The Five Fundamentals

Definition

Religious liberalism denies or affirms only in a weak, metaphorical sense central Christian doctrines like the incarnation and resurrection. A reaction arose, at first broadly based but progressively narrowing its definition. Five 'fundamentals' were proclaimed:

From its foundation to the present 'fundamentalism,' like a snowball rolling downhill, has picked up doctrinal distinctives as well as political leanings, but the movement originally was not limited to dispensationalists: "Many of our founding fathers were a-millenialists!" (Dr. Jack Van Impe, Heart Disease in Christ's Body, p. 120).

What is perhaps most astonishing about this historical episode is that adherents of a religion felt the need to stand up and assert that they actually believe what the religion teaches. Wouldn't those who do not simply leave the fold? Oddly enough, not all do.

People who do not know just how debased 'liberal' religion can become need to learn:

"Theism is a a false notion, a human idol that must die, and when it does, God — seen as the sacred dimension in all of life — must replace it." (Bishop John Shelby Spong, The Sins of Scripture. p. 66).

Bishop Spong is willing to talk about 'god,' though evidently not 'theos,' (what a Greek speaker is supposed to say if he wants to talk about 'god' is left unstated); however what he is prepared to say about him/her/it is no more than any atheist would happily avow: "Another minority voice in the Bible defines God simply as the power of love. . .Love is the power that somehow expands our sense of freedom and thus enables us to enter life deeply by giving ourselves away." (Bishop John Shelby Spong, The Sins of Scripture, p. 64). Isn't that nice. According to this Episcopal leader, the greater part of the Bible: the "terrible texts,"— need to be pared away and thrown on the fire. What is allowed to remain will not over-tax the printing presses; probably it could fit on a one-page hand-out:

Perfect Example

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:" (1 Peter 2:21-22).

If we follow Jesus Christ as our example, what will we believe and say about scripture? That it "cannot be broken:"

"...and the scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35).

This teaching on scripture, that it cannot be broken or dissolved, is part of the Lord's doctrine. Those who are relying on Him for salvation can certainly lean on it with confidence.

Christ's detractors are very well aware whom they are targeting when they deny that Moses authored the Pentateuch or that David penned the psalms attributed to him. It is not Moses and David they care about, but Him who quoted David's psalms and Moses' law:

"David did not write the Psalms. Scholars locate the writings of most of the Psalms during the period of Jewish history called the Babylonian Exile. . .Yet, once again in the gospels, the Davidic authorship of the Psalms is asserted by Jesus (see Mark 12:36-37 ; Matt. 22:43-45 and Luke 20:42-44). Such a claim made today on a final exam, even at the seminary where I was trained, would result in a failing grade. Jesus, or those who thought they were quoting Jesus, was simply wrong about that." (John Shelby Spong, The Sins of Scripture, p. 20).

Jesus thought that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and Jonah was swallowed in the belly of the whale. Is He Lord, or is He ignorant?

Inerrancy

The only aspect of the five points as stated by this author which is not directly taught by scripture is 'inerrancy,' which is not a Bible word. The Bible says that God's words are "pure:"

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6).

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Proverbs 30:5).

'Pure' means "Free from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter, especially from anything that impairs or pollutes. . ." (Webster's International). It is a reasonable inference from the Bible's stated 'purity' that it teaches no error, because the function of scripture is to teach sinners the truth:

"Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day. . .Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way. The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies." (Psalm 25:5-10).

Any doctrinal error, such as the polytheism liberal Bible commentators impose upon the Psalms, is 'heterogeneous matter' 'impair[ing]' scripture's ability to achieve its stated goal:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." (Psalm 19:7).

Mislabeled

The media today has untethered the tag 'fundamentalist' from the Five Fundamentals, describing Muslim radicals, for instance, as 'fundamentalists.' The only one of the five points Muslims accept is '3. The virgin birth of Christ.' They believe the Bible as Christians hold it in their hands to be corrupt and unreliable, and not only do they deny the deity of Jesus Christ, they consider all who confess it to be idolaters. As they do not believe Jesus really died upon a cross, neither do they understand He really rose; nor do they believe His shed blood heals and cleanses sinners. Plenty of liberals concur with one of the five points! In lending the term 'fundamentalist' to those who deny four points out of five, the media have blurred the term's meaning to something closer to 'purist' versus 'compromiser.' Many carelessly call groups likes the Jehovah's Witnesses 'fundamentalists' because they quote the Bible, though the Jehovah's Witnesses share in the liberals' denial of the deity of Jesus Christ!

Authority Figures

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest denomination which has, in recent years, adopted the liberals' way of reading the Bible, against the authority of those they claim to follow:

"Hence Augustine says (Epist. ad Hieron.): 'Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learnt to hold in such honour as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem anything in their works to be true merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.'" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part Question 1, Article 8).

"I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves....Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part Question 1, Article 10).

Emergent Church

The emergent church has a fondness for allusive speech lacking in precision. But as this popular new movement defines itself, it is starting to look more and more like old-fashioned liberalism. Hell-fire has never been popular with the world, so those who want to be loved by the world must discard it, but in favor of what? Of vague generalities:

Contradictions

Some people claim that the 'contradictions' in the Bible prove that God cannot have inspired its authors:

Has the kind of Bible scholarship done at publicly funded institutions like the University of North Carolina indeed proven that the Bible is not inspired? Or does the fact, plainly and accurately stated above, that either the Bible is wrong or these people are wrong, prove, with sufficient clarity to satisfy any thinking person, that they are wrong?:

In addition to 'Bible Contradictions,' the atheists offer a set of Bible difficulties, such as, who was Cain's wife?:

Who Wrote the Gospels?

The earliest evidence is that the gospel authors were men within the apostolic circle:

Metaphor

Some people say that the gospels were not intended as factual report but as metaphor. Indeed, they say, the ancients lacked any mental category that could distinguish between fact and invention. No such mental equipment was made available and placed on the market until the Enlightenment, or so they say. Is this the case, or did the ancient legal system make your life forfeit if you could not distinguish between fact and invention?: