Fighting Fundamentalism

[Earth Wind and Fire]

DHK's definition is correct. Protestants are those which came out of the RCC during and following the Reformation. Baptists did not. Their spiritual ancestors were around for a long time before the Reformation.

At the very least Tom, he has the heart of a Protestant.

 

[Rippon]

John R. Rice strongly attacked the RSV

He was for it before he was against it. The SOTL ran an ad on October 17,1952 which was in favor of the RSV. Carl MacIntire complained. JRR asked for forgiveness of his readers. In the November 14th edition he said he used the RSV for reference and comparison. By 6/4/65 the SOTL ran articles denouncing the RSV using language which is not allowed on the BB.

 

[John of Japan]

By 6/4/65 the SOTL ran articles denouncing the RSV using language which is not allowed on the BB.

Care to prove this ridiculous accusation?

 

[Rippon]

Care to prove this ridiculous accusation?

What purpose would it serve to put something on the BB which isn't allowed by the rules of the latter?

 

[John of Japan]

What purpose would it serve to put something on the BB which isn't allowed by the rules of the latter?

So you can't prove it. Thought so.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

How strange that in opposing fundamentalism as being "unloving," people like you and adisciplinedlearner use such vicious language about fellow believers.

Fortunately for evangelicalism, noted evangelical leaders believe that fundamentalism is a necessary part of the larger picture.

Here is where John Piper gives "20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists"-- http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1251_20_reasons_i_dont_take_potshots_at_fundamentalists/

Again, here are some quotes from Francis Schaeffer, who specifically rejected fundamentalism and went with the New Evangelicals. He wrote in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster:

"Since liberalism did not believe in the fact that Christ died in history to atone for the sins of men and women, and that this was the only basis for salvation, liberalism was really religious faith in man dressed up in Christian language and symbols. Thus, Machen explained, the only honest thing for the liberal to do would be to leave the churches which were founded on biblical truth" (p. 73).

"When a denomination comes to a place where such discipline cannot operate (He means denominational discipline for false doctrine--JRH), then before the Lord her members must consider a second step: that step, with regard to the practice of the principle of the purity of the visible church, is with tears to step out" (p. 87).

“I used to shift away uncomfortably when I was called a ‘fundamentalist,’ because of the negative connotation which had become attached to it. But now it seems that as soon as one stands in confrontation against that which is un-biblical (instead of accommodation), as soon as one takes such a stand, one is automatically labeled ‘fundamentalist.’ That is the way Kenneth Woodward used it in Newsweek—as a put-down. And when Bible-believing Christians who are brothers and sisters in Christ get taken in this way by the connotation of words, it is much sadder” (p. 143-144).

Great quote JofJ. I appreciate you sharing this.

Here are my thoughts on this, as I grew up IFB. I really didn't know much else for the first 20+ years of my life. I always went to an IFB church (had to, my daddy was the preacher - he was so for 30+ years and then went into missions work after he retired from the pastorate). I grew up reading SOTL as it was always around the living room, meeting loads of missionaries and other preacher friends, etc.

In looking back, know what? I can't remember anyone that I would label a fighting fundamentalist (OK, a few obstinate deacons...). Yes, most were very conservative in their views, they always contended for the faith, always believed in separation, but fighting? No, not really.

I have been around IFBs my whole life. Most IFB's I know and have known are very conservative - both politically and socially. However, they have also been (for the most part) sweet, loving, and caring people.

 

[John of Japan]

Great quote JofJ. I appreciate you sharing this.

Here are my thoughts on this, as I grew up IFB. I really didn't know much else for the first 20+ years of my life. I always went to an IFB church (had to, my daddy was the preacher - he was so for 30+ years and then went into missions work after he retired from the pastorate). I grew up reading SOTL as it was always around the living room, meeting loads of missionaries and other preacher friends, etc.

In looking back, know what? I can't remember anyone that I would label a fighting fundamentalist (OK, a few obstinate deacons...). Yes, most were very conservative in their views, they always contended for the faith, always believed in separation, but fighting? No, not really.

I have been around IFBs my whole life. Most IFB's I know and have known are very conservative - both politically and socially. However, they have also been (for the most part) sweet, loving, and caring people.

My experience was the same growing up IFB, right up to the occasional grumpy deacon. I was also a PK. Dad preached the Gospel for 60 years, with the first 10 or so being SBC and then 50 years as an IFB. He was kind, gentle, quiet and faithful.

 

[Eric B]

Great quote JofJ. I appreciate you sharing this.

Here are my thoughts on this, as I grew up IFB. I really didn't know much else for the first 20+ years of my life. I always went to an IFB church (had to, my daddy was the preacher - he was so for 30+ years and then went into missions work after he retired from the pastorate). I grew up reading SOTL as it was always around the living room, meeting loads of missionaries and other preacher friends, etc.

In looking back, know what? I can't remember anyone that I would label a fighting fundamentalist (OK, a few obstinate deacons...). Yes, most were very conservative in their views, they always contended for the faith, always believed in separation, but fighting? No, not really.

I have been around IFBs my whole life. Most IFB's I know and have known are very conservative - both politically and socially. However, they have also been (for the most part) sweet, loving, and caring people.

Thinking about this more, and now seeing this battle over David Cloud http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=67282 (And this seems to erupt periodically, but always in the Baptist only sections, so I've never been able to join in), I believe it is him I was looking at as the unofficial "leader" of IFB "separationist" old-line fundamentalism. And he is the perennial "fighting fundamentalist".

I know the IFB's I was around were basically friendly and level-headed, but because they seemed to look up to people like Cloud as defending and representing their veiws, especially in the area of music (the people I was around weren't strictly KJVO, though they were strongly against the NIV), I came to see the whole movement through him. And other KJVO's such as Chick & co., and then some others such as the BJ's (whose circle seemed to produce a lot of the teaching on music).
So it's basically an issue of a few vocal leaders as opposed to the mass of followers.

What I would say in the other thread is that no, accreditation is not a sure mandate for genuine spiritual authority, but if one is going to rise up as such an authority on biblical issues and studies like Cloud, to the point of denouncing other brethren and Bible versions; then without any credential, he comes off sort of like a self-appointed apostle or something. (Hence, my mistake of making him "the voice of fundamentalism"). Even the list of his studies ReformedBaptist posted (Which I probably saw myself on his site years ago) sounds a bit like bragging of all his [self-determined] "achievements" rather than any real credential. (Herbert Armstrong had a very similar repertoire!) And then, that followers would lash out at any criticism or even a question about him. Look, he certainly spends a lot of time denouncing people; so he has to be able to receive it as well.

I would agree with Rippon's statements over there.

 

[John of Japan]

Thinking about this more, and now seeing this battle over David Cloud http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=67282 (And this seems to erupt periodically, but always in the Baptist only sections, so I've never been able to join in), I believe it is him I was looking at as the unofficial "leader" of IFB "separationist" old-line fundamentalism. And he is the perennial "fighting fundamentalist".

I know the IFB's I was around were basically friendly and level-headed, but because they seemed to look up to people like Cloud as defending and representing their veiws, especially in the area of music (the people I was around weren't strictly KJVO, though they were strongly against the NIV), I came to see the whole movement through him. And other KJVO's such as Chick & co., and then some others such as the BJ's (whose circle seemed to produce a lot of the teaching on music).
So it's basically an issue of a few vocal leaders as opposed to the mass of followers.

What I would say in the other thread is that no, accreditation is not a sure mandate for genuine spiritual authority, but if one is going to rise up as such an authority on biblical issues and studies like Cloud, to the point of denouncing other brethren and Bible versions; then without any credential, he comes off sort of like a self-appointed apostle or something. (Hence, my mistake of making him "the voice of fundamentalism"). Even the list of his studies ReformedBaptist posted (Which I probably saw myself on his site years ago) sounds a bit like bragging of all his [self-determined] "achievements" rather than any real credential. (Herbert Armstrong had a very similar repertoire!) And then, that followers would lash out at any criticism or even a question about him. Look, he certainly spends a lot of time denouncing people; so he has to be able to receive it as well.

I would agree with Rippon's statements over there.

I'm surprised that anyone would consider Cloud a leader of fundamentalism. I don't mean to denigrate him, but all he is, is a man with a website and a lot of opinions who studies a lot. He's just an information guy.

The Internet does not make anyone a leader. Where does he preach? Have we seen God use him in great revivals or great conferences? Does he have a tract that sees many saved and has been translated into many languages? Has he founded a Bible college? Has God used him to build a great church?

Rather, to me the leaders of 21st century fundamentalism are the leaders of missions. More than ever, fundamentalism is global, with 1000s of missionaries all over the world, and new churches being started constantly in many countries. Japan's fundamentalism is small, maybe 120 churches, but there are Japanese fundamentalist missionaries in Uganda, Ukraine, China, Taiwan, Thailand, etc.