Define fundamentalist

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Thanks Michael for weighing in here. This is my experience and a lot of others' as well.

Michael and Luke, it is obvious that both of you have been hurt by IFB churches and having been exposed to them all my life I will admit that I have seen churches where all eight of Michael's doctrines were present. But what you both need to realize is that those churches have perverted and added to the word of God. While they might call themselves fundamentalist what they teach is not fundamentalist doctrine. I would no more want you judging and condemning all IFB churches because of them than I would want someone condemning all SBC churches because of individual SBC churches that still hold to liberal doctrines like the missionaries John mentioned.

I have pastored both IFB and SBC churches and there are plenty of bad churches in both categories. There are also plenty of good ones.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No one has told anyone to leave here.

Um, didn't you ask John not to post in post #9 because you didn't like his response?

The SBC as a movement does separate from apostates and preaches against heresy.

Now they do but historically through the middle of the last century that was not the case.

The Baptist Faith and Message is certainly a fundamentalist stance.

No, it is not really.

By your definition the SBC is the largest fundamentalist movement on earth, perhaps in history. Southern Seminary, the largest seminary in the world, is the flag ship university of SBC and it is staunchly fundamentalist.

Not by my definition and not by historical definition. SBTS is not staunchly fundamentalist. BJU is fundamentalist, as are schools like Central Seminary, Detroit Baptist Seminary, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, etc. Southern would be a conservative evangelical school.

But the kind of fundamentalist you define above, which is what I consider myself and my movement, is not the type that most loudly and proudly touts the name.

Then you need to get out more.

The ones who pound their chest declaring that they are fundamentalists today, by and large, in this country, are people who preach against things with no Bible for their position. This makes them popes.

No and no.

They preach against Christian Contemporary Music with no Bible for what they preach.

Some do, but not all.

They preach against going to the movies and some even preach against having a tv in your home.

Some do, but not all.

They preach pastoral authority to the point of dictatorship.

Some do but not all.

They preach dress standards ad nauseum.

Some do, but not all.

We could go on and on.

Not really. You have to realize that your experience with fundamentalism is very little apparently. Fundamentalism is much broader than you think. I grew up in the South in fundamentalism, and what you think is fundamentalism simply isn't true.

What this thread is meant to do is make them give account for their positions.

I am doing exactly that, and my position is that you don't understand fundamentalism.

You define fundamentalism by the type of things you list above. But historically, that is not what fundamentalism is about. You are picking things that fundamentalists do, and not realizing that you are mischaracterizing things.

Here's an example: I am a husband; I play golf. By your methodology, you would conclude that husbands play golf. The fact is that they don't. Many non-husbands play golf, and many husbands do not play golf. But what you did was take an outside issue (golf) and try to make it an essential issue of being a husband.

Here's the fact that I can well testify to: Fundamentalism is about two things -- holding to sound doctrine under the authority of Scripture and defending it by confrontation and separation if necessary in obedience to Scripture.

Many fundamentalists have certain dress standards, preach against movies, music, etc, as you mention. But so do many non-fundamentalists. Those things are not an essential part (meaning of the essence of) fundamentalists. Those things exist apart from fundamentalism, and fundamentalism exists without those things.

I am a fundamentalist and I don't care if you go to movies, wear pants or shorts, listen to certain types of music. I think you would be unwise to submit to my pastoral authority without serious prayer and consideration. Many non-fundamentalist churches are great churches that preach the gospel and make disciples.

I am a fundamentalist because I am committed to the absolute authority of Scripture and because I believe that the gospel and false doctrine requires separation.

 

[Luke2427]

I probably know considerably more about IFB churches all over the world than you do as that is one of the classes I have taught for over 20 years. How many of the churches you know of are GARBC, FBF, IBF, CBA or other smaller groups? And how many are truly unaffiliated, and not part of any of the associations, fellowships, or groups?Great. You know one. When you have met, heard, and fellowshipped with the other 9,999 let me know what you have learned.I never said it did. You asked how I differ. I told you.Good for you.Wrong question. WHY join?
I don’t think you are lying. I don’t know you well enough to know if you are stupid, but judging by your posts you seem to be reasonably intelligent. However, I also notice a tendency to arrogantly assume you and your experiences equate to the sum total of information on the subject being discussed.

What you appear to have done is make the mistake of failing to distinguish between IFBs and IFB Xers, just as the Hispanic activists in the southwest have failed to distinguish between immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants.

Look around a little more. Research IFB ministries such as Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Faith Baptist Bible College, Northland Baptist Bible College, and Baptist Bible College, Clarks Summit. You might be surprised what you learn about their graduates serving faithfully in IFB churches.

I am sitting here with a friend who was raised ifb who served on staff at gospel light the host church of the sword conference. He agrees with you that the colleges you named are fine institutions but he disagrees that they are representative of the ifb movement. Tue ifb was born in the south under the leadership of men like j frank Norris and has the bill of her churches here in the south. Here where she is strongest she is not as you describe her.

 

[Luke2427]

I am an IFB and can tell you for a fact that none of these tenants are related to the issue at all.

I don't care if you r jack hiles himself- u r wrong. You can't tell me that the five thousand who show up at the sword and the ten thousand who attend the hiles pastors conference do not represent a significant portion of your movement. Your movement is not big enough for them not to.

 

[TCassidy]

8

I am sitting here with a friend who was raised ifb who served on staff at gospel light the host church of the sword conference. He agrees with you that the colleges you named are fine institutions but he disagrees that they are representative of the ifb movement. Tue ifb was born in the south under the leadership of men like j frank Norris and has the bill of her churches here in the south. Here where she is strongest she is not as you describe her.

Once again you display an abysmal ignorance regarding the history of fundamentalism in general and IFB in particular. IFB traces its roots to the floor of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1920 when WB Riley, Pastor of First Baptist Church in Minneapolis railed against theological liberalism in the NBC. When the fundamentalists failed to carry the vote for conservative leadership the fundamentalists met in a break-out session and formed the Fundamental Fellowship of Northern Baptists, later renamed the National Federation of Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists. They are still around today as the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship.

Followed by the Baptist Bible Union in 1923.

1927 saw the founding of Toronto Baptist Seminary by T. T. Shields, pastor of the Jarvis Street Baptist Church, and the leading IFB in Canada.

This was followed in 1932 by the formation of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches which organized many of the congregations which withdrew from the NBC having changed their name from the BBU above.

Then in 1943 the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society was formed to serve as a mission agency for the conservative/fundamentalists in the NBC who had not left and joined one of the other above mentioned groups. And even this group eventually left the NBC and, in 1947, formed the Conservative Baptist Association of America.

The first of the southern IFBs was JF Norris's World Baptist Fellowship founded in 1932 from which the BBF split off in 1950.

As you can see the southern IFBs were Johnny come latelys to the IFB world.

In fact it was John of Japan's grandfather, John R. Rice, who probably had more to do with founding southern IFBdom than anyone else with the publication of The Sword of the Lord in Dallas in 1934. He was fiercely opposed by JF Norris and was not consider a "fundamentalist" by Norris and his crowd. John R. and his family moved up north to Wheaton Illinois in 1940 due to two factors, the first so his daughters could attend Wheaton College (not IFB by any stretch of the imagination), and secondly to distance himself from JF Norris who had decided John R. was his most bitter enemy.

You will have to think again regarding the early days of IFB churches and preachers. Think north, not south.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't care if you r jack hiles himself- u r wrong. You can't tell me that the five thousand who show up at the sword and the ten thousand who attend the hiles pastors conference do not represent a significant portion of your movement. Your movement is not big enough for them not to.

Again you display an unwillingness to listen and learn. The present day SoL crowd is significantly smaller than the SoL crowd in the days of John R. Rice and has changed considerably from the stance he took. Also Hyles' "Pastors School" has never had 10,000 in attendance. And even the 5,000 to 6,000 who were at the best attended meetings were mostly lay persons. Hyles and his crowd are in the vast minority of IFBs.

There are over 1300 churches just in the GARBC. When you add in the 1200 in the CBA, 400 churches represented by the FBF, 110 by IBF, 120 in NTAIBC, and so on and so on and so on. Over 3000 churches right off the top of my head! Hyles would eat his heart out!

 

[Luke2427]

The present day SoL crowd is significantly smaller than the SoL crowd in the days of John R. Rice and has changed considerably from the stance he took. )

Now you're catching on.

I am not an IFB. I do not claim to have some vast knowledge of the IFB. I am perfectly satisfied that you know plenty more than I do about the IFB. But that does not change the fact that all of us here in the south can tell you what the IFB is here. I do not understand why you are having trouble grasping this fact. The IFB here are, by and large, a movement of legalistic, issue centered, extra-biblical preaching churches. Why do you have a hard time admitting this??

 

[John of Japan]

I am an IFB and can tell you for a fact that none of these tenants are related to the issue at all.

Me too! :thumbsup:

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't care if you r jack hiles himself- u r wrong.

Is there an argument in there somewhere? (And his name is Jack Hyles, which may show that you don't know as much about fundamentalism as you seem to pretend here.)

You can't tell me that the five thousand who show up at the sword and the ten thousand who attend the hiles pastors conference do not represent a significant portion of your movement. Your movement is not big enough for them not to.

I can tell you that they are not even in my movement because I don't think there is a movement for the precise reason you are illustrating here ... the name "fundamentalist" is attached to people from too broad a spectrum. The name "fundamentalist" is for the most part useless because of this very reason ... you have to ask what someone means by that. And once you have to ask everyone who uses a term to define the term, the term is meaningless.

I have no connections whatsoever with the SOTL or the Hyles Pastor's Conference. I never have had. Neither has the vast majority of the schools or churches that I mentioned above. Fundamentalism is much broader than that. You simply don't get out enough.

In fact, I would not even call them fundamentalists because they have rejected a major tenet of fundamentalism which is the authority of Scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

Is there an argument in there somewhere? (And his name is Jack Hyles, which may show that you don't know as much about fundamentalism as you seem to pretend here.)

I can tell you that they are not even in my movement because I don't think there is a movement for the precise reason you are illustrating here ... the name "fundamentalist" is attached to people from too broad a spectrum. The name "fundamentalist" is for the most part useless because of this very reason ... you have to ask what someone means by that. And once you have to ask everyone who uses a term to define the term, the term is meaningless.

I have no connections whatsoever with the SOTL or the Hyles Pastor's Conference. I never have had. Neither has the vast majority of the schools or churches that I mentioned above. Fundamentalism is much broader than that. You simply don't get out enough.

In fact, I would not even call them fundamentalists because they have rejected a major tenet of fundamentalism which is the authority of Scripture.

No they haven't- at least no more so than many others who bear the title. People who reject the authority of Scripture are more akin to those who, without any Bible backing whatsoever, condemn things - like Christian contemporary music. These dangerous people are popes who twist Scripture to their liking.

And as for your smart alec remark about the way I spelled Hyles' name- I was typing on my android phone and that is the way the predictive text, or whatever it is called, yielded it. I was on the road. I did not care to take the time to go back and correct it because I did not realize that the spelling police would be traversing this thread. You'll also notice my use of "r" for "are" and "2" for "to" in psots about that time. I think it was a low blow and arrogant and disrespectful for you to point that out the way you did here- perhaps that speaks to your smug character- I don't know. But it certainly was inflammatory.

I have caught plenty of your spelling errors in our previous debates that I could have used to call you a moron- but of course I would not do that because it is not right- nor necessarily accurate. But this is something you do constantly. You constantly criticize the intellect of people who debate you on here- even when it seems apparent to me that they are, at the very least, your equals. You are forever questioning someone's educational credentials or declaring, like a pope, that they are not qualified to speak authoritatively on a matter- as if only you have petrine authority to speak on matters.

Why don't you, instead of making all the smug remarks you make to hide your own intellectual insecurity, stick to the argument?

If you have a point, make it without saying something to the effect of- "OBVIOUSLY you are not very educated..." or "CLEARLY you are ill informed..." or "This SPELLING error is VERY telling of your inadequate knowledge on this matter..."

You sound pompous and disrespectful and insecure; and it is very inflammatory.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No they haven't- at least no more so than many others who bear the title. People who reject the authority of Scripture are more akin to those who, without any Bible backing whatsoever, condemn things - like Christian contemporary music. These dangerous people are popes who twist Scripture to their liking.

The only way one can preach about some of the things you complain about is if you reject the authority of Scripture. So you say I am wrong, but then you agree with me that when they preach against certain things they are rejecting the authority of Scripture.

I think it was a low blow and arrogant and disrespectful for you to point that out the way you did here- perhaps that speaks to your smug character- I don't know. But it certainly was inflammatory.

That's a silly response.

I have caught plenty of your spelling errors in our previous debates that I could have used to call you a moron- but of course I would not do that because it is not right- nor necessarily accurate.

I doubt it since I usually proofread a number of times. And I didn't call you a moron.

But this is something you do constantly. You constantly criticize the intellect of people who debate you on here- even when it seems apparent to me that they are, at the very least, your equals.

I rarely post on here, and I rarely criticize intellect. I often criticize arguments (or failure to argue). And I often question whether or not someone has the knowledge to make the kind of critique or argument they are making. You think that's elitist, but I doubt you think that in any other area of life. I think it's common sense, and perhaps that's where we differ. I think that, before we believe something someone says, we should find out if they have knowledge of what they are talking about.

You are forever questioning someone's educational credentials or declaring, like a pope, that they are not qualified to speak authoritatively on a matter- as if only you have petrine authority to speak on matters.

Again, simply silly and baseless. I explained clearly the idea of educational credentials. I have never said anything remotely popelike, and you know it. But rather than interact with arguments, you go after me personally like you have before and are doing here again. Just stop. Talk about the issue, or don't talk.

Why don't you, instead of making all the smug remarks you make to hide your own intellectual insecurity, stick to the argument?

You will notice that everything I have posted (with the exception of the Hyles comment) has been about the argument. You are the one who is posting about other stuff, namely making silly personal attacks against me. Stop.

If you have a point, make it without saying something to the effect of- "OBVIOUSLY you are not very educated..." or "CLEARLY you are ill informed..." or "This SPELLING error is VERY telling of your inadequate knowledge on this matter..."

I did not say the first two. The last I did say because it seemed that you didn't know who you were talking about. If your explanation is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that (though since "hiles" is not a word, it is hard to imagine how that would be an autocomplete or a predictive text), then fine. It doesn't really bother me, but I would go back and correct things like that particularly on proper names.

You sound pompous and disrespectful and insecure; and it is very inflammatory.

You are just oversensitive perhaps because you are the one who is insecure. I haven't been the least bit disrespectful or insecure. And it's not inflammatory. I have no reason to be any of those.

You made some incorrect assertions and some bad arguments, IMO. And now, rather than address the points I made, you are talking about me. If you want to do that, fine, I guess. But that's not what this thread is about.

Why not quit talking about me, and address the arguments you are trying to make. If you want to debate, then debate. Don't talk about me. I am irrelevant to the topic you started.

But let's get back to the point: The fact is that "fundamentalism" is much broader than you are trying to make it. It is probably because of your limited experience, which is fine. Being a fundamentalist, growing up in fundamentalism, and not caring about any of the things you seem to equate with fundamentalism proves that you are wrong. No one would question whether or not I am a fundamentalist. And I simply do not do or believe the things that you think fundamentalists believe and do. Some of them do; some do not.

 

[John of Japan]

Again you display an unwillingness to listen and learn. The present day SoL crowd is significantly smaller than the SoL crowd in the days of John R. Rice and has changed considerably from the stance he took. Also Hyles' "Pastors School" has never had 10,000 in attendance. And even the 5,000 to 6,000 who were at the best attended meetings were mostly lay persons. Hyles and his crowd are in the vast minority of IFBs.

There are over 1300 churches just in the GARBC. When you add in the 1200 in the CBA, 400 churches represented by the FBF, 110 by IBF, 120 in NTAIBC, and so on and so on and so on. Over 3000 churches right off the top of my head! Hyles would eat his heart out!

This and your previous post are a good summary. And all you've said about John R. Rice is on the money. Both of my parents graduated from Wheaton College, then I grew up in Wheaton until 4th grade. We boarded college kids in our house, went to the football games, etc. We started out in Wheaton Bible Church, then Granddad founded Calvary Baptist Church of Wheaton (now with some other name).

 

[John of Japan]

I knew Jack Hyles, and Pastor Larry is no Jack Hyles. :laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

But let's get back to the point: The fact is that "fundamentalism" is much broader than you are trying to make it. It is probably because of your limited experience, which is fine. Being a fundamentalist, growing up in fundamentalism, and not caring about any of the things you seem to equate with fundamentalism proves that you are wrong. No one would question whether or not I am a fundamentalist. And I simply do not do or believe the things that you think fundamentalists believe and do. Some of them do; some do not.

Big dittos! And this is the reason I objected so strongly to the very abrasive OP.

 

[TCassidy]

Now you're catching on.

I already know. It is you who needs to "catch on." The paragraph you quoted was a refutation of your silly claim regarding the size and influence of the present SoL crowd. They have moved considerably to the right fringe of IFBdom since the death of John R. Rice, lost about 90% of their influence, and no longer represent the vast majority of IFB pastors and churches.

I am not an IFB. I do not claim to have some vast knowledge of the IFB. I am perfectly satisfied that you know plenty more than I do about the IFB. But that does not change the fact that all of us here in the south can tell you what the IFB is here. I do not understand why you are having trouble grasping this fact.

Because it is not true! Your personal experience is far too small a sampling to make such a broad statement. You are simply unaware of the vast majority of IFBs who are NOT like those you claim are the majority.

The IFB here are, by and large, a movement of legalistic, issue centered, extra-biblical preaching churches. Why do you have a hard time admitting this??

Because I refuse to admit to a blatant falsehood. It is simply an emotional outburst not based on fact.

Let me give you some good advice. Get off your computer and get out and find the dozens and dozens of IFB churches that have nothing to do with Hyles, SoL, and other fringe organizations. Get to know the pastors and people. Start with just the GARBC, CBA, and FBF churches. Then come back and apologize.

 

[TCassidy]

This and your previous post are a good summary. And all you've said about John R. Rice is on the money. Both of my parents graduated from Wheaton College, then I grew up in Wheaton until 4th grade. We boarded college kids in our house, went to the football games, etc. We started out in Wheaton Bible Church, then Granddad founded Calvary Baptist Church of Wheaton (now with some other name).

Interesting, John. My connection to Wheaton began in 1946 when my uncle, Kenneth Kantzer, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School with a Th.D., came to Wheaton to teach. He remained there until 1963 when he went to TEDS as Dean, and built that school into the great edifice it is today. I used to visit my cousin Dick and go over to the campus and drive around. Nice place. Great looking girls.

 

[TCassidy]

I knew Jack Hyles, and Pastor Larry is no Jack Hyles. :laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

I knew Jack Hyles too. And Jack Hyles was no Jack Hyles!

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Tcassady, I attended four different IFB churches & two IFB schools. Our youth organization consisted of at least twenty churches in my state. I agree with your statement that they are likely a cult. That is my point. There is not much difference between a cult and the IFB movement in the South. Remember, a cult is defined by religious attitude more than by religious beliefs. Unlike Obama:laugh:, I listened to what was being taught for THIRTY YEARS. I am talking about several pastors, dozens of traveling preachers, youth revivals, school teachers, etc. I will say that "fundamental" baptist churches in the North are not the same as in the South. I attended a church in Pennsylvania for three years that claimed to fundamental, but it bore no resemblance to the cult-like churches in the South. That was where God really started opening my eyes to the dark reality of my fundamentalist past. I currently attend a conservative SBC that adheres to the fundamentals of the faith without all the controlling superiority & legalism. And yes, Hyles-Anderson, PCC, & Heartland Baptist are places of indoctrination. I also attended BBC-Springfield before the big "split". They teach how to defend IFB doctrine above all else. They teach what to say, not how to study without denominational bias. In the colleges, as in the churches, questioning any minor IFB doctrine with Word is condemned. Their favorite defense is "you are a liberal".

 

[TCassidy]

Tcassady, I attended four different IFB churches & two IFB schools. Our youth organization consisted of at least twenty churches in my state. I agree with your statement that they are likely a cult. That is my point. There is not much difference between a cult and the IFB movement in the South. Remember, a cult is defined by religious attitude more than by religious beliefs. Unlike Obama:laugh:, I listened to what was being taught for THIRTY YEARS. I am talking about several pastors, dozens of traveling preachers, youth revivals, school teachers, etc. I will say that "fundamental" baptist churches in the North are not the same as in the South. I attended a church in Pennsylvania for three years that claimed to fundamental, but it bore no resemblance to the cult-like churches in the South. That was where God really started opening my eyes to the dark reality of my fundamentalist past. I currently attend a conservative SBC that adheres to the fundamentals of the faith without all the controlling superiority & legalism.

And, over the past 35 years of ministry, first as an evangelist, then representing the Seminary, and as a pastor, I have been in over 600 churches many, perhaps even most, of them in the south and none of them were as you described.

Again, your sampling is much too small to broad brush southern IFBs as you have done.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

How arrogant of you to think that since your experience differs from mine, that mine is disqualified. You still don't get it. It doesn't matter if your experience in other areas of the country is that IFB preachers wear bows in their hair & stand on one leg while preaching. The IFB churches in our part of the nation, for the most part, are as we have described them. As I said before, I did not witness the same cult-like behaviors in the North. I'm guessing that a LOT of things are different on the West Coast than in the South. I'm guessing that if you visited many of the IFB churches in our states, you would be amazed by the amount of unscriptural fundamentalist rhetoric in the sermons. You would also ask "where's the spiritual meat?"