Fundamentalist Religion

The following quote from Kirsopp Lake (1872-1946) is important and enlightening because it is a frank admission by a liberal scholar that fundamentalism rather than liberalism is the closer representative of the historic teachings of Christianity.

“...it is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians. How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of all Scripture? A few, perhaps, but very few. No, the Fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church is on the Fundamentalist side.” (The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925, pp. 61-62)

Oh, that the modern liberal would learn to admit as much as Kirsopp Lake! Yes, it is the liberal who has departed from traditional Christian theology. Let them not pretend otherwise.

---

[i] Lake goes on to look down on Fundamentalism as not “the intelligent survival of the old theology.” It is, however, the survivor rather than the position of liberals. Kirsopp Lake (1872-1946) was a church historian, New Testament scholar, textual critic, Greek Palaeographer, and a professor at Harvard Divinity School. Born in England, he came to the United States in 1913 and taught at Harvard from 1914 until his retirement in 1938. Not only did he reject the fundamental theology of the Bible, he rejected its fundamental morals as well. In 1932 he divorced his wife and married a former student, with whom he had a child four years earlier. 
Of the name “Fundamentalist” Lake wrote, “This name is commonly used in America; it is not, I think, widely known elsewhere, but it is easy to understand, and I do not know any word to take its place which would be equally intelligible on both sides of the Atlantic.”
corpus theologicum means the body of theology.

Catholicity and Separation

I just read an article in which a conservative Calvinistic Southern Baptist trashed separatism and promoted catholicity. He reserved special attention for the “fundamentalist” brand of separatism. The author is not someone who moved from Fundamentalism to Liberalism, but rather someone who has moved from Fundamentalism to a Reformed position.

He makes some good points. Fundamentalism can exalt carnality, pride, and an “us four, no more” attitude. Their gospel is not broad enough or deep enough to save and sanctify anyone who does not dot their i’s and cross their t’s. Division over extremely exacting eschatological theories becomes the norm.

There is a right sort of “catholicity”[i] that chronologically sees across time and generations, knowing we belong to the same church institution as and adhere to the same gospel preached by the apostles.  It geographically reaches across continents, nations, and communities.[ii] It linguistically embraces different tongues and peoples. “…I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”

Unfortunately, this sort of “catholicity” often embraces “Catholicism” as representative of the “true church” up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. It flies in the face of a New Testament Christianity that separated itself from infidelity, heresy, and immorality (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:17; Titus 3:10; Ephesians 5:1-4). It distinguishes itself from and denies the poor and afflicted faithful martyrs of Jesus (e.g., Revelation 2:10, 13; 17:6). It recognizes the unorthodox majority and rejects the orthodox remnant.[iii] 

There is a right sort of “fundamentalism” that loves, seeks for, and adheres to the fundamental principles of the Bible, and the Christian religion based on it. It rejects compromise of those principles, while enthusiastically and evangelistically sowing those principles in the field of the world.

Unfortunately, strains of fundamentalism promote individuality to the detriment of the corporate nature of gathered believers (Romans 15:5-7; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), as well as the fellowship of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17; 14:33). It minimizes the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:5-6).[iv] It elevates private interpretations as the norm to determine orthodoxy, fellowship, and separation (Mark 7:9; 2 Peter 1:20). It becomes a haven for little dictators.[v] 

Where does the middle way begin? Perhaps: The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. Autonomous churches that are guided by this belief about the Bible. A gospel that is to be preached to every creature. And strong doses of humility.

Both “Big F” Fundamentalism and “Big C” Catholicism miss the mark, in different directions. Let us take up our Bibles and learn the Bible way of the unity of the faith and separation unto the gospel of God.

---

[i] Recognizing that the words “catholic” and “catholicity” have a broader more generic meaning, I nevertheless generally avoid them as more likely to help rather than hurt the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church.

[ii] Human beings and local churches are limited by geography, but connect with other congregations across the globe through fellowship of the word and Spirit.
[iii] I am unable to read the Bible, see the New Testament church there, research church history, and then pretend that the only church that existed for 15 centuries was Roman Catholic! I have sadly heard too many Reformed brethren say so. Away with such.

[iv] “A keen awareness of where the church has always stood” is needed, if we also have the biblical insight to understand what the church is, biblically.
[v] On the other hand, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy (and at least some species of Reformed churches) are havens for big dictators!

A bit about Clarence Macartney

Clarence Edward Noble Macartney (1879-1957) was a Presbyterian pastor, author, and conservative leader during the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy occurring circa 1920-1940 in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).

Voices of American Fundamentalism: Seven Biographical Studies, Charles Allyn Russell, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1976 -- Studies on J. Frank Norris, John Roach Stratton, William Bell Riley, J. C. Massee, J. Gresham Machen, William Jennings Bryan, and Clarence E. Macartney

Come Before Winter -- Clarence Macartney preaches his famous sermon, “Come Before Winter,” from 2 Timothy 4:21. It was delivered on October 12, 1952, at First Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Macartney first preached it in 1915.

Print version of “Come Before Winter,” 1945

Clarence Edward Macartney page at Log College Press

Quotes of Clarence Edward Macartney (1879-1957)

• “A deleted Bible has resulted in a diluted Gospel.”
• “If you can trust the Lord for your salvation, for eternity, surely you can trust him for twenty-five minutes for your sermon the next time you preach.”
• “Men who desire such dilutions can drink de-caffeined coffee and smoke de-nicotined tobacco; and now we have on every hand, without money and without price, de-christianized Christianity.”

A Fundamental Problem for Fundamentalism

Abstract

In this essay, I suggest a problem of biblical proportions, and introduce the people of the problem. I define and investigate the problem of preservation of the Scriptures or the lack thereof, as it relates to the undergirding of the theology of theological conservatives. In conclusion, I advise that once theological conservatives capitulate to the textual authorities, they have in effect “returned to Rome.” Finally, I urge them to either “go on home to Rome” or stand and fight for the inspiration, infallibility/inerrancy, and preservation of the Bible. (I hope they will choose the latter.)

A Fundamental Problem

Fundamentalism in the religious sense usually has a “connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.” Often “fundamentalism” is a pejorative used to describe certain religious beliefs that the accuser does not like. Here I use fundamentalism (and fundamentalist) broadly to mean holding (and those who hold) the fundamentals of the Christian faith, including the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures we call the Holy Bible.[i] “Fundamental,” as used in this title, is an adjective meaning “of central importance; serving as an essential part of, a foundation or basis.” The discussion centers on a problem of central importance, touching an essential part of fundamentalism.[ii]

The Bible is foundational to the beliefs of Baptists, Fundamentalists, and Confessional Protestants. The fundamental problem is this:

If the Bible cannot be trusted to speak inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted to speak inerrantly on any or all of the beliefs we hold as true faith and practice? If the Bible in its inerrancy has not been providentially preserved to this generation, how can we trust it to speak inerrantly to this generation? And again, if it does not, how shall we accept and believe any of the fundamental points of our faith?

Does the Bible speak of itself?

“Yes.” Some theologians and Bible students might answer this in the negative. I pass over this possibility, for I am not addressing them. Surely Fundamentalists, Bible-believing Baptists, conservative Evangelicals, Reformed & Confessional Protestants answer “Yes.” Accepting this answer, we pass on to the next question.

If the Bible is inerrant and infallible (and we so believe), and if the Bible speaks of itself, then when the Bible speaks of itself it speaks inerrantly (without error) of itself.

What does the Bible speak of itself?

Here are some examples of how or what the Bible speaks of itself.

• The Old and New Testaments are Scripture. For example, Luke 24:44-45; 2 Timothy 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:16.
• It is God’s word. For example, Mark 7:6-13; 13:31; John 10:35.
• It is eternal. For example, Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35.
• It is written. For example, Joshua 8:31-35; Jeremiah 25:13; Acts 15:15; Acts 13:15; Revelation 1:3.
• It is perfect. For example, Psalm 18:30; Psalm 19:7-9.
• It is pure. For example, Psalm 12:6; 119:140; Proverbs 30:6.
• It is truth. For example, Psalm 119:160; Ecclesiastes 12:10; John 17:17.
• It is not bound and is unbreakable. For example, John 10:35; 2 Timothy 2:9.
• It gives light and understanding. For example, Psalm 119:105, 130; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Peter 1:19.
• It is inspired, given by the Spirit of God. For example, 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
• It is complete. For example, Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
• It is sufficient for faith and practice. For example, Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3.
• It is preserved for all generations. For example, Psalm 33:11; 100:5; 117:2; 119:160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24-25.

From these examples, we draw these conclusions. The Bible proceeds from God, and therefore is as good, reliable, truthful, and pure as he is. God gives it to man for the good of his people, authoritative and complete, for instruction in righteousness. To this end, it is eternal, proceeding from the mind of God perfectly through his inspired instrumentality, and preserved, capable of instructing his people past, present, and future. In contrast to this conclusion, there are those who deny its guaranteed inerrancy through inspiration. Others deny its guaranteed utility to the generations through preservation.

In Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous,[iii] Jon Rehurek concludes that “no explicit indication applies [preservation] directly to written Scripture or to how and when a promise of general preservation would be fulfilled.” He further argues that any case for providential preservation must be made through the historical and manuscript evidence (i.e., no text of Scripture teaches preservation of the written words). In other words, Rehurek and others of his ilk (Dan Wallace, W. Edward Glenny, etc.) do not believe that the Bible promises that God will preserve the words of the Bible. A different class of theologians (W. W. Combs, for example) posit a slightly different exegetical view of the preservation of God’s word, but take it out of the realm of the written word.

“However, a study of this phrase suggests that, more often than not, God’s written revelation is not in view...in the Old Testament the expression ‘the word of God’ (or Lord) is used almost universally of oral communication.”[iv]

Do we miss the irony that it is through God’s written word that we are even aware of God’s oral communication?[v] If the written revelation is not reliably preserved, how shall we reliably know the character of God’s oral communication, and the promises associated with it?

Some of the “preservation texts” regarding God’s word admittedly do not state in so many words, “What is written in print media will be preserved for all time.” Often God emphasizes something more like this:

“What I say is the truth. It does not matter what you think or what you say. Whatever I say will stand. Depend on it!”

How Christian believers, though, extrapolate from such statements that we cannot and should not depend on what God has written is mind boggling to me. Psalm 119:89 establishes the durability, immutability, and trustworthiness of God’s word. Why would we expect less of God’s word when it is written down? Not every reference to “God’s words,” “the word of God,” or “the words of God” is a reference to the written Scriptures. However, when written, God’s words are not less God’s words. Furthermore, how would we presently even know of God’s spoken words from the past, were they not written down?

Consider also:

• Psalm 78:5-7 God established his testimony and appointed his law. One reason this exists is for teaching each generation to come, “that might know them...that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.” How can fathers make known to their children words that they do not have?
• Psalm 119:89 God’s word has been settled, preserved in heaven, forever. How can the faithfulness of his precepts, testimonies, and commandments “unto all generations” (vs. 90, 96) be known if that word is only settled in heaven and is not distributed on the earth? God’s word is a revelation for the benefit of man. It is man (on earth) that needs this word, and not God himself in heaven.[vi]
• Matthew 4:4 “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” How can man live by a word of God that he does not have? Either we must have continual oral revelation, or we must have the written word.

What was the purpose of inspiration? Was it, at least in part, to produce scripture (which is a written record)? Was it for the benefit of the writers, or for the readers? Had God not preserved Paul’s letter to Timothy, for example, until it reached Timothy, to what end is its inspiration? Without preservation, the purpose of inspiration is undermined and rendered pointless. The providential preservation of the Bible is a necessary conclusion from its teachings. God did not write his words only for the moment, for the immediate recipients of its message, but also for future generations.[vii]

When glorying in the treasure of God’s word, rather than focused on denying the providential preservation of the written word, some writers are distracted, and “forget themselves.” They then attribute values to the written word that they, when debating, reserve to the generic word. Perhaps there is “Freudian slip” of the unconscious mind that reveals what they know in their hearts – that God’s word, even when written, is durable, immutable, and trustworthy. Notice, for example, Matt Smethurst’s nice article on 8 Things Your Bible Says About Itself. He writes about the Bible as a book and consistently and assuredly attributes the generic “voided passages” as being statements about and support for the written word.[viii]

What are the implications of what the Bible speaks of itself?

The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox view (and perhaps others) is that there are two sources of authority – the church & its traditions, and scripture. They teach the Bible is “a standard of truth,” not “the standard of truth.”[ix] Baptists (at least orthodox believing ones), Fundamentalists, the Reformers, and others hold Sola Scriptura – there is one source of authority, the inspired scripture.

“Less-than-fundamental” Christians often hypothesize that the Bible is accurate when it speaks to spiritual, religious, or moral concepts. They argue that other content – such as science, history, or geography – cannot be considered reliable. Scripture itself, however, does not limit itself to which kinds of subjects it speaks truthfully and authoritatively.

When we look to the authority of God’s word to discuss whether his word has been preserved, do we not necessarily do it on the presupposition that it has been preserved?[x] Of course we do. All doctrines grow out of two basic and foundational truths – that God is and that he has revealed himself in the sixty-six books that we call the Bible. If there is not some kind of preservation of that revelation that we currently read and study, all other points of doctrine become pointless.

How do we know what to believe about the Bible? We believe what the Bible says about itself. The Bible is the “Supreme Court” to which every opinion and belief must be brought for resolution according to its truth.

We “fundamentalist types” – in contrast to moderates and liberals – often assert that when the Bible speaks on science, history, or geography, it speaks inerrantly. If the Bible speaks of God creating the world ex nihilo (from nothing), we believe the Bible. Evolutionary arguments to the contrary do not sway us from the truth. If the Bible speaks of miracles outside of nature, we believe the Bible. Secularist animadversions do not sway us. If the Bible speaks of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, we believe the Bible. The geographic relocations of naysayers do not sway us. If the Bible speaks of David as the king of Israel, we believe the Bible. The archaeologist who can find no evidence of it does not sway us. If the Bible promises the perpetuity of the church, we believe the Bible. Historians who can find no evidence of New Testament Christianity in the intervening years from then until now do not sway us. Were the Bible to say Jonah swallowed a whale, we would believe the Bible.

However, prominent textual critics (some believers and some unbelievers) assure us that the Bible has not been preserved pure in all ages. Many “fighting fundamentalists” docilely fall in line, rendered malleable as little children! If Scripture is not preserved, there is a fundamental problem. It removes the Bible as our resource of inerrant truth. It casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible. “Fundamentalist,” will you recognize and address this fundamental problem?

If the Bible cannot be trusted to speak inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted to speak inerrantly on creation, miracles, the exodus from Egypt, the kings of Israel, the church – and most importantly the gospel, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures? Even if the Bible spoke (past tense) inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted if that inerrant word has not been preserved pure through the ages? Textual critics and theologians work overtime to convince us there is no problem – nothing to see here. Those who possess a little spiritual discernment or even an ounce of common sense know better.

In effect, the fundamental problem for the fundamentalist is that modern textual criticism, as we know it, has slowly and surely chipped away at the trustworthiness of the Bible.[xi] When all is said and done, we will no longer have a sole rule of practice – or at least many Christians will not think they have one. When all is said and done, we will no longer have Sola Scriptura. When all is said and done, dissenters from Rome and its “Magisterium” and the Orthodox and their “Holy Tradition” have no more reason to protest or dissent. Git along, little dogies, y’all go on home now.[xii]

“As for me and my house,” we will believe the Bible is verbally inspired, wholly inerrant, and providentially preserved.

---

[i] In this article, anyone who believes that the Bible is an inspired and inerrant document is a fundamentalist. In its simplest form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes five fundamental points of faith (as clarified by the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference, in the face of the rise of modernism and liberalism): (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (4) the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ for sins; and (5) the physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ. I hold these five fundamentals, but “Fundamentalist” is not my preferred self-descriptor. I am a Bible-believing Baptist. (Baptist born. Baptist bred. When I die, I’ll be Baptist dead.) Many Fundamentalists are adrift on the sea of bad ecclesiology, and a fussy fighting faction seem full of a bad spirit. Nevertheless, number one of the fundamentals, the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, is especially relevant to the point of this essay.
[ii] This problem, in fact, is an important consideration not just for those who identify as “Fundamentalist,” but for all Bible-believing Baptists, and for conservative Christians of any stripe who claim to hold Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) – that the Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. Our local church holds the Bible as the sole and only rule of our faith and practice.
[iii] This seems to be no longer available for viewing on The Master’s Seminary website. It currently (12/04/2021) retrieves the message “404 Not Found.” [Note: 12/16/2021, found it at a different url.]
[iv] See Combs, The Preservation of Scripture, p. 13.
[v] 1 Thessalonians 2:13. The written word records and reinforces the heard word.
[vi] God has promised to preserve his word from generation to generation. The generations for whom God promised to preserve his word are generated here on earth, across time, and (may we point out) the majority without access to “the originals.”
[vii] For example, read Psalm 102:18; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 9:10; 10:11.
[viii] Smethurst is a church planter and the managing editor of The Gospel Coalition. He writes, joyously, “The Bible is the most valuable treasure in the universe. It’s our food (Jer. 15:16), our life (Deut. 32:46–47), our comfort (Ps. 119:50), our strength (Ps. 119:28), our guidance (Ps. 119:105), our desire (Ps. 119:20), our hope (Ps. 130:5), our love (Ps. 119:97), our joy (John 15:11), and our treasure (Ps. 119:72).” The Gospel Coalition holds that “the verbally inspired Word of God…is utterly authoritative and without error in the original writings” – which leaves a question about the inerrancy of the apographa (i.e., copies of the first or original writing).
[ix] The Catholic and Orthodox view results in the autonomy of “the Church” apart from the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the approach of many modern evangelicals results in the autonomy of the individual apart from the Scriptures.
[x] Colossians 1:17. God sustains all things. Does this not include his own word?
[xi] The prevailing current mood of textual criticism (among some who are unbelievers such as Ehrman and some who are believers such as Wallace) is that the text of the New Testament cannot be recovered. The old goal, still held by some, (though misguided) was to recover the original autographs. Perhaps there will be a split between the two fields of criticisms. Or not. What a difference a few years make. In 2009 text critic Daniel Wallace wrote, “If the autographs are inspired, we should not rest until we have done all we can to determine the wording of the original.” (“Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 52, No. 1, March 2009, p. 99). Ten years later he wrote, “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.” (“Foreword,” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson, Peter J. Gurry, editors, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019, p. xii). About Wallace, Craig Blomberg wrote, “Dan Wallace has clearly become evangelical Christianity’s premier active textual critic today.”
[xii] A dogie is a motherless, stray, or neglected calf. 

Who’s the Villain?

Who’s the Villain? According to Joshua Villines, “Fundamentalism.” “I identify fundamentalism as, by any functional definition,[i] a force for evil in the world… pernicious and deceptive… That fundamentalism…is evil is…beyond debate for educated people” and so on.

This so-called Baptist (if he is still so-called) is one whom I ran across in the past who vociferously denied basic truths of the Bible. I had not heard anything from him in years, until someone called attention to his blog posts. Such an one thinks fundamentalism and fundamentalists are evil. To him anyone who believes that the Bible is a real, rational, and reliable document is a fundamentalist. Further, the literal interpretation of Fundamentalism is caricatured as something silly rather than an historical-grammatical approach to understanding the writings of the Bible.[ii] He is the real villain. I’m not joshing. Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

Despite his railings against fundamentalism, his straw-men arguments, and his use of Truett Cathy as a foil for his rant, Villines is at least honest about his view of tolerance – something many tolerance and diversity advocates try to hide in the shadows.[iii] He writes, “As a social liberal, I have never argued that tolerance is, in and of itself, a positive value.” This is the true underbelly of the so-called tolerance movement. He further states, “Not all beliefs are equally valid or deserve equal ‘tolerance’.”[iv] Immediately following this, though, he makes another strawman gaffe, “Just because someone believes something does not mean it should be exempt from critical analysis or logical inquiry.” It is he who wants to “exempt” certain views from critical analysis or logical inquiry – to place them directly on the scrapheap of failed ideas without analysis or inquiry because they are presumptively deemed “rooted in ignorance, superstition, or bigotry.” He and I can agree, “not all ideas are equally valid.” However, he wants to determine some things are not “equally valid” based on his preconceptions without analysis or inquiry.[v] He plainly states, “Fundamentalism…deserves a place at the same table where all irrational and destructive behaviors are consigned, but it does not deserve a place at the table with healthy, mature approaches to faith.” Freedom of speech advocates personally hold certain preconceptions as well at tolerantists like Villines. Nevertheless, freedom of speech exceeds so-called tolerance, giving all ideas a place at the table with the exhortation “May the best idea win.” You see, tolerantists are not satisfied to hold personal beliefs that some ideas are not equally valid – they want to bring down the long arm of government on their side without critical analysis or logical inquiry. Squash!

Truth should never be afraid to battle face-to-face with falsehood; neither should it shield itself from inquiry hiding behind governmental coattails!

Psalm 119:151 Thou art near, O Lord; and all thy commandments are truth.

John 8:32, 36 and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free...If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

---

[i] According to enOxfordDictionaries, fundamentalism is a “form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.” I am OK with that basic definition. Villines’ blog rant makes it clear that (1) he is talking about Christian fundamentalism, and (2) he does not understand the concept of “literal interpretation of scripture.” In its simplest form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes five fundamental points of faith (as clarified by the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference, in the face of the rise of modernism and liberalism): (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (4) the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ for sins; and (5) the physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ. These elements were being denied then, and are usually denied by professors like Joshua Villines now. I hold these five fundamentals, but “Fundamentalist” is not my preferred self-descriptor. I am a Baptist. Many Fundamentalist are adrift on the sea of bad ecclesiology.

[ii] This type of literal interpretation easily and “literally” accepts figures of speech as figures of speech, symbols as symbols, etc., no matter how silly some silly person wants to make them look while pretending fundamentalists do not know how to do this. Thomas Ice described the problem this way:  “‘wooden literalism,’ which they now label as simply literalism...is assumed by them to be a naïve, sophomoric understanding of biblical literature. Many have answered these claims and tried to set the record straight, but they are increasingly falling upon the deaf ears of opponents who simply refuse to listen,” then quotes Bernard Ramm, “The program of literal interpretation of Scripture does not overlook the figures of speech, the symbols, the types, the allegories that as a matter of fact are to be found in Holy Scripture. It is not a blind letterism nor a wooden literalism as is so often the accusation.”

[iii] Roberto C. Treviño, San Antonio city councilman, said “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome” – but that only applies to those he wants to have a place and feel welcome. Rider University, whose Center for Diversity and Inclusion says they welcome “all forms of identity, such as race, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, national origin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, ability, age, marital status and socioeconomic status” proved that to be “true” – but only up until they find religious beliefs that they don’t welcome! Read HERE and HERE.

[iv] According to Dictionary.com, “tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.” The practical societal application of tolerance usually implies someone is superior and in a position to tolerate an inferior – and that the “superior” will decide whether the “inferior” will be “tolerated.” Those who most vociferously preach tolerance often do not have much tolerance for those who do not see things their way. Stefano Gabbana said of singer Elton John, “You preach understanding. You preach tolerance. And then you put the knife in? All because someone else doesn’t see things your way?” John proposed a boycott of Dolce & Gabbana fashions because he disliked and disagreed with comments they made about in vitro fertilization and homosexual’s adopting.

[v] Notice that Villines view must be correct and others must “earn” a place: “If an idea can be substantiated with logical consistency, then it has earned the opportunity for tolerance.” Such a view as his might try to hide, but must be exposed as setting itself up as the standard by which other views “earn” the right to be tolerated. The fact is – his is the real view of tolerantists, despite how often they falsely assert such platitudes as “everyone should feel welcome.”

When I Left Fundamentalism

An interesting series of posts, from Kent Brandenburg:

• When I Left Fundamentalism part one -- "Some evangelists were experts as well at the invitation at the end, to squeeze the most possible number of decisions out of the crowd, often an indicator of the success or failure of the night."
• When I Left Fundamentalism part two -- "I attended FBF meetings with high hopes, not knowing what to expect. I came out with three observations."
• When I Left Fundamentalism part three -- "I wanted us to line up with and obey Scripture, whatever the consequences."

King James in the Menace of Modernism

In recently reading about the “King James Version Debate,” I have noticed a certain ad hominem argument about the origin of the “King James Only” position. (I’m sure I’ve read this before and it just failed to sink in.) This argument finds the origins of KJVO within Seventh-Day Adventism, and some Baptists seem especially fond of applying the guilt by association label. For example, Doug Kutilek writes, “In the realm of King-James-Version-Onlyism, just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d.1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants.”[i]

It is a fact that Benjamin George Wilkinson (1872–1968), author of Our Authorized Bible: Vindicated, was a Seventh-day Adventist – at least a missionary, educator, and theologian. He served as Dean of Theology at the Washington Adventist University in Takoma Park, Maryland (then known as Washington Missionary College). In 1930 he published Our Authorized Bible: Vindicated. In it, Wilkinson defended the text of the King James Bible and, according to Kutilek, “attacked the Westcott-Hort Greek text…expressed strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament… manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval Waldensian Bible was based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and that the Old Latin version was Byzantine in its text-type.” It is also a fact that David Otis Fuller’s 1970 book, Which Bible, reprinted much of the Wilkinson material.[ii]

As David Cloud notes, “Whether Fuller was right or wrong in reprinting some of Wilkinson’s writings (and hiding the fact that Wilkinson was an Adventist) is something each reader will have to decide for himself” – and Cloud has definitely decided he was wrong (I agree). But Cloud also points out that Wilkinson did not always create new ideas about the Bible, but repeated argument that were made by others long before. He mentions “A number of articles were published in the [Trinitarian Bible Society] Quarterly Record at the turn of the century critiquing the ERV and supporting the Received Text…Another example was fundamentalist leader William Aberhart (1878-1943), who stood for the Received Text and the King James Bible in western Canada during the first half of the twentieth century” and that “One of his sources was the writings of John William Burgon, whose book The Revision Revised was first published in 1881.”

Perhaps Wilkinson’s book is the first book-length defense of its kind “vindicating” the King James Bible. I don’t know of another that is earlier. Perhaps one can play with the word “movement” and argue that there was not a King James Only Movement prior to Wilkinson (and more particularly, the fundamentalists who agreed with and promoted the same ideas he had). One simple fact is that there was no need for a KJVO movement prior to advanced efforts to replace it with other English Bibles.

Another simple fact is that support for the King James Bible as the English-speaking Bible may not have been sophisticated prior to this time – but it did exist. Other than the ether-world of scholars, I suspect that the average English-speaking Christian found their King James Bible to be a trustworthy repository of the inspired word of God.

The Menace of Modernism by William Bell Riley (New York, NY: Christian Alliance Publishing Company, 1917) shows that to be the case.[iii] Riley’s primary focus was a defense against modernism. In his introductory material he divides the attitudes toward the Bible into three “conceptions.” He called his view “the true conception” – wherein “The Bible is divine in origin, and human in expression (p. 13).” He disputes “the new conception” of the modernists – that “The Bible is purely human in its origin and authorship; second, the inspiration of the Bible exists only in its ability to inspire, and finally, its interpretation is a matter of mental convenience (p. 10).” He describes “the old conception” – including those who believed the King James Bible was inerrant. He incorrectly assumed that this “old conception” as on its last leg, probably thinking most inerrantists approved of his “true conception.”

“On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained. The result, of course, is to make a sort of fetish of the book. That is why, in many a family, it is kept on the center-table and seldom used. They do not want to soil its sacredness. Dr. Arthur T. Pierson tells the story of a Karen village into which a travelling Mussulman had come bearing a mysterious book, which he told the Karens was sacred and entitled to divine honors. It was accepted, and wrapped in muslin and encased in a basket work of reeds, like Moses’ cradle. The mysterious book became deified and venerated, a kind of high priest and sacristan combined. When Boardman came to the village he was asked by the Karens to examine it, and it was found to be the ‘Book of Common Prayer and Psalms,’ an Oxford edition in English, and Mr. Boardman, with joy, entered upon its exposition, and like Paul at Athens, declared unto them the true God. And even now in more remote districts, where educational advantages have been few, the history of the Bible is unknown. Of its translation from language to language they have never learned, and yet I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand.

“To be sure, there are multitudes who do not understand that the Scriptures were originally written either in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek; that all the original versions were lost, and that the copies of the New Testament date many years this side of Jesus, and that our Scriptures are translations which have come by the way of the Septuagint and Coptic versions, and have been improved in the passage by Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, Tyndale, Covedale, and others; that in 1611, seventy of the most scholarly men, at the King’s command, gave us our ‘authorized version,’ and that between 1870 and 1885 the Canterbury Revision Committee, made up of a hundred of the world’s most accurate scholars, accomplished the text of the Revised Version. To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version, or even for the Revised Version, is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves; to clothe with the claim of verbal inspiration a company of men who would almost quit their graves to repudiate such equality with prophet and apostle.” (pp. 7-9; bold italic emphasis mine; the book is now available in reprint, and a partial view Solid Christian Books: Menace of Modernism, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, October 7, 2014)

One hundred years ago (1917), fundamentalist William Bell Riley knew that a “KJVO” position existed, that is was “old,” and believed that it was laying on its deathbed. But it is still here, and shows no signs of dying any time soon! Most importantly to my post topic, Riley’s written recognition of this position predates Benjamin Wilkinson’s book by 13 years.

---

[i] The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism; See also “The Background and Origin of the Version Debate,” in One Bible Only: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible, p. 44.

[ii] It seems to be agreed by many that God Wrote Only One Bible (1955), by J. J. Ray, uses much of Wilkinson’s material without attribution. I have never seen this book, but discovered the 1976 edition is online HERE.

[iii] Some pages – particularly the relevant ones – are missing in this HathiTrust scan.

Sword Saturday

Now in its 84th year, The Sword of the Lord periodical was a staple in many homes when I was growing up. Here are some links related to the paper, its people, and its power.

• Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism -- "When John Rice died in 1980, there was a war among his followers about who would become his successor and take his place as the de facto spokesperson and figurehead at the helm of the movement. Twenty-five years later, there is still no clear successor to John R. Rice as the leading figure of the fundamentalist movement."
• Interview - Oral history with the daughters of John Rice -- "Part of the Paige Patterson SBC Conservative Resurgence Collection" (Select links for specific interviews)
• John R. Rice, Bob Jones Jr., and the “Mechanical Dictation” Controversy -- "By Nathan A. Finn in The Journal of Baptist Studies 6 (2014)" (Click link to view as PDF)
• John R. Rice, The Sword of the Lord, and the Fundamentalist Conversation: Comparisons with J. Frank Norris's The Fundamentalist and Carl McIntire's The Christian Beacon -- "Robin L. Smith, Master's Thesis, Wright State University, 2013"
• John Rice, the Sword of the Lord, and What We Should Learn from The Fundamentalists -- "The most fascinating part of the book chronicles the turbulent relationship between Rice and Billy Graham." (Review of the Andrew Himes book)
• John R. Rice "Sword of the Lord" Revival Weekly & Conferences -- "John R. Rice was born in Cooke County, Texas in 1895, the son of William H. and Sallie Elizabeth La Prade Rice, and the oldest of three brothers. Will Rice was a small businessman, a lay preacher, and a one-term state legislator 'well respected in the community'."
• Robert Leslie Sumner Obituary -- "In 1955, Dr. John R. Rice, a nationally known evangelist and editor of the Sword of the Lord newspaper invited Dr. Sumner to become Associate Editor and a staff evangelist."
• The Emergence of Moderate Fundamentalism: John R. Rice and "The Sword of the Lord" -- "Howard Edgar Moore, PhD Thesis, George Washington University, 1990." (can be requested here)
• The Sword of the Lord: A Brief Review -- "All that to say, while I’m not a self-confessed fundamentalist, I have a critical appreciation of fundamentalism in general and John R. Rice in particular."
• The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family -- "By Andrew Himes, Rice's Grandson" (Google Book preview)
• The Sword of the Lord, Really The Scoop Shovel of Revivalism -- "In general now, I would characterize the The Sword of the Lord as a vehicle to spread revivalism of revivalistic fundamentalism. At present it doesn't even represent a true gospel."

Roger, Roger, Bauder, Bauder

What is Fundamentalism -- "My approach to defining fundamentalism is more clearly historical-theological."

Roger, Roger -- "A few weeks ago, Roger Olson of Baylor University devoted a blog post to asking “What Is ‘Fundamentalism?’” By way of contrast he was also trying to say how fundamentalism differs from evangelicalism."

A Difference between Liberals and Conservatives

Liberals dismiss sins first, and then proceed to commit them. Conservatives commit sins first, and then proceed to dismiss them.

In contrast, Christians should confess sins while understanding “My crimes are great, but don’t surpass, the power and glory of God’s grace.”

[Note: this liberal/conservative difference is given as a general and slightly exaggerated illustration of different approaches, and is not intended to express a universal truth.]

The Baptist Name, Fundamentalism, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• Is Music a Separation Issue? -- "I do not view separation as some kind of binary “on/off switch”."
• J. C. Philpot and John H. Newman – A Vital Difference -- "In time, both men, having been baptised and ordained as ministers in the Church of England, were forced by conscience to secede from it."
• Reprove, Rebuke, Exhort -- "Pastors who want to lead biblically find themselves caught in a bit of a paradox."
• Richard V. Clearwaters -- "There is no tangled skein of life too difficult for His divine fingers if we are willing to cast it into His lap."
• The Baptist Name -- "The recognition of our doctrine is still the most important testimony we have."
• The Conservative Baptist Conflict -- "The CBF and the CBA were organized on different principles."
• The Silence of the Lambs -- "Yet the potential for sexual abuse is actually exacerbated by the core identity of fundamentalist groups like..."
• Three Lines in the Sand, Part 1: An Analysis of Type A, B, and C Fundamentalism -- "Fundamentalism today is right for many reasons."
• Three Lines in the Sand, Part 2 -- "Most of these men grew up under strong personalities within Fundamentalism, so they think they also should lead with the same strong demeanor."
• Three Lines in the Sand, Part 3: What About the Types? -- "A fundamentalist will be militant. Because he’s willing to do battle royal for the truth, he cannot help but be militant."
• 12 Principles on How to Disagree with Other Christians -- "Paul didn’t command the stricter Christians of Romans 14 to get with the program and start eating meat as Jesus allowed."

One thing I like...

...about the Southern Baptist Convention.

Yesterday I posted Four things I don't like about the Southern Baptist Convention. I want to briefly call attention to one think I like about the Southern Baptist Convention (or perhaps I could say one thing by which I am impressed). As far as I know, the Southern Baptist Convention is the only major American Christian denomination that was able to halt, and perhaps reverse, its liberal slide. By the late 1960s one would have thought the SBC was about to drift off into the same ecumenical liberalism as the main-liners like the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, and so forth. But, due to what some call the Conservative Resurgence and others call the Fundamentalist Takeover, the slide was halted before the edge of the precipice was reached -- and this even considering the disadvantage of a built-in system that discourages dissent.

[Disclaimer: 1. I am not a Southern Baptist. 2. These posts should not be taken to mean there are only 4 things I dislike about the SBC, or only 1 thing I like.]