tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1864230769854544092.post3401269851142826379..comments2019-04-01T11:57:01.726-05:00Comments on As For Me and My House...: Historic Fundamentalism?Ellis Murphreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10366467132733647443noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1864230769854544092.post-24729602294507732382007-11-04T11:28:00.000-06:002007-11-04T11:28:00.000-06:00>" I shudder to think of what this world would be ...>" I shudder to think of what this world would be like had God not raised up men like them"<BR/><BR/>Yeah, the western world might have remained unified in "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church" as stated by the early Christian church at Nicea.<BR/><BR/>>"I'm not sure who through the annals of church history would fit that description."<BR/><BR/>You might start where the Bible ends, at the death of John, and work yourself forward in history. There's a great collection of early Christian writings online at:<BR/><BR/>http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html<BR/><BR/>God bless...Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06992217665437521336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1864230769854544092.post-66016422662309459592007-11-03T13:54:00.000-05:002007-11-03T13:54:00.000-05:00Hi EllisIf you don't have these, I would recommend...Hi Ellis<BR/><BR/>If you don't have these, I would recommend two books to get an overall history. One is <I>Biblical Separation</I> by Ernest Pickering with a recent update (I think a chapter added) by Myron Houghton. It is available from Regular Baptist Press. The second book is David Beale's <I>In Pursuit of Purity</I> which details the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, among other things.<BR/><BR/>I should clarify my earlier post by saying that <I>The Fundamentals</I> certainly played a part in forming fundamentalism, but the men who wrote them can't really be called fundamentalists, for the same reason Spurgeon wasn't a fundamentalist - the movement didn't exist when they wrote.<BR/><BR/>There are other books as well, George Marsden's works will give a view from outside fundamentalism, but Beale and Pickering will give you a reasonable starting place.<BR/><BR/>More on exclusivity: I do think some self-professed fundamentalists could fall under the 'exclusive' tag, but generally I don't think this has been the view of fundamentalism.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Don Johnson<BR/>Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1864230769854544092.post-20697377450243915332007-11-03T13:38:00.000-05:002007-11-03T13:38:00.000-05:00Thanks for the pointers, Don. The last sentence of...Thanks for the pointers, Don. The last sentence of your reply <I>("The authors of The Fundamentals, invaluable as they are, were before and largely outside of these controversies")</I>, if true, proves to me quite adequately that I'm a bit more ignorant regarding the beginnings of the movement than I initially feared!<BR/><BR/>For the sake of clarification, my definition of seperatism is a bit vague - I meant "christian" in the sense that the world would define it - this would include (amongst others)Catholicism and Mormonism as both claim to be followers of Christ. <BR/><BR/>Regarding exclusivism, I've only seen this displayed in the more radical offshoots of "hysteric" fundamentalism and it was a point that was likely not worth bringing up in this article. While I have seen it within fundamentalism, it's a pretty rare bird. The only reason I even mention it is that many with a passing familiarity with fundamentalism actually assume that this is a defining character trait within our ranks. I speak only from personal experience and conversations and I cannot offer any further proof to it, so take it for what it's worth!Ellis Murphreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10366467132733647443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1864230769854544092.post-78373454657195961782007-11-03T11:54:00.000-05:002007-11-03T11:54:00.000-05:00Hi EllisI think you are right regarding the term "...Hi Ellis<BR/><BR/>I think you are right regarding the term "historic fundamentalist". Most of those throwing that term around are being either deceptive or naive, in my opinion. The so-called 'historic fundamentalists' of yesteryear would not recognize those claiming the label today.<BR/><BR/>However, along the way in your article, I would have to take issue with your points on exclusivism and separation. I have never heard anyone except cultists and Catholics take an exclusivist position as you described it. And I completely reject a separatism as you defined it.<BR/><BR/>I agree that fundamentalism is about separation. But I disagree with your definition.<BR/><BR/>For further thought, you might consider this: the men who wrote <I>The Fundamentals</I> were not (for the most part) fundamentalists at all. They wrote and worked in an era several years removed from the rise of fundamentalism. I believe it was Curtis Lee Laws who coined the term "fundamentalist" about 1925-1927, somewhere in there. <I>The Fundamentals</I> began with the call for them in 1909 and their publication shortly after that.<BR/><BR/>Fundamentalism was birthed in the controversies among the Presbyterians and Baptists in the 1920s primarily. You really have to understand what happened then to get a sense of what fundamentalism is. The authors of <I>The Fundamentals</I>, invaluable as they are, were before and largely outside of these controversies.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Don Johnson<BR/>Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.com