Baptist or Fundamentalist?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Siegfried, Mar 1, 2002.

  1. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    To those of you who describe yourselves as "fundamental Baptists," which adjective better describes who or what you are?

    If you could only describe yourself by one of those two terms, which would you choose, and why?
     
  2. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would choose fundamental. I am baptistic in my beliefs but my devotion is to my Saviour who is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, not a denomination.

    The label of "Baptist" has been claimed by groups of such diverse beliefs that it is virtually meaningless. Taking the Baptist distinctives one at a time, you can find a group somewhere that denies it while continuing to call themselves "Baptists." I am afraid that Baptist are becoming (or have become) nothing more than another religion.
     
  3. Kellisa

    Kellisa
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott J,
    I was looking at your profile and it says East Hiram Baptist, what is that? I have never heard of it. You can send me a private email so we don't get off the initial subject if you want. I don't want to detract from the original question.

    [ March 01, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Kellisa ]
     
  4. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    Siegfried, I know you asked this of those who consider themselves to be or use the name of "Fundamental Baptists". But I just want to make an observation as an outsider (though I believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith, I don't consider myself a fundamentalist). Most Fundamentalist Baptists that I know or have known have been more "fundamentalist" than "baptist", and the fundamentalist principles have been more of a dividing issue than baptistic principles.
     
  5. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    I consider myself a Baptist of the Primitive group. I know very little of the Fundamentalist but like you Brother Robert I'm a Baptist first!... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  6. Kellisa

    Kellisa
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a fundamental Baptist and I guess I have never really thought about it much. I guess I would be considered more fundamental than Baptist because I would rather live from the fundamental teachings of the Bible than the teachings of the Baptist church, not because I don't like the Baptist church, but because there seems to be a lot of division between the different chruches and their beleifs.
     
  7. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have to agree with Glen, Baptist of the Primitivist type. I am also a fundamentalist, but my list of fundamentals rarely matches anyone elses, so I won't go there.

    Jeff Weaver
     
  8. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I identify with both terms. Calling yourself a baptist tells others--even other baptists--little about you as there are many kinds of baptists as this board demonstrates. In this sense, fundamental is probably an adjective that describes the kind of baptist I am. In the historical past, a fundamentalist could be other than baptist, but there are few fundamentalists who are other than baptist today. Which term is most important? I wouldn't give up any fundamental belief and I would not give up any baptist distinctive, so both are essential for me. On the other hand, in my interaction with unsaved people at work, I never tell anyone I am a fundamentalist or a baptist unless they ask me. I talk to them about Jesus. Their greatest need is to know him, not specific beliefs that a Christian develops later in the process of discipleship.
     
  9. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Siegfried, what is the difference? The essence of fundamentalism is the essence of being a baptist. At the heart of fundamentalism is separation. At the heart of the Baptists (the original and those with integrity with God's Word) is separation. It is the modern day sadduccees that have corrupted our name. Basically, I see no real difference.

    I don't tell people I am a Christian, I tell them I am a Baptist. Christian is just a label also. It was an insult at first. Well, so was Baptist. People won't confuse me for a catholic or presby or lutheran.

    The lost don't know what fundamentalist means. Baptist is a pretty straightforward answer though.

    If I was speaking to other believers I might include fundamentalist. Most people figure it out though.

    Siegfried, you seem to be a sharp guy. What about you? [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Having been exposed to "baptists" of the most liberal sort on this BB, it has reminded me that fidelity to the scripture must come above any denominational label.

    I call myself an historic independent fundamental Baptist.</font>
    • Historic - in the same vein as W.B. Riley (another Minneapolis boy) and others who championed the truth of the Word against modernism and liberalism</font>
    • Independent - not tied to any convention or hierarchy or political machinism</font>
    • Fundamental - standing for the fundamentals of the Word of God (NOT the new bunch added by the fringe) and willing to "contend militantly" for the faith once delivered to the saints, not just pussyfoot around and fellowship with the enemies of the cross</font>
    • Baptist - old fashioned distinctives of the Baptist church, based in the Word, including soul liberty that allows other charlatans to call themselves Baptist!</font>
     
  11. HeDied4U

    HeDied4U
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm a fundamentalist inasmuch as I adhere to the fundamentals of the faith, not to a bunch of "do's and don't's" set forth by some denomination.

    Adam :cool:
     
  12. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    One difference is that fundamentalists have historically tolerated different views on baptism. Not baptismal regeneration, but at least the mode of baptism. Some fundamentalists may have even practiced infant baptism. I can't remember.

    Another difference (that has been alluded to above) is that many people who call themselves Baptists have abandoned the fundamentals.

    That's why I asked the original question. I believe that "fundamentalist" describes who I am better than "Baptist." That's probably because liberals have hijacked "Baptist," but they don't like "fundamentalist" so much. ;)

    Oops, did I say "liberals"? I really meant to be politically correct and say "moderates." Ok, no I didn't, they're liberals.

    Thanks for the compliment, PTW. I'm really not that sharp. I have some smart friends that I rip good material off of.
     
  13. javalady

    javalady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    This kind of continues a thought Dr. Bob started. In the early 1900's modernism was taking over the Episcopal, Methodist & Presbyterian churches in America. Higher criticism (which tries to explain away the miraculous of the Bible, also puts into question the authors of the books of the Bible, etc.) was coming in like a flood from Germany. The result was confusion, lukewarmness, and the beginning of the "Social Gospel" influx in American churches.
    Many people calling themselves Christian no longer knew what the term really meant any more.
    As the Scripture says, when the enemy comes in like a flood, the Lord raises up a standard!
    Godly men from many backgrounds: Baptist, Presbyterian & others (sorry I don't remember the list) got together & wrote a series of studies called "The Fundamentals". In it they defined basic Christian doctrine, with Biblical text and clear teaching on each essential Christian doctrine.
    So at first "fundamentalists" were those who adhered to Biblical faith & practice; versus the "modernists" or liberals who denied many of the essentials of the faith.
    Unfortunately, the new-found unity between brethren began to come apart. During this time, Prohibition was in force. Some among the fundamentalists held to freedom of conscience in the area of drinking, while others held to total abstinence. The abstinence-minded believers felt they could not remain in unity with those who allowed a drink with dinner, and the strength of force in the group dissipated in many ways.
    Thankfully, couragous men of faith continued to work in establishing believers in the faith in their own churches, as well as preaching the Gospel in society.
    In the old fashioned sense of the word, I am a Baptist (in the footsteps of Bunyan, Spurgeon...people who embraced the fundamental beliefs of Scripture & lived them with joy).
    Sadly, I feel that "Baptist" does not say alot to people anymore. Thanks to the heathen media, "fundamentalist" unfortunately today evokes pictures of people who dress in the era of the 1950's, don't fellowship with anyone who is in the least different than themselves, and may be crazed & dangerous!
    Even stating we are Christians has little meaning today. However, if the growing trend of anti-Christ attitudes continues in this country, it won't be long before those who don't mean business with God will stop using the above terms.
    In the meanwhile, we must shine!
     
  14. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am an Historic, Unaffiliated, Particular Baptist.

    Historic in that I still cling to the historic principles of the Baptist Distinctives of the faith once delivered to the saints.

    Unaffiliated in that I am not affiliated with any denomination, convention, fellowship, or association.

    Particular in that I believe that the Atonement is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect in Christ.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Javalady,

    It just goes to show that history is not an exact science. I learned (and would give) a very different description of the theological events of the early twentieth century.

    Joshua
     
  16. javalady

    javalady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    This does not surprise me, Joshua. From your commments, you seem to come from the side of the wall that embraced the invasion of higher criticism, rather than the solid Biblical truths held to by Baptist Christians for centuries.
     
  17. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Javalady,

    Since (before the advent of Modernism) the questions which fundamentalism answers weren't even being asked I think it is hard to argue who holds to the more historically authentic baptist faith. it would be like saying, "I'm a historic Presbyterian - since historically early Presbyterians did not believe in the existence of photons - and neither do I."

    Joshua
     
  18. javalady

    javalady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really, Joshua! Any reading of godly men of old tells us that the doctrines of salvation by grace through faith alone, the pure & inerrant Word, the reality of the miraclulous birth of Christ (by a virgin), His miraculous rising from the dead, a life of separation & holiness...these & many other doctrines held today by Bible-believing, conservative Baptists (and other true Christians) were truths held precious.
    Matthew Henry (not a Baptist, but a Puritan of the 1600's) was fighting "modernists" of his day!
    Charles Spurgeon was grieved over "the downgrade" of his day among Baptists in England.
    Bible believers have fought heresy all along...way back to the Bible itself. That's why so much is written in the Word about combatting heresy, and instructing believers in the truth.
    Actually, the challenging of the Word of God goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.
    "Did God really say?" hissed the serpent. And the devil's children have been asking their father's question ever since.
     
  19. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Javalady,

    Of the things that you have mentioned, I would argue that "salvation through grace alone" and a "life of separation and holiness" are the only ones that have defined historical baptists. The issue of a "pure and inerrant word" only came into being when some readers of the Bible felt that science offered an attack on their faith and began to define their faith as a response to the scientific method. The issue of the necessity of the virgin birth is more a product of Augustinian theology on human sexuality and is not - historically - a significant issue. The proclamation of a resurrected Christ is universal to all Christians, but that does not mean that it should be exempt from critical examination by biblical scholars.

    Joshua
     
  20. javalady

    javalady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    The virgin birth has been proclaimed historically because the church has had to defend itself from early heretics trying to introduce Horace & Isis into the Church (and succeeded when much of the "visible" church succombed to Romanism). It also had to be defended against the mystery cults of the era; not to mention in witness to Jews! Even now, they try to say that "virgin" is not what "young maiden" means in the OT context. Yet of course, that is what a "young maiden" was, in the context!
    Higher criticism is borne out of defiance of the Word; not a genuine love of the Word. Those who tout it also pander to evolution, homosexuality, and all those other abominations. They cry "peace! peace!" when for the wicked there is no peace. God says what He says. Those who try to twist it out of context are in for His judgement.
    If you take any serious look at the believers of past centuries, you'll see that these essentials (including the all-sufficient, inerrant Word) were indeed topics of study, preaching & contending for in the faith once delivered to the saints.
    However, if you drink of the swill of the apostates who defy and try to redefine the Word of God, you'll think that all of these essentials are non-essentials. That all we have to do is "love one another", "tolerate! tolerate! tolerate!"
    Jesus & His scourge cleansed the Jewish temple twice in His earthly ministry. He is yet cleansing His temple (the Church) of it today. He will continue to do so until He comes.
    If you profess to love Jesus Christ--love Him according to His Word! Don't add to or take away from it. Cling to Him--not Prof. So-and-So of "This'N'That University" of Glockenspiel.
     

Share This Page

Loading...