Do you claim to be a Christian
fundamentalist? If, by this term, you
mean that you seek to militantly defend all the truths of the Christian faith,
and militantly stand against and separate from all error, well and good—you will then, if your confession is true, be a servant of Christ in a historic Baptist church. Do you think that such a
line is too strict, for “historic fundamentalism” was a para-church movement
that only recognized a handful of “fundamentals” that were worthy of
separation? If that is truly “historic
fundamentalism,” then you should reject such fundamentalism for the
God-honoring true separatism only possible within a Biblical Baptist church
that is unaffiliated with denominationalism, associationism, and all other
humanly devised denominational structures.
However, was there actually ever a
unified “historic fundamentalism” in the first place? The classic series The Fundamentals, for example, printed an essay by George Sales Bishop, who believed in the dictation of the original manuscripts and in Scripture’s perfect preservation—including the perfect preservation of not the
Hebrew consonants alone, but also the vowels that were originally given by
inspiration—in the Hebrew and Greek Textus
Receptus.[1]
So is “historic fundamentalism” opposed to the Greek critical text—is it King James Only? Why or why not?
So is “historic fundamentalism” opposed to the Greek critical text—is it King James Only? Why or why not?
However, The Fundamentals also reprinted articles
by Edwin J. Orr, who “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of
the early chapters of Genesis, and [who] took the view that an insistence on
biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’”[2]
by Edwin J. Orr, who “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of
the early chapters of Genesis, and [who] took the view that an insistence on
biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’”[2]
So
who represents “historic fundamentalism”—Bishop or Orr? Does “historic fundamentalism” defend an
inerrant autographa, an inerrant autographa that is perfectly preserved
in the Textus Receptus, or errant
autographs and apographs?
who represents “historic fundamentalism”—Bishop or Orr? Does “historic fundamentalism” defend an
inerrant autographa, an inerrant autographa that is perfectly preserved
in the Textus Receptus, or errant
autographs and apographs?
Indeed,
while cessationists are amply represented in early fundamentalism, the writings
of Jessie Penn-Lewis appear also in The
Fundamentals.[3] So does “historic fundamentalism” follow
Scriptural cessationism and the sole authority of Scripture, or Mrs.Penn-Lewis’s fanaticism, radical demonology, Quakerism, date-setting for Christ’s return, and allegedly “inspired” extra-Biblical writings—one of which
is condensed in The Fundamentals?
while cessationists are amply represented in early fundamentalism, the writings
of Jessie Penn-Lewis appear also in The
Fundamentals.[3] So does “historic fundamentalism” follow
Scriptural cessationism and the sole authority of Scripture, or Mrs.Penn-Lewis’s fanaticism, radical demonology, Quakerism, date-setting for Christ’s return, and allegedly “inspired” extra-Biblical writings—one of which
is condensed in The Fundamentals?
So
which portion of the authors in The
Fundamentals represent “historic fundamentalism”? Is it the “Inner Light” that is allegedly equal to Scripture, as taught by the Quaker Jessie Penn-Lewis? Is it the inerrant original manuscripts
perfectly preserved in the Textus
Receptus as affirmed by George Sayles Bishop? Is it the recognition that verbal, plenary
inspiration is a false and indeed a “suicidal” position, as affirmed by Orr?
which portion of the authors in The
Fundamentals represent “historic fundamentalism”? Is it the “Inner Light” that is allegedly equal to Scripture, as taught by the Quaker Jessie Penn-Lewis? Is it the inerrant original manuscripts
perfectly preserved in the Textus
Receptus as affirmed by George Sayles Bishop? Is it the recognition that verbal, plenary
inspiration is a false and indeed a “suicidal” position, as affirmed by Orr?
Is
it whatever the person speaking about “historic fundamentalism” wants it to be?
it whatever the person speaking about “historic fundamentalism” wants it to be?
A
unified “historic fundamentalism” is a chimera, and even if it had existed, it
would possess no independent authority—the Christian’s sole authority is the
Bible alone, and the Bible teaches that every religious organization on earth in this dispensation, if it wants to have the special presence of Jesus Christ, must be under the authority of one of His churches. Fundamentalist
para-church institutions are not churches.
Do you value the Lord’s church in the way that One does who bought her
with His blood (Ephesians 5:25)? If you do not, but are following some
movement, whether evangelical, fundamental, or by any other name, your
organization does not possess the promises Christ makes to His church
alone. Beware lest Christ say to you,
and to your organization, “cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7).
unified “historic fundamentalism” is a chimera, and even if it had existed, it
would possess no independent authority—the Christian’s sole authority is the
Bible alone, and the Bible teaches that every religious organization on earth in this dispensation, if it wants to have the special presence of Jesus Christ, must be under the authority of one of His churches. Fundamentalist
para-church institutions are not churches.
Do you value the Lord’s church in the way that One does who bought her
with His blood (Ephesians 5:25)? If you do not, but are following some
movement, whether evangelical, fundamental, or by any other name, your
organization does not possess the promises Christ makes to His church
alone. Beware lest Christ say to you,
and to your organization, “cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7).
The Bible teaches that the church is the
pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible,
Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special
protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and
blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). No promises of Christ’s special presence or
protection are made to the mythical universal, invisible church, parachurch
institutions, human denominations, or inter-denominational movements such as
evangelicalism.
pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible,
Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special
protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and
blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). No promises of Christ’s special presence or
protection are made to the mythical universal, invisible church, parachurch
institutions, human denominations, or inter-denominational movements such as
evangelicalism.
There never was a unified “historic
fundamentalism,” and, even if it had existed, it would have no authority
whatever to determine what are Biblical doctrine and practice for the Lord’s
churches.
fundamentalism,” and, even if it had existed, it would have no authority
whatever to determine what are Biblical doctrine and practice for the Lord’s
churches.
[1]
See the “Inspiration of the Hebrew
Letters and Vowel Points,” pgs. 43-59 of The
Doctrines of Grace and Kindred Themes, George Sayles Bishop (New York,
NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1919; note as well his “Relative Value of the Old
Testament” (pgs. 88-100) and “The Testimony of Scripture To Itself,” pgs.
19-42). The KJV-only, Landmark Baptist
periodical The Plains Baptist Challenger,
a ministry of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, TX, on pgs. 3-8 of its
July 1991 edition, reprinted George Sayles Bishop’s defense, based on Matthew
5:18, of the coevality of the vowel points and the consonants. Bishop was a contributor to the epoch-making
volumes The Fundamentals (“The
Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” pgs. 80-97, vol. 2, The Fundamentals, eds. R. A. Torrey, A.
C. Dixon, etc., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1970, reprint of the original 1917 ed. of the Bible Institute of Los
Angeles), writing: “We take the ground
that on the original parchment . . . every sentence, word, line, mark, point,
pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God” (pg. 92, The Fundamentals, vol 2.).
See the “Inspiration of the Hebrew
Letters and Vowel Points,” pgs. 43-59 of The
Doctrines of Grace and Kindred Themes, George Sayles Bishop (New York,
NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1919; note as well his “Relative Value of the Old
Testament” (pgs. 88-100) and “The Testimony of Scripture To Itself,” pgs.
19-42). The KJV-only, Landmark Baptist
periodical The Plains Baptist Challenger,
a ministry of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, TX, on pgs. 3-8 of its
July 1991 edition, reprinted George Sayles Bishop’s defense, based on Matthew
5:18, of the coevality of the vowel points and the consonants. Bishop was a contributor to the epoch-making
volumes The Fundamentals (“The
Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” pgs. 80-97, vol. 2, The Fundamentals, eds. R. A. Torrey, A.
C. Dixon, etc., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1970, reprint of the original 1917 ed. of the Bible Institute of Los
Angeles), writing: “We take the ground
that on the original parchment . . . every sentence, word, line, mark, point,
pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God” (pg. 92, The Fundamentals, vol 2.).
[2]
Pg. 492, Biographical
Dictionary of Evangelicals, “Orr, James,” ed. Timothy Larsen, referencing
Orr’s Revelation and Inspiration
[1910], p. 198. See, e. g., “The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations,”
“The Early Narratives of Genesis” (Chapters 5 & 11 The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 1; Orr wrote other articles also).
Pg. 492, Biographical
Dictionary of Evangelicals, “Orr, James,” ed. Timothy Larsen, referencing
Orr’s Revelation and Inspiration
[1910], p. 198. See, e. g., “The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations,”
“The Early Narratives of Genesis” (Chapters 5 & 11 The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 1; Orr wrote other articles also).
[3]
Pgs. 183-199, Chapter 13, “Satan and
his Kingdom,” The Fundamentals, ed.
Torrey, vol. 4. Her chapter is condensed
from The Warfare with Satan and the Way
of Victory.
Pgs. 183-199, Chapter 13, “Satan and
his Kingdom,” The Fundamentals, ed.
Torrey, vol. 4. Her chapter is condensed
from The Warfare with Satan and the Way
of Victory.
There were some within the fundamentalist camp that were committed to the MT/TR/KJV, however the heirs of Historic Fundamentalism have repudiated that in favor of the CT and modernist/humanist translations. Fundamentalist seminaries have been and still uses the NA/USB (whatever the latest edition it be, in fact, there's a newer one published by Crossway, "The Greek New Testament" 2017, Tyndale House, Cambridge – scribal "harmonizations" have now been meticulously reversed). There is no end in sight, what is for sure is that there is no settled text. In their view, Christianity has no settled Word of God. Zero. Text critics aren't even interested in restoring the text anymore. But to your point, amen. An honest take on the history and philosophy of American Christian Fundamentalism is that it is at odds with the Scriptures. They meant well, but they transgressed the Bible in many levels. An incisive book that covers this topic is written by Pastor Ken Brooks, "Why Cumbereth It The Ground?: An Examination of the origins and impact of American Christian Fundamentalism" (c) 2014. ISBN: 0980143969.
If we apply your criticisms of Historic Fundamentalism to Historic Baptist faith, then we are going to run into the same problems. Even your link to "historic Baptist churches" carried internal warnings against some of the articles you included. Was Spurgeon a historic Baptist? Or BH Carroll?
Regards,
Colin Maxwell.
Dear Bro Billy,
Thank you.
Dear Colin,
Even if one accepted your argument, it would just mean we need to go by the Bible alone, which is my point. However, historic Baptist churches don't unite people who are KJVO and perfect preservation, people against inerrancy, and wacko Quaker ladies and then print them all in a single volume called "The Fundamentalists."
That should have been "the Fundamentals." My phone auto "corrected" it to "Fundamentalists."
Hello Thomas,
Very interesting post. It brings back to mind a sermon delivered by Kent—John 17 and Unity—at the 2010 Word of Truth Conference.
For a number of years now I have been trying to determine exactly what Jesus meant in John 17 concerning the oneness of his followers. He asks of the Father that, "they may be as one, as we are"; but, as you pointed out, "A unified 'historic fundamentalism' is a chimera…There never was a unified 'historic fundamentalism'".
And so, what is the unity Jesus prayed for? How does that unity relate to the historic unfolding of Matt. 16:18?
This issue is of one of great importance to me, and I have yet to form a definitive answer. I am currently engaged in a series that is exploring differing interpretations, and in part 5 of the series (link), Kent's and David Cloud's views are explored. If you have the time, and interest, I would be quite interested in your thoughts on this matter.
Grace and peace,
David
Dear Thomas,
Thanks for your reply.
In your opinion, would you describe both CH Spurgeon and BH Carroll as "historic Baptists"?
Colin Maxwell
Dear David,
Thanks for the question. I believe that the unity of John 17 is not an organizational unity but the unity that all true believers because of the common possession of a new nature and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is not to disregard the organizational and practical unity visible in the church. It is a bit of a different view than Pastor Brandenburg’s view. It is the same as the unity that the incarnate Mediator has with the Trinity by the indwelling of the Spirit (we are not one as the Persons of the Trinity are one, but as the Mediator is one with the Trinity).
Dear Colin,
Do you think there is a unified historic fundamentalism, based on the evidence I provided in the post? If you deal with that, I may be able to more effectively answer your question, if I have time. Thanks.
Thomas,
I didn't know you took a different view. I don't think your view is defensible. Just saying. I think most fundamentalists would agree with your view of unity though.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
I believe we would have the same view on what unity in the church and ecclesiastical separation would look like, but would differ on the exegesis of John 17. In light of the fact that John 17 is a unity of all believers (17:8), not all the baptized or the baptized within a congregation, it seems to me like it cannot be avoided that the unity exists even before a new convert is immersed into a church.
Thanks.
Kent, you must now separate from Thomas. He is wrong and in sin. Even though it might seem minor, as you know, there is just truth, not essentials and non-essentials.
Anonymous,
Good point. I print less than 50% of anonymous comments, but I published yours, because it can illustrate something.
First, scripture doesn't teach separation over a difference interpretation, and our church doesn't practice separation over interpretation differences, like the meaning of "for." We don't separate because someone thinks it means "because of" and another thinks it means "on behalf of" in a particular context. This is something we show in our book A Pure Church. It's a scriptural position.
Second, we separate over doctrinal and practical differences, which is what we believe (Romans 16:17-18). Thomas said that we have no doctrinal differences. He believes that practical unity occurs at a church level, the same as us.
Third, our church chooses what it separates over, because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not fundamentalism.
Hopefully you care what scripture teaches about separation. I'm not holding my breath, but it doesn't change anything about our belief about essential/non-essential fallacy. However, it is typical that people use someone's consistency as the basis of the false doctrine.
Thomas,
You write:
"Dear Colin,
Do you think there is a unified historic fundamentalism, based on the evidence I provided in the post? If you deal with that, I may be able to more effectively answer your question, if I have time. Thanks."
I reply: The Fundamentalist movement is a very broad movement. If you mean by unified 100% agreement, then the answer must be negative. But then, this side of Eternity, is there any movement that is 100% agreed? Again, I would deny.
You make a claim for Historic Baptists though. I quote: "The Bible teaches that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible, Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18)." I am simply asking whether or not you would include BH Caroll and CH Spurgeon in this very privileged group?
Thank you,
Colin.
Dear Colin,
Thanks for the reply. I believe both Carroll and Spurgeon were members of churches that fit the definition you gave from my post. At least 6 of the 7 churches in Rev 2-3 were still true churches (probably not Laodicea), while some of them had major problems while still having Christ's special presence, at least temporarily.
Thanks.
I think Fundamentalism was never designed to be a unified, centralized "denomination". It was always a rather decentralized movement by design (except for the old NBC/FF in the 1920s). I recall the old FBF wouldn't accept churches as members, just individuals and i remember a lot of those fundamentalist preachers in the 1980s stress that the local church and the Bible were authorities, not the fundamentalist movement, preacher or any fundamentalist organization. There was a lot of room for personal expressions in the old fundamentalism.
Thank you Thomas for taking time to reply. While Calvinist soteriology might not be your cup of tea, obviously it would not disqualify a Baptist church from your Historic Baptist list? Nor Carroll's non KJVO and non PreMill position either?
Regards,
Colin
Dear Colin,
A church can have significant areas of disobedience (Rev 2-3), such as believing in Calvinism or rejecting perfect preservation, and not (yet) have lost its lampstand/candlestick. That does not mean an obedient church should be in fellowship with a true but disobedient church allowing Jezebel to teach and have people commit fornication, etc.
Thanks.
Dear John,
You are right about a lot of wiggle room in fundamentalism-you didn't even need to believe in an inerrant Bible (James Orr) or in sola Scriptura (Jessie Penn-Lewis)
Thanks.