dwmoeller1
New Member
Well...how many would consider the following to be a fundamentalist stance on Scripture:
-
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!
Are SBC's Fundamentalists?
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
Well...how many would consider the following to be a fundamentalist stance on Scripture:
As Jerome pointed out my memory was quite faulty. I did not correctly recall the information I had researched 35 years ago. Of course, at that time, I may not have considered SBCs as "fundamentalists" as I was still in my early "brainwashed" phase of learning. My horizons have broadened considerably since those early days as did my education.
I would take minor exception to the statement "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired . . . " I do not believe the men were inspired. I believe the words given to the men were inspired. But that is a very minor objection and I understand what the writers were trying to say.
freeatlast
New Member
Even though I belong to a church that is part of the SBC I feel that the SBC has fallen away. If you go back 100 years and see what it was you will see a falling away.
Fundamentalist Baptist come in different flavors like ice cream Most FB don't care for the cooperative program they feel that the individual churches should be in absolute control of missions. Many are KJV "only". They are very often legalistic especially about women wearing pants, movies and sometimes TV. A positive point is they put a large emphasis on soul winning, which is good. They call for separation from the world on a lot of issues thay many would not see the extreme position they might take. My personal opinion is they are great people and love the Lord
Luke, you are pretty obstinate, man. You have done this before and you still don't seem to get it. When someone tells you, "That's not what I mean," you really should entertain the possibility that you misunderstood. You don't have the authority to tell me what I mean by my words. I don't know whether I was represented fairly or not because your post was a little confusing. But be that as it may, when I clarify what I mean, you need to realize that I am the only one who can speak with authority about what I mean. If you don't like what I mean, that's fine with me. It won't bother me a bit. But don't tell me that you know what I mean better than I do. Just stop.
Most SBCs today do "stand for the fundamentals." So when I said they are not fundamentalists, I don't mean that they don't stand for the fundamentals. I mean that fundamentalism is much more than "standing for the fundamentals."
Listen, folks, don't let Luke project meanings on things that are not there. What I said was pretty clear, but in case some missed it, as Luke appears to have, I clarified it. The only way something like this will change is when enough people get tired of it and call him on it. There's enough to debate about without making stuff up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sign me up.
As Jerome pointed out my memory was quite faulty. I did not correctly recall the information I had researched 35 years ago. Of course, at that time, I may not have considered SBCs as "fundamentalists" as I was still in my early "brainwashed" phase of learning. My horizons have broadened considerably since those early days as did my education.
Are you saying that at one point in your experience in IFB you were like the IFB's to which I am referring in the other thread?
Shaw!!!
I thought that these folks were such a small portion of the IFB movement that you have hardly ever been exposed to them- much less to have been one of them!:smilewinkgrin:
JK! :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
Exactly, and well said. The SBC is not monolithic in any sense of the word. Each church is as autonomous as any other Baptist church, and they set their own agenda in the church.
I would say that some congregations and pastors are very "fundamentalistic" while others are very "evangelical". Some are even Arminian to the point of being Pelagian while others are Calvinistic to the point of being hyper.
The simple act of associating with the SBC does not a church or church polity make.
I can honestly say that this SBC'er is a fundy.
I agree with my brother Trotter.
Are Conservative Southern Baptists Fundamentalists? (concludes NO)
Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, or What? (concludes WHAT)
Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, or What? (concludes WHAT)
Why do you insist on lying about just about everything I post?
Depending on when that was, it may not have been all kinds of evil. Prior to the mid-80s, the SBC was filled with rank theological liberalism (not the kind where women wear pants and worship teams use guitars, but actual theological liberalism such as a denial of inerrancy, higher criticism, etc.). David Beale's SBC: House on the Sand documented this fairly well.
Today, the mainstream in the SBC is solidly conservative evangelical because of the resurgence that took place leading to the purging of Southern in the mid-90s under Mohler's leadership.
That was at the beginning of the purge when liberals were still tolerated and encouraged in the SBC. If you haven't read Beale's book, you should. It would be a helpful history in many ways. It would remind you of things easily forgotten, or never known about. It shows just how amazing the resurgence actually was. For the SBC to be where it is today was unthinkable 25 years ago. A lot of people now, a generation later, have forgotten what was really going on in the middle part of the 20th century in the SBC. They see only the SBC of today which has taken a drastic turn back to the right.
One of the problems with the CP back then was that money was going to fund liberalism and heterodoxy. It was a legitimate complaint/concern. Even now, a few years ago with the writing of the new BF&M there was controversy about the continuing support of missionaries who would not subscribe to the BF&M. So there are many valid concerns with the CP. It is, in some ways, a more practical model than the model used by IFBs, but it does have some problems, and a lot of it has to do with the very issues that separate fundamentalists out from the SBC, namely, whether or not we are going to have ministry partnership with those who embrace heterodoxy or who live in disobedience to clearly revealed Scripture. The CP, in some ways, forced churches into supporting heterodox or disobedient believers, which is direct disobedience to Scripture.
Barnabas H.
<b>Oldtimer</b>
I deleted some of the posts, dealing with personal attacks. FYI, personal attacks are not allowed. You can all use the PM feature of the board, if you need to clarify something with your fellow BB member(s). Please use the PM system, and refrain from getting into each other's hair out in public. Thank you! :type:
glfredrick
New Member
The issues with the "moderate" SBC of the 80s and before were mainly with the highest levels of administration, not the local churches. But, that being said, a bunch of pastors were trained in theologically liberal seminaries and sent out to be called by congregations.
All of that has taken (and is still taking) some time to work out. Perhaps the best expression of the outworking of those moderate to liberal pastors is the fact that some have led their churches to be a part of the CBF.
In the seminaries, the situation was pretty bad before the resurgence. I came to SBTS about 6 months after Dr. Mohler arrived and the house cleaning was still in process. I have collected a few of the special writings from that time (several books and booklets were produced) and some of what is said in those writings would curl the hair of a Bible believing Christian. "God, he, she, it..." "How I Changed My Mind..." (regarding belief in the God of the Bible!), etc. Sad stuff. The resurgence was desperately needed and is still ongoing in some of the agencies such as LifeWay, NAMB, and IMB.
What is, perhaps, the worst part of the liberal expression in the SBC is that so many of the pastors meant something different by their words than did the members in the pews of their churches. I and others have noted over the years that one of the main issues with any form of liberalism, be that political, cultural, or theological, is that terminology is often redefined or otherwise altered to mean something other than its plain usage. This was certainly the case in the liberal expressions of pastors and professors in the SBC.
Were factions of the SBC "fundamentalistic"? Sure. But probably not as many as other sects of Baptists that I have dealt with over the years. Not to insult fundamentalistic brothers and sisters, but fundamentalism seems to rise and fall on the education process. The more constrained that process the easier it is to remain fundamentalistic and ignorant of the larger or deeper theological arguments at large in the church world. I would also like to note that majoring on the FUNDAMENTALS of the faith, even as expressed in those wonderful volumes call The Fundamentals, is not the problem nor is that fundamentalism. The two, though related are not part and parcel of each other. I hold to the fundamentals of the faith and would die to support, preach, and teach them, but I am not a fundamentalist in any sense of the word. I expect that there are a lot of other pastors just like me out there... We are socially relevant, able to exegete culture just like we (actually) exegete Scripture instead of locking our congregations into a anachronistic culture of the 1950s or 1960s because that was "the era" when church was special.
All of that has taken (and is still taking) some time to work out. Perhaps the best expression of the outworking of those moderate to liberal pastors is the fact that some have led their churches to be a part of the CBF.
In the seminaries, the situation was pretty bad before the resurgence. I came to SBTS about 6 months after Dr. Mohler arrived and the house cleaning was still in process. I have collected a few of the special writings from that time (several books and booklets were produced) and some of what is said in those writings would curl the hair of a Bible believing Christian. "God, he, she, it..." "How I Changed My Mind..." (regarding belief in the God of the Bible!), etc. Sad stuff. The resurgence was desperately needed and is still ongoing in some of the agencies such as LifeWay, NAMB, and IMB.
What is, perhaps, the worst part of the liberal expression in the SBC is that so many of the pastors meant something different by their words than did the members in the pews of their churches. I and others have noted over the years that one of the main issues with any form of liberalism, be that political, cultural, or theological, is that terminology is often redefined or otherwise altered to mean something other than its plain usage. This was certainly the case in the liberal expressions of pastors and professors in the SBC.
Were factions of the SBC "fundamentalistic"? Sure. But probably not as many as other sects of Baptists that I have dealt with over the years. Not to insult fundamentalistic brothers and sisters, but fundamentalism seems to rise and fall on the education process. The more constrained that process the easier it is to remain fundamentalistic and ignorant of the larger or deeper theological arguments at large in the church world. I would also like to note that majoring on the FUNDAMENTALS of the faith, even as expressed in those wonderful volumes call The Fundamentals, is not the problem nor is that fundamentalism. The two, though related are not part and parcel of each other. I hold to the fundamentals of the faith and would die to support, preach, and teach them, but I am not a fundamentalist in any sense of the word. I expect that there are a lot of other pastors just like me out there... We are socially relevant, able to exegete culture just like we (actually) exegete Scripture instead of locking our congregations into a anachronistic culture of the 1950s or 1960s because that was "the era" when church was special.