-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What’s “Fundamental” to “Fundamentalism”?
- Thread starter Squire Robertsson
- Start date
- Status
Read the article.
Ok...not "fun".
I did read the article. I agree. Unfortunately "fundamental" has taken on a different context with many.
Pastor Innes has a whole series on "What is a Fundamentalist?" of which this is the introductory section. The 19 message series is available here. If one wants to drill down.Ok...not "fun".
I did read the article. I agree. Unfortunately "fundamental" has taken on a different context with many.
37818
Well-Known Member
Just under 19 hours to listen to all 19 messages. [I did not add up all the minutes.]
Message #1 is the audio at the bottom of page 2. 49 minutes and 12 secs.
The starting Bible references, Revelation 22:18-19.
Deuteronomy 4:2.
Proverbs 30:.5-6.
My notes on Revelation 22:18 being ". . . hearth . . . ," Revelation 1:1, Revelation 19:10, Luke 24:44, Deuteronomy 18:18-19 and Matthew 4:4.
The message has 19 points.
@Squire Robertsson, thank you for posting these messages.
Last edited:
The series was IIRC brought on consecutive Sundays.
37818
Well-Known Member
Thank you. I edited my previous post.
I am and remain a staunch biblical fundamentalist. Sadly, the movement of fundamentalism has waned in my lifetime and now is breaking and morphing into almost sect-like fragments (often with sect-like militancy on issues far afield from the fundamentals of the faith.
Fundamentalism (the movement) was trans-denominational in 1895 Niagara Conference-1920 R.A. Torrey era. Then the banner was picked up by segments of denominations but dominated until post-WWII by Baptists (with strong leaders like W.B. Riley, T.T. Shields, J. Frank Norris). Sadly, in the past 60 years the movement has had only "lesser lights" to guide, with little unifying influence. This has allowed the unscrupulous to redefine fundamentalism, and each little kingdom proclaim their own "infallible" guru with god-like powers and no accountability.
My thinking of the movement is that it needs a solid base again, starting at the grass-root local church, then expanded thru cooperative efforts already in place (like state conferences, colleges, camps, etc.) to return any consistent and firm theological basis to the name. I am not convinced that will happen.
Fundamentalism (the movement) was trans-denominational in 1895 Niagara Conference-1920 R.A. Torrey era. Then the banner was picked up by segments of denominations but dominated until post-WWII by Baptists (with strong leaders like W.B. Riley, T.T. Shields, J. Frank Norris). Sadly, in the past 60 years the movement has had only "lesser lights" to guide, with little unifying influence. This has allowed the unscrupulous to redefine fundamentalism, and each little kingdom proclaim their own "infallible" guru with god-like powers and no accountability.
My thinking of the movement is that it needs a solid base again, starting at the grass-root local church, then expanded thru cooperative efforts already in place (like state conferences, colleges, camps, etc.) to return any consistent and firm theological basis to the name. I am not convinced that will happen.
Quick testimonial. I was asked to speak at a conference in the Mountain West on a return to Fundamentalism. I asked if there was a definite listing the fundamentals on which we all agree and from which there would be no deviation by any speaker.
The conference director connected me to the "guru" who was hosting the event. After lauding my question, he listed 8-9 key fundamentals. I said that such a list would be "a starting place", but what was going to be said about each. My area would be on the physical resurrection so knew what would be appropriate.
The host pastor said he was the first speakers (surprise) and set the tone with the fundamental that the Bible as the inerrant/authoritative Word of God for faith AND practice. I thought this a great topic and said so, because of the controversies over church "teaching" one thing while "practicing" another. And influence of charismatic "feeling" trumping the revealed revelation of the Word.
He said there was a bigger issue (that scared me) and continued that by "Bible" it must be made clear that it was only the AV1611 English Bible that was perfect and authoritative. He had written the first "fundamental of the faith" that "The King James Bible was the only perfect preserved Word of God for the world". I stopped him to be sure I understood . . . and sadly, I did.
I bowed out of the conference and shared with all our fellowship to avoid this schismatic event that redefined the fundamentals of the faith.
The conference director connected me to the "guru" who was hosting the event. After lauding my question, he listed 8-9 key fundamentals. I said that such a list would be "a starting place", but what was going to be said about each. My area would be on the physical resurrection so knew what would be appropriate.
The host pastor said he was the first speakers (surprise) and set the tone with the fundamental that the Bible as the inerrant/authoritative Word of God for faith AND practice. I thought this a great topic and said so, because of the controversies over church "teaching" one thing while "practicing" another. And influence of charismatic "feeling" trumping the revealed revelation of the Word.
He said there was a bigger issue (that scared me) and continued that by "Bible" it must be made clear that it was only the AV1611 English Bible that was perfect and authoritative. He had written the first "fundamental of the faith" that "The King James Bible was the only perfect preserved Word of God for the world". I stopped him to be sure I understood . . . and sadly, I did.
I bowed out of the conference and shared with all our fellowship to avoid this schismatic event that redefined the fundamentals of the faith.
To be clear, Pastor Innes would have the same problem as you did. He probably would not have been invited to speak in the first place.
DO YOU HAVE THE CHART PG 23 AND THE LIST OF PASTORS HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT?
Page 23 of what?
he mentioned it in the sermon, sounded as if he handed out notes and charts'
He did and IIRC he didn't name anybody in particular.
John R. Rice quotes about fundamentalism from my new biography of him:
“Be careful who you call ‘brethren.’ Be careful who you compromise with. Be careful who you run with. If you have the wrong kind of friendship, the wrong kind of associate, the wrong kind of companions, then one day it will be the ruin of your whole family. No man can resist bad company, I don’t care how strong you are” (John R. Rice, Preaching That Built a Great Church. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1974), 114.).
“One reason I made up my mind a good while ago not to run with some people who call themselves Fundamentalists but lie, exalt self, are shameful in their private lives is because I couldn’t have evil company. I will not trim corners just to please people. I will run with the Lord’s people. I will not call the other crowd my brethren” (Ibid.).
“Be careful who you call ‘brethren.’ Be careful who you compromise with. Be careful who you run with. If you have the wrong kind of friendship, the wrong kind of associate, the wrong kind of companions, then one day it will be the ruin of your whole family. No man can resist bad company, I don’t care how strong you are” (John R. Rice, Preaching That Built a Great Church. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1974), 114.).
“One reason I made up my mind a good while ago not to run with some people who call themselves Fundamentalists but lie, exalt self, are shameful in their private lives is because I couldn’t have evil company. I will not trim corners just to please people. I will run with the Lord’s people. I will not call the other crowd my brethren” (Ibid.).
I think he mentioned John Mac Arthur and Charles Stanley.
Said they were solid believers but he would not do certain activities with them.
- Status