Define fundamentalist

[TCassidy]

How arrogant of you to think that since your experience differs from mine, that mine is disqualified.

Yes, of course. How arrogant of me to disagree with your fallacious conclusion based on an insufficient sampling.

You still don't get it.

I get it just fine. You have a very limited experience that you fallaciously extrapolate to include virtually all IFBs in your area.

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.

Okay. In my area all SBC pastors are child molesters because 2 of them have been so convicted. (See how utterly stupid such broad-brushing is?)

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.

Except the majority of my 35 years of experience in the ministry has been with IFB churches 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.

As you apparently missed in my earlier post I have been in about 600 IFB churches most of which have been in the south.

You would also ask "where's the spiritual meat?"

No, for I would not be in such churches. I have sufficient spiritual discernment to avoid them.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Look, there is a big difference of opinion here and as I have tried to point out you are all making generalizations that are unfair to the individual churches and pastors you are slandering.

Michael, my entire ministry has been in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Last I checked those were all southern states. While SOME IFB churches in our area are as you described MOST are not. Not only that, but those that are have added to God's word and honestly should not be called fundamental.

The problems we have listed here are very real, but they are not present in all IFB churches, not even in a majority of them, and not even in the south. If you have a bad church where you live so what, don't join it. Find yourself a good church. That is one reason I am in a SBC church now, because it was the church God wanted me in. The last church I was in before this one was IFB and the next one might be also.

From the start of this thread I thought the point was that some fundamentalists are not what they claim to be, yet both sides are still hung up on terminology and names.

 

[TCassidy]

From the start of this thread I thought the point was that some fundamentalists are not what they claim to be, yet both sides are still hung up on terminology and names.

Well, as a representative of one of the sides I am not hung up on terminology or names. I am "hung up" on the fallacious assertion that virtually all IFB churches in the south share the aberrations posited in the OP. Such is simply not the case. If the libel of IFB churches in the south continues it might behoove the moderators/administrators to close the thread to avoid liability for publishing such defaming falsehoods.

 

[John of Japan]

Interesting, John. My connection to Wheaton began in 1946 when my uncle, Kenneth Kantzer, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School with a Th.D., came to Wheaton to teach. He remained there until 1963 when he went to TEDS as Dean, and built that school into the great edifice it is today. I used to visit my cousin Dick and go over to the campus and drive around. Nice place. Great looking girls.

I remember the name Kantzer, but I was too young to notice the girls--except that cute Donna in my kindergarten class.:flower:

One or both of my parents probably took classes from Dr. Kantzer. I do remember that they took a class from R. A. Torrey's daughter, as well as from Theissen. And of course Billy Graham was a student at Wheaton at the same time.

 

[John of Japan]

I knew Jack Hyles too. And Jack Hyles was no Jack Hyles!

I laughed out loud at this one. :laugh: Big difference between the Jack Hyles of the '60s and the last Jack Hyles.

 

[TCassidy]

I laughed out loud at this one. :laugh: Big difference between the Jack Hyles of the '60s and the last Jack Hyles.

I made a Hyles follower really mad at me when I told him essentially the same thing, then added that I thought the main reason he went so far off the track was that Dr. Rice was no longer around to keep him on the straight and narrow.

 

[John of Japan]

I made a Hyles follower really mad at me when I told him essentially the same thing, then added that I thought the main reason he went so far off the track was that Dr. Rice was no longer around to keep him on the straight and narrow.

Agreed.:thumbsup:

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I made a Hyles follower really mad at me when I told him essentially the same thing, then added that I thought the main reason he went so far off the track was that Dr. Rice was no longer around to keep him on the straight and narrow.

I know you said that half in jest, but there is a lot of truth in that statement. All of us missed Dr. Rice of course, but I don't think anyone understood the way Hyles depended on him. Honestly after Dr. Rice was gone he was never the same man.

 

[TCassidy]

I know you said that half in jest, but there is a lot of truth in that statement. All of us missed Dr. Rice of course, but I don't think anyone understood the way Hyles depended on him. Honestly after Dr. Rice was gone he was never the same man.

Yep. Once Dr. Rice was gone Hyles acted as if he had lost his anchor.

 

[John of Japan]

Yep. Once Dr. Rice was gone Hyles acted as if he had lost his anchor.

I've had several of the old time IFB preachers tell me this. I think it's true.

 

[Luke2427]

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?"

These are good guys Michael but they are not going to get this point. It cannot be stated any clearer than you and I have already stated it. They seem to think that their experience in the West and North give them more authority on IFB churches here in the south than we have who have been raised in them ans around them all our lives. They are not going to get it. We might as well move on.

Suffice it to say that John of Japan and Cassidy are not like the guys you and I know represent a significant portion of the IFB movement. Pastor Larry is probably not AS bad but he does believe you can preach against things like music when you have absolutely no clear Bible teaching on it.

They want to pretend that Jack Hyles is some FRINGE character in IFB history and that THE Sword conference and the current Sword of the Lord magazine does not speak for a significant percentage of the IFB movement. You and I, and all other objective thinkers even remotely familiar with this matter, know better.

Failing to convince a wall of truth does not mean you have lost an argument. But it does mean that you and I are wasting our time talking to this wall any further.

 

[TCassidy]

These are good guys Michael but they are not going to get this point. It cannot be stated any clearer than you and I have already stated it. They seem to think that their experience in the West and North give them more authority on IFB churches here in the south than we have who have been raised in them ans around them all our lives. They are not going to get it. We might as well move on.

Either you did not read what I wrote or you are lying. Most of my 35 years of ministry experience has been in the south. Shame on you!

Suffice it to say that John of Japan and Cassidy are not like the guys you and I know represent a significant portion of the IFB movement. Pastor Larry is probably not AS bad but he does believe you can preach against things like music when you have absolutely no clear Bible teaching on it.

They want to pretend that Jack Hyles is some FRINGE character in IFB history and that THE Sword conference and the current Sword of the Lord magazine does not speak for a significant percentage of the IFB movement. You and I, and all other objective thinkers even remotely familiar with this matter, know better.

Wrong again. Read my comments below.

Failing to convince a wall of truth does not mean you have lost an argument. But it does mean that you and I are wasting our time talking to this wall any further.

I am going to try one more time, then just give up on you as being uneducatable.

In the mid-50s the circulation of the Sword of the Lord was greater than Moody Monthly or Christianity Today with a high of well over 300,000. There are over 60,000,000 (yes, that says 60 million!) of Dr. Rice’s books in print. Hyles and Smith's books in print combined doesn't come close to that number.

Today the circulation of the Sword of the Lord is a fraction of what it was. The current editor, Sheldon Smith, has led the Sword in a radical departure from Dr. Rice’s position. Quoting a blog written by Robert Byers, Watchman's Words

Dr. Rice’s open invitation to fundamentalists across denominational lines to work together has been replaced by an insistence on Independent Baptist only–to go along with a promotion of the King James only position that he decried repeatedly in his later years. With a circulation now a quarter of what it was during his lifetime, the paper he founded reaches far fewer people than it once did.

You want to argue with the facts of history? Go ahead, but you only continue to make a fool of yourself. The majority of IFBs, even in the south, do not reflect the aberrations enumerated in the OP.

I am sorry you were so abused in an IFB church or two, but your limited experiences do not constitute a universal (or even a near universal) description of IFBs in the north, south, east, or west.

 

[TCassidy]

I've had several of the old time IFB preachers tell me this. I think it's true.

That's impossible! According to Michael and Luke those guys don't exist!

 

[freeatlast]

While I get accused of being a fundamentalist, legalist, bigoted, and other things I would be hard pressed to define a fundamentalist in today's world. It's like claiming to be a Baptist. One has to ask what kind of Baptist are you? Southern, northern, seventh day, Charismatic, snake handling, and so on. Words and term no longer seem to hold the same meanings that they once did, and what one word means to one it means something altogether to another. This is one of the big reasons we see so many different views of the word of God. There is no absolutes today for most people. You ask a liberal if he believes the bible and he will tell you yes he does and if a fundamentalist is asked he will tell you the same thing so like I said I am not sure what a fundamentalist is.

 

[TCassidy]

I am not sure what a fundamentalist is.

One of the best weapons in the Neo-Orthodox armory is to redefine historical terms to fit their new (hence "Neo") definitions. That is what many people are doing today. They are trying to redefine the word "Fundamentalist" to fit their own pre-conceived biases.

A Fundamentalist is one who believes the following:

1. The Deity of Christ.

2. The Virgin Birth.

3. The Blood Atonement.

4. The Bodily Resurrection.

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures.

Historic Fundamentalism is divided into three main areas:

1. Militant Fundamentalism believes that the Fundamentalist must not only believe the above, but must also publicly expose those who do not.

2. Moderate Fundamentalism believes that the Fundamentalist must believe all the above but is not required to publicly expose those who do not.

3. Modified Fundamentalism believes all of the above but is open to the reinterpretation of some or all of the historic doctrines of the Christian faith including, but not limited to, the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, etc. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, the Modified Fundamentalist repudiated Fundamentalism's ecclesiology and its social theory as well as rejecting its separatism.

The error of many on this type of forum is to try to limit Fundamentalism to either just the first one, or just the first two, without recognizing the third one as being Fundamental.

 

[Tom Bryant]

One of the best weapons in the Neo-Orthodox armory is to redefine historical terms to fit their new (hence "Neo") definitions. That is what many people are doing today. They are trying to redefine the word "Fundamentalist" to fit their own pre-conceived biases.

A Fundamentalist is one who believes the following:

1. The Deity of Christ.

2. The Virgin Birth.

3. The Blood Atonement.

4. The Bodily Resurrection.

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures.

Historic Fundamentalism is divided into three main areas:

1. Militant Fundamentalism believes that the Fundamentalist must not only believe the above, but must also publicly expose those who do not.

2. Moderate Fundamentalism believes that the Fundamentalist must believe all the above but is not required to publicly expose those who do not.

3. Modified Fundamentalism believes all of the above but is open to the reinterpretation of some or all of the historic doctrines of the Christian faith including, but not limited to, the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, etc. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, the Modified Fundamentalist repudiated Fundamentalism's ecclesiology and its social theory as well as rejecting its separatism.

The error of many on this type of forum is to try to limit Fundamentalism to either just the first one, or just the first two, without recognizing the third one as being Fundamental.

You are absolutely correct. Another problem is that you have at best non-fundamentalists and at worst anti-fundamentalists seeking to define what a fundamentalist is. It's like asking a republican to define for democrats what a democrat is or vice versa.

 

[TCassidy]

You are absolutely correct. Another problem is that you have at best non-fundamentalists and at worst anti-fundamentalists seeking to define what a fundamentalist is. It's like asking a republican to define for democrats what a democrat is or vice versa.

Yes, and, unfortunately, they are so blinded by their biases that they cannot comprehend the greater world view of those who have greater knowledge and experience. A not uncommon failing of the immature, both chronologically and spiritually.

 

[Berean]

Posted earlier on another thread

Fundamentalist Baptist come in different flavors like ice cream Most FB don't care for the cooperative program they feel that the individual churches should be in absolute control of missions. Many are KJV "only". They are very often legalistic especially about women wearing pants, movies and sometimes TV. A positive point is they put a large emphasis on soul winning, which is good. They call for separation from the world on a lot of issues thay many would not see the extreme position they might take. My personal opinion is they are great people and love the Lord

 

[John of Japan]

That's impossible! According to Michael and Luke those guys don't exist!

Ignorance is only excusable if it seeks knowledge--and I don't see that with these guys.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Suffice it to say that John of Japan and Cassidy are not like the guys you and I know represent a significant portion of the IFB movement. Pastor Larry is probably not AS bad but he does believe you can preach against things like music when you have absolutely no clear Bible teaching on it.

This is problematic on several counts.

First, out of the eight issues listed in this thread about fundamentalism, I hold to none of them. And I do not believe I personally know any fundamentalists who do, at least that I know of. So to say I am probably not "AS bad" is quite funny.

Second, as Luke knows, it is simply incorrect to say that I believe we can preach about things like music when you have absolutely no clear Bible teaching on it. I do not believe that. Luke knows I don't believe that because I have told Luke I don't believe that. So when Luke says something untrue after Luke has been told it is untrue then Luke is knowingly not telling the truth.