The Fundamentals

[Rufus]

The Fundamentals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've often heard The Fundamentals being considered the foundation of modern fundamentalism but after a brief overview of the theological backgrounds of those whose essays where part of The Fundamentals I realized that among the contributors where many Anglican, Presbyterian, and Reformed Baptist pastors, theologians, and scholars including B.B. Warfield, J.C. Ryle, and Thomas Spurgeon (son of Charles Spurgeon).

After searching the Puritanboard nothing came up related to The Fundamentals and I wanted to see if anybody could comment on or recommend The Fundamentals.

 

[SolaSaint]

I'm reading a book by Paul Smith called "New Evangelicalism" and he brings up this document or book of what early 20th century Christians wrote to defend against the rise in liberal theology that diminished the inerrance of Scripture at that time. I was considering buying the publication as a resource book.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I had facsimiles of a few of the volumes before Katrina submerged my library. There were some good collected essays in there by folks like Warfield and Spurgeon. I am not familiar with the whole "set" for lack of a better term, and don't know many of the authors.

 

[py3ak]

There are a lot of good articles in there - the one by H.C.G. Moule especially stood out to me. Of course fundamentalists and the Reformed agree on many things, including a lot of fundamentals, so that's hardly surprising; but of course the articles I've read have mostly been the ones from recognizably Reformed people, so my perspective on them is undoubtedly a little partial.
I don't think the set is widely read today, and I don't know that the articles ever had an enormous impact on any organization. In other words, I doubt the articles will give you much of a window into the mindset of a contemporary fundamentalist. There are both worse and better things to read.

 

[CharlieJ]

There is a very important historical distinction to be made. First, The Fundamentals was not a manifesto, confession, or constitution of any sort. It was not purposefully drawn up by any group to be a catalog of their beliefs. It was a privately designed and funded venture, by Curtis Lee Laws if my memory is correct.

Now, that said, it's fair to say that most of the articles reflect the thought and attitudes of many people in the early fundamentalist movement. Even then, though, I'm not sure there was much of a self-conscious movement at that time; anyone who was anti-modernist (anti-German-liberalism) was considered a fundamentalist. Many of the essays are first-rate, although some may reflect a Dispensational and/or Keswick bent, and the set as a whole provides a great window into the churning issues of that time. However, as Ruben noted, the fundamentalists of back then and the fundamentalists of today are much different.

Perhaps the best treatment of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy is George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture.

 

[gracea1one]

Perhaps the best treatment of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy is George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture.

I just purchased this book for my American Church History class at T.E.D.S. that I am starting next week and am very much looking forward to reading it (not to mention the discussions in class). Another book that might help is Mark Noll's "History of Christianity in America and Canada". It covers a lot of ground, but has some pages devoted to the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the early 20th century as well, and even a few pages on "Fundamentalism and the Rise of Dispensational Theology" which is (sadly) still being felt today.

As has already been mentioned above, there is a clear distinction between historical fundamentalism of which materials like The Fundamentals were written and contemporary fundamentalism.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Fundamentals was, indeed, a broad-based, "evangelical" or "theologically conservative" response to the growth in "liberal" or "progressive" theology in late 19th/early 20th century USA. Like so many non-creedal (or inclusive) presentations, its greatest appeal was also its greatest weakness. By downplaying a "full-orbed" Christianity, or one of its well-conceived and time-tested and internally consistent systematic/creedal description, it gained many plaudits from across the spectrum, while it engaged in a form of "reductionism."

If Christianity can effectively be boiled down to as little as five (or seven, or one, or twelve) propositions, then really we hardly need any doctrinal development. The Apostle's Creed will do (but now the typical 20th/21st cent. fundamentalist will reject that as too inclusive). The problem with fundamentalism is that it tended to view the thick-doctrine-confession of the church as too confusing and divisive, too "intellectual," and contributing to the liberal's takeover through seminaries, etc.

I don't think that this reductionism was immediate. Otherwise, a Warfield (for example) would never have contributed to a project that undermined confidence in his own, robust Westminster Confession. And in defense of "cardinal doctrines," there will always be a need for defenses from those who hold to such detailed statements of faith. But in the long run, the mixed-nature and inconsistent presentations cannot show unity without showing disunity.

Reformed men cannot be satisfied to stand in a line of theological expressions--many which are antagonistic to vital points of Reformed doctrine--and leave the impression that as one out of a dozen (or more) alternatives, the Reformed faith does not distinguish itself, but agrees with these others on everything that has eternal significance.

 

[rbcbob]

Like so many non-creedal (or inclusive) presentations, its greatest appeal was also its greatest weakness. By downplaying a "full-orbed" Christianity, or one of its well-conceived and time-tested and internally consistent systematic/creedal description, it gained many plaudits from across the spectrum, while it engaged in a form of "reductionism."

Thanks once again Bruce, you have put your finger on the critical point which clarifies the discussion! This is, if I may say so, (and I am not presuming to speak for you) why groups like T4G are at one and the same time commendable and lamentable. A united front is presented to an anemic Christianity calling for a reclamation of the pure gospel, and yet any one of the founding members (Baptist, Presbyterian, Charismatic, etc.) will speak for a position which cannot be affirmed by them all. This is not to condemn all such coalitions but merely to highlight the necessary limitations and inherent weaknesses they have.