Does that sound like an oxymoron to you? That should not be so. I am Reformed and 110 Grade Calvinist. I am so because Calvinism/Reformed Theology is The Gospel as presented in The Bible. The Canons of Dordrecht and its proceeding articles on Unconditional Election, Total Depravity, Limited or Definite Atonement, Irresistible Grace or Effectual Calling and Preservation of the Saints are all taught straight from the Bible.
This does not mean one cannot be Saved if they are Arminian. As we do not get saved by being Reformed we get saved as Reformed Theology teaches through God's unconditional election to salvation. However, the Reformed Theology is the correct one 110%. The Non-Calvinist can be saved just as much as the Calvinist despite Calvinism being the natural outworking of The Biblical Truths and Arminianism ultimately being a False Gospel. All those denying The Doctrines of Grace whom are saved, are so despite holding Unbiblical views. By means of the very Doctrines of Grace they deny or even fight against.
I am also a Fundamentalist as I am totally opposed to Modernism and False Gospels of liberal theology. I refuse to compromise on the fundamentals of true Christianity. Fundamentalism as I am using the term is a 20th-century anti-modernist/liberal orthodox Christian movement. This definition is drawn from the history of the movement, from its inception in the early part of the 20th-century until the present. Though many fundamentalists also hold other beliefs such as King James Only or believer’s baptism, I do not include those beliefs here, for that would exclude men such as John R. Rice (not KJV Only) and J. Gresham Machen (Presbyterian), both recognized leaders of fundamentalism.
To understand fundamentalism one must first understand its opponent: theological liberalism or modernism. The core of liberalism is its reliance on experience over doctrine. Thus the liberal will maintain that the Bible is not necessarily true doctrine but merely information about people’s experience with God. A liberal will appeal to the individual experience of a Christian as the basis of authority. The power of liberalism comes from its use of Christian language with a new definition. Since they reject the objective truth and rely on experience, then words such as ‘salvation,’ ‘Christ,’ and ‘resurrection’ are not taken from the Bible but redefined in a subjective or modern sense. This new definition is formed using modern principles of criticism, science, and philosophy. Thus liberalism is an experience-based theology, that rejects the inerrancy of Scripture in favor of subject personal relationships and modern scientific methods. Though some would define it differently, to do so would reject the writings and arguments of the vast majority of fundamentalists over the past century.
To understand fundamentalism is to place it in its proper context, namely 20th-century America. Fundamentalism’s anti-modernist nature necessitates that there exist modernism for it to oppose. Thus before the late 1800s and early 1900s fundamentalism could not exist because liberalism did not exist, at least not as a movement or theology. To attempt to find fundamentalism in the centuries prior is impossible, though you may find individual aspects of it, such as doctrinal purity or separatism. Only when Christianity was mixed with modern methods of science, history, and theology would there be a need for a group to oppose it. This is the movement we call fundamentalism.
The most basic aspect of fundamentalism is its adherence to the inerrancy of Scripture. This can be defined as a belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures by God that completely rules out any possible error in the transmission, so that what the writers penned on paper was completely true: doctrinally, historically, and scientifically. This view is not a strictly fundamentalist view, as other conservative denomination and groups have also ascribed to it, but it is an essential part of its doctrine. Along with the inspiration of Scripture, fundamentalist hold to four other doctrines, collectively entitled “The Five Fundamentals of the Faith:”
1) Inerrancy of Scriptures
2) Virgin Birth
3) Christ’s Substitutionary Atonement
4) Christ’s Bodily Resurrection
5) The Second Coming of Christ
While many individual would hold more than these, no fundamentalist could hold less. For instance, dispensationalism would later become a hallmark of fundamentalism, but was rejected by J. Gresham Machen, leader of Presbyterian Fundamentalism, and Williams Jennings Bryan, who fought evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The guiding principle in fundamentalist thought is that the inerrant Bible is foundational to knowledge, and that modernism, with its accompanying ideas of subjectivism, Darwinism and higher criticism, is to be rejected.
The final mark of fundamentalism is its willingness to separate from liberalism. This was evidenced in various leaders of the movement: Machen left Princeton and founded Westminster Theological Seminary, J. Frank Norris left (or was kicked out) of the Southern Baptist Convention, John R. Rice separated from the Southern Baptist Convention and then later from Billy Graham when he associated with liberals. While these men did not categorize these groups as liberal, they believed that they were tolerant of such, and thus separated to defend doctrinal purity.
As J. Gresham Machen put it so well, "if the disjunction is between "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," then I am willing to call myself a Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type."
