Define fundamentalist

Michael and Luke, it is obvious that both of you have been hurt by IFB churches and having been exposed to them all my life I will admit that I have seen churches where all eight of Michael's doctrines were present. But what you both need to realize is that those churches have perverted and added to the word of God. While they might call themselves fundamentalist what they teach is not fundamentalist doctrine. I would no more want you judging and condemning all IFB churches because of them than I would want someone condemning all SBC churches because of individual SBC churches that still hold to liberal doctrines like the missionaries John mentioned.

I have pastored both IFB and SBC churches and there are plenty of bad churches in both categories. There are also plenty of good ones.

 

Um, didn't you ask John not to post in post #9 because you didn't like his response?

Now they do but historically through the middle of the last century that was not the case.

No, it is not really.

Not by my definition and not by historical definition. SBTS is not staunchly fundamentalist. BJU is fundamentalist, as are schools like Central Seminary, Detroit Baptist Seminary, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, etc. Southern would be a conservative evangelical school.

Then you need to get out more.

No and no.

Some do, but not all.

Some do, but not all.

Some do but not all.

Some do, but not all.

Not really. You have to realize that your experience with fundamentalism is very little apparently. Fundamentalism is much broader than you think. I grew up in the South in fundamentalism, and what you think is fundamentalism simply isn't true.

I am doing exactly that, and my position is that you don't understand fundamentalism.

You define fundamentalism by the type of things you list above. But historically, that is not what fundamentalism is about. You are picking things that fundamentalists do, and not realizing that you are mischaracterizing things.

Here's an example: I am a husband; I play golf. By your methodology, you would conclude that husbands play golf. The fact is that they don't. Many non-husbands play golf, and many husbands do not play golf. But what you did was take an outside issue (golf) and try to make it an essential issue of being a husband.

Here's the fact that I can well testify to: Fundamentalism is about two things -- holding to sound doctrine under the authority of Scripture and defending it by confrontation and separation if necessary in obedience to Scripture.

Many fundamentalists have certain dress standards, preach against movies, music, etc, as you mention. But so do many non-fundamentalists. Those things are not an essential part (meaning of the essence of) fundamentalists. Those things exist apart from fundamentalism, and fundamentalism exists without those things.

I am a fundamentalist and I don't care if you go to movies, wear pants or shorts, listen to certain types of music. I think you would be unwise to submit to my pastoral authority without serious prayer and consideration. Many non-fundamentalist churches are great churches that preach the gospel and make disciples.

I am a fundamentalist because I am committed to the absolute authority of Scripture and because I believe that the gospel and false doctrine requires separation.

 

Me too! :thumbsup:

 

Is there an argument in there somewhere? (And his name is Jack Hyles, which may show that you don't know as much about fundamentalism as you seem to pretend here.)

I can tell you that they are not even in my movement because I don't think there is a movement for the precise reason you are illustrating here ... the name "fundamentalist" is attached to people from too broad a spectrum. The name "fundamentalist" is for the most part useless because of this very reason ... you have to ask what someone means by that. And once you have to ask everyone who uses a term to define the term, the term is meaningless.

I have no connections whatsoever with the SOTL or the Hyles Pastor's Conference. I never have had. Neither has the vast majority of the schools or churches that I mentioned above. Fundamentalism is much broader than that. You simply don't get out enough.

In fact, I would not even call them fundamentalists because they have rejected a major tenet of fundamentalism which is the authority of Scripture.

 

The only way one can preach about some of the things you complain about is if you reject the authority of Scripture. So you say I am wrong, but then you agree with me that when they preach against certain things they are rejecting the authority of Scripture.

That's a silly response.

I doubt it since I usually proofread a number of times. And I didn't call you a moron.

I rarely post on here, and I rarely criticize intellect. I often criticize arguments (or failure to argue). And I often question whether or not someone has the knowledge to make the kind of critique or argument they are making. You think that's elitist, but I doubt you think that in any other area of life. I think it's common sense, and perhaps that's where we differ. I think that, before we believe something someone says, we should find out if they have knowledge of what they are talking about.

Again, simply silly and baseless. I explained clearly the idea of educational credentials. I have never said anything remotely popelike, and you know it. But rather than interact with arguments, you go after me personally like you have before and are doing here again. Just stop. Talk about the issue, or don't talk.

You will notice that everything I have posted (with the exception of the Hyles comment) has been about the argument. You are the one who is posting about other stuff, namely making silly personal attacks against me. Stop.

I did not say the first two. The last I did say because it seemed that you didn't know who you were talking about. If your explanation is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that (though since "hiles" is not a word, it is hard to imagine how that would be an autocomplete or a predictive text), then fine. It doesn't really bother me, but I would go back and correct things like that particularly on proper names.

You are just oversensitive perhaps because you are the one who is insecure. I haven't been the least bit disrespectful or insecure. And it's not inflammatory. I have no reason to be any of those.

You made some incorrect assertions and some bad arguments, IMO. And now, rather than address the points I made, you are talking about me. If you want to do that, fine, I guess. But that's not what this thread is about.

Why not quit talking about me, and address the arguments you are trying to make. If you want to debate, then debate. Don't talk about me. I am irrelevant to the topic you started.

But let's get back to the point: The fact is that "fundamentalism" is much broader than you are trying to make it. It is probably because of your limited experience, which is fine. Being a fundamentalist, growing up in fundamentalism, and not caring about any of the things you seem to equate with fundamentalism proves that you are wrong. No one would question whether or not I am a fundamentalist. And I simply do not do or believe the things that you think fundamentalists believe and do. Some of them do; some do not.

 

This and your previous post are a good summary. And all you've said about John R. Rice is on the money. Both of my parents graduated from Wheaton College, then I grew up in Wheaton until 4th grade. We boarded college kids in our house, went to the football games, etc. We started out in Wheaton Bible Church, then Granddad founded Calvary Baptist Church of Wheaton (now with some other name).

 

I knew Jack Hyles, and Pastor Larry is no Jack Hyles. :laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

 

Big dittos! And this is the reason I objected so strongly to the very abrasive OP.

 

Tcassady, I attended four different IFB churches & two IFB schools. Our youth organization consisted of at least twenty churches in my state. I agree with your statement that they are likely a cult. That is my point. There is not much difference between a cult and the IFB movement in the South. Remember, a cult is defined by religious attitude more than by religious beliefs. Unlike Obama:laugh:, I listened to what was being taught for THIRTY YEARS. I am talking about several pastors, dozens of traveling preachers, youth revivals, school teachers, etc. I will say that "fundamental" baptist churches in the North are not the same as in the South. I attended a church in Pennsylvania for three years that claimed to fundamental, but it bore no resemblance to the cult-like churches in the South. That was where God really started opening my eyes to the dark reality of my fundamentalist past. I currently attend a conservative SBC that adheres to the fundamentals of the faith without all the controlling superiority & legalism. And yes, Hyles-Anderson, PCC, & Heartland Baptist are places of indoctrination. I also attended BBC-Springfield before the big "split". They teach how to defend IFB doctrine above all else. They teach what to say, not how to study without denominational bias. In the colleges, as in the churches, questioning any minor IFB doctrine with Word is condemned. Their favorite defense is "you are a liberal".

 

How arrogant of you to think that since your experience differs from mine, that mine is disqualified. You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if your experience in other areas of the country is that IFB preachers wear bows in their hair & stand on one leg while preaching. The IFB churches in our part of the nation, for the most part, are as we have described them. As I said before, I did not witness the same cult-like behaviors in the North. I'm guessing that a LOT of things are different on the West Coast than in the South. I'm guessing that if you visited many of the IFB churches in our states, you would be amazed by the amount of unscriptural fundamentalist rhetoric in the sermons. You would also ask "where's the spiritual meat?"