Why I'm More Than Just a Fundamentalist!

by Robert Breaker III

copyright 2006



* The following online book has been designed to be "printer friendly."  So please feel free to print the entire thing and read it through!  Otherwise, just read it here online.

A printed booklet form of this book is available, and can be ordered through Amazon.com.

Click here to order the updated and revised printed version of this book



Why I'm More Than Just A Fundamentalist

Many Christians today pride themselves upon being "Fundamentalists." They enjoy bragging openly and rampantly that they believe in "the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith." Some of these Christians claim to be "Fundamentalists" because their church is so. Others believe they are such because of their denominational affiliation. While still others think they are thus because they have graduated from a Christian School or College that claims to be a "Baston of Orthodoxy" or "Fortress of Faith," that teaches and defends the basic "Fundamentals" of Christianity. But what exactly is a Fundamentalist? And what exactly are the Fundamentals?

By the term "Fundamentalist," I do not mean what most people think it means today, because of the demonizing and degrading of the term by the Secular News Media. Liberal Broadcasters and Reporters use the word almost as a substitute for "terrorist." It's commonplace now to hear on the evening news about an extreme "Fundamentalist" in the Middle East who has blown himself up for Allah in his Holy Jihad to rid the world of Christians and Jews. The Press has changed the context from that of a Christian to a Muslim. Because of this, many people wrongly associate all "Fundamentalists" with violence and civil unrest. But true Fundamentalists are not violent, nor are they Muslims!

Neither do I imply that sects and cults are included in the definition, as the deceptive News Media would make them appear. The Socialistic American Press is Anti-God, Anti-Bible, and Anti-Christian, and therefore biased in their reporting. By smear tactics and defamation of character, they have tried to make people think that Fundamentalists are just crazies and wacos who live only to teach false doctrine and deceive people or to overthrow the government.

When Janet Reno and the American Government cruelly murdered Branch Davidian cult Leader David Koresh and his followers, the American Press labeled them as "Fundamentalists." This was to make all Fundamentalists look like frauds and fanatics. But the Branch Davidians were not Christians. They were a false sect that taught lies and falsehoods contrary to the Bible. Mr. Koresh himself even claimed to be Jesus Christ in the flesh. He was not a Fundamentalist. He was a Funny-mental-ist!

Thus, to reiterate when I speak of Fundamentalists, I'm not talking about Muslims like Bin Laden, nor am I speaking about Cult Leaders such as Jim Jones. I am instead addressing those who call themselves Christians and who claim to believe in the actual Fundamentals of Christianity.

There are two schools of these Fundamentalists in the world today. One is liberal, the other is Biblical. The first is that of the liberal Ecumenical Crowd. The World Council of Churches (a liberal organization that seeks to unite all religions) is part of this movement. Most members of the World Council of Churches claim to be Fundamentalists. That is to say, they claim to believe in the Fundamentals of the faith, or the very base, most foundational things, that one should believe in order to call himself a Christian. This organization includes: Unitarians, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and much more. Their basis of fellowship is "We can unite on the fundamentals and forget all our other doctrinal differences." This is what they've done, and true Christianity has suffered for it ever since. Instead of teaching the whole Bible, these denominations only teach parts of it, or basic "fundamentals" of it, leaving out the weightier matters of the law, such as sound doctrine.

In this apostate day in which we live, most members of the WCC are so liberal that they don't even believe the fundamentals they claim to unite on! The WCC is full of Communists, Liberal Scholars, Atheists, False Prophets, Apostates, Liars, Politicians, and Bible Deniers. Most of that crowd never has and never will believe in the true "Fundamentals of the Faith." They only claim they do to forward the spirit of "unity" and "togetherness." Thus, when I speak of True Fundamentalists in this book, I'm most certainly not talking about that crowd.

By the term "Fundamentalist" I am speaking of those few who claim to believe the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith and dogmatically stand for them without wavering or backing down. A true Fundamentalist believes in the Bible and the Fundamentals in it and makes no apology for it.

Although the term is not limited to any one group or creed, most Biblical, modern day Bible "Fundamentalists" belong to the Independent Baptist fold. This is mostly because of one man – Dr. J. Frank Norris.

In the 30's and 40's, America was headed down "the highway to destruction." Liberalism had entered many colleges and churches, and many people began to shy away completely from the Fundamentals of the Faith, turning instead to "fables" (2 Tim. 4:4) and "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1). Many new denominations were born in the late 1800's and early 1900's which began growing and flourishing. These claimed to believe in the "Fundamentals" but had many doctrines apart from the Bible's teachings, which were either an addition to the Bible (like the Seventh Day Adventists and Christ of Christ), a twisting of the interpretation of the scriptures (like the Charismatics), or a blatant changing of the scriptures to teach a lie (like the Jehovah Witnesses). With the changing of times, came the changing of doctrines. And many churches began to accept the ever-growing Theory of Evolution and try to incorporate it into the Bible's teachings.

When the Southern Baptist College known as Baylor University allowed Evolution to be taught in its school, Mr. Norris, a graduate of said school, became indignant and upset. Already an accomplished Southern Baptist Pastor and well- known Radio Preacher, Mr. Norris used his position and recognition to lift up his voice and cry aloud against Liberalism, Evolution, and Apostasy. He gallantly and boisterously pleaded and exhorted people to return to "the Fundamentals" of the Christian Faith and stop allowing apostate scholars and liberal teachers to deceive them with German Rationalism, Science (falsely so called), and Secular Education. Many debates then ensued on the radio with most of Texas glued to their speakers. Mr. Norris would give his liberal opponents the opportunity to speak first. But instead of responding to them, Mr. Norris would just preach the blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ and many people were saved, proving that God and the Bible can still save people and modern apostate teachings cannot.

Eventually, he was shunned by his Southern Baptist cohorts, and decided to leave their liberal folds and start a new denomination. He would be an Independent Baptist. Many Baptist churches followed suit. Thus was born the Independent Baptist Movement. Because of Mr. Norris' desire to defend the Fundamentals, many who followed his leading began calling themselves Fundamentalists.

To this day, many Independent Baptist churches in America and yea even in the world boldly proclaim to be "Fundamentalists." They constitute the majority of the true Fundamentalist fold. They stand publicly and passionately on the Fundamentals of their faith and are proud of the fact that they will not give up or move one inch on what they believe. But I ask, "Is it enough to just believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith? Shouldn't a born again child of God believe more than just the fundamentals? And just what are these Fundamentals anyway?"

There is no set document or creed that lists what every true Fundamentalist should believe. Instead they claim the Bible tells them what they should believe, and they base all their fundamentals from it. Some may have more fundamentals than others, yet they all claim to uncompromisingly believe in the fundamentals. But what are they exactly?

Dogmatic, self-proclaimed, Fundamentalist George W. Dollar wrote a book entitled, "A History of Fundamentalism in America." In it, he takes a whole page and defines Historic Fundamentalism as "the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes." 1

But just what does he mean by this? Mr. Dollar doesn't really define Fundamentalism. He gives a vague definition at best. But he does state that a Fundamentalist believes in what the Bible "affirms" (it would be much better to say "teaches"). He also tells us what a Fundamentalist does. According to Mr. Dollar, it is someone who not only stands for what they believe in, but "militantly" exposes all non-Biblical affirmation and attitudes. In other words, a Fundamentalist not only preaches the Bible, but also is quick to label as "liberals" and "apostates" all those who do not adhere to his same doctrines and beliefs. They are militant in their defense of God's words, but with words only and not with guns or bombs (unlike the Muslims).

But again, what exactly are the Fundamentals? Is there a list? Although some Fundamentalists would disagree on some of their minor beliefs and teachings, they all have the same root beliefs in common. Many of them call these the Fundamentals of the faith:

Although most Fundamentalists believe in more than just these few points, the majority of them repeatedly point to these as the most basic "Fundamentals" of the faith. But is it enough to believe in just these points?

Because of their dogmatic stand on just the Fundamentals, many Fundamentalists are quick to allow others to join their fold who adhere to these points as well. But should a Christian only believe in these basic Fundamentals and nothing else? Shouldn't we believe in and teach much more of the Bible than just the most primitive of doctrines that define someone as a Christian? I say we should.

The very same Fundamentals above, with the exception of #7 and possible exceptions of #'s 3 and 8, are the same Fundamentals that the World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical movement claim to believe. They unite on these points, and brag about having these things in common. They are apostate in their other beliefs and have derived a system in which they have thrown out sound doctrine and have chosen the most basic of doctrines in which they could come together in the spirit of oneness. In other words, they have made these the defining points of Christianity, and chosen to omit and forget those other teachings that define them as a denomination, in order to embrace other religions. They have fallen away from what they once believed and have willingly done so in order to accept others into their fold. This is known as apostasy. And this is exactly what Paul said would happen in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

Paul further tells us in 1 Timothy 4:1 and 2, that people in the last days will not only fall into apostasy, but they would also be led to doctrines of devils, and would speak lies, departing from the faith. This is exactly what is happening through the Ecumenical movement. Many of those who claim to believe the "Fundamentals" don't, and have completely departed from their faith and have cast aside other important Biblical doctrines in order to unite with others. They have substituted "veracity" for "unity."

Because of this failure to preach more than just the fundamentals, the world sees a Christian nowadays as anyone who just simply believes in God. But there is much more to being a Christian than just this. In fact, the Bible says in James 2:19 that even the devils (demons) believe in God and tremble. Of course they are not saved, nor can be. But all demons believe that God exists, he created all things, that men are sinners, that Jesus was born of a virgin, died, was buried, and rose again, and is coming back one day. One then could make a strong point that demons are in fact "Fundamentalists" as well. For they too acknowledge and believe in the very basic teachings of Christian Doctrine. However, they are not trusting in Christ Jesus and his precious shed blood to save them!

The greatest problem today with those who call themselves Fundamentalists is that they do not define what they mean by the Fundamentals. They are quick to agree on what they are, but do not explain what each point actually means. When asked to define what they believe about each point, they usually interpret them differently than others. Because of this, many Fundamentalists are found to be nothing more than apostates themselves, believing in a statement, but not in the actual Biblical Doctrine of that assertion. Let us look at each of the above listed "Fundamentals" for some examples.



Many who call themselves Fundamentalists claim to believe in God. They preach that he is the Creator of all things, yet some differ on how he did it. Some teach a literal six-day creation (as the Bible says). Others claim that the word "days" should be translated "periods" and suppose that God made all things in more than just a week. They theorize that he took his time, possibly thousands of years in creating everything. Still others, who believe in "Theistic Evolution" assert that the six days of creation is not literal, and that God did not physically create all things, but rather metaphysically, or symbolically, is looked to as the Creator who allowed his Creation to evolve over millions of years.

As for me, I'll stick with the Bible teaching that God made all things in exactly six days and on the seventh rested. I take the Bible literally, and take God at his word. Yet some Fundamentalists do not. They may say they believe that God created all things, but how he did it is the deciding factor of whether or not a person is truly Biblical in his beliefs or Secular in his interpretation. Sadly many "Fundamentalists" take the Bible story of creation as only "symbolic" or "allegorical." They say they believe God created all things to look "Fundamental" in the eyes of others, but then explain that they really don't believe he did it literally, but allowed it to happen by the course of Theistic Evolution. This is a prime example of apostasy, and an Apostate Fundamentalist.



Almost every Fundamentalist believes that men are sinners. One would be hard pressed to find one that does not. Yet, some Fundamentalists differ on their belief of man's depravity. Liberals who hold to this fundamental are quick to change the word sinner to "a person who commits errors" or someone who just "makes mistakes." They shy away from the words "sin" and "sinners," as not to offend. Other liberals take the term and change its meaning to apply only to the most vilest of people such as murderers, rapists, thieves, and blasphemers. They claim that those people are sinners, but those who aren't sinning willfully and are trying to live a good life, are really good people at heart and not sinners in themselves.

Other Fundamentalists, known as Calvinists, go too extreme to the other side and claim that all men are so depraved and sinful that they have no hope of salvation, and no free will to accept Christ Jesus of their own accord. All of these interpretations and alterations of this fundamental are completely erroneous.

According to the Bible, all men are sinners (Rom. 3:10,23; 5:12) with a sinful nature. But even though man's depraved, he still has a freewill to either accept or reject Jesus Christ (John 1:12; John 7:37,38; Acts 7:51). One should not shy away from the term sinner, but boldly proclaim that all men are such in need of salvation! To change the word or not tell people their problem is to deceive them into thinking they are okay and have no need of redemption! This is what many Modern Apostate Liberals do as they try to downgrade sin, and uplift man. Thus, I believe in more than just the statement that men are sinners. I define it by explaining what it means — all men are sinners in need of salvation! They have a freewill to either choose or reject Jesus Christ. If they accept him as their Saviour, they go to heaven, if they do not, then according to the word of God, they'll burn in hell for all eternity.



On the subject of the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures, there are many different beliefs among Fundamentalists. Some wrongfully follow Modern Scholarship and German Rationalism (which try to undermine the authority of the Bible and cast doubt upon its authenticity) and believe that only those parts of the Bible that are the oldest are inspired. Others adhere to the "Pick and Choose" method of Inspiration, claiming that parts of God's word are inspired while others are not (usually they are the only ones that can tell you which scriptures are inspired and which aren't according to their own opinion). Still others believe in "Personal Inspiration," which teaches that God's words are only inspired when they are inspiring to the reader.

Some Fundamentalists teach that the words are not inspired, but only the idea conveyed through the message of the texts (Dynamic Equivalence). Others stress that the men where inspired and not the words. While still others believe that inspiration applies only to the teachings of the Bible, and not the literal words written therein. All of these are apostate beliefs.

The majority of Baptist Fundamentalists believe in the "Divine Inspiration of the Original Autographs," in which they teach that only the original writings were inspired, and only these are the scriptures. They proclaim that inspiration only applies to the originally inspired words, and does not carry on to any copies of those same words. This of course is ridiculous and just plain silly, as 2 Timothy 3:16 tell us, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." How could anyone hold a copy of the inspired Scriptures in their hand if they are only found in the "original autographs?" And how could they use them for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction, if those "originals" no longer exist? Biblically, the term "Scriptures" then includes all faithful copies of the originals. Thus, a copy of the originally inspired scriptures is just as inspired as the original!

Fundamentalists have a wide range of disagreement on this point. For someone to say that they believe in the inspiration of the Bible is not enough. They must be pressed to explain what inspiration means to them. They could believe a large variety of things that in all actuality could completely negate what it is they claim to believe about the scriptures.

As for me, I believe that all scripture (the 66 books of the King James Bible) is given by inspiration of God, all of it, every word! And God preserved it for us today through the medium of faithful copies.



On the topic of the Virgin Birth, all fundamentalists are in rapid agreement. Baptists agree with Catholics, Lutherans with Methodists, Episcopalians with Presbyterians, etc. They all concur that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. But some denominations believe a little differently. They teach that Christ was born of the Virgin. That is to say, they believe in The Virgin Mary, and that she was a "Perpetual Virgin" and is so now. According to the Bible, this is simply not so. For in Mark 6:3, we read, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?"

Again we read the same thing in Matthew 13:55 and 56. Mary was not a Perpetual Virgin. Mary had other children after Jesus was born! In the two passages mentioned above, their names are listed. Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. Counting Jesus, Mary had at least seven children!

Thus, it is not enough then to say that one believes that Jesus was born of a virgin. One must then clarify his belief in this fundamental by confessing whether or not he believes that Mary is a "perpetual virgin." If a man says he believes that Mary is still a virgin, he exposes himself for the apostate, Bible ignoramus that he is.



Almost the whole world knows that Jesus Christ died on a tree. Fundamentalists would not argue this fact. Yet there are some Fundamentalists who would be quick to debate what shape it was. Some say it wasn't a cross (a t shape), but rather a pole. Others argue that it was the figure of a capital tee (T). While a small majority try to make his cross into another shape. But biblically, what did Christ hang on when he died?

According to the Bible, Jesus was nailed in his hands and his feet. The Romans used a cross, or a lower case "t" shape, in their crucifixions. And the Bible tells us that Pilate put a sign on the cross (John 19:19). If Jesus were nailed to a pole, his hands would have had to been nailed above him, leaving no room for a notice. Neither would there be room for a sign if he were nailed to an uppercase "T" design with his arms outspread. Thus, logically (and Biblically) the only form for the cross was a "t" shape in which his hands were nailed to the horizontal plank, and his feet to the vertical one below him, leaving room for the sign above his head.

Thus, it's not enough to just say that one believes that Jesus died on a tree. For biblically, the Bible says Christ Jesus died on a cross. If someone claims to be Fundamental, but believes otherwise on this point, they show not only their Bible ignorance, but their basis against the Biblical account.



Of Christ's literal resurrection, there can be no doubt. He was seen of over 500 witnesses after he arose bodily (1 Cor. 15:6). But some Fundamentalists believe this was only a "symbolic resurrection." Others think he arose, but not by his own power. They think that his disciples stole him away, and that Christ only rose again through their help. And still others believe that Christ Jesus is risen again, but only in the "hearts" of his believers.

Thus, it behooves us to ask someone who claims to believe this fundamental whether or not he rose again literally. If they do not believe this, then they are an apostate Fundamentalist, denying the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ!



On the subject of Salvation by Faith, many Baptist Fundamentalists draw the line between themselves and other denominations. Almost all other religions believe that works are essential to be saved or stay saved. But, the majority of true, Independent Baptist Fundamentalists reject this fallacy, citing Ephesians 2:8,9, which states: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

They are dogmatic in their belief that salvation is by faith and faith alone, and rightly so (See also Gal. 2:16; Rom. 4:5, etc).  But many times they don't specify in what a person must put their faith in to be saved. Many Fundamentalists nowadays preach "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8), by telling a person to only "ask Jesus into their hearts" or "make their commitment to Christ." Others say one must simply "repeat a prayer" or "give their life to Christ" in order to be saved. They claim that this is all by faith, but don't realize that they are telling a person to actually do a work contrary to the Bible way of salvation.

In the word of God, justification from sin, or salvation, is by three things. These can be clearly seen in the following three verses from the book of Romans, the corresponding words in each verse underlined.

        Rom. 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

        Rom. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

        Rom. 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

According to the Bible, three things justify a man: GRACE, FAITH, and BLOOD. Better said, a man is only saved by God's grace, when his faith is in the blood of Jesus Christ. Romans 3:25 says this clearly when we read: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

The word "propitiation" means, "The act of appeasing wrath." God's wrath is appeased and a man is forgiven only when he puts his complete faith and trust in the precious shed blood of Jesus Christ! For the Bible tells us that "...without shedding of blood is no remission."

God demands blood for sin. And God is such a loving and caring God that he shed his own blood for us (Acts 20:28). Whosoever trusts in Him (John 3:16) and his precious shed blood is saved. Man's not saved by his own works, but by the work of God in dying for him in his place on the cross to pay for his sins. Faith is the key to obtain this gift of eternal life (Rom. 6:23).

For someone to dogmatically say they believe that salvation is only by faith is not enough. The question must needs be asked them, "Faith in what?" If he answers anything else but the blood of Jesus Christ, then he is an apostate Fundamentalist who is trusting in something other than Christ to get him to heaven.



Many Fundamentalists claim to believe that Christ Jesus is coming again. However, this can be very misleading if they do not explain what they mean. In Fundamentalist Camps, there are three main beliefs as to the coming of Christ. They are:

A person who is an A-Millennialist does not believe that Jesus Christ will rule and reign on earth for one thousand years, as prophecied in the book of Revelation chapter twenty. This is not to say that he doesn't believe that Christ will not come back at all. Some A-Millennialists accept the fact that Jesus will come, but only to "judge the quick and the dead" (2 Tim. 4:1) at the end of the world.

Post-Millennialists believe that Jesus will not return again until after the thousand years of the millennium. Many of them make the millennium a "spiritual" reign, which started long ago. Others believe that once all the world has been converted, then God will return and thank them for the good job they've done in bringing the whole world to him.

There are just a few problems with this. The whole world is not coming to Christ Jesus. If anything, they are actively rejecting Him, and grow more hostile towards Him every day. Also, this is not Biblical as it does away with the rapture of the Saints.

According to the Bible, the Pre-Millennial stand is the only Biblical one. This teaches that Christ Jesus will come again very soon at the "Rapture" to take away his saints (1 Cor. 15:50-55; Thes. 4:15-18). Then after seven years of the Anti-Christ's reign on earth (prophecied in the book of Daniel), Jesus Christ will return again at the battle of Armageddon and take control of the earth in which he'll rule and reign for a thousand years (Rev. 20).

Just because someone says he believes in the Fundamental of Christ's return, doesn't make him sound in the faith. He must be asked to explain what he believes exactly about how and when Christ is coming.



After looking at these examples it's plain to see that someone can call themselves a "Fundamentalist" and still not even be a Christian! If they twist the teaching of each of the Fundamentals, or simply don't believe them to be literal, then they are Fundamentalists in name only but not in faith and practice. Thus, it's simply not enough to just call one's self a "Fundamentalist." A true Christian needs to be more.



As explained above, I believe in the "fundamentals" of the faith, but I am cautious to explain each one Biblically. And, I do not stop there. I believe in more than just the most basic of beliefs that one must adhere to in order to be looked upon as a Christian in the eyes of others. I am more than just a Fundamentalist. I'm a Bible Believer!

I cannot in good conscience cast aside what I believe, and whittle my faith down to only a few points in order to unify myself with other denominations. I am commanded in the word of God to "take heed to doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:16). I am supposed to speak "sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1), and use it to exhort and convince the gainsayers (Titus 1:9).

For me, the fundamentals of the true Christian faith should be a much longer list. There needs to be more lines drawn, and more divisions between apostates and true Christians. Thus, below I list a few of my Fundamentals of the faith that help to define me as a true Christian. These are in no way all that I believe. But they are some important beliefs that I adhere to, that I call "My Fundamentals."



It's not enough to just say that one believes in salvation by grace through faith. A person must realize what their faith should be in. According to the Bible, salvation is by faith in the precious shed blood of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25). The Bible is clear that it's the shed blood of Jesus Christ that saves a person. Thus, I preach boldly that salvation is by grace through faith in the precious shed blood of Jesus Christ, plus nothing, minus nothing.

The Bible teaches that without shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin (Heb. 9:22). God has always demanded blood for sin. In the Old Testament, God demanded a blood sacrifice of either a lamb, a bull, or a goat. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). He was God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), who shed his own blood – God's blood – for the sins of mankind (Acts 20:28). It is only through that shed precious blood that a man can be cleansed from sin (1 John 1:7), redeemed (1 Peter 1:18,19; Rev. 5:9), and forgiven (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).

Thus, for me the most important Fundamental of the Faith is not just "Salvation by Faith, but that of "Salvation by Grace through faith in the precious, shed blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!"



Almost all denominations and creeds that profess Christianity practice the ritual of baptism. However their reason for doing so and their mode of practice might be different. Some, like Catholics and Protestants, practice "Infant Baptism." But, this is not found in the word of God. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to baptize a baby. This comes from ancient pagan practices, not from God's word.

Biblically, water baptism today is only for believers, after they have been saved. It is a testimony to the lost world that one has already accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour. It is also a figure (1 Peter 3:21) of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the Bible mode of baptism has always been by complete immersion, not by sprinkling or another form.

When Jesus was baptized, we read in Matthew 3:16, "...[he] went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." According to the Bible, Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan by immersion. He went under the water and came straightway up out of it.

In John 3:23 we read, "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized." The Bible says that John looked for a place where there was much water to baptize. Why? Because the people were put entirely under the water. They were completely dunked.

Again in Acts 8:36 through 38 we read of the Philip baptizing the Ethiopian Eunuch:

Clearly the mode of baptism in the Bible is that of Immersion, and only for those that are already believers (like the Ethiopian Eunuch). Thus, I firmly believe that salvation comes through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, and that after someone is saved, they should follow the Lord in believer's baptism to show others that they are identified with Christ and are a Christian. This mode of baptism must be by immersion. This is an essential Fundamental of the Christian Faith.

Although other denominations teach many different things about baptism, I will stick with what the Bible says about it, and will make Baptism a determining factor of whether or not I can fellowship with other denominations. If a church baptizes babies, they are anti-biblical in their doctrine and practice. If a church sprinkles, they are not showing the type of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and are in error. I cannot and will not unite with people who practice Anti-Biblical means of Baptism.



Most Fundamentalists believe that salvation is by grace through faith without works. But as we've seen, many of them don't tell you what your faith must be in to be saved. Biblically, one must trust in the precious, shed blood of Jesus Christ!

However, some denominations (who claim to be Fundamental) believe that one who is already saved by faith can then lose his salvation by sinning. Others claim that they can lose their salvation not by sinning, but rather by the sin of rejecting Jesus Christ openly, or recanting their profession of faith. Both of these theories are not only wrong, but blasphemous, as they are guilty of calling God a liar.

According to the Bible, salvation is Eternal. God calls it "Eternal Life" (John 3:16). When a person is born again, they are a child of God (John 1:12), and are a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). They have passed from death unto life eternal and shall not come into condemnation (John 5:24). They are eternally saved, and God will not deny them even if they deny Him (2 Tim. 2:11-13).

Many Baptists call this teaching "Eternal Security." But, this term is not found in the Bible. Thus, I personally prefer the more Biblical "Eternal Salvation" (Heb. 5:9), "Eternal Life" (John 10:28), or "Eternal Redemption" (Heb. 9:12).

When a man is saved, he is given eternal life as a free gift (Romans 6:23). To say that God can take that back is to call God a liar or an "Indian Giver." To say that someone could lose eternal life is to teach that it wasn't eternal to begin with. And to say that man's salvation depends upon whether or not he does or doesn't do something is to make it into a faith plus works set up. According to the Bible, God saves a person, one does not save himself.

If someone could earn it, or obtain it by his own merit, then logically it would be his own salvation. If it was his, then yes, he could lose it. But because it's "God's Salvation," and God that saves a man, then it is also God who keeps a man saved (1 Peter 1:5). When a person is born again, God will in no wise cast him out (John 6:37), for the Holy Spirit dwells in him forever (John 14:16) .

How then can I join with a group, denomination, or church that teaches otherwise? I cannot. I stand dogmatically on the fact that once a man is saved, he's always saved. He couldn't lose it if he tried! This is a crucial Fundamental of the Christian faith!



Many churches today are not only liberal in their doctrine, but also in their lifestyles as well. They do not teach the Biblical doctrine of "Separation." Instead, they demonstrate the worldly philosophy of "Integration." Someone worded it well, when they said, "The problem with the world today is that the world is getting churchy and the church is getting worldly!" That's exactly right.

But, according to the Bible, a Christian is supposed to be separated from the world. 2 Corinthans 6:17 charges saved people, "be ye separate... [and] come out from among them." God's plan is not for Christians to live like the world, but to be separated, different, a testimony and an example of righteousness, showing others how they should live.

1 Cor. 6:9-11 says:

How important are the words "such were some of you." This implies that a Christian should not do those things listed above. He should be separated from them. He should not join the world in their sin. He should be different.

2 Corinthians 6:14 reads, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

The answer is "None what so ever!" A Christian is not supposed to yoke himself with unbelievers and unrighteousness. He's supposed to separate from darkness and serve God. He's to "...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11).

In 1 Peter 1:16, God tells a Christian exactly how he's to live. He says, "Be ye holy; for I am holy." A Christian is to live a holy life. His lifestyle should be spiritual, not carnal. He should follow God and do his will, not the world's will, following his own flesh. Romans 12:1,2 states this clearly: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

Thus, a Christian is supposed to live a clean, holy, separated life; not a dirty, worldly existence. But if he does live godly, he'll soon find that the world is not his friend. And as they killed Jesus, they'll probably try to do the same to him as well. Jesus said the following to his disciples in John 15:18 and 19, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

Jesus said that the world hated his disciples, as they hated him. Why? Because they were in the world, but not of the world. They lived a life of separation.

This then is a simple, yet important Fundamental of the Christian faith. Christians should live godly, not worldly.

The word "Christian" means "Christ-like." And every Christian, in order to be like Christ, must live a consecrated life, fighting against sin, and refusing to join the sinful world. Sadly, many today who call themselves Fundamentalists do not live holy, separated lives. Instead they have already made their allegiance to the world system and are following it instead of Christ. But, this was never God's intention. He wants all Christians to be not only separated, but sanctified. A Christian should be spiritual (Gal. 5:16), rather than carnal; godly, rather than worldly (Titus 2:12); and good, rather than evil (Rom. 12:21). Anyone who claims to be a Christian and a Fundamentalist who doesn't live a holy, separated life, is nothing but a worldly apostate!



There are many different versions (perhaps I should say perversions), of the word of God today. Almost all Independent Baptist Fundamentalists use the King James, but many of them don't believe it to be the perfect, infallible, inspired word of the living God. Yet, I do.

I, without apology, believe that the King James Authorized 1611 English Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired, perfect word of God in the English Language, and is the only Bible that any English Speaking person should read and believe! There are several reasons for my "dogmatic" statement. But first, let me back up a little and show some of the history of the Bible texts. Then I will prove how important this Fundamental is, because many so-called "Fundamentalists" are nothing but apostates who use a Bible they don't believe in.

God's words in the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. Today, there are many Greek and Hebrew Texts, so it is most certainly not enough for a Fundamentalist to say that he believes in a Bible translation just because it came from "the Hebrew and Greek." As with the Fundamentals one must ask more. It must be asked which Hebrew and Greek Text? Let us then briefly look at the different texts; for in the Old and New Testament we find two texts—God's pure unadulterated text, and man's corruption of it.

The pure Old Testament, written in Hebrew, was copied and kept in the care of the Masoretic Hebrew priests and scholars, who were very tedious in their work of preserving, without error, the faithful original texts. They not only copied pages, but counted the letters backwards and forwards. They also read and reread their work.2 If a copy had more than two mistakes, it was burned, and redone. So pious and reverent were the Ancient Hebrews, that when they came to the word "Jehovah" in their copying, they immediately got up and washed their hands before writing it down. It is from this text (Hebrew Masoretic Ben-Chayim text), which the King James Old Testament was translated.

However, other Hebrew Texts exist. Most of these are called "eclectic texts." That is to say, they are texts in which someone has changed many words or whole sentences with other texts he's found that say other things (texts that were corrupted by evil men like Origen to make the Bible read the way they wanted it to). Sometimes, these "other texts" were translated into other languages such as the Catholic Latin Vulgate, the corrupt Greek Septuagint, or the Catholic Aramaic.

The majority of Bible translations today (except for the blessed old King James) have their Old Testament translated directly from a collation of these "other texts" also known as "Critical Texts."

All new translations of the Bible (except the authorized King James) are either based on the Eclectic Rudolf Kittle Hebrew Text, published in Stuttgart, Germany with the approval of the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome,3 or the Greek "Septuagint" translation, the work of Origen who changed a lot of things and added to and subtracted from the Hebrew Masoretic.4

So there are two main lines of texts for the Old Testament. One is the pure Hebrew Masoretic text, and the other is the corrupted Eclectic Critical text. Thus, unless you have a King James Bible, your Old Testament was translated from Catholic, North African manuscripts! Only the KJV follows faithful copies taken from the original Hebrew, without error.

In the New Testament, the story is the same. There are two lines of texts — one is the preserved, Early Church, Majority text, used by God to bring about the Reformation, and the other is a corrupt, diabolic, Roman Catholic text, used to bring in apostasy.

The New Testament of the Holy Bible was originally written in Koine A Greek (the language of the common people). Early Christians copied the New Testament in this language and passed it around in Jerusalem, where the church started. Because of persecution (Acts 8:1), the early Christians left Jerusalem and were scattered abroad. In Acts 11:26, we read, "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

Thus, the early church moved from Jerusalem north to Antioch of Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians.

The Greek Texts underlying the King James Bible came from this area (Syria and Asia Minor). And during the Reformation in Europe, many Greek Texts from the Greek Orthodox Church were found and copied and collated from copies from this area. These dated back to copies of copies of copies of copies of the originals, which came directly out of Antioch! These Greek manuscripts, of which there are over 5,300, agree within themselves over 95% of the time! 5 These texts, once collated into one Greek text, became known as the Textus Receptus or "Received Text." They are also called the "Majority Texts," because they are the majority of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament that have been found.

But just as there is a perverted text of the Old Testament, so there is also of the New. Several centuries after Christ, the early church went into apostasy and tried to mix Paganism with Christianity. Through this unholy union, the Roman Catholic Church was born (with Constantine). This state church demanded a Bible, and they chose a man named Jerome to translate the whole Bible into Latin (the official language of the Roman church). His work was not based on the "Textus Receptus," but rather from the corrupt Alexandrian texts from Alexandria, Egypt (which had been changed by Greek Philosophers like Origen). Jerome's finished translation was called "The Latin Vulgate" and became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. However, it was not the same Bible of the Early Christians. It contained many additions, omissions, and changes. It also included the non-inspired, unaccepted, extracanonical "apocryphal" books, which both the Jews and early Christians rejected.6 Sadly, all modern Bible translations of today (except the perfect, purified, and preserved King James) read closely with this corrupt Roman Catholic text.

Because the King James was based upon God's pure words (the Masoretic in the Old Testament, and the Textus Receptus in the New), it brought much revival. But many Catholics, apostate scholars, and ungodly men despised it, and sought to undermine its authority. They searched for ways to destroy its influence and authenticity, by trying to prove that the texts it was based on where not the oldest and best, but rather the latest and worst (something that is still taught and believed today).

Probably the two greatest opponents of the King James and Textus Receptus were B.F. Westcott (1825-1903) y F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). These men were professors in England and were closet Roman Catholics. They were also "Spiritualists" (or "Devil Worshippers") who were active in holding "seances" and "communion with the dead."7

These two men set out to destroy the pure word of God, and replace it with the Roman Catholic texts. Their plan was to present their own "Eclectic Greek Text" of which they claimed was based on "older and better manuscripts." These "older and better" texts of which they based their work are the now famous fourth century manuscripts of Codex Siniaticus (known as a or Aleph), and Codex Vaticano (also known as B). Westcott and Hort claimed that these manuscripts were the very oldest and best, but they were anything but!

The Vaticanus manuscript was found in 1481 in the Vatican library.8 (Obviously, it is pro-Catholic). The Siniaticus manuscript was found in a garbage can in 1844 by Constantino von Tischendorf in a Catholic monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai.9 (It too was Catholic, as it also contained the apocrypha). These two manuscripts or codices are so horrible, that they disagree among themselves on more than 3,000 occasions in just the Gospels alone! 10 The Aleph manuscript completely omits Genesis 1:1-Gen. 46:28, Psalms 106-138, Hebrews 9:14-13,25, the epistles of Paul and all of Revelation. The B manuscript omits 10, 20, 30, even 40 words frequently. Whole letters, and sentences are completely left out. And like the Siniaticus, the Vaticanus completely omits the last twelve verses of Mark concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Despite the obvious errors, Westcott and Hort believed and taught that these two texts were older and better, and should be used as the basis of any true translation of the scriptures. Thus, they collated them and arrived at their own critical, eclectic Greek Text, which was published in 1881. This was the text underlying the apostate "Revised Version" of the English Bible of 1884. Nowadays, all modern Bible translation work is made from the Nestle-Aland Greek Eclectic Text, based almost entirely upon Aleph and B, and Westcott and Hort's work. (This means that all new versions of the Bible are much closer to the Catholic, rather than early church, readings).

So, we have two main texts for the Greek New Testament. One is the eclectic critical text of men, based on corrupt Roman Catholic manuscripts, which are full of errors. And the other is from copies of copies of copies that come from Antioch (where the early church started).

The New Testament of the King James is based on these Textus Receptus, "Byzantine," Majority Text manuscripts, while all other versions are based on African, Catholic, eclectic, corrupt manuscripts. Thus, unless you have a Kings James Bible, you do not have the exact words that the apostles did!

An important note is that the "oldest" translation of the New Testament is that of the translation from Greek to Syriac in the first or second century after Christ.11 If one will study this translation, they will find that the King James reads not only with the Textus Receptus, but also with the "oldest and most reliable" witness of all manuscripts, the Old Syriac version!

Thus, I believe that the King James Bible comes from the correct fountain and the right texts, and is God's providentially preserved Bible for us in the English language. In the Old Testament, it is translated from the true Masoretic Hebrew text (not the corrupt Greek, or German eclectic Hebrew), and in the New Testament, its fountain is the Textus Receptus, Byzantine, Syriac, "Christian" text (not the critical African, Roman Catholic, Apostate one).

But do all modern Fundamentalists believe this? Sadly, they do not. They have swallowed the lie of Westcott and Hort, and believe that Aleph and B are actually the "older and better texts." Although careful study proves this is simply not so, many Fundamental schools still teach this lie. They choose to follow scholarship instead of history, bible teaching, and manuscript evidence. And by so doing, they become "users" of a Bible, but not "believers" in it.

Let us look at an apostate Fundamental school who claims to use the King James Bible, and see if they really believe that it is, in fact, God's word. I will quote from the "Position of the Bible Department of the Bob Jones University on the Scripture," by Marshall Neal, Dean, School of religion, and Stewart Custer, Chairman, Department of Bible. (Bob Jones University claims to be "Fundamental." They brag about their stand for the King James Bible, but when it comes to their belief in it, that's another story, as we shall see). They state:

Already we have a problem. They say they believe in the "absolute inerrancy of the Bible," yet they don't state which one. Then they say they believe that only the "originals" are inspired. How can this be? If only the original autographs are inspired, then we don't have the inspired words of God today! For anyone knows that the "originals" no longer exist. All we have are copies of them.

They continue by explaining exactly what they mean. They state that only the originals, which were either written or recorded by the very men who spoke them or wrote them down, are inspired. That means that according to their position, no "copy" or "translation" of the originals can be inspired.

This means that if only the original autographs are inspired, then only the originals are scripture, for 2 Tim. 3:16 says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Thus, to an apostate Fundamentalist, only the originals are inspired, and only they are the scriptures. But what a flat-footed mess the Fundamentalist gets into if he actually believes this. For how can he stand up and say, "Thus saith the scriptures...," when he doesn't even believe that he has them?" Instead, all he has are copies or a translation of them that he doesn't believe are inspired!

This is a perfect example of an Apostate. He claims to believe in something he doesn't have, while stating that he's Fundamental, because he believes what he doesn't have is inspired!

The Bible uses the word "Scripture" in a much different way. In the word of God, scripture applies not only to the originals, but also to copies of them. I will list a few verses proving my point:

Now, if only the original autographs are inspired, and only these are scripture, then we have a very wild story according to the verses above. Jesus, as a boy, must have had and read the original copy of Psalms, written by the very hand of David himself, for he quotes Psalms 118:22 in Matthew 21:42. He then must have read from the "original autograph" of the book of Isaiah in the temple, and commands others to read of that very same original. Then, and this is the wild part, the Ethiopian Eunuch must have stolen that very same copy from the temple, for he's reading the "scripture" when Philip witnesses to him. The story gets even wilder, as Paul somehow got a hold of that copy, as well as the other "original autographs," and used them to reason with people when he traveled and preached (did he go to Ethiopia to get the original copy of Isaiah?). He then must have left his "original copies" in Berea, for we find Christians there studying them. But then, Apollo must have stolen those "originals," as we find him in Acts chapter 18, teaching them. And finally, and this is the real hard part to figure out, Timothy's mother must have bought the originals from somewhere (possibly from a garage sale?), for she had "the scriptures" and taught them to her son.

No, it just won't work. No one is gullible enough to believe such a fable. Obviously, the Bible uses the term "scriptures" not only in reference to the originals, but also in reference to copies of them. And, according to the Bible, all scripture is given by inspiration of God. That is to say, that all faithful copies of an original are just as inspired as the original autographs themselves. Thus, we see apostasy at work in Fundamental ranks.

Bob Jones University then goes on to confess:

Wait a second? Did I read that right? Did they just say they want a Greek Testament that reads as close to the originals as possible? But how can they possibly know if it reads with the originals, if they don't have the originals to compare it with? Hmmm.

They continue:

Now we see what they really believe. They claim to be "King James Only," to look Fundamental in the eyes of others, but their official policy states otherwise, for they claim that the Alexandrian texts are better than the texts the King James came from. In other words, they are praising the Roman Catholic, Alexandrian texts and downgrading the Syriac, Early church text. To the which I reply, "That is apostate Fundamentalism in a nutshell! They claim to use the King James and stand for it, but then they confess that they believe it's not perfect and didn't come from the right texts!" This is how apostasy works. They claim to stand for something to look "Fundamental," but they don't even believe in what they claim to stand for.

Let us look at this form of "Fundamentalist Apostasy" a little more in-depth by reading the words of the President of the school. Mr. Bob Jones III says the following about the King James:

Sounds like Mr. Jones is a dogmatic King James Bible Believer, doesn't it? He even calls it "adequate and accurate." But then he writes the following letter dated December 14th, 1984 to one Mr. D.E. Sigler of Wixom, MI:

Neither Mr. Jones or his "Fundamental" school are really King James Bible Believers. They "use" it, or have adopted it to look "Fundamental" in the eyes of others, but they most certainly don't believe it to be pure, perfect, inspired, or preserved. In other words, they use it out of preference, and not out of conviction.

I, on the other hand, hold firm in my belief that the King James Bible is the perfect, inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God! I believe this not only because it came from the right texts (the true oldest and best manuscripts), but because the witnesses of history, manuscript evidence, and God's promise of Psalms 12:6,7 prove it to be so. I also believe it to be "scripture" and therefore inspired. Thus, when I quote a King James Bible, I can boldly proclaim, "Thus saith the scripture!" Sadly, many Fundamentalists cannot, at least not honestly.

If any man says he believes the King James to be God's inspired words, but then he says it came from the wrong texts, that man is an apostate and a liar! He may claim to be a Fundamentalist, but he's really a Funny-mentalist, who doesn't even have a Bible he can believe in! But I do. I not only use the King James 1611 Authorized Version, but I also believe in it, and know it to be God's holy, inspired, preserved, words! And I thank God for it!



So, these are just some of my "Fundamentals" of the faith. They are very important, but also very dogmatic. If one believes as I do, he will probably be labeled as fanatical by other Fundamentalists. But I have always believed that I should trust in God rather than man. That is why I am "more than just a Fundamentalist." I am a Bible Believer. Moreover, I am a King James Bible Believer. More specifically, I'm a Blood Bought, Separated, Sanctified, Eternally Redeemed, King James Bible Believer! Because the more truth I choose to stand for, the less I'll be identified with the Apostate Fundamentalist Crowd!

I'm not saying I don't believe in the Fundamentals of the faith. I most certainly do! But I am very careful to explain my beliefs. It's not enough just to claim to believe them, one must also explain what he means by them. For, as we've seen, someone can be a Fundamentalist, but also be an apostate. That is why I want to be more than just a Fundamentalist. I just don't want to be associated closely with groups that contain apostates.

Most modern day Fundamentalists don't understand this. Instead of stamping out apostasy in their own ranks, they are more interested in augmenting their numbers and bragging about how many they are. They then unite in "defending the Fundamentals," making this their most important goal. But shouldn't defining the Fundamentals be more important than just defending them?

The problem with most Fundamentalists today, is that they stand for the "Fundamentals" but then don't stand on much else. They brag about believing in and defending the utmost basic points of Christianity and then go no further. They make "standing for the Fundamentals" more important than explaining exactly what they are. And this leaves the door wide open for apostasy. As a Christian, I want to stand for more. I want others to know exactly where I stand. And I want to make clear to others exactly what I believe, thus my motive for writing this book.

This is why I desire to be more than just a Fundamentalist and believe more than just the Fundamentals. How about you, dear reader. Are you happy being "Just a Fundamentalist?" Or would you like to be more?

I invite you to accept my few Fundamentals listed in this book, to identify yourself as more than just a Fundamentalist. Be a true "Bible Believer," so you too can move father away from apostasy. I also encourage you to think of even more "Fundamentals" and stand for them, for just settling on the most basic doctrines of Christianity is not enough. If Christianity is to flourish, grow, and blossom, more and more Christian people need to take a stand on sound doctrine, especially in these last days. We need to weed out the apostates and preach against them, and tell others "Let's don't just be Fundamental, let's be much more! Let's be Radical, Dogmatical, and Fanatical for Jesus, and put a dividing line in the sand! All those who are true Bible Believers stand with us! All those who are Apostates, leave us alone and quite pretending you are one of us! You cannot play both sides! Choose you this day whom ye shall serve! Don't claim to be something you're not, and don't pride yourself on what you are, when you can be more!"

As you, dear reader, have learned in this brief treatise, I believe that there is much more to Christianity than just being a Fundamentalist. I believe every Christian should grow stronger in his beliefs. He should not be happy just with milk (1 Peter 2:2), but should grow in grace and learn to chew strong meat (Heb. 5:12-14). He should form strong convictions and stick to them!

That is why I'm going to leave you with some of my "Convictions." These are more than just Fundamentals, they are strong beliefs that I have which I've formed from reading the Bible. You might or might not agree with them. I don't care. All I care about is being a strong Christian with strong beliefs, instead of a modern day wishy-washy Fundamentalist who doesn't believe in hardly anything. The old saying is "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!" Sadly, even the once mighty "Fundamentalists" are falling into apostasy in our world today. It's because they've never grown farther than the Fundamentals. How about you?




1. Christians should not drink liquor (Prov. 23:31; Eph. 5:18; Isa. 5:11,22; Prov. 20:1)

2. Christians should not smoke (1 Cor. 6:19)

3. Christians should not cuss (Eph. 4:29, 5:4)

4. Christians should not dance (Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:27,28; 1 Cor. 10:7,8)

5. Christians should not fornicate (1 Cor. 6:13,18, 1 Thes. 4:3)

6. Christians should not commit adultery (Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:27,28; Rom. 13:9)

7. Christians shouldn't have a television in their home (Ps. 101:3; Job 31:1)

8. Christians shouldn't listen to worldly music (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)

9. Men should not have long hair (1 Cor. 11:7,14)

10. Women should not have short hair (1 Cor. 11:5,6,15)

11. Christians shouldn't wear shorts (Ex. 20:26,42; Isa. 47:2,3; Solomon 7:1)

12. No pants on women or dresses on men (Deut. 22:5)

13. A man should be the head of the family (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23)

14. A woman should obey her husband in everything (Eph. 5:24; Titus 2:5)

15. A woman's place is in the home, not at a job site (Titus 2:5)

16. A woman shouldn't go to a secular college (1 Cor. 14:35)

17. A woman should not preach or teach to men (1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 13:34)

18. A woman shouldn't wear too much makeup (2 Kings 9:30; 2 Kings 9:22)

19. Children must obey their parents in all things (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20)

20. A Christian should not have tattoos or cut themselves (Lev. 14:28)

21. A Christian woman shouldn't pierce her ears (Ex. 21:6)

22. Christians shouldn't send their kids to secular schools (Titus 2:4)


There are some who would be quick to call a person who believes as I do a "legalist." That is to say, they want others to think that I am trying to put people back under the Old Testament Law. This is simply not so. I do not believe that someone has to keep the law to be saved, or stay saved. But I do believe as Paul does in Rom 7:12, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

God's law is holy, just, and good. It cannot save us, but it is a good thing, and contains a lot of guidelines on how we as Christians should live. It also shows us what God wants, and what pleases him. If I love him, I should want to please him, and that is why I have the convictions that I do. How about you, dear reader? Do you have any convictions?

Over my years in the ministry, I have found that 99% of the time, those that call me (or others that believe as I do), a legalist are nothing but liberals themselves. They don't want to serve God, or obey him, because they are either worldly or rebellious. They speak of grace, but they use it as an excuse to sin. Paul tells us we have "liberty," but then tells us what this liberty is for – it's so we can serve God!

In Galatians 5:13, we read, "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Sadly, many Christians nowadays only use their liberty only for the flesh. This ought not to be so.

Many today who claim to be Christians, are only so in word or doctrine, but not in their way of living. They are not separated or holy, but rather carnal and worldly. They wrongly think that only what a Christian believes is what defines him as a Believer. But according to the Bible, it's also how a person lives. A Christian should believe right and live right to show they are practicing what they preach.

Far too many milk sop Christians exist today that stop only at the fundamentals and grow no further. Usually, they only talk of "grace" and "love" while they forget sound doctrine. And the majority of them live only for sensual, carnal pleasure, rather than living godly, and suffering persecution for Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:12). They are Christians in word only, not in action.

Jude 1:4 speaks of this crowd, saying they "[turn] the grace of our God into lasciviousness..." In other words, they boldly proclaim that God's grace is an excuse for them to live a life of sin, not a reason to live holy, and serve God who saved them.

Peter says the following about them, and their preachers in 2 Pet 2:18-20:

These are your modern apostate Christians. They speak of liberty, and grace, while they know nothing of what they really are. Instead of servants of Christ, they are servants of corruption.

Sadly, many so-called Fundamentalists today are following suit. Most are not godly, but rather carnal. They are liberal in their lifestyles, while claiming to be conservative in their doctrine. They pride themselves upon being Fundamental, while they forget the most fundamental of all Christian doctrines — that of holy living.

I pray, dear reader, that you will not follow in their footsteps. Please get some convictions. Be more than just a Fundamentalist. Please be a real Christian! Study the word of God (the KJV) and find more Fundamentals of the Christian faith, and then preach them! Get some Convictions, and then live them!

I leave thee with the words of the Apostle Paul from Acts chapter twenty verses twenty-nine through thirty two:

Below is what's known as the "Apostle's Creed." Many Fundamentalists claim that what's stated therein were the "Fundamentals" of the Apostles.

But what it contains is not enough. Even Catholics believe this Creed. No, a true Bible Believing Christian should believe in much more than just the Fundamentals of this Creed!

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. 

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.






1. "The History of Fundamentalism in America," by George W. Dollar, copyright 1973, Unusual Publications: Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, South Carolina.

2. "Forever Settled: A Survey of the documents and History of the Bible," by Jack Moorman, 1999, The Dean Burgon Society Press, Box 354 Collingswood, New Jersey 08108, pages 8-9.

3. "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia," 1997, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, Germany, page XIII.

4. "Forever Settled: A Survey of the documents and History of the Bible," by Jack Moorman, 1999, The Dean Burgon Society Press, Box 354 Collingswood, New Jersey 08108, pages 14-15.

5. "Let's weight the evidence," by Barry Barton, 1983, Chick Publications, P.O. Box 662, Chino, CA, 91708-0662, pages 58,59.

6. "Forever Settled: A Survey of the documents and History of the Bible," by Jack Moorman, 1999, The Dean Burgon Society Press, Box 354 Collingswood, New Jersey 08108, pages 25-28.

7. "The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy," by Dr. Phil Stringer, 2001, Faith Baptist Church Publications, Ft. Pierce, Florida, pages 17-20.

8. "Forever Settled: A Survey of the documents and History of the Bible," by Jack Moorman, 1999, The Dean Burgon Society Press, Box 354 Collingswood, New Jersey 08108, pages 114-115.

9. Ibid, pages 112-114.

10. Ibid, page 115

11. Ibid, page 153

12. "Official Position of Bob Jones University Regarding the Corrupt Westcott-Hort Texts and the Received Text of the KJV Bible," printed by "The People's Gospel Hour, P.O. Box 1660, Halifax, N.S., B3J 3A1, page 1.

13. Ibid, page 1.

14. Ibid, page 4.





There are many Christians in the world today who call themselves "Fundamentalists." They pride themselves upon believing the "Fundamentals" of the Christian faith, and rigidly defend them. But is it enough to be "just a Fundamentalist?" Should a Christian only believe the Fundamentals and nothing else? And what are the Fundamentals exactly?

These questions and many more are answered in this brief treatise of "Why I am More Than Just A Fundamentalist."