1980 was a pivotal year in Fundamentalism

[dcorbett]

{{Maybe I should have used "take a stand" instead of "fight." That's really what I meant. I don't know your pastor, but I hope he takes just as strong a stand for missions as he does on translation issues.))

He does - our church of under 200 sent over $50,000 to the mission field last year, and we
have loftier goals this year. We have one young man in Bible College already surrendered to go
to Thailand, and we will be his sending church.
My Pastor was a missionary in Korea back in the early 60s. He preaches the TRUTH and says that if we ever hear him preach anything other than the TRUTH, boot him out and send him down the road. He is a patriot and keeps a watchful eye
over his flock for satan's wiles.

Curtis Hutson was one of his best friends.

Pastor is an expository preacher the like you will hardly ever hear anymore. I respect and admire him, and hungrily soak up the "meat", if you know what I mean. IFB and KJV, saved by grace, and once saved, always saved...and sent to spread the Word. That is our theme.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
[/qb]

The SOTL conferences almost never had missionaries speak, with the notable exception of Jim Norton at the SOTL 1974 National Conference. The SOTL itself had columns for evangelists, kids, soul-winning, church news, etc., but never a column for missions and/or missionaries. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Bro. John,

Maybe I am thinking of some other paper, but we had the sword delivered to our house back in the mid-60's when I was a teenager and I seem to recall a small column that was called 'With the missionaries' that had short reports from various IFB missionaries.

But again, in my latter days I might be getting a little confused.

Mex

 

[go2church]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by go2church:
I haven't seen the mention of the movement from modernism to post-modernism. The IFB of the 50's 60's and 70's is still the same model that many in church life today! There where some that began to see the need to change methods in the 80's and this is when much of the fighting started up again. You had one group longing for the good ole days (which really weren't that good) and the other group realizing that people need to hear the Gospel in their context.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying with this. Are you talking about the issues of music, the Willow Creek philosophy, etc.?

In my view, the basic IFB model should be applicable to all cultures and all ages. The movement originally emphasized: emphasis on fundamental doctrine (still necessary), opposition to theological liberalism (which still exists), the mandate for soul-winning and revival (both still necessary).

The style of music or ministry is secondary. What is vital to any vigorous Christian movement, and I hope the IFB movement never forgets, is the importance of compassionate, caring, one-on-one people skills. I like the title of a small book by Clarence Sexton many years ago: Won by One.

The typical lost sinner isn't going to care what kind of music you use if he or she knows you truly care about their soul and their troubles! It is no accident that, though it is much less common today, many IFB churches built their original ministry partly through the bus ministry--visiting the poor families of the town and winning them to the Lord.

</font>[/QUOTE]And this is exactly where the IFB type folks have gotten way off track. It became about secondary issues rather then primary issues. KJV, dress codes, music style, finding liberals where none dare tread and somehow coming to think that only America had the true understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. For the most part IFB churches are known for what they are against rather then who they care for. I understand this could be said of most Baptist folk and to some degree that isn't all bad, but it seems to be run in abundance among IFB churches.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by go2church:
And this is exactly where the IFB type folks have gotten way off track. It became about secondary issues rather then primary issues. KJV, dress codes, music style, finding liberals where none dare tread and somehow coming to think that only America had the true understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. For the most part IFB churches are known for what they are against rather then who they care for. I understand this could be said of most Baptist folk and to some degree that isn't all bad, but it seems to be run in abundance among IFB churches.

Well, actually, this is not quite the point I was making. I have been in IFB churches (yes, IFB) which had modern music and the whole works, but were tiny and struggling because they didn't pursue the individual. On the other hand I've been in IFB churches which were quite strict in the music area (and even the versions area), but were reaching their neighborhood because they truly cared about the individual, in spite of their strictness. I don't see that strictness in standards prohibits love.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Mexdeaf:
Bro. John,

Maybe I am thinking of some other paper, but we had the sword delivered to our house back in the mid-60's when I was a teenager and I seem to recall a small column that was called 'With the missionaries' that had short reports from various IFB missionaries.

But again, in my latter days I might be getting a little confused.

Mex

Well, it could be my own memory that is faulty. At any rate, I'm pretty sure that column was gone by the 1970's.

 

[Brutus]

Brother John: Mexdeaf is correct in his post. The Sword did have a short collum called with the missionaries, I was saved in mid-75 and it was in there at that time.

Brutus

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks Brutus and Mexdeaf. I stand (or sit) corrected.

 

[Pipedude]

Originally posted by Gwen:
Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Fundamental Movement begin because there was a desire to get back to the fundamentals of our faith--in reaction to error being taught in the previously conservative seminaries and churches. ... Has the movement gotten completely away from this, and the focus changed from the fundamentals of our faith to divisive things?

The movement did begin in response to the liberal takeover of mainline denominations, but it was not simply to affirm Bible doctrines, it was also to oppose actively the teaching of wrong doctrines.

Several important battles were lost in the '20s and many Christians became convinced that the cause within the denominations was hopeless, so a great separatist exodus began and new churches, denominations, fellowships, schools, and mission boards were formed.

Fundamentalist infighting stems from one bunch perceiving that another bunch is compromising on the original principles and surrendering to the very trends that originally made the movement necessary. A Fundamentalist has to actively oppose those errors.

Of course, a Fundamentalist with a keen eye for error stays awfully busy these days. Saving the movement is very nearly a full-time job.

Some days I'm just exhausted.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Originally posted by Pipedude:

Originally posted by Gwen:
[qb] r error stays awfully busy these days. Saving the movement is very nearly a full-time job.

Some days I'm just exhausted.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Originally posted by Pipedude:

[qb]
Of course, a Fundamentalist with a keen eye for error stays awfully busy these days. Saving the movement is very nearly a full-time job.

Some days I'm just exhausted.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Pipedude:

Of course, a Fundamentalist with a keen eye for error stays awfully busy these days. Saving the movement is very nearly a full-time job.

Some days I'm just exhausted.

Hang in there Pipedude. We're all counting on you!!

 

[dcorbett]

yep, it's hard work sometimes....to stay conservative. The world tugs and tugs, with bands in the churches and other versions of the Bible and women waering pants to church and all the other worldly enticements...


Debbie C

 

[John of Japan]

Ah, yes, Debbie. We look forward to Heaven--where everyone will be Bible-believing Baptists!

 

[MRCoon]

JoJ, I thought you had to be just Baptist to get to heaven?

Just kidding...I have enjoyed reading this thread and learning from you "old-timers". Funny...I know what I believe and believe what I know...but amazed by how much I learn

 

[dcorbett]

nope, don't have to be Baptist to get to Heaven....but it's got to be hard to be saved and buy into those "other" denominations that don't practice scriptural doctrine.

 

[Rippon]

Dcorbett , Baptists are about as varied as the fish in the sea . " Our scriptural doctrine " needs to be defined . Can you learn valuable things from other denominations ? By that I do not mean : " Yeah , I can benefit from what not to believe . "

 

[rbell]

Originally posted by dcorbett:
nope, don't have to be Baptist to get to Heaven....but it's got to be hard to be saved and buy into those "other" denominations that don't practice scriptural doctrine.

Waiting for a further definition of "other." Might get interesting.

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by dcorbett:
nope, don't have to be Baptist to get to Heaven....but it's got to be hard to be saved and buy into those "other" denominations that don't practice scriptural doctrine.

And Baptist never practice "unscriptural doctrine"? There are just as many Baptists with ridiculous ideas and theolgy as there are other denominations.

I am without shame Baptist in my practice and polity, but by no means do I think we have a corner on the truth. I think alot of Bapitst will be surprised when they find their breathren who are worshiping with them in heaven were closer to the truth on some matters than they were.

 

[dcorbett]

Originally posted by rbell:
Waiting for a further definition of "other." Might get interesting. [/QB]

Other, meaning those who don't hold to "saved by grace" and "once saved, always saved" and "salvation through works" and of course "baptism by immersion" and "no infant baptism" sets us apart too.

I never once said that Baptist don't vary in PREFERENCES, but the very definition of "Baptist"
is what you see above. If you don't adhere to the above, you are not like any Baptist I have known in my 53 years of life as a Deacon's kid.

Boy, there are some men around here that just hate it when a woman comes in here, am I right?

(grinning, ducking, and running)

 

[TheWinDork]

Originally posted by dcorbett:
Pastor is an expository preacher the like you will hardly ever hear anymore. I respect and admire him, and hungrily soak up the "meat", if you know what I mean. IFB and KJV, saved by grace, and once saved, always saved...and sent to spread the Word. That is our theme.

Can I come be a part of your Church?

Sister, you have no idea, how right you are and how fortunate you are to have a pastor who preaches the way the Word was SUPPOSED to be preached. In this area, in the IFB Churches, there's alot of what I like to call, "Fundamental Fluff" being preached, Alot of screaming, hollering, and pounding the pulpit, But in all honestly, no one is getting feed, and even more sadly, no one is getting saved either. These poor excuses for preachers around these parts are terrible. Even worse are the "evangelists" who are more like "Flock Fleecers", than anything else, "Buy my CD and you'll get straight!" Ha! More like "Buy my CD, so, I don't have to get a real job!" is more like it. I'm all for preaching the Word and all. But alot of the "Preaching" I hear is of the "kermit the frog" style preaching, Where they run their voice real high when they want to make a point... Like kermit the frog would do... (remember the muppet show?) ("Alright it's the muppet show! with a special guest...(guest name here) Aaaaaah!) remember? Anyhow, 2 major preachers I've heard do that. and I just go....WOW! What would Paul think of people like this? Did Paul preach a gospel of such contention?

Not only that, There's this thing that's happening in alot of more militant fundamentalist Churches, or as I like to call them, KJV-Cultist Churches.... where the services are more akin to a Bar Room brawl, than a respectful Church service. I'm all for praising the Lord, and I don't mind the occasional Amen, but this screaming and shouting and hollering, to the point of where it's a distraction to the sermon, I find that most offensive, and it smacks of the emotionalism of the charismatic/pentecostal crowds. Didn't Paul say to let everything be done decently and in order?

Points to ponder...

TheWinDork