Does Anyone even believe in Christian Fundamentalistm Anymore?

[Peter_J]

Christendom.

Okay, I’m a bit of a nerd sometimes.

 

[josephback]

Yeah, some non-Catholics see Catholics and Orthodox fasting or whatever and they think we are being like pharisees. Not sure how we arrived at this point where spiritual exercises have become a bad thing.

The difference has to do with Metaphysics and grace as participation. In Catholicism and Orthodoxy one offers up their penances, fasts, and other works united to the Cross for their own salvation and that of the world. For someone who is taught that salvation is a finished work that requires only personal acceptance to be made a reality, these things are classified under “dead works” and thus those who do them are seen as trying to out-Pharisee the Pharisees. It’s the difference between substitutionary and vicarious atonement, between the cross as penal substitution and the cross as both a means of redemption and an example for us to follow (i.e. suffer, die, rise). There’s more to it but this is the basic summary.

 

[commenter]

There are many “hats” that carry the fundamentalist label. There has been a decline in fundamentalism, especially in evangelical circles, but as a previous poster stated, you cannot broad brush Baptist, Church of God, etcetera without boring down to individual churches. One theology which is seeing a slight resurgence is dispensationalism. It is fundamental in nature and teaches verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. I follow this theology. But the large majority of Baptists do not. They are mostly Covenant theology or buying in to the Calvanist resurgence. As in most of Christiandom, as the older adherents go home to Jesus, the number of new believers, either cradle or convert, is falling off. The exception would be in the mega church movement. Unfortunately these folks are being fed garbage wrapped up in a feel good about yourself theology that will not stand.

Fyi, for what its worth, many Baptists do not consider themselves to be "protestant ". The roots of the Baptist denominations differ from the mainstream churches that grew out of the reformation.

Sadly, most of the churches that still teach doctrine find the number of new believers to be dropping off. Your description of the mega churches is consistent with what I see in our area.
I am interested in your descriptions of various Baptist themes, or currents. Feel free to expand on it, and/or to cite a source for further information. In our area, we recently had a prolife rally, mostly Catholics, at the local Baptist church.

 

[Pulvis]

Sadly, most of the churches that still teach doctrine find the number of new believers to be dropping off. Your description of the mega churches is consistent with what I see in our area.
I am interested in your descriptions of various Baptist themes, or currents. Feel free to expand on it, and/or to cite a source for further information. In our area, we recently had a prolife rally, mostly Catholics, at the local Baptist church.

Coming out of the Conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention;
bpnews.net/18486/25-years-ago-conservative-resurgence-got-its-start

Southern Baptists tried to re align with our traditional roots. Numerous Baptist churches wound up leaving the convention due to the strict Biblical stance on modern societal issues that the Conservatives refused to give ground on. That now has morphed into a Reformed/Calvinist resurgence which is yet again causing divisions within the denomination;
thewartburgwatch.com/2016/06/24/is-there-a-calvinist-agenda-to-reform-traditional-southern-baptist-churches/

Other Baptist Organizations have gone the more liberal way, molding themselves more closely to societal shifts in opinions. One of the largest being;
abc-usa.org/

Another conservative baptist association of Northern/Midwestern Baptist is;
garbc.org/

There are also the Bible Baptist Churches, all independent, most very conservative to fundamentalist in theology. This is where many dispensationalists find themselves.

 

[Thorolfr]

There are also the Bible Baptist Churches, all independent, most very conservative to fundamentalist in theology. This is where many dispensationalists find themselves.

Dispensationalism was an invention of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). If you want to read about him and the origins of this Christian outlook in 19th century Ireland, see the new book by Donald Harman Akenson, Discovering the End of Time: Irish Evangelicals in the Age of Daniel O’Connell (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2016).

 

[commenter]

Coming out of the Conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention;
bpnews.net/18486/25-years-ago-conservative-resurgence-got-its-start

Southern Baptists tried to re align with our traditional roots. Numerous Baptist churches wound up leaving the convention due to the strict Biblical stance on modern societal issues that the Conservatives refused to give ground on. That now has morphed into a Reformed/Calvinist resurgence which is yet again causing divisions within the denomination;
thewartburgwatch.com/2016/06/24/is-there-a-calvinist-agenda-to-reform-traditional-southern-baptist-churches/

Other Baptist Organizations have gone the more liberal way, molding themselves more closely to societal shifts in opinions. One of the largest being;
abc-usa.org/

Another conservative baptist association of Northern/Midwestern Baptist is;
garbc.org/

There are also the Bible Baptist Churches, all independent, most very conservative to fundamentalist in theology. This is where many dispensationalists find themselves.

thanks

 

[Pulvis]

Dispensationalism was an invention of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). If you want to read about him and the origins of this Christian outlook in 19th century Ireland, see the new book by Donald Harman Akenson, Discovering the End of Time: Irish Evangelicals in the Age of Daniel O’Connell (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2016).

Actually that is a misconception. Dispensationalism can be traced back to the early Fathers. Darby quantified and gave a name to the theology, but he did not invent it.

dispensationalpublishing.com/product/dispensationalism-before-darby/

 

[Anne1964]

It’s alive and well in North Carolina, although I don’t know if it is restricted to particular churches or to a larger group of churches.

My cousins attend a small Baptist church that still teaches that the Pope is the anti-christ, that we all worship the devil and that we are not Christian. They have read numerous Jack Chick tracts and they believe what they read, unfortunately.

I would love to engage them in a rational conversation about religion but it just isn’t possible.

 

[Pulvis]

Dispensationalism was an invention of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). If you want to read about him and the origins of this Christian outlook in 19th century Ireland, see the new book by Donald Harman Akenson, Discovering the End of Time: Irish Evangelicals in the Age of Daniel O’Connell (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2016).

And for a deeper understanding, if you are interested, try this series:

youtube.com/watch?v=3UrJuk_QdWg&list=PLSKN1RQsCpUhNNOzEBVcDNvp-QJf66f6M

 

[MaryBernard]

Actually that is a misconception. Dispensationalism can be traced back to the early Fathers. Darby quantified and gave a name to the theology, but he did not invent it.

Do you have any sources for that? My research into the ECF’s shows something completely different. Thanks.

 

[HelenRose]

If not, why?

Please tell what you think a Christian Fundamentalist believes. This is one of those expressions that mean different things to different people.

You may be talking about one thing and I may be thinking of another.

To me a Christian Fundamentalist believes that Christ is the only begotten Son of God. This is a fundamental belief and it I accept this fundamental doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

_______ can be traced back to the early Fathers. _______ quantified and gave a name to the theology, but he did not invent it.

You sound like a Catholic … well, with a slight modification.

 

[DaveBj]

Please tell what you think a Christian Fundamentalist believes. This is one of those expressions that mean different things to different people.

You may be talking about one thing and I may be thinking of another.

To me a Christian Fundamentalist believes that Christ is the only begotten Son of God. This is a fundamental belief and it I accept this fundamental doctrine.

Historical Christian Fundamentalism, spelled with an upper-case F, believes in these doctrines:

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs traces to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the five fundamentals:[13]

Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this

Virgin birth of Jesus

Belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin

Bodily resurrection of Jesus

Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism)

Spell “fundamentalism” with a lower-case f, and you could be talking about any one of a number of things.

 

[HelenRose]

Historical Christian Fundamentalism, spelled with an upper-case F, believes in these doctrines:

(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism)

Spell “fundamentalism” with a lower-case f, and you could be talking about any one of a number of things.

Thank you.

*The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs traces to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the five fundamentals:[13]

Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this

**Virgin birth of Jesus

Belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin

Bodily resurrection of Jesus

Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus ***

Well then I am a Fundamental Christian and my Catholic friends are also. For with the Presbyterian Church we agree on these principles.

 

[DaveBj]

Thank you.

*The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs traces to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the five fundamentals:[13]

Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this*

**Virgin birth of Jesus

Belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin

Bodily resurrection of Jesus

Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus **

Well then I am a Fundamental Christian and my Catholic friends are also. For with the Presbyterian Church we agree on these principles.

Yes, there are a lot of people who are critical of small-f fundamentalism, who would be surprised to find themselves smack-dab in the middle of the large-F Fundamentalist camp

 

[HelenRose]

Yes, there are a lot of people who are critical of small-f fundamentalism, who would be surprised to find themselves smack-dab in the middle of the large-F Fundamentalist camp

Unfortunately the language has become so confused any more. Before we can begin any type of conversation we must state what a word means to us, how it is going to be used and come to some sort of an agreement on how to proceed.

So often people are talking past each other and arguing with such anger because they are using a word that has entirely different meanings and nuances between them.

Sometimes the reason is a deliberate ploy by some to create confusion. Other times it is simply a misunderstanding.

 

[Kielbasi]

If not, why?

The movement isn’t dead at all, but is greatly reduced in influence in American society since the 70’s and 80’s.

I think one of the reasons for its great influence was the beginnings of cable TV.

A lot of new superstations came on the air, new networks, and they needed programming. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and a hundred other preachers already had radio and fledgling TV ministries where they just showed sermons and other discussions on the air. Superstations could air these programs to fill their schedules for a lot less money than it costs to produce Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad.

Once the stations were able to afford more for programming, they did, and the number of broadcast hours for TV preachers went down, reducing the number of people exposed to it, and the movement’s overall societal influence.

 

[HelenRose]

The movement isn’t dead at all, but is greatly reduced in influence in American society since the 70’s and 80’s.

I think one of the reasons for its great influence was the beginnings of cable TV.

A lot of new superstations came on the air, new networks, and they needed programming. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and a hundred other preachers already had radio and fledgling TV ministries where they just showed sermons and other discussions on the air. Superstations could air these programs to fill their schedules for a lot less money than it costs to produce Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad.

Once the stations were able to afford more for programming, they did, and the number of broadcast hours for TV preachers went down, reducing the number of people exposed to it, and the movement’s overall societal influence.

Please define your definition of fundamentalism. Is your definition based on a set of fundamental principles or is it a movement of which you disagree with. If you disagree with that movement please define exactly what it is that you disagree with. We toss that word around as if we all agree on its meaning when in fact each one of us understands the word from a different perspective.

 

[Pulvis]

You sound like a Catholic … well, with a slight modification.

Well perhaps…If the modification is believing that The 66 Books of the Bible are the Authoritative Word of God, “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
and
“15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

deanbibleministries.org/dbmfiles/notes/2014-ChaferConf-007-Ice-Paper.pdf

 

[DaveBj]

Well perhaps…If the modification is believing that The 66 Books of the Bible are the Authoritative Word of God, “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
and
“15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

deanbibleministries.org/dbmfiles/notes/2014-ChaferConf-007-Ice-Paper.pdf

A minor point on the bolded above – note that it does not say that ONLY scripture is given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, etc.