On the Tombstone of Fundamentalism

Amen!:thumbs:

 

I agree, the Baptists Distinctives narrow the spectrum down quite a bit. But then you are left with Baptist Fundamentalist.

"Militant" seems to be an issue which is a determining factor in the minds of many. This component is missing from both the fundamentals and the distinctives.

I'm not sure about all the baggage that the concept of "militant" carries with it as essential to being a fundamentalist, but thats just me.

HankD

 

I am not sure where the following fits in the ebb and flow of this thread, but I would like to add it to the pot.

. . .

One book that I have studied on-and-off over the last few years is David Beale's In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850.

In Chapter One: Defining Fundamentalism, Beale, professor at Bob Jones University, describes the essence of Fundamentalism as the "unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures"
(p. 3).

He goes on to present the following chronological outline of mainline American Fundamentalism (p. 5-6).

Nonconformist Fundamentalism
1857 to 1920. The revivalistic roots and progress of the interdenominational Bible and prophetic conferences prior to Fundamentalism's first major organization, the WCFA.

1920 to 1930. The Fundamentalist-modernist battles within the mainline denominations.

Separatist Fundamentalism
1930 to 1950. The Fundamentalist separation from mainline denominations and the concurrent rise of neo-orthodoxy, neo-Liberalism, and new evangelicalism.

1950 to 1970. The Fundamentalist separation from new evangelicalism.

1970 to the Present. The neo-fundamentalist defection into broad evangelicalism. ​

. . .

Personally, I think denominational-ism is trying to bury classic Fundamentalism, which has been characterized by a certain interdenominational history. However, I think the funeral sermon has not been preached over Fundamentalism, thanks in no small part to interdenominational educational institutions, publishing houses, and--most specifically to this forum--independent Baptist associations. In my opinion, one of the worst things Fundamentalists can do is immerse themselves inside a single denomination. Our strength has been in building walls, but also scaling walls.

That may be one of the reasons I keep hesitating to purchase the English Standard Version (ESV) and Holman Standard Christian Bible (HSCB) translations.

...Bob :0)
Kentucky

 

this thread is "a movement".

which is helping to bring in the ecumenical movement and leading all non-roman churches back into the arms of rome... truly sad, but prophesied in the Holy Bible.

folks, whether reformed baptist or KJO fundamental baptist... they are not each others enemies... satan and the pope are the enemies of all Christians.

as the calvinist smashes the fundamental over the head (or viceversa)... the pope sits on his satanic throne in pergamos and laughs...

reformedbaptist is reformed baptist and i am fundamental baptist. i can assure you we are brethren and we will be in heaven together soon, and satan and the pope are our enemies... not each other.

yall dont realize who the 'real enemy' is... why make each other enemies when satan and the pope are scouring the earth to rob, kill and destroy, seeking who they may devour?

wake up.

 

Yup, I am SBC and don't use the KJV to preach from. I have IFB friends (ones that I know well- missionaries) who I invite to preach for me and they use the KJV- no prob. Just wish it was reciprocated by IFB pastors.

 

Dr. Bob and others...

I am familiar with the terms arminianism and calvinism. Could you provide a brief description of the other terms:

pelagian

semi-pelagianism

finneyism

particular Baptist​

Thanks.

...Bob :0)
Kentucky

 

I'll deal with a couple of them.

Charles Finney rejected the doctrine of justification by faith. He held that one must reform himself in order to be acceptable to God. He also rejected the basic Christian doctrine of imputed righteousness. That's just for starters. Yet, he is held up by many evangelicals as an example.

Particular Baptists are basically Calvinist Baptists who hold to particular atonement--that is, that Jesus died for the elect, but not every one without exception. Particular Baptists are distinguished from those Baptists who hold to a general atonement--Christ died for every man.

 

Your last paragraph should cause a wide gulf from one believer to another.....correct?

 

So no one wishes to tackle this problem I see....I will keep asking though because its important to me.

 

Well that answer doesnt by any potatoes.

 

If fundamentalism in the context of this conversation refers to the crowd that preaches standards and convictions and is primarily king james only- it is dying.

If fundamentalism is referring to those who adhere to the "fundamentals of the faith"- it is alive and well.

 

Hello Dr. Bob

I like your definition of a fundamentalist.........

I am one and for the life of me, I can’t understand why every born again Christian on the planet, doesn’t want to be one.
Unless of course you are in favor of liberalism or modernism or godless evolution.
--------------------------------------------------
As for the people in the pews seeing themselves as priests, instead of sheep, lets see what the Lord had to say about that.......
John 10:14
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

John 10:26
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
--------------------------------------------------
Although we are to be “a kingdom of priests”, we also need to remind God’s people, that are still sheep and need a shepherd.