Eight Reasons To Be a Fundamentalist

• The inerrancy of the Scriptures
  
• Young earth creationism which includes the ideas of 6-day creation, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the universal flood
  
• The absence of pseudonymity in the Bible with particular reference to the authorship of Daniel (written in the 6th Century B.C.), the authorship of the Pastorals, and the authorship of 2 Peter
  
• The historical accuracy of the events of the OT and NT narratives as well as the events of predictive prophecy (e.g., Daniel, Isaiah and the other prophets did predict future events well before they occurred)
  
• The omniscience of God which suggests that God has perfect and complete knowledge of all events, both past and future, i.e., open theism cannot be true
  
• The complementarian position with regard to the roles of men and women in the church and home
  
• Justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, i.e., the New Perspective on Paul fails to articulate the biblical view
  
• Cessationism in the sense that the use of miraculous gifts and the reception of new revelation have presently ceased as means by which God reveals himself
  

By this list, John MacArthur is a fundamentalist

5 reasons to not call yourself one publicly…

1. You have a store nearby where the owner sells Neo-Nazi newspapers and Christian art, and hands out fliers for his “Fundamentalist” church.
2. You know a “Fundamentalist” church nearby where they post a sign on the door that women coming in “pants” or men coming in “shorts” can find appropriate clothes to change into in the church basement.
3. 3/4 of the churches within 20 miles of you that call themselves “Fundamentalist” are KJVO and you are not.
4. You know a “Fundamentalist” church nearby where the pastor was still wearing his “100% for” button 3 years after Jack Hyles died, and challenging other area pastors as to why they were not.
5. You know a “Fundamentalist” church where the “gold standard” of good membership is to also hold membership in the Michigan Militia.

My point is that it’s easy to say what the author says in beautiful, sensible, Central territory. But there are places where the name “Fundamentalist” is not so reputable.

By this list, ______________is a fundamentalist

Jim, Omitting the name (which could be anyone of dozens), I don’t imagine that Dr. Pratt was intending to set out a comprehensive list of what it means to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is certainly more than this.

[Jim Peet] By this list, John MacArthur is a fundamentalist

Doesn’t look like he is listing criteria, just reasons to claim the name/position.

Pratt: “These are the reasons that I am still willing to accept this often-maligned label of fundamentalist.”

Edit: oops. Looks like Larry already covered that.

The idea that young earth Creationism is important enough to be on such a list is one of the reasons I don’t label myself a Fundamentalist.

That’s a big historical error in conservative evangelical and Fundamentalist thinking, and one that I wish they would be honest enough to get rid of. Believe in YEC, that’s fine; don’t act like it is in any way comparable to other important doctrines. It’s a new, hardening of a traditional exegetical position into a full-blown view of science and theology that can claim no long, much less mainstream, tradition, even in Protestantism.

It denigrates the importance of doctrines like inerrancy to associate it with core doctrines.

[Greg Linscott] So, Minnesota has no “right wing extremist” Fundamentalists? Mike, are you serious?

I haven’t lived here in Minnesota all that long, but there are as many of those types of people in this state as there were when I lived in Michigan. “Beautiful, sensible, Central territory” is not all that different than chaotic DBTS-ville…

Greg,

Sorry. I guess I was misinformed. People had told me that you guys have a great thing going out there in Minnesota. And that this is why the Central guys are more comfy with calling themselves Fundies. I was told the crazies were fewer and farther between.

Oh well.

So, if you have the same kind of Fundies out there, answer me this: Does the membership at their churches come with a membership in the local Militia, or is it that Militia membership is a prerequisite to church membership? :)

[Joseph] The idea that young earth Creationism is important enough to be on such a list is one of the reasons I don’t label myself a Fundamentalist.

That’s a big historical error in conservative evangelical and Fundamentalist thinking, and one that I wish they would be honest enough to get rid of. Believe in YEC, that’s fine; don’t act like it is in any way comparable to other important doctrines. It’s a new, hardening of a traditional exegetical position into a full-blown view of science and theology that can claim no long, much less mainstream, tradition, even in Protestantism.

It denigrates the importance of doctrines like inerrancy to associate it with core doctrines.

I was thinking along the same lines here - though I personally believe in YEC. I was also wondering about the inclusion of the cessationist position, especially when many continuationists are adamant that any continuing “revelation” must be subject to Scripture, even while they maintain a strong defense on the essentials of the Gospel and inerrancy.

[Joseph] The idea that young earth Creationism is important enough to be on such a list is one of the reasons I don’t label myself a Fundamentalist.

That’s a big historical error in conservative evangelical and Fundamentalist thinking, and one that I wish they would be honest enough to get rid of. Believe in YEC, that’s fine; don’t act like it is in any way comparable to other important doctrines. It’s a new, hardening of a traditional exegetical position into a full-blown view of science and theology that can claim no long, much less mainstream, tradition, even in Protestantism.

It denigrates the importance of doctrines like inerrancy to associate it with core doctrines.

Joseph, you and I have gone round and round on this one before, and I don’t want to restart it, because that’s not what this thread is about.

But would you agree with me that there are a lot of these kinds of secondary issues that can represent primary things?

For example, let’s take a church that has women pastors. I would really like to know why they think that’s OK. Is it that they think Paul was a woman-hating man who imposed his views on the Epistles he wrote? Is it that Paul didn’t write those sections of his epistles, and the church added them later? Is it that they think Paul was addressing a local concern that did not have universal applicability, and that there can be exceptions to male spiritual leadership (such as Deborah)? In a case like that, why they have woman preachers (a secondary issue) is not as important as why they think they can; some of the possible reasons above represent a lite view of inspiration.

Similarly, YEC is not a primary issue. But the underlying reasons by which people arrive at a non-YEC position, and how they deal with the implications of that in passages outside of Genesis, can have primary doctrinal implications. Are you with me?

We do have some crackpots here. Like ripping the NIV to shreds at a Christian school. (you know the perversion version).

First: I thank Jon Pratt for his blog post! Now my observations / opinions:

• Re: ” .. we can be thankful for fundamentalism’s commitment to uphold pure doctrine.” Many were missing in action when Hyles was around. Views that one might be a “no point Calvinist … because there is no point talking about it” and the Sweatt issue sure make fundamentalists look a little foolish! There does seem to be an “old-boy network” kind of clubism that winks are the crackpots in the club (went to the right school, in the right association, etc) but little tolerance for a John MacArthur. By the way did Bob Jones every apologize to John MacArthur over the blood issue? Don’t think so!
  
• I am a YEC but the early fundamentalists did not consider that core. Joseph is right about that
  
• The name “fundamentalism” is so tarnished and amorphous that it is virtually meaningless outside of a small inner circle. (And I still call myself one in the small groups!)
  

[Mike Durning]

Similarly, YEC is not a primary issue. But the underlying reasons by which people arrive at a non-YEC position, and how they deal with the implications of that in passages outside of Genesis, can have primary doctrinal implications. Are you with me?

Please pardon my intrusion here. How often have you observed these primary doctrinal deviations in those who are non-YEC but otherwise conservative? I think I understand what you are saying: issue B may not be quite so important by itself, but there is a logical connection that should affect issue A, which is extremely important. But who in the world is completely consistent? It is this sort of reasoning that is used by KJVO’s to accuse non-KJVO’s of denying things like inspiration and inerrancy. I’m sure you are well-familiar with the arguments, but in essence, how is this line of reasoning any different?

I applaud Dr. Pratt for posting YEC as one of the values of Fundamentalism. It is one of the reasons why I myself would still see value in taking the label. I totally disagree that it is some type of second-tier issue.
As noted above, the early Fundamentalists had it almost all wrong on that point — that is one place where Fundmentalism went askew before the movement ever got off the ground.
The foremost expert on this period of history relative to creationism is Dr. Terry Mortenson of AiG. See his book, “The Great Turning Point,” for details.

http://acmuri.com/?p=186

This posting is merely a personal observation about a term and a movement that seems to have so many definitions that it fails to have any definition. Every lecture on Fundamentalism, as well as every passing reference, personal claim, or institutional identification regarding it seems to mean something unique to its claimant.

Buttresses my “amorphous” comment above

Ed V had a thread back on S/I 2.0 that was interesting. I think there was a poll with it too. His point (as I recollect) was that one could be fundamentalist without claiming the name.

I suggest that often when a lower-case “f” fundamentalist suggests that the name “fundamentalist” be ditched that the UPPER CASE “F” Fundamentalists regard even that as a departure from the faith. One can “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3) without having that title.

[A. Carpenter]

[Mike Durning]

Similarly, YEC is not a primary issue. But the underlying reasons by which people arrive at a non-YEC position, and how they deal with the implications of that in passages outside of Genesis, can have primary doctrinal implications. Are you with me?

Please pardon my intrusion here. How often have you observed these primary doctrinal deviations in those who are non-YEC but otherwise conservative? I think I understand what you are saying: issue B may not be quite so important by itself, but there is a logical connection that should affect issue A, which is extremely important. But who in the world is completely consistent? It is this sort of reasoning that is used by KJVO’s to accuse non-KJVO’s of denying things like inspiration and inerrancy. I’m sure you are well-familiar with the arguments, but in essence, how is this line of reasoning any different?

Well, maybe I should have used non-YEC as my example. Let’s say someone posts here that they are not a YEC. I acknowledge that there have been many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals of the past who believed in, say, the gap theory, as an alternative. They were true Fundamentalists, though I disagree with them.

But I also know that the reasons for which someone might be non-YEC can be critical.
A person may disbelieve the factuality of the Genesis account.
They may believe that the intent of Genesis has nothing to do with conveying actual facts of the creation process, so much as revealing spiritual truths.
They may believe that the purpose of the Genesis account of creation was to de-glorify the Egyptian pantheon rather than to identify creation details.
They may believe that it is poetry rather than prose, and that Biblical poetry is somehow exempt from historic or scientific accuracy.
They may believe that the days need not be days.
They may believe that there can be a gap/re-creation involved.
They may believe in some other kind of gap. There are some non-standard gap theories out there.
They may believe that findings of modern science need to inform our understanding of how to interpret texts that infringe on science’s areas of interest.
They may believe one or several of hundreds of other theories out there.

Each of these says different things about the belief of that person in inspiration, inerrancy, the interpretive process, etc.

The non-YEC decision also raises questions in other texts.
Did Moses believe in 6 literal days when he linked the Sabbath to the Genesis 6 days?
Did Christ believe what Moses believed? If Christ said Moses was a prophet, and Moses believed in 6 literal days based on Exodus 20, then can prophets be in error? Can Jesus, when on earth in human form, have been in error on scientific matters?
Were Adam and Eve literal? If not, what do we do with Paul’s teachings regarding them? Or Christ’s? If sin didn’t enter the human race through one father of the race, are all in possession of the same sin nature? Are all then equally redeemable by the 2nd Adam, Christ?

If a non-YEC person convinces me they have rejected YEC and still hold to primary doctrines, then I still want to know how they deal with the inter-linkages with other passages. How they deal with them may also reveal their level of Scriptural understanding or ignorance. They may not even be aware that there are implications in other passages.

Early Fundamentalism’s flirtations with such things as the gap theory should not confuse us. There has been a great deal of Biblical and theological thought dumped into this matter in the intervening decades. It’s hard to take a non-YEC position without dealing with dozens of other issues in a poor manner. Not impossible. Just hard.

In my experience, nearly 50% of those who tell me they don’t believe in YEC are ignorant of the implications in other passages, or how it calls into question their theology of the Scriptures. In such cases, it becomes a matter of education and discipleship. And most of the others are already hardened in a liberal or quasi-liberal theological bent, which is the actual driving-force behind their denial of YEC. In between, there are just a few who have theologically and Biblically credible reasons for denying YEC.