history of the fundamental baptists

Andy,

Your profile says that you are Luthern. So, besides not knowing what you are talking about, you should not be posting in the Baptist only section of the BB.



Andy

 

Jerry Falwell

Jason

 

You must be joking. BJU is not hurting for students at all... and no American school has ever been the object of any more one-sided, vicious attacks than BJU.

And such might have been the case with Furman University but they were also "smart". They compromised a little more and a little more until they dropped their association with even the SBC a few years back.

By lumping BJ, SotL, and Cloud in the same group while praising Falwell as the savior of independent Baptists you have done nothing but demonstrate that your knowledge on the topic is pitiful.

Do you know any of these supposed "nutcases"? I do. While I don't agree with some of their standards, they are uniformly intelligent, gracious, devoted, Christian people. I have never had anyone associated with BJU in anyway give me a hard time because my wife wears pants... BTW, BJU is not KJVO and actually took a critical stand against that movement.

Please cite some proof for this. In fact, just who is "bob jones university"? One person from there does not speak for the school as a whole no more than David Duke spoke for every white person in Louisianna. I have heard people from BJU make positive references to serveral in your list.

But some of those folks deserve criticism... Oral Roberts and John Hagee for instance.

Most of you list is absolutely ridiculous... Spurgeon and Edwards though probably take the cake.

This list also has serious deficiencies if you are presuming to speak for BJU. For instance, I don't think you will find anyone closely associated with them that would commend Jack Hyles as a real fundamental Baptist. The census would probably be divided on many of the rest of them to include Rice. In fact, I would be surprised if more BJU people thought of Rice as a fundamentalist than thought of Moody as a fundamentalist.

 

Andy,

I just wanted to chime in here with my take on this.

I attend now and have been part of Independant Fundamental Baptist Churches for over 20 years.

While I believe there are some things that need reforming I believe the movement is still valid and they are holding to and defending the truth.

The problem is that some of my IFB brethren defend their opinions on social and entertainment issues on the same level as they defend the fundamentals of the faith. That is what needs reforming, a distinction needs to be made between opinions and fundamentals.

In fact my my website http://www.ifbreformation.org is all about this subject. If you want to get the real history and development of the IFB movement I would suggest you look there.

I am not saying I am the only one with this information, for there are many good books and sites with info in this area. But you are sadly mistaken if you think all the IFB movement is is a stepchild of Southern Baptists. It far more than that.

Check out this article http://www.ifbreformation.org/OriginsOfIFBs.html

I will say this though, that while I am in no way a Baptist biggot(and in fact I have admired and read many non-Baptist's literature) I do believe the Baptists were the only radical-reformers.

The Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians while they preached the true Gospel, never went far enough in their reformation - they still left alot of influences like formalism and infant baptism in their churches just to name a few things.

And as I will just restate what has already been said by many on this thread that fundamentalism was not a 'baptist movement'. I was made up of many denominations that wanted to stand against those who deny the fundamentals of the faith.

And the New Evangelicals were a splinter group of fundamentalists who broke off from main-stream fundamentalists in the 1950's. They decided to use an infiltration approach with the modernists and said to say many of them today either stand for nothing or have become modernists themselves.

The unfortunate reality is that most(not all - there were some Baptists who did as well) of those fundamentalists who broke off and called themselves "New Evangelicals" were Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans and Anglican/Episcoplians.

This has lead some Baptist preaches in error to state and teach that non-baptists are generally New Evangelical. But there are many fundamentalists still left in Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran churches so I don't believe that characterization is fair to make.

Well thats my take I hope you will research a little better on this subject.

IFBReformer

IFBReformer