Emerging from Fundamentalism

[Luke2427]

Won't say much except to say...that's good Quest....a good "take" on
things. It is good to be "fundamental" in our Bible doctrine and practice!

Bro. Greg:thumbsup:

Yea, but Greg, the thing that you actually tend to think makes you a fundamentalist is not JUST that you believe the Bible is inspired of God, infallible and inerrant and that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for sin and rose the third day and is coming in power and glory.

Almost every Southern Baptist (and there are about 16 MILLION of us) believes all of those things. So do most Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc...

No, you call yourself a fundamentalist to DISTINGUISH yourself and your kind from us and the general evangelical community.

Being a fundamentalist means doing missions a certain way in your mind (LOCAL CHURCH!!!!)

Being a fundamentalist means having some dress standards (no two piece bathing suits in public!!!!!!).

It means being against alcohol (by the barrel and by the THIMBLE FULL!!!!)

You think it makes you a little better fundamentalist in that you believe this ridiculous KJVO nonsense (though you probably allow for guys like John R. Rice to be fundamentalists who were opposed to that nonsense).


I am a real fundamentalist in that I adhere to the fundamentals of the faith.

But since the days of J. Frank Norris, guys like him have tried, and succeeded, in high jacking the term.

So now most evangelicals who don't want to be thought of as hayseed, backwater legalists choose to shun the term.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

:tear: Such venomous words from some here that claim to be the enlightened and compassionate ones. Until you (or I) can say we did as much as Dr. Rice did to win so many into the Kingdom then I think silence (or the absence of the use of ones keyboard) would be more appropriate. The "atheists" and the "gay rights" crowd call US intolerant bigots....and then we get on public forums and demonstrate that maybe in some ways we are. It is never "legalism" to live in obedience to the Word of God. I will grant though that it can be "legalistic" to promote dogmatic "standards" of conduct that cannot be based on the clear teaching of specific scripture. I think though, from what I know of Dr. Rice's ministry, that his main mission was seeking to win the lost to Christ. To criticize him here is inappropriate. He had a good legacy...and I am also of the opinion that that is part of the reason that his grandson, John of Japan, doesn't post much here anymore. Sometimes it can be like "casting pearls before swine". I've probably said too much...I'm done.

:tonofbricks:Bro. Gregraying:

Venomous words? What if I used words like "hypocrites", "blind leaders of the blind", "white-washed sepulchers", "respecters of men", "blind guides", "fools and blind", "serpents", or "vipers"? Would that be okay with you? Will you no criticize Jesus for his "venomous" words against such men?

 

[DHK]

I agree that every word you write above describes many, if not most, if not the vast majority of modern "fundamentalists."

But I can't help but think that some of them are just ignorant.

This forum is entitled "The Fundamental Baptist Forum."

In one of the opening threads this introduction is posted:

Welcome to the Fundamental Baptist Forum, we hope you enjoy posting here. This forum was born out of a cry from many who despaired that their conservative and traditional views were constantly being attacked. It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate. Those who see things more liberally than we do can still be found on other forums so if you feel led to battle them then please do so.

It grieves me to read most of a thread that have remarks and attack such as yours. You are not a fundamentalist; why do you come here and post? In fact why post here at all? If you hate it all go join the United Methodists; that should be liberal enough for you. We don't want the venom and vitriol here, the constant haranguing of the fundamentalist position. Leave if you don't like, and don't come back again.

This forum is for those of us who are fundamentalists, not for the fundamental-haters, and for the Luke-following crowd and those who cheer him on.
Take heed to the Word:

1 John 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

You have spewed nothing but hatred and vitriol against the fundamentalists and the movement as a whole. Where does that leave you standing according to the Word?

Find another forum to post in; not here.

 

[evenifigoalone]

While I don't consider myself IFB anymore, I do fit the technical definition of fundamentalist by holding to the five fundamental doctrines. So am I allowed to post here?

 

[DHK]

While I don't consider myself IFB anymore, I do fit the technical definition of fundamentalist by holding to the five fundamental doctrines. So am I allowed to post here?

Those answers are posted in the sticky threads at the top of the opening page of the threads.

Many have asked who should post here and the answer is, “Anyone who will not deny the truths of the Word of God.” For example, we may disagree on the various interpretations of Scripture; but we will not be allowed to deny or question a clearly revealed truth. (Creation, virgin birth, salvation by grace, Old & New Testament miracles, etc…)

Many threads in this forum have asked the question, “What is a fundamentalist?” or various issues surrounding fundamentalism. This is fine, but I want to add that everyone posting here is not a “fundamentalist,” but I pray that everyone here will respect and defend the truth of the word of God.

We do have a few rules here such as:
· All posters must show "grace" to each other. We can disagree but we must do so in a civil manner. This is a debate forum so you can expect the discussion to be heated at times but never at the expense of others.
· Threads that deal with specific topics that have their own forum will be moved to the appropriate forum. (Bible Versions, Creation/Evolution, Calvinism/Arminianism, etc…)

We believe that this can be a great place to post and discuss as well as the perfect place for new Christians to learn sound doctrine, so let's all work together to make this forum great. Please help us by sounding the alarm when necessary and most of all by sharing the love of Christ with everyone here.

 

[preacher4truth]

A true fundamentalist is one who adheres to The Fundamentals not one who teaches for doctrines the commandments of men found in the legalist movement of today. (Women and pants issues, 1611 nonsense, no movies, teetotalers, against 'canned music', LOCAL CHURCH!, and other nauseating commandments).

I wonder how many here would love and agree with the sign outside of an IFB that read 'women, if you're not wearing a dress or skirt, you are not welcome here!'? (or perhaps it read women if you are wearing pants you are not welcome here). I can only imagine how proud those pharisees were when they paced that sign, and can only imagine the ignorance from the pulpit that rallied the troops to do it.

 

[Luke2427]

This forum is entitled "The Fundamental Baptist Forum."

In one of the opening threads this introduction is posted:

It grieves me to read most of a thread that have remarks and attack such as yours. You are not a fundamentalist;

Says who? Why am I not a fundamentalist?

why do you come here and post? In fact why post here at all? If you hate it all go join the United Methodists; that should be liberal enough for you.

In what way am I liberal like the United Methodists? :laugh:

We don't want the venom and vitriol here, the constant haranguing of the fundamentalist position. Leave if you don't like, and don't come back again.

No.

This forum is for those of us who are fundamentalists, not for the fundamental-haters, and for the Luke-following crowd and those who cheer him on.
Take heed to the Word:

1 John 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

Yes, and you take heed to that passage when you talk to me as well, 10-4?

You have spewed nothing but hatred and vitriol against the fundamentalists and the movement as a whole. Where does that leave you standing according to the Word?

I literally said in the post that you are responding to that many of them are good men.

Nothing but hatred?

See, this is the kind of ignorance that plagues people like you who you are defending, isn't it?

I don't like the movement that pounds its chest and calls itself "Fundamentalist" today. I really do think it is largely as ignorant as mountain snake handlers.

But I am a fundamentalist by definition. I get to post on this board.

Now if you can identify this forum by defining fundamentalism as exclusively referring to the redneck, backwater, hayseed, camp meeting, King James Only, Blue Grass and Southern Gospel Only, against alcohol and everything else God made for us to enjoy forum- then I will not post here. But since there is no such definition and it is assumed that Fundamentalists are people who defend the fundamentals of the faith- which I do- VEHEMENTLY- I think I'll stay.

 

[DHK]

A true fundamentalist is one who adheres to The Fundamentals not one who teaches for doctrines the commandments of men found in the legalist movement of today. (Women and pants issues, 1611 nonsense, no movies, teetotalers, against 'canned music', LOCAL CHURCH!, and other nauseating commandments).

I wonder how many here would love and agree with the sign outside of an IFB that read 'women, if you're not wearing a dress or skirt, you are not welcome here!'? (or perhaps it read women if you are wearing pants you are not welcome here). I can only imagine how proud those pharisees were when they paced that sign, and can only imagine the ignorance from the pulpit that rallied the troops to do it.

Obviously the person who did that was not using common sense.
Look at the top thread that Squire started:

I took the following from Pastor David Innes' (senior pastor of Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco for twenty five years) series What is a Fundementalist? I hope these will help us as we discuss matters here. Pastor Innes refers to them as "Columns" as he had printed materials accompanying his speaking.

1. Very Clear: To deny these truths is to deny the meaning of words. Such doctrines would include: the Virgin Birth, the Blood Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection, the Deity of Christ, ect.
2. Logical Conclusions: These truths are drawn by inference from Category 1. Such truths would include: Immersion=Baptism, anythingelse is just getting wet; the form of church government congregational vis presbyterian; standards in music, ect.
3. Informed and Uninformed opinions: Such matters come from ones own personal walk and study. These would include the Textual questions, Sunday Schools, Head Covering for Women, ect.
4. Petty, personal preferences: Such matters would include: robed choirs, church dinners, ect.

I have known Dr. Innes for some time. I appreciate his work. The fundamentalists I know don't dwell on the matters in category 4. The other three are important in descending order as listed.

 

[preacher4truth]

Says who? Why am I not a fundamentalist?



In what way am I liberal like the United Methodists? :laugh:



No.



Yes, and you take heed to that passage when you talk to me as well, 10-4?



I literally said in the post that you are responding to that many of them are good men.

Nothing but hatred?

See, this is the kind of ignorance that plagues people like you who you are defending, isn't it?

I don't like the movement that pounds its chest and calls itself "Fundamentalist" today. I really do think it is largely as ignorant as mountain snake handlers.

But I am a fundamentalist by definition. I get to post on this board.

Now if you can identify this forum by defining fundamentalism as exclusively referring to the redneck, backwater, hayseed, camp meeting, King James Only, Blue Grass and Southern Gospel Only, against alcohol and everything else God made for us to enjoy forum- then I will not post here. But since there is no such definition and it is assumed that Fundamentalists are people who defend the fundamentals of the faith- which I do- VEHEMENTLY- I think I'll stay.

See? There is a vast misunderstanding of what a TRUE fundamentalist is. I think some who believe it is legalistic issues should rename their camp as that is not what a true fundamentalist is. I believe you are truly fundamental, I know I am as well, and I know when it began, why, and what they adhered to and it had nothing to do with legalistic issues of dress, Bible versions, movies, alcohol &c.

 

[DHK]

See? There is a vast misunderstanding of what a TRUE fundamentalist is. I think some who believe it is legalistic issues should rename their camp as that is not what a true fundamentalist is. I believe you are truly fundamental, I know I am as well, and I know when it began, why, and what they adhered to and it had nothing to do with legalistic issues of dress, Bible versions, movies, alcohol &c.

Just to be clear you are simply saying that you are agreeing with most of what the RCC believes--fundamentals?

1. Very Clear: To deny these truths is to deny the meaning of words. Such doctrines would include: the Virgin Birth, the Blood Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection, the Deity of Christ, ect.

 

[Yeshua1]

See? There is a vast misunderstanding of what a TRUE fundamentalist is. I think some who believe it is legalistic issues should rename their camp as that is not what a true fundamentalist is. I believe you are truly fundamental, I know I am as well, and I know when it began, why, and what they adhered to and it had nothing to do with legalistic issues of dress, Bible versions, movies, alcohol &c.

most when hear the term Fundamentalist do indeed think of someone who is right in doctrines, but whose approach to applying those truths are in a legalistic manner, as in versions of Bible, worship style, movies, dress, fellowship etc!

wasn't it original JUST basically holding to th essentials of the faith?

Didn't the big divide start basically around rtime of christianity Today, when carl heny and Billy graham went to 'evangelicalism?"

 

[preacher4truth]

Just to be clear you are simply saying that you are agreeing with most of what the RCC believes--fundamentals?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

most when hear the term Fundamentalist do indeed think of someone who is right in doctrines, but whose approach to applying those truths are in a legalistic manner, as in versions of Bible, worship style, movies, dress, fellowship etc!

wasn't it original JUST basically holding to th essentials of the faith?

Didn't the big divide start basically around rtime of christianity Today, when carl heny and Billy graham went to 'evangelicalism?"

I'm not too sure about the latter. I do know this, when The Fundamentals came out, it only exposed those who were in higher criticism/liberal theology against those who held to the belief of the truth of Scripture in all aspects (miracles, efficacy of the blood of Christ &c). IOW, it was only expressing what those who already believed in the sufficiency of Scripture adhered to doctrinally.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Believing in the fundamental doctrines of the faith is not the same as being a Fundamental Baptist. They are two completely different uses of the term. Would you call someone a liberal democrat for being liberal with their money? Do all republicans in office adhere to the historical limited-government ideology upon which republicanism was based? Fundamentalism has a well-earned reputation for adhering to non-fundamentals as though they were the fundamentals. Fundamentalism is more about adherence to the fundamental doctrines of the Fundamental Baptist faith, not of THE Faith.

 

[Don]

Believing in the fundamental doctrines of the faith is not the same as being a Fundamental Baptist. They are two completely different uses of the term. Would you call someone a liberal democrat for being liberal with their money? Do all republicans in office adhere to the historical limited-government ideology upon which republicanism was based? Fundamentalism has a well-earned reputation for adhering to non-fundamentals as though they were the fundamentals. Fundamentalism is more about adherence to the fundamental doctrines of the Fundamental Baptist faith, not of THE Faith.

Does this apply to all baptist groups/churches that identify themselves as "fundamental baptists"?

 

[preacher4truth]

Believing in the fundamental doctrines of the faith is not the same as being a Fundamental Baptist. They are two completely different uses of the term.

True as there could be other denominations who hold to the fundamentals. I don't think any is arguing here that holding to them makes one a Baptist. As a Baptist I believe in the fundamentals of the faith.

Would you call someone a liberal democrat for being liberal with their money? Do all republicans in office adhere to the historical limited-government ideology upon which republicanism was based?

That's all good and fine, but it's not reflective of this thread as no one is arguing adherence to the fundamentals makes one a Baptist.

Fundamentalism has a well-earned reputation for adhering to non-fundamentals as though they were the fundamentals.

But that's not true fundamentalism. It is what some have become, but it isn't what made fundamentalists what they were/are. You're attempting to make, or at the least giving room for fundamentalism being something it was never meant to be. You're correct however that there are those who believe those non-fundamentals are the true ones.

Fundamentalism is more about adherence to the fundamental doctrines of the Fundamental Baptist faith, not of THE Faith.

Correct. It isn't about legalistic issues, 'canned music', going to movies, 'public bathing', teetotalism, attire, Bible versions &c.

 

[Salty]

Here is my 3 cents worth (inflation has hit)

Yes, our (extreme) fundamental friends say they believe in the basics - on the chart (by Innes) in the boxes of "Very clear" and "as to doctrine this becomes" - A conviction — a belief for which we would die this is subject to interpertion. We all know how some think of the KJV. Another example - women wearing paints - some consider that a convicition to acutally die for. Others -not so much. same with many other issues. There used to a member of this board who said it was a sin for a woman (or a man alllowing his wife) to be seen by a male doctor. (Dont think he ever mentioned that is was a sin for a man to be seen by a female doctor).
WHO DETERMINES WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE.


Though the chart by Innes - appears to make sense - the bottom line is who decides which issues are those to die fore.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Believing in the fundamental doctrines of the faith is not the same as being a Fundamental Baptist. They are two completely different uses of the term. Would you call someone a liberal democrat for being liberal with their money? Do all republicans in office adhere to the historical limited-government ideology upon which republicanism was based? Fundamentalism has a well-earned reputation for adhering to non-fundamentals as though they were the fundamentals. Fundamentalism is more about adherence to the fundamental doctrines of the Fundamental Baptist faith, not of THE Faith.

Any technical definition I've come across defines fundamentalism as one who holds to the fundamentals of a religious faith. Most churches I know would agree with the five fundamentals, whether or not they identify as fundamental.

On the other hand, the general use of words does end up determining their definition in the end.
And many do think of fundamentals as those who adhere to legalism such as KJVO...but then, there's also a lot of diversity on individual beliefs in the movement, so it's a bit hard to define.

 

[DHK]

Says who? Why am I not a fundamentalist?

This is why you are not a fundamentalist:

Fundamentalism, as it has become in the last 80 years or so, is a plague on this land. But it is a plague unleashed upon us by very many good men- many of them meant well. They really believed that the theater was evil and that drums beat by their rhythms the devil into men's hearts. They really believed pants on women were an abomination and many of them believed the King James Bible was the only version inspired by God and all others were perversions.

Or does this describe you?
This is your typical ungodly tirade against "fundamentalism."
It is evil, wicked, unloving, and against the rules to post such things that are not done "in grace and without offense to others."

You have white-washed an entire movement by the actions of a few.
But remember you just described yourself by saying: "I am a fundamentalist" (in the same post as above).

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Does this apply to all baptist groups/churches that identify themselves as "fundamental baptists"?

It applies to most in the South. I actually attended a church in Pennsylvania which called itself a fundamental baptist, but held to none of the legalistic doctrines of a southern fundamentalist church. The pastor was an intelligent, Biblically competent man who wasn't afraid of having men in the church who disagreed with him on non-salvational issues. He understood that when you have a church where everyone believes the exact same as their pastor, they are blind followers at best & a cult at worst . I told him that, in the South, his church & depth of teaching were the antithesis of a fundamental baptist church. He agreed.