Historic fundamental baptist? How are they different than most IFB?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What are your views on various doctrines?
- Thread starter banana
- Start date
- Status
Historic fundamental baptist? How are they different than most IFB?
Temperance in all areas of life. Controlled by the Spirit of God under authority of Word of God.
My personal decision on alcohol or drugs is medicinal only (I am teaching elder/pastor and will not allow any chemical to cloud my judgment or reflect on ministry). I believe the Bible teaching temperance/controlled use and that the present blanket abstinence position for all believers is untenable from Scripture
Sadly, many ifb types today have drifted far from the historic fundamentals of the faith. I go back to the Niagara Conference and see unity among truly born-again people on those fundamentals. Today? Many have added to those irreducible-minimum principles or interpreted them so broadly that they have become cult-like in position.
Case in point. A church held a "fundamentals of the faith" conference. I asked them to list the fundamentals. They started "the infallibility and inspiration of God's Word" (good so far) but then added "as supernaturally preserved only in the KJV1611" (which is beyond the pale and an attack on inspiration not support of it).
Others have "fundamentals" as clothes style, music, schools you attend, etc. All man-made nonsense in comparison to "historic fundamentalism".
Fundamentalism as a "movement" is gasping its final breaths, but that does not change the actual historic "fundamental beliefs" on which that movement started, grew, and now on life-support.
Few are willing to DEFEND the fundamental faith. Those who hold it but will not fight for it are enjoying the term "evangelical" today. They are (hopefully) truly born again, but not "earnestly contending for the faith". Historic fundamentalists put on the uniform, lock and load every day to stand for truth.
Few are willing to DEFEND the fundamental faith. Those who hold it but will not fight for it are enjoying the term "evangelical" today. They are (hopefully) truly born again, but not "earnestly contending for the faith". Historic fundamentalists put on the uniform, lock and load every day to stand for truth.
What is metaphorical Hell as per your understanding?
Sad to say, many in the Fundamentalist Movement today would seem to have adopted KJVO, and also only certain worship styles/music allowed, pretty much modern day Pharisees, judging those who who do not agree with themon all issues!
Have you debated John of Japan?
Buy the book 4 views on Hell by John Walvoord and read the position by Crockett. Basically we do not interpret the flames literally nor the lake of fire as it may be symbolic of something else. Jesus was using graphic language so that his 1st century audience would understand. Take it literally? Perhaps not.
It may be symbolic of something else.
So that would be saying that Hell might not have physical fire burning you up forever, but that the fire represent it being a really bad place to be stuck in?
What's to debate? What do you think they strongly disagree on?
Yes
Alcoholic beverages
Both are non-drinkers. Neither are legalists. What's to debate?
LOL. Sure. As long as you're willing go go there--I suppose the "angels that left their abode and are now in everlasting chains awaiting judgment" could be symbolic as well. Likewise, I suppose Michael the archangel and the devil (v. 9) could be metaphors.
John believes in teetotalism while the other does not.
But both are of the mind in this instance to allow the other liberty. Hence, there is no case for debate. IOW, they both have bigger fish to fry.
So what? He also believes in Christian Liberty.
- Status