Historic Fundamentalism: What is it?

Do you claim to be a Christian fundamentalist?  If, by this term, you mean that you seek to militantly defend all the truths of the Christian faith, and militantly stand against and separate from all error, well and good—you will then, if your confession is true, be a servant of Christ in a historic Baptist church.  Do you think that such a line is too strict, for “historic fundamentalism” was a para-church movement that only recognized a handful of “fundamentals” that were worthy of separation?  If that is truly “historic fundamentalism,” then you should reject such fundamentalism for the God-honoring true separatism only possible within a Biblical Baptist church that is unaffiliated with denominationalism, associationism, and all other humanly devised denominational structures. 

However, was there actually ever a unified “historic fundamentalism” in the first place?  The classic series The Fundamentals, for example, printed an essay by George Sales Bishop, who believed in the dictation of the original manuscripts and in Scripture’s perfect preservation—including the perfect preservation of not the Hebrew consonants alone, but also the vowels that were originally given by inspiration—in the Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus.^[1] So is “historic fundamentalism” opposed to the Greek critical text—is it King James Only?  Why or why not?

However, The Fundamentals also reprinted articles by Edwin J. Orr, who “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, and [who] took the view that an insistence on biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’”^[2]

So who represents “historic fundamentalism”—Bishop or Orr?  Does “historic fundamentalism” defend an inerrant autographa, an inerrant autographa that is perfectly preserved in the Textus Receptus, or errant autographs and apographs?

Indeed, while cessationists are amply represented in early fundamentalism, the writings of Jessie Penn-Lewis appear also in The Fundamentals.^[3]  So does “historic fundamentalism” follow Scriptural cessationism and the sole authority of Scripture, or Mrs.Penn-Lewis’s fanaticism, radical demonology, Quakerism, date-setting for Christ’s return, and allegedly “inspired” extra-Biblical writings—one of which is condensed in The Fundamentals?

So which portion of the authors in The Fundamentals represent “historic fundamentalism”?  Is it the “Inner Light” that is allegedly equal to Scripture, as taught by the Quaker Jessie Penn-Lewis?  Is it the inerrant original manuscripts perfectly preserved in the Textus Receptus as affirmed by George Sayles Bishop?  Is it the recognition that verbal, plenary inspiration is a false and indeed a “suicidal” position, as affirmed by Orr?

Is it whatever the person speaking about “historic fundamentalism” wants it to be?

A unified “historic fundamentalism” is a chimera, and even if it had existed, it would possess no independent authority—the Christian’s sole authority is the Bible alone, and the Bible teaches that every religious organization on earth in this dispensation, if it wants to have the special presence of Jesus Christ, must be under the authority of one of His churches.  Fundamentalist para-church institutions are not churches.  Do you value the Lord’s church in the way that One does who bought her with His blood (Ephesians 5:25)? If you do not, but are following some movement, whether evangelical, fundamental, or by any other name, your organization does not possess the promises Christ makes to His church alone.  Beware lest Christ say to you, and to your organization, “cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7).

The Bible teaches that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible, Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18).  No promises of Christ’s special presence or protection are made to the mythical universal, invisible church, parachurch institutions, human denominations, or inter-denominational movements such as evangelicalism.

There never was a unified “historic fundamentalism,” and, even if it had existed, it would have no authority whatever to determine what are Biblical doctrine and practice for the Lord’s churches.

TDR

---

[1]           See the “Inspiration of the Hebrew Letters and Vowel Points,” pgs. 43-59 of The Doctrines of Grace and Kindred Themes, George Sayles Bishop (New York, NY:  Gospel Publishing House, 1919;  note as well his “Relative Value of the Old Testament” (pgs. 88-100) and “The Testimony of Scripture To Itself,” pgs. 19-42).  The KJV-only, Landmark Baptist periodical The Plains Baptist Challenger, a ministry of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, TX, on pgs. 3-8 of its July 1991 edition, reprinted George Sayles Bishop’s defense, based on Matthew 5:18, of the coevality of the vowel points and the consonants.  Bishop was a contributor to the epoch-making volumes The Fundamentals (“The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” pgs. 80-97, vol. 2, The Fundamentals, eds. R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, etc., Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1970, reprint of the original 1917 ed. of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles), writing:  “We take the ground that on the original parchment . . . every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God” (pg. 92, The Fundamentals, vol 2.).

[2]            Pg. 492, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, “Orr, James,” ed. Timothy Larsen, referencing Orr’s Revelation and Inspiration [1910], p. 198.  See, e. g.,  “The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations,” “The Early Narratives of Genesis” (Chapters 5 & 11 The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 1;  Orr wrote other articles also).

[3]           Pgs. 183-199, Chapter 13, “Satan and his Kingdom,” The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 4.  Her chapter is condensed from The Warfare with Satan and the Way of Victory.