Need your help: looking for Fundamentals' forum

[Ken S.]

The Fundamentals in USA are often accused and there seem to be no articles and documents written to counter those accusations, often false accusations. The Fundamentals are like silent defendants in the court.
As conservative Christianity is threatened when secularists and the liberals(and some Neo-evangelicals) successfully demonized Fundamentals and their practices over press and mainstream seminaries, I think it is necessary to study what exactly the "radical", "irrational" practices of Fundamentals are in 20th century.
Being in the Far East I have no ways to get any history books concerning that field of modern Christianity, so I think getting to know some Fundamentals directly is the only best way I can find out truth about their history of that time.

I wish you, brothers and sisters in the Lord, could recommend some online forums to me where the Fundamentals can be met. Thank you for your help.

[Ken S.]

hello, hope you speak something to me. Even if you don't like Fundamentals, you're welcome to talk about your opinions. I really have a heart for the topic.

[Blueridge Believer]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

The Fundamentals in USA are often accused and there seem to be no articles and documents written to counter those accusations, often false accusations. The Fundamentals are like silent defendants in the court.
As conservative Christianity is threatened when secularists and the liberals(and some Neo-evangelicals) successfully demonized Fundamentals and their practices over press and mainstream seminaries, I think it is necessary to study what exactly the "radical", "irrational" practices of Fundamentals are in 20th century.
Being in the Far East I have no ways to get any history books concerning that field of modern Christianity, so I think getting to know some Fundamentals directly is the only best way I can find out truth about their history of that time.

I wish you, brothers and sisters in the Lord, could recommend some online forums to me where the Fundamentals can be met. Thank you for your help.

What are the accusations that you are referring to dear brother? I will be glad to assist you if possible.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

hello, hope you speak something to me. Even if you don't like Fundamentals, you're welcome to talk about your opinions. I really have a heart for the topic.

Are you referring to what we might call, for example, 'independent fundamental baptists'?

[Covenant Joel]

you might want to check out http://sharperiron.org. It's a fundamentalist blog and forum.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

What are the accusations that you are referring to dear brother? I will be glad to assist you if possible.

I'm not sure, I've heard so many of them so far, usually made by the liberals and secularists, and believed by some Evangelicals and Neo-evangelicals too unfortunately. The Fundamenatals seem to have enemies from both the outside and inside of church.

Many judge that the Fundamentals are very "radical" and "anti-intellectual." I usually ignore it because I think the Fundamentals are indeed radical and anti-intellectual IN A biblical, godly way! Many Saints in Church history were radical and "anti-intellectual"(anti-cultural) too! But sometimes they seem to be able to fabricate other sorts of judgements by mixing sound evidences and calumnies, like claiming that the Fundamentals treat or encourage treating homosexuals with violence, creat hatred and unnecessary conflicts...etc, things like that. In my opinion it's quite sad that the Fundamentals are even often accused by some of the modern Evangelicals that they show no love to sinners but show anger only. What do you think about these accusations? What I want to do is to find out evidences and history that can prove that the Fundamentals aren't really what they are judged.

[Chris]

Ken,

Most people who use the term 'fundamental' use it to describe, basically, anyone who takes the Bible more seriously than they do.

It's an often-used term that sadly has little real meaning anymore in modern culture. I'd call myself 'fundamental', but mnany others wouldn't.

I suppose that when I hear 'fundamental', I think of people who are often KJV-only, sometimes quite arminian (most baptists) but sometimes hyper-calvinist (the abomination that calls itself westboro baptist church) and I suppose everything in between. Most will be dogmatically dispensational.

One area where roman catholics and/or evolutionists frequently like to use the term 'fundamental' as an insult is in dealing with Genesis - was Creation literal, were Adam and Eve literal people, etcetera.

As for actually finding 'documentation' either pro or con with regard to 'fundamentalists', all I can suggest is that you just start googling. You can pretty well find resources to make or break any point you want to argue under the broad category of 'fundamentalism'.


If you'd give us some more specific examples of what you're dealing with, that would be helpful.

[Contra_Mundum]

I suggest reading anything on the subject authored by George Marsden. His treatments are invariably balanced and sympathetic, though he would not class himself as a Fundamentalist (more likely as an orthodox Confessionalist Christian).

These days, "fundamentalist" is a loose term for "branding", much like "racist", etc. Anyone committed to the authority of a religion (whether impersonated or inscripturated) as the voice of God is viewed as equally threatening to reigning secular ideology. So we find simple orthodox Christians lumped into a vat with true Fundamentalist Christians, Pentacostals, et al, as well as with radical Muslims (just to name a few possibilities).

As long as individuals are their OWN authority, they do not present a formidable threat to institutional power. But the voice of God (true or false) is obviously a powerful motivator. States of the West or East, and their apologists, as well as proponents of secularism, view any organized religion with recognizable leadership as a threat category (low, mid, high). In this they resemble nothing so much as the state apparatus of the 1st century.

So, anyone who takes the Bible seriously is no different, in this view, from a jihadist. All he needs is the correct prophet. "Fundamentalist" used in this sense as an epithet is anyone who rejects liberalism's (eccumenical-syncretistic) soft, emotive-heavy, sentimental faith-v.-rationality type of religion.

"Fundamentalism" as a 19th-20th century Christian religious movement was 1) a reaction to liberalism; 2) reductionistic, in that it sought religious certitude in a specific set of religious postulates; 3) a product of the very eccumenic spirit of the age the fundys claimed to deplore, as they sought broad-based unity on a limited number of these postulates (i.e. 'the liberals are winning because we can't agree and are so divided'); 4) a precursor to more modern forms of the same principle: "Evangelicalism" and even Evangelical-Roman rapproachment.

Simply put, fundamentalism cannot serve as a stable bastion of "conservatism" against "liberalism". It cannot take the place of orthodox, Confessional Christianity. It continues to migrate.

[Bandguy]

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I suggest reading anything on the subject authored by George Marsden. His treatments are invariably balanced and sympathetic, though he would not class himself as a Fundamentalist (more likely as an orthodox Confessionalist Christian).

These days, "fundamentalist" is a loose term for "branding", much like "racist", etc. Anyone committed to the authority of a religion (whether impersonated or inscripturated) as the voice of God is viewed as equally threatening to reigning secular ideology. So we find simple orthodox Christians lumped into a vat with true Fundamentalist Christians, Pentacostals, et al, as well as with radical Muslims (just to name a few possibilities).

As long as individuals are their OWN authority, they do not present a formidable threat to institutional power. But the voice of God (true or false) is obviously a powerful motivator. States of the West or East, and their apologists, as well as proponents of secularism, view any organized religion with recognizable leadership as a threat category (low, mid, high). In this they resemble nothing so much as the state apparatus of the 1st century.

So, anyone who takes the Bible seriously is no different, in this view, from a jihadist. All he needs is the correct prophet. "Fundamentalist" used in this sense as an epithet is anyone who rejects liberalism's (eccumenical-syncretistic) soft, emotive-heavy, sentimental faith-v.-rationality type of religion.

"Fundamentalism" as a 19th-20th century Christian religious movement was 1) a reaction to liberalism; 2) reductionistic, in that it sought religious certitude in a specific set of religious postulates; 3) a product of the very eccumenic spirit of the age the fundys claimed to deplore, as they sought broad-based unity on a limited number of these postulates (i.e. 'the liberals are winning because we can't agree and are so divided'); 4) a precursor to more modern forms of the same principle: "Evangelicalism" and even Evangelical-Roman rapproachment.

Simply put, fundamentalism cannot serve as a stable bastion of "conservatism" against "liberalism". It cannot take the place of orthodox, Confessional Christianity. It continues to migrate.

I totally agree.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Chris

Ken,

Most people who use the term 'fundamental' use it to describe, basically, anyone who takes the Bible more seriously than they do.

It's an often-used term that sadly has little real meaning anymore in modern culture. I'd call myself 'fundamental', but mnany others wouldn't.

I suppose that when I hear 'fundamental', I think of people who are often KJV-only, sometimes quite arminian (most baptists) but sometimes hyper-calvinist (the abomination that calls itself westboro baptist church) and I suppose everything in between. Most will be dogmatically dispensational.

One area where roman catholics and/or evolutionists frequently like to use the term 'fundamental' as an insult is in dealing with Genesis - was Creation literal, were Adam and Eve literal people, etcetera.

As for actually finding 'documentation' either pro or con with regard to 'fundamentalists', all I can suggest is that you just start googling. You can pretty well find resources to make or break any point you want to argue under the broad category of 'fundamentalism'.


If you'd give us some more specific examples of what you're dealing with, that would be helpful.

"Most people who use the term 'fundamental' use it to describe, basically, anyone who takes the Bible more seriously than they do."
"One area where roman catholics and/or evolutionists frequently like to use the term 'fundamental' as an insult is in dealing with Genesis - was Creation literal, were Adam and Eve literal people, etcetera. "
it is so true! I think you've helped me to be more specific and sure of what I'm referring to. Thanks. To be more specific, instead of the broad category of "Fundamentals", I think what I'm referring to will be the term "Fundamentalism". It is this important "dimension" of Conservative Christianity that has confronted the severest challenges and attacks since, let's say, 1960s.

As for more specific examples, I will have to do some translation for what I've seen in the Chinese resources.

Thank you very much for concerning about my thread.

[Ken S.]

Thanks to everyone so far. I need to do some searching before I reply to you one by one and I'm sorry for being slow.