Talk:The Fundamentals

[Untitled]
Is this the same pamphlet mentioned here? Wired says that is supports evolution

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/convergence.html?pg=3&topic=&topic_set=

64.129.128.2 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a variety of views on evolution expressed in The Fundamentals, the Wired article seems to be referencing Chapter 18, "Science and Christian Faith" by James Orr. One of the conributors to The Fundamentals, B. B. Warfield was well known as a Theistic Evolutionist. Peterdgi (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Critiques of the Orthodoxy of The Fundamentals
I have heard it alleged that some of the claims in The Fundamentals are modern claims, not found in early Christian literature, and therefore cannot be legitimately called orthodox. I hope that the article will include such criticism as it grows.

(Bob Schwanke) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.28.10 (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In Favor of "orthodoxy" in this usage:Bankscorl (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The chief doctrines The Fundamentals sought to defend include such ancient and nearly universally accepted doctrines within historic Christianity as the Deity of Christ (Chapter 29) and the Virgin birth of Christ (chapter 30), and the bodily resurrection of Christ (chapter 33), all found in the Apostles Creed and other ancient creeds and writings and the ecumenical councils of the early church. These ancient councils were specifically concerned with establishing "orthodoxy" so at least from the viewpoint of the authors and editors of The Fundamentals it seems appropriate to say they were attempting to defend these well defined orthodox views of the church, among other important doctrines. Of course the contributors also addressed a wide variety of topics such as Higher Criticism (chapter 1), Missionary Motives (chapter 56), Evolution (chapters 69, 70), Mormonism (chapter 73) and other topics of the day of less universal nature, and not strictly matters of "orthodoxy" one way or the other.

"Orthodox"?
If we take "orthodox" in the meaning of "correct" the statements about The Fundamentals as a defense of orthodox Protestantism are in violation of NKPOV. Wikipedia shouldn't be saying some religions are true and others are false. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If we take "orthodox" in the meaning of "conforming to the historical traditions considered orthodox," that's more complicated, but a[n inconsistently] literal interpretation of scripture is a modern innovation. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Literal interpretation has always been around.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 17:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Fundamentals are "orthodox" as opposed to e.g. writings of Adolf Harnack, who denied the possibility of miracles. "The Bible and Modern Criticism" by F. Bettex, part of The Fundamentals, criticizes "unorthodox" views held by Harnack on whether Jesus actually walked on the sea and other subjects. 91.203.67.28 (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with the wording as it is, because the sentence starts with "they were designed to affirm" orthodox beliefs. This implies the viewpoint of those who published the materials. Perhaps it could be made more explicit that "orthodox" is reflecting the viewpoint of those who published the works?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 17:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)