RE: Fundamental Baptists.....

From my observation on this board, they mostly believe in theological twists, turns and convolutions to protect and defend their own biases and narrow presuppositions about scripture and doctrine. Other than that, they are about steadfast condemnation, bashing, belittling, and otherwise consigning to the pits of hell (in their own opinion) anyone who disagrees with them. They are an angry, frustrated lot who substitute grace, faith and love with judgemental, pharisaic, legalistic, ignorant hatred.

Need evidence? Go to the threads on this board about Bible translations and read some of the caustic, inflamed comments exchanged between "KJV Only" Fundamental Baptists (who believe that you can't even be saved unless you got your information from the King James Version) and the other Fundamentalists who deny that KJV Onlyism is fundamental Baptist doctrine. They can't even show love to each other. Or read some of the remarks posted about Christians who belong to other Baptist groups judged unworthy by the fundamentalist brand. It's pretty hard to be responsible for showing Christ to the world when you can't even reflect him in your dealings with other believers.

 

Just an observation, based on what's been written, and the tone that it seems to have been written in: Ellis, are you a fundamentalist?

 

Don, good point!

For an example of ellis's "love" see http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=25&t=000097 where he consigns those who disagree with him to hell for "not knowing Jesus."

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ThankGodForBillyGraham:
What do Fundemental Baptist believe in? Anyone know? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fundamental Baptists represent too broad a category to present their beliefs in a short post. Some of the strong points might be that they hold a traditional position of fundamentals of the faith such as the inerrancy of Scripture, the reliability of the Genesis account of creation, the trinity, the virgin birth, the necessity of the blood atonement, the literalness of the resurrection, return of Christ, heaven, and hell. They usually hold to a very literal interpretation of scripture based on the grammatical-historical approach. This is very simplistic and much could be added. These kinds of things are generally what define fundamental Baptists rather than the divisiveness mentioned by ellis. He proves that fundamentalists are not the only angry frustrated lot who can stoop to name-calling and mud-slinging.

 

Bob grayite,
Good to meet you. It gets awful lonesome on this board at times!

 

There are various strains of fundamental baptists in the USA and on this board. Because fundamental baptists are independent, small individual churches tend to be influenced by a "big-name" pastor/church/school in some combination. These "big-name" churches/schools are usually headed by a man who had a dynamic personality, built a big church, and started a school whereby he sent out pastors who influence the smaller churches. These pastors generally have only a bible college education, not seminary, and know only what they learned at the "big-names" school. The "big-name" guys, unfortunately tend to be suspicious of one another and their followers tend to divide into camps. The divisions in fundamental baptist churches tend to be about evangelism and worship styles, about degrees of separation (some emphasize personal separation more and some emphasize ecclesiastical separation more), and more recently, the KJV only debate.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BobGray-ITE:
A true fundamentilist is KJV only, it is the word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will say without apology that I am a fundamentalist and I am not KJVOnly. KJVOnly was never an issue of fundamentalism. A fundamentalist believes in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and it has been traditionally defined as that belonging to the original manuscripts. This was defined in The Fundamentals in 1919 I believe, when the battle between fundamentalism and modernism was raging. It was phrased this way in The Fundamentals by James M. Gray writing on Inspiration (1910-1915):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record--the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

R.A. Torrey put it this way in The Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith (pp. 34-35):
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because of this inspiration of Prophets and Apostles, the writers of the Bible, the whole Bible as originally given becomes the absolutely inerrnat word of God ... The Word of God which we have in the Old and new Testaments, as originally given, is absolutely inerrant down to the smallest word and smallest letter or part of a letter" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone who says that fundamentalism is KJVOnly is either blatantly lying or is not familiar with the history of the movement. I usually assume the latter since in most cases, the history of fundamentalism is not being taught.

I would argue that a person who is truly KJVOnly is not a fundamentalist because they deny the basic doctrine of inspiration in its biblical form.

I do not write this to debate the KJV in this forum. I write to correct a false statement about fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism holds to the doctrines taught in Scripture without apology and stands for separation from unbelief and compromise. For a discussion of these issues, I would recommend the following articles.

The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism
Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record--the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word shall never pass away.

Seems like God did "perform a perpetual miracle", wonder why he had never read this???

The only "mistake" men find is "between their ears".

 

There seems to be a misconception that "Fundamental Baptist" constitutes one single uniform type of Baptist. I guess it's all in who is providing the definition.

 

BobGray said it best.

There are many who claim to be "fundamental", but are liars. We have attended "fundamental" churches, but were shocked by the lack of BIBLICAL"standards. I am beginning to see why Doc Thomas is unaffliated instead of fundamental. Some have dragged the fundamental name through the slime of worldliness. To call one a legalist because of BIBLE standards is an attempt to insult, but really it is a compliment.

Ernie

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
...I have a beard. Helps to hide my face...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who could fault you for that??

 

I personally consider myself an independent fundamentalist.

I believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, and is the final authority in all matters. I use the King James. I believe the NIV might have a grain of truth to it, and that people can get saved by using it; I believe that we then need to show them more about it and its history, and other translations as well. And no, I don't care to enter the "Translations" debate.

I believe in freedom of conscience; i.e., I believe every individual's relationship with God is his/her responsibility. Some have called a similar concept "soul liberty"; I view it along the lines of "every one of us shall give an account of ourselves" and "let every man be persuaded in his own mind." However, I still reserve the right to help a brother when I see them in a fault.

I believe in the New Testament church, unaffiliated and therefore not under any other organization or body of men. I believe this is a self-governing body, not meant to be ruled by one man who calls himself a pastor, or a group of men who call themselves deacons.

I believe baptism is for believers. I also believe that the Lord's Supper is for believers. Both of these are symbolic representations, and not a means of incurred grace or salvation. I don't believe we can shove the Lord's Supper down an infant's throat and declare that God has incurred grace upon them, and I don't believe we can sprinkle a drop or two of water on that infant's forehead and declare that God has saved them.

I also believe in being opinionated, but with the caveat that our opinions need to be based on something more than what we "feel" about a subject; I defer to "the Bible is my final authority" when it comes to this. As a wise man from Colorado Springs once preached from the pulpit: If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
BobGray said it best.

There are many who claim to be "fundamental", but are liars. We have attended "fundamental" churches, but were shocked by the lack of BIBLICAL"standards. I am beginning to see why Doc Thomas is unaffliated instead of fundamental. Some have dragged the fundamental name through the slime of worldliness. To call one a legalist because of BIBLE standards is an attempt to insult, but really it is a compliment.

Ernie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used to think I was a Fundamental Baptist but I better check with you and see what the standards are. Can you please enlighten me to what the proper standards are to be a true Fundamentalist?

 

Packerbacker are you incapable of comprehension? I plainly said BIBLE STANDARDS.
ERNIE

 

Bible standards Earnie? You mean like boycotting Disney, no peeing with the seat down...what?