Are SBC's Fundamentalists?

[Luke2427]

Pastor Larry said on the "define fundamentalism" thread that SBC's were not really fundamentalists.

Now, he meant it in the traditional use of the term (stand for the fundamentals); not the way some of us contend modern fundamentalists are today (preach against things that are not in the Bible, etc...)

Is Larry right? Are SBC's not fundamentalists?

What do you think?

 

[Speedpass]

There are still many CBF loyalists who will make their claim, even though it's been at least 20 years since many of them were actively involved in SBC life. :tear:

 

[TCassidy]

Meaningless question. SBC churches range from radical right-wingers that would make an Xer jealous to radical left-wing modernists who would make Bishop Pike jealous.

The center has moved right over the past 20 years but that is all that anyone with any knowledge of the SBC can honestly say.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry said on the "define fundamentalism" thread that SBC's were not really fundamentalists.

Now, he meant it in the traditional use of the term (stand for the fundamentals); ...

No, I meant it in the sense that (1) SBC was absent for the modernist-fundamentalist controversy which later become the modernist-new evangelical-fundamentalist controversy (according to Al Mohler just last month), and (2) that the SBC is not separatist in the historic sense of the word in ecclesiology, as seen by the need for the resurgence. A separatist group would not have allowed the liberals in their midst. They would have either driven them out or left.

 

[TCassidy]

No, I meant it in the sense that (1) SBC was absent for the modernist-fundamentalist controversy which later become the modernist-new evangelical-fundamentalist controversy (according to Al Mohler just last month), and . . .

I noticed that too while I was researching the background of the authors of The Fundamentals. I could not find any Baptists at all. Could it be that the Landmarkers in the Convention were in their ascendant period and did not consider the other ecclesiastical organizations to be "true churches" so they refused to associate with them?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I noticed that too while I was researching the background of the authors of The Fundamentals. I could not find any Baptists at all. Could it be that the Landmarkers in the Convention were in their ascendant period and did not consider the other ecclesiastical organizations to be "true churches" so they refused to associate with them?

Interesting thought, and possible. I had never really thought much about it until I heard Mohler say it this week.

The Northern Baptists were much more present in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy, I think.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Meaningless question. SBC churches range from radical right-wingers that would make an Xer jealous to radical left-wing modernists who would make Bishop Pike jealous.

The center has moved right over the past 20 years but that is all that anyone with any knowledge of the SBC can honestly say.

One could also say that "those in the IFB movement range from radical right-wingers who reject anything that came down the pike after 1950 to radical left-wing "liberals" who use "Saddleback methods."

I've been both places. There are extremists in both, and the middles of both are very, VERY much the same. There are fundamentalists in both groups.

 

[TCassidy]

One could also say that "those in the IFB movement range from radical right-wingers who reject anything that came down the pike after 1950 to radical left-wing "liberals" who use "Saddleback methods."

I've been both places. There are extremists in both, and the middles of both are very, VERY much the same. There are fundamentalists in both groups.

I agree, but that was not the question. The question was "Are SBCs Fundamentalists?" The correct answer is "Yes, No, Maybe, Some of Them, and Sort of Some Times." Unfortunately that was not an option in the poll.

 

[TCassidy]

Interesting thought, and possible. I had never really thought much about it until I heard Mohler say it this week.

The Northern Baptists were much more present in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy, I think.

Much more so, as I briefly outlined in the other thread.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Since I'm a northern Baptist now living in Florida, I don't know much about southern Baptist--other than I don't like them as much as I do northern Baptist churches.

I am pre-trib, and I've found at least two southern Baptist pastors who are mid-trib. I never found that belief up north.

 

[TCassidy]

Since I'm a northern Baptist now living in Florida, I don't know much about southern Baptist--other than I don't like them as much as I do northern Baptist churches.

I am pre-trib, and I've found at least two southern Baptist pastors who are mid-trib. I never found that belief up north.

There haven't been any Northern Baptist Churches since 1950 when the Convention changed its name to American Baptist Convention, then, again in 1972 to American Baptist Churches.

 

[Jerome]

I noticed that too while I was researching the background of the authors of The Fundamentals. I could not find any Baptists at all.

You're joking, right?

 

[TCassidy]

You're joking, right?

Uh, no.

James Orr, Presbyterian
B. B. Warfield, Presbyterian
G. Campbell Morgan, Congregationalist
R. A. Torrey, Congregationalist.
A. T. Pierson, Presbyterian
Dyson Hague, Anglican
George Frederick Wright, Congregationalist
Melvin Grove Kyle, Presbyterian
Franklin Johnson, denomination/ordination unknown but taught at University of Chicago.
Robert Anderson, Presbyterian
Howard Kelley, Congregationalist
H. C. G. Moule, Anglican
James M. Gray, Episcopalian
William G. Moorehead, Presbyterian
Robert E. Speer, Presbyterian
E. Y. Mullins, Southern Baptist (seems all alone, doesn't he?)
Thomas Whitelaw, Presbyterian
Charles T. Studd, Anglican
William Caven, Presbyterian

Well, you get the idea. I am too tired and less then motivated to post the rest. Look them up yourself.

 

[Jerome]

A. C. Dixon?
Baptist

Franklin Johnson?
Baptist

David Heagle?
Baptist

J. J. Reeve?
Baptist

Charles B. Williams?
Baptist

E. J. Stobo. Jr.?
Baptist

Thomas Spurgeon?
Baptist

George W. Lasher?
Baptist

T. W. Medhurst?
Baptist

 

[Rippon]

A. C. Dixon?
Baptist

Franklin Johnson?
Baptist

David Heagle?
Baptist

J. J. Reeve?
Baptist

Charles B. Williams?
Baptist

E. J. Stobo. Jr.?
Baptist

Thomas Spurgeon?
Baptist

George W. Lasher?
Baptist

T. W. Medhurst?
Baptist

This time your researching skills are spot-on Jerome. Off the top of my head (without The Fundamentals close-at-hand)I remembered Thomas Spurgeon being a Baptist.Thanks for the additional names. TCassidy will have to retract his bold assertion.

 

[Luke2427]

No, I meant it in the sense that (1) SBC was absent for the modernist-fundamentalist controversy which later become the modernist-new evangelical-fundamentalist controversy (according to Al Mohler just last month), and (2) that the SBC is not separatist in the historic sense of the word in ecclesiology, as seen by the need for the resurgence. A separatist group would not have allowed the liberals in their midst. They would have either driven them out or left.

What you meant and continue to mean is clear. You were represented fairly.

I noticed some of you voted that some SBC folks are ok but the movement is liberal. I wonder what part of the Baptist Faith and Message you consider liberal since this is the document to which all of our Seminaries have to ascribe to and it is the document that defines the beliefs of the SBC movement?

 

[Luke2427]

Meaningless question. SBC churches range from radical right-wingers that would make an Xer jealous to radical left-wing modernists who would make Bishop Pike jealous.

The center has moved right over the past 20 years but that is all that anyone with any knowledge of the SBC can honestly say.

No offense intended here Cassidy but this is really a meaningless post. I am sure some Southern Baptists are serial killers, some are child porn peddlers, etc... That doesn't mean the movement is not fundamentalist.


Obviously the op refers to the movement as a whole as it stands today.

As a whole, is the SBC movement fundamentalist? When you consider her elected leaders her accepted statement of faith, etc... That is the obvious subject at hand.

I could ask you, "Is your church orthodox?" and, following the same logic you employ to declare the op meaningless, you would have to answer: "That is a meaningless question because one of my members is an open theist and another believes in works salvation (never mind that 99 percent of your church is orthodox).

Using your logic we never declare ANYTHING about ANYTHING.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I agree, but that was not the question. The question was "Are SBCs Fundamentalists?" The correct answer is "Yes, No, Maybe, Some of Them, and Sort of Some Times." Unfortunately that was not an option in the poll.

The same answers would apply to "Are IFB's 'Fundamentalists'?"

Many IFB have changed the true 'Fundamentals' into man-made ones.

 

[John of Japan]

Meaningless question. SBC churches range from radical right-wingers that would make an Xer jealous to radical left-wing modernists who would make Bishop Pike jealous.

The center has moved right over the past 20 years but that is all that anyone with any knowledge of the SBC can honestly say.

That's my opinion. I didn't answer the poll because it was not crafted to allow this view. It would have been nice to at least have an "other" choice.

 

[kyredneck]

I noticed that too while I was researching the background of the authors of The Fundamentals. I could not find any Baptists at all. ...

Wow. No Baptist authors here? (honest question, I don't know):

http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/index.php