Define fundamentalist

[freeatlast]

One of the best weapons in the Neo-Orthodox armory is to redefine historical terms to fit their new (hence "Neo") definitions. That is what many people are doing today. They are trying to redefine the word "Fundamentalist" to fit their own pre-conceived biases.

A Fundamentalist is one who believes the following:

1. The Deity of Christ.

2. The Virgin Birth.

3. The Blood Atonement.

4. The Bodily Resurrection.

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures.

Historic Fundamentalism is divided into three main areas:

1. Militant Fundamentalism believes that the Fundamentalist must not only believe the above, but must also publicly expose those who do not.

2. Moderate Fundamentalism believes that the Fundamentalist must believe all the above but is not required to publicly expose those who do not.

3. Modified Fundamentalism believes all of the above but is open to the reinterpretation of some or all of the historic doctrines of the Christian faith including, but not limited to, the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, etc. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, the Modified Fundamentalist repudiated Fundamentalism's ecclesiology and its social theory as well as rejecting its separatism.

The error of many on this type of forum is to try to limit Fundamentalism to either just the first one, or just the first two, without recognizing the third one as being Fundamental.

Thank you for that information. It leads me to ask this. By the way I am serious with this question. If that is what defines a fundamentalist then can a fundamentalist also be liberal in his/her doctrine and walk? The reason I ask is because none of those definitions or explanations of the differences covers ones attitude toward holiness.

 

[Luke2427]

Either you did not read what I wrote or you are lying. Most of my 35 years of ministry experience has been in the south. Shame on you!Wrong again. Read my comments below.I am going to try one more time, then just give up on you as being uneducatable.

In the mid-50s the circulation of the Sword of the Lord was greater than Moody Monthly or Christianity Today with a high of well over 300,000. There are over 60,000,000 (yes, that says 60 million!) of Dr. Rice’s books in print. Hyles and Smith's books in print combined doesn't come close to that number.

Today the circulation of the Sword of the Lord is a fraction of what it was. The current editor, Sheldon Smith, has led the Sword in a radical departure from Dr. Rice’s position. Quoting a blog written by Robert Byers, Watchman's Words You want to argue with the facts of history? Go ahead, but you only continue to make a fool of yourself. The majority of IFBs, even in the south, do not reflect the aberrations enumerated in the OP.

I am sorry you were so abused in an IFB church or two, but your limited experiences do not constitute a universal (or even a near universal) description of IFBs in the north, south, east, or west.

Cassidy, I don't think it is debatable who knows more about the IFB movement as a whole. No one is contending that I know half of what you know about the IFB. I came up FWB and my segment of that movement fellowshipped a great deal with IFB churches. That is not the point here.

The point, that surely you must recognize, is that there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of IFB people who are KJV only, who treat the SBC as an apostate movement, who preach standards for which they have no Bible, etc. Surely you must know this.

To be honest, you have educated me to some degree. I am actually very happy to hear that on the other hand, there are many IFB's who are not as extreme. I knew there were some, but am glad to hear that there are many.

This thread is not about them. This thread is about the many, many thousands who ARE legalistic and backwards who misrepresent the rest of us and do, in my opinion, more harm than good to the kingdom.

Several others on this very thread, including Michael and Berean have expressed that this is their experience as well. This is not some weird coincidence. It is because this has been the experience of many. Many people, when they see on a church sign- INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL- they immediately think of KJVO, legalistic, backwards philosophy.

Now surely you recognize this point as valid. Surely.

This thread is not about John R. Rice and people like him.

This thread is about Sheldon Smith and Phil Kidd and Sammy Allen and the late Jack Hyles and many thousands like them.

And it is not just about the IFB. This philosophy of theirs permeates FWB and AMB and many other Baptist circles.

That's what this thread is about.

 

[Luke2427]

Ignorance is only excusable if it seeks knowledge--and I don't see that with these guys.

My, my.....

 

[TCassidy]

Thank you for that information. It leads me to ask this. By the way I am serious with this question. If that is what defines a fundamentalist then can a fundamentalist also be liberal in his/her doctrine and walk? The reason I ask is because none of those definitions or explanations of the differences covers ones attitude toward holiness.

That would depend on your definition of "liberal." If by "liberal" you mean theological liberalism, I.E., Modernism, then they could not coexist as Modernism is diametrically opposite to the 5 points as enumerated.

If by "liberal" you mean "somebody who does things differently than me" then, yes, the two could coexist.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Good answer TC. "Secondary Separation" is another problem with those in the militant wing of fundamentalism that you are opposed to.

The idea that even if you are sound in your doctrine, your failure to condemn everyone I condemn is grounds to break fellowship.

This is another dangerous false teaching for you.

 

[TCassidy]

Good answer TC. "Secondary Separation" is another problem with those in the militant wing of fundamentalism that you are opposed to.

Well, I am not opposed to Militant Fundamentalism as long as that which we militate against is truly contra-biblical. However, what passes for militancy today is often just a preference elevated to a "conviction." In my theology a conviction must be enumerated in the bible. If the bible says do it, we do it. If the bible says not to do it, we don't do it. If the bible is silent on the subject, so are we.

The idea that even if you are sound in your doctrine, your failure to condemn everyone I condemn is grounds to break fellowship.

This is another dangerous false teaching for you.

I agree. Anytime I try to elevate my preferences to the level of authority as that of the scriptures, I would then be an idolater.

 

[Luke2427]

That would depend on your definition of "liberal." If by "liberal" you mean theological liberalism, I.E., Modernism, then they could not coexist as Modernism is diametrically opposite to the 5 points as enumerated.

If by "liberal" you mean "somebody who does things differently than me" then, yes, the two could coexist.

So I take it that you yield.