Featured Questions for Fundamentalists

Check out the militarygetsaved interweb directory (a Tripod site!). The guy who runs the outfit attempts to label every Independent Baptist church according to Bible version, among other things.

 

No, that is a abuse of fundamentalism.

 

That may be true but that is what I was taught in my IFB church.

 

It is brief, but It looks solid to me.

Why do you wonder if they are CoC?

 

There are many IFB churches that are not KJVO, but they seldom see the need to advertise that fact. So you will look in vain for IFB churches that have on their website, "We are not KJVO." On the other hand, KJVO churches usually advertise that fact on their website. It will be on the "What We Believe" or "Statement of Faith" page, and will use wording such as "God has preserved His word in the English language through the KJV."

Concerning Calvinism in IFB churches, it is spreading, but few with a Calvinist pastor or leanings advertise the fact. Often those pastors are alumni of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, which is avowedly fundamentalist.

 

Check in Greenville, SC. Dozens of IFB churches that are not KJVO. Some use the KJV, others the ESV, NKJV, and NASB. Never been to a IFB church that used the NIV, as its more common in SBC, Conservative Baptist, and other such circles, including may Calvinist churches.

 

If the website or the doctrinal statement says it is KJVO, or even just "KJV," it is. If it doesn't say so, it is not KJVO. Simple. :thumbs:

That doesn't mean such a church will not use the KJV--it might. It just means it is not part of their stand, their doctrine.

 

Point taken. :thumbs:

At any rate, I think it is still true that if a website or doctrinal statement does not mention the KJV, it is pretty sure that it is not KJVO.

 

Agreed. My church states that our teaching and preaching comes from the the KJV, but we don't stand at the door and check every member's Bible as they come in. We're more KJVP than KJVO.

 

Our church website and articles of faith make no mention of the KJV. However, that is the only version we use. Of course, the KJVO people would not accept me either because I use the underlying Greek and Hebrew text of the KJV.

 

I think I'm seeing a movement towards that position by formerly strong KJVO people, but it's too early to tell. Gail Riplinger has become an embarrassment, for one thing.

 

No. I believe there is a minority who believe that references to Christ return are figurative and that the next event in history is the destruction Peter wrote about.

The early English Baptist Confessions were pretty heavy on the doctrines of grace. If I am not mistaken, the contributors to "The Fundamentals" included both thoroughgoing Arminians and Calvinists... as did the "mainstream" churches they sought to correct but which have now declined.

Can you flesh out a bit more the distinction you are making on atonement with "penal"?

 

RE: Versions. My church is now in the process of making a pretty smooth transition from the KJV as the primary text to the NKJV. Years ago when I posted here, I majored on that issue more or less because it was a battle that meant something to me. I am not promising that I won't dive back into that forum... but more than anything I now see that issue and those who focus heavily on it as a distraction from our mission. In just my time away from here (5+ years), we've seen a pretty dramatic shift in our nation. There is an ever growing biblical illiteracy. It isn't that people don't know or understand the "right" version but that they are functional pagans when it comes to any real knowledge of what the Bible teaches.

In short, there is a much, much bigger war to be fought than this fist fight inside the camp.

 

when a church says they believe in the inerrancy of scripture that seems non specific. That could mean they believe in the KJV is inerrant, or it could mean any number of translations. Or it could mean they believe only the originals are inspired (wherever they can find an original IDK).

What about if they follow all the 5 fundamentals stated in this thread, but never preach on hell? What if they never do an altar call? What if they don't believe in soul-winning? What if they do sprinkling baptism? What if they do infant baptism? What if they preach some form of "if you don't do such-and-such you aren't really saved?"

5 fundamentals seems like a short list. No disrespect intended. But a lot of people seem to think "fundamental" means they only preach against all other people and that they are very "strict" such as women have to wear head coverings, etc. This is probably why there is so much separation, because there is a lack of clarity on what is an IFB.