The marks of a fundamental Baptist

You left out one option: NONE OF THE ABOVE

 

Exactly. You just happened to fail to mention any of the essentials that have defined historic fundamentalism. The things in your list are simply many of the additions many hijackers have added to the definition. It goes back to that beaten horse topic -- what is true fundamentalism?

Defining a fundamentalist has evolved into a "how long is your list" mentality. That's why many now abstain from using the term to define themselves.

 

I have never heard anyone say that the death penalty is the ONLY option for 1st degree murder, just that it is a legitimate and very viable option.

 

So far, I track with the poll pretty well. I agree with the items that are over 50% and I do not agree or do not strongly hold the remainder that are under 50%.

 

It is a natural deduction from the fundamentals but may not be considered one of the essentials by many historic fundamentalists. The fundamentals are essential to salvation itself. There are obviously many Christians who do not hold to the same view of Scripture as you or I.

 

It is clear to me that there were quite a few "trick statements' thrown in there, that are probably pretty close to what non F.B.'s might think a Fundamental Baptist is. The way it was worded, makes it very clear which statements they are.

God Bless you,
Charlotte

 

Well, we must remember like the Reformers, historic Fundamentalists either were too busy in other areas to mention some things or did not go to all the Fundamentals. They are not the sole respository of wisdom nor were they perfect so to make them a group of popes and all who followed and expanded either on their direct input or found other criteria not mentioned by the "founders" heretics smacks of the Inquisition and maybe some pride.

Even in Science and history people develop or expand on theories put forth by experts as new data is found or in the case of sociology cultures change willingly or due to catastropic events.

My first alma mater held to the pre-millenial view when it was founded in the 40's. If you were pre-mill you were pre-trib. Mid and post were not options available so the founders put in the constitution of the school that if any doctrinal statement was changed the school had to be closed, sold and assets given to another church or school that held to the tenets of the constitution. This was to prevent the creeping in of low life Liberals. A good plan in theory. However, time passed and the pre-mill position includes mid and post. Folks came to the school with these positions and could sign in good conscience the doctrinal statement that they were pre-mill. The school was perplexed. They wanted to boot the mid and post tribbers but could not really do so without a constitution change but then that would eliminate the school. I suppose they could have done a paperwork thing and sell the school to another church and reopen under another name but that would be a pain and may also have been covered by the original fellows.

Now, were the lads wanting to redfine or rather clarify the pre-mill position hijackers? Hardly.

People who clarify or take a position one step further really hijackers or just keeping up with the age that they live in? Abortion was not an issue when The Fundamentals were written, neither was radical feminism (it was in the making, but full blown). Had homosexuality been approved by the Liberals in that day, I would reckon that the historic lads would have said that a true fundamentalist would not abort nor ordain homosexuals and point to the fact if you hold to a proper interpretation of Scriptures you cannot condone either activity.

Their writings were not Scripture and can be amended and clarified as necessary for the day in which we live. They were not exhaustive in their work because they could not since they could not predict such a slide downward in both the Church and the World. They did not speak specifically to bestiality or bodily multilation probably because they were too pure to even conceive of such things other than a primitive pagan society and those issues would correct themselves with conversion.

When we get to the place where nudity and public copulation are permitted by society, will it be hijacking to say that a true fundamentalism will keep his clothes on and make love at home? I don't think so.

You see, that is why the SBC is splitting because those who are flaming Liberals now started out with philosophies like you expressed.

 

Believes that all who have faith in Jesus Christ are saved, regardless of church membership

This appears to be the only requirement listed to be a Baptist, fundamental or otherwise. The others are not requirements for being fundamental baptists.

 

It is amazing how a few simple words can discredit an entire post without me having to take the time to respond to a single misconception .