Historical antecedents to modern-day Christian fundamentalism

A Christian fundamentalist is one who believes in the literal truth of the bible including old testament stories of the creation of the universe, Adam and Eve as the first human beings and their eviction from the Garden of Eden, Noah's feat of biological conservation during a global flood, etc. Christian fundamentalists may also believe in the inerrancy of the bible.I would like to know if this kind of Christian fundamentalism has any historical antecedents. Present-day mainstream (non-fundamentalist) Christianity appears to regard much of the Old Testament as a set of parables to be interpreted by modern readers. That notion of "interpretation" seems to be its primary distinction from fundamentalism.But in the historical past, there was presumably not such a focus upon interpretation. Events of the Old Testament are referred to in the New Testament as though they were real events rather than parables. For example, from 1 Peter 3: A plain reading of that passage is that water symbolizes baptism; but also that the events described in Genesis regarding Noah and the Ark are literally true (otherwise, how could Jesus speak to "the spirits in prison"?Another example, from 1 Timothy 2: If the system of patriarchy is based on events described in Genesis, then the system must carry little moral weight if those events are fictional. That does not appear to be the author's intention. He seems to believe that the system carries moral weight because of the fact that Adam was literally formed before Eve.It appears that at least some authors of the New Testament were fundamentalists in the modern sense. Indeed, I can only assume that at some point, all Christians were what would now be called "fundamentalist". At some later time, the literal truth of the Old Testament was abandoned by the mainstream. And later still it was either recovered by a new sect, or else some obscure branch of Christianity might have continued believing the literal truth and came back to popularity in modern-day America.Can anybody give some historical background? Specifically:Historical QuestionsWhen was the literal truth of the old testament first challenged and for what reason?What are the historical antecedents of modern day (US-style) Christian fundamentalism?When were specific Old Testament accounts abandoned by the mainstream and for what reason? I am thinking specifically of a) Adam and Eve literally being the first humans in a Garden of Eden; b) Noah literally carrying two of every animal on the ark; c) A literal tower of babel existing, where different languages were invented; d) Jonah literally living inside a whale.Theological QuestionsDoes the view of the Old Testament as fable or parable render later sections of the new testament invalid (as in the case of patriarchy above)? If so, how do we "know" that the Old Testament is parable but the New Testament is not? Who decides that and for what reasons? How do professional theologicans distinguish between parable and literal truth when they read a sacred text?How much of scripture is actually accepted as literal truth by modern-day non-funamentalists? If non-fundamentalists do not accept the old testament as literal truth, and do not accept some parts of the new testament as literal truth, then how do established churches respond to the relativist challenge, namely, "believe whatever you want".Thanks!MickEdited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : Just trying to improve itEdited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : Corrected typos

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.The topic doesn't quite fit here, but it doesn't fit anywhere else either. This seems a better fit than other forums.Edited by AdminNWR, : add comment on choice of forum

I've no idea as to answers for your questions - but this is an excellent OP. Will be following with interest.

There have probably been people who believed in the literal truth of the Genesis creation story, since ancient times. But it was never part of required theological belief in mainline churches, at least until the modern creationist movement.One must distinguish between Fundamentalism and Young Earth Creationism. These are not the same. It is possible to be a fundamentalist without being a YEC. For example, there are fundamentailists who believe in Old Earth Creationism. Fundamentalist Christians often quote the writings of C.S. Lewis, but Lewis appears to have been a theistic evolutionist. People often speak of Sherlock Holmes as if he really existed. But one cannot conclude that they they actually believe he was a real person. It is natural to talk in terms of the metaphors of the day, but there is no implication that they were not metaphors. In the No webpage found at provided URL: Wiki article on creationism, we find: Non-literalist views of Genesis seem to have been part of the Jewish traditions, since before the founding of christianity.

An important historical development that took place between the time of the Protestant Reformation and the Great Awakenings in the United Ststes would be the Pietist movement that swept Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pietists rebelled against what they saw as overemphasis on doctrine and tradition in liturguical churches. Pietism placed a higher value on devout personal living, informal worship settings, and meditation on the person of Christ.Here are links to articles on Pietism:
Wiki The Museum of ProtestantismThe word 'fundamentalist' has only been around for about 100 years. Some sources on the history of fundamentalism:'History of Fundamentalism in The United States'
A Lecture by Professor Terry Matthews, Wake Forest University
http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyone.html

The term was ... used to describe The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. These two wealthy brothers were concerned with the moral and spiritual decline they believed was infecting Protestantism, and sought to restore the historic faith with a 12-volume call to arms that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five fundamentals of the faith: (1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the originals of each scriptural book); (2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ; (3) the substitutionary view of the atonement; (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; (5) The imminent return of Christ. These twelve volumes were sent to "every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, Sunday School Superintendent, YMCA and YWCA secretary." In all, some 3 million copies were mailed out.

Religious Movements Homepage: Fundamentalism
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html
Contains valuable scholarly descriptions defining features of fundamentalism._Edited by Archer Opterix, : URL.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

mick writes: Interpretation is not a 'focus' but an acknowledgment. Every reader interprets. To interpret a text metaphorically is to interpret. To interpret a text literally is to interpret.The use of OT passages by NT writers presents us with a variety of interpretive approaches. They are not always literal. A good example is the passage you mention from 1 Peter: No one who knows the Flood story would say Noah and his family were literally saved 'through water.' They were saved from water. They were saved though an ark. Noah's family stays dry; baptized people get wet. So a literal interpretation of the story is obviously not in view when the writer talks of salvation 'through water.' He's talking about baptism. He just riffs a bit on the water motif, and on the theme of renewal.Other interpretations in the past were also rather free. Augustine has a famous interpretation of the opening chapter of Genesis that takes every detail metaphorically.GenreIt is best to avoid the terms 'parable' or 'fable' when discussing biblical narratives. These terms prejudice the discussion because they apply to very specific genres of literature. There are many other possible genres for any ancient text. The question of genre is one that comes into play (or should) whenever we understand a text. But it is a question.'Story' is a fine word for the purposes of this thread. It leaves the question of genre open. The Bible contains, among other things, a body of stories that are passed along from generation to generation.Story plays an important role in any community. How best to understand this inheritance? That is something a community decides anew in each generation, in dialogue with the stories themselves and with the experiences of the group._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Archer Opterix writes:

quote:

---

The word 'fundamentalist' has only been around for about 100 years.

---

Yes, and your next paragraph, a quotation, is correct to trace it to The Fundamentals, this link to which I provided here a couple years ago in another discussion similar to this one.As to the question of when the accuracy of the bible was first challenged, I think it goes back to the Renaissance, perhaps as far back as the 14th century. Such questions had certainly become widespread by the time Deism assumed prominence in the 18th century.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I'm not sure that your conclusion about the NT writers citing events from the OT proves that they believed the events were actual history.In modern parlance, we all use phrases based on narratives that we know are not real events. Take, for example, "crying wolf," "sour grapes," and "ugly duckling." These are all two word phrases that have a much deeper and immediately understood meaning beyond the words themselves, because they allude to stories we are all familiar with. If someone is said to be crying wolf, the implication of that phrase is clear, and a point is made. That point is made regardless of whether there ever was an actual little boy who repeatedly warned of a non-existent danger then ultimately succumed to that danger because of his false alarms.Is is not equally plausible that the writers of the NT were using stories from the OT in the same way?I'm far from familiar enough with any parts of the bible to answer this question myself, but I pose it because it seems relevant to the discussion. I would suggest, however, that the most compelling answer to the question is going to come from an analysis of the original text, as opposed to any translation. Colloquial phrases can be easily mistranslated, particularly by those who have an interest in a certain interpretation being adopted over another.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Therein lies the rub, Sub. Where do we find the originals?

Not my field.But it sure ain't King James or NIV.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Yes. Throughout most of the last 2000 years most Christians were "fundamentalists" in the general sense that they regarded the whole Bible as inspired by God, despite differing interpretations of some parts. It was? I've never heard of this. When did this happen?{Edit: Oh. Are you talking about the stuff that gets said here? You mean the liberals? VERY recent stuff.What makes them "mainstream" by the way? They did corrupt a number of the old mainstream churches, the Presbyterian, Anglican/Episcopal and Methodist in particular, but only to cause splits, with the conservative Bible-believers going their own way, as well as bringing about the wild proliferation of independent Bible churches in reaction against them. As for the "mainstream" churches, there are now some four or five Presbyterian churches, PCUSA being the liberal wing, a conservative and liberal Lutheran, lots of Baptists, most of them conservative but American Baptist is the most liberal, Methodism and Anglicanism are unfortunately mostly liberal. And there are various degrees of liberalism too. Most don't go as far as jar in rejecting the traditional fundamentalist view of the Bible for instance}.Somebody on the thread pointed out the historical dispute early in the 20th Century when "The Fundamentals" was written to counter the liberal Christian movement that had been growing over the last century or so. That included Deism, Unitarianism and then the main denominations getting liberalized, some of it in response to Darwinism. I've posted on that subject many times here. The fundamentalist movement was intended as a RETURN to the old standard, an effort to define it against the liberal point of view. J. Gresham Machen is the main name associated with the fundamentalist movement, although he wasn't completely in favor of all the principles it came to stand for. He was the founder of Westminster Seminary, a Reformed Christian Bible inerrancy seminary that is becoming more influential than ever these days.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No.There is nothing about the NT accounts that gives you license to read them as treating the OT as anything but factual history, and certainly that is how they were understood by the majority of Christians through the last 2000 years, probably with ONLY the exception of the liberal movement in the last couple hundred.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Disintegrated into dust. Papyrus doesn't last forever. Nor parchment. That's why they all had to be copied over and over and over again -- well, they were copied mainly in order to distribute them to all the churches, but also because they don't last forever.The Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved because of the unusual condition of their storage over the last two millennia, and they are remarkable evidence that the Old Testament has come down to us intact.But the people who spend their lives studying the old texts know what they are doing, and they have thousands of texts of the Bible from later centuries, some as early as the 2nd century however, and a variety of languages to work from in reconstructing the originals. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: VATICAN CITY (CP) - Recent discoveries in the Vatican City Archives may finally lay to rest the age old question "Is the Pope Catholic?" Spokesperson for God, Josephine Holyernthau recently announced the discovery of a mumified snake among the various relics and statues of Mary among the archival holdings. "This discovery clearly indicates the Pope may in fact have been involved with various snake-handling ceremonies, which indicate the Pope is in fact a fundamentalist Christian, along the lines of various primitive Baptist and Pentacostal denominations," Holyernthau said.Previous speculations concerning the Pope's possible membership in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church proved a dead end according to the spokesperson. "Our atomic clock timing of the midnight mass may have been in error but our creation scientists are still examining the data," said Holyernthau."At any rate, it is obvious that the Pope and by implication all Catholics were fundamentalists throughout the history of the church," Holyernthau said. "If only that snake could talk, I'm sure he would support our position in this matter." Edited by anglagard, : smile

So we have inscriptions and engravings from Neolithic Man, stela, ostraca, hieroglyphics and hieratic, cuneiform tablets by the thousands, merchant accounts and histories of victories, salutations to other gods, seals and rings from pre-OT days that survived,even a schoolboy`s homework scratched on a stone in Old Hebrew, and an inspiring God never said 'Hey, boys. dip it in this preservative so future readers will get the facts right', OR 'I gave you the Ten Commandments etched in stone, write my words in like fashion for posterity'?