1980 was a pivotal year in Fundamentalism

We now see what the loss of one Great man can mean to a movement.I for one would like to see an organization of Baptist Fundamentalist such as it existed in the 70"s up to 1980.Where is God's man that could make this happen?

 

John, I understand and appreciate what you are saying but there you are overseas and here I am.

 

double post

 

I think you're right! </font>[/QUOTE]

 

The little booklets that John R. Rice published were for me very easily understood, scriptural and straight to the point. When you find a man who has a clear mind(not cluttered or confused, or iffy) you generally find someone who can speak clearly, and such a man was John R. Rice. When I worked as a pilot on the Mississippi River, I used to take one little booklet a day to the pilot house with me, there to study and digest what it had to say. I think of myself as a street preacher and while I have actually stood on street corners and preached that's not what I usually do. I easily walk around at fairs and festivals and carnivals can ask people a question, and given the opportunity present the message of salvation to them. I believe my little ministry is a direct outgrowth from my reading John R. Rice'S booklets.

 

John:

I loved your grandfather and although you have heard it many times here is one more preacher who he influenced greatly. I heard him speak many times at sword conferences and at Curtis Hudson’s church in Atlanta where I was a member. My signed Rice reference bible is a prized possession.

Fundamentalism has changed a great deal since 1980 but I would not put all of the blame on John R. Rice’s death. He was a great man and still has tremendous influence through the many books he left behind but he was still only one man. He had a great ministry but he was 85 years old right? How long would you have liked him to live? That is a terrible question to ask a grandson, I wish my grandfathers were still around also but there had to come a time when he passed on and I am glad God handles those things instead of men.

Many other issues caused the change in fundamentalism over the last 25 years. I believe the most important of these was that fundamentalists in the United States took there eyes off the kingdom of god and became more concerned with the kingdoms of men. What I mean here specifically is that we stopped winning souls to Christ and became politicians trying to win voters for conservative causes. We stopped asking, “If you died today do you know for certain you will go to heaven?” and started asking, “Are you a republican? Are you against abortion? Are you against gun control? Are you for the death penalty?” Many of our ifb preachers fell. Many great institutions collapsed.

Yes, you should be proud of your grandfather and should continue his legacy. No, fundamentalism did not pass away because the ministry of one man ended.

 

John and North Carolina have hit on 2 major reasons why fandamentalism changed.

I graduated from TTU in 1980and served my first 9 years in indepentdent baptist churches. I now pastor an SBC church. But when I first got acquainted with fundamentalism, the leaders were talking about planting churches, helping existing churches to be effective in reaching people, sending our missionaries. As time went by the emphasis did begin to change. We talked more about politics and KJV only.

At my ordination, one man asked about where I stood about the KJV. My pastor broke in and said that I could answer but that we were not going to make my ordination about the KJV. That started a discussion between these pastors about it. I just sat up front and kept quiet.

Like I said, I now pastor a SBC church. I still consider myself a fundamentalist... but many of my one time friends do not.

 

Sorry Bill, I will have to disagree with you on that one. We don't need a fundamentalist "movement", we need men who are fundamentalist in principle.

Throughout the history of fundamentalism as a movement there has been too much emphasis on being followers of certain men (though this would be denied by most). One was classified as a fundamentalist if they were in the "in crowd". For example, Jack Hyles wrote some things that we would consider heretical, he also was involved in numerous scandels, yet not once did you hear a "big name" fundamentalist point these things out or "separate" from Jack, because he was "in the movement".

Because of this exclusivness many who where and are, fundamentalist in principle, were considered New evangelical, when in reality they are throughly orthodox as well as sepratists.

I appreciate JoJ's thoughts regarding Dr. Rice. No doubt he has found memories and who wouldn't of their family members! But I think that some of the things he describes in his post show how much many fundamentlaist Baptists followed certain individuals.

I consider my self a fundamentalist and an evangelical- i.e. fundamentalist in principle and evangelical in principle. I hold to the ideals of doctrinal integrity and separation from apostasy that the early fundamentalists did.

 

4His Glory,
I guess what I am saying is there was a time when someone told you they were IFB or BBFI you knew who you were talking to.That is not true any more.Nowadays we have the KJVO's , Calvinists,and liberals sprinkled in.We even have some mid-trib,post-trib, and amillineal folks sprinkled in amongst us.

There was a time if you were IFB people knew you were pre-trib,pre-mil,OSAS,Bible believer cover to cover,soul winning and sin hating.I think we need to get back to that.

 

Just a thought here, but could some of the "problems" be rooted in the fact that the IFB churches have lost the apperance of distinctiveness with the rise of fundamentalist thought in the SBC?

 

Ahh... Now I see what you are getting at. Not all early fundamentalists were pre-trib etc.

Many of them were, some were not. Many were Calvinists, many were not, the things they did agree on were the essential doctrines of Christianity which are relativly few. To be on the "in crowd" of IFBdom or the BBF, is still a movement based fundamentalism, which I do not beleive we need today.
This is the statement that as fundamentalist we should live by:
"In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity,"

Saddly this is forgotten. For example, John MacArthur is a sepratist, he is soundly fundamental in his theology, yet because he is not one of the "in crowd" of fundamentalism as a movement, he is unjustly called a New evangelical.

 

We both believe the same thing regarding fundamentalists in general. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I am speaking of IFB and BBFI types of 25 years ago.At least these were the things being preached and taught by those I knew and was familiar with.

 

Howdy Bill,

I was sitting here reading this thread, and buddy, you couldn't be more right!

Nowdays, the Fundamental Baptist movement is overran with False Doctrine out the Wazoo! I mean, You've got Ruckman and his False Dcotrines, I'm sorry, but *ANY* man who says he's gotten personal revelations out of the KJV and that the KJV corrects the original greek and hebrew is in error, just that simple. Because the Bible says VERY CLEARLY:

Yet, Ruckman *CLAIMS* he has recieved his own private revelations about scriptures, and Yes, I've seen his supposed personal revelations and quite frankly, I don't know who's more goofier, the person writing the stuff or the people the really believe what he writes! I mean, I've read his "scandal rag" he writes, even though it's supposed to be available by password only, only thing is, it's not behind a secure server, so, anyone that knows how to use google toolbar, can read it with ease... anyhow, I've read the stuff and I came away with the general feeling that the guy is, 1.) Goofier than a box of rocks. 2.)A hyper-dispensaionalist 3.) Spiritually in Apostasy 4.)A True-Blue KJV Cultist

I mean, don't get me wrong, I use KJV myself, But I also use commentaries, Dictionaries, and I even look at other versions for comparison!

Now I'm not about to toss my KJV in the trash, But Ruckman takes that stuff a little too far. It's all a matter of language... He teaches that the KJV is the INSPIRED Word of God, which is, truthfully bunk, and the doctrine of double inspiration. But the truth, and It's there if you know where to look, is that the KJV is the Preserved Word of God. It follows a line of 7 different Bibles, starting with tyndale and ended at the KJV, of Preservation, and that's it! All that other bunk that Ruckman, Jack Chick and other people throw in there is just stupid foolishness. Jesus didn't speak in KJV english, he spoke in Aramaic. Too bad alot of people don't know this.

Further more, I believe in the KJV, but I'm not about to tell someone their not saved if they don't read it, that's foolishness, and further more, what about the spanish speaking people? and other people in other countries? Like Napal? Russia? What about those Christians? are they lost too?

And we that believe that about the KJV, we trust in the KJV, that God has preserved his Word well enough for us to be able to understand it, However, It would be foolish for me to just read KJV, and never look at anything else, that's just plain inmaturity.. I believe that the Lord gave us wise men, like Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, Dr. John Gill, John Nelson Darby, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Johann (C.F.) Keil, Franz Delitzsch, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, David H. Sorenson, and host of others that have given lives to the teaching of the Word of God. and one can lord alot from reading thier commentaries... Not that there words are infallable, but they do help!

It's just sad to see that Dr. Hyles followed in Ruckman's footsteps after Rice died and turned into Apostasy. Equally sad to see, is his son-in-law, is doing the very same thing.

The real funny thing is, is who Dr. Sheldon Smith has turned the Sword of the Lord into a KJV movement paper... that's the real sad part.

Well, enough of this man's rambling...