem 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. For example, many fundamentalists have begun to deny the doctrine of original sin (Jack Hyles, KJV-only fundamentalists), a heresy the Church dealt with centuries ago. Once you deny the doctrine of original sin, other doctrines follow like dominoes, the Virgin birth, the impeccability and (eventually) the Deity of Christ. Many take a modalistic view of the Trinity, another ancient heresy. Some deny the need for repentance in regard to salvation.
Without any doctrinal authority, “fundamentalism” become very “non-fundamentalist”. Many fundamentalist churches have a “doctrinal statement”. The problem comes from the “doctrines” within it that were never part of Historic Christianity.
3. Baptist.
Their claim to be Baptist is a problem as well. Baptists originated out of the Reformation. Fundamentalist claim never to have been part of the Reformation and state Baptists predate the Reformation, and in fact, finds its roots in the Early Church. This is accomplished through revisionist history with absolutely no historical foundation.
The beginnings of this can be traced back to a 19th century in a book entitled: “A Concise History of Baptists" by G.H. Orchard.” In the 20th century, this was shortened in a booklet called “'The Trail of Blood” by J M Carroll.
Many Baptists to this day believe this is a historically accurate portrayal of history. Though rejected by historians, many Baptists understand this largely fabricated historical account to be the story of how Christ established the Baptist church (beginning with John the Baptist) and how it remained the one true church loyal to Christ for the past 2000 years.
Dr. Carroll seeks to identify the Baptist church of today with nearly every medieval and early heretical group. Some of the ones he cites most often are the Donatists, Montanists, Paulicians, Albegensians, Waldenses, and Anabaptists. His claim is best refuted by simply examining who these heretics were and what they taught. In all cases it is a far cry from what modern Baptists believe.
If the “true Church” was an “underground” Church until the Reformation (which they claim not be a part of anyway), there is a problem with the very words of Christ. He said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” the Church. Trail of Blood history turns Jesus into a liar.

In this, only one conclusion can be reached.
“Independent Fundamental Baptists” are neither independent, fundamental, nor Baptist.

 

[Calgar]

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.

lol.

I never said they MUST support abortion or homosexuality. That’s what YOU said.

 

[JustaServant]

lol.

I never said they MUST support abortion or homosexuality. That’s what YOU said.

I knew you would take that dodge while I was typing it.
Please, explain why:

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

 

[fhansen]

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.

Great post. Thanks!

 

[Calgar]

I knew you would take that dodge while I was typing it.
Please, explain why:

And yet you still typed it?

I brought the word Christian into it because I thought we were talking about Christianity. Were we not?

The definition of fundamental is: Relating to essential structure, function, or facts.

If you support homosexuality and abortion you are ignoring fundamentals of Christianity, therefore, you can’t really be considered a fundamentalist.

BOOM! lol. Merry Christmas all, I’m headed off to be with family.

 

[Contarini]

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?

1. Originally the term “fundamentalist” referred to conservative Protestants of the late 19th and early 20th century who rejected the liberal trends in major Protestant denominations.
2. Many historians, however, use it in a narrower way even when writing of the early 20th century, focusing on dispensationalist Protestants of a generally Baptist or Calvinist theological persuasion (as opposed to Pentecostals or conservative Anabaptists, etc.).
3. From the 1940s on, many former “fundamentalists” in senses 1 and/or 2 began distancing themselves from the term and embracing the broader and older term “evangelical” as a better way of describing themselves. Initially these “neo-evangelicals” insisted that doctrinally they didn’t differ from fundamentalism–the difference was in tone and attitude. Instead of separating from other Christians and/or the broader culture, evangelicals wanted to reach out, while preserving their doctrinal integrity as conservative Protestants. Fundamentalists, then, became those who rejected this “new look” and were not afraid of the pejorative connotations of the term.
4. Thus, we now have a fairly big discrepancy between the number of people who would use the term about themselves (i.e., those who reject neo-evangelicalism), and the people who are often described as fundamentalists by the broader culture (i.e., conservative evangelicals generally).
5. Finally, many modern scholars of religion have begun using the term in a comparative sense of similar groups in different religions. Fundamentalism in this sense is not just conservatism, but a reaction to modernity, generally using the tools of the modern world to fight “liberal” modern ideas. For instance, “creation science” is distinctively fundamentalist, not just conservative, because it uses the modern concept of science and claims to have “real” science in opposition to the pseudo-science of evolution, which is allegedly a form of atheistic propaganda masquerading as science.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

I’m not sure what you mean by a “strict” definition. You seem to mean an etymological definition, which isn’t what I’d call a strict definition at all. Words are not defined by their etymology, but by their usage.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This is excellent–it’s always best to define a term by the people who claim it rather than by some abstract idea of what it “should” mean imposed from the outside.

The key distinctive here that separates fundamentalists from other conservative evangelicals is no. 6. This is the point that the “neo-evangelicals” rejected–they insisted that you could hold to the purity of the Faith without separating from everyone with whom you disagreed. They didn’t reject the idea of separation altogether, only the notion that you must strictly separate from all error, and in particular the idea that you must separate from anyone who “compromises with error.” This is called “secondary separation,” and if there’s one thing that distinguishes a fundamentalist in the strict sense from other Christians, it would be this. In other words, fundamentalists are divided from other Christians by their insistence on being divided!

Edwin

 

[mark_a]

1. Typically has a bunch of rules about not drinking alcohol or listening to rock music, or about women wearing pants

These are not such bad ideas.

 

[ltwin]

1. Originally the term “fundamentalist” referred to conservative Protestants of the late 19th and early 20th century who rejected the liberal trends in major Protestant denominations.
2. Many historians, however, use it in a narrower way even when writing of the early 20th century, focusing on dispensationalist Protestants of a generally Baptist or Calvinist theological persuasion (as opposed to Pentecostals or conservative Anabaptists, etc.).
3. From the 1940s on, many former “fundamentalists” in senses 1 and/or 2 began distancing themselves from the term and embracing the broader and older term “evangelical” as a better way of describing themselves. Initially these “neo-evangelicals” insisted that doctrinally they didn’t differ from fundamentalism–the difference was in tone and attitude. Instead of separating from other Christians and/or the broader culture, evangelicals wanted to reach out, while preserving their doctrinal integrity as conservative Protestants. Fundamentalists, then, became those who rejected this “new look” and were not afraid of the pejorative connotations of the term.
4. Thus, we now have a fairly big discrepancy between the number of people who would use the term about themselves (i.e., those who reject neo-evangelicalism), and the people who are often described as fundamentalists by the broader culture (i.e., conservative evangelicals generally).
5. Finally, many modern scholars of religion have begun using the term in a comparative sense of similar groups in different religions. Fundamentalism in this sense is not just conservatism, but a reaction to modernity, generally using the tools of the modern world to fight “liberal” modern ideas. For instance, “creation science” is distinctively fundamentalist, not just conservative, because it uses the modern concept of science and claims to have “real” science in opposition to the pseudo-science of evolution, which is allegedly a form of atheistic propaganda masquerading as science.

Edwin

This is excellent–it’s always best to define a term by the people who claim it rather than by some abstract idea of what it “should” mean imposed from the outside.

The key distinctive here that separates fundamentalists from other conservative evangelicals is no. 6. This is the point that the “neo-evangelicals” rejected–they insisted that you could hold to the purity of the Faith without separating from everyone with whom you disagreed. They didn’t reject the idea of separation altogether, only the notion that you must strictly separate from all error, and in particular the idea that you must separate from anyone who “compromises with error.” This is called “secondary separation,” and if there’s one thing that distinguishes a fundamentalist in the strict sense from other Christians, it would be this. In other words, fundamentalists are divided from other Christians by their insistence on being divided!

Edwin

Excellent post. It always gets on my nerves when I hear Pentecostals or mainstream evangelicals described as “fundamentalists.” If people knew the history and meaning of the terms, there is no way you could use the term so broadly.

A few months ago on NPR I heard a program that basically categorized any Protestant who believed the Bible actually was an historical record and who disapproved of abortion as a fundamentalist. They kept using the word and I kept yelling in the car “thats not what that word means!”

 

[AbideWithMe]

1. Originally the term “fundamentalist” referred to conservative Protestants of the late 19th and early 20th century who rejected the liberal trends in major Protestant denominations.
2. Many historians, however, use it in a narrower way even when writing of the early 20th century, focusing on dispensationalist Protestants of a generally Baptist or Calvinist theological persuasion (as opposed to Pentecostals or conservative Anabaptists, etc.).
3. From the 1940s on, many former “fundamentalists” in senses 1 and/or 2 began distancing themselves from the term and embracing the broader and older term “evangelical” as a better way of describing themselves. Initially these “neo-evangelicals” insisted that doctrinally they didn’t differ from fundamentalism–the difference was in tone and attitude. Instead of separating from other Christians and/or the broader culture, evangelicals wanted to reach out, while preserving their doctrinal integrity as conservative Protestants. Fundamentalists, then, became those who rejected this “new look” and were not afraid of the pejorative connotations of the term.
4. Thus, we now have a fairly big discrepancy between the number of people who would use the term about themselves (i.e., those who reject neo-evangelicalism), and the people who are often described as fundamentalists by the broader culture (i.e., conservative evangelicals generally).
5. Finally, many modern scholars of religion have begun using the term in a comparative sense of similar groups in different religions. Fundamentalism in this sense is not just conservatism, but a reaction to modernity, generally using the tools of the modern world to fight “liberal” modern ideas. For instance, “creation science” is distinctively fundamentalist, not just conservative, because it uses the modern concept of science and claims to have “real” science in opposition to the pseudo-science of evolution, which is allegedly a form of atheistic propaganda masquerading as science.

Edwin

CopticChristian—I don’t know if you’ll see this, but on another thread a little while ago I said something about Robert Sungenis’ attempt to use Catholic belief to argue for geocentrism was a sign of fundamentalism. You asked me what I meant by that but I didn’t give much of a reply. So, #5’s usage is what I had in mind.

---

Among the other definitions of fundamentalism, I would add that one of its negative characteristics can be a difficulty in living with ambiguity.