Christian Fundamentalism

[@scottwmatson2386]

Dr. Reeves, thank you for these insightful and informative lectures. I have been very blessed as I have listened to you and I have learned much about the history of our Faith.

[@raskltube]

history of religion is so fascinating, I love your channel, keep up the good work!

[@dallasmcquarrie1937]

Another of Reeves' excellent videos!

[@garyschwitz3383]

Excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@656trav]

I have enjoyed your remarkable lectures and have recommended them to many others wishing to put religion in a historical context. Thank you.

[@Bluemax54]

profound question at the end

[@joewalsh7819]

Machen described fundamentalists, as extra biblical, not sola scriptura. like prohibition, no cards, no cigars

[@ohbrother5145]

joe walsh I thought he is credited for starting fundamentalism. I agree in the modern sense your definition would apply. Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches are that description.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

Thank you , a balanced presentation instead of the usual hit piece. I am a Christian fundamentalist, former professor of medicine and biochemistry. Like some others, I left agnosticism because of the Science, and did not become a Christian till much later when I tried to find errors in the Bible, as I had so many other books. Of course we have our crazies, bigots, frauds and so on. That is true of every group. While in academia I had to hide my beliefs, which is why I eventually left to private practice. The level of vicious dogmatism in the academy today against us is astounding.

[@PastorSZ_Author]

Thank you for correcting the misunderstanding of the word Fundamentalism: holding to and reaffirming traditional doctrines and teachings of Christianity and the Bible.

[@rev.j.rogerallen9328]

We have dozens of Billy Sundays preaching on television today.

[@ambercrombie789]

Dr. Reeves, would you consider doing a presentation on Billy Sunday and Chapman, his mentor?

[@runyoufoolsrun4547]

Pre millennialism in the form of historical pre millennialism goes back to the very early primitive church and predates post and amillennialism , I take it you are only referring to the dispensational variety?

[@RyanReevesM]

Yes of course. Good clarification. I mean the dispensational variety. :)

[@ohbrother5145]

Chester Bee Darby showed how silly it is. lol

[@stevie6621]

"KJV Only" goes back before the 20th century. Many Christians back then didn't make a distinction between the original autographs and the KJV.

[@daveme7]

As for only five, there had been ither groups of evangeliscals formulating the fundamentals of the faith which might have ten or fifteen fundamental doctrines (cannot remeber but do know it was definetly more than five). I think the fact some had their views published and distributed-sometimes for free-cemented the view of five fjundamentals. Me, I sometimes wander why they did not include the Trinity as I see that as very funbdamental.

[@JesusisLord1130]

Excellent

[@Elneco1]

love the lectures~~~ btw are you going to be doing any lectures on the details of liberal Christianianty/theology?

[@RyanReevesM]

Thanks! And yes...I'm going back through all sorts of gaps I couldn't cover in the course itself. This would be one of them. I do have a video overview of Liberalism, though, in this same playlist.

[@rico1357]

What's the difference between Fundamentalists and Wild eyed fanatics? I have enjoyed your lectures. Even if I don't agree with your statements.

[@rusty_junk]

Who is that painting by? It's awesome!

[@harveyge1]

Inerrancy is given, as it should be, considerable attention here. But, as an aside, it stupefies me when Inerrancy is further qualified by the term "original autographs." I am amazed that so many apparently intelligent people allow themselves to be backed into this ludicrously antithetical corner. Since there are no original autographs, the whole concept of Inerrancy is thus made theoretical, undermining the impetus that drives Inerrancy in the first place. Even the KJV Onlyists, foolish as they are, sense this and ridiculously try to transform the Authorized Version into a new kind of "original autographs," so to speak. Inerrancy cannot logically be based upon something (original autographs) that doesn't exist. Get over it, Evangelicals, Inerrancy is a matter of faith, period.

[@hchenwi]

any book recommendations related to this?

[@resurrectionjose]

+Herman CHENWI -- Pardon me if you have seen and/or consulted this particular Wikipedia article (further below) at one point on your own, but I'll mention it here as a worthwhile overview. Regarding 'Fundamentalism' everyone and their mothers would definitely suggest the works of George Marsden. You might want to check out a post of mine somewhere around here in reply to Rev. J. Roger Allen where I cited a number of works on the doctrine of inerrancy for two contributors to the thread. *_Fundamentalist--Modernist Controversy_* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_Controversy

[@MrEvanston]

You hit the nail on the head!! Referring to christian evangelism and fundamentalism, quick to point out the sins of the other person(s) so they feel the all mighty hand to their salvation. This is the main reason, I feel so humiliated by christianiity.

[@rev.j.rogerallen9328]

In my Christian tradition we don't need doctrines like inerrancy with reference to the Holy Scriptures. We simply say the scriptures are inspired by God the Holy Spirit and are therefore for us God's Word, written. I think doctrines like inerrancy give fuel to the critics and scoffers because inerrancy cannot be successfully demonstrated.

[@benjaminhatfield7771]

Rev. J. Roger Allen If the Scriptures are not inerrant then how can you say they were inspired by God? God is all powerful and Sovereign. It has to be both and. If the Scriptures are not inerrant then what part is wrong. You get that wrong, you will get a whole lot of doctrine wrong.

[@ivanluther3823]

Rev. with all due respect, but according to His self-disclosure, God the Holy Spirit is omniscient and omnipotent. Would the God who created all things, and by whom all things consist not be able to write a book without a single error? We as Christians must simply probe the arguments of the biblical scoffers and expose their errancy, not vise versa. Grace to you.

[@RayT80]

I agree. On the third reading of the Bible, I saw many contradictions for myself.

[@resurrectionjose]

*_"...because inerrancy cannot be successfully demonstrated."_* I'm quite surprised Rev. Allen did not try to address and come up with some type of answer for Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Lobanov, so I'll attempt to do so myself in my own meager way. Whether it will satisfy both these gentlemen -- and any onlookers reading this post of mine - remains to be seen. I believe Rev. Allen is essentially correct. I would love to believe in full inerrancy, but not as it's spelled out by many of my fellow Christians within the past 50-100 years or so. There's quite a number of works out there that one might consult, but I'll cite a few books that I have in my own book (and eBook) collection and that might help out a bit to get one on their way. I can do no better than start things off with the following journal article that is online, and that I usually cite a good deal of the time to give people a flavor of things as to why the doctrine of full inerrancy in many respects is untenable. For what it's worth despite it being perhaps neither here nor there is that none other than the great Oxford don, C. S. Lewis, did not hold to inerrancy. :) *_"The Error of Inerrancy"_* by *Joel Stephen Williams* faculty.tcu.edu/grant/20643/Reading%20Assignments/Williams,%20The%20Error%20of%20Inerrancy.pdf *_The Authority of the Bible. Theories of Inspiration, Revelation and the Canon of Scripture_* by *Robert K. Gnuse* www.amazon.com/Authority-Bible-Inspiration-Revelation-Scripture/dp/0809126923/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495978665&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Robert+K.+Gnuse+The+Authority+of+the+Bible *_Fundamentalism_* by *James Barr* www.amazon.com/Fundamentalism-James-Barr/dp/0664241913/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495980995&sr=1-1&keywords=Fundamentalism+by+James+Barr *_Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture_* by *Paul J. Achtemeier* www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Authority-Function-Christian-Scripture/dp/0801045428/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495979304&sr=1-15&keywords=Paul+J.+Achtemeier *_The Last Word. Scripture and the Authority of God - Getting Beyond the Bible Wars_* by *N. T. Wright* (The 2013 revised edition is entitled "Scripture and the Authority of God. How To Read The Bible Today".) www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Scripture-Authority-God-Getting/dp/0060872616/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495979880&sr=1-3&keywords=N.+T.+Wright+and+the+authority+of+the+Bible *_Biblical Authority or Biblical Tyranny? Scripture and the Christian Pilgrimage_* by *L. William Countryman* www.amazon.com/Biblical-Authority-Tyranny-William-Countryman/dp/1563380854/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495982477&sr=1-12&keywords=William+L.+Countryman *_Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy_* by *James R. A. Merrick & Stephen M. Garrett (Eds.)* www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Biblical-Inerrancy-Counterpoints/dp/0310331366/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495983023&sr=1-1&keywords=Five+Views+On+Biblical+Inerrancy%27%27+%282013%29 (I hesitated at first because I have yet to read it in full, but I'll mention this one since it came out recently -- 2015 to be exact -- and the authors all hold to inerrancy.) *_Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate_* by *F. David Farnell (Gen. Ed.)* www.amazon.com/Vital-Issues-Inerrancy-Debate-Farnell/dp/149823724X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495984824&sr=1-1&keywords=Vital+Issues+in+the+Inerrancy+Debate

[@benjaminhatfield7771]

resurrectionjose The Apostle Paul believed in full inerrancy. If a part of is not inerrant then which party? How am I to be sure the Gospel itself is inerrant? See the problems it creates when you don't believe it? "Inerrancy cannot be successfully demonstrated?" The fact that Scripture is absolute truth must first be accepted by faith. Also, you cannot allow to listen liberals who nothing more than Bible denials. I would reading anything written, on this subject, by either Al Mohler or John Macarthur

[@MrUhwoody]

"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL." -- Mark 1: 15

[@tiffanyward2098]

Who's down with OPC? #represent

[@RyanReevesM]

+Tiffany Ward // Awesome

[@ohbrother5145]

Tiffany Ward I'm African-American and I like OPC unless they're confederate flag waving southern sympathizers (and justify American slavery). lol

[@yannkitson116]

Well, as far as I know, correct me if I am wrong, God only authored the ten commandments the rest of the Bible from OT to NT is interpretations and recollections. God knew the limitations of man so he limited and simplified the message to the ten commandments... Man went nuts and wrote Tora, Talmuds, Bibles, New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon and an endless stream of variations of same. Before the second coming I expect to hear a voice from heaven "I gave you ten commandments, and the additional one to love one another"...

[@chriscravens145]

At the end you equate fundamentalism with evangelicalism. I would say they are different and distinct. The fact that Billy Sunday had a nice house makes it seem that you are questioning his motives - a big assumption. At the end you pose a false choice: do fundamentalists (you switched to "evangelicalism" here) concentrate on the betterment of society, or saving individuals from that society. That presents a false choice which fundamentalists do not have to make. BTW, I think you do a great job on the history of Christianity!! Keep up the great work.

[@RyanReevesM]

Sorry it sounded that way, but not my position and (hopefully!) not exactly what I was saying in this video. I'm more talking about the early definition of fundamentalism--which is an umbrella for a lot of folks--while not discussing the current use of the word. Frankly, the current use is based on what happened in this early phase, but that's for another video! :)

[@JaredTremper]

Good lecture, Dr. Reeves! As a Moody Theological Seminary graduate now active in the Anglican Church (ACNA), I've navigated these waters with some difficulty. I believe a number of fundamentalists in the Moody camp moved more towards evangelicalism since 1900. Moody Bible Institute (my wife works there and I remain thankful for that education) is firmly evangelical, not fundamentalist yet retains essentially a revised dispensationalism and zeal for conversion. MBI walks a difficult line these days! Side note: the book "A CHRISTIAN IN BIG BUSINESS: THE BIOGRAPHY OF HENRY PARSONS CROWELL, THE BREAKFAST TABLE AUTOCRAT" is a fascinating biography of Mr. Crowell (an early Moody trustee), with particularly interesting observations about the encroaching modernism of his day!

[@TOMMYSURIA]

How hard is to figure out that God has the power to keep His Word error free?

[@John3.36]

"Deity of Christ" seems to have replaced the Miracles as a fundamental.

[@ThomasWBaldwin]

it fell and is falling

[@tulliusagrippa5752]

"Scientific opinion" - really? Well, science works, whether you like it or not. Indeed, you are exploiting its "opinions" to spread your lectures.

[@RyanReevesM]

Think you're over reading the word 'opinion'. Also some of the point here is opinions about science itself, when certain fundamentalists began to fight their fights. But you see my wording in perhaps the worst possible light which is not needed.