Fundamentalism

[Joe_in_RP]

Until recently I was not aware of this:

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist Evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

So they have labeled bible believers as Fundamentalist just like those Islamic fundamentalists.

Google it for yourself.

[John317]

That is why Seventh-day Adventists are really not, strictly speaking, fundamentalists.

[Joe_in_RP]

By whose definition? The 28 fundamental beliefs fit that description. Don't they?

[BobRyan]

WRT Opening Post

This is why SDAs are considered fundamentalists. In fact we qualify for one of the MOSt right wing of that group in that we take BOTH OT AND NT literally - as inspired as factual as trustworthy AND as binding. Even to the point of keeping the Seventh-day memorial of a literal creation week!

There are very very few fundamentalists that go beyond that!

in Christ,

Bob

[Joe_in_RP]

This is my point. They ( the evil forces who influence this world) have redefined fundamentalism to include mainline protestant teachings. Of course fundamentalism is synonymous with extremism.

[John317]

By whose definition? The 28 fundamental beliefs fit that description. Don't they?

The Seventh-day Adventist position is different from the "fundamentals" on the subject of inerrancy. As a church we believe in the infallibility of the Bible, not inerrancy. We believe in thought-inspiration. The "fundamentalists" believe that the Bible was inspired word for word, something which Seventh-day Adventists do not accept.

Compare our official statement with the definition of inerrancy given below:

Quote:

1. Holy Scriptures:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

Quote:

Biblical inerrancy is the conservative evangelical doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts." Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science.

[Joe_in_RP]

I think the secular / nominal Christian would say you are splitting hairs.

[John317]

Oh well, now if you are talking about what secular, nominal Christians think.... that is another story entirely.

[Kevin H]

Now this is a topic that I have very strong feelings about.

Prior to the mid 1800s people generally believed in a God and that the Bible was inspired. Athiesm was very rare. There were good people and bad people but whether good or bad they tended to believe in God and that the Bible was inspired.

Now the idea of the Bible being inspired was taken for granted and most did not think about what inspiration means. Probably most were unconsciously leaning towards fundamentalism, but they were also more or less moderate.

With the rise of evolution, people began to look for evolution in everything including the Bible and Modernism started which did not believe that the Bible was inspired and that it's just a collection of myths (in the negative sence of myth with the implications of untrue and ficticious, as opposed to the positive meaning of myth meaning mythopoetic thought)stories about people who did not exist and events that did not happen, and that there may not even be a God.

This opened the door to the modern Atheism, and the Lord saw that it was time to put new emphesses on the Sabbath to remind people about God being real, the creator and final authority.

In a radical reaction to Modernism, those who wanted to believe the Bible started reasoning about what what Inspiration means. They used Greek thought patterns as opposed to Hebrew thought patterns. They reasoned that since God is perfect (again using the Greek and not Hebrew view of perfection) then God's word must be perfect (Greek view, not Hebrew view) and there must not be the slightest inperfection (again Greek view as opposed to Hebrew view).

These ideas were expressed in different books, especially in a series of panflets published in the early 1900s called "The Fundamentals." It is from these panflets that the term "Fundamentalism" developed. Finally in the summer of 1919 in Philadelphia PA there was an interdenominaitonal Bible Conference where they developed "a new and exaulted form of Protestantism" where several denominations offically became Fundamentalists.

Now there were individual pastors, Sunday School teachers, congragations here and there that remained moderate, but basically the denominations fell into either the modernist camp or fundamentalist camp (the fall of Babylon?) One of these pastors wrote a sermon trying to maintain a moderate view, belief in the inspiration of the Bible (rejecting Modernism) but also rejecting Fundamentalism and trying to offer a more moderate view towards inspiration. This pastor ended up becoming hated. His sermon was widely published, not as praise but as an illustration as to how horrible it is that the Bible is now attacked by someone who claimed to be a Bible believer, and he became very hated and his sermon dispised. A woman said that the pastor had an affair with her and he was driven from the ministry. It was later proved that the lady was lying about the affair but she felt justified in saying a lie because it was a way to bring down this man who was attacking the Bible and she wanted to defend the Bible from what this pastor was teaching about it.

You can find this pastor's infamous sermon with two changes: The first change was that he suggested the inspiration was more of a subjective expirence and this easy to find copy of his sermon has inspration as an objective expirence. The second change is that the easy to find copy uses stronger language towards errors in the Bible. Where he said that it was possible, the easy to find copy adds probable. Except for these two changes, his sermon became what Mrs. White used to discribe how inspiration worked for her in the introduction to the Great Controversy and in Selected Messages.

Fundamentalism was introduced to the Seventh-day Adventist church by W. W. Prescott. When Mrs. White learned what Prescott was teaching, she asked him to leave teaching and to assist her in her work. He was terrified with the task of working with the words from God. Then as Mrs. White and Willie White taught Prescott what his job was, he was practically beside himself. From this working with Mrs. White Prescott turned 180 degrees from being a Fundamentalist to being a rabid anti-fundamentalist.

D. M. Canright became an extream fundamentalist and while most (not all) of his facts are correct, if you look at why he left the church is that he could not unify what he knew about Mrs. White with his fundamentalists beliefs. Had he not been a fundamentalist, he would have had no reason for leaving the church. He joined the Northern Baptists, which was the most extreme fundamentalists of all the fundamentalists.

Stephen Haskell learned about Fundamentalism from Prescott before Mrs. White asked Prescott to leave teaching and work with her. Haskell and Prescott became enemies on this point. Haskell use to exprasiate himself in trying to convince Mrs. White to become a fundamentalist and she exprasiated herself trying to talk him out of being a fundamentalist. (Now we don't know what there discussion was on one of there visits, but durring this time they had a visit and that night she had a heart attack and needed an angel to come an heal her. From the corrispondance at this time I think it's a good guess to picture this topic being part of the discussion that lead to her heartattack).

There were some others, names I remember are Washburn and Wilkerson (and somehow I seem to remember a Watson but not positive) who were very fundamentalists but who focused in on certan passages of Ellen White and she was writing at least Washburn, saying that they were using her writings in a wrong way, but they ignored her and I don't know if they said this but their followers began teaching that Mrs. White appostisised, that she no longer believed that she had the spirit of prophecy, and that you needed to study her early writings which came from God rather than her later writings which came from Willie. Althought as years went by this group gave up teaching that Mrs. White appostisised and that Willie was like the wicked sons of Samuel [Note about Samuel's sons: It may have been more politically motivated than spiritual, there evidence that they may have been faithful to God, but while Samuel was pollitically alined more with the Northern tribes, they tended to aline themselves more with the South] and have tried to very much tie Mrs. White and Willie as members of their party.

Like using that dispised anti-fundamentalists sermon for the discription for her inspiration and in her letters to Haskell, Washburn (Wilkerson? Watson?) writing about the reform dress, writing about Testimony 11, talking about her copying, and others Mrs. White made many jabs at fundamentalism. We adventists today tap dance over this and try to color her as a Fundamentalist. But fighting fundamentalism was her last battle and she died in the middle of the battle. Her son Willie, W. W. Prescott, A. G. Daniels, and the religion faculity of Washington Missionary College continued the fight.

In 1919 Haskell published "Haskell's Bible Handbook" which was a direct attack on the General conference of Seventh-day Adventists, where Haskell pushed fundamentalism while GC President A. G. Daniels believed that if Adventists accepted Fundamentalism that it would distroy Adventism and that as people learned how Mrs. White prepared her writings that they would see that it does not fit the fundamentalist view and that they would reject her.

In 1919 many Adventist pastors and Bible teachers were headded to Philadelphia for the interdenominational Bible Conference I referred to earlier. Since they were on their way to Philadelphia, Elder Daniels called for a Seventh-day Adventist Bible conference. They had a few items on discussion, but one was on inspiration. Daniels, Prescott and Willie White were to lead out, but Willie recognizing the trend in the church and their rejection of this truth remembered that he had to be out of town on business on the dates of the conference.

As they left Washington DC it looked like Daniels and Prescott were successful. But unfortunetely the pastors and Bible teachers did not turn around and go home, but they got on that train to Philadelphia and rejected the Washington DC conference and brought back home and to their churches and schools the message from the Philadelphia.

The 1923 General conference session was a rebellion. Mrs. White's hand picked and trained leaders were called heritics and thrown out of office. Daniels was thrown out of office. Prescott was demoted. Willie White got to keep his job, but it was stripped of all power (basically he was fired, but to not draw questions about firing Sister White's son, he got to come to his office and collect his pay check.) The Religion Faculty of Washington Missionary College were fired, and there was a witch hunt in our schools and churches for those who sided with this view. Now Daniel's was replaced by Spicer. Spicer was seen as just as big a heritic as Daniels, but Spicer believed in two types of inspiration. He was a Fundamentalist towards the Bible but not towards Mrs. White's writings. And while Daniels believed that Fundamentalism would destroy the Adventist Church and actively fought it, Spicer did not feel this way but felt that the people were not ready for the truth about how Mrs. White's writings were made and to let them remain fundamentalists until they are ready. As long as Spicer would keep his heresy to himself, he was accepted as General Conference president.

Stephen Haskell's views became main line Adventism. Washburn and Wilkerson's views became the foundation of Historic Adventism.

[John317]

Do you believe the SDA church is among the Fundamentalists today? I am sure I know the answer but I would like to hear it clearly stated by you. Could you also explain why you think it's an important issue and maybe give a doctrinal example to help make this plain?

[melvin mccarty]

28 fundamentles! How many does it take to qualify?

mel

[John317]

The term fundamentalist derives from a series of (originally) twelve volumes entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth.

Our 28 Fundamental beliefs don't necessarily qualify us as being among the "Fundamentalists," because the latter is a technical term, not a general description. It requires a church to have particular beliefs, some of which our church doesn't hold. A lot of people don't realize this, but the Fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the “plenary (total) and verbal [word-for-word] inspiration.” Inerrancy of the Scriptures is their first and most important belief.

Seventh-day Adventists, on the other hand, believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures, which, from the viewpoint of other Fundamentalists, fails to qualify Seventh-day Adventists as one of that group. As a church, we believe in thought-inspiration rather than that the Bible was dictated by God.

This may seem to many to be a point of little importance or perhaps even like "splitting hairs," but to those who consider themselves "Fundamentalists," it is a major difference. Also, the fact that Seventh-day Adventists believe that God sent a modern-day prophet is an additional reason for our not being considered among the Fundamentalists.

The following link gives the first four volumes of the Fundamentals: fourhttp://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/

[BobRyan]

This is my point. They ( the evil forces who influence this world) have redefined fundamentalism to include mainline protestant teachings. Of course fundamentalism is synonymous with extremism.

It is worse than that I fear-

"Fundamentalist" is taken to mean "someone who reads the holy book of their particular religion and BELIEVES it is REALLY true instead of taking it as a loose moral guide along the lines of Aesop's fables".

in Christ,

Bob

[melvin mccarty]

Then why do we use the word fundamental if it tends to be confusing? Just because a majority at some General Conference voted that way doesn't mean that all of us do indeed agree.

mel

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Joe Knapp

This is my point. They ( the evil forces who influence this world) have redefined fundamentalism to include mainline protestant teachings. Of course fundamentalism is synonymous with extremism.

It is worse than that I fear-

"Fundamentalist" is taken to mean "someone who reads the holy book of their particular religion and BELIEVES it is REALLY true instead of taking it as a loose moral guide along the lines of Aesop's fables".

in Christ,

Bob

I agree with you that there is danger in the way people are coming to view those who accept the Bible as the revealed, inspired Word of God.

If Satan can arrange things so that the world associates Seventh-day Adventists with extremism and with extremists, such as Jim Jones, Muslim terrorists and with what happened in Waco, it will not be to the advantage of the beautiful message we proclaim.

Ellen White made statements to the effect that the time will come when the world will view Seventh-day Adventists as enemies of mankind and the world. So it seems that you've hit on a problem that may well be a part of Satan's plan to alienate the world against the church and our beliefs.

This should encourage all of us, I think, to make sure we are not saying or doing anything that would leave the impression that we are supporting violence in any way.

[John317]

Then why do we use the word fundamental if it tends to be confusing? Just because a majority at some General Conference voted that way doesn't mean that all of us do indeed agree.

mel

I think you have a point, melvin. It can be confusing to some when they see that we have "28 fundamentals." I suppose we could call them "28 basic beliefs."

But we never describe our church as a "fundamentalist church" in any of our publications or in any description of who we are or what we represent.

At least I have not seen any such term used. I did a little search of the web-sites and don't see any where we are described as being a "fundamentalist church," although I am sure that description does come up from time to time. In fact, I would not be surprised if some SDAs think of it that way or maybe tell friends or family that it is a "fundamentalist" church.

I admit that for many people it may not matter. They will still think of us fundamentalists just because we do hold many of the same beliefs as "the Fundamentalists."

Not sure what we can do about that except to point out the differences.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

It is worse than that I fear-

"Fundamentalist" is taken to mean "someone who reads the holy book of their particular religion and BELIEVES it is REALLY true instead of taking it as a loose moral guide ( rife with untrustworhty innaccurate events and details) along the lines of Aesop's fables".

in Christ' date='

Bob[/quote']

I agree with you that there is danger in the way people are coming to view those who accept the Bible as the revealed, inspired Word of God.

If Satan can arrange things so that the world associates Seventh-day Adventists with extremism and with extremists, such as Jim Jones, Muslim terrorists and with what happened in Waco, it will not be to the advantage of the beautiful message we proclaim.

To a liberal taking the book as "true and accurate" IS extremist! The World's liberal and overt efforts to associate the ideae of extremism with fundamentalist is no accident.

In the case of Islam - the book is about endorsing Jihad so you could argue that to accept the book is to promote certain cases of violence. But hey -- their BOOK was wrong so no surprise!

Using that same rule however would be wrong in the case of Christianity since the book is RIGHT - it is no suprise then that it requires that we Love others and Love God.

It is also no surprise that it says things not in line with atheist views of origins (held by Darwin, Dawkins, Meyers, Provine, Gould, Patterson ...) "SIX days you shall labor..for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..."

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

If Satan can arrange things so that the world associates Seventh-day Adventists with extremism and with extremists, such as Jim Jones, Muslim terrorists and with what happened in Waco, it will not be to the advantage of the beautiful message we proclaim.

To a liberal taking the book as "true and accurate" IS extremist! The World's liberal and overt efforts to associate the ideae of extremism with fundamentalist is no accident.

In the case of Islam - the book is about endorsing Jihad so you could argue that to accept the book is to promote certain cases of violence. But hey -- their BOOK was wrong so no surprise!

Using that same rule however would be wrong in the case of Christianity since the book is RIGHT - it is no suprise then that it requires that we Love others and Love God.

It is also no surprise that it says things not in line with atheist views of origins (held by Darwin, Dawkins, Meyers, Provine, Gould, Patterson ...) "SIX days you shall labor..for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..."

I completely agree with you. The viewpoint of the world towards people who accept the Bible is influenced by the extremists. It is easy to imagine that some day they will consider SDAs as the enemy of mankind, not because of what Adventists teach but on the basis of others whom they wrongly associate with us. I think we need to do a much better job at communicating what we represent. Few people read what we believe doctrinally.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I agree with you that there is danger in the way people are coming to view those who accept the Bible as the revealed, inspired Word of God.

If Satan can arrange things so that the world associates Seventh-day Adventists with extremism and with extremists, such as Jim Jones, Muslim terrorists and with what happened in Waco, it will not be to the advantage of the beautiful message we proclaim.

To a liberal taking the book as "true and accurate" IS extremist! The World's liberal and overt efforts to associate the ideae of extremism with fundamentalist is no accident.

In the case of Islam - the book is about endorsing Jihad so you could argue that to accept the book is to promote certain cases of violence. But hey -- their BOOK was wrong so no surprise!

I was surprised to see this posted recently:

Quote:

Venise Alstergren 31/10/08 7:30PM

Widget: You are, IMHO, absolutely correct. More than half of any countries’ woes are caused by religion-especially right-wing fundamentalism: Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, Catholics, Muslims, pata ti pata ta. Reading the comments on Hufffpost is a sobering experience; the religiosity is demeaning. It’s almost as if they think God is going to be in the polling booth, and that ‘He’ will tell all the neighbours the way you voted. Three of the many Achilles’ heels of America are religion, non-compulsory voting and an appalling voting system. They need, badly, to use the Australian model of voting.

Source: http://newmatilda.com/2008/10/31/god-his-side

[Robert]

If Satan can arrange things so that the world associates Seventh-day Adventists with extremism ...it will not be to the advantage of the beautiful message we proclaim.

I'm sorry, which group are you speaking of within the SDA denomination? Firm Foundation and such project nothing but cold, formal legalism, which makes those outside the church view the entire denomination as a cult.

Rob

[olger]

Then why do we use the word fundamental if it tends to be confusing? Just because a majority at some General Conference voted that way doesn't mean that all of us do indeed agree.

mel

Which ones do you dis-agree with?

oG

[BobRyan]

Adventists are Bible "Fundamentalists" because we believe in literal miracles -- in the literal 7 day creation week. Because we believe that the Bible is actually true trustworthy and reliable in what "it says" not simply "what liberals paraphrase it into meaning". There are a number of other Christian groups that do the same thing - treating Bible details as "trustworthy" -- and they too get labelled as fundamentalist.

Welcome to the culture that approaches the same post-christian era that Europe has already embraced.

in Christ,

Bob