1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

On the Tombstone of Fundamentalism

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 8, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 5
  1. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,981
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree with you on that statement and the items you gave in post # 13- but - and a big but - what additional "fundamentals" would you add.
    Would you consider the following to be fundamentals of the the faith:
    A. women only wearing dresses
    B. Members prohibited from drinking wine
    C. Eating in the church building
    D. Mixed swimming
    E. Attendance at movies
    F. Parents must put kids in Christian Schools
    G. Divorce prohibits a man from filling any position in his local church
    H. Secondary separation
    I. King James Version Only (or as I say - "Required")
    J. Refusal to be involved in any kind of Baptist association
    K. All male leaders must wear coat and tie
    (they never mention pants - though :tongue3:)
    L. Ect, ect, ect

    If a church (ie the pastor) has these standards for their (his) congregation - fine they are (supposedly) autonomous. But - when they start saying another church is of the devil because of any of the items above - that my friend - is another story.

    Dr Bob used to have a saying on his signature line: Recovering Pharisee - so true
     
    #21 Salty, Aug 8, 2010
  2. jaigner

    jaigner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. Yes I am. Me and practically everyone else who uses it.

    I realize that, technically speaking, fundamentalists are those who hold to those doctrines you listed, but the term hasn't been used that way since days long past when fundamentalists as I know them began holding up other doctrines as highly as the essentials.

    The rest is history.
     
    #22 jaigner, Aug 9, 2010
  3. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    Cassidy, you are arguing for what many consider to be the fundamentals of the faith. Today's version of fundamentalism has high jacked the fundamentals. The damage has been done so it's time to search for a new word or words.
     
    #23 sag38, Aug 9, 2010
  4. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I beg to differ- the Fundamentalists themselves have re-defined the term.

    I was told by a pastor "friend" that I am no longer a "Fundamentalist" because I pastor a SBC church, my wife wears pants, and I no longer use the KJV exclusively. When I told him none of those things were "Fundamentals", he refused to respond. I still consider myself a historic Fundamentalist based upon the five you listed.

    Like it or not, in most cases the five true fundamentals that you listed no longer define what "Fundamentalism" has become. You will hear more preaching in IFB churches and conferences about the "man-made fundamentals" that Salty listed in post #21 than on the five true fundamentals.
     
    #24 Mexdeaf, Aug 9, 2010
  5. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,911
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wow, I couldn't agree with you more!:applause:
     
    #25 Earth Wind and Fire, Aug 9, 2010
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.
    No.

    Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear in my earlier post. The fundamentals are what they have always been, and fundamentalism is what it has always been: I belief in the fundamentals of the faith as previously enumerated. :)
     
    #26 TCassidy, Aug 9, 2010
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The "rest" as you call it is surrender to neo-orthodoxy. :)
     
    #27 TCassidy, Aug 9, 2010
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Maybe some from the radical fringe have tried to hijack the word, but I refuse to allow them, or you, or anyone else, to redefine words to mean something they were never meant to mean. "Grass" is still something to mow, not smoke. "Gay" still means merry and lively. And "fundamentalism" still means a belief in the fundamentals of the faith. :)
     
    #28 TCassidy, Aug 9, 2010
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, we haven't. Maybe some pseudo-fundamentalists have tried, or some neo-fundamentalists have tried, but we true fundamentalists have not.
    Then you agree with me. Your friend is not a fundamentalist. He is a pseudo or neo fundamentalist.
    Yes, they do. That is the meaning of the term.
    No, I won't. I refuse to listen to such tripe. :)
     
    #29 TCassidy, Aug 9, 2010
  10. jaigner

    jaigner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, no. That is historically incorrect.
     
    #30 jaigner, Aug 9, 2010
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, its not. Historically neo-orthodoxy has been the systematic redefinition of terms to suit the deceitful bias of the fringe. That is what many of you are trying to do with the term fundamentalism. I suggest you read John McArthur's excellent treatment of the subject, which includes this statement:
    The entire article can be found at http://apprising.org/2009/04/15/john-macarthur-existential-neo-orthodoxy-denies-sola-scriptura/
     
    #31 TCassidy, Aug 9, 2010
  12. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Tom, doctrinally, these 5 essentials would give Roman Catholicism a "fundalmentalist" position.

    Do they deserve it or should # 4 be modified (e.g. with the word "alone") to exclude them since in practice they violate the Scripture and/or give Church Tradition and the Apocrypha an equal standing with it?

    Or perhaps #4 intrinsically contains these exclusions?

    What do you think?


    HankD
     
    #32 HankD, Aug 9, 2010
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,401
    Likes Received:
    553
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When one reads "The Fundamentals" (series of books defining the MOVEMENT and what the MOVEMENT believed), they would list the fundamentals - the basic agreement foundation of truth - as

    1. Bible is the inspired Word of God
    2. Deity of Christ (including virgin birth, sinless life)
    3. Vicarious atonement
    4. Bodily resurrection and ascension
    5. Physical return of Christ

    THESE were the areas under attack by liberalism, modernism and godless evolution. Fundamentalism (the MOVEMENT) was a combined effort of individual fundamentalists (like us today) to stop these evil inroads into denominations like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc

    The MOVEMENT failed (every denomination was eventually lost and only a remnant remain today) and has coasted almost to a halt. But praise God individuals who hold the fundamentals, though no longer bound together in a MOVEMENT, still have some influence against the false teaching.
     
    #33 Dr. Bob, Aug 9, 2010
  14. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,911
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Cassidy......would you then consider the radical fringe as cults?
     
    #34 Earth Wind and Fire, Aug 9, 2010
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I tend to think they would fail on both #3 and #4.
     
    #35 TCassidy, Aug 9, 2010
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They certainly have some characteristics of a cult, such as isolation, authoritarian leadership styles, etc., but in my opinion, to be a cult you must also have a heretical Christology/Soteriology, so, no, for the most part they would not be cults. Misguided. Ignorant. Carnal. But not a cult. :)
     
    #36 TCassidy, Aug 9, 2010
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When one reads "The Fundamentals" (series of books defining the BELIEFS and what the PEOPLE believed), they would list the fundamentals - the basic agreement foundation of truth - as

    1. Bible is the inspired Word of God
    2. Deity of Christ (including virgin birth, sinless life)
    3. Vicarious atonement
    4. Bodily resurrection and ascension
    5. Physical return of Christ

    THESE were the areas under attack by liberalism, modernism and godless evolution. Fundamentalism (the BELIEF) was a combined effort of individual fundamentalists (like us today) to stop these evil inroads into denominations like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc

    The BELIEF conquered (every denomination eventually exhibited true faith within local congregations) and has triumphed as evidenced by the so-called "religious right" and its political power today. Praise God individuals and churches who hold the fundamentals still have influence against the false teaching.
     
    #37 TCassidy, Aug 9, 2010
  18. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    Maybe some from the radical fringe have tried to hijack the word, but I refuse to allow them, or you, or anyone else, to redefine words to mean something they were never meant to mean. "Grass" is still something to mow, not smoke. "Gay" still means merry and lively. And "fundamentalism" still means a belief in the fundamentals of the faith.

    You may refuse to change but change has come whether you acknowledge or not. You can go around saying your gay all you want to and we will let you sort out the confusion. I'd rather not have to explain that I'm not a homosexual but simply happy. I will simply say, I'm happy." And, I will say that I stand for the fundamentals of the faith but will stop short of calling myself a fundamentalist. Again, I'd rather not have to explain that I'm not a card carrying legalist but one who adheres to Orthodox Christianity.
     
    #38 sag38, Aug 9, 2010
  19. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob opened this thread with this statement:
    TCassidy seemed to disagree when he said
    But then he seemed not to disagree when he said
    , even though in that statement he said he did disagree.

    Then TCassidy made this statement:
    In this statement there seem to be two ideas: 1) There is a "fundamentalist movement" 2) There never was a "fundamentalist movement". How can both of those statements be true and how can the first part agree with what you said in the second quote I gave?

    TCassidy, your tone is one of absolute certainty, but your actual statements confuse me. Please clarify. :)
     
    #39 swaimj, Aug 9, 2010
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Agreed.

    Some "protestants" have a similar view of the RC view of maintaining sanctifying grace through the "sacraments" but some of whom would still consider themselves fundamentalists (i.e. Lutheran - Missouri Synod).

    HankD
     
    #40 HankD, Aug 9, 2010
Page 2 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...