The above is a command that I've heard and read is supposed to define fundamentalism. And let's say, "historic fundamentalism," because that's what people want you to be sure that they mean. They would say, "Historic fundamentalists didn't separate over a bunch of peripheral, non-essentials, but over the gospel." The term "gospel-centered" might even come into play here. With that in mind, they would say that some of the conservative evangelicals are historic fundamentalists. We come up with the labels and titles, but God considers whether we obey what He said, like 2 Corinthians 6:14, for instance.
You can often tell what someone loves by his reactions. When by accident you dent someone's car, you might watch how he reacts to that. Sometimes all it takes is getting in front of him at a four way stop, when he thought he was there first.
At the ETS meeting in San Francisco, I asked Al Mohler how he could obey 2 Corinthians 6:14 and be a Southern Baptist. He didn't answer my question. He was obviously offended with it and then dodged it. Southern Baptists live with incongruity of light and darkness, righteousness and unlawfulness, believing and not believing, and Christ and Satan, against the command of 2 Corinthians 6:14.
Fundamentalists not too upset, if at all, with Al Mohler, are aggravated with, one, KJVO, two, men who believe women shouldn't wear pants, and, three, convictions against Christian rock. Those are very often the real deal breakers. They'll separate over those, albeit even if it is only the cold shoulder type of fundamentalist separation not mirrored anywhere in the Bible. Why are the three I mentioned so often so very serious, but little a peep over the conservative evangelicals among the Southern Baptists?
Several years ago now, I reproved Jason Janz, then owner of SharperIron (SI), for posting a Douglas Kutilek article calling KJVO men the lemmings of Donald Waite. I received notice that I would not be banned from SharperIron, but I would obtain the unique status of not banned but instead having no more posting privileges. He was clear with the difference. I would not be banned. I just couldn't post any more. Why? He didn't want to have people like us at his site, the kind of people who believed like we believed. Who was we? I don't know. What did we do? He didn't say. That was as specific as he got. If you looked into their archives, you'll see that I never had the term "banned" next to my name as others received. I'm sure it was because I had not done anything to merit being banned. I'm not attempting to get back. I've not asked to go back. It's been better for me not to be there. However, I got severe discipline for asking about the term "lemming" as it applied to those who exclusively use the King James Version.
I still at times read articles and the comment section at SI. To a refutation of the new perspective on Paul, an SI member wrote the following:
[A] present state of justification does not guarantee a future state of justification. What Scripture makes clear is that justification is mutable. Your and my state of justification can be lost.
I read that and several other substantiating statements by this member, someone who was advocating a false gospel. He wasn't misrepresenting his own doctrine of conditional security. There were men who disagreed with him, but no one called it a false gospel. No one shut down the thread. None of the moderators confronted him directly for espousing a false gospel. He wasn't asked to recant or be banned. He was still in good standing. So if someone can lose his justification, then who is doing the justifying?
You say you're KJVO, and watch men jump on that. You say you oppose pants on women and witness the hot reaction. You say that Christian rock is wrong and watch the harsh criticism come from fundamentalists. What about when someone espouses a false gospel? Isn't separation from this what really characterizes a historic fundamentalist? One would have thought that, but you can tell what people love by their reaction.
What the above quote represents is actual legalism. Actual legalism. People are so up in arms with labeling "rules" and those who utilize them as legalistic, that when they actually see legalism, they don't even recognize it. Of course, to them legalism is opposing the practice of mixed swimming, worthy of intense confrontation, even mockery, but what about when Christ is made of no effect unto you, because you are fallen from grace? Anything? How big is disobedience to 2 Corinthians 6:14?