Featured Emerging from Fundamentalism

Yea, but Greg, the thing that you actually tend to think makes you a fundamentalist is not JUST that you believe the Bible is inspired of God, infallible and inerrant and that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for sin and rose the third day and is coming in power and glory.

Almost every Southern Baptist (and there are about 16 MILLION of us) believes all of those things. So do most Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc...

No, you call yourself a fundamentalist to DISTINGUISH yourself and your kind from us and the general evangelical community.

Being a fundamentalist means doing missions a certain way in your mind (LOCAL CHURCH!!!!)

Being a fundamentalist means having some dress standards (no two piece bathing suits in public!!!!!!).

It means being against alcohol (by the barrel and by the THIMBLE FULL!!!!)

You think it makes you a little better fundamentalist in that you believe this ridiculous KJVO nonsense (though you probably allow for guys like John R. Rice to be fundamentalists who were opposed to that nonsense).


I am a real fundamentalist in that I adhere to the fundamentals of the faith.

But since the days of J. Frank Norris, guys like him have tried, and succeeded, in high jacking the term.

So now most evangelicals who don't want to be thought of as hayseed, backwater legalists choose to shun the term.

 

Venomous words? What if I used words like "hypocrites", "blind leaders of the blind", "white-washed sepulchers", "respecters of men", "blind guides", "fools and blind", "serpents", or "vipers"? Would that be okay with you? Will you no criticize Jesus for his "venomous" words against such men?

 

This forum is entitled "The Fundamental Baptist Forum."

In one of the opening threads this introduction is posted:

It grieves me to read most of a thread that have remarks and attack such as yours. You are not a fundamentalist; why do you come here and post? In fact why post here at all? If you hate it all go join the United Methodists; that should be liberal enough for you. We don't want the venom and vitriol here, the constant haranguing of the fundamentalist position. Leave if you don't like, and don't come back again.

This forum is for those of us who are fundamentalists, not for the fundamental-haters, and for the Luke-following crowd and those who cheer him on.
Take heed to the Word:

1 John 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

You have spewed nothing but hatred and vitriol against the fundamentalists and the movement as a whole. Where does that leave you standing according to the Word?

Find another forum to post in; not here.

 

While I don't consider myself IFB anymore, I do fit the technical definition of fundamentalist by holding to the five fundamental doctrines. So am I allowed to post here?

 

Those answers are posted in the sticky threads at the top of the opening page of the threads.

 

A true fundamentalist is one who adheres to The Fundamentals not one who teaches for doctrines the commandments of men found in the legalist movement of today. (Women and pants issues, 1611 nonsense, no movies, teetotalers, against 'canned music', LOCAL CHURCH!, and other nauseating commandments).

I wonder how many here would love and agree with the sign outside of an IFB that read 'women, if you're not wearing a dress or skirt, you are not welcome here!'? (or perhaps it read women if you are wearing pants you are not welcome here). I can only imagine how proud those pharisees were when they paced that sign, and can only imagine the ignorance from the pulpit that rallied the troops to do it.

 

Says who? Why am I not a fundamentalist?

In what way am I liberal like the United Methodists? :laugh:

No.

Yes, and you take heed to that passage when you talk to me as well, 10-4?

I literally said in the post that you are responding to that many of them are good men.

Nothing but hatred?

See, this is the kind of ignorance that plagues people like you who you are defending, isn't it?

I don't like the movement that pounds its chest and calls itself "Fundamentalist" today. I really do think it is largely as ignorant as mountain snake handlers.

But I am a fundamentalist by definition. I get to post on this board.

Now if you can identify this forum by defining fundamentalism as exclusively referring to the redneck, backwater, hayseed, camp meeting, King James Only, Blue Grass and Southern Gospel Only, against alcohol and everything else God made for us to enjoy forum- then I will not post here. But since there is no such definition and it is assumed that Fundamentalists are people who defend the fundamentals of the faith- which I do- VEHEMENTLY- I think I'll stay.

 

Obviously the person who did that was not using common sense.
Look at the top thread that Squire started:

I have known Dr. Innes for some time. I appreciate his work. The fundamentalists I know don't dwell on the matters in category 4. The other three are important in descending order as listed.

 

See? There is a vast misunderstanding of what a TRUE fundamentalist is. I think some who believe it is legalistic issues should rename their camp as that is not what a true fundamentalist is. I believe you are truly fundamental, I know I am as well, and I know when it began, why, and what they adhered to and it had nothing to do with legalistic issues of dress, Bible versions, movies, alcohol &c.

 

Just to be clear you are simply saying that you are agreeing with most of what the RCC believes--fundamentals?

 

most when hear the term Fundamentalist do indeed think of someone who is right in doctrines, but whose approach to applying those truths are in a legalistic manner, as in versions of Bible, worship style, movies, dress, fellowship etc!

wasn't it original JUST basically holding to th essentials of the faith?

Didn't the big divide start basically around rtime of christianity Today, when carl heny and Billy graham went to 'evangelicalism?"

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

I'm not too sure about the latter. I do know this, when The Fundamentals came out, it only exposed those who were in higher criticism/liberal theology against those who held to the belief of the truth of Scripture in all aspects (miracles, efficacy of the blood of Christ &c). IOW, it was only expressing what those who already believed in the sufficiency of Scripture adhered to doctrinally.

 

Believing in the fundamental doctrines of the faith is not the same as being a Fundamental Baptist. They are two completely different uses of the term. Would you call someone a liberal democrat for being liberal with their money? Do all republicans in office adhere to the historical limited-government ideology upon which republicanism was based? Fundamentalism has a well-earned reputation for adhering to non-fundamentals as though they were the fundamentals. Fundamentalism is more about adherence to the fundamental doctrines of the Fundamental Baptist faith, not of THE Faith.

 

Does this apply to all baptist groups/churches that identify themselves as "fundamental baptists"?

 

True as there could be other denominations who hold to the fundamentals. I don't think any is arguing here that holding to them makes one a Baptist. As a Baptist I believe in the fundamentals of the faith.

That's all good and fine, but it's not reflective of this thread as no one is arguing adherence to the fundamentals makes one a Baptist.

But that's not true fundamentalism. It is what some have become, but it isn't what made fundamentalists what they were/are. You're attempting to make, or at the least giving room for fundamentalism being something it was never meant to be. You're correct however that there are those who believe those non-fundamentals are the true ones.

Correct. It isn't about legalistic issues, 'canned music', going to movies, 'public bathing', teetotalism, attire, Bible versions &c.

 

Any technical definition I've come across defines fundamentalism as one who holds to the fundamentals of a religious faith. Most churches I know would agree with the five fundamentals, whether or not they identify as fundamental.

On the other hand, the general use of words does end up determining their definition in the end.
And many do think of fundamentals as those who adhere to legalism such as KJVO...but then, there's also a lot of diversity on individual beliefs in the movement, so it's a bit hard to define.

 

This is why you are not a fundamentalist:

Or does this describe you?
This is your typical ungodly tirade against "fundamentalism."
It is evil, wicked, unloving, and against the rules to post such things that are not done "in grace and without offense to others."

You have white-washed an entire movement by the actions of a few.
But remember you just described yourself by saying: "I am a fundamentalist" (in the same post as above).

 

It applies to most in the South. I actually attended a church in Pennsylvania which called itself a fundamental baptist, but held to none of the legalistic doctrines of a southern fundamentalist church. The pastor was an intelligent, Biblically competent man who wasn't afraid of having men in the church who disagreed with him on non-salvational issues. He understood that when you have a church where everyone believes the exact same as their pastor, they are blind followers at best & a cult at worst . I told him that, in the South, his church & depth of teaching were the antithesis of a fundamental baptist church. He agreed.