PDA

View Full Version : What is the difference between the classic Fundamentalist and the Modern day


Plain Old Bill
11-11-2005, 06:06 PM
Fundamentalist?Can we even identify what a fundamentalist is these days?It seems we have just about 60,000 kinds of fundamentalists around.Some charismatics think of themselves as fundamentalist.Some Wof think of themselves as fundamental or evangelical.I have been to some IFB churches and have'nt found many mean spirited people that I know of.I've been to some SBC churches and have'nt found any mean spirited people.I have also been to some Pentecostal & AOG churches and have'nt found any mean spirited people that I know of.I don't think I've met any mean spirited people here on the board either.Now in all of these places the people have standards, some extra legal and some not,but I have'nt seen anybody with a mean intention.Now some of these folks may dig thier heels in a little on some matters but I don't think the idea they start out with is to be extra legal even though it turns out that way.Perhaps a better choice of words is extra-biblical(making rules not found in God's Word).

El_Guero
11-11-2005, 06:35 PM
HEY Bill!

Get back to me when ya' got the answer!

Plain Old Bill
11-11-2005, 06:46 PM
graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif Thanks for the help.

OleSchoolBaptist
11-11-2005, 07:13 PM
I think the largest problem with Fundamentalism is the lack of a clear theology. It held a hodgepodge of beliefs. When one studies Church History one can see that a lack of the study of theology brings about the destruction of church.

The series called "The Fundamentals" is a very good systematic theology. Problem is that too few people have read them, nor can explain what a fundamental is.

Plain Old Bill
11-11-2005, 07:17 PM
Edited by R.A. Torrey right .I can't count the times I have recommended that book to people on this board and elswhere.

OleSchoolBaptist
11-11-2005, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Edited by R.A. Torrey right .I can't count the times I have recommended that book to people on this board and elswhere. Yep. Its available online @ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm

Plain Old Bill
11-11-2005, 07:44 PM
I hope many people access your site and read the book.Thanks and God Bless.

OleSchoolBaptist
11-11-2005, 07:55 PM
Not my site...

I only found it. I like finding great theological works online. Helps when one is studying things to be able to cut and paste.

mioque
11-12-2005, 01:37 PM
classic Fundamentalist
OEC/Gap Theory
The Fundamentals (the series)
In a limited sense ecumenical

Modern day Fundamentalist
YEC
KJVO
strongly anti-ecumenical

John of Japan
11-13-2005, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by OleSchoolBaptist:
I think the largest problem with Fundamentalism is the lack of a clear theology. It held a hodgepodge of beliefs. When one studies Church History one can see that a lack of the study of theology brings about the destruction of church.

The series called "The Fundamentals" is a very good systematic theology. Problem is that too few people have read them, nor can explain what a fundamental is. I'll have to disagree with you here, OleSchoolBaptist. Fundamentalism is not a theology but a position. Fundamentalist theology, as treated in The Fundamentals, was and is nothing more than Bible-believing Christianity.

It appears that you are giving the typical portrayal of Fundamentalists as ignorant. If this is true, I resent it. Some of my mentors in the faith have been highly educated Fundamentalists, who knew their theology well: John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, Fred Moritz, etc.

I just finished an M. A. at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, a very strong Fundamentalist institution. It is accredited and has a high standard of scholarship. Our textbooks were the same as you would find at any conservative Baptist school: Erickson for the systematic theology, McBeth for the Baptist history, etc.

What happened in the 1950's with the rise of New Evangelcalism is that Evangelical theology changed while Fundamentalist theology stayed true to the portrait of Bible-believing Christianity given in The Fundamentals.

How did Evangelical theology change you say? I'm glad you asked! It changed in two major ways.

(1) Evangelicals elevated social action to an equal level with the original fundamentals. This can be seen in the writings of the 1950's founders of New Evangelicalism, in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, etc.

(2) Evangelicals ditched traditional separation, replacing it with a doctrine of accomodation to the surrounding culture. In the ecclesiastical world this meant rapproachment with liberal and neo-orthodox theologians.

New Evangelicals changed. Fundamentalists did not. We are "old school," as the young people like to say nowadays. smile.gif

John of Japan
11-13-2005, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by mioque:
classic Fundamentalist
OEC/Gap Theory
The Fundamentals (the series)
In a limited sense ecumenical

Modern day Fundamentalist
YEC
KJVO
strongly anti-ecumenical This is pretty simplistic, mioque. :rolleyes: In the first place, many many classic Fundamentalists never accepted the Gap Theory. (Sorry, I don't know what OEC is.)

In the second place, a hugh percentage of modern day Fundamentalism is not KJVO. (Sorry, I don't know what YEC is.) For non-KJVO Fundamentalist schools: BJU (the biggest Fundamentalist U. of all), Maranatha BBC (my grad school alma mater), Pillsbury BBC, Tennessee Temple U. (my alma mater), Central Baptist Theo. Sem., Detroit Bapt. Sem., Calvary Bapt. Sem. (where my son is now), etc.

John of Japan
11-13-2005, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Fundamentalist?Can we even identify what a fundamentalist is these days?It seems we have just about 60,000 kinds of fundamentalists around.Some charismatics think of themselves as fundamentalist.Some Wof think of themselves as fundamental or evangelical.I have been to some IFB churches and have'nt found many mean spirited people that I know of.I've been to some SBC churches and have'nt found any mean spirited people.I have also been to some Pentecostal & AOG churches and have'nt found any mean spirited people that I know of.I don't think I've met any mean spirited people here on the board either.Now in all of these places the people have standards, some extra legal and some not,but I have'nt seen anybody with a mean intention.Now some of these folks may dig thier heels in a little on some matters but I don't think the idea they start out with is to be extra legal even though it turns out that way.Perhaps a better choice of words is extra-biblical(making rules not found in God's Word). You are right, Plain Old Bill, the word Fundamentalist has been really twisted around. The news media redefines it however they want to, as do some Charismatics, etc. When Bob Jones III was over here in Japan about 12 years ago he said he was discouraged about that, and thought of renaming his position "Bible Believing Christian" (the title J. G. Machen preferred) or "Biblicist." :(

Having said that, I think I like the term "Historic Fundamentalist." The original Fundamentalists did not just believe in the Fundamentals (whatever list you prefer), they stood for them against liberalism.

Just take a look at the titles of the first seven chapters in The Fundamentals:
Chapter 1. The History of the Higher Criticism
Chapter 2. The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
Chapter 3. The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism Chapter 4. The Bible and Modern Criticism
Chapter 5. The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations
Chapter 6. Christ and Criticism
Chapter 7. Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity

So, the Historic Fundamentalist not only believes the fundamentals, but fights for them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :cool:

mioque
11-13-2005, 06:43 AM
John of Japan
"This is pretty simplistic, mioque."
"
It's a complete deliberate oversimplification, in truth it's little more than a starting place for what a list of differences might look like.

OEC = Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism* is something of a late development among Fundamentalism, something the movement picked up some decades ago from the Seventh Day Adventists who invented it.

KJVO didn't exist among original Fundamentalism, not that there was no vigorous criticism of translation issues among them. Modern Fundamentalism picked up KJVO (once again) from the Seventh Day Adventists .


*I don't mean the basic believe in a relatively recently created earth&it's inhabitants, I mean the explanation/defense of this notion in scientific terms.

OleSchoolBaptist
11-13-2005, 01:27 PM
I'll have to disagree with you here, OleSchoolBaptist. Fundamentalism is not a theology but a position. Fundamentalist theology, as treated in The Fundamentals, was and is nothing more than Bible-believing Christianity.
Yes I know its more of a position. However wanna be preachers such as Jeff Owens make it out to be more.
It appears that you are giving the typical portrayal of Fundamentalists as ignorant. If this is true, I resent it. Some of my mentors in the faith have been highly educated Fundamentalists, who knew their theology well: John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, Fred Moritz, etc.Glad to see you are not being dogmatic about what you thought I might mean. I have many books by John R. Rice and somewhere a biography of Monk Parker, and one book by Moritz. I call myself an ole school baptist because I believe the old school doctrines of Baptists. Most of the IFB's I know have no clue what the fundamentals are, let alone how to fight for them.

I just finished an M. A. at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, a very strong Fundamentalist institution. It is accredited and has a high standard of scholarship. Our textbooks were the same as you would find at any conservative Baptist school: Erickson for the systematic theology, McBeth for the Baptist history, etc.Congratulations are in order. Maranatha is a great school.

What happened in the 1950's with the rise of New Evangelcalism is that Evangelical theology changed while Fundamentalist theology stayed true to the portrait of Bible-believing Christianity given in The Fundamentals.

How did Evangelical theology change you say? I'm glad you asked! It changed in two major ways.

(1) Evangelicals elevated social action to an equal level with the original fundamentals. This can be seen in the writings of the 1950's founders of New Evangelicalism, in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, etc.

(2) Evangelicals ditched traditional separation, replacing it with a doctrine of accomodation to the surrounding culture. In the ecclesiastical world this meant rapproachment with liberal and neo-orthodox theologians.

New Evangelicals changed. Fundamentalists did not. We are "old school," as the young people like to say nowadays. smile.gif No real problem there...

Plain Old Bill
11-13-2005, 11:14 PM
Right on Bro. John of Japan.I have used the term Biblicist for years now,it drives some people nuts here on the board.When church doctrine or theological positions come at variance with the Bible guess who has the problem?

John of Japan
11-14-2005, 02:05 AM
OleSchoolBaptist, sounds like we are on the same page! And you are right, there is a generation of young IFB's who know nothing about their spiritual origins. :rolleyes:

John of Japan
11-14-2005, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Right on Bro. John of Japan.I have used the term Biblicist for years now,it drives some people nuts here on the board.When church doctrine or theological positions come at variance with the Bible guess who has the problem? graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif

John of Japan
11-14-2005, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by mioque:
John of Japan
"This is pretty simplistic, mioque."

It's a complete deliberate oversimplification, in truth it's little more than a starting place for what a list of differences might look like.

OEC = Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism* is something of a late development among Fundamentalism, something the movement picked up some decades ago from the Seventh Day Adventists who invented it.

KJVO didn't exist among original Fundamentalism, not that there was no vigorous criticism of translation issues among them. Modern Fundamentalism picked up KJVO (once again) from the Seventh Day Adventists .

*I don't mean the basic believe in a relatively recently created earth&it's inhabitants, I mean the explanation/defense of this notion in scientific terms. Hi, mioque. Thanks for the clarifications.

If we're going to get simplistic here, let's add premillenial doctrine. Ernest Sandeen's thesis in The Roots of Fundamentalism was that we should go way back into 19th millenarianism to find original Fundamentalism. I disagree: many conservatives in the Fundamentalist vs. Modernist debates were post-mil. I don't agree with Sandeen.

Another simplistic view is that being a Fundamentalist only means that you believe the fundamentals. This indeed is simplistic, otherwise all conservative Christians would be Fundamentalists.

No, I believe that an unbiased look at those who first consciously called their movement Fundamentalism reveals that (1) holding to the Fundamentals, plus (2) taking a stand against modernism/liberalism are both important. This is what got G. Gresham Machen defrocked, John R. Rice blackballed by the Texas Baptist Convention, etc.

That's my definition and I'm sticking to it! graemlins/type.gif And there are still a very large percentage of Fundamentalists (yours truly included) who would describe themselves this way, minus an exact definition of creationism (though they would oppose evolution on general principles), etc. (Still, point taken on YEC and OEC.)

P. S. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on the SDA origin for the KJVO doctrine among Fundamentalists. I know where you are coming from, via Which Bible?. But IMHO Burgon, Hills, Ruckman (ugh! :( ) et al had much more influence than Wilkinson. After Fuller, I don't know of any authors who referenced Wilkinson.

C4K
11-14-2005, 02:38 AM
I also prefer the term "Biblicist" but am not ashamed of my heritage as a fundamentalist.

It was through IFB churches that I was saved, baptised, discipled, and trained. The greatest lesson was the importance of the word of God.

I believe that true modern fundamentalists are Historic Fundamentalists.

El_Guero
11-14-2005, 11:13 AM
Bill

You got an answer, yet? graemlins/thumbs.gif

MikeinGhana
11-15-2005, 06:52 AM
Just because people twist the word fundamental to mean what the want it to mean does not mean that we shold run from it. A Fundamentalist is a Biblicist. I do agree with the above statement that Fundamentalism, along with its stand for the Word of God, also includes an attitude of defending/contending for the faith. If that means we sometimes fight for it, then so be it. What I am ashamed of is the way we Fundamentalists fight each other over minor issues. We are the only army that shoots our own soldiers (in the back).

John of Japan
11-15-2005, 08:49 AM
I'm with you Mike. I haven't abandoned the term Fundamentalist yet. As long as I can still explain it satisfactorialy and receive some measure of understanding I'll stick with it. And yes, it is a shame how Fundamentalists like to shoot at each other.

Fortunately, in the Japanese language we have separate terms for what the liberal (here, too!) media calls "Fundamentalist" (Genshishugi) and what Christians call Fundamentalist (Konponshugi). graemlins/thumbs.gif

All about Grace
11-15-2005, 10:07 AM
Fortunately, in the Japanese language we have separate terms for what the liberal (here, too!) media calls "Fundamentalist" (Genshishugi) and what Christians call Fundamentalist (Konponshugi). Which was part of the previous discussion. Tell me ... would you accept and be known by the term "genshishugi" and all it represents in your culture?

Squire Robertsson
11-15-2005, 11:35 AM
As John is sleeping now, I'll hazard an answer for him. Probably not, the Japanese language can be precise when it wants to be.

Ed Edwards
11-15-2005, 08:28 PM
Ed's short history of the term 'Fundamentalism'

I have a 1982 dictionary that says:

Fundamentalist -n- 1. One who adheers to a movement in
American Protestantism that arose in the early part of
the 20th Century and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible
in all matters of faith and doctrine, accepting it as a literal
historical record

Fundamentalist -n- 2. One who adheers to the beliefs of
this movement

Prior to about 1984 (the second election of Regan)
'Fundamentalism mean as above. But anti-Regan and anti-rightwing
elements in the libral press came up with a new defintion
of 'fundamentalist'. In this definition, constructs were
used in the press like: 'fundamentalist Muslim terrorist'.
(Apparently we were to judge (according to the liberal press)
ech 'fundamentalist', including protestant Christians, as though
they were a 'fundamentalist Muslim terrorist'.

fundamentalist -n- 3. Any of the book religionists (Jewish,
Christian, Mulsim) who interpets his religious book literaly

Then come the early 90s about the time of the first Gulf War
and the liberal press responding to "George's (Bush I) War"
added the final meaning of 'fundamentalism':

fundamentalist -n- 4. A bigot of whatever stripe.
----------------------------------------------------------

So, are we Fundamentalists going to discuss the liberal press'es
defintion of 'fundamentalists' or our own defintions?
If our own, i recommend some definitions real quick.

/though our missionary in Japan has done a
fair job/

John of Japan
11-17-2005, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
As John is sleeping now, I'll hazard an answer for him. Probably not, the Japanese language can be precise when it wants to be. You got me right, Squire. "Domo. Domo arigato." ("Thank you. Thank you very much.") graemlins/thumbs.gif

I would not want to be known as "genshishugi." The term when used by the Japanese media means approximately what the U. S. press means when they use "Fundamentalist." So the Japanese use it for Islamic radicals, as well as for ANY American evangelical (including George W. Bush!). And the typical Japanese reporter or citizen understands Bible-believing Christianity not at all--zero--zilch! :(

All about Grace
11-17-2005, 09:52 AM
JofJ ~ You are making the exact point that I raised in the previous discussion. The label "fundamentalist" in American culture carries certain baggage. Agree or disagree with the baggage associated with the title, the reality still exists.

bapmom
11-17-2005, 10:02 AM
unfortunately the English language does not have the preciseness in it which would allow us to call ourselves "konponshugi".

So we have to keep defining our own term for everyone. The same happens when we decide to call ourselves something else, like Biblicist, or Historic Baptist. It is unfamiliar and so people ask what it means....hopefully. smile.gif

We have to try to define the person or church by what they do, rather than solely by a term they use to describe themselves.

Do you agree?

John of Japan
11-17-2005, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by All about Grace:
JofJ ~ You are making the exact point that I raised in the previous discussion. The label "fundamentalist" in American culture carries certain baggage. Agree or disagree with the baggage associated with the title, the reality still exists. Yeah, I figured this was where you were going with this. :rolleyes:

As bapmom pointed out, there is more precision in this matter in the Japanese language than there is in the English language. However, it is much easier to explain to a lost American what a true Fundamentalist is than it is to explain to a Japanese. So I will continue to use the English term Fundamentalist, since I can adequately explain it to an American. I will continue to use "konponshugi" in Japanese because it is easier to explain than "genshishugi."

As I pointed out in my above post, the average Japanese has no understanding--none--of Bible-believing Christianity. Frankly, no matter what term I use here I am subject to discrimination as an ignorant, backward person. I am content with that. The Bible tells me that I WILL suffer persecution if I live godly in Christ Jesus.

In America I will suffer persecution whether I call myself a Bible-believer, Biblicist, Historical Fundamentalist, or anything that indicates I actually believe the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant Word. In fact, there are people on the BB who will persecute me for that. I am content with that, too.

Unfortunately, the problem in America is not that non-believers persecute you for calling yourself a Fundamentalist. I have a WASB (white Anglo-Saxon Buddhist) sister-in-law from Seattle, hotbed of liberalism, who is very understanding of my beliefs. We have a great time discussing religion! The problem in America is that Evangelicals will persecute me for calling myself a Fundamentalist. :(

I'm going to keep my eyes on Jesus, try to pastor my little flock, and not worry about it! graemlins/saint.gif

All about Grace
11-18-2005, 11:48 AM
it is much easier to explain to a lost American what a true Fundamentalist is than it is to explain to a Japanese. So I will continue to use the English term Fundamentalist, since I can adequately explain it to an American. This logic is amusing to me -- it is easier to explain to an unbeliever why I am not everything they perceive a fundamentalist to be (which is usually fairly accurate at some level). Therefore I am going to keep the title?

Let me ask you this: if there were an English term that better defined your position, would you use that title?

You have actually already answered this question by adapting the more defined Japanese word for fundy.

the problem in America is not that non-believers persecute you for calling yourself a Fundamentalist. I have a WASB (white Anglo-Saxon Buddhist) sister-in-law from Seattle, hotbed of liberalism, who is very understanding of my beliefs. We have a great time discussing religion! The problem in America is that Evangelicals will persecute me for calling myself a Fundamentalist. I disagree with this statement. We minister in a very unchurched culture (similar to Seattle) and I can tell you wearing the title "fundamentalist" would be a HUGE obstacle for the average unbeliever in our culture.

I'm going to keep my eyes on Jesus, try to pastor my little flock, and not worry about it! This sounds spiritual, but in reality, you had better be very concerned about the image you portray to the culture God has called you to engage with the gospel. Contextualization is a missional calling for all churches.

C4K
11-18-2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by All about Grace:
JofJ ~ You are making the exact point that I raised in the previous discussion. The label "fundamentalist" in American culture carries certain baggage. Agree or disagree with the baggage associated with the title, the reality still exists. Lets not return to that discussion please. The topic of this thread is classic vs modern fundamentalism, not the "baggage" associated with being a fundamentalist.

All about Grace
11-18-2005, 02:14 PM
The baggage is part of the discussion.

C4K
11-18-2005, 02:27 PM
Sorry AAG, we are not going to have another 20 pages discussing the "baggage."

We are going to keep this thread on topic. As I am not involved in this debate I will act in a moderating capacity if needed in order to ensure staying on topic.

The topic is discussing the differences between classic and modern fundamentalism.

Thanking all in advance for compliance.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

Paul33
11-18-2005, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OleSchoolBaptist:
I think the largest problem with Fundamentalism is the lack of a clear theology. It held a hodgepodge of beliefs. When one studies Church History one can see that a lack of the study of theology brings about the destruction of church.

The series called "The Fundamentals" is a very good systematic theology. Problem is that too few people have read them, nor can explain what a fundamental is. I'll have to disagree with you here, OleSchoolBaptist. Fundamentalism is not a theology but a position. Fundamentalist theology, as treated in The Fundamentals, was and is nothing more than Bible-believing Christianity.

It appears that you are giving the typical portrayal of Fundamentalists as ignorant. If this is true, I resent it. Some of my mentors in the faith have been highly educated Fundamentalists, who knew their theology well: John R. Rice, Monroe Parker, Fred Moritz, etc.

I just finished an M. A. at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, a very strong Fundamentalist institution. It is accredited and has a high standard of scholarship. Our textbooks were the same as you would find at any conservative Baptist school: Erickson for the systematic theology, McBeth for the Baptist history, etc.

What happened in the 1950's with the rise of New Evangelcalism is that Evangelical theology changed while Fundamentalist theology stayed true to the portrait of Bible-believing Christianity given in The Fundamentals.

How did Evangelical theology change you say? I'm glad you asked! It changed in two major ways.

(1) Evangelicals elevated social action to an equal level with the original fundamentals. This can be seen in the writings of the 1950's founders of New Evangelicalism, in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, etc.

(2) Evangelicals ditched traditional separation, replacing it with a doctrine of accomodation to the surrounding culture. In the ecclesiastical world this meant rapproachment with liberal and neo-orthodox theologians.

New Evangelicals changed. Fundamentalists did not. We are "old school," as the young people like to say nowadays. smile.gif </font>[/QUOTE]I hear this revisionist history from you "modern" fundamentalists all the time.

Historic fundamentalism didn't really hold to separation. They originally tried to regain control of their denominations without separating! It was only after some of the fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations that they "elevated" separation to the level of a "fundamental."

New evangelicals (and many who were/are not) reacted to this extreme and bitter separation by not wanting to identify with this new expression of fundamentalism.

Conservative evangelicals who are fundamental in doctrine but who fellowship across denominational lines are the true adherents of historic fundamentalism.

MBBC may be softening a little, but they hardly represent the true nature of fundamentalism if they continue to divide over eschatology, etc.

Eric Rolen
11-18-2005, 04:20 PM
While i believe in the fundamental truths of Scripture. We should not soften our stance but we should not get bogged down on issues but we need to get lifted up with scripture. I speak for only myself but I want to be out shedding light of scripture to the lost alot more than i already do and not worrying about little stuff.

Johnv
11-18-2005, 04:51 PM
We need to be aware of what we consider fundamental. We need to be Christians before we are fundemantalist, not after. There are tons of Christian fundamentalists out there, but not a lot of fundamental Christians.

To be a classic fundamental Christian, one must adhere to the scriptural fundemantals. Where scripture speaks, we should speak. Where scripture is silent, we should be silent. Getting the first part is easy, but the second part is hard.

One of the biggest damaging movements to the church is neofundamentalism. You know, the ones who require KJVOism, pretrib rapture, etc, as scriptural doctrine.

John of Japan
11-18-2005, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
I hear this revisionist history from you "modern" fundamentalists all the time.

Historic fundamentalism didn't really hold to separation. They originally tried to regain control of their denominations without separating! It was only after some of the fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations that they "elevated" separation to the level of a "fundamental."

New evangelicals (and many who were/are not) reacted to this extreme and bitter separation by not wanting to identify with this new expression of fundamentalism.

Conservative evangelicals who are fundamental in doctrine but who fellowship across denominational lines are the true adherents of historic fundamentalism.
You missed my original definition. Thus you are misrepresenting my position. You have set up a straw man.

I did not include separation in my definition. I said that the original Fundamentalists first of all believed the Fundamentals, and then took a stand against liberalism. What then happened in most cases was that the liberals separated from the Fundamentalists, not vice versa. J. Frank Norris and John R. Rice were blackballed by the Texas Baptist Convention, J. Gresham Machen and others were defrocked by the Presbyterians, and so it went.

Separation then became a logical outgrowth of the original position. If you take a stand against liberalism, you will be hated by both the liberals and the accomodationists. However, no Fundamentalist ever, EVER elevated separation to the level of a Fundamental. You cannot prove this statement because the proof doesn't exist. This is unlike New Evangelicalism, which elevated social action to the level of a fundamental in the Laussanne Covenant.

New Evangelicalism was a distinct theology, beginning in the early 1950's, of dialogue and cooperation with liberals. Therefore it was not Fundamentalism. It did not want to be Fundamentalism. It explicitly rejected the title of Fundamentalism.

Bro. James
11-19-2005, 06:58 AM
Someone made allusion that we are throwing darts at men of straw. I agree. The question does not define a reality. i.e. there are many assemblies which would be considered "Fundamental", yet they are not classic, whatever that means, nor are are they modern, whatever that means. Their fundamentals go back to the shores of Galilee, circa A.D. 30, "Come follow me, I will make you to be fishers of men". These fundamentalists did not come from Rome nor Wittenburg.

Selah,

Bro. James

Paul33
11-19-2005, 02:55 PM
Modern day fundamentalists claim that if you don't separate from everyone that they have separated from you are not a fundamentalist but a new evangelical.

That's simply not true. The hyper separation of modern day fundamentalism (NBBC, MBBC, BJU) is not the fundamentalism of the 1920s.

Social action is not a negative! We are required by the gospel to be concerned about the whole person when we witness.

Now, if Ockenga's definition of neo-evangelical is correct, "dialogue with liberals" he went too far. But the modern day fundamentalist has no right to call historic fundamentalists "new evangelicals."

Yes, there are new evangelicals who are now compromising the fundamentals. And yes, there are hyper modern day fundamentalists who are compromising the fundamentals. And then there is a large middle identified as historic fundamentalists and/or conservative evangelicals who are holding to the fundamentals AND the historical fellowship of those who do across denominational lines!

John of Japan
11-20-2005, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by Paul33:
Modern day fundamentalists claim that if you don't separate from everyone that they have separated from you are not a fundamentalist but a new evangelical.

That's simply not true. The hyper separation of modern day fundamentalism (NBBC, MBBC, BJU) is not the fundamentalism of the 1920s.

Social action is not a negative! We are required by the gospel to be concerned about the whole person when we witness.

Now, if Ockenga's definition of neo-evangelical is correct, "dialogue with liberals" he went too far. But the modern day fundamentalist has no right to call historic fundamentalists "new evangelicals."

Yes, there are new evangelicals who are now compromising the fundamentals. And yes, there are hyper modern day fundamentalists who are compromising the fundamentals. And then there is a large middle identified as historic fundamentalists and/or conservative evangelicals who are holding to the fundamentals AND the historical fellowship of those who do across denominational lines! So, Paul33, how do you define the original Fundamentalists? Do you agree with my definition or not? If we are actually to debate on this particular thread we need to have definitions produced from the historical data.

So far, forgive my opinion, but you are being simplistic. Your statement, "Modern day fundamentalists claim that if you don't separate from everyone that they have separated from you are not a fundamentalist but a new evangelical," is quite simplistic. ("Everyone that they have separated from???!!!") Modern day Fundamentalism is far more varied and complicated than this. But we can't get to whether or not it or some faction of it is close to the original Fundamentalism or not, until we define the original Fundamentalism.

John of Japan
11-20-2005, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by Paul33:

Social action is not a negative! We are required by the gospel to be concerned about the whole person when we witness.
Of course social action is not a negative (at least most of the time)! You missed my point. My point was that evangelicalism changed with the introduction of New Evangelicalism in the 1950's.

Fundamentalism has changed, too, absolutely! It's been almost 100 years, after all! My goal in this thread is to discuss exactly what the OP talked about. I'd like to do this in a scholarly manner, with reference to the historical data as compared to the modern data. Getting all hot and bothered about it is boring. :cool:

Are you with me? Do you have access to a good library with sources about the genuine historical data? (Hopefully not just the Internet! :rolleyes: )

Bro. James
11-20-2005, 10:00 AM
There are two fundamental scriptural doctrines which can be followed from the first assembly started by Jesus even until today:

1. Scriptural Baptism

2. Closed Communion

This history is written in the blood of those who have practiced such things and much of the history has been torched. There is much to be gleaned from a study of "Anabaptists".

The term "modern" does not apply. The above referenced groups are "in the world, but not of the world", just like Jesus said. The world hates the followers of Jesus, as do the churches of the world.

Selah,

Bro. James

John of Japan
11-20-2005, 07:38 PM
And once again, James, you make me say: Huh? What are you trying to say that applies to this topic? :confused:

Bro. James
11-20-2005, 11:01 PM
Subject: Fundamental Baptists, past and present.

Listed are two fundamental doctrines which have made fundamental Baptists fundamental throughout the age.

The difference between then and now is there are not many fundamental Baptists practicing these fundamental doctrines any longer; in fact, some never have. This is a fulfillment of prophesy: the end shall not come until there be a falling away first;... they will not endure sound doctrine, but will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

Selah,

Bro. James

John of Japan
11-20-2005, 11:32 PM
Closed communion as a fundamental doctrine? I don't think so. Absolutely no historical or Biblical proof on that one. I dare you to start a thread on it--you'll be blown away! :rolleyes:

Squire Robertsson
11-21-2005, 01:16 PM
The differences arise from how one parses the phrase I stand for truth and I stand against error.I don't try to compare "the classic Fundamentalist and the Modern day" in a strict manner. To do so in my opinion is like trying to fight the current war with the last war's tactics and weapons. While the struggle against error remains, the issues in conflict are not necessarily the same.

Paul33
11-21-2005, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:

Social action is not a negative! We are required by the gospel to be concerned about the whole person when we witness.
Of course social action is not a negative (at least most of the time)! You missed my point. My point was that evangelicalism changed with the introduction of New Evangelicalism in the 1950's.

Fundamentalism has changed, too, absolutely! It's been almost 100 years, after all! My goal in this thread is to discuss exactly what the OP talked about. I'd like to do this in a scholarly manner, with reference to the historical data as compared to the modern data. Getting all hot and bothered about it is boring. :cool:

Are you with me? Do you have access to a good library with sources about the genuine historical data? (Hopefully not just the Internet! :rolleyes: ) </font>[/QUOTE]John, I didn't think I was getting hot and bothered. smile.gif

Also, I think I've already defined the fundamentalism of the 1920s. These men and women who believed the fundamentals of the faith were IN the denominations. They banded together across denominational lines to defend the fundamentals of the faith. Separation wasn't even on the radar screen at the time.

Today, modern fundamentalists have elevated separation to a fundamental, if not the highest fundamental. Whole lists are developed in the various so-called fundamental institutions that identify who one can fellowship with without compromising and therefore becoming a new evangelical.

My point is that there is a large section made up of historic fundamentalists and alleged "conservative evangelicals" that carry on the banner of historic fundamentalism and fellowship across denominational lines. This clearly is not the fundamentalism of NBBC, MBBC, PBBC, BJU, etc. which separates over minor doctrinal issues such as dispensationalism, pre-trib rapture, music styles, KJV preference, etc.

Bro. James
11-22-2005, 06:17 AM
That such a doctrine(closed communion) has been practiced by Catholicism for centuries is still evident in their faith and practice--that should be sufficient historical proof of existence.(I do not bow to the Holy See; I am just pointing out the historicity of "closed communion".)

That such was practiced prior to Nicea can be gleaned from scripture: one loaf, one body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism--all meaningless with the teaching of universal visible/invisible church.

Selah,

Bro. James

Plain Old Bill
11-22-2005, 03:50 PM
Here is a question.Is there any truly Biblical fundamentalist recognizable organisation(in the historic sense)around today?

John of Japan
11-22-2005, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Here is a question.Is there any truly Biblical fundamentalist recognizable organisation(in the historic sense)around today? Considering that it is almost 100 years since "The Fundamentals," the social and religious scene has changed completely. I'm going to have to ponder on this one, Bill.

We have a Japanese Thanksgiving celebration today with our sister church. Going to be busy! Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, everyone.

John of Japan
11-22-2005, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:


John, I didn't think I was getting hot and bothered. smile.gif

Also, I think I've already defined the fundamentalism of the 1920s. These men and women who believed the fundamentals of the faith were IN the denominations. They banded together across denominational lines to defend the fundamentals of the faith. Separation wasn't even on the radar screen at the time.

Today, modern fundamentalists have elevated separation to a fundamental, if not the highest fundamental. Whole lists are developed in the various so-called fundamental institutions that identify who one can fellowship with without compromising and therefore becoming a new evangelical.

My point is that there is a large section made up of historic fundamentalists and alleged "conservative evangelicals" that carry on the banner of historic fundamentalism and fellowship across denominational lines. This clearly is not the fundamentalism of NBBC, MBBC, PBBC, BJU, etc. which separates over minor doctrinal issues such as dispensationalism, pre-trib rapture, music styles, KJV preference, etc. Hot and bothered? Of course not! Not with statements like "extreme and bitter separation." I'm going to call you on some things here.

(1) Please give historical evidence of this supposed bitterness by Fundamentalists in the early days. Try to do it without using the typical whipping boys of J. Frank Norris and Carl McIntyre. I say those men were the exceptions not the rule, and I can give historical evidence.

(2) Give proof that Fundamentalists have elevated separatism to a fundamental. Got any doctrinal statements to quote? Got a reference to one of those lists of who to separate from that you are talking about?

Gotta go, or I'd have more questions. graemlins/wave.gif

Paul33
11-23-2005, 05:25 PM
John, you are really showing your ignorance here.

NBBC won't send music groups to churches that are part of the BGC, even though most of these churches are "fundamental" in doctrine.

Read NBBC doctrinal statement to discover their "doctrinal" stand on separation.

The bitterness that existed between two fundamentalists, John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Sr. should be enough to prove that fundamentalists separated from each other, and when they did so, they were often bitter and extreme!

John, you know better.

Squire Robertsson
11-23-2005, 05:48 PM
Again, it goes to how you parse the phrase I quoted above. We can properly state most folks referred to in this discussion Stand for the Truth. The problem arises in how a person defines and practices Standing against error.

John of Japan
11-23-2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
John, you are really showing your ignorance here.

NBBC won't send music groups to churches that are part of the BGC, even though most of these churches are "fundamental" in doctrine.

Read NBBC doctrinal statement to discover their "doctrinal" stand on separation.

The bitterness that existed between two fundamentalists, John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Sr. should be enough to prove that fundamentalists separated from each other, and when they did so, they were often bitter and extreme!

John, you know better. Please look again, Paul. I am looking for the history of the "early days" here. The 1970's may be "early days" to you, but it is part of my adult life. ;)

I want historical evidence of the so-called bitter spirit that supposedly characterized the Fundamentalists of the 1920s-1930s. Bob Jones Jr. was a little boy and John R. Rice was doing tent evangelism and starting SBC churches as a fresh young evangelist in Texas. (And by the way, the bitterness there was one-sided. John R. Rice was not bitter about Jones, but sad. After Jones started the personal attacks, Rice never again wrote articles about the problem or discussed it in public.)

As for NBBC making ecclesiastical separation a fundamental, I'll check it out. I admit that having been in Japan for 24 years there is a lot I don't know about American religion. However, I'll say in advance that I don't think one example will prove your point. I'm also going to look at the doctrinal statements of many fundamental institutions.

Paul33
11-24-2005, 12:31 PM
John, you are proving my point.

Historically, fundamentalists of the 20s did not have a bitter spirit towards each other. They banded together across denominational lines. That's my point.

Today's fundamentalism separates not only across denominational lines but within ecclesiastical streams (independent fundamental baptists separting from Baptist General Conference baptists).

The only "issue" causing the separation, in most cases, is not a difference in doctrine or practice, but merely because one baptist church is in the BGC and the other is not.

John of Japan
11-24-2005, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
John, you are proving my point.

Historically, fundamentalists of the 20s did not have a bitter spirit towards each other. They banded together across denominational lines. That's my point.

Today's fundamentalism separates not only across denominational lines but within ecclesiastical streams (independent fundamental baptists separting from Baptist General Conference baptists).

The only "issue" causing the separation, in most cases, is not a difference in doctrine or practice, but merely because one baptist church is in the BGC and the other is not. Really, Paul, you must read your own posts! ;) Your original post on this thread said, "Historic fundamentalism didn't really hold to separation. They originally tried to regain control of their denominations without separating! It was only after some of the fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations that they 'elevated' separation to the level of a 'fundamental.' New evangelicals (and many who were/are not) reacted to this extreme and bitter separation by not wanting to identify with this new expression of fundamentalism."

When do you think it actually happened that some Fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations? (Not to mention those who were forced out by the liberals and moderates, which issue you have never addressed) The same Fundamentalists who hung together so nicely in fighting liberalism were out much earlier than you seem to think.

The Baptist Bible Union was formed in 1923. Machen left Princeton Seminary and helped found the Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. Machen was then defrocked in 1934 and helped start the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936.

These early Fundamentalist separatists have been slandered as being mean-spirited and nasty people. They were not. They were noble men of God who stood for the truth of the Word of God against liberalism and suffered the consequences.

I ask you again to give me an example of an early separatist Fundamentalist who was "extreme and bitter" (your words) in his separation. There were exceptions such as McIntyre and Norris--I admit that. But there have been such people in every movement. The example of a few does not negate the movement.

John of Japan
11-24-2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Here is a question.Is there any truly Biblical fundamentalist recognizable organisation(in the historic sense)around today? Bill, I'm still thinking about this. To give credit where credit is due, Paul33 has really stimulated my thinking and I'm doing lots of research right now. Of course Paul may want to deny any knowledge of my presence! :D

To give a preliminary answer to this question, I am with Squire in that I don't think it is possible to make direct parallels. However, I believe I can say what organizations are NOT Fundamentalist in the historic sense. Any organization nowadays that has added or subracted from the original fundamentals as described in the original series of pamphlets with that name, is not historic fundamentalist, IMO.

In particular, any Fundamentalist organization which has added the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture to their doctrinal statement (however they state it) is not Fundamentalist, IMHO. Likewise, any evangelical organization which adds social action to their doctrinal statement, or by the same token adheres to the Laussanne (sp?) Covenant which does so, is not an heir to the original Fundamentalists. Change your doctrinal stand and you change your emphases. graemlins/type.gif

Paul33
11-25-2005, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
John, you are proving my point.

Historically, fundamentalists of the 20s did not have a bitter spirit towards each other. They banded together across denominational lines. That's my point.

Today's fundamentalism separates not only across denominational lines but within ecclesiastical streams (independent fundamental baptists separting from Baptist General Conference baptists).

The only "issue" causing the separation, in most cases, is not a difference in doctrine or practice, but merely because one baptist church is in the BGC and the other is not. Really, Paul, you must read your own posts! ;) Your original post on this thread said, "Historic fundamentalism didn't really hold to separation. They originally tried to regain control of their denominations without separating! It was only after some of the fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations that they 'elevated' separation to the level of a 'fundamental.' New evangelicals (and many who were/are not) reacted to this extreme and bitter separation by not wanting to identify with this new expression of fundamentalism."

When do you think it actually happened that some Fundamentalists pulled out of their denominations? (Not to mention those who were forced out by the liberals and moderates, which issue you have never addressed) The same Fundamentalists who hung together so nicely in fighting liberalism were out much earlier than you seem to think.

The Baptist Bible Union was formed in 1923. Machen left Princeton Seminary and helped found the Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. Machen was then defrocked in 1934 and helped start the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936.

These early Fundamentalist separatists have been slandered as being mean-spirited and nasty people. They were not. They were noble men of God who stood for the truth of the Word of God against liberalism and suffered the consequences.

I ask you again to give me an example of an early separatist Fundamentalist who was "extreme and bitter" (your words) in his separation. There were exceptions such as McIntyre and Norris--I admit that. But there have been such people in every movement. The example of a few does not negate the movement. </font>[/QUOTE]John, I think that we are in agreement on this point! smile.gif

Machen and others who were forced out didn't separate willingly.

There were others who left on their own and then became antagonistic towards those who didn't separate.

But by the time Ockenga coined the term neo-evangelical, the rhetoric was getting quite loud. Separation from those who didn't separate became the rallying cry.

Today, missionaries who served with the CBA Foreign Mission Board are ostracized from their relatives for being under the banner of the CBA.

Sad, really sad. NBBC is one of the leading culprits along with BJU, etc.

Again, John, I think we agree. The early fundamentalists were not bitter. But by the 40s and 50s there was a lot of bitterness. This attitude of separating from others over percieved association with new evangelicals extends into the modern day fundamentalist movement as represented by NBBC. :(

John of Japan
11-27-2005, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Paul33:
Originally posted by Paul33:

John, I think that we are in agreement on this point! smile.gif

Machen and others who were forced out didn't separate willingly.

There were others who left on their own and then became antagonistic towards those who didn't separate.

But by the time Ockenga coined the term neo-evangelical, the rhetoric was getting quite loud. Separation from those who didn't separate became the rallying cry.

Today, missionaries who served with the CBA Foreign Mission Board are ostracized from their relatives for being under the banner of the CBA.

Sad, really sad. NBBC is one of the leading culprits along with BJU, etc.

Again, John, I think we agree. The early fundamentalists were not bitter. But by the 40s and 50s there was a lot of bitterness. This attitude of separating from others over percieved association with new evangelicals extends into the modern day fundamentalist movement as represented by NBBC. :( Well, Paul, I think we agree to a degree until we agree to disagree. :D

Seriously, we do agree somewhat. However, there is a hitch. You said that the early Fundamentalists were not separatists, and one faction only became separatists later. Frankly, when this thread started I had not made up my mind about that. Honest!

However, the more research I do the more I am convinced that the early Fundamentalists were indeed separatists. The truth is, I can't find a single scholar who says they were not, and 4 or 5 who say they were! And think about it. If they opposed modernism/liberalism so strongly, they wanted the liberals out of their denominations, didn't they? That's separatism.

Concerning Machen, look again at the dates up above. Machen first withdrew, separated if you will, from Princeton to found Westminster. Then after that his denomination separated from him. Ouch!

Now here is a place where I've come to agree with you, when I hadn't thought much of it before. As you say, there was a faction of Fundamentalists who left or were kicked out of their denominations. They stayed separatist. Then there was a faction that stayed in their denominations. This faction ceased being separatists. However, unfortunately my research says in most cases that the major motive for this was simply denominational loyalty. Two historical examples of this are missionary to China Jonathan Goforth, and N. Baptist J. C. Masee.

I've come to realize there was a third group of early Fundamentalists which were already in a way separatists. This group is the evangelicals who had already started a non-denominational movement dating to the Bible conferences of the late 19th cent., working through Bible institutes such as Moody and Biola.

"And that's our news for today. Goodnight from Japan." graemlins/type.gif

John of Japan
11-27-2005, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Here is a question.Is there any truly Biblical fundamentalist recognizable organisation(in the historic sense)around today? Bill, I've decided I'm not qualified to answer this, due to having been in Japan too long. I really don't know what is going on in the States in such organizations as the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship or Southwide Baptist Fellowship, or most Fundamentalist colleges. All I can say is, I do believe Baptist World Mission is staying true to the original Fundamentalist principles.

Here is something extremely ironic, though. As has been pointed out on another thread, Norm Geisler, one of the founding members of the Evangelical Theological Society, has withdrawn (separated!) from the society over the decision to allow Clark Pinnock and his heresies to stay in!! And Geisler was one of the original New Evangelicals!! It's deja vu all over again, and back we go to the '20's! :eek: graemlins/laugh.gif

Paul33
11-27-2005, 08:21 AM
John,

Consider Riley who was a stalwart of fundamentalism but who didn't pull out of the NBC until just before his death.

And yes, those who believed in historic Christianity wanted to regain control of their denominations from theological liberals. In that sense they might be called separatists, but historically, they really seemed closer to the Puritans who wished to reform the Anglican church rather than Separatists (pilgrims) who pulled out.

Good chatting with you.

Paul33
11-27-2005, 08:27 AM
Any group that holds to the fundamentals of the faith and works within and across denominations lines to preserve and extend the witness of historic Christianity would be representative of historic fundamentalism.

They may have their own mission agencies, fellowships, etc., but they have a charitable and cooperative spirit toward other expressions of historic Christianity without nitpicking minor doctrinal issues.

Secondary separation issues put many modern fundamentalists outside of the umbrella of historic fundamentalism.

By historic fundamentalism I am referencing the 1920s and 30s.

John of Japan
11-27-2005, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
Again, it goes to how you parse the phrase I quoted above. We can properly state most folks referred to in this discussion Stand for the Truth. The problem arises in how a person defines and practices Standing against error. Squire, I've been meaning to ask, will you please take time to explain this a little more? I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean here. :confused:

John of Japan
11-29-2005, 02:28 AM
Quotes describing the nature of original Fundamentalism:

"Militant theological conservatives, sensing that they were on the brink of losing control of some major denominations (especially the Northern Baptist and Northern Presbyterian) launched a fierce attack on the modernists. Beginning in 1920 the term 'fundamentalists' was used to describe the somewhat diverse cobelligerents in this antimodernist crusade. During this period the term 'fundamentalist' had a broad generic meaning roughly equivalent to militant conservative (for its friends) or belligerent reactionary (for its foes)." The Evangelicals (rev. ed.), "From Fundamentalism top Evangelicalism: A Historical Analysis," by George M. Marsden, p. 146.

"The fundamentalists of 1875-1900 were very outspoken about the apostasy of their times and the sins from which Christians should separate." "The Early Days of American Fundamentalism," George Dollar, Bibliotheca Sacra (V123, #490, Apr 66, 122)

"Harrington is eminently correct in his contention that “Fundamentalism was a militant religious conservatism.” In this he has struck a strong note of the entire movement, its attitude of militancy, opposition, exposing and attacking false teachings, and willingness to defend the faith. Fundamentalism has always been a defense as well as an attack on error. To early fundamentalists the truths they taught were God-given, more precious and more worthy to be defended than anything they knew. Weakness in defense was but a sure sign of weakness in conviction. For them the die was cast and they battled for the literal meaning of every word of the Word. They were sickened to see schools fail to indoctrinate young ministerial students and pupils manned by the untaught and unscriptural managers of ecclesiastical machines. Several paths were open to them (as are open today). They could have been silent and have allowed the decline to go unquestioned and unchecked. They could have compromised and engaged in dialogue with the critics, the humanists, and the evolutionists. They could have refused to be involved, stay sound themselves, and ignore the erosion around them. But these were not the paths of stout fundamentalists, then or now. They were set for the defense of the faith. They were good soldiers of Jesus Christ, not good sports of church picnics." George Dollar, Bibliotheca Sacra (V123 #490, Apr 66, 120)

After quoting five non-Fundamentalist scholars, Fred Moritz writes, "Non-Fundamentalists commonly identify several traits of fundamentalism. They see the following: 1. An emphasis on the inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and authority of the Bible. 2. An opposition to modernism. 3. An emphasis on separatism. 4. A belief in the premillennial return of Christ." Fred Moritz, Contending for the Faith, 15.

"Since liberalism did not believe in the fact that Christ died in history to atone for the sins of men and women, and that this was the only basis for salvation, liberalism was really religious faith in man dressed up in Christian language and symbols. Thus, Machen explained, the only honest thing for the liberal to do would be to leave the churches which were founded on biblical truth." Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 73.

All of these scholars describe early Fundamentalism as seperatist. graemlins/type.gif

Paul33
11-30-2005, 06:36 PM
Yes, the same separatism that conservative evangelicals (new evangelicals in the eyes of self-proclaimed fundamentalists) believe in and practice! Which is my point! Today's "modern fundamentalists" are practicing a form of separatism and exclusivism that wasn't practiced by "classic fundamentalists."

John of Japan
12-03-2005, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Paul33:
Yes, the same separatism that conservative evangelicals (new evangelicals in the eyes of self-proclaimed fundamentalists) believe in and practice! Which is my point! Today's "modern fundamentalists" are practicing a form of separatism and exclusivism that wasn't practiced by "classic fundamentalists." All 10,000 "modern fundamentalist" churchs? You sure paint with a broad brush, Paul33. "Modern Fundamentalism" is not near the monolith you are describing. We have: BBF, FBF, SBF, GARB, WBF, FBC of Hammond affiliated churches, BJU-grad pastors (some FBF overlap), Ian Paisley's and Carl McIntyre's groups (not even Baptist!), the IFCA (not Baptist), and I've only just begun! And within some of these groups there are factions.

Paul33
12-03-2005, 02:32 PM
John,

Self-described modern fundamentalists are primarily baptist, or in the case of BJU, baptistic.

These same self-described modern fundamentalists can't get along with each other let alone conservative evangelicals.

The original fundamentalists were unified around doctrine in broad general terms. Today's fundamentalists divide over doctrine, the more narrow it can be defined the better.

The original fundamentalists didn't take a position on eschatology other than Jesus is coming again. Modern fundamentalists require, in most cases, a pre-trib, premillennial DISPENSATIONAL view of the end times in order to fellowship.

John, how can you or anyone else argue that today's modern fundamentalists are the same as those stalwarts of the faith who loved each other across denominational lines and in spite of differences in minor points of doctrine?

John of Japan
12-03-2005, 06:32 PM
And I repeat, you paint with a very broad brush here, lumping 10,000 churches into one monolith. I am forced to conclude that you know little about modern Fundamentalism. You are jumping to conclusions, and have no data to back up what you say.

bapmom
12-03-2005, 06:44 PM
why are we not fundamentalists if we believe that God has preserved His Word? I don't understand then.

I thought fundamentalist was one who believes in the fundamentals.....

but are you defining it strictly according to what the first few people who used the term believed?

The issues of preservation of God's word did not even appear on the Baptist radar screen until the late 60s or so.....so the issue is by necessity not part of historical fundamentalist separation issues. So why am I labeled not a fundamentalist today simply because I believe God preserved His Word?

I do hope that this does not mean in your mind that I have to be separated from.

Paul33
12-04-2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by John of Japan:
And I repeat, you paint with a very broad brush here, lumping 10,000 churches into one monolith. I am forced to conclude that you know little about modern Fundamentalism. You are jumping to conclusions, and have no data to back up what you say. John, in discussing "fundamentalism," one by necessity must speak in general terms, or paint with a broad brush, to use your term.

Perhaps you come from a kinder, gentler form of fundamentalism. But the ones who I know who claim to be the "flagship" representative of fundamentalism (BJU, NBBC, MBBC, PBBC) are quick to divide over minor points of doctrine. They also rightly condemn the KJVO crowd. They also reject anyone to the left of them - Piper, Macarthur, etc.

Yes, John, I know quite alot about fundamentalism, both through research and experience having attended both BJU and NBBC.

Scott J
12-05-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by mioque:
classic Fundamentalist
OEC/Gap Theory I am not sure that was a universal opinion. The Gap theory has largely been abandoned.

OEC is not the most popular view in genuine fundamentalism today... but one isn't disqualified based on it either. It would relate to how well they accounted for the texts.

Remember, evolution was fairly new and the effects of rationalism were not too distant from their pinnacle in 1900. A book I am reading would shed some light on why even a fundamentalist would be skewed toward OEC during that period: "Darwins God- Evolution and the Problem of Evil".

The Fundamentals (the series)Yes. The original copies were sent out to Sunday School teachers.
In a limited sense ecumenical That was before the other denominations wholly departed from The Fundamentals. Fundamentalists that would match the original fundamentalists are mostly Baptists, a few Methodists (in particular non-UMC), and Presbyterians (PCA) in the modern US.

Modern day Fundamentalist
YEC Primarily. And that is a good thing. After many years of trying, fundamentalists recognized that you could not reconcile Genesis as a narrative with evolution. We have also had much time to consider the strengths, weaknesses, and presuppositions of evolution.
KJVOActually no. Many people who would qualify as "fundamentalists" by the original definition would more likely call themselves conservative evangelicals now and would use the term "fundamentalist" to describe themselves "academically" more so than publicly.

That said, according to a trusted pastor friend, says that KJVO's still constitute a very vocal minority of self-professing fundamentalists.
strongly anti-ecumenical Yes but that is primarily a question of who left who. The original fundamentalists probably wouldn't have associated with new evangelicals, catholics, pentacostals, etc. either.

Those who were Anglican/Episcopalian certainly wouldn't approve of the things happening within that denomination.

John of Japan
12-08-2005, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Paul33:

Today, modern fundamentalists have elevated separation to a fundamental, if not the highest fundamental. Whole lists are developed in the various so-called fundamental institutions that identify who one can fellowship with without compromising and therefore becoming a new evangelical.
Paul, this is an example of how you paint Fundamentalism with a broad brush. I looked at the NBBC website, and though they do not actually have separation in their statement of faith, it is in their "articles of faith" (not sure I know the difference.) So yes I am willing to agree with you that they have elevated separation to a fundamental (until I find out what an "article of faith" is. ;) ).

However, I looked at the doctrinal statements of 12 other IFB educational institutions, and ONLY ONE of them had separation in their doctrinal statement. So when you say, "Today, modern fundamentalists have elevated separation to a fundamental, if not the highest fundamental," you are painting with a broad brush, being unfair and unscholarly, IMO. :(

Paul33
12-08-2005, 04:03 PM
The "articles of faith" is their core doctrinal position. The "statement of faith" is their attempt at being softer and gentler!

Really, it is rather confusing to have "articles of faith" and a slender "statement of faith."

Your last paragraph is correct to some extent. But actions speak louder than words. Just because BJU doesn't speak to separation in its doctrinal statement doesn't mean in practice they haven't elevated it to a position of doctrine.

The whole movement of modern fundamentalism is focused on who one can fellowship with, personally, ecclessiastically, and in the case of NBBC, familially.

Therefore, I don't think that I have painted with a broad brush.

I'll ask you one question to prove my point. Are any fundamentalist organizations/fellowships open to inviting Chuck Swindoll to speak at their next annual meeting? I didn't think so, either! graemlins/laugh.gif This despite the fact that Swindoll does not cavort with apostates and holds to the fundamentals of the faith.

Therefore, the doctrine of separation is alive and well in fundamentalist institutions. What was a practice in the 1930s became a doctrine by the 1950s and 60s!

Squire Robertsson
12-08-2005, 04:13 PM
</font> Is Pastor Swindoll a Baptist? And does he pastor a Baptist church?</font> Who does he keep company with?</font>If the answers to (a) are no and no, then I don't see him being invited to speak at any meetings I would be attending. On the other hand, as the folks I gather with meet on a "fellowship of individuals" rather than an "association of churches" level, Pastor Swindoll is free to attend the next November's SoCal Regional FBFI meeting or the Annual National FBFI meeting in June. The National meeting is scheduled for San Francisco.

So, the question becomes does Pastor Swindoll want to be identified with us?

Squire Robertsson
12-08-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
The "articles of faith" is their core doctrinal position. The "statement of faith" is their attempt at being softer and gentler!To me, this begs the question. I would think "articles of faith" refers to a written document. If it's not written out its not an article of faith.

It might be more precise to use the word "presupposition."

Paul33
12-08-2005, 06:07 PM
So fellowship with IFBers is dependent on being a Baptist?

A non-baptist who is completely baptistic in doctrine would be excluded as a guest speaker?

He keeps company with others who believe in the historic doctrines of the faith!

Squire Robertsson
12-08-2005, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
So fellowship with IFBers is dependent on being a Baptist?The short answer is yes. This is an organization of Fundamental Baptists not Baptist Fundamentalists. There is a strong historic thread of non-interdenominationalism among the Baptists.
Originally posted by Paul33:
A non-baptist who is completely baptistic in doctrine would be excluded as a guest speaker?We have capable men of our own. Enough of them, such that we are unable to give many the opportunity to speak. A non-baptist would have to make a fairly strong case for being heard. Remember now these gatherings have at best seven hours of formal meetings. So, who do we cut form the program.
Originally posted by Paul33:
He keeps company with others who believe in the historic doctrines of the faith!Irrelevant, to my position.

Mind you, all of this is not to down grade Pastor Swindoll's ministry. His books are on many a preacher's shelf and have been used to build up the brethren.

John of Japan
12-08-2005, 07:40 PM
Well said, Squire.

John of Japan
12-08-2005, 08:29 PM
Personally, I don't think much of Swindoll, so I would not advise any Fundamentalist to have him, regardless of whether or not he fellowships with liberals. And the key question anyway is not whether he fellowships with liberals but whether or not he takes a stand against liberalism. I've not read a word about that in his writings, so how can we know?

I think his Grace Awakening leans towards antinomianism, and have not gotten blessed from the other books I've read--not much depth in my view, and he likes the occasional pop psychology reference (self esteem, etc.), which I oppose.

John of Japan
12-08-2005, 08:40 PM
Evangelicals I admire as perhaps being on the same page as the original Fundamentalists: Robert Lightner for his stand against the original New Evangelicalism, Jack Wyrtzen (may even call himself a fundamentalist), Norm Geisler (for his stand against neotheism.

I deliberately exclude MacArthur because of his false doctrine of Lordship Salvation in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus.

Paul33
12-08-2005, 09:31 PM
Squire,

Thanks.

My home church came out of the American Baptists (Northern Baptists) and is now independent and in the NBBC orbit.

Forgive my ignorance. What is the historical background/connections of the Independent Fundamental Baptists?

What schools do they recommend for ministry training?

I look forward to your response.

Squire Robertsson
12-08-2005, 10:22 PM
The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship is a lineal descendent of the Fundamentalist Fellowship of Northern Baptists. The FFNB was organized in 1920 to resist the Liberalism and Modernism in the NBC.

Please see FBFI History Page (http://www.fbfi.org/main.asp?id=4) for more details.

This is that pages description a loose fellowship of individual like-minded Baptists.The operative words are loose and individual like-minded Baptists, not churches. As I believe Richard V. Clearwaters (President of the then CBF from 1948 through 1951) said, We are bound together by a rope of sand.

John of Japan
12-08-2005, 10:27 PM
As I'm sure you know, Squire, my mission board is also in that direct lineage of the FBFI. Some of the grand old men of the group started it in 1962, I believe it was: Monroe Parker, Ed Nelson (who helped get me together with my wife), Clearwaters, Myron Cederholm, etc. Godly men and great Fundamentalists all. graemlins/thumbs.gif

Squire Robertsson
12-08-2005, 10:36 PM
Please note. In 1920, the Northern Baptist Convention was only six years old. So, the men who organized the FFNB had spent most of the ministerial lives without a convention.

Squire Robertsson
12-08-2005, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by John of Japan:As I'm sure you know, Squire, my mission board is also in that direct lineage of the FBFI. Some of the grand old men of the group started it in 1962, I believe it was: Monroe Parker, Ed Nelson (who helped get me together with my wife), Clearwaters, Myron Cederholm, etc. Godly men and great Fundamentalists all. graemlins/thumbs.gif And more importantly for the purpose of this particular discussion, they were/are Baptists to the marrow of their bones. That part of his character, no doubt, has gotten Pastor Nelson in trouble on both sides of the Atlantic.

John of Japan
12-08-2005, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
And more importantly for the purpose of this particular discussion, they were/are Baptists to the marrow of their bones. That part of his character, no doubt, has gotten Pastor Nelson in trouble on both sides of the Atlantic. You are no doubt right--God bless him!

I heard the head of our board once say that Baptists are the natural inheritors of Fundamentalism since we believe in the "Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice" as a distinctive.

Squire Robertsson
12-08-2005, 10:53 PM
I prefer to think of the situation this way. The rest of the brethren are beginning to see we were right all along. Yes, I know that's ethnocentric of me. At least, I recognize that short coming in myself.

Oh yes, what school would I recommend? Before the usual Eastern suspects, I recommend International Baptist College and Graduate School in Tempe, Az. It's an extraordinary work. IBC is both accredited and a local church (Tri-City Baptist) ministry.

robycop3
12-09-2005, 11:19 AM
What? No mention of W.B.Riley?

To me, a REAL Fundamentalist is a Bible-believer who accepts no man-made doctrine not found in Scripture. Thus, I believe in the Holy Trinity because Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are all called GOD in Scripture. I believe each is a distinct Personage, as Scripture so states. OTOH, I reject KJVO because it's not even HINTED AT in Scripture.

A real Fundamentalist neither invents nor follows any man-made rules of worship or Christian living such as no pants for women, etc.

A real Fundamentalist witnesses to all, great or small, regardless of national origin, race, creed, or culture.

A real Fundamentalist lets his/her lifestyle reflect his/her beliefs, teaching by example, never reying to force his/her beliefs down someone else's throat. The real Fundamentalist knows that FORCING Christianity upon someone does NOT make that person a true Christian.

In summary, a REAL Fundamentalist believes in Christ as Lord and savior by FAITH, a believing in the things unseen by the evidence of that which IS seen. He/she accepts ONLY those doctrines of worship found in SCRIPTURE.

I am a Fundamentalist in this manner, which, I believe, hearkens back to EARLY Fundamentalism.

gb93433
12-09-2005, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:

Please see FBFI History Page (http://www.fbfi.org/main.asp?id=4) for more details.
I noticed a lot of men with Dr. in front of their names. I assume they have Ph.D.'s. Where did they go to school?

Paul33
12-09-2005, 03:33 PM
robycop,

I'm with you! That's what I think a real fundamentalists is too. That's why I believe the vast majority of those tagged with the New Evangelical label are really fundamentalists of the 1920s stripe. PTL.

Paul33
12-09-2005, 03:39 PM
Squire,

I attended Vaughn's church when I attended BJU.

Fundamental Baptist Fellowship I knew about and understand. I didn't know what was meant by IBF.

Is there such a thing as IBF? Or is this term synonymous with FBFI?

Paul33
12-09-2005, 03:49 PM
Squire,

You said Chuck Swindoll wouldn't be invited because he isn't a Baptist.

I noticed, however, that a State Representative for the FBFI pastors a non-baptist church:

Pastor Dale W. Cunningham
Boone's Creek Bible Church
Johnson City TN
How is this possible? Since membership is by individuals, is the answer he is a Baptist pastoring a Bible church?

If that is the case, can someone else claim to be a Baptist even though they pastor a IFCA church or an EFCA church?
Edited for privacy reasons. KR

[ December 09, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]

Paul33
12-09-2005, 03:51 PM
Squire,

You said Chuck Swindoll wouldn't be invited because he isn't a Baptist.

I noticed, however, that a State Representative for the FBFI pastors a non-baptist church:

Pastor Dale W. Cunningham
Boone's Creek Bible Church
Johnson City TN 37615

Dr. Kenneth E. Burkett
Greenville Bible Church
Greenville MS 38704
There are several others.

How is this possible? Since membership is by individuals, is the answer he is a Baptist pastoring a Bible church?

If that is the case, can someone else claim to be a Baptist even though they pastor anIFCA church or an EFCA church?

Or perhaps FBFI should stand for Fundamental Bible Fellowship? Bible being "generic." Then you could invited fundamentalists from every denomination to join, not just Baptist and Bible!

smile.gif
Edited for privacy reasons. KR

[ December 09, 2005, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]

Squire Robertsson
12-09-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
Squire,
SNIP
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship I knew about and understand. I didn't know what was meant by IBF.

Is there such a thing as IBF? Or is this term synonymous with FBFI?Do you mean Independent Baptist Fellowship? If so, I've never heard of such an organization. So no, FBFI is not synomymous with IBF. I've heard of Independent Fundamental Baptist. But IFB covers alot of men, movements and organizations, not just the FBFI.

Paul33
12-09-2005, 03:55 PM
Thanks Squire,

I meant IFB.

I was under the impression that IFB stood for a fellowship of churches.

But you spoke of FBFI. Is FBFI under the umbrella of the generic term IFB, or does IFB stand for something specific?

Squire Robertsson
12-09-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
Thanks Squire,

I meant IFB.

I was under the impression that IFB stood for a fellowship of churches.

But you spoke of FBFI. Is FBFI under the umbrella of the generic term IFB, or does IFB stand for something specific?AFAIK, IFB is a generic name which covers a lot of folk. To the best of my knowledge it is used to lump together every one who isn't a part of the SBC, ABC, or CBA. And I don't know if our Primitive Baptist Brethren would care to be covered by it.

As for your question about the Bible Church pastors, I am out West and little to no contact with what's going on back East. I can only guess the men you cited are not pastoring IFCA or EFCA churches. Now remember I said I was guessing. So, I apologize in advance if I guessed wrong.

Paul33
12-09-2005, 04:19 PM
Right. I would assume they are pastoring independent Bible churches.

But then, every EFCA and IFCA church is independent in the sense that they are totally autonomous but have chosen to fellowship with like-minded believers.

That being the case, how is their fellowship different from FBFI.

When does a "Fellowship" become a denomination? And why is the FBFI acceptable for Baptists to join but not the IFCA or the EFCA?

If all three represent historic fundamental doctrine (and they do), then fellowship in one should not exclude fellowship in the other. None of these groups condones false doctrine and none allow liberals and apostates to join!

Squire Robertsson
12-09-2005, 04:34 PM
I told you I was only guessing. Therefor, I have no definitive answer to your question. My only comment is the FBF probably pre-dates the other organizations. And I never said anything about what is or isn't acceptable. Again I will hazard another opinion. Is the IFCA or EFCA felowships of churches or fellowships of individuals? In the grand Northern Baptist tradition (and I can quote Wayland, c 1856, if you want me to), the FBF is the latter.

Paul33
12-09-2005, 07:16 PM
Squire,

I didn't mean to imply that you did. But in light of this thread, I'm trying to get at what the differences are between classic fundamentalists (1920s) and modern fundamentalists (2000s).

You and I both know that certain relationships are acceptable in modern fundamentalism, and others aren't (by the standards of the group, which fundamentalists keep denying that they have, sigh).

Therefore, I open this question up to all self-identified modern fundamentalists to answer. Why is it acceptable to join the FBFI, but not the IFCA or the EFCA? Baptists should be free to join either, remain Baptist, and serve the Lord.

It seems to me that fundamental Baptists are hung up on several things, one of which is the name Baptist!

I wonder what Jesus would say about that?

Paul33
12-09-2005, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
So fellowship with IFBers is dependent on being a Baptist?The short answer is yes. This is an organization of Fundamental Baptists not Baptist Fundamentalists. There is a strong historic thread of non-interdenominationalism among the Baptists.
Originally posted by Paul33:
A non-baptist who is completely baptistic in doctrine would be excluded as a guest speaker?We have capable men of our own. Enough of them, such that we are unable to give many the opportunity to speak. A non-baptist would have to make a fairly strong case for being heard. Remember now these gatherings have at best seven hours of formal meetings. So, who do we cut form the program.
Originally posted by Paul33:
He keeps company with others who believe in the historic doctrines of the faith!Irrelevant, to my position.

Mind you, all of this is not to down grade Pastor Swindoll's ministry. His books are on many a preacher's shelf and have been used to build up the brethren. </font>[/QUOTE]If this is a fellowship of Baptists, why are State Representatives of the FBFI pastors of Bible churches? Bible churches have a fellowship called the IFCA.

Therefore, one can pastor a Bible church, but as an individual "Baptist" join the FBFI?

Right?

Paul33
12-09-2005, 07:25 PM
From the FBFI website.

Why Join the FBF?

2. We are a fellowship of individual Baptists, not Baptist churches.

Any fundamental Baptist can find a place of fellowship with his peers in the FBF without bringing his church, mission board, school, or other ministry under the aegis of a convention or association.


So any Baptist pastor of an EFCA church or IFCA church would be allowed to join the FBF as an individual Baptist. This must be the case because Bible church pastors are allowed to be State Representatives of the FBF!

Can you help me out here, Squire?

John of Japan
12-09-2005, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
If this is a fellowship of Baptists, why are State Representatives of the FBFI pastors of Bible churches? Bible churches have a fellowship called the IFCA.

Therefore, one can pastor a Bible church, but as an individual "Baptist" join the FBFI?

Right? It is not unheard of for a church to have the name "Bible Church," but be Baptist. I had a supporting church like this years ago. They eventually put Baptist in the name, but the point is many Bible churches are Baptist. There are actually several kinds of Bible churches.

John of Japan
12-09-2005, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by robycop3:
What? No mention of W.B.Riley?
Ah, yes, W. B. Riley. He was a prime example of an early Fundmentalist who believed in ecclesiastical separation. He fought for decades to have the liberals ejected from his denomination, and then when he failed he separated from it shortly before his death. (This was an individual separation, since it was too late to bring his church out, since he was retired.)

John of Japan
12-09-2005, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by robycop3:
What? No mention of W.B.Riley?

To me, a REAL Fundamentalist is a Bible-believer who accepts no man-made doctrine not found in Scripture. Thus, I believe in the Holy Trinity because Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are all called GOD in Scripture. I believe each is a distinct Personage, as Scripture so states. OTOH, I reject KJVO because it's not even HINTED AT in Scripture.

A real Fundamentalist neither invents nor follows any man-made rules of worship or Christian living such as no pants for women, etc.

A real Fundamentalist witnesses to all, great or small, regardless of national origin, race, creed, or culture.

A real Fundamentalist lets his/her lifestyle reflect his/her beliefs, teaching by example, never reying to force his/her beliefs down someone else's throat. The real Fundamentalist knows that FORCING Christianity upon someone does NOT make that person a true Christian.

In summary, a REAL Fundamentalist believes in Christ as Lord and savior by FAITH, a believing in the things unseen by the evidence of that which IS seen. He/she accepts ONLY those doctrines of worship found in SCRIPTURE.

I am a Fundamentalist in this manner, which, I believe, hearkens back to EARLY Fundamentalism. So, Robycop, all you wrote is admirable, and I agree with these things, but do you believe in separation from liberals like the original Fundamentalists did?

John of Japan
12-09-2005, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Paul33:
The "articles of faith" is their core doctrinal position. The "statement of faith" is their attempt at being softer and gentler!

Really, it is rather confusing to have "articles of faith" and a slender "statement of faith."

Your last paragraph is correct to some extent. But actions speak louder than words. Just because BJU doesn't speak to separation in its doctrinal statement doesn't mean in practice they haven't elevated it to a position of doctrine.

The whole movement of modern fundamentalism is focused on who one can fellowship with, personally, ecclessiastically, and in the case of NBBC, familially.

Therefore, I don't think that I have painted with a broad brush.

I'll ask you one question to prove my point. Are any fundamentalist organizations/fellowships open to inviting Chuck Swindoll to speak at their next annual meeting? I didn't think so, either! graemlins/laugh.gif This despite the fact that Swindoll does not cavort with apostates and holds to the fundamentals of the faith.

Therefore, the doctrine of separation is alive and well in fundamentalist institutions. What was a practice in the 1930s became a doctrine by the 1950s and 60s! Paul33, congratulations on the completion of your straw man.

(1) You said that modern Fundamentalists elevate separation to a Fundmanental, but didn't give proof.

(2) When challenged, you gave one (1) institution that included separation in its "Articles of Faith" but not it's doctrinal statement.

(3) When shown that many Fundamentalist institutions do not have separation in their statements of faith or doctrinal statements, you cling to your unproven opinion. "Well, their practice proves what I say"--but no proof is given. What practice? By who? Give me names and dates or your straw man remains horse food.

(4) You many know something about some parts of Fundamentalism, but you show no knowledge of the GARB, BBF or SBF or you would throw your broad brush away.

Paul33
12-09-2005, 11:23 PM
John,

Being in Japan leaves you at a disadvantage.

NBBC's Articles of Faith IS their doctrinal statement.

Fundamentalist institutions such as BJU, NBBC, MBBC, PBBC, DBTS, FBTS, etc. are notorious for separating from others. They know exactly who is in and who is out. To then say that they haven't elevated "separation" to a doctrine is devious and disingenius. NBBC at least has the guts to admit what they do and call it a doctrine.

On this thread I have repeatedly asked who fundamentalists are willing to fellowship with. Guess what, they aren't willing to fellowship with Chuck Swindoll. Why? Because he is liberal? an apostate? a heretic? No! Because he isn't Baptist! Even though he believes exactly what Baptists believe. No, the reason fundamentalists don't fellowship with Swindoll is because he is off limits. He's on the wrong list!

When this is pointed out, you claim that I'm painting with a broad brush. You claim that fundamentalists don't have a list. You claim its a movement and no one speaks for everyone.

What utter nonsense. Without consensus among fundamentalism, there is no movement! The fear and angst among older fundamentalists is that the younger fundamentalists are no longer buying this poppycock!

Young fundamentalists are fellowshiping with the Swindoll's of the world and it is making the hardline fundies get their undies in an uproar!

Sorry, John, but you don't know what you are talking about. Straw man? Hardly. More like Tin Man. graemlins/laugh.gif

Paul33
12-09-2005, 11:27 PM
What's the difference between classic fundamentalists and modern fundamentalists? Classic fundamentalists WOULD fellowship with Swindoll. Modern fundamentalists don't.

Younger fundamentalists are going back to the position of historic fundamentalism (1920s) to the consternation of the older leaders of modern fundamentalism. PTL.

Squire Robertsson
12-10-2005, 12:05 AM
Let me throw this out. For many years, GARBC folks had little to do with CBF/FBF folks. Why? Because the GARBC looked at the CBF/FBF folks as softies. The founders of the GARBC departed the NBC ten or so years before the CBF/FBF men.

Paul33
12-10-2005, 11:54 AM
That's true Squire.

The GARBC pulled out alot sooner than the CBF folks.

Riley didn't pull out until just before he died!

I guess that puts the FBF in the middle.

So how does that explain the FBF's position of refusing fellowship with BGC pastors, or IFCA pastors, or EFCA pastors? Does it have more to do with being "independent" than being "fundamental?"

Rob't K. Fall
12-10-2005, 03:10 PM
I suggest you take a look at this thread (http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/16/441.html) Intro to Landmarkism...? From what I gather, from this thread, one of early Landmark leaders moved North just before the Civil War. From that and my reading of Francis Wayland's c. 1856 Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, the principle of not sharing pulpits with non-Baptists pre-dates the 1920s.

Men like Tulga, Cedarholm, Clearwaters, Archer and Arno Weniger, Sr. were clearly men of the Historic Northern Baptist tradition. Remember it's the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Regular Baptist had in the 1920s and 30's a particular meaning to Northern Baptists. The founding document (dated February 7, 1881) of my home, Hamilton Square Baptist Church of San Francisco, lays out points of practice the founders thought necessary to be clear and unambiguous about. However, as to it basic doctrine, the document simply states: First-We agree to the “articles of faith” as generally accepted by the regular Baptist Churches of the United States.
So, really the comparaison should not be between FBF men in 2005 and folks in the 20s/30s, but between them and the men of the 1880s.

As for the relations with the BGC and the FBF, remember, the BGC was originally the Swedish Baptist Conference.

Paul33
12-10-2005, 11:45 PM
Great stuff. I've read some of Francis Wayland's other books!