In general, most modern fundamentalists take the Bible at face-value within their own socio-political context, and they usually subscribe to a form of premillennialism. However, since the term fundamentalist is often a vilification when used by outsiders, some fundamentalists now call themselves evangelicals.
Fundamentalists are often those who are reclusive and estranged from the religious establishment, which they sometimes perceive as needing an overhaul or even replacement. The first time that any group of Christians proclaimed themselves to be fundamentalists was in a meeting that took place in the early 1900s in the United States. At the time there was not the clear association of fundamentalists with militant or religious fanatics (an association people might often ascribe to them today). The gathering was merely a response, in the Church, to the huge infusion of modernism and the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism. This tendency of modernism and unbelief in the Church gave rise to a group resistance, among religious conservatives of various stripes, to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. At this time, the "Fundamentalists" were Calvinists united together with Dispensationalists and other conservative Christians to do battle with this dramatic theologically liberal turn from historic Christian orthodoxy. They distributed a series of pamphlets, free of charge, among pastors and seminarians (published between 1910 and 1915) entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth".
These were a set of basic truths to which all the conservatives were united in agreement and still are to this day. The following is what came out of the meeting and what Reformed Theology and Modern Fundamentalism still hold in common:
Fundamentalism and its Similarities with Reformed Theology
1) The inspiration and verbal inerrancy of Scripture
2) The Deity of Christ and the virgin Birth
3) The substitutionary atonement
4) Justification by faith
5) The physical resurrection
6) The bodily return of Christ at the end of the age.
7) Christ performed miracles
But over time the original reasons for uniting began to fall apart and the differences between the Reformed and other camps began to show. The following are significant differences that we can see today between modern Fundamentalists and those with a Reformed heritage:
Fundamentalism (and its Differences with Reformed Theology)
1) The absence of historical perspective;
2) Ignores the Scriptures highly diverse literary genres;
3) The lack of appreciation of scholarship; aversion toward any secondary theological training; anti-intellectual;
4) The substitution of brief, skeletal, superficial creeds for the historic confessions;
5) The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine; highly averse to theology;
6) Pietistic, perfectionist tendencies, often moralistic (i.e., major upon "issues" such as protesting Harry Potter movies; separating with Christians who are not KJV only);Guilt-Centered (Fundamentalism) Vs. Gospel Centered (Reformed) Sanctification
7) One-sided other-worldliness - reclusive: church separate from the culture - the holy huddle (i.e., a lack of effort to impact their communities & transform culture);
8) A penchant for futuristic chiliasm (or: dispensational pre-millennialism);
9) They embrace some form of Manicheanism (or Greek dualism);
10) Often demonize their opposition and are reactionary;
11) Envy modernist cultural/political hegemony and try to overturn the powers that be through political brute force rather than persuasion; Thus are often viewed by outsiders more like a political lobby than representatives of Christ;
Actually, I think that the Calvinism and Armenianism debate is in a completely distinct category of disagreement, as both of those actually have direct Scriptural support (therefore they are both true and compliment each other). I think it's a logical fallacy of red herring and that the real issue being discussed here is best countered by true discussion instead of blanket opposition.
The Word is direct from God (in Torah's case anyway.) Isn't for Man to 'reform' or change it.
1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. - Deuteronomy 13
This is what had me leave Catholicism and become Jewish. Too many reedits of the Bible and Scriptures that as you study it more in-depth you can't help but notice it's been revised and altered countless times. Everytime a Protestant denomination came about, the first thing they did was change their version of the Bible as per disagreeing with whatever denomination they came away from.
The Catholics held the monopoly for Christianity for centuries and basically executed anyone not nodding in agreement with their take on things. Consequently, Bibles we have now are all descended from the early Catholic ones as they burned all others. Fortunately, Christianity had spread like wildfire and some Canon remained unaffected by the numerous church schizms in Europe like the Eithiopian Orthodox Canon.
To me, fundamentalism is simply going by the actual Scriptures, and not church-mandated directives or interpretations. I myself follow the original form of Judaism as practiced by Moses after God gave him the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Eventually of course, Talmudic Judaism came into favor with the Talmud, and other commentaries on the Tanakh (OT in a Bible, albeit heavily edited and corrupted.) But as in Christianity, this is NOT the God-given version so if interested in really following what God gave us, and not what later human beings changed it into you should strive for original revelation forms of worship, not 'reform' ones.
