Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Wednesday, November 30, 2022
Tuesday, November 29, 2022
Monday, November 28, 2022
Theonomic Amillenialism
It is often thought and assumed that theonomy is a postmillenial view only. This is a mistaken assumption based on the fact that most of them have been. However, not all theonomists are postmillenial and some of us are in fact amill. The main differences are the same as those between other postmills and amills. We do not see things as getting better and better for the Church as we get closer to Christ's Return. This does not mean we do not advocate for Biblical Law to be the foundation of politics. On politics theonomic amills are in line with the theonomic postmill views. Outside of politics we align with other confessional amills.
Sunday, November 27, 2022
Confessions of a J. Gresham Machen fundamentalist
I confess I am a Christian Fundamentalist in the spirit of the great historic Christian heritage of the Fundamentalist vs Modernism/Liberalism split. That caused the creation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and other Historical Biblical Christian denominational splits from the fundamentals denying Modernism movement.
However, I am a J. Gresham Machen Fundamentalist, and not in the stream of the Independent Fundamental Baptists. I belong to the Covenantal and Continental Reformed stream of fundamentalism which is Amillenial in eschatology/End times views. As well as differing on matters of which version of The Bible is acceptable from the KJV Only view
Fundamentalism, for the purpose of this article, is a movement within the church that holds to the essentials of the Christian faith. In modern times the word fundamentalist is often used in a derogatory sense.
The Fundamentalist movement has its roots in Princeton Theological Seminary because of its association with graduates from that institution. Two wealthy church laymen commissioned ninety-seven conservative church leaders from all over the Western world to write 12 volumes on the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They then published these writings and distributed over 300,000 copies free of charge to ministers and others involved in church leadership. The books were entitled The Fundamentals, and they are still in print today as a two-volume set.
Fundamentalism was formalized in the late 19th century and early 20th century by conservative Christians—John Nelson Darby, Dwight L. Moody, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen and others—who were concerned that moral values were being eroded by modernism—a belief that human beings (rather than God) create, improve, and reshape their environment with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation. In addition to fighting the influence of modernism, the church was struggling with the German higher criticism movement, which sought to deny the inerrancy of Scripture.
Fundamentalism is built on five tenets of the Christian faith, although there is much more to the movement than adherence to these tenets:
1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions.
2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine.
3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind.
4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.
5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth.
Other points of doctrine held by Fundamentalists are that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. There are multiple streams of fundamentalism. I am in the stream that disagrees with Dispensational Theology and its' form of premillenialism.
The Fundamentalist movement has often embraced a certain militancy for truth, and this led to some infighting. Many new denominations and fellowships appeared, as people left their churches in the name of doctrinal purity. One of the defining characteristics of Fundamentalism has been to see itself as the guardian of the truth, usually to the exclusion of others’ biblical interpretation. At that time of the rise of Fundamentalism, the world was embracing liberalism, modernism, and Darwinism, and the church itself was being invaded by false teachers. Fundamentalism was a reaction against the loss of biblical teaching.
The movement took a severe hit in 1925 by liberal press coverage of the legendary Scopes trial. Although Fundamentalists won the case, they were mocked publicly. Afterwards, Fundamentalism began to splinter and refocus. The most prominent and vocal group in the USA has been the Christian Right. This group of self-described Fundamentalists has been more involved in political movements than most other religious groups. By the 1990s, groups such as the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council have influenced politics and cultural issues.
Like all movements, Fundamentalism has enjoyed both successes and failures. The greatest failure may be in allowing Fundamentalism’s detractors define what it means to be a Fundamentalist. As a result, many people today see Fundamentalists as radical, extremists who want to establish a state religion and force their beliefs on everyone else. This is far from the truth. Fundamentalists seek to guard the truth of Scripture and defend the Christian faith, which was “once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
The church today is struggling in the postmodern, secular culture and needs people who are not ashamed to proclaim the gospel of Christ. Truth does not change, and adherence to the fundamental principles of doctrine is needful. These principles are the bedrock upon which Christianity stands, and, as Jesus taught, the house built upon the Rock will weather any storm (Matthew 7:24-25).
Being a Reformed/Calvinistic Fundamentalist, I obviously disagree with the almost fanatical anti Calvinism of modern day groups like the Independent Fundamental Baptists. I also, however, acknowledge them and those like them as part of the Body of Christ as long as they are Truly Born Again believers.
I am Historically in the strain of fundamentalism and the Christian fundamentals. Reformed/Calvinism was always a huge part of the Fundamentalist split to begin with. The OPC, one of the first split off denominations was and is a Reformed denomination. The Fundamentalist movement has its Historical roots from fundamental Historical Canons of Dortrch Reformed Theology breaking off from Apostating falling away Modernism/liberal churches.
As explained by J. Gresham Machen in his own words below;
"In these days of widespread defection from the Christian faith, I rejoice with all my heart in the warmth of Christian fellowship that unites me with those who, like you, love the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and are willing to bear the reproach to which a frank acceptance of the gospel subjects them in the presence of a hostile world.
Thoroughly consistent Christianity, to my mind, is found only in the Reformed or Calvinistic Faith; and consistent Christianity, I think, is the Christianity easiest to defend. Hence I never call myself a "Fundamentalist." There is, indeed, no inherent objection to the term; and if the disjunction is between "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," then I am willing to call myself a Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. But after all, what I prefer to call myself is not a "Fundamentalist" but a "Calvinist" — that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church's life — the current which flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin. I have the warmest sympathy with other evangelical churches, and a keen sense of agreement with them about those Christian convictions which are today being most insistently assailed.
That system of theology, that body of truth, which we find in the Bible, is the Reformed Faith, the Faith commonly called Calvinistic, which is set forth gloriously in the Confession and Catechisms.
We rejoice in the approximations to that body of truth which other systems of theology contain; we rejoice in our Christian fellowship with other evangelical churches; we hope that members of other churches, despite our Calvinism, may be willing to listen to what we may have to say. But we cannot consent to impoverish our message by setting forth less than what we find the Scriptures to contain; and we believe that we shall best serve our fellow-Christians, from whatever church they may come, if we set forth not some vague greatest common measure among various creeds, but that great historic Faith that has come through Augustin and Calvin. Glorious is the heritage of the Reformed Faith. God grant that it may go forth to new triumphs even in the present time of unbelief!"
Why I fully embrace being A Reformed Christian Fundamentalist
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 a Saved Arminian. We do not get saved by being Reformed we get saved through God's unconditional election to salvation. The Non-Calvinist can be saved just as much as the Calvinist despite Calvinism being the natural outworking of The Biblical Truths. Consistent Remonstrant Arminianism is, however, outright Heresy. 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. Arminian Brothers and Sisters are true Christian Brothers/Sisters if they are truly Born Again.
I am also a Christian Fundamentalist [Historical] 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 [Christian] Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type."
Saturday, November 26, 2022
The Matrix is not a place to get a model of Christian Liberty.
A lot of the time people will use the term breaking out of the matrix. As if that is a good thing I have used it too in the past. However, if one realizes the Matrix Universe of fiction comes from an antichrist Gnostic worldview one should not be associating themselves with these ideas.
The Matrix takes the truth of God being one of absolutes and order as the enemy. Otherwords it's against God Himself whom is a God of Order. It also paints a view of the world that is equally unbiblical. Saying that God is not in charge of whom gets into power or taken out of power, but, instead Evil entities. When the Biblical view is that God is Sovereign over everything including the authorities.
The One Worlders and Mystery Babylon are not Sovereign and in charge of all that comes to pass. That is God and God alone. The Bible calls satan as the little g god of this age and not god of this world as some believe. The Word used in Greek is aeon or age not cosmos.
The Matrix motif also makes one question God's Creation by bringing in the idea of an illusion based reality. Instead of being able to actually study and understand the Creation without assuming you cannot trust your senses. The science of Creation is something you can study and come to Biblical conclusions on without saying all science is a lie. Being against scientism is not the same thing as saying science itself is a lie.
Taking a pill to have more knowledge is also a motif coming from lucifar and the Garden of Eden. It is the idea of "enlightenment." This is not a Godly thing, but, an antirchrist thing. The very core of the ideology behind the series is antichrist Gnostic teaching. No one should be referencing it as a good place to get inspiration from.
It also pushes an unbiblical view of outright rebellion instead of peaceful attempts to change things for the better. As Christians we know that only certain types of resistance are Biblical and outright rebellion is not one of them. We need to always keep in mind that all authorities are setup and torn down by God Himself. Therefore, our resistance is peaceful and not based on overthrowing authorities setup by God. We want the authorities to acknowledge and follow God's Law Word not be overthrown. This is the purpose of the docterine of lesser magistrates.
The something can be said of any number of institutions that exist. Wanting a change in the health care system does not mean we live in outright rebellion against all forms of medicine for example.
Friday, November 25, 2022
Thursday, November 24, 2022
Wednesday, November 23, 2022
Third Adam (No Music)
While I disagree with his uninformed misunderstanding of Amillenialism and think his dispensational views are unorthodox the rest is great.
Tuesday, November 22, 2022
Monday, November 21, 2022
Sunday, November 20, 2022
Saturday, November 19, 2022
Friday, November 18, 2022
Thursday, November 17, 2022
Why The Traditional/Confessional Text is superior to Modern Textual Criticism
I have not waded into the Bible Translation or Manuscripts issue in a long time. However, recently I have went back to using the New King James Translation as my main Sanctuary Bible. I had been using the ESV for a while as that is my Churches Pew Bible and what is preached out of. After much thought and prayer I have decided to not use it as my personal main Church translation.
This is because the transcripts behind the NKJV are I find more accurate to the texts wording. This does not mean I think less of the rest of my Church. It does mean that I keep coming back to the Confessional Text view as being the most inline with the Historical Reformed view of the translation/transmission of The Bible. The idea that God Preserved His Word down to the tiniest Jot and Title. Found in the traditional text of the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. That sections where the Modern Critical Textual basis of the ESV casts doubt by questioning manuscript evidence is mistaken.
For this reason alone I do believe traditional text Bibles are the better choice. However, again this is not a put down of others within my Church. It is a disagreement, however, with the choices made by certain people behind the ESV. There are many, many modern common language translations from the traditional or confessional texts. This is not an argument for using only the KJV or NKJV. Although the NKJV is the easiest to find Traditional Word-For-Word or Formal Equivalent formatted Bible in the common language.
Wednesday, November 16, 2022
Tuesday, November 15, 2022
Monday, November 14, 2022
Sunday, November 13, 2022
If the No Coercion Principle is required to be a Voluntaryist than I am still a minarchist.
The Non Aggression Principle or No Coercion Principle says no initiating of force is ever legitimate which is counter The Word of God. The Bible teaches the State is God's Sword for punishing evil and rewarding the good. It is not in His Word that only retaliatory force is good.
You do not wait if you have justification to use force first. You do not wait for someone to setup a Pagan alter and sacrifice a person to use force to stop it from happening by banning Satanic Rituals. Those that want to abolish the slavery of the sex industry do not wait for someone to cry out for help. There is no initiation of force in the sexual immorality that should be included in our legislation.
If I need to support legalizing anything and everything to be a Voluntaryist than I am still a minarchist.
Why Theonomy is NOT a heresy and why Minarchism is a Godly view of The State
Recently I came across Doreen Virtue having uploaded a video with a guest claiming theonomic ethics applied to The State is somehow heretical. I have also come across people that think any States existing are evil.
I wish to defend both theonomic ethics applied to civil governments and the existence of Godly States. People really seem to have gotten the wrong impression of theonomy and of Godly Governance. Theonomy simply means God's Law as Theo means God and Nomy means Law. That is all it means. That Nations are commanded to follow and make legislation based on God's Law Word. As found in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
This is not heretical as it goes back to Christ and the Great Commission which includes decipling The Nations to follow Christ's Rule. In this sense all Christians in all times have been theonomic. I am a theonomist, a staunch one, but, I disagree with many people that have made up the broader theonomy movement on many things.
I am also in favor of a kinder and gentler Christian Reconstruction of society from the ground up by Spreading The Gospel. However, many things I have said would not be looked at with favor by the broader old school Reconstruction movement. Do I want Christian Nations? Yes, by the Grace of God if it is His Will. The ideal would of course be a Christian Nation.
On the other hand you have those whom take all existence of heiracrchy including a State as evil. Which is also not a Biblical view of governance. The current governments are Pagan through and through that does not mean all States will be or are evil. In fact, even Evil States are used by God for His own purposes and are not outside of God's Sovereign Control.
I have describe myself in the more recent past since Fiona as an Anarcho-Theonomist and that has been misread to mean I do not wish to have people follow Romans 13. Or that I am pro the protest movement or among the Freedom Convoy people. When I say anarcho I mean simply that I am against all the ungodly excesses of our current States.
I am anarchic as in morally against the Archy the current States UnGodly rules and ways. I am not against the the Nation of Canada's existence or the State existing as such. Anarcho-Theonomist is really just a way to separate myself for those whom see theonomy as a top down exercise of forcing people to be Christians.
Here is where I wish to defend the existence of a State that does what a State is supposed to do. Namely punishing Evil and rewarding the Good. The view of the government being limited to its just purpose and the proper use of coercion is called minarchism. Other words minimal States that are limited to the administration of Civil Justice. This is the direction most Christians go in politically regardless of being theonomists or not.
In this sense I am still a minarchist and fully support the Nations doing their job as defined in Biblical Truth. I do not wish for people to go out and disturb the peace in the Name of fighting the State. We need instead to pray and petition the Goverments to do what is right in the sight of God.
Saturday, November 12, 2022
Friday, November 11, 2022
Thursday, November 10, 2022
The difference between fundamentalism and legalism
In this is article I explain the differences between fundamentalism and legalism.
Fundamentalism, for the purpose of this article, is a movement within the church that holds to the essentials of the Christian faith. In modern times the word fundamentalist is often used in a derogatory sense.
The Fundamentalist movement has its roots in Princeton Theological Seminary because of its association with graduates from that institution. Two wealthy church laymen commissioned ninety-seven conservative church leaders from all over the Western world to write 12 volumes on the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They then published these writings and distributed over 300,000 copies free of charge to ministers and others involved in church leadership. The books were entitled The Fundamentals, and they are still in print today as a two-volume set.
Fundamentalism was formalized in the late 19th century and early 20th century by conservative Christians—John Nelson Darby, Dwight L. Moody, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen and others—who were concerned that moral values were being eroded by modernism—a belief that human beings (rather than God) create, improve, and reshape their environment with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation. In addition to fighting the influence of modernism, the church was struggling with the German higher criticism movement, which sought to deny the inerrancy of Scripture.
Fundamentalism is built on five tenets of the Christian faith, although there is much more to the movement than adherence to these tenets:
1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions.
2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine.
3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind.
4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.
5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth.
Other points of doctrine held by Fundamentalists are that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.
There are multiple streams of fundamentalism. I am in the stream that disagrees with Dispensational Theology.
The Fundamentalist movement has often embraced a certain militancy for truth, and this led to some infighting. Many new denominations and fellowships appeared, as people left their churches in the name of doctrinal purity. One of the defining characteristics of Fundamentalism has been to see itself as the guardian of God's Biblical Truth. At that time of the rise of Fundamentalism, the world was embracing liberalism, modernism, and Darwinism, and the church itself was being invaded by false teachers. Fundamentalism was a reaction against the loss of biblical teaching.
The movement took a severe hit in 1925 by liberal press coverage of the legendary Scopes trial. Although Fundamentalists won the case, they were mocked publicly. Afterwards, Fundamentalism began to splinter and refocus. The most prominent and vocal group in the USA has been the Christian Right. This group of self-described Fundamentalists has been more involved in political movements than most other religious groups. By the 1990s, groups such as the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council have influenced politics and cultural issues.
Like all movements, Fundamentalism has enjoyed both successes and failures. The greatest failure may be in allowing Fundamentalism’s detractors define what it means to be a Fundamentalist. As a result, many people today see Fundamentalists as radical, extremists who want to establish a state religion and force their beliefs on everyone else. This is far from the truth. Fundamentalists seek to guard the truth of Scripture and defend the Christian faith, which was “once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
The church today is struggling in the postmodern, secular culture and needs people who are not ashamed to proclaim the gospel of Christ. Truth does not change, and adherence to the fundamental principles of doctrine is needful. These principles are the bedrock upon which Christianity stands, and, as Jesus taught, the house built upon the Rock will weather any storm (Matthew 7:24-25).
The word "legalism" does not occur in the Bible. It is a term Christians use to describe a doctrinal position emphasizing a system of rules and regulations for achieving both salvation and spiritual growth. Doctrinally, it is a position essentially opposed to grace. Those who hold a legalistic position often fail to see the real purpose for law, especially the purpose of the Old Testament law of Moses, which is to be our "schoolmaster" or "tutor" to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
Even true believers can be legalistic. We are instructed, rather, to be gracious to one another: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters" (Romans 14:1). Sadly, there are those who feel so strongly about non-essential doctrines that they will not even allow the expression of another viewpoint among fellow believers. That, too, is legalism.
The apostle Paul warns us of legalism in Colossians 2:20-23: "Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." Legalists may appear to be righteous and spiritual, but legalism ultimately fails to accomplish God's purposes because it is an outward performance instead of an inward change.
To avoid falling into the trap of legalism, we can start by holding fast to the words of the apostle John, "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17) and remembering to be gracious, especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ. "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:4). "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat" (Romans 14:10).
A word of caution is necessary here. While we need to be gracious to one another and tolerant of disagreement over disputable matters, we cannot accept heresy. We are exhorted to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). If we remember these guidelines and apply them in love and mercy, we will be safe from both legalism and heresy. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John
For more details on why I am a Fundamentalist check out this article.
Confessions of a J. Gresham Machen fundamentalist
I confess I am a Christian Fundamentalist in the spirit of the great historic Christian heritage of the Fundamentalist vs Modernism/Liberalism split. That caused the creation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and other Historical Biblical Christian denominational splits from the fundamentals denying Modernism movement.
However, I am a J. Gresham Machen Fundamentalist, and not in the stream of the Independent Fundamental Baptists. I belong to the Covanental and Contanental Reformed stream of fundamentalism which is Amillenial in eschatology/End times views. As well as differing on matters of which version of The Bible is acceptable from the KJV Only view
Fundamentalism, for the purpose of this article, is a movement within the church that holds to the essentials of the Christian faith. In modern times the word fundamentalist is often used in a derogatory sense.
The Fundamentalist movement has its roots in Princeton Theological Seminary because of its association with graduates from that institution. Two wealthy church laymen commissioned ninety-seven conservative church leaders from all over the Western world to write 12 volumes on the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They then published these writings and distributed over 300,000 copies free of charge to ministers and others involved in church leadership. The books were entitled The Fundamentals, and they are still in print today as a two-volume set.
Fundamentalism was formalized in the late 19th century and early 20th century by conservative Christians—John Nelson Darby, Dwight L. Moody, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen and others—who were concerned that moral values were being eroded by modernism—a belief that human beings (rather than God) create, improve, and reshape their environment with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation. In addition to fighting the influence of modernism, the church was struggling with the German higher criticism movement, which sought to deny the inerrancy of Scripture.
Fundamentalism is built on five tenets of the Christian faith, although there is much more to the movement than adherence to these tenets:
1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions.
2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine.
3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind.
4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.
5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth.
Other points of doctrine held by Fundamentalists are that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. There are multiple streams of fundamentalism. I am in the stream that disagrees with Dispensational Theology and its' form of premillenialism. However, those that belong to the Dispensational stream are no less Fundamentalist and we hold to the same Fundamental Orthodox Christian Doctrines. We are all Brothers and Sisters in Christ and will be in Heaven together.
The Fundamentalist movement has often embraced a certain militancy for truth, and this led to some infighting. Many new denominations and fellowships appeared, as people left their churches in the name of doctrinal purity. One of the defining characteristics of Fundamentalism has been to see itself as the guardian of the truth, usually to the exclusion of others’ biblical interpretation. At that time of the rise of Fundamentalism, the world was embracing liberalism, modernism, and Darwinism, and the church itself was being invaded by false teachers. Fundamentalism was a reaction against the loss of biblical teaching.
The movement took a severe hit in 1925 by liberal press coverage of the legendary Scopes trial. Although Fundamentalists won the case, they were mocked publicly. Afterwards, Fundamentalism began to splinter and refocus. The most prominent and vocal group in the USA has been the Christian Right. This group of self-described Fundamentalists has been more involved in political movements than most other religious groups. By the 1990s, groups such as the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council have influenced politics and cultural issues.
Like all movements, Fundamentalism has enjoyed both successes and failures. The greatest failure may be in allowing Fundamentalism’s detractors define what it means to be a Fundamentalist. As a result, many people today see Fundamentalists as radical, extremists who want to establish a state religion and force their beliefs on everyone else. This is far from the truth. Fundamentalists seek to guard the truth of Scripture and defend the Christian faith, which was “once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
The church today is struggling in the postmodern, secular culture and needs people who are not ashamed to proclaim the gospel of Christ. Truth does not change, and adherence to the fundamental principles of doctrine is needful. These principles are the bedrock upon which Christianity stands, and, as Jesus taught, the house built upon the Rock will weather any storm (Matthew 7:24-25).
Being a Reformed/Calvinistic Fundamentalist, I obviously disagree with the almost fanatical anti Calvinism of modern day groups like the Independent Fundamental Baptists. I also, however, acknowledge them and those like them as part of the Body of Christ as long as they are Truly Born Again believers.
I am Historically in the strain of fundamentalism and the Christian fundamentals. Reformed/Calvinism was always a huge part of the Fundamentalist split to begin with. The OPC, one of the first split off denominations was and is a Reformed denomination. The Fundamentalist movement has its Historical roots from fundamental Historical Canons of Dortrch Reformed Theology breaking off from Apostating falling away Modernism/liberal churches.
As explained by J. Gresham Machen in his own words below;
"In these days of widespread defection from the Christian faith, I rejoice with all my heart in the warmth of Christian fellowship that unites me with those who, like you, love the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and are willing to bear the reproach to which a frank acceptance of the gospel subjects them in the presence of a hostile world.
Thoroughly consistent Christianity, to my mind, is found only in the Reformed or Calvinistic Faith; and consistent Christianity, I think, is the Christianity easiest to defend. Hence I never call myself a "Fundamentalist." There is, indeed, no inherent objection to the term; and if the disjunction is between "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," then I am willing to call myself a Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. But after all, what I prefer to call myself is not a "Fundamentalist" but a "Calvinist" — that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church's life — the current which flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin. I have the warmest sympathy with other evangelical churches, and a keen sense of agreement with them about those Christian convictions which are today being most insistently assailed.
That system of theology, that body of truth, which we find in the Bible, is the Reformed Faith, the Faith commonly called Calvinistic, which is set forth gloriously in the Confession and Catechisms.
We rejoice in the approximations to that body of truth which other systems of theology contain; we rejoice in our Christian fellowship with other evangelical churches; we hope that members of other churches, despite our Calvinism, may be willing to listen to what we may have to say. But we cannot consent to impoverish our message by setting forth less than what we find the Scriptures to contain; and we believe that we shall best serve our fellow-Christians, from whatever church they may come, if we set forth not some vague greatest common measure among various creeds, but that great historic Faith that has come through Augustin and Calvin. Glorious is the heritage of the Reformed Faith. God grant that it may go forth to new triumphs even in the present time of unbelief!"
Why I fully embrace being A Reformed Fundamentalist
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)