Eight Reasons To Be a Fundamentalist

Mike,

In contrasting YEC with, say, the gap theory, you make me wonder if you’re familiar with the history of YEC. Perhaps you are and are simply emphasizing the contrast with the gap theory for reasons that are not clear to me.

If you have not read it, I would strongly recommend Numbers The Creationists. To date it’s the most thorough historical treatment of the topic. There is also a lot of research on the reception of Darwin that it’s clear most YEC are not familiar with (or at least they evince no such familiarity).

What most people think of as YEC, especially with the kitchen sink thrown in (e.g. “flood geology,” etc.) is very recent and dates to a couple of figures (Price and Morris) in the Twentieth Century. Before that it was a very different debate/issue. We anachronistically read our concerns and “problems” back into earlier times, and this causes a lot of serious misunderstandings of history.

[Joseph] Mike,

In contrasting YEC with, say, the gap theory, you make me wonder if you’re familiar with the history of YEC. Perhaps you are and are simply emphasizing the contrast with the gap theory for reasons that are not clear to me.

If you have not read it, I would strongly recommend Numbers The Creationists. To date it’s the most thorough historical treatment of the topic. There is also a lot of research on the reception of Darwin that it’s clear most YEC are not familiar with (or at least they evince no such familiarity).

What most people think of as YEC, especially with the kitchen sink thrown in (e.g. “flood geology,” etc.) is very recent and dates to a couple of figures (Price and Morris) in the Twentieth Century. Before that it was a very different debate/issue. We anachronistically read our concerns and “problems” back into earlier times, and this causes a lot of serious misunderstandings of history.

I consider myself familiar with the history of YEC, but perhaps I’ve missed something. I’ll look for the book. Thanks.

I might add that I mentioned gap theory because several notable early Fundies embraced it, but now it is much harder to find Fundamentalists who will take anything but a “6 literal days more recently than 10,000” years approach.

I am curious about whether you understood my point: that while YEC is a secondary issue, the reasons behind why someone is not YEC can represent a primary issue level problem. Do you agree?

I fit the definition of Fundamentalist in the original article that began this post, and according to SI’s Doctrinal Statement. So does John MacArthur. Until we standardize the definition, we are in trouble.

And that is my problem with many fundamentalists. They try to take the word “fundamentalist” away from you, while others try to cram it down your throat. Forces are at work to increase the number of people who identify themselves as fundamentalist while other (stronger) forces are at work to make Bible-oriented Christians loathe the term and thin the ranks of “compromisers.” It’s crazy. Build up to sabotage and tear down.

Then we talk about whether fundamentalism has a future. Joel Tetrau comes up with his (excellent) A B C stuff, but we still can’t have a consistent definition. Mike Durning has some great points:

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.
….there are places where the name “Fundamentalist” is not so reputable.

Those described above do not want to associate with me, and I don’t want to associate with them. Somehow, we REALLY need a new term. Let the group that matches the “five points” above keep the term. Let’s come up with something to distinguish ourselves from them and they from us (making both groups happy).
God bless ‘em, but I’m not part of that group.

How about “Biblical Essentialists?” That’s what I am. And I match all the points of the originally posted article. So does John MacArthur and a whole lot of other really cool Christian leaders.

[Jim Peet] 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

Muri’s observation resonates with me but I think it’s overstated. While it’s true that nearly everyone who uses the term ‘fundamentalism’ means something somewhat different by it, those who are Christian and evangelical use the term in a sense that overlaps mostly with how everyone else uses it. So the term is far from meaningless, though I agree it’s mostly useful when speaking to other fundamentalists. A Venn diagram might illustrate what I mean, though the example I’m including here doesn’t overlap enough.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Venn_diagram_c…

As a “Biblical Essentialist,” I would have no interest in being part of a Fundamentalist movement where YEC is not viewed as a primary issue.
Biblically, theologically, historically — it is indeed a primary issue.
I think Joseph is incorrect when he speaks about the ananchronisms of flood geology.
Is not theological advance a corollary of the doctrine of progressive revelation? History is not the yardstick for measuring the accuracy of doctrine.
If it were, however, there would still be plenty of support for YEC being viewed as primary.

Paul,

You are obviously entitled to think I am wrong, but what I said on is factual and can be independently verified. Flood geology is popularized, if not created, by Morris, and his ideas have their origin in Price, a Sevent Day Adventist. The nineteenth-century response to Darwin was a different, and extremely complicated, kettle of fish. If people want more sources, I can recommend some more.

Mike,

I’m not sure I fully understand your point. Tell me if the following summary is wrong: YEC is not a primary issue, but someone could adopt YEC for reasons that themselves reflected a primary issue. That’s a complicated issue, but if that claim is the one you’re making, then I agree but would submit that it is vacuous, that is, it can apply to almost any claim. Moreover, I don’t think it’s healthy to start reading into why someone adopts a position. If they say why they do, fine, if not, we take them at face value.

Articulating the concern you’re raising would require, I think, a complex description of the kinds of frameworks, intellectual, personal, cultural, and theological, that people inhabit, and the way that variations in these frameworks, especially on the issue of what concerns people have, what they find relevant, can produce significantly different positions and different reasons for adopting the same positions. But I don’t see this topic as directly related to the theological status of YEC.

But tell me if I’ve misunderstood you, as I don’t want to.

I fit the definition of Fundamentalist in the original article that began this post, and according to SI’s Doctrinal Statement.

Was Dr. Pratt offering a definition?

I don’t read it that way. He is merely listing “a number of issues that we have gotten right” (to quote the article itself). I think trying to use this as a definition is beyond the intent of the article (which may not matter much to fundamentalists who are sometimes inclined to find their point regardless of what the text says, but it should :D).

[Joseph] Paul,

You are obviously entitled to think I am wrong, but what I said on is factual and can be independently verified. Flood geology is popularized, if not created, by Morris, and his ideas have their origin in Price, a Sevent Day Adventist. The nineteenth-century response to Darwin was a different, and extremely complicated, kettle of fish. If people want more sources, I can recommend some more.

Mike,

I’m not sure I fully understand your point. Tell me if the following summary is wrong: YEC is not a primary issue, but someone could adopt YEC for reasons that themselves reflected a primary issue. That’s a complicated issue, but if that claim is the one you’re making, then I agree but would submit that it is vacuous, that is, it can apply to almost any claim. Moreover, I don’t think it’s healthy to start reading into why someone adopts a position. If they say why they do, fine, if not, we take them at face value.

Articulating the concern you’re raising would require, I think, a complex description of the kinds of frameworks, intellectual, personal, cultural, and theological, that people inhabit, and the way that variations in these frameworks, especially on the issue of what concerns people have, what they find relevant, can produce significantly different positions and different reasons for adopting the same positions. But I don’t see this topic as directly related to the theological status of YEC.

But tell me if I’ve misunderstood you, as I don’t want to.

Joseph, you are absolutely correct that Young Earth Creationism does not have a long track record within fundamentalism. When I was first saved in early 1974, the Gap Theory was the accepted position of almost all fundamentalists, being canonized in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible. Guys like Rice, Theodore Epp, McCarrell — all the big guns were gap theorists. Some changed after Morris’ argument persuaded them.

I am a Young Earth Creationist myself. It we coin a new term like “Biblical Essentialist,” we would have the same task of determining what the boundaries are for such a position (perhaps those in the original article). But gap theorists, day-age people, those who take early Genesis as something other than straight history, and even theistic evolution has a long alliance with fundamentalism since the Scope’s trial of the mid 1920’s — and even before.

It is quite clear that Genesis 1 and 2 are presented as historical accounts by the only witness who was there, God Himself. The early chapters of Genesis are not compatible with evolution or theistic evolution in any of its forms. Furthermore, there is no reason to compromise on the issue because God designed His creation to testify of Him.

Beyond this, one cannot find a single instance in the Bible where God blessed a person for not believing what He said. By contrast, the Bible is full of examples of God’s displeasure with a person because of their unbelief. God is not interested in our reasons for unbelief; He wants and expects belief. This applies to the early chapters of Genesis as much as to the rest of the Bible.

The issue is not what we think is important or not important; the issue is what God reveals in His Word. Romans chapter 1 makes very clear that denying God the glory He expects as Creator brings His wrath. One of the most helpful books on this subject is the recent publication, “Coming To Grips With Genesis”. A helpful review is in this month’s recent DBTS Journal by Dr. Matt Postiff.

Joseph, you should know better than to claim the following: “Flood geology is popularized, if not created, by Morris, and his ideas have their origin in Price, a Sevent Day Adventist.”
In God’s providence, I was raised in a conservative Lutheran denomination. Bible-believing Lutherans were committed to YEC and flood geology for, well, about 400 years before the birth of Henry Morris if my math is correct.
“Ye do err,” my friend.

[Mike Durning]

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.

SNIP

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.

So, if I understand you correctly…

YEC was not essential for “Early Fundamentalism,” but it is now…for almost everyone. I don’t mean to be obtuse, so please excuse me if I come across that way; I’m really wrestling with the perceived (on my part) elevation of 2nd and 3rd tier doctrines to a place of primary importance. (I’m still curious about cessationism, too.)

I really think I understand your point about the interrelatedness of doctrines and how one affects another. However, I’ve noticed that what I may think of as a necessary corollary to a particular belief is often missing in another person’s belief system, i.e. very few (if any) people are entirely consistent. So, I think I agree with Joseph that we should take people’s stated belief’s at face value rather than assuming we fully understand all the conscious and sub-conscious thought processes that have led them to that belief. Of course, we should expect a reasonable and Scriptural defense of the doctrine in question. But let’s not forget that many people argue that Spurgeon was evangelistic in spite of his Calvinism and not because of it. What is inconsistent for some is necessary for others. The cessationist may accuse the continuationist of denying Scriptural sufficiency and authority, but when the continuationist defends the same doctrines in the same way as the cessationist, the continuationist might accuse the cessationist of not submitting to Scripture’s authority in a matter that - to him, at least - is very clear.

Same way with YEC. Non-YEC may arrive at their position because of adherence to the fundamentals. Out of a deep reverence for Scripture and orthodox belief in inspiration, inerrancy, and authority, a non-YEC may interpret Gen. 1 as poetry rather than prose, conscientiously avoiding reading modern scientific issues back into Moses’ purpose for writing an God’s purpose for revealing. I’m not saying I agree with this position (to the contrary), but it just seems that strong beliefs in the essential doctrines may lead to divergent positions on secondary doctrines.

Not really going to put a dog into this particular fight if I can help it, but wanted to clarify that “geology” as a science has not been around for 400 years. But Paul’s point that folks believed in a global flood long before Morris is certainly correct (if I’ve correctly read his point).

[Mike Durning] 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?

The way the complementarian position was stated in the original points sort of irks me, because, while i’m not into female pastors, i also don’t want fundamentalism equated with complementarianism as we know it (per BCMW, for example).

Your statements show that you are not familiar with their scholarship. Might surprise you ;) Not saying i’m going there, but i’m saying they also take the Bible really seriously, more than we, in some ways.

Perhaps “flood geology” was a poor choice of words by me in post #25. I am no expert in the history of geology. I will again defer to Mortenson, who studied the history of geology at Oxford, on that point (see post #13).
The point I was making, as you correctly suggest, is that people “believed in a global flood long before Morris.”
To assume that early fundamentalists were correct to allow for a variety of views of Genesis, and then assert that Price and Morris invented flood geology, is to turn history on its head, in my humble opinion.
Creationists have been very open about their dialogue with Seventh Day Adventists in the early days of the movement. Is that supposed to be a problem?
So…did the Seventh Day Adventists propose something which could be independently verified, or did they mindlessly adopt their position because they assumed it to be part of historic Christianity?
In either case, how is that an argument against the validity of YEC??

Hi Paul,

I’m not going to argue about history, since it’s out there for people to read.

Flood Geology does not refer to a belief in a global flood, and nothing I said speaks to a global flood. Flood geology, roughly speaking, refers to the attempt, first done with some scientific credibility in Morris, to use a recent global flood to re-interpret a great deal of the geological data that seems to support other theories about the age and development of the earth.

Again, Numbers is quite thorough on the history of the origins of flood geology.