Baptist or Fundamentalist?

[Carly33]

I am an independant fundamental baptist, and upon reflection: independant would not be a good way to describe myself in and of itself. If I call myself a fundamentalist, one might assume I may well be part of the Taliban or something similar.

So for the most part I tell unsaved especially, That I am a Baptist in practice and belief. I hold to all of the original baptist beliefs, and it gives a clearer picture.

 

[JAMES2]

I would consider myself a fundamentally right, conservative, reformed baptist. That is to say that I believe the gospel as presented in the pages of Holy Writ and despise all these so-called "lower criticism" people that think they are "progressive" when it fact they are nothing but a bunch of depraved men trying to argue with God, the Holy Spirit, about the revealed word.

What is referred to as "higher" criticism is such a work of the depraved mind I can't believe any Christian would take it seriously. It certainly demonstrates the truth of 1 cor 2:14.

Anyway, for me, I love being fundementally right instead of being fundamentally wrong.
For all of you that actually think "higher criticism" has some sort of value, I would suggest that you ask the Holy Spirit to open your mind and help you understand the gospel instead of all the garbage and insanity that the minds of depraved men can think up. Peace!
James2

[ April 04, 2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

[Bob Alkire]

I'm a Christian by the grace of God and a Baptist by choice. With that said I would have to say I'm a Fundamentalist Christian first and a Baptist 2nd.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Conservative- gun totin', republican, right winger.
Independant- no hierarchy.
Fundamental- if it ain't in the KJV, then I don't want to hear it!!!
Baptist- Jesus walked from Nazareth to Bethabara, about 45 miles, to see a Baptist. Not John the Episcopelian, not John the tongue-speaking Charismatic, not John the Methodist, not even pope John, but John the Baptist.
Christian- Jesus died to save the wretched person that I am.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Mr. Curtis,
And we all said AMEN!!!!! We all are glad that you were saved!

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
Fundamental- if it ain't in the KJV, then I don't want to hear it!!!

I know I should just let that one go, but, oh well . . .

Using the KJV has NOTHING to do with being a fundamentalist. Nothing. Nada. Keine. Zip. Nul.

If you don't want to use other versions, fine. But don't be dishonest with terms.

 

[Momto3JD]

I am an independent fundamentalist Baptist but I have never heard anyone described as a historical IFB. Is it a western US thing? It just isn't a term I have heard and I have been to many fundamental Baptist churches for special meetings and such.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Momto3JD:
I am an independent fundamentalist Baptist but I have never heard anyone described as a historical IFB. Is it a western US thing? It just isn't a term I have heard and I have been to many fundamental Baptist churches for special meetings and such.

Some today have tried to hijack the name "independent fundmental baptist" to mean something it never has (i.e., KJVOnlyism, landmarkism, etc.). These things were never a part of historic fundamentalism. A historic fundamentalist dates back to the early decades of this century and the values of orthodox theology and militant ecclesiastical separation from unbelievers and disobedient brothers. Most of fundamentalism today has no idea where it came from. And that is sad to say the least.

 

[Momto3JD]

Our pastor stresses seperation. Would you concider the historical IFB part onf the Jack Hyles "movement" (for lack of another word in my child took all my brain cells head)?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Momto3JD:
Our pastor stresses seperation. Would you concider the historical IFB part onf the Jack Hyles "movement" (for lack of another word in my child took all my brain cells head)?

Separaton is a vital part of fundamentalism but separation itself is not fundamentalism. Hyles was a separatist in some respects but he was, especially in his later years, both his doctrine and his practice were aberrant and unbiblical at points. I do not consider Jack Hyles as a true fundamentalist in the historic use of the term.

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by Momto3JD:
Our pastor stresses seperation. Would you concider the historical IFB part onf the Jack Hyles "movement" (for lack of another word in my child took all my brain cells head)?

I agree with Pastor Larry's comments. Since fundamentalism pre-dated Hyles, at best he could claim to be a part of fundamentalism. Certainly fundamentalism is much broader than the Hyles movement.

 

[Chick Daniels]

Furthermore, Hyles is now dead, and yet fundamentalism keeps living on. Hyles and churches that follow him are a strange subset of fundamentalism. Definitely not mainstream.

Chick

 

[Momto3JD]

Then what is the difference? I definately don't think we are in the Hyles camp

 

[jmbertrand]

I am interested in hearing more about the historic fundamentalist view of separation. After growing up in IFB churches in the South, I had to "discover" on my own that there was such a thing as The Fundamentals and that the original rift was theological in nature and had nothing to do with men in other churches letting their hair grow too long!

I would still consider myself a fundamentalist, but in the sense that Warfield was one, not Hyles.

I have no problem with separation from sin, but the idea of cultural separatism does concern me, primarily because it tended to play itself out in my experience in Faith vs. Reason categories. What is the historical fundamentalist view of separation and what is its Scriptural basis?

Mark

 

[swaimj]

I think one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that historically, in fundamentalism, separation was based upon a coherent doctrine of biblical separation that resulted in a unified practice of that doctrine. In the earliest history of fundamentalism, fundamentalists were a part of the major denominations. As liberalism began to encroach, fundamentalists at first tried to co-exist. When this became impossible, they tried to wrest control of the denominations and seminaries from liberals. When this strategy failed, fundamentalists left the denominations. However, the fundamentalists did not leave in unison. Some stayed and continued to fight and have influence long after others had left. There was disagreement as to what point of denominational departure constituted the necessity of leaving. Separation was a last resort whose necessity did not become clear to all, all at once. These differences in perception are understandable, for something was happening to the church(liberalism) that was without historical precedent. In those uncharted waters, there were differences of opinion as to how and when to respond.

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by J. Mark Bertrand:
I have no problem with separation from sin, but the idea of cultural separatism does concern me, primarily because it tended to play itself out in my experience in Faith vs. Reason categories. What is the historical fundamentalist view of separation and what is its Scriptural basis?

Mark

I think Jude 3-4 is usually considered the hallmark passage of fundamentalism. Certainly there are other passages that form the doctrine of separation.

[ April 06, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

 

[Joy]

I would consider myself a Fundamentalist, in that I am a militant Baptist Biblicist. I'm afraid I can't separate any one term from that description.

Below is an editorial I worked on a few months ago.

The face of Fundemantalism is being undermined and changed within Baptist circles. This is partly due to a misunderstanding of terminology, as well as some arrogant and beligerant attitudes among so called "leading" Fundementalists.

First of all, let's define a few definitions, for they are interchangeable, and one can not survive without the other, due to the very nature of them. " A Fundamentalist is an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or changes in cultural values or mores." Militancy is defined as "engaged in warfare or combat... agressively active (as in a cause.) It springs from ones values, is expressed in an attitude, and results in certain behavior. Values...are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true." (Dr. George Houghton)

Fundamentalists historically have had an intollerance to apostacy and a militant or "agressively active" defense of orthodox theology, based on Jude 3, "Ye must earnestly contend for the faith." Our belief in seperatism stems from Gal. 1:6-9, 16:17, Titus 3:10, Acts 20:17-38, Proverbs 22:10, and II Timothy 3:5.

Today, however, Fundamentalism is losing its effectiveness because of some misunderstandings of militancy and certain attitudes among fundamentalists. Some no longer excercise their God given spirit of discernment of the issues. Some have a spirit of indifference - "I don't know and I don't care!" There is also a refusal to preach and teach sound doctrine by our leaders, resulting in ignorance of Biblical Truth and shallow ineffective Christians who stand for nothing and therfore have no issues to confront.

On the other hand, we have also taken some stands for the right reason, but with the wrong attitude, a spirit of judgemental arrogancy. This mean-spiritedness and sometimes abuse of power has more and more evangelicals shying away from militancy, and more liberals crying foul. This does not mean that we should throw it out. If you stand for nothing, the Bible is made to be of none effect. This is nothing less than blaspehmy. ( Titus 2:5) It is our duty as Biblicists, to teach and preach sound doctrine, to exhort, to rebuke when necessary, and to separate ourselves from scorners, apostates, and heretics. We must stand fast in the faith with militancy, but in kindness and in love, yet firm in our defense against error.

[ April 06, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Joy ]

 

[rsr]

Baptist.

 

[Momto3JD]

So let me reword this for clification. Do you think Jack Hyles was down the line with the historical IFB?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Momto3JD:
So let me reword this for clification. Do you think Jack Hyles was down the line with the historical IFB?

No