Define fundamentalist

Thanks for the reply. I agree that anecdotes do not prove nor disprove anything of importance. I do see them as indicators of that which may be right and that which may be wrong in the fundamentalist movement. I do not see this thread attempting to prove nor disprove the movement of fundamentalism. I do see it as a discussion of attitude. It seems to me that those who are pastors, missionaries, etc. who call themselves fundamentalists have a responsibility of teaching those they minister to that an improper attitude must be guarded against and to teach where fundamental doctrine ends and attitude begins. [I hope this makes some sense.]

At times I have been in discussion with some very liberal people and after listening to the I have said, "You have a very fundamentalist attitude in your opinions." Note, this speaks to attitude, not belief.

 

This is very ironic. The thread title, "Define fundamentalist," promises a sane discussion of the historical roots and meaning of the term. But what we got was a lot of "attitude" in the OP, including what I hold to be insulting terms.

Are you and Luke aware that this particular forum on the BB was started as a refuge for fundamentalists since we were attacked so much on other BB forums? See the "Fundamental Forum Guidelines," where it says,

Yet here we are, with Luke outright attacking fundamentalists in his OP. Rather gauche, wouldn't you say?

 

Alright, I will jump into this mess.

First off, love you John, loved your grandfather and I appreciate the work you continue in Japan. You have helped me many times through your posts and notes on this board. I am not attacking you; I really don’t think Luke is either.

While a true expert and legacy of historical fundamentalism, John is probably not the best expert on the movement in the United States today. Neither is he probably as familiar with the conservative resurgence in the SBC in the United States as others here.

What is the purpose of the thread Luke? To point out that many who call themselves fundamentalists are not? I agree with you 100%

I grew up in IFB churches calling myself a fundamentalist and I hold to the title today, even though I acknowledge that it has been perverted by the “Add to the Bible, legalistic, KJVO” crowd.

What is a fundamentalist once may have seemed easy to determine, but now that is not the case. The historical definition of a fundamentalist and the definition I hold to is one who believes the fundamentals of the faith and is willing to fight for and defend those fundamentals.

But here is where it gets tricky, what are the “Fundamentals of the faith?” My definition would be the Virgin Birth, Sinless Life, Sacrificial Death, Physical Resurrection, and Imminent Return of Jesus Christ. Many fundamentalists would add to this the inspiration of the Bible, and I have no problem with that, but then you start down that slope when you ask, “What kind of inspiration?” Are we talking verbal or plenary inspiration? How do we define inerrancy? Are we talking about the inspiration of the original texts or of a modern version? You can see how quickly we fall from a shared belief and a requirement for our salvation to an opinion.

I feel your frustration with some modern self labeled fundamentalists Luke. What you need to realize, and I think you do, is that all who call themselves fundamentalists are not. Just like I learned long ago that all who call themselves Baptists do not believe like I do. Just because it’s an IFB or SBC church does not mean they are teaching and preaching the same things I do. Like you have said, anecdotes don’t prove anything about a movement or denomination. There are always going to be embarrassments that seek to affiliate themselves with us. They are not true fundamentalists and they are not true Baptists, like a phony $20 bill they are counterfeit.

So how do you fight the counterfeits? You do it by preaching the word and staying genuine yourself. Show them enough of the real thing and people will spot the phonies for themselves. I share your concern Luke that many people are led astray by these fundamentalist pretenders, and they are, but the solution, the action we can take, is not to attack the pretenders, but to ensure we remain true.

Luke, If you don’t know him, John is the real thing, and I suspect you are too. John, I really don’t think Luke is attacking real fundamentalists here, but others who have hijacked the title and in some cases once vibrant churches here in the US. I think we are on the same side here guys, lets save the aggression for the enemy.

Ok, I am off the soap box, next.

Well said TCassidy, we posted about the same time.

 

Are you aware of the history of the SBC? My grandfather was blackballed by the Texas convention because he openly opposed evolution being taught at his alma mater, Baylor U. I once corresponded with an SBC prof in a major seminary who shared with me how nasty the liberal profs were to him in his younger days because of his conservative view of the Bible. I myself sat at a restaurant in Georgia about 15 years ago with my father and an SBC pastor, who shared with us how he had lunch every week with the liberal SBC pastor across town.

It was only in very recent years that the SBC mission board finally made missionaries sign the "Faith and Practice" (Is that what you call it? I forget.) And I went to language school in Tokyo in 1981-1983 with the SBC missionaries, and knew one of the liberals who resigned with his wife rather than signing the statement. So I suggest that maybe out-of-touch non-SBC missionary, me, may know some things you don't know about the past of the SBC, though I know little about what is happening nowadays.

I suggest you read the Fundamental Forum Guidelines, where it says,

Yet here you are, attacking fundamentalists in our safe haven.

 

Well said, and thanks for the kind words, NCT. And you're right, I'm no expert on either the SBC or IFB in the States nowadays. But ask me about fundamentalism in Japan! :smilewinkgrin:

 

It's impossible and a waste of time to argue (or debate) with someone whose mind is made up. That's all I have to say on this subject--except that with terrorists being called "fundamentalists", I don't think I want to be called one any more.