Are we or aren't we??

[jlujan69]

I was visiting the website of the World Fundamental Congress (whose official creed defines "fundamentalism" for this forum) and read about their take on the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement. First, I noted that at least according to the creed, Pentecostals would be fundamentalists. Yet, according to the conclusion of their article, fundamentalists still distance themselves from Pentecostals. The primary reason, predictably enough, has to do with the use of tongues. It seems that fundamentalists tend to be cessationist, and hence, tongues (among certain other gifts) is no longer in use. Furthermore, this issue is important enough to warrant separation from those churches who practice this. In other words, cessationism, for all practical purposes, is crucial to determining who is and who's not fundamentalist. At least that was my impression of the article. However, as important as cessationism is, it is not listed on the official creed of fundamentalism. My question is simply why?? If the powers that be are that determined to separate and distance themselves from Pentecostals, as this article states, then why don't they simply add the cessationist doctrine as one of the required tenets? That would definitely exclude Pentecostals, Charismatics, and others who don't hold to that doctrine. It would eliminate at least some confusion over how to relate to these churches. Because of this, I suspect that's why there are some in the leadership of this body (Bob Jones I, for one) who has considered some Pentecostals to be as "fundamentalist as anyone else". So, what have I learned from this article? Well, what I suspected initially. That is, on the question of whether or not my church is fundamentalist, it just depends on who you ask. Officially, we are but aren't. Interestingly enough, the only ones who are in agreement on this matter are liberal Protestants, Roman Catholics, and the lost in general. They say we (Pentecostals) most definitely are a bunch of right wing, fantatical, Bible thumping, radical fundamentalists. Oh well.

[hindsey]

I work with a Catholic friend, and he gave me a book to read re: fundamentalism. In it are the 5 descriptions that they used for fundamentalism, and my Catholic friend (after haven read the book and given it to me to read), went through the 5 things, and he agreed that he was in agreement with those 5 thigns. I'm sure agreeing in a slightly different way than I do. Mind you, he still holds to his Catholic doctrines.

[rural_preacher]

I grew up in Baptist churches and I'm currently a Baptist pastor. I have known many Pentecostals through the years that are definitely Fundamentalists. I worked for 4 1/2 years at a Pentecostal college...most of the faculty/staff were Fundamentalists. Although we disagreed on some matters regarding the Holy Spirit and His gifts, we enjoyed great fellowship and an edifying work/educational relationship because we were able to stand together as a "bunch of right wing, fantatical, Bible thumping, radical fundamentalists." :D



--

[twistedsketch]

So fundamentalism is an official denomonation now? It's starting to sound like it. Or are we confusing "fundamentalist" with "reactionary Baptist"?

[rural_preacher]

So fundamentalism is an official denomonation now? It's starting to sound like it. Or are we confusing "fundamentalist" with "reactionary Baptist"?

?

I don't understand the question...there are fundamentalists in many different denominations and church groups (Baptist, Pentacostal, Methodist, etc.) as well as non-denominational churches that are very fundamental.

How is it that the preceding posts would lead you to believe that anyone here is saying that any one denomination has a monopoly on fundamentalism?


--

[e=mv^2]

I was visiting the website of the World Fundamental Congress

Mind giving the link?

[jlujan69]

Mind giving the link?

http://www.itib.org/index.html

They've changed their name but it is the same group. Anyway, go to the section dealing with Charismatics to see what I'm talking about.

[e=mv^2]

I do not think that all fundamentalists - nor the majority of fundamentalists:
a) Have ever heard of the ITIB
b) Have read any of their content
c) Have accepted them as leadership

I also think that if you push real hard you ae going to find a long list of really irrelevant stuff to bicker about. We all need to stop bickering and go feed the hungry, shoe the barefoot, clothe the naked and care for the sick. If we are doing those things we won't have much time to argue petty details.

[Shane Roach]

I do not think that all fundamentalists - nor the majority of fundamentalists:
a) Have ever heard of the ITIB
b) Have read any of their content
c) Have accepted them as leadership

I also think that if you push real hard you ae going to find a long list of really irrelevant stuff to bicker about. We all need to stop bickering and go feed the hungry, shoe the barefoot, clothe the naked and care for the sick. If we are doing those things we won't have much time to argue petty details.

I am going to have to take some issue over what appears to be a patter with you. It seems you think that anyone who has an opinion here is neglecting the care for the needy. I am not sure what your credentials are for that, but I will tell you the churches I am familiar with DO THAT. One can care for the needy and also follow other instructions we have from Christ and from the Apostles.

The Bible says expicitly that dissenters would come, and for us all to be ready instantly, "in season and out," as it were, to defend the faith. So your insistance that people not defend the faith, but rather should hush up and go feed a homeless person or two, is not only rather presumtuous but also counter to scripture.

I hope you will try to bear this in mind, as I have read I think three different posts by you at this point all with the same accusatory tone towards anyone who might want to stand up for this or that doctrinal belief. :thumbsup:

Take care.

[e=mv^2]

Shane,

My wording may have been a bit too strong there and in some other posts. I in no way meant to be accusatory. Let me rephrase:
- ->I<-- Need to shut up and go do those things listed.
It seemed a pattern because I was struck with the thought yesterday and it sounded better in my head than on paper.

It seems you think that anyone who has an opinion here is neglecting the care for the needy.
No. Not my intention.

Thank you Shane for pointing that out. Sorry to anyone that read this the same way.

So your insistance that people not defend the faith...

I did not see this as a defense of the faith.

The OP was mainly concerned with cessationism which in my opinion is not a point to get all crazy about. Is the ITIB an authority on fundamentalism? Are they a leadership that fundamentalists in general follow? Why does it matter what the ITIB thinks anyway?

It seems like a potentially devisive issue that is not ->fundamental<- to the faith. It seems that all of christendom is eager to argue and become devided over issues that really are not all that big of a problem.

As far as cessationism goes. I think that the gifts are given where they are given and when they are given. I do not presume to know anything at all about what is one of the most mysterious of all the mysteries in Christianity. I am surely not going to say that the gifts can not be given anymore. I just do not see why a belief in cessationism for or against should be used to exclude someone from being fundamentalist.

I could be totally wrong here. Would not be the first time.

I hope you will try to bear this in mind, as I have read I think three different posts by you at this point all with the same accusatory tone towards anyone who might want to stand up for this or that doctrinal belief.

Again, not my intention. If I made light of some major doctrinal belief I really am sorry.

[rural_preacher]

I just do not see why a belief in cessationism for or against should be used to exclude someone from being fundamentalist.

AMEN!



--

[Huperetes]

The origin of the term "Fundamentalist" is in a series of four volumes called "The Fundamentals," which was published in 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA). The books are still in print (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids Mich) and can be found on many Christian booksellers' web sites. I believe the original work should be the definitive authority. This writing should be allowed to speak for itself in defining who is or is not a fundamentalist.

[Plan 9]

I was visiting the website of the World Fundamental Congress.

It's just a Bob Jones deal, you know. Don't lose any sleep over what a Bob Jones organization thinks of you, okay? :)
This group doesn't represent the vast majority of Baptists, and is as likely to find fault with them as with Pentecostals.
Over half my family is Southern Baptist and, although they're cessationist, they don't feel that Pentecostals are any less fundamentalist for not agreeing.
Ironically enough, depending on what you believe, you might not accept them as fellow fundamentalists; the term appears to be changing its meaning over time, and they're also sometimes considered members of a "mainline" denomination, which, according to my reading here, is the Kiss of Death.

Side note: any group can call their meeting a "World Congress", but that doesn't make it so.

I have a friend who's a Christian recording artist, and who was frequently invited to events with the term "international" or "world" in their titles. After attending one such conference of many, she remarked with a laugh that, in the US, the words "International Christian Conference" usually mean that there there will be a Canadian there.

[Plan 9]

The origin of the term "Fundamentalist" is in a series of four volumes called "The Fundamentals," which was published in 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA). The books are still in print (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids Mich) and can be found on many Christian booksellers' web sites. I believe the original work should be the definitive authority. This writing should be allowed to speak for itself in defining who is or is not a fundamentalist.

Thank you, Huperates! :thumbsup:

[e=mv^2]

I have been looking for "The Fundamentals" but so far have been unable to find it. Anyone know if it is still in print? I did find this:

The Fundamentalist movement is based on "The Fundamentals" published by BIOLA back around 1909. They believe in 7 fundamentals which separated basic, orthodox Christianity from Modernism and Theological Liberalism. Those 7 fundamentals are:
1. The inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. The Deity of Christ
3. The second coming of Jesus Christ
4. The virgin birth
5. The physical resurrection of the body
6. The substitutionary atonement
7. The total depravity of man

and I found out that the originals were 12 volumes but were later condensed to 4 books.

If anyone know where to get them I would love to have a copy.

[rural_preacher]

I have been looking for "The Fundamentals" but so far have been unable to find it. Anyone know if it is still in print? I did find this:



and I found out that the originals were 12 volumes but were later condensed to 4 books.

If anyone know where to get them I would love to have a copy.

I think this is probably what you are looking for...

The Fundamentals (http://www.scripturetruth.com/_store/Display_Products.asp?prodID=0%2D8010%2D8809%2D7)

(www.scripturetruth.com (http://www.scripturetruth.com))


--

[e=mv^2]

Thanks rp!

[M21]

They say we (Pentecostals) most definitely are a bunch of right wing, fantatical, Bible thumping, radical fundamentalists.

My Daughter and Son in law are Pentecostals and this description, if accurate, warms my Charismatic Baptist heart. ;)

[jlujan69]

Thanks for the replies. After reading the website (which is what prompted me to post this OP in the first place), I'd sent an e-mail to their office stating my opinions. I forgot exactly what I wrote. Anyway, I received a reply from no less than Bob Jones III. He didn't confer upon me the title of "grand honorary fundy of the order of whatever" or anything like that, but it was rather cordial. He indicated that we seem to agree on much more than what we disagree on, and in the end, we are in the same family. I'd arrived at that conclusion before anyway. It's good to see others on this thread of the same mind on this matter.