As I am totally opposed to Modernism and False Gospels of liberal theology; I am also an Historical Christian Fundamentalist. 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 liberal will maintain that the Bible is not necessarily true doctrine but merely information about people’s experience with God. 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. 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, fundamentalists 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.
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."
Or
"In essentials (fundamentals), unity; in nonessentials, liberty; but in all things charity"
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_31.html. (I disagree with the idea Calvinism IS the Gospel, but, excellent explanation of the Reformed Truths from in Scripture.)
