Image via Wikipedia

In my mind Historic Fundamentalism as a movement was a good thing.  Sure, there were probably excesses.  Human are normally people who go to extremes in almost everything they do.  The goal and the purpose seems to have been honorable, however.

What went wrong?

Why is fundamentalism now distrusted and maligned?

Why is “fundamentalist” synonymous with “extremist”?

One of the issues is the fact that separation became an issue.  Some decided that they would rather not separate from error, but dialogue with those in error in an attempt to win them over.   Personally, I don’t think this has as much to do with the demise of fundamentalism as a movement as the following issues do.

Fundamentalists began to retreat from culture.  Instead of engaging and transforming culture, fundamentalists began to isolate themselves.  They did so to such an extreme that Carl F. H. Henry wrote a book entitled “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism”.  His contention was that the fundamentalists’ understanding of the Scriptures should have led them to social activism in a redemptive context.  They failed in that respect.

In their retreat from culture and their separation from those in error fundamentalists began to separate from one another over various non-fundamental issues (dress, hair, Bible translations, music, etc.).  They committed a sort of intellectual and spiritual incest by creating their own institutions of learning and actively resisted learning from evangelicals or anyone else, choosing to recycle their students by bringing them into their faculty.  (This is a generalization, but it is an observation from this writer’s experience.)  This led to further isolationism, a clannish spirit within fundamentalism, as well as a growing anti-intellectualism.

Here we are today with fundamentalists struggling to find their identity.  They wonder what a fundamentalist is.  What does he believe?  And, should we even care?

It is this preacher’s contention that it does matter, and that we should care.

It is for this reason that we have this blog.  We long to call people back to the fundamentals of the faith.  We long to help those who have been hurt by extremism.  We long to point out error for the sake of helping those who are in error.

We have been down the extremist route, but we are Fundamentally Changed, though we are Fundamentally The Same.  We are fundamentalists with a capital “F”.  We have not abandoned that.  We have abandoned legalism.  May we encourage you, dear reader, if you are in legalism, to do the same?

Related articles

• If You Wish to Speak Against Fundamentalists, Read Fundamentalists (pastoralmusings.com)
• Fundamentalist Hermeneutics (pastoralmusings.com)
• Fundamentalism and Hate (pastoralmusings.com)
• Historic Fundamentalism and Young Earth Creationism (pastoralmusings.com)
• Fundamentalism, Funeral Protests, and Koran Burnings (pastoralmusings.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Historic Fundamentalism as a movement can be traced to the late nineteenth century, though it came into full bloom in the early twentieth century.

About the time of the War Between The States evangelical Christianity was the dominant religious force in the United States.  Protestant Evangelicals were greatly influenced by revivalism.  At the same time, however, there was a climate that was a fairly rigorously intellectual one.  Many, if not most, colleges had Christians as presidents, according to George Marsden.  Many of the major colleges were still Christian in name, teaching, and practice as well.

Evangelicalism began to find itself being gradually undermined however, during this time.  There was the rise of Darwinism, and the desire to accomodate the Bible to Darwinism.  There was also the Biblical criticism that was the product of German scholars; a criticism that questioned the historic validity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life.

There was, during this time, a desire to separate theology and science into totally separate fields with neither influencing the other.

All of these things form a setting in which Evangelical Christians would begin to fight for their faith and theology.  Believing that the Bible was the Word of God, and as such is authoritative, Christians began to fight against the attacks upon their faith.

This, however, is simply preparatory ground for Historic Fundamentalism.  In the later years of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, Fundamentalism would blossom, not into simply a reaction here and there, but into a movement that would bring with it immense changes to the Christian scene in the United States.

The index for these articles can be found on RE:Fundamentals.

Related articles

• If You Wish to Speak Against Fundamentalists, Read Fundamentalists (pastoralmusings.com)
• Fundamentalism and Hate (pastoralmusings.com)

If the King James Version ONLY is the Word of God, please tell me which of the following is NOT the Word of God.

““For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ” (John 3:16)

““For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. ” (John 3:16)

““For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ” (John 3:16)

““For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. ” (John 3:16)

““For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

““For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. ” (John 3:16)

Thank God, they are ALL truly the Word of God!

Merry Christmas.  God indeed gave us the unique Son that we might have eternal life.

Related articles

• God’s Promise of Divine Preservation (re-fundamentals.org)
• Revelation 22:18-19 And The King James Only Debate (pastoralmusings.com)

Does Revelation 22:18-19 Teach Perfect Textual Preservation?

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. ” (Revelation 22:18–19)

The above verses have been used to argue for the King James Version against other translations of the Bible. Simply stated, the argument is that the original text is preserved in the KJV and that all other translations add to, or take away from the original text.

Our question is this, “Does this passage actually teach said doctrine?” Some say that it does, and others say that it does not. What do the Scriptures say?

Words

First of all, let us ask what words are. That is what we are warned against embellishing or removing. Words are expressions of thought. The form of words change over time so that words become archaic and are replaced by other words that convey the same meaning. One instance of this is that we use the word “let” to mean “to allow”. In the King James Version the word was used to mean “to hinder”. We must ask ourselves, then, whether the use of synonyms is acceptable in Bible translation. We must then ask ourselves whether a sentence in a more recent English translation of the Bible could have more or less words in it than a sentence in the KJV contains and yet still convey the same thought.

In the Scriptures we find that sometimes the very word “word” is used to express the decree, or command of God. One example can be found in Psalm 33:6-9 where we know that it simply means that God spoke the command and the worlds were made. We again see this in Hebrews 1:3 where we find that universe is sustained by the word, or decree of God.

The meaning of “word” does not have to be the lexical form of a word, but can be a word, its synonym, or the command of God.

The Bible does not condemn the use of synonyms or loose quotations of Scripture, as long as the thought of the Scripture is conveyed. Most students of the Bible are aware of the fact that the New Testament writers sometimes quoted the Old Testament in ways that were definitely not verbatim quotations. One interesting instance is found in James’ writing. James said, “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, the spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?” (James 4:5) Have you ever tried to find the instance in the Old Testament where that statement is made? Most of us will admit that there is no place in the Old Testament where one can find this statement verbatim. It will not do for someone to claim that the Bible writers were inspired and could use Scripture in such a fashion, because to do so would be to charge the Bible writers and God the Holy Spirit with inconsistency. After all, if God tells us not to change the form of one single word, we can be sure that He would be inconsistent to command one to do so even if he were inspired.

Jots And Tittles

What, then, of the jots and tittles of Matthew 5:17-18? What is that all about? Simply put, it means that the Scriptures will be perfectly fulfilled. We have a saying today that goes something like this: “He follows the rules to the letter.” What we mean is that a person strictly adheres to the meaning and intent of the rules. So it is with God’s Word. All will come to pass perfectly, just as God has told us.

The words of Jesus concerning jots and tittles cannot teach perfect textual preservation, because the law itself neither teaches, nor is presented as an example of perfect textual preservation. This truth is seen in a comparison of the ten commandments as given in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. When Moses spoke the law to Israel the second time he did not speak it verbatim, but actually added words to what he said previously. We will find, too, that it is this same Moses who said that we are not to add to the words of God.

Revelation 22:18-19

What is meant by the adding to and taking away of Revelation 22:18-19? The answer to that question has to be found by considering the previous places in which we were warned not to add to, or take away from the words of God.

Moses told Israel, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. ” (Deuteronomy 4:2) Why was Israel warned not to add to, or take away from the words of God? So that they would obey God. The issue that is before us is that the message cannot be changed by adding commandments, or taking away commandments. Either one would be sin. Either one would lead people into disobedience. That is why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, because they were adding commandments to God’s Word, and taking away commandments, also. (See Matthew 5:33-35;15:1-10) Furthermore, Moses told Israel, “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me. ” (Deuteronomy 5:22) We already saw that Moses did not give a verbatim quotation of the ten commandments here. Now he adds that God gave them no more words. In other words, the law that God gave at Sinai was all the word that they needed at that time. Simply put, “Ye shall not add unto”, or “He added no more” simply means that what they had been given was all that they needed. The message that God had given Israel through Moses was sufficient for them at that time, and was not to be changed so as to make the message say something that God did not say.

In the same vein of thought, we read in the Proverbs, “Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. ” (Proverbs 30:5–6) Those who add to the words of God will be shown to be wrong, and demonstrated to be liars. One is not a liar who uses synonyms and yet retains the message accurately. He is a liar who changes the words to the extent that the message is changed. God’s warning is for us to not change the message. This is the foundation of Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1:7-9. The message IS NOT TO BE CHANGED!

Thus it is that Revelation 22:18-19 is the last in a long chain of warnings against changing the message of God, and not a text that supports the doctrine of perfect textual preservation.

Whatever else may be said about the Scriptures (and there is much to say), we must state the the issue of translations was not a fundamental issue among the early Fundamentalists. Though they weighed in heavily against the RSV, the early Fundamentalists were not King James Only.

Read the complete article on Re:Fundamentals.

Why would codex 177 be overlooked? By its Gregory-Aland number, it has obviously been known to NT textual critics for a long, long time. Perhaps it is because the BSB’s catalog description of this manuscript says nothing about the comma for this manuscript. However, a microfilm of the codex is surely to be found at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, Germany. Perhaps it is because the marginal note’s ink is slightly fainter than the text, and thus it did not show up on the microfilm. Whatever the reason, it is remarkable that a manuscript whose existence has been known for so long by New Testament scholars, and is housed in a prominent European library, should be overlooked in this passage. In the least, this suggests that there may be many treasures yet to be discovered in known NT manuscripts. Microfilms will not reveal many of them; the only sure way to make such information accessible to scholars is to digitize these codices and make them available on-line.

via The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript – CSNTM.

Over on Fundamentally Changed, I posted on how to ruin a good debate.

Here are a couple of points:

1. Never admit an error.
2. Always be right in your own mind, and assume everyone else to be wrong at all times.

Click here to read the rest of the post.

The delivery or tradition of doctrines according to the words, is when the church declares or publishes the very words which she has received, (after they have been delivered to her by God, either in writing or orally,) without any addition, diminution, change or transposition, whether from the repositories in which she has concealed the divine writings, or from her own memory, in which she had carefully and faithfully preserved those things which had been orally delivered. At the same time, she solemnly testifies that those very things which she has received from above are [when transmitted through her] pure and unadulterated, (and is prepared even by death itself to confirm this her testimony,) as far as the variations of copies in the original languages permit a translator into other languages [thus to testify]; yet they do not concern the foundation so much as to be able to produce doubts concerning it on account of these variations.

From CCEL

Erik, over at Fundamentally Changed, has posted a very interesting piece about the King James Version Only movement and things that influenced it.

Sharper Iron linked to the post, KJVO Debate Blog and Fundamentally Reformed have linked to it as well,  and it has received scores of comments.  The comments section has proved to be another source of information.  Who would have known that the US KJVO movement has roots in Seventh Day Adventism?  The proof is presented, however.

As much as I love the KJV, I must say that the KJVO movement has made some very strange bedfellows.

Click on over to Fundamentally Changed to read the post.

Concerning The Preservation of The Scriptures

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. ” (Psalm 12:6–7, KJV)

The above verses are used by KJVO believers to present the idea that God has preserved Scripture in a word-by-word fashion in the King James Version and in no other translation.  (There are some who will accept other translations as long as they are from the Textus Receptus.)

Is a preservation of this sort what is promised here, or is this a statement that the Psalmist had faith that God would keep His Word from totally perishing?¹

It is my contention that the latter is the case.

Consider the following:

“I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth. He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber. Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep. The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand. The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night. The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul. The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore. ” (Psalm 121:1–8, KJV)

Here the Psalmist states that God will preserve His people. Does God absolutely keep His people’s feet from being moved? Hardly. We know that the good man may fall, yet he will not stay down (cf. Ps 37:23-24). We know that God’s people have experienced times of being smitten by the sun, and affected by evil. In all of this, however, we overcome and conquer through Christ (cf. Rom 8:35-39;1Jn 4:4;5:4-5)

In other words, instead of an absolute, word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase preservation, we must understand that God keeps His Word for His people in that He has not allowed it to perish or become so corrupted that it ceases to be His message to man. Just as His people sin and fall, so has His Word faced attacks and errors in transmission. God upholds His people so that they finally conquer, and so He preserves His Word that it shall never be lost.

God has indeed preserved His Words. Though scribal errors have crept in and some have tried to pervert it, we still have the Word of God. It is still inspired. It is still infallible. It is still inerrant. It shall remain so. God has blessed us to be able to have confidence in our Bibles, because He has provided us such a large array of witnesses that we have confidence that we have the Word that God gave to us in the beginning.
¹ There are those who contend that this passage speaks of God’s preservation of His people. Their argument has much to commend it to us.

Originally posted on KJVO Debate.