What Are the Fundamental Doctrines of the Faith?

By Ken Rathbun | March 21, 2024

Introduction

Fundamentalism had a pronounced impact in American religious life in the early-to-mid-twentieth century. Its effects are still felt as a movement that lives on today. Most Christian historians and theologians include a section on fundamentalism in their writings,1 though their perspectives about its beliefs and its value vary a great deal. What has distinguished fundamentalism as a movement? There are several answers to that question.

In this article I will focus on the five fundamentals—beliefs that galvanized many in the United States to proclaim and defend a conservative view of historic Christianity in the late nineteenth and well into the twentieth centuries. At that time unfaithful pastors, scholars, theologians, and historians were mounting attacks against the historic beliefs of Christianity. Believing pastors, scholars, theologians, and historians responded to those attacks, aided by regular church members, and in the process articulated several foundational doctrines that were threatened. Their contention was that if any of these doctrines were missing or perverted, the resulting belief system would not represent New Testament Christianity.

The historic five fundamentals remain an important aspect of fundamentalism’s history and heritage, though they are not exclusive identifying marks of the movement. What I mean by that is, other orthodox Christians believe most or all of them, but do not identify as fundamentalists.2 There is another distinctive that is exclusive to fundamentalism, to which I will turn after identifying the five fundamentals, emphasizing their significance and providing insight into their historical development.

Identification of the “Five” Fundamentals3

Events, beliefs, and systems do not always fall neatly into the categories designed for them. Regarding the five fundamentals, there are at least two recognized lists. Greatly similar, they both have had impact in fundamentalism’s history. One list dated from 1895 included

  1. Inerrancy of Scripture.
  2. The deity of Christ.
  3. The virgin birth of Christ.
  4. The substitutionary death of Christ.
  5. The physical resurrection and physical second coming.4

Another list came from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, adopted in their 1910 meeting. It included the following:

  1. The miracles of Christ.
  2. The virgin birth of Christ.
  3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ.
  4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.
  5. The inspiration of Scripture.5

David Beale mentions that these beliefs were considered “essential and necessary” by the denomination. The General Assembly reaffirmed them again in 1916 and in 1923, but in the latter case, the list was contested. These fundamentals were never brought to a vote again.6

The lists can be somewhat reconciled. The miracles of Jesus Christ (second list) can correspond to the deity of Jesus Christ (first list), since miracles attest to the divinity of Jesus Christ. Regarding the Scriptures, inerrancy (first list) was frequently mentioned in articles affirming the inspiration (second list) of the Bible. While both lists upheld the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the first list mentions His coming return, an issue discussed in the next section.7

Significance of the “Five” Fundamentals

Regarding both lists’ mention of Scripture, it makes sense that in order to assert anything about a doctrine, the source has to be reliable. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is completely necessary for Him to be divine, not a child of a human father. Thus, He is the Savior of the world, the Son of God. The same logic holds true for His divinity, and the miracles He performed to establish this.

Removing the substitutionary atonement (death) of Jesus Christ nullifies the act which brought about the salvation of humanity, the hope of every believer. The same is true for His resurrection, the central event of human history. The apostle Paul inseparably connects Christ’s resurrection with every believer’s expectation of his/her own resurrection. Christianity remains a belief system absolutely and ultimately dependent upon an event in history. If that event could be proved false, nothing of consequence would be left, as Paul anticipated in 1 Corinthians 15:14–19. Clearly all these doctrines are essential to Christianity.

One further issue is related to the lists of fundamentals. Certain contemporary writers advance the view that some fundamentalists added new doctrines to those traditionally classified as fundamental or essential to New Testament Christianity. The bodily return of Jesus Christ at the end of this age is one example.8 Often this was taken to mean a premillennial understanding of the End Times (Jesus will return prior to the millennium and set up a real, literal reign on earth), though not all fundamentalists agreed on this point. William Bell Riley included just such a premillennial understanding as an essential of the faith when in 1919 he formed the World’s Christian Fundamental Association.9 MacGregor describes Riley’s premillennialism as “The belief that Jesus would return bodily to rule on earth for one thousand years before the final resurrection and judgment.”10

Historical Development of the “Five” Fundamentals

The publication of the twelve-volume series from 1910–15 called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth helped to further establish the importance of these core doctrines. It contained some ninety articles defending essential Christian doctrines and attacking higher critical views of the Bible.11 These volumes provided theological support and definition for pastors, laymen, missionaries, and other conservatives who were concerned about defending the faith.

The series contained articles or extended references to all the fundamentals listed above. The Bible’s inspiration12 and inerrancy13 were well represented. There was a full chapter on the virgin birth of Jesus Christ,14 as well as His deity,15 and on the substitutionary atonement.16 The same held true for the bodily resurrection of Christ17 and His coming return.18

In 1920 Curtis Lee Laws wrote an article in the Watchman- Examiner19 concerning the need for those willing “to do battle royal” for the fundamentals of the faith. These fundamentals were the backdrop of what he had in mind. In this article he also famously coined the term for what to call those willing to do so—they should be called “fundamentalists.”

Separatism and the “Five” Fundamentals

Separatism is a key distinctive of fundamentalism. Starting in the mid-to-late 1920s, those who were willing to defend the fundamentals of the faith realized they were not winning the denominational battles against their liberal (unbelieving) opponents. I think a review of David Beale’s stages of fundamentalism’s development is helpful here.

First stage: Nonconformist Fundamentalism

  • Phase one: 1857(75)–1920. There was an interdenominational and revivalist character. It was centered inside the Bible Conference Movement and concerned about the End Times.
  • Phase two: 1920–30. Fundamentalist/ Liberal battles within mainline denominations.

Second stage: Separatist Fundamentalism

  • Phase one: 1930–50. Fundamentalist separation from the mainline denominations.
  • Phase two: 1950–70. Fundamentalist separation from New Evangelicalism.
  • Phase three: 1970–present. Fundamentalist defection into broader evangelicalism.20

At the point in history I am describing (the late 1920s), fundamentalists by necessity were beginning to entertain separatism from liberal denominations as a biblical path forward.21 Which doctrines would they be willing to separate over? The “five” fundamentals provided a basis on which to make these difficult decisions.

While there are many distinctives of fundamentalism, separatism remains a key one.22 The “five” fundamentals are doctrinal propositions formulated in the early twentieth century in reaction to the unbelief growing in many denominations. However, Christians of all types and branches can genuinely affirm their belief in most, if not all, of the fundamentals described above from both lists. Not least among these Christians are those associated with broader evangelicalism.

The fact persists that fundamentalist doctrinal statements are not much different from many broader evangelical ones. But the difference is one of attitude toward those doctrines.

My point is not to diminish the significance of the “five” fundamentals but rather to acknowledge their supreme importance. And that recognition is demonstrated in the actions of believing Christians based on their attitude toward these doctrines. Are these fundamentals worth separating over from churches and organizations who compromise the truth?

I think they are.

Dr. Ken Rathbun was a Baptist Mid-Missions missionary in Jamaica from 2002–16 and taught at the Fairview Baptist Bible College, where he was also the academic dean; he also preached and taught in many other areas of the world, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, England, Guyana, India, Liberia, Peru, Scotland, Thailand, the United States, and other creative- access areas. He currently serves as vice-president for Academic Services and Dean of the College at Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary.

(Originally published in FrontLine • May/June 2019. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)

Photo by Faith Crabtree on Unsplash

  1. Some examples include Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 247; Linwood Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 355–56; Kirk MacGregor, Contemporary Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), ch. 11, “Christian Fundamentalism,” 113–20; John D. Woodbridge and Frank A. James III, Church History Volume Two: From Pre- Reformation to the Present Day (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 791–804; Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), s.v., “Fundamentalism,” and related articles, 461–68. [↩]
  2. The fundamentals are also not exhaustive. For instance, the Trinity was never mentioned as one of the five fundamentals of Christianity. [↩]
  3. I use quotations when referring to the “five” fundamentals because there is more than one list and these lists are not completely uniform. However, there seems to be a consensus to focus on five doctrinal propositions. [↩]
  4. Though mentioned by Paul Enns (The Moody Handbook of Theology [Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989], 613, note 6), without any date or origination information (Enns references Earle Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 1954 edition, 481), yet Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2: The Reformation to the Present, revised and updated (New York: Harper Collins, 2010), 342, traces the origination of this list to the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference in New York. [↩]
  5. From Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 613. [↩]
  6. David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 149. [↩]
  7. Christ’s return is mentioned without getting into specifics about its purpose and timing in regard to a millennium. Though not commented on in the sources I consulted, my own view is that the dispensational perspective in the Bible Conference movement of the latter nineteenth century influenced this inclusion. Based on this assertion, it seems fundamentalists influenced by dispensational fundamentalists would orient themselves to the first list and the Presbyterians to the second list. [↩]
  8. For instance, see MacGregor, Contemporary Theology, 113–14; other sources mention this as well: Dictionary of Christianity in America, 463. [↩]
  9. MacGregor, Contemporary Theology, 114. See also George M. Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2006); Marsden notes the premillennialism associated with this movement, 157–58. [↩]
  10. MacGregor, Contemporary Theology, 114. [↩]
  11. For background on this series, see the articles by Herbster and Oats in this issue. [↩]
  12. My copy is the four-volume edition issued by R. A. Torrey through the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1917. Instead of supplying the chapter titles and authors, I will simply provide the volume and chapter numbers here and throughout this section. Inspiration is well represented by several articles: in vol. 2: see chapters 1, 2, and 4. [↩]
  13. Inerrancy is mentioned in many articles. For instance, see vol. 1, ch. 2, p. 48; vol. 1, ch. 7, p. 144; vol. 2, ch. 1, p. 11–13; vol. 3, ch. 5, p. 71; vol. 3, ch. 13, p. 172; vol. 3, ch. 15, pp. 205–6. [↩]
  14. Vol. 2, ch. 11. [↩]
  15. Vol. 2, ch. 10. [↩]
  16. Vol. 3, ch. 5. [↩]
  17. Vol. 2, ch. 14. [↩]
  18. Vol. 4, chs. 21–22. [↩]
  19. Documentation on this abounds; see Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture; note Marsden’s contention of fundamentalism as a doctrinal movement, 159; Beale, Pursuit of Purity, 195; Dictionary of Christianity, 463. [↩]
  20. Pursuit of Purity, 5–9. [↩]
  21. Biblical support for this action was found in many scriptural texts: Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14–17; 2 Thess. 3:6, 11–15; 1 Tim. 6:3, 5; and 2 Tim. 2:17–18. Taken from Literature Item #6: “The Position of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches on Separation” by Dr. Robert T. Ketcham, published by the GARBC, Schaumburg, IL, no date. [↩]
  22. In my view it is the most significant. [↩]
Posted in Blog and tagged ,