Title: Fundamentalism is the right path
Content 暮聆うご? It's the right route
We felt the need to write a few words about fundamentalism at this time. The reason is, first, that some sincere ministers and saints oppose and condemn this right course because they are ignorant of fundamentalism; Second, some compromisers who have changed their original belief positions try to falsely propagate their positions as if they were correct and biblical by accusing them of this right line of sharply rebuking their positions.
First, we would like to state that fundamentalism is not a theological system. Some refer to themselves and say, 'My position is not fundamentalism but reformism', but such statements come from ignorance of what fundamentalism is. The word Reformed has historically been expressed in contrast to the Lutheran theological outlines. It refers to a theological system. It is primarily the theological system of the Presbyterian Church. On the other hand, the Methodist Church and the Holiness Church employ a theological system called Wesley-Arminianism.
But fundamentalism is not that kind of theological system. Fundamentalism was a term used to express a certain attitude and position toward liberal theology that prevailed throughout Christianity in the early 20th century. It was not only in the Presbyterian Church, but also in each denomination such as the Methodist Church and the Baptist Church, an ecumenical attitude and position. Fundamentalism was an ecumenical movement.
In order to properly understand fundamentalism, we need to know a bit about the history of the American church in the 20th century. Of course, it is not easy to arrange historical facts, but without it it is impossible to correctly define fundamentalism. The history of the American church in the early 20th century can be briefly summarized as follows.
In the early 20th century, the American church began to feel the liberal theology that had spread like yeast from the 19th century inside the church. At that time, it was only natural that faithful ministers tried to reaffirm and uphold the basic doctrines of the Bible, the basic truths of Christianity, against liberal theology. Liberalism did not find the essential content of Christianity in immutable doctrines, but simply in a certain life and experience. Against it, faithful ministers emphasized that true Christianity could not exist apart from the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and that it was heretical to deny the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. The term 'fundamentalism' was given because of their strong advocacy and emphasis on the 'fundamental doctrines' of Christianity.
However, as the decade passed, this doctrinal battle within the denominations was progressing in favor of the liberals. The churches were moving toward favoring outward peace and love over fidelity to the truth. The only obstacle to this inclusivity was the few religious warriors who sincerely fought to preserve the doctrinal purity of the church. In inclusive churches, they were thorns.
Those fundamentalists were convinced that their mother churches had become apostate churches because they had forsaken allegiance to the truths of the Lord. They were also convinced that the separation from the apostate church of the 20th century was not a sinful sect, but a just separation commanded by the Lord in the Bible, just as the Reformers of the 16th century were justified in leaving their mother church, the Catholic Church.
As such, fundamentalism historically involved two important elements. The first was to refute the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and the second was to separate from the apostate churches that embraced but did not exclude liberal heresies. Fundamentalism can therefore be defined as an ecumenical position that opposes liberal theological ideas and argues that the fundamental doctrines of the Bible should be preserved and separated from the inclusive or apostate church.
To confirm this fundamentalist conception, let us cite the writings of some theologians. Liberal theologian Culsopp Lake stated, "It is a mistake by intellectuals who are often ill-equipped with historical theology to think that fundamentalism is a new and unfamiliar form of thought. Fundamentalism is not at all like that. It is a remnant of the theology universally held by Christians . . . the fundamentalists may be wrong. I think they are wrong. But it is us who have departed from tradition, not fundamentalists” (Kirsopp Lake, The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow [1925], pp. 61, 62).
In one widely used theological dictionary today, Harold Kuhn defines fundamentalism as "a theology that has arisen in recent decades to preserve the fundamental principles of the Christian system of thought and to resist the dangerous theological tendencies of so-called modernism [liberalism]. movement” (Harold B. Kuhn, “Fundamentalism,” Baker's Dictionary of Theology [1960], p. 233).
The late Dr. Park Hyung-ryong, who worked hard to establish a sound theology of the Presbyterian Church in Korea, said, "Fundamentalism is nothing special, it is orthodox and orthodox Christianity. Going one step further, fundamentalism is the historical, traditional orthodox faith of Christianity. To believe and keep as it is, that is, it is the same as orthodox faith, but it would be the most justified to assert that this is Christianity itself. Fundamentalism is Christianity itself” (Hyung-Ryong Park, “Fundamentalism,” Shin Seong-Jinam, Vol. [1960], p. 16).
Renowned church historian Kennett Latourette said, "Not long ago in 1914, opponents [liberalism, higher criticism of the Bible, evolution, etc.] They were called fundamentalists, and others began to call them" (Kenneth S. Latourette, A History of Christianity [1973], II, 1264).
George Marsden, who has studied and wrote extensively on Fundamentalism and Neo-Evangelicalism, also stated, "Fundamentalism in America is best defined as a militantly anti-modernist evangelical Protestant movement." (George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism," Eerdmans' Handbook to Christianity in America [1983], p. 384).
These statements are roughly justified, although not as precise as the definitions we have given earlier. However, since the fundamentalist movement since the 1930s has developed into a movement to separate from the apostate churches, the definition of fundamentalism must include not only the conservative of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but also separation from the liberal apostasy.
Fundamentalism is biblically correct. It is God's will to uphold and defend the fundamental doctrines of the Bible (2 Timothy 1:13; Jude 3). Also, as far as liberalism, which denies the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, is clearly heresy, its claim that churches should not tolerate liberalism is completely biblical. The Bible clearly taught that evil and error spread like leaven and must be removed regardless of the Old and New Testaments.
Deuteronomy 13 clearly states, "Put away evil from among you" by destroying heretics or families or towns that have been deceived by heresy. Even if “your brother or sister, or your children, or your wife, or your life-long friend” has been deceived by heresy (verse 6). The New Testament also describes heresies as 'cursed' heresies (Galatians 1:8, 9), 'like the decay of spears' (2 Timothy 2:17), and 'destroyable heresies' (2 Peter 2:1). He instructed them to "look out for them and depart from them" (Romans 16:17), and said to those belonging to the cults, "After admonishing them once or twice, keep them away" (Titus 3:10) and "do not bring them into your house" (Titus 3:10). and no greetings” (2 John 10).
However, there are several articles in the Korean church that criticize and condemn fundamentalism. They are denials that stem from a lack of understanding of fundamentalism and a neo-evangelical prejudice. Representative examples are as follows.
Dr. Eui-Hwan Kim, president of Chongshin University, said in his book, "Our position is neither fundamentalism nor New Evangelicalism. Our position follows the historical Calvinist faith line. There are also factors . . . A Calvinist can accept fundamentalism, but he cannot be a fundamentalist” (Kim Eui-Hwan, Conservative Theology Challenged [1970], pp. 114, 115).
However, his words are ambiguous, which confuses concepts and ignores the ecumenical nature of fundamentalism. What is the definition of fundamentalism and what is the definition of neo-evangelicalism? As we explained earlier, fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism refer to differences in attitudes toward liberalism. To say that Calvinism has both elements means to accept liberalism or to exclude it? Especially in relation to apostate denominations, is it okay for Calvinists to stay within them, or to get out of them?
Of course, the question of when we can determine when a denomination becomes apostate is not an easy one. But if at least one denomination's seminary embraces liberal theologians who distrust the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and the majority of its leaders have no clear will to exclude liberal theologians and theologians, then we can judge that denomination to be an apostate denomination. will be. And once a denomination is judged apostate, the issue of separation between Bible-believing conservative and apostate denominations becomes a matter of obedience to God's teachings revealed in the Bible.
In addition, Dr. Kim Eui-hwan pointed out the deficiencies of fundamentalism and cited doctrinal reductionism and methodological narrow-mindedness (above book, pp. 116-119). However, such is a defect that can be found in any person or organization, and cannot be an essential or inherent defect of fundamentalism. And even today's fundamentalists will try to overcome such deficiencies, if any, without defending them. The essence of fundamentalism is 'separation from apostasy', and its argument and position are biblically justified. If anyone wants to argue, he will have to prove its injustice more Scripturally than anything else.
Today, many of the major denominations have become apostate churches that embrace liberalism without excluding them, and many other conservative denominations are increasingly moving in the direction of inclusiveness that does not separate from those apostate churches. Therefore, the establishment of the right line of faith for sincere servants of the Lord, churches, and saints is a task that is more urgently required than ever. *