Accuracy and the Five (or Six) Fundamentals

In much conservative Christianity there are 5 Fundamentals of the Christian Faith:

1) The Inerrancy of Scripture

2) The Virgin Birth of Christ

3) The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

4) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ

5) The Physical Second Coming of Christ

I myself hold to all 5 of these “fundamentals”, though if the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ is understood as being limited to only that of the penal substitutionary variety, then I might have drop number 4. I would be 4.5 Fundamentalist. Or would I?

One thing I do not know concerning Fundamentalism is this:

In the truest sense of the movement, is a Fundamentalist one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are true or is a Fundamentalist one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are fundamental? Or Both?

If both, then must we add another Fundamental?

6) The 5 Fundamentals are fundamental

Of course, then we would have 6 Fundamentals and so it should be stated that “The 6 Fundamentals are fundamental.”

Again, I hold all 5 classic Fundamentals to be true. However, I am absolutely positive that the first 2 Fundamentals are not fundamental. The latter 3 I am not sure are Fundamental.

But let us assume that a Fundamentalist is one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are true and that these same 5 “Fundamentals” are fundamental.

It is probably not unreasonable to assume that most Fundamentalists believe that it is essential that these 5 “Fundamentals” are correctly understood by the individual Fundamentalist. One must not only believe that these 5 “Fundamentals” are true; one must also have an accurate understanding of their meaning.

Another thing I do not know concerning Fundamentalism is this:

To what degree of accuracy must the individual Fundamentalist have concerning the meaning of these 5 “Fundamentals”?

1) The Inerrancy of Scripture

There are numerous definitions and understandings of Biblical inerrancy, mine being one of the broader models. Indeed, so many definitions of Biblical inerrancy exist that a few Evangelical Christians got together in Chicago in 1978 to draw up a “definitive” declaration of what Biblical inerrancy is. This Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy then became the extrabiblical standard for all evangelical Christians. But what about those evangelical Christians who lived prior to 1978? How accurate must they have been in order to still be considered inerrantist and Fundamentalistic?

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Inerrancy of Scripture?

2) The Virgin Birth of Christ

The Isaiah prophecy that Matthew references with concern to the “virgin” birth is derived from the Greek Septuagint Scriptures. However, the original Hebrew version, of which the Septuagint is a translation, doesn’t designate the mother as specifically a “virgin” but as a “young woman”. It’s almost as if Matthew (or someone) based their theological understanding of the Scriptural prophecies of Isaiah on a bad, errant Greek translation of the original, inerrant Hebrew. Now can a person still be said to believe in the “virgin” birth if they do not take the New Testament accounts as “literal” but as a literary device derived their understanding of the episode from the meaning of the original Hebrew prophecy and not the Greek mistranslation?

Again, I myself believe in the classical, traditional and “literal” view of the Virgin Birth that Mary did not have any sexual relations with a man prior to the conception and birth of Jesus.

But how accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Virgin Birth?

3) The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

There have been numerous views about the Atonement in the history of Christianity. The currently popular view among Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) has only been around for six or seven hundred years. What about the prior 1200 years of the Ransom Theory of the Atonement’s dominance? Are all the Christians who lived in the first 1200 years of Christendom apostate and non-Fundamentalists?

I myself hold to the view that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is absolutely and completely wrong. I believe that this view is not only not taught in Scripture but that it is actually condemned. Nevertheless, as stated above, the currently popular view among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is that of Penal Substitution.

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Atonement?

4) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ

[This one was far too complicated to reconstruct and explain for the simple purposes of this post. I think that I make my argument known well enough by the other 4 Fundamentals to justify my choice of not needlessly laboring over a point not necessary to the building of my argument. Though in summation, let me state that the argument made would be more Socratic questions about individual details of the event of Christ’s resurrection. “Mr. Harris, what did you wrought?”]

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ?


5) The Physical Second Coming of Christ

We all know that there are myriads of End Time models. The current popular view held by the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is that of Pre-tribulation Rapture, Pre-millennial Classical Dispensationism. This particular model first emerged in the beginning of the 19th Century. What about those Christians who lived for 1800 years prior to the emergence of Pre-tribulation Rapture, Pre-millennial Classical Dispensationism? Were they all apostate and non-Fundamentalists?

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Physical Second Coming of Christ?

In essence my primary question to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is this:

How accurate must a Christian be in his or her understanding of Christian theology and the Christian Faith in order to achieve his or her own salvation?