What does it mean to be a Fundamental Baptist?

A very good list, Pastor Bob. I think it goes to the heart of the matter without getting into the nit-picking modern additions that some think must exist to create a fundamentalist. Though I never use the word fundamentalist to refer to myself or my church, I agree with the doctrines on your list. I would probably define a few things differently because of a more "Calvinistic" interpretation, especially the last phrase of number 7.

Thanks also, and congratulations, for your work as moderator.

 

Fundamentalism can really be boiled down into one word: Separatist.

The fundamentals were drafted because of modernism and liberals running the show so to speak. Christians rose up and gave a reasonable defense to which the liberals did not accept.

The answer biblically was to first fight then separate. If something/someone cannot or will not change, separation is the biblical mandate.

This is exactly what these men did.

I joyfully associate with the historic fundamentalist movement. We are not done bleeding either.

Out like we did/do from liberals.

 

To be a "fundamentalist":
* To affirm the "fundamentals" of the faith
- authority of God's Word
- the Trinity
- Jesus Christ as the only Savior
- the virgin conception of Christ
- justification through faith alone
- the second coming of Christ
- etc.

To be a "Fundamentalist":
* To affirm the "Fundamentals"
- KJV only
- Pre-tribulation, Pre-millennial
- "Don't dance, don't drink, don't smoke, don't chew, and don't associate with those who do."
- No long-haired men
- America: love it or leave it because it is God's "chosen nation," right after Israel

Rev. G

 

Sorry, but no. The great heroes of the faith who wrote "The Fundamentals" were not KJVonly. Only about half were pre-trib. I don't know for sure if they had anything to say about the rest of the stuff you post... although I doubt that many if any would agree with your last statement since several of the writers were British.

 

Rev I believe your list is a good example of the problem we now face it was divided into two sections and I totally agree with the first because I feel they are items that are genuine Biblical truths that must not be ignored however the 2nd part is more of personal preference and conviction, I feel it only adds to the oppositions boast that we are unintelligent when we quibble over men with long hair etc. If these items and others are your conviction then that is great but we shouldn't push it on others.
Murph

 

If you two friend will notice, I used two different categories to answer the question - one with a capital "F" and one with a small case "F". The men who wrote THE FUNDAMENTALS would all fit in the first category - whether British or American. In other words, they all held to the "fundamentals" of the faith.

The second category is not merely "opinion" that I'm "pushing" on others. I have never met an (independent) Fundamentalist Baptist that would DISAGREE with my list. Read the SWORD OF THE LORD, or THE TRUMPET, or other such "Fundamentalist" Baptist publications. Read the articles. Look at the ads. They openly show their beliefs with such statements as "Pre-Mil, KJV only," etc. As for the long hair, I've seen that in action with all of my Fundamentalist friends. They teach that long hair is a shame unto a man. I'm not stating these things to be mean or to push an opinion. I'm pointing out that there is a difference, a real and vital difference, between a fundamentalist and a Fundamentalist. I think a better term than fundamentalist (fundamentals of the faith type) would be "orthodox."

Rev. G

 

Rev. G, I am pretrib and premill. I loathe the KJVO position. Those types do not have a corner on fundamentalism (as they seem to think).

Out like Nebraska's throwing game.

 

I did notice the distinction and that is why I answered the way I did. The fact that many hold extrabiblical beliefs and claim them to be "fundamental" does not make them Fundamentalists. To the contrary, it precludes them from being Fundamentalists. *** attack of
other member removed***
In the same respect, those you cite as Fundamentalists co-opt the title while rejecting large chunks of the doctrines that make fundamentalism what it is. Fundamentalism is legitimately a call to combat and reject liberalism under scriptural authority, not a call to legalism.

Anyone who knowingly and purposefully adds a doctrine or standard to scripture ceases to be a fundamentalist just as surely as someone who purposefully deletes one does.

[ September 17, 2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Scott, I'm glad you noticed that I used two different headings. I believe that I am correct in stating that we both believe that there is a difference between "fundamentalism" (to which we both adhere) and "Fundamentalism". I am a fundamentalist - still, I prefer the term "orthodox." Fundamentalism (capital 'F') adds to the Word of God, and in that way it ceases to be orthodox.

Rev. G

 

Ah, but then you get confused between 'o'rthodox and 'O'rthodox. But I agree it's a good word.

Neither do pretrib/premillers.

 

This is an excellent definition of separation, and one that should be included in the definition of a "Fundamentalist" today. What separated earlier fundamentalists (of about 100 years ago or so, up until the 1940's) from the fundamentalists today was that they fought hard to *keep* the church hierarchies that had been established from being taken over by the liberals. Now, I know that this does not fully encompass Baptists, as this was more of the battles that were taking place with Presbyterians, Methodists, and the like (an example would be J. Gresham Machen-- he was a Presbyterian fundamentalist that eventually separated from the "mainstream" Presbyterian church to found the "Orthodox Presbyterian" church). Separation began with the advent of "New-Evangelicalism" in the late 1940's to today. Instead of battling the liberals, new-evangelicals sought dialogue and 'understanding' with liberals-- instead of either putting up a huge fight or pursuing their separation from them. Today, the term 'fundamentalist' ideally applies to those churches who separate from the liberals *and* new-evangelicals. Separation means that separatist/fundamentalists choose not to have any ministerial associations with liberals or new-evangelicals: to the liberals because of their apostacy and to new-evangelicals because of their disobedience to the Word of God.

A new movement that has arrived not too long after new-evangelicalism is the charismatic movement. This is another area where fundamentalists take their stand since charismatics desire to 'join' everyone-- beyond denominational or associational convictions-- in a least common denominator of Christianity. Their heavy abuse of the doctrine of 'tongues' and ecumenicalism has made this the new apostacy of our day.

Historic Christianity has always been 'fundamentalist' and even the definition of fundamentalism has never changed throughout church history. Only the application of fundamentalism has changed, in that we (fundamentalists) have defined the battle set before us until Christ comes, and those battles change every generation or so!

All of this courtesy of an.........Independent, Fundamental, Sovereign Grace, Missionary, Pre-Mill/Pre-Trib, NIV/NASB preaching , Calvinist, Predestined by the free will of God's foreknowledge and election, and a sinner saved *only* by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ...... BAPTIST!

[ September 17, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

Dat signature sho is a mouthful, ain't it?

Brian T: You're right brother, there would be a new issue with "Capital 'O'" and "small case 'o'" orthodoxy.

As I understand "fundamentalism" (using my two prior definitions) - J. Gresham Machen would fit into the small "f" camp, but not the capital "F" camp. He took a stand not only against Liberalism, but also against the Prohibition Movement. In fact, he caught a lot more heat for that.

Rev. G

 

Rev. G.--

I read your post about your distinction of "small" *f* fundamentalists and "capital" *F* fundamentalists. I would definitely take issue with your definition as describing "F" fundamentalists as being the standard for fundamentalism today. Dr. McLaughlin wrote a book called "Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism", and I would highly recommend it. I think that it presents a great argument to the classic definition of fundamentalists today, including the separation aspect.

J. Gresham Machen did hold to Presbyterian Reformed theology, but I would agree with you that his stand on prohibition was nonsense. Although he was a classic fundamentalist who fought (and eventually separated from) the liberals in the Presbyterian Church, he held to different beliefs concerning Eschatology and Baptism than we Baptists do, but I wouldn't think that he could still be considered a "F" fundamentalist in my list or yours.

IFB beliefs on fundamentalism are somewhat homogenized today, although there are differences. IFB's like myself are *not* KJV-only, Calvinist (not Hardshell or Landmark Baptist, but rather "Sovereign Grace" Missionary Baptist), and require women to wear head-coverings (and remain silent) while in church. I hold to more strict 'standards' that you yourself might think silly-- like head-coverings for women. I agree with you about men having long hair-- get a haircut (and see 1 Cor. 11). If men should not have long hair, why should a woman *not* have her head covered while in worship on Sunday (and Wednesday nights)? Well, this discussion might be for another thread, but you understand that "f" fundamentalists should also include separation-- and I wouldn't go much further than that because fundamentalism also crosses 'denomination' lines; there is such a group of believers who are Independent, Fundamental Methodists, as well as "Bible Presbyterians". Perhaps you should be more specific to include them, too!

 

I didn't say Machen's stance was "nonsense", just that he took a lot of heat for it (I think he was right, so I guess I'm "nonsensical"). He held to the fundamentals of the faith, so I classify him under "f" rather than "F".

Sounds like you and I agree on a lot of things, but not on all things. I can live with that. Hope you can too, brother.

Rev. G

 

Hey LRL:

What is the difference between the "Calvinist" and the "Sovereign Grace" position? Please enlighten me.

Rev. G

 

Rev. G.--

I believe that they are one and the same. "Calvinist" Baptists usually call themselves Sovereign Grace Independent Baptists, at least from the church that I'm with. There are numerous kinds of "Calvinist" Baptist churches out there, such as Hardshell, Landmark, Campbellite, etc... but those kinds of churches usually hold to a particular brand of doctrine that makes them distinct from "Sovereign Grace" Baptists. Other interchangable and synonymous terms used for "Calvinist" Baptists is also what are called "particular" Baptists, which is more common in Baptists in Britain. Charles Haddon Spurgeon is a good example of the 'common' Particular/Sovereign Grace/Calvinist Baptist, so if you are familiar with Spurgeon, then you have an idea of where my church stands on Soteriology. Although Spurgeon was not a PreMillennialist as I am, I would be comfortable being in a church like his, but would not join it. As far as the number of IFB churches who are "Calvinist", I'd say that about 1 in 10 are. We are not as numerous as our Arminian/Free Will brethren, nor with those who make up most of IFB's-- 'moderate' Calvinists who identify themselves as being "Biblicist" (see Calvary Baptist Church of Lansdale, PA-- I went to their seminary). Many "Bible" or "Community" churches who are Baptist in doctrine but not in name can also be put in our fold, although the title name of a church doesn't say much nowadays.

Yes, we probably have a large amount of agreement on polity and doctrine, but there are obvious differences of how we define "big F" Fundamentalists. I probably hold to a more broad definition, but not quite as broad as classical 'small "f"' fundamentalists-- in your terms. The common term used for 'standards' of Baptist polity and church membership may be different on some things such as personal dress, music, Bible versions, etc... however it is hard to define exactly where I would 'cut off' my definition of "big F" Fundamentalists since this area defines what we believe about personal separation from worldly practices! Here I would like to be careful about how I would define a "big F" Fundamentalist from "little f" fundamentalists since there is, in my opinion, not much of a difference even today, and I prefer to call only one group as being "fundamentalist"-- not two separate fundamentalist groups. How we apply personal convictions should not be a test of who is a "big F" Baptist Fundamentalist since there are areas where the standards one holds to are different than anothers where the Bible is silent on those issues. Yes, I would include the doctrine of separation in defining Fundamentalists in the arena of "ministerial associations" since we should separate from even other believers when doctrinal issues arise (i.e.-- new evangelicalism, charismatics, liberals, denominational distinctives, and those who hold to extra-biblical 'convictions' such as KJV-onlyism!), but I don't think that the "big F" Fundamentalist definition should apply also to where we stand on 'personal separation' and personal convictions (i.e.-- Bible versions, dress, music, entertainment). Yes, there are 'factions' in fundamentalism today, and we Baptist had better be aware that our denomination is not the only 'fundamental' one out there! Fundamentalists are also in Methodists and Presbyterians, too. Whether we should separate from Fundamentalist Methodists or Presbyterians in ministerial associations is very difficult to execute since I graduated from a college that has no denominational distinctives and yet is definitely a 'fundamentalist' school. I went to college with other fundamentalists of different denominational persuasions. That is probably as far as I would go in ministerial associations, although on a personal level I am friends with many of them! I hope that this clarifies what I would define a "fundamentalist".

 

Rev.G.--

Also, I needed to add a 'Baptist' denomination to the list: Reformed Baptists. They have a website, but I don't know it off hand, so you might be able to search for it using Google or Yahoo.

LRL71

 

Thank you for all of the helpful information, gentlemen.

Interesting note on being willing to separate from those who are disorderly. Makes it somewhat difficult being on this board, doesn't it?

Rev. G