Kent Brandenburg: "I'm not a fundamentalist"

Please see, Hamilton Square Baptist Church: A Historic Northern Regular Baptist Church also on SI.

[Jim]

Fundamentalism does not have a doctrinal creed or statement of faith. The term is elastic and has morphed over time.

“Baptist”: Something to which I subscribe. Has:

• The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
• New Hampshire Confession of Faith
• Et Cetera

These (obviously) predate the Fundamentalist movement

[TylerR]

Ken:

When I say, “I’m a fundamentalist,” I am using it in the original sense of the word and what it meant in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. That is, there are certain basic fundamental doctrines that define theological orthodoxy - lines which cannot be moved. These are the bare minimum, the bare essentials that define the Christian faith. Therefore, when I say, “I’m a fundamentalist,” I am speaking in terms of orthodoxy vs. theological liberalism. I don’t mean in terms of fundamentalists vs. evangelicals. I mean in terms of orthodoxy vs. heresy.

I’m not sure if I’m in the minority in this perspective or not. It’s just what I mean when I claim the label “fundamentalist.” I am saying:

1. There are certain non-negotiable lines in the sand which define and characterize the Christian faith (e.g. inerrancy of Scripture, virgin birth of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection of Christ, authenticity of Biblical miracles).
2. These lines must be defended against theological liberalism - and we ought to be militant about it

To re-state, fundamentalism is not about:

1. Being Baptist
2. Being dispensational
3. Being a pre-millennialist
4. The KJV Bible
5. Neo-evangelicals
6. John MacArthur
7. Anything else

It is merely a particular philosophy of ministry, not a denomination or a sect. It crosses denominational lines and unites around the idea that orthodoxy can be defined, that the rule of faith does indeed exist, and that these fundamentals must be defended. The rise of so-called “gay Christianity” is an appropriate example of a threat that needs a defense, because to advocate for this position fundamentally impugns the work of Christ.

That is why I say I am a fundamentalist.

That is the type of fundamentalist I am as well.

Jim wrote:

Contrasting term “Fundamentalism” w “Baptist”

Fundamentalism does not have a doctrinal creed or statement of faith. The term is elastic and has morphed over time.

“Baptist”: Something to which I subscribe. Has:

The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) (link is external)
New Hampshire Confession of Faith (link is external)
Et Cetera

These (obviously) predate the Fundamentalist movement

Jim, the reason I wanted a clear definition of Baptist from KLengel, is because years ago I had a connection to one of the churches that Kent Brandenburg fellowships with and their definition of Baptist did not seem to fit your outline above. I just wanted some clarification on where KLengel was coming from when he used the term “Baptist”. BTW, their view on the difference between “true” Baptists and other Baptists caused me to distance myself from them quite quickly.

KLengel,

The Bible teaches essentials and non=essentials. For example, Romans 14:2 tells us that a Christian with properly informed faith may eat all things. There are no dietary restrictions for the Christian. The passage goes on to say that some with weaker faith restrict their diet. In terms of Biblical truth, they are wrong. In terms of importance, the matter is non-essential. In fact, Romans 14 teaches that for Christians to make an essential out of a non-essential is itself wrong. Contrast this with the way Paul treats the false teaching of Judaizers in Galatians chapter one. The Gospel is essential. To get that wrong is fatal error. To separate over diet is sin. To fail to separate over the Gospel is sin.

There are clearly essentials and non-essentials of the Christian faith.

Sincerely,

Greg Barkman

TylerR,

I think the problem is that Fundamentalism - as you defined it - is what this site is about. I’m your kind of fundamentalist. The thing that I’ve noticed over time is that there seems to be a subset of people for whom Fundamentalism can only be legitimately held by those who are “Baptist Fundamentalists”. So their concept of fundamentalism isn’t defined by the actual book set or underlying ideas - it’s emerged from Baptistic thought as a response to the various different theological threats. That’s why I think you see a lot of Baptist fundamentalists defining the term narrowly or adding things to the idea that most Fundamentalists wouldn’t think of (or intentionally add) because they’re approaching it differently from the rest.

This idea that the “fundamentals” are the boundary lines between orthodoxy and heresy, that they function as the rule of faith, could be taken to mean that all fundamentalists care about are … the fundamentals. Not at all. The fundamentals merely define the “box” inside of which Christians of all theological stripes swim.

This was one of Bauder’s points in the “four views” book:

Up to this point , the discussion has focused on minimal Christian fellowship. Minimal unity and fellowship among Christians is defined by the gospel itself. Where the gospel is held in common, unity exists and fellowship should be recognized. Where the gospel is denied (either directly or by denial of some fundamental doctrine), unity does not exist and fellowship should not be extended.

The Christian faith, however, is not simply about the gospel. The gospel functions as the boundary of Christianity, but within that boundary is an entire system of faith and practice. Where the gospel is essential to the being of Christianity , other aspects of the system are necessary for its well-being. Once minimal unity is realized (i.e., once the gospel is held in common), other levels of fellowship also become possible. Within the boundary of the gospel , fellowship and unity may be greater or less. To understand why this must be so, we need only remember that unity is a function of what unites, and fellowship is something that is held in common. At minimum, Christians must be united by the gospel. At maximum, they may be united by the entire system of faith and practice, the whole counsel of God (Kindle Locations 434-443).

Once we define, from Scripture, who is inside the box and who is not, then we can start having discussion about believer’s baptism, pre-millennialism, soteriology, etc. I made the comment on Bro. Brandenburg’s site that “fundamentalism” doesn’t sum up my entire theological system, not should it. It merely characterizes my philosophy to ministry with regards to orthodoxy. The faith can be defined. It does have boundaries. These boundaries must be defended against. We ought to be militant about defending it against liberalism and those who seek to re-define the faith into a man-centered pretzel. In addition to being a fundamentalist, I’m also a Baptist. I’m also Calvinistic. I’m also a dispensationalist. I also disagree with particular redemption. And on it goes. But those are things to hash out inside the tent. They don’t define who gets into the tent.

[TylerR]

I’m also Calvinistic. –– I also disagree with particular redemption.

See this thread for some of my remarks on that! That’s why I said I didn’t say “I’m a Calvinist.” I don’t think a lot of Calvinists would consider me a “real” Calvinist. Maybe they’re right. Anyway - back to the topic!

Greg,

Your analysis of Romans 14 as a delimiter for essential vs non-essential is lacking. I am very familiar with this passage as it has been the discussion of my church and my family for the past 8 months. It mentions nothing about essential or non-essential. It is a stretch to devise that significance from your meaning. Where does Paul state that the view of the strong or weak was wrong or right, or essential or non-essential? Not in this passage I am afraid.

Thanks,

Ken

Ken,

Are you saying that because Paul doesn’t use the words “essential” and “non-essential” that the passage “mentions nothing” about that topic?

You ask, “Where does Paul state that the view of the strong or weak was wrong or right?” Answer: By stating the restricted diet position as that of a weak brother identifies that position as wrong. We know from other Scripture that this position is, in fact, Biblically incorrect. (cf. I Timothy 4:3,4) But even though the belief in a restricted diet is doctrinally incorrect, it is not essential. Paul teaches that such Christians, wrong though they may be, are to be received into the fellowship of the church, and are not to be judged by Christians of strong faith whose doctrinal understanding regarding diets is the Biblically correct position. Clearly some doctrines are non-essential. Dietary restrictions are non-essential to being a genuine Christian. Dietary restrictions are non-essential to enjoy full and unhindered Christian fellowship within the church. Observance of days is another example of a non-essential doctrine in Romans 14:5,6.

In short, Paul teaches that the restricted diet view is wrong but non-essential, which is the basis for his teaching about Christian liberty in this chapter. In matters non-essential, there is liberty.

Sincerely,

Greg

Are these essential doctrines?

Baptism by immersion

Pre-Tribulationalism

​Pre-Millenialism

Dispensationalsm?

​Multiple Elders

Style of music

Greg,

No, I am not saying that because it doesn’t use the words essential or non-essential, that it is not talking about them. I am simply stating that the original author’s meaning has nothing to do with essential or non-essential and to draw that application or significance is a stretch.

The quote by Meldenius is so overused.

KML

Ron,

Essential to what is my question? To be a fundamentalist today? Obviously not. Let me turn it around and ask you and others to answer these question instead.

Can more than one belief truly being right? Can Orthodoxy be represented by more than one right answer? Is Orthodoxy determined by the Scriptures or by tradition, church history, or experience? Is Orthodoxy what is right in the eyes of the beholder? If Jesus Christ is the Truth (and I declare that He is) conflicting beliefs cannot both be true. In our postmodern skeptical age, I believe bible-believers everywhere, who have felt the pain of ridicule in the areas of social justice, scholarship, loss from the culture and worship wars, have decided to accept uncertainty instead of finding truth. I have heard it many times before the reasons why. Men are fallible. OK, if we are so fallible, how do we know we got the gospel right? Because we have a group of fallible men to say so? So a group of fallible minds is better than one fallible mind? Because history has long held to these certain truths? Not hardly. How do we know if we are right on the essentials vs. non-essentials if such a thing existed? These are just the tip of the iceberg, but I will bow out now and listen for the wisdom of the answers to these questions. It’s my birthday, and I know that is true.

KML

Ken,

What is Paul’s original meaning? If it is not to instruct members of the church at Rome to receive into their unhindered fellowship Christians who are doctrinally wrong about diets, what is it? Isn’t Paul teaching that the Biblical position regarding diets (I Timothy 4:3,4) is a non-essential for salvation and church fellowship?

Warm regards,

Greg

[KLengel]

Ron,

Essential to what is my question? To be a fundamentalist today? Obviously not. Let me turn it around and ask you and others to answer these question instead.

Can more than one belief truly being right? Can Orthodoxy be represented by more than one right answer? Is Orthodoxy determined by the Scriptures or by tradition, church history, or experience? Is Orthodoxy what is right in the eyes of the beholder? If Jesus Christ is the Truth (and I declare that He is) conflicting beliefs cannot both be true. In our postmodern skeptical age, I believe bible-believers everywhere, who have felt the pain of ridicule in the areas of social justice, scholarship, loss from the culture and worship wars, have decided to accept uncertainty instead of finding truth. I have heard it many times before the reasons why. Men are fallible. OK, if we are so fallible, how do we know we got the gospel right? Because we have a group of fallible men to say so? So a group of fallible minds is better than one fallible mind? Because history has long held to these certain truths? Not hardly. How do we know if we are right on the essentials vs. non-essentials if such a thing existed? These are just the tip of the iceberg, but I will bow out now and listen for the wisdom of the answers to these questions. It’s my birthday, and I know that is true.

KML

What most believers have accepted is the doctrine of perspicuity.