Define fundamentalist

[John of Japan]

You're not paying attention John. No one is attacking your grandfather. Me and all of my peers love him, have preaching tapes of him and books written by him. There is no need to keep playing that card.

I never thought you were attacking my grandfather, father, etc. My point in mentioning my mentors was that fundamentalism is much broader and complicated than your OP seems to have it.

No one is attacking EVERY fundamentalist as has been made clear multiple times at this point.

This thread is a challenge to the modern IFB or FWB or whoever fundamentalist who preaches ex cathedra to make a case for the junk that he preaches.

If you had made this clear in your OP we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet you called your thread "Define Fundamentalist," then gave your definition. In the future please be more plain about your intention when you start a thread.

This is the very reason I qualify the term SBC every time I use it with terms like "modern" or "today". I realize the SBC movement went down a dark road decades ago- perhaps, in part, because so many of her true fundamentalists left her years ago leaving the liberals unchecked at the helm. That is a subject for another thread.

All right, I understand. Thank you for clarifying.

Boy, you and the "attacking". Is your skin that thin?? I actually think the world of you John. I think it is absolutely awesome that you are there in Japan preaching Christ. I appreciate your ministry. But I wish that you would either stay in the pocket with me and let our iron sharpen each other's iron or not post. But please stop with the "victim" business. No one here is attacking anything sacred. Let's debate if we're going to debate since this is a debate site and stop worrying so much about whether or not someone is attacking some sacred cow of ours.

Thank you for the kind words. Being a missionary is an unearned privilege, and I often thank God for calling me.

Having said that, do you really not realize how abrasive your OP was? Do you feel that to debate it is necessary to be abrasive? And is it your common practice when being abrasive to then blame the person who is offended? I live in a country where the people, the Japanese, are very polite, though heathen. I could wish that this younger generation of American Christians would take the Japanese custom to heart.

I believe it is a Biblical practice to let people know when their words are offensive, and I have done so with you until now. But I'm now thinking I should begin ignoring your abrasiveness.

Col. 4:6--Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

No one is attacking anyone who simply adheres to the classical definition of fundamentalist set forth by this forum for about the fourth time. We are challenging the modern fundamentalist movement to make a case for their preaching.

Once again, next time please make this plain in your OP.

 

[SolaSaint]

You say this is a bad example of fundamentalist attitude. I'll ask why do to label him a fundamentalist? Did he say "I'm a fundamental Christian"? Sounds like he has an overly critical spirit, but even liberals can be overly critical, but it doesn't mean we label them.


:thumbsup:

I would like for John to give us his definition of fundamentalism. I expect it is the classic one. But, IMHO, that is not the aim of this thread. Rather, I see it as an examination of how the movement has evolved more into an attitude than the following of a set of beliefs.

Let me give you a rather extreme example, a true example never-the-less.

One Sunday morning a man, his wife and children entered our church. I happened to be at the door greeting people. His first statement was not a 'good morning', or 'God bless you', or 'how are you today'. Rather it was a loud and hostile sounding, "This isn't one of those liberal churches is it? In my Bible women are not to be in authority and wives are to submit to their husbands." I thought this a strange first statement from someone visiting the church.

This an extreme example of a bad fundamentalists attitude, at least IMHO. But, it is this type of attitude that the majority of the American public see in many who claim they are fundamentalists. It is not a set of beliefs that is proclaimed, but an anti-attitude. And that is bad for the world of Christ.

 

[Luke2427]

I never thought you were attacking my grandfather, father, etc. My point in mentioning my mentors was that fundamentalism is much broader and complicated than your OP seems to have it.

If you had made this clear in your OP we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet you called your thread "Define Fundamentalist," then gave your definition. In the future please be more plain about your intention when you start a thread.
All right, I understand. Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you for the kind words. Being a missionary is an unearned privilege, and I often thank God for calling me.

Having said that, do you really not realize how abrasive your OP was? Do you feel that to debate it is necessary to be abrasive? And is it your common practice when being abrasive to then blame the person who is offended? I live in a country where the people, the Japanese, are very polite, though heathen. I could wish that this younger generation of American Christians would take the Japanese custom to heart.

I believe it is a Biblical practice to let people know when their words are offensive, and I have done so with you until now. But I'm now thinking I should begin ignoring your abrasiveness.

Col. 4:6--Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Once again, next time please make this plain in your OP.

Letting your speech be always seasoned with grace does not demand that you are never abrasive. If that is the case then Christ and the Apostles talking to not only Pharisees but each other as well failed to keep up this command.

I think Japanese people probably are sweeter natured than we are. Who cares? I don't think that is always a good thing. I think you are so used to being around them that when anyone hits something head on you are unaccustomed to it. I don't think being a Christian means you have to be soft spoken and sugary sweet all of the time. Christ certainly was not. PEter certainly was not. Paul certainly was not. And I think we ought to be tough enough to be able to exchange in a straightforward manner without taking it so personal and feeling so offended.

For iron to sharpen iron there must be friction. I embrace the friction and appreciate the one who causes it so long as they are making points.

I would like you and I to function that way on here as well.

 

[John of Japan]

I think Japanese people probably are sweeter natured than we are.

Not true at all. Look at their history. They are the same people now, with some cultural and behavioral changes. So they are not sweeter natured, just more polite. Americans used to be that way.

For iron to sharpen iron there must be friction. I embrace the friction and appreciate the one who causes it so long as they are making points.

As for me embracing your abrasiveness, that's not going to happen. I don't come on the BB to experience sandpaper personalities.

I was called this morning at 7:30 by a mentally ill woman whose husband has just been arrested. The previous day it was a schizophrenic woman who has fights with her husband all the time. Then there is U. San in my church who is born again, but hasn't completely cut his ties with the yakuza (Japanese mafia). Very abrasive, as is his oyabun (yakuza boss), who I've witnessed to. So there's no reason in the world for me to sit down to my computer, get on the BB, relax and say, "I think I'll interact with some abrasive people today."

 

[Luke2427]

Not true at all. Look at their history. They are the same people now, with some cultural and behavioral changes. So they are not sweeter natured, just more polite. Americans used to be that way.

As for me embracing your abrasiveness, that's not going to happen. I don't come on the BB to experience sandpaper personalities.

I was called this morning at 7:30 by a mentally ill woman whose husband has just been arrested. The previous day it was a schizophrenic woman who has fights with her husband all the time. Then there is U. San in my church who is born again, but hasn't completely cut his ties with the yakuza (Japanese mafia). Very abrasive, as is his oyabun (yakuza boss), who I've witnessed to. So there's no reason in the world for me to sit down to my computer, get on the BB, relax and say, "I think I'll interact with some abrasive people today."

But this is not a chat site- it is a debate site. Perhaps we should either rename the site or look for another one to chat on.

Debate is going to be heated. Friction and heat are essentially the same thing. I'm not going to be rude or disrespectful to you (I think I have been clear that I appreciate and respect you and your ministry); but neither am I going to approach debate in an effeminate, vacillating, emasculate tone either. We are men, you and I; we should be able to act like it.

You've been in Japan too long. I am going to send you some John Wayne movies to remind you what you came from here.:laugh: Just kidding- kind of:thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

A couple of defintions might help:

de·bate
   /dɪˈbeɪt/ Show Spelled [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:

op·pose
   /əˈpoʊz/ Show Spelled [uh-pohz] Show IPA verb, -posed, -pos·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to act against or provide resistance to; combat.


fric·tion
   /ˈfrɪkʃən/ Show Spelled[frik-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
surface resistance to relative motion, as of a body sliding or rolling.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate is opposition which is resistance which causes friction. I don't know how you have a frictionless debate. The essence of debate is opposing ideas which when they come in contact cause friction.

But friction in good debate is a good thing. Not something to be avoided but embraced. Friction is how we knock off each others rough edges. The only ones who don't want to do that must be those who think they are smooth enough already. I am not.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You say this is a bad example of fundamentalist attitude. I'll ask why do to label him a fundamentalist? Did he say "I'm a fundamental Christian"? Sounds like he has an overly critical spirit, but even liberals can be overly critical, but it doesn't mean we label them.


:thumbsup:

Yes, there are liberals with a fundamentalist attitude about their beliefs.

As he said he would not attend a 'liberal' church it seems pretty obvious to me he was not liberal or moderate. This was several years ago and I cannot remember all he said. I do remember him saying that he did not like another Baptist church in our area that is pretty fundamental.

Regardless, yes he, IMHO, had an unhealthy approach to talking with people he had just met and in making such a statement as he entered the doors of the church for the first time.

Oh, and no he never came back. Don't know why ... at least not for sure. After all we had a man preaching that morning. :laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

What do you consider to be the necessary elements in the practices and preaching of a person for him to call himself a fundamentalist today?

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the core doctrines (or the load bearing doctrines) of the Christian faith and defends them by teaching, confrontation, and if necessary, separation.

It is true that, in some ways, fundamentalism today is far different than fundamentalism of 90 years ago, but the reason is obvious to observant and thinking people: The world is far different than it was then. The battles of then are not the battles of today.

SBC has not been fundamentalist historically. Al Mohler talked about that recently in his convocation address at Southern. Even the SBC's approach to liberalism that required the so-called "resurgence" shows that the SBC wasn't fundamentalist, and really isn't today, in terms of separatism. There are fundamentalists in the SBC, but broadly speaking they are not because they are not separatistic in their ecclesiology. There's some debate about whether that is good or bad, but it is what it is.

I think the modern fundamentalist, by and large, is a pope. I think he is someone who has built hedges about hedges about the law and has and proclaims many positions which are not logically connected to Scripture. His disdain for the sufficiency and authority of Scripture and willingness to preach his preferences as the Word of God makes him a pope.

I think there are some fundamentalists who do this, by that is not modern fundamentalism. I don't think there is any fundamentalist movement, and there certainly is no unanimity. There is a very broad swath of "fundamentalism."

I reject any kind of popedom, by either side. I reject the popes who try to kick people out of conversations because they differ just as much as the popes who try to dictate every thing in people's lives. It is true that fundamentalism is made up of people from the far right whacko side who deny biblical doctrines and who insist on dictating every area of a person's life where the Bible has not spoken. It is also made up of people like me who really doesn't care that much about that kind of stuff. I open the Bible and preach what it says. I try to make applications of it to 21st century life, but if someone disagrees with my application, I am okay with that. That's hardly being a pope. But the fact is that both are in fundamentalism and have been for a long time.

In terms of attitude, there is a particularly attitude associated with some in fundamentalism such as Luke as displayed here where any dissent is immediately attacked and people are berated and asked to leave if they dare voice any other opinion. That is the type of attitude that is prevalent in some of fundamentalism, and it's the type of attitude that thinking people reject.

The bottom line is that fundamentalism is an idea that doctrine matters, enough to be taught clearly. And when people deny it either by word or deed, they should be confronted and separated from as a last resort for the purity of the gospel.

BTW, the so-called "five fundamentals" are really rather meaningless because they identify areas of debate from a century ago. Those battles have long since passed. And consider that at least one of the primary fundamentals isn't even in that list. It is better to think of the fundamentals as the load bearing doctrines of Christianity, those doctrines without with Christianity ceases to be Christianity.

 

[John of Japan]

But this is not a chat site- it is a debate site. Perhaps we should either rename the site or look for another one to chat on.

Debate is a form of fellowship to me, as long as it is civilized and aims at truth.

Debate is going to be heated. Friction and heat are essentially the same thing. I'm not going to be rude or disrespectful to you (I think I have been clear that I appreciate and respect you and your ministry); but neither am I going to approach debate in an effeminate, vacillating, emasculate tone either. We are men, you and I; we should be able to act like it.

I think we strongly disagree about what wins a debate. I don't believe abrasiveness is necessary nor masculine. (And no one ever doubts my masculinity when they see my collection of black belt certificates.) I believe in (1) logic. God gave us this ability and air tight logic beats abrasiveness any day. If you've seen Star Trek, Spock's perfect logic always carried the day (and they say I look like him :love2. (2) Knowledge and wisdom. Having these means power. Prov. 24:5--"A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength." (3) Skills. I've often used my knowledge of languages in debate on the BB. Also, debate itself is a skill, and it can be developed. Note that I have over 6000 posts to my credit on the BB. I've been in many debates on this board, and never tried to be nasty (sometimes it comes without trying).

You've been in Japan too long. I am going to send you some John Wayne movies to remind you what you came from here. Just kidding- kind of:thumbsup:

Forget the Duke. I'm a martial artist (give me Jackie Chan but not Bruce Lee) and an SF buff (Stargate!). :thumbsup:

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Definition from an exfundamentalist

I grew up in IFB churches for the first 30 years of my life. The descriptions given of fundamentalism most certainly applies to those in the southern part of the country. I currently attend a conservative SBC, and have met several people who consider themselves recovering fundamental baptists. The following is essential IFB doctrine as I heard taught from many pulpits, schools, & youth "revival".

1. The authority if the IFB church & pastor are unquestionable

2. All of the teachings & laws of the church must be followed explicitly to have a right relationship with God.

3. Any person or church that does not adhere to IFB tenants is liberal & heretical.

4. The questioning of the pastor, church, or denomination is the same as questioning the Word of God.

5. Salvation is by grace alone, but sanctification is through the IFB preaching, teaching, & church-based works.

6. IFB churches are the only true New Testament Churches in faith & form.

7. God speaks to us through His chosen man, & if you miss a single sermon, you may miss something God is trying to tell you.

8. True worship & Biblical understanding can only be realized under the leadership of an IFB pastor & church.

I still have family members in the IFB movement, and know for a fact that these tenants have not changed.

 

[TCassidy]

The following is essential IFB doctrine as I heard taught from many pulpits, schools, & youth "revival".

1. The authority if the IFB church & pastor are unquestionable

The above has nothing at all to do with IFB doctrine or practice.

2. All of the teachings & laws of the church must be followed explicitly to have a right relationship with God.

Again, nothing to do with IFB doctrine or practice.

3. Any person or church that does not adhere to IFB tenants is liberal & heretical.

And again, nothing to do with IFB doctrine or practice.

4. The questioning of the pastor, church, or denomination is the same as questioning the Word of God.

And still another example of something that has nothing at all to do with IFB doctrine or practice.

5. Salvation is by grace alone, but sanctification is through the IFB preaching, teaching, & church-based works.

More nonsense that has nothing to do with IFB doctrine or practice.

6. IFB churches are the only true New Testament Churches in faith & form.

Not even close to IFB doctrine or practice.

7. God speaks to us through His chosen man, & if you miss a single sermon, you may miss something God is trying to tell you.

And still more.

8. True worship & Biblical understanding can only be realized under the leadership of an IFB pastor & church.

And even more.

I still have family members in the IFB movement, and know for a fact that these tenants have not changed.

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but as a long time IFB minister none of the above has anything to do with IFB doctrine or practice. Unfortunately you seem to have been involved in a cult, and if your family members are still involved in such a cult you should seriously consider some sort of intervention.

It seems pretty obvious you don't know anything about true IFB churches, their doctrine and practice, but were deceived by someone falsely operating under the name IFB but was not.

 

[Luke2427]

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the core doctrines (or the load bearing doctrines) of the Christian faith and defends them by teaching, confrontation, and if necessary, separation.

It is true that, in some ways, fundamentalism today is far different than fundamentalism of 90 years ago, but the reason is obvious to observant and thinking people: The world is far different than it was then. The battles of then are not the battles of today.

SBC has not been fundamentalist historically. Al Mohler talked about that recently in his convocation address at Southern. Even the SBC's approach to liberalism that required the so-called "resurgence" shows that the SBC wasn't fundamentalist, and really isn't today, in terms of separatism. There are fundamentalists in the SBC, but broadly speaking they are not because they are not separatistic in their ecclesiology. There's some debate about whether that is good or bad, but it is what it is.

I think there are some fundamentalists who do this, by that is not modern fundamentalism. I don't think there is any fundamentalist movement, and there certainly is no unanimity. There is a very broad swath of "fundamentalism."

I reject any kind of popedom, by either side. I reject the popes who try to kick people out of conversations because they differ just as much as the popes who try to dictate every thing in people's lives. It is true that fundamentalism is made up of people from the far right whacko side who deny biblical doctrines and who insist on dictating every area of a person's life where the Bible has not spoken. It is also made up of people like me who really doesn't care that much about that kind of stuff. I open the Bible and preach what it says. I try to make applications of it to 21st century life, but if someone disagrees with my application, I am okay with that. That's hardly being a pope. But the fact is that both are in fundamentalism and have been for a long time.

In terms of attitude, there is a particularly attitude associated with some in fundamentalism such as Luke as displayed here where any dissent is immediately attacked and people are berated and asked to leave if they dare voice any other opinion. That is the type of attitude that is prevalent in some of fundamentalism, and it's the type of attitude that thinking people reject.

The bottom line is that fundamentalism is an idea that doctrine matters, enough to be taught clearly. And when people deny it either by word or deed, they should be confronted and separated from as a last resort for the purity of the gospel.

BTW, the so-called "five fundamentals" are really rather meaningless because they identify areas of debate from a century ago. Those battles have long since passed. And consider that at least one of the primary fundamentals isn't even in that list. It is better to think of the fundamentals as the load bearing doctrines of Christianity, those doctrines without with Christianity ceases to be Christianity.

No one has told anyone to leave here. I just request that people who post make arguments not drive by posts or emotional banter. I don't think that is asking too much on a debate site.

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the core doctrines (or the load bearing doctrines) of the Christian faith and defends them by teaching, confrontation, and if necessary, separation.

The SBC as a movement does separate from apostates and preaches against heresy. The Baptist Faith and Message is certainly a fundamentalist stance. By your definition the SBC is the largest fundamentalist movement on earth, perhaps in history. Southern Seminary, the largest seminary in the world, is the flag ship university of SBC and it is staunchly fundamentalist.

The SBC did tread a liberal path years ago but it is clear that she is far more fundamental today.

But the kind of fundamentalist you define above, which is what I consider myself and my movement, is not the type that most loudly and proudly touts the name.

The ones who pound their chest declaring that they are fundamentalists today, by and large, in this country, are people who preach against things with no Bible for their position. This makes them popes.

They preach against Christian Contemporary Music with no Bible for what they preach. On the rare occasion that they offer any Bible, they cannot provide any logical connection from their passages to their position.

They preach against going to the movies and some even preach against having a tv in your home.

They preach pastoral authority to the point of dictatorship.

They preach dress standards ad nauseum.

We could go on and on.

What this thread is meant to do is make them give account for their positions.

 

[Luke2427]

Debate is a form of fellowship to me, as long as it is civilized and aims at truth.
I think we strongly disagree about what wins a debate. I don't believe abrasiveness is necessary nor masculine. (And no one ever doubts my masculinity when they see my collection of black belt certificates.) I believe in (1) logic. God gave us this ability and air tight logic beats abrasiveness any day. If you've seen Star Trek, Spock's perfect logic always carried the day (and they say I look like him :love2. (2) Knowledge and wisdom. Having these means power. Prov. 24:5--"A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength." (3) Skills. I've often used my knowledge of languages in debate on the BB. Also, debate itself is a skill, and it can be developed. Note that I have over 6000 posts to my credit on the BB. I've been in many debates on this board, and never tried to be nasty (sometimes it comes without trying).

Forget the Duke. I'm a martial artist (give me Jackie Chan but not Bruce Lee) and an SF buff (Stargate!). :thumbsup:

We're not going to agree on this. No one said abrasiveness is the way to WIN a debate. Friction is an essential element in debate. But I digress to keep this from going on ad nauseum.

I don't care for Jackie Chan myself. I'm more of a Randy Couture man. He could kick Jackie's rump!:tongue3:

 

[Luke2427]

I grew up in IFB churches for the first 30 years of my life. The descriptions given of fundamentalism most certainly applies to those in the southern part of the country. I currently attend a conservative SBC, and have met several people who consider themselves recovering fundamental baptists. The following is essential IFB doctrine as I heard taught from many pulpits, schools, & youth "revival".

1. The authority if the IFB church & pastor are unquestionable

2. All of the teachings & laws of the church must be followed explicitly to have a right relationship with God.

3. Any person or church that does not adhere to IFB tenants is liberal & heretical.

4. The questioning of the pastor, church, or denomination is the same as questioning the Word of God.

5. Salvation is by grace alone, but sanctification is through the IFB preaching, teaching, & church-based works.

6. IFB churches are the only true New Testament Churches in faith & form.

7. God speaks to us through His chosen man, & if you miss a single sermon, you may miss something God is trying to tell you.

8. True worship & Biblical understanding can only be realized under the leadership of an IFB pastor & church.

I still have family members in the IFB movement, and know for a fact that these tenants have not changed.

Thanks Michael for weighing in here. This is my experience and a lot of others' as well.

 

[Luke2427]

The above has nothing at all to do with IFB doctrine or practice.Again, nothing to do with IFB doctrine or practice. And again, nothing to do with IFB doctrine or practice. And still another example of something that has nothing at all to do with IFB doctrine or practice. More nonsense that has nothing to do with IFB doctrine or practice. Not even close to IFB doctrine or practice. And still more.And even more. I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but as a long time IFB minister none of the above has anything to do with IFB doctrine or practice. Unfortunately you seem to have been involved in a cult, and if your family members are still involved in such a cult you should seriously consider some sort of intervention.

It seems pretty obvious you don't know anything about true IFB churches, their doctrine and practice, but were deceived by someone falsely operating under the name IFB but was not.

Then tell us how these mysterious IFB churches that you are familiar with that we have never even heard of- tell us how they differ from modern SBC churches.

And where are you located? Because I live in the south and I fully concur with Michael's experience. I don't think that is a coincidence.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't care for Jackie Chan myself. I'm more of a Randy Couture man. He could kick Jackie's rump!:tongue3:

Yeah, but Couture can't act worth beans. Jackie wouldn't hire him!

 

[TCassidy]

Then tell us how these mysterious IFB churches that you are familiar with that we have never even heard of- tell us how they differ from modern SBC churches.

That was my point. You know virtually nothing about IFB churches. How do they differ from the SBC? Simple. 1. They are not part of the Convention. 2. They choose to support missionaries either through sending churches or through independent mission boards instead of the cooperative program. 3. They would separate from most of the progressives in the Convention. 4. They send their young people to colleges and seminaries not associated with the Convention. 5. Most are members of IFB associations such as the GARBC, CBA, IBF, FBF, etc.

And where are you located? Because I live in the south and I fully concur with Michael's experience. I don't think that is a coincidence.

I have pastored an IFB church in San Diego for over 25 years. I have been in ministry associated with IFB churches for over 35 years. I was a professor of Philosophy at an IFB college, and department chairman of Biblical and Historical Theology at an IFB seminary for over 20 years.

Your experience may have paralleled Michael's, but two is hardly a representative sampling of roughly 10,000 IFB churches in the US.

Oh, and there is nothing "mysterious" about them. They have been around for a long, long time. Perhaps a little more study or experience would have been appropriate.

 

[Luke2427]

That was my point. You know virtually nothing about IFB churches. How do they differ from the SBC? Simple. 1. They are not part of the Convention. 2. They choose to support missionaries either through sending churches or through independent mission boards instead of the cooperative program. 3. They would separate from most of the progressives in the Convention. 4. They send their young people to colleges and seminaries not associated with the Convention. 5. Most are members of IFB associations such as the GARBC, CBA, IBF, FBF, etc.
I have pastored an IFB church in San Diego for over 25 years. I have been in ministry associated with IFB churches for over 35 years. I was a professor of Philosophy at an IFB college, and department chairman of Biblical and Historical Theology at an IFB seminary for over 20 years.

Your experience may have paralleled Michael's, but two is hardly a representative sampling of roughly 10,000 IFB churches in the US.

Oh, and there is nothing "mysterious" about them. They have been around for a long, long time. Perhaps a little more study or experience would have been appropriate.

And it is clear that you know nothing about what IFB churches are like in the South which is where I figure they are most predominant (according to this website http://www.baptistinfo.com/States/GA/GA.HTM Georgia, a much smaller state than California where you are located, have more IFB churches. Among those is one pastored by Joe Arthur who is pretty good by IFB standards on preaching, but even he is pretty issue oriented sometimes- and he is one of the least issue oriented preachers in the IFB I've heard.)

And the differences you sited have nothing to do with fundamentalism except a desire to separate from "progressives (which I assume you mean by that- liberals). We fundamentalist SBC folks do that too.

Why not join with the SBC, the world's largest fundamentalist Christian movement if you are no different than you ascribe.

You don;t have to support the cooperative program. The former SBC president supported, with many millions of dollars, independent works. However, the largest and most effective mission endeavor since the Apostle Paul is the SBC cooperative program.


Here is what I am finding on this thread.

Those who preach standards without Bible for them are not posting- except for perhaps one.

Those who are independent but really no different from SBC are offended when I am not even talking about them. These people seem to be unaware of what several of us have said about our IFB experiences. It's as if we are lying or stupid or something.

 

[TCassidy]

And it is clear that you know nothing about what IFB churches are like in the South which is where I figure they are most predominant (according to this website http://www.baptistinfo.com/States/GA/GA.HTM

I probably know considerably more about IFB churches all over the world than you do as that is one of the classes I have taught for over 20 years. How many of the churches you know of are GARBC, FBF, IBF, CBA or other smaller groups? And how many are truly unaffiliated, and not part of any of the associations, fellowships, or groups?

Georgia, a much smaller state than California where you are located, have more IFB churches. Among those is one pastored by Joe Arthur who is pretty good by IFB standards on preaching, but even he is pretty issue oriented sometimes- and he is one of the least issue oriented preachers in the IFB I've heard.)

Great. You know one. When you have met, heard, and fellowshipped with the other 9,999 let me know what you have learned.

And the differences you sited have nothing to do with fundamentalism except a desire to separate from "progressives (which I assume you mean by that- liberals).

I never said it did. You asked how I differ. I told you.

We fundamentalist SBC folks do that too.

Good for you.

Why not join with the SBC, the world's largest fundamentalist Christian movement if you are no different than you ascribe.

Wrong question. WHY join?

Those who are independent but really no different from SBC are offended when I am not even talking about them. These people seem to be unaware of what several of us have said about our IFB experiences. It's as if we are lying or stupid or something.

I don’t think you are lying. I don’t know you well enough to know if you are stupid, but judging by your posts you seem to be reasonably intelligent. However, I also notice a tendency to arrogantly assume you and your experiences equate to the sum total of information on the subject being discussed.

What you appear to have done is make the mistake of failing to distinguish between IFBs and IFB Xers, just as the Hispanic activists in the southwest have failed to distinguish between immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants.

Look around a little more. Research IFB ministries such as Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Faith Baptist Bible College, Northland Baptist Bible College, and Baptist Bible College, Clarks Summit. You might be surprised what you learn about their graduates serving faithfully in IFB churches.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I still have family members in the IFB movement, and know for a fact that these tenants have not changed.

I am an IFB and can tell you for a fact that none of these tenants are related to the issue at all.