Overlap of Fundamentalists and Confessional Particular Baptists

[DaveXR650]

Something missing in most definitions of fundamentalism is that we are separatists.

That's for sure and it really is the key thing. On one hand it showed people who had guts enough to stand up to the liberals but on the other hand it guarantees continued splitting and division so it's almost a self limiting movement.

 

[JesusFan]

Something missing in most definitions of fundamentalism is that we are separatists. We separate from and stand against liberalism of all kinds. Dr. Bob said this well by quoting Jude v. 3: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

If a believer accepts all the fundamentals of the faith, but does not take a stand for Christ and against theological evil, he or she is not a fundamentalist. If you were to ask Billy Graham in Heaven if he was a fundamentalist, he would say that he was not one from the late 1950s on, because he accepted theological liberals to sit on his campaign committees (beginning in NY in 1957) and had them sit on his platform and pray for the meetings. (Pretty sure Billy is now a fundamentalist! )

problem is that we still are called to be the salt of society, and to be working with even those other churches and Christians that might disagree with on secondary issues with, but separation at times seemed to say separate totally from culture and fron others not in our own particular churches.

 

[JesusFan]

That's for sure and it really is the key thing. On one hand it showed people who had guts enough to stand up to the liberals but on the other hand it guarantees continued splitting and division so it's almost a self limiting movement.

Problem as been though separation tends to be on mainly secondary issues, and not essentials of the Faith

 

[JesusFan]

The subject is of some interest to me because, among other reasons, the USA (and parts of Asia) are the main places where highly Biblical, Protestant Christian views are found in denominations and churches. Much of the continental and Anglosphere Calvinistic and mainline churches have modernized, liberalized, and collapsed in membership, youth catechism, and attendance.
I would like to, without compromising on my conscience in Biblical matters, like to have a more open dialogue with Fundamental Baptists, Calvinistic Pentacostals, and so forth. I think if a church is demonstrating gospel ministry and responsible eldership then we can at least work with them on some things.
I am well aware of segments which are quick to anathematize and others which compromise too much. This is not an easy situation to navigate. Yet I believe many of these people are actually gospel preaching Christians, and also my neighbors, I would like to have some kind of agreement on helping each other where we do agree.
I think the Evangelicals took some wrong turns in the past, but many of them seem to be coming around in recent decades.

When a Church or group waters down the Inspiration and infallibility of the bible to being limited in nature and scope, all sorts of bad things now start creeping in thru the back door

 

[ParticularWife]

Problem as been though separation tends to be on mainly secondary issues, and not essentials of the Faith

This is my view, and not just about Fundamentalists.

 

[DaveXR650]

@ParticularWife. Having been in both groups and by that I mean Independent Fundamental Baptist and Young Restless and Reformed Baptist I do see some overlap. For example, I had a subscription to a newspaper called "Sword of the Lord" toward the end of the era of John R. Rice as editor. It was when I asked my pastor who the bearded guy was on the cover of one issue he said "that's Spurgeon, and he's alright". "Alright" meaning that in spite of the fact he had some Calvinistic leanings and that he had a beard, and worst of all he smoked cigars!

And also, Bunyan's "Pilgrims Progress" was very popular among IFB believers and we were encouraged to read it. We did not know Bunyan was a Calvinist and many IFB's considered him a Baptist. Other than that, our attitude was basically Calvinists were "wrong on baptism, wrong on the Lord's Supper", so what's the use of listening to them.

Also, I would like to say that the video you put up above is OK and I really like Kevin DeYoung, but there can be no serious discussion of American fundamentalism in the 60's through the 70's without John R. Rice and Jerry Falwell. And @John of Japan is the man to consult on Rice.

 

[John of Japan]

problem is that we still are called to be the salt of society, and to be working with even those other churches and Christians that might disagree with on secondary issues with, but separation at times seemed to say separate totally from culture and fron others not in our own particular churches.

But then, separating in that way would not be real fundamentalism, but simply narrow minded Baptists. Note that Dr. Bob and I are in the line of the early fundamentalists back in the first part of the 20th century.

 

[John of Japan]

@ParticularWife. Having been in both groups and by that I mean Independent Fundamental Baptist and Young Restless and Reformed Baptist I do see some overlap. For example, I had a subscription to a newspaper called "Sword of the Lord" toward the end of the era of John R. Rice as editor. It was when I asked my pastor who the bearded guy was on the cover of one issue he said "that's Spurgeon, and he's alright". "Alright" meaning that in spite of the fact he had some Calvinistic leanings and that he had a beard, and worst of all he smoked cigars!

John R. Rice loved Spurgeon so much, and included so many of the sermons of Spurgeon in the Sword that Pilgrim Publications sent him the whole set in gratefulness, and had him write an introduction to one of the books. They kindly gave me a copy of that years ago when I was down there in their bookstore.

And also, Bunyan's "Pilgrims Progress" was very popular among IFB believers and we were encouraged to read it. We did not know Bunyan was a Calvinist and many IFB's considered him a Baptist. Other than that, our attitude was basically Calvinists were "wrong on baptism, wrong on the Lord's Supper", so what's the use of listening to them.

As I discuss in my book on John R. Rice, he loved Spurgeon and any other Calvinist who was for winning souls. Spurgeon saw 1000s saved. and wrote a book on it, The Soul Winner.

However, Rice clashed with Calvinists such as Rolfe Barnard, Chafer (4 points), and a Presbyterian Donald Gray Barnhouse. The stories of those incidents are in my book. He told me once in private, smiling, “Dr. Barnhouse said, ‘John R. Rice writes for idiots!’ I guess there are a lot of idiots out there, since my books are selling well!”

Also, I would like to say that the video you put up above is OK and I really like Kevin DeYoung, but there can be no serious discussion of American fundamentalism in the 60's through the 70's without John R. Rice and Jerry Falwell. And @John of Japan is the man to consult on Rice.

Fundamentalist history is my specialty in the field of church history.

 

[John of Japan]

That's for sure and it really is the key thing. On one hand it showed people who had guts enough to stand up to the liberals but on the other hand it guarantees continued splitting and division so it's almost a self limiting movement.

It's only self limiting when fundamentalists begin separating from other good men and not just liberals and heretics. Rice called this "secondary separation." Bob Jones, Jr., castigated Rice in the 1970s for his friendships with SBC men like W. A. Criswell. But Dr. Paige Patterson related to me when I went to Texas for research for my book how he found the Sword and Rice's books in the offices of many SBC pastors when he traveled for the conservative resurgence. Rice had a big part in encouraging the SBC resurgence.

 

[DaveXR650]

As I discuss in my book on John R. Rice, he loved Spurgeon and any other Calvinist who was for winning souls. Spurgeon saw 1000s saved. and wrote a book on it, The Soul Winner.

I've got a copy of Rice's book from 1970 "Some Serious, Popular False Doctrines Answered From the Scriptures" and in the chapter on "HyperCalvinism" he quotes and refers to Spurgeon quite a bit.

 

[John of Japan]

I've got a copy of Rice's book from 1970 "Some Serious, Popular False Doctrines Answered From the Scriptures" and in the chapter on "HyperCalvinism" he quotes and refers to Spurgeon quite a bit.

Right, he distinguished between Spurgeon's Calvinism and what he defined as Hyper-Calvinism: being cold on soul-winning. HIs clash with Donald Gray Barnhouse occurred in 1956, when Rice was the main speaker for a TEAM conference for missionaries in Japan. Barnhouse happened along, and since he was well-known they let him speak too. In one message he said something like, "If people are not saved at your mission station, do not blame yourself. Do not fret. That is not your fault. What a torment I should have if I thought the saving of souls depended upon my faithfulness! No, if God is going to save them, He will save them, and if they are lost, it is not your fault.”

This was directly against what Rice had been preaching, which is that we must obey the Great Commission, get the Gospel to everyone, and win souls to Christ (what Calvinist Spurgeon believed). That set off a back and forth between Rice and Barnhouse. And I'll just leave it there. You can imagine the rest.

 

[ParticularWife]

It's only self limiting when fundamentalists begin separating from other good men and not just liberals and heretics. Rice called this "secondary separation." Bob Jones, Jr., castigated Rice in the 1970s for his friendships with SBC men like W. A. Criswell. But Dr. Paige Patterson related to me when I went to Texas for research for my book how he found the Sword and Rice's books in the offices of many SBC pastors when he traveled for the conservative resurgence. Rice had a big part in encouraging the SBC resurgence.

This is my second critique of some American conservative churches—not politically, but theologically and pastorally. While I understand the need for some level of separation in both administration and doctrine (I’m a Congregationalist, after all), we must not lose sight of what defines the visible Church. The visible Church is made up of those who profess faith in the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and trust in Him for salvation (Romans 10:9-10).

I’m not saying secondary issues don’t matter—sound doctrine is vital (Titus 2:1). But we should remember that wherever the Gospel is preached, souls can be saved by the grace of God (Romans 1:16). As a Confessional Christian, I believe in guarding the truth and practicing some degree of autonomy from those who hold to heterodox views. Still, I support any genuine ministry that faithfully teaches God’s Word and proclaims Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

There are real differences between denominations, and some warrant separation in practice or governance. But those who hold to the true Gospel and seek to honor Christ, however flawed we may be, are part of the visible Church of God (Ephesians 4:4-6). Instead of focusing on what divides us unnecessarily, let’s celebrate our unity in Christ and work together to spread His Kingdom for His glory (Philippians 1:27).

 

[DaveXR650]

Right, he distinguished between Spurgeon's Calvinism and what he defined as Hyper-Calvinism: being cold on soul-winning. HIs clash with Donald Gray Barnhouse occurred in 1956, when Rice was the main speaker for a TEAM conference for missionaries in Japan. Barnhouse happened along, and since he was well-known they let him speak too. In one message he said something like, "If people are not saved at your mission station, do not blame yourself. Do not fret. That is not your fault. What a torment I should have if I thought the saving of souls depended upon my faithfulness! No, if God is going to save them, He will save them, and if they are lost, it is not your fault.”

This was directly against what Rice had been preaching, which is that we must obey the Great Commission, get the Gospel to everyone, and win souls to Christ (what Calvinist Spurgeon believed). That set off a back and forth between Rice and Barnhouse. And I'll just leave it there. You can imagine the rest.

That's interesting. There is a work by Horatius Bonar, a Calvinist and about the same time period as Spurgeon, where he takes to task preachers who say exactly what Barnhouse said above. The paper is called "Words to Winners of Souls". Basically he just says that he does not accept the fact that you can truly have a burden for lost souls and not fret if you see no results.

I have observed that in some of the Reformed Baptist churches now and in my area they emphasize personal evangelism a lot and still do some door to door and some street preaching. But if someone knocks on my door in my neighborhood it will usually be an IFB or the Holiness Church of God that is in my neighborhood. And the guy I know who street preaches gets mixed reviews from his own church. Still, there is some overlap in that area.

 

[DaveXR650]

. As a Confessional Christian, I believe in guarding the truth and practicing some degree of autonomy from those who hold to heterodox views. Still, I support any genuine ministry that faithfully teaches God’s Word and proclaims Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

The confessions and theologies are good guardrails but poor boxes. We always tend to drift and in independent congregations this can happen fast. My old, non-Calvinist Baptist church fell into some of the free grace, easy believism teaching and in addition they began to advertise as a church that would "meet your needs". The sermons became lighter and somewhat bordering on silly at times. Meanwhile, some of us discovered Edwards and Owen and Bunyan and wanted something more. And, the church ended up splitting. Officially, it was over Calvinism but actually it was deeper than that. The popularity of Puritan writings, which had become widely available first in paperbacks and later from the internet had a definite influence and more so on general seriousness than theology. Also, there are good IFB churches in our area that are moderate in that they don't demand KJV and the pastors will quote everyone from John Owen to C.S. Lewis, and sometimes in the same sermon. And they do a lot of expositional preaching which used to be rare in IFB churches. Also, at least one good size Baptist church in my area officially and truly accepts Calvinists and non-Calvinists which is not always the case. There is some overlap and I think you will see more of that as society in general seems to be moving toward a less favorable view of all committed Christian groups.

 

[ParticularWife]

The confessions and theologies are good guardrails but poor boxes. We always tend to drift and in independent congregations this can happen fast. My old, non-Calvinist Baptist church fell into some of the free grace, easy believism teaching and in addition they began to advertise as a church that would "meet your needs". The sermons became lighter and somewhat bordering on silly at times. Meanwhile, some of us discovered Edwards and Owen and Bunyan and wanted something more. And, the church ended up splitting. Officially, it was over Calvinism but actually it was deeper than that. The popularity of Puritan writings, which had become widely available first in paperbacks and later from the internet had a definite influence and more so on general seriousness than theology. Also, there are good IFB churches in our area that are moderate in that they don't demand KJV and the pastors will quote everyone from John Owen to C.S. Lewis, and sometimes in the same sermon. And they do a lot of expositional preaching which used to be rare in IFB churches. Also, at least one good size Baptist church in my area officially and truly accepts Calvinists and non-Calvinists which is not always the case. There is some overlap and I think you will see more of that as society in general seems to be moving toward a less favorable view of all committed Christian groups.

I would be willing to have communion sharing between Presbyterians and Particular Baptists, though for administrative reasons they need to be different churches. Calvinism is not even a secondary issue to me, though it triggers some people so much they can't stand us.
Hyper-Calvinism is basically imaginary. Any Calvinist complaining about it is often unable to actually name a Hyper-Calvinist. Because by the standards of some, Calvin and John Frame are hyper Calvinists.

 

[Blank]

Is there something distinctive to Fundamentalists that separates them from a Gillite?

Gillite? Is this referring to John Gill?

 

[ParticularWife]

Gillite? Is this referring to John Gill?

Yes.

 

[Blank]

Yes.

I'd probably glean more from Gill if I could patiently wade through all of what 'X' is not instead of him just coming to the point of what 'X' actually is. I realize it is a matter of style and ages. Otherwise, I find him quite good.

 

[ParticularWife]

I'd probably glean more from Gill if I could patiently wade through all of what 'X' is not instead of him just coming to the point of what 'X' actually is. I realize it is a matter of style and ages. Otherwise, I find him quite good.

Gill is directly addressing Christological errors, unitarianism and free will Baptists, sometimes in his own congregation. I understand your point, but in theology studies we kind of enjoy finding every possible wrong way to take dogmatics . I enjoyed my theology courses a little too much sometimes, though it's cured me of the desire to argue with people about doctrine.
Gill is the first Baptist to write systematic theology, and the first to write a complete Bible commentary. I have all of his works and, no, I have not read all of them. I'd have to be Data.