Are Conservative Southern Baptists Fundamentalists?

It has been my experience that many in most of our churches are poorly prepared to study the Bible and to glean its gems. What I am seeing today is a movement where seminaries teach their brand of theoogy only. The idea that if you expose them to other things they will stray. I would rather hear it from a professor that has dealt with those things and points out the flaws. I have seen pastors deal with other viewpoints like a fish on a rock.

I believe that the SBC at one time was right on then strayed and now has gone past where it once was to stray the other way. I don't call that fundamentalism. Some of the things I have read are shocking. To believe that SWBTS would hire men who have graduated from DTS as professors is quite shocking. Of course that would be quite in line with Paige Patterson and few other SBC leaders. The funy thing is that DTS is leaving the kind of dispensationalism that the SBC leadders embrace. Just read some articles by Patterson.

One time I was standing at the door of a lady's home along with a young man. She asked me if I was a fundamentalist. The young man answered and said he makes the fundamentalists look liberal. Many "fundamentalists" I have met are not that at all. They are simply men and women who are ignornat following someone that seems like he knows where he is going. True fundamentalists are believers who believe in the fundamentals of the faith not the theology of the Pharisees.

 

tiny said,"I consider myself fundamental because I believe in the fundamentals. I'm also American Baptist."

Now I see what your problem is. You accuse IFB of being pharisees and cult members all the while you are a member of the ab cult.

I sure am glad to be IFBBGHSHSLBWC, and thinking of separating from many who claim to be.

 

If you would get out of Beulah land and take a peek elsewhere you might find that quite a number of American pastors have graduated from DTS. Wheer I live many pastor in the AB churches are from DTS. The American Baptist denomination is a lot like the Presbyterians. There are many who are fighting to keep it away from liberalism and keep it conservative. Would you call Dr. James Kennedy a liberal?

 

Why is this shocking?? DTS is no fundamental school by any stretch. They are however, recognized as a very solid seminary.

This is certainly true, but we must remember that fundamentalism is not just about believing in the fundamentals. It is also about our ecclesiastical associations.

 

Could you explain what you mean by "It is also about our ecclesiastical associations."

 

I could not disagree with you more. I would say the SBC is much too liberal cloaked in believing the fundamentals of the faith. I had many of the former professors that left SWBTS. Some that left had been hired since the conservative takeover and were disgusted. .............
The SBC churches where I live are nearly extinct. Perhaps some of those good folks from OK should come and show them what a good SBC church looks like and how it's done.........Each of these churches is less than they were 30 years ago.

Their theology is proving itself. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Interesting difference in our experiences. What liberal theology do you see among conservative Southern Baptists? In my church we hold to orthodoxy in such matters as the nature of God, the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross for our sins, His physical resurrection and ascension to Heaven, His soon Return, the inerrancy of the original autographs, the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture.
We agree to disagree on eschatological views, how many points of Calvinism, etc. My pastor preaches expositionally verse by verse by verse.
We are growing, with new Christians being discipled. (Your favorite word, there. )
If theology is what is causing the two SBC churches near you to die, what is causing the growth in mine?

Karen

 

Sure, when a church or theological organization aligns itself with those who deny the cardinal doctrines of the faith, they are disobedient. We are commanded to separate from them and expose them (Rom 16:17-18 along with a host of other verses). When a church or individual lives in open disobedience we are commanded to separate from them (2 Thess 3 along with a host of other passages).

With the SBC, you have both of these problems. There are a great number of SBC churches that are teaching truth and discipling people. Unfortunately, they will not follow fully in these areas of obedience. While I rejoice that God's word is being preached, I mourn that people are satisfied with less than full obedience.

 

No wonder the secular world keeps referring to "funny-mentalism".

 

It just kills me when people paint the SBC in such broad strokes...

Not every SBC church holds to the same views as do other SBC churhes. Why? Because they are still Baptist, and believe in that freedom. Within the BF&M, there is still a lot of leeway for individual churches to decide how they want to see things. But to attempt to classify ALL Southern Baptist churches as non-fundamental is sheer ignorance.

The church that I attend is SBC. It is also very conservative. It is also fundamental. But it is not leagalistic, or this dude would be out the door.

Fundamentalism has grown to mean something rather ugly here in America. No longer does it refer to a group of people who stand for the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, when some one says they are fundamental, the image that springs to people's mind is that the person in question is narrow-minded, bigotted, illiterate, legalistic, mean-spirited, condemning. This should not be the case, but it is the image that is portrayed by the media, and, often, by we fundamentals ourselves.

The majority of what I read in this forum has to deal with what some one is wearing, or where some one goes, or what some does. What happened to those "fundamentals" that we take our name from? They are still there, burried under all the additional man-made rules that we have painted on as requirements for membership.

We need to get back to our "fundamentals" and away from the self-righteousness that prevades American Fundamentalism. Otherwise, the media will be painting a more accurate portrait than ever.

In Chriat,
Trotter

 

To answer your last question I think it could be easily be explained by referencing a verse in James 1:22, “ But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.”

When I have talked with the people here they are still stuck on the old SBC ways of doing things. They say they keep praying. But what I see is that they feel their answer lies in some kind of methodology. They have not put feet to their faith.

It is one thing to be conservative by name only and another in practice.


This is what I posted earlier:

"Just to show you how bad it can get: I was a pastor in an SBC church that okayed the Mormon bishop to come and preach at the local Christian meetings with other Christians. Even the other churches voiced their opposition to this. But the deacons of the SBC church said that they thought the bishop was a Christian. When I first heard that for myself I was shocked. I thought that kind of thing never happened in an SBC church. But it did and I had to deal with it. The local association told me there was nothing they could do. The real fact was they didn't want to get involved.”

On Feb. 18 Henry Blackaby spoke during the chapel time at SWBTS and this is one of many quotes from his time there, "Christians are often theological conservatives but practical atheists, Blackaby said in the second message of his series Feb. 18."

In addition some of the things I saw were people being honored for their giving by how much they gave. Why? The Baptist Standard always published how much each church gave. Why? SWBTS posted how much people gave to the seminary. Why?

I saw personally at HBU pictures of some people hanging on a wall who gave large sums of money. Why? Several of us saw the horoscope published in the school newspaper each week at HBU. Why?

The point is that there are some great churches in the SBC and there are some very poor ones, but there is also the issue of the leadership trying to get more from people by manipulation rather than praying and trusting God much like George Mueller did. When will the leadership of the SBC do something to speak out against and do something to curb these kind of practices? In the church I referred to about the Mormon bishop three people in that church were volunteers at the state level and one of them was also at the national level for the SBC. Why would nobody else from the SBC say anything? They told me they could do nothing because the church is autonomous. You mean to tell me they cannot carry out biblical discipline against a church because it is autonomous! It is really the idea that some don’t want to get involved and do as God commands.. I was told later that the practice there had been happening for over 20 years. Others in the local association knew about it. I heard about it from some of the leaders in the same church but they were unwilling to say anything about it to them. Some people on the outside told me that something needed to be done. One of the deacons had an altercation with a youth. He had a hot temper. Earlier he had thrown a car battery through the window at an auto parts store. When I asked him to either resign or take care of business he did neither. The story could go on and on. Why did the SBC not police itself first? Why did it take so long for a pastor to come and speak against such practices. And still the local association did nothing. Why was it that the only people to say anything were the people I was discipling and a pentecostal pastor in the area.

That kind of theology is conservative in word only but Jesus is not their Lord in practice, That kind of theology ought to never be named among Christians.. The SBC should never allow that kind of practice in its churches while at the same time taking their money and add it to the cooperative giving money.

 

Greg,

To be perfectly honest, I could care less what Dr. Houghton had to say. I just happen to take offense when someone attacks me or mine (I am a member of the SBC).

Since when are Christians called to be militant?

I hold to the fundamentals of the faith, thus I am a fundamentalist. I am also very conservative, and a member of the SBC. If being a "fundamentalist" as defined by you involves condemning someone for wearing pants or reading a BV other than the King James, then I am more than glad to not be included.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Trotter,

No one is putting you down or bashing the SBC when they say you are not a Fundamentalist. Historically, you ain’t. Fundamentalism was a definite historic movement that the SBC was not a part. Fundamentalists included northern Baptists (Riley, Stratton, et. al.) but the SBC maintained its own separate, orthodox stance outside the historical movement. Supposedly, W. B. Riley (Baptist Fundamentalist leader) wrote Basil Manly (SBC) a letter asking him and the SBC to join the Fundamentalist movement. Manly wrote back, “Dr. Riley, I am sorry that we cannot join you and your movement because we are Baptists, not ecumenicists.” Fundamentalism, you see, included many other denominations. Liberalism did not begin making inroads in the SBC until long after the other mainline denominations had fought the battles that spawned the Fundamentalist movement.

The SBC acted decisively toward liberalism/modernism when it fired its first and brightest student-turned-professor in the person of Crawford Toy. This is the man whom Lottie Moon refused to marry after he was infected with the rationalism of his German education. The decisive action of the SBC prevented the boondoggle experienced at Presbyterian Princeton.

Machen, a Presbyterian, was orthodox but he and others were never Fundamentalists even though some Presbyterians, such as Carl McIntire, were Fundamentalists. So, being orthodox or believing the “fundamentals” do not necessarily make you a Fundamentalist.

Today, Fundamentalism is defined not only by holding to the fundamentals but militant separation from those who do not hold to the fundamentals. Since some liberals still remain in the SBC, the SBC conservatives are not truly Fundamentalists. However, this does not mean that they do not believe the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith—they do. But, they're not Fundamentalists by definition, yet everyone doesn’t have to be a Fundamentalist.

Does this help explain the situation? Please don’t take offense and think anyone is bashing you when they say that you are not a Fundamentalist. In the same way, you are not at Methodist or many other labels that I could name.

 

No one attacked you or yours. To say that the SBC is not fundamentalist is not an attack. It is an observation about their philosophy or ideals.

Since the Scriptures were written, telling us to expose and separate from false doctrine/teachers and disobedient brethren. Militant is not a word of hate; it is a word of firmness for the truth.

 

I hate to get into this discussion so late, but nevertheless . . .

I. I don't see how disavowing the label excludes one from its reality. There are lots of gender-benders in this nation who claim that they are not really the gender they were born into. That doesn't mean they aren't. Besides, there are lots of conservative SB that do avow the label.

II. This is true. I don't see how SB churches can in good conscience continue to contribute to th The cooperative program that continues to support colleges and other agencies that promote doctrinal error and even abominal perversity. The reports I have seen are published or from first-hand witnesses. I realize that much of this takes place through state conventions, but I am unconvinced that there is any convention that is wholly free from supporting error. The SBC is taking some positive steps on this point--defunding some colleges and moving towards withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance--but there is still a long way to go.

III. I don't see how commitment to conventionalism is inherently incompatible with fundamentalism. Certainly it opens the door to a slew of associations that can be problematic, so I would argue that denominationalism is unwise. That alone is insufficient to exclude SB from fundamentalism. There are more unwise fundamentalists than I would care to count.

IV. So do most fundamentalists.

V. So do most fundamentalists. Too much, in fact. It's sad how so many fundamentalists will put up with all kinds of diversity in soteriology and bibliology, but jump all over their pet areas (ecclesiology, eschatology, pneumatology, versions, slacks on women, etc.)

VI. So do lots of fundamentalists. Depends on what aspects. This is so vague it's tough to critique. Is the full text online? If there was a link in the thread, I missed it.

So does this exclude SB from fundamentalism? IMHO, only #2 does (assuming that one is not a SB who denies one of the fundamental doctrines). Yet separation is practiced inconsistently among many who would be widely considered to be fundamentalists. I see fundamentalism as adherence to a set of principles rather than a movement. Some are more consistent in their adherence to those principles than others. Although SB are not fully consistent and probably never will be, the direction of the convention as a whole is positive. For that I am thankful to God, as well as for the SB friends I am fortunate to have.

Just my thoughts.