fundamentalist?

This'll be fun .

There are as many views about what Fundamental Baptist are as there are Fundamental baptists!

 

This site should explain some things.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html

"Name: Fundamentalism

2. Founder: No one person can be credited with founding Fundamentalism. Nor does any single group comprise the history of the movement. The label `Fundamentalist' is used as both anadjective and a noun. Accordingly, trying to understand the phenomena requires more than knowing a few names and dates. Curtis Lee Laws, editor of a conservative publication entitled Watchman-Examiner is credited with coining the term "fundamentalism."

3. Origin of the Concept: The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."

4. Date of Birth: Second decade of the 20th century

5. Birth Place: The United States

6. Year Founded: Concept coined in 1920

7. Sacred or Revered Texts :

The Bible is the sacred text of the Christian Fundamentalists. Indeed, if there is one single thing which binds Fundamentalists together, it is their insistence that the Bible is to be understood as literally true. Further, Fundamentalists see themselves as the guardians of the truth, usually to the exclusion of others' interpretation of the Bible. Fundamentalism in other faith traditions similarly proclaims guardianship of truth."

A lot of the original Fundamentalist writings can be found here.
http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/

 

Whatever I believe of course.

One thing we know for sure, fundies are not EVER KJVO.

 

If the guidelines for defining Fundamentalism are correct as stated in the link provided by mioque, then Southern Baptists fall into this catagory whether by practice or by specific title. This fact I have known for years so it comes not as a surprise to me at all.

Yet, what is the difference between a Fundamentalist Baptist and an Independent Baptist??? I would say that most all Baptists are fundamentalist as are some other ultra conservative denominations.

 

Years before I knew what a fundamentalist was I heard a preacher say, "You can be a fundamentalist but you don't have to act like one." I always wondered what he meant by that. I never understod what he meant until I went to seminary and took Baptist history. I then realized I had been in a fundamentalist church since I received Christ. But one thing that differed from so many was the fact that I told my wife one time that I believed that if anything happened to us the people in the church would take care of us. That church was serious about evangelism and discipleship. It was serious about taking care of people and not just helping them or giving them money. Whatever you needed they would help out. The church was staretd shortly after the depression. If someone came and needed anything they took up a collection during the service. One time in Sunday School one of the men was sharing about a coup,e struggling. I asked if we coiuld take up an ofering for that couple. I was shocked at how generous the people were. I knew of plenty of evidence of that kind of thing over the years. One lady in the church lost her mother and grandmother with just a few years. It was just her left and she was on her own. The church paid her entire college bill. We saw that over and over. When I was just getting started in carpentry I worked for one of the men in that church. One day he told me I should get out on my own and get a contractor's license. He not only encouraged me but also recommended me to people. He lost an employee and gave me more work and money. Any time I needed advice he would help me. He was the most trusted contractor in town. To get a recommendation was from him was the best one could get.

They believed the entire Bible. They sent out about 20 missionaries each year. The church was about 1000 people in attendance each weeek. The church was started with four people with one thing in mind--outreach.

You want to feel loved and excited at the same time then join a church that loves people and gives itself away. That was the church my wife and I were married in. We still long for that kind of love and intense dedication to God. It was fundamentalist in every way. It was fun and serious about loving people. When we needed work done there were usually about 20 to 60 men who would show up. Every church building was built by men who were contractors in the church. There was also a waiting list for leaders to lead. They didn't have to hoot and holler for leaders. I would tell my friends that it was the only church to go to. That church would baptize about 120 each year. The youth numbered about 400. It all started with one young lady in high school starting a Bible study on the high school campus and exploded from there. It wasn't long and there were Bible studies all over the campus. The pastors today are welcome to that same campus.

If we claim we are fundamentalists and believe the Bible and worship a God who is alive and can be trusted with our entire being then we must totally give ourselves to Him in all we do and are.

 

What I find interesting is that the Fundamentalist movement was not originally Baptist-only. I have only seen two other churches that were not baptist in doctrine but were fundamentalist. Independent Fundamental Methodist in Southwest Missouri and an Independent Fundamental Wesleyan??? in the same part of the state. Baptists have made their stand better than the other denominations, but sometimes it seems like the Alamo.

Jason

 

Pastor Bob,

I would agree with you, but I would separate Militant Fundamentalism into two groups:

These groups both share in common what you stated about Militant Fundamentalists but here are the differences between them:

Legalist Militant Fundamentalists:

Do not make distinctions between fundamentals
of the faith and disputable leisure, astetic and social issues such
as Music, clothing, TV and Movies and Dress.

This kind of fundamentalist set standards on disputable issues(that are not fundmentals of the faith) and then judges and separates from all those(including other militant fundamentalists) who do not come to the same conclusions on those issues.

Discerning Militant Fundamentalists:

Discerning Fundamentalists believe and practice concepts taught in passages like Romans 14. They can see for the possiblity of believers to make different applications of Scriptural passages.

They preach and defend the fundamentals of the faith with a militant furvor. They will separate from all who would question these fundamentals.

But they make a clear and visible distinction between fundamentals of the faith, and their own applications and interpretations in other parts of the scriptures.

The allow for their to be differences between brothers without it dividing them.

In summary, the shortest way to summarize the difference between the legalist militant fundamentalist and the discerning militant fundamentalist is that one(the legalist) believes
not only that the scriptures are inerrant, but that all their applications of it are as well. The other(discerning) while he believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, does not believe his own applications of those Scriptures to be inerrant.

IFBReformer

 

Just when I thought my prefernce of strawberry ice cream was my dedication in my walk with God, now to keep from being labeled, I have to start likng marcino cherry with marshmellows and banana chunks with sprinkles. (with rasberry ripple)

 

But wouldn't this apply to all of us?

I know what I believe, and what I believe you believe is that I don't believe what you believe, but what you believe is right just because you believe it?

 

Dr. Bob,

I know where you are coming from and understand your(and my) feeling that they have hijacked our good name. But I feel that when we are explaining the issue of fundamentalists, especially to new fundamentalists or outsiders, we have to make this distinction loud and clear.

IFBReformer

 

But wouldn't this apply to all of us?

I know what I believe, and what I believe you believe is that I don't believe what you believe, but what you believe is right just because you believe it? </font>[/QUOTE]QuickeningSpirit,

Try and say what you just wrote 5 times fast! Wow what a tongue tie!

I think I know what you are asking. I believe we as Christians should read God's Word, study it, pray about it, and then apply it to our lives.

But we each make different applications of God's Word.

Let me give you an example when I read Pauls exhortation in the scriptures - "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,"(1 Timothy 2:9) I might apply that differently in family then you do in yours.

You might interpret "dress modestly" as Christian women may not wear pants. You then implement that with your wife and daughters.
You may have them wear dresses down to their ankles.
That is your perogitive as a father and you are applying God's Word in the way you deem appropriate.

I on the other hand, would apply that verse differently. I would apply "dress modestly" in this way: My wife and daughters may wear both pants, dresses or skirts and knee length shorts. However, when wearing pants or knee length shorts they should be pants or shorts that do not stick to them and should be loose fitting - they should be pants or shorts made for women.

When wearing dresses or skirts, cleavage should not be shown and the dress should come to at least the knee length.

I think as a church we may have stricter dress standards just to avoid problems. What I mean is that the Pastor may have "administrative" rules for church activities that ladies wear dresses.
But when the Pastor steps out of his role as administor and overseer and then steps into my role as father and husband in my home he has overstepped his authority.

This is the kind of the thing that is all to prevalent in many fundamentalist churches - sad to say.

IFBReformer

 

IFB,

I understand what you understood, but I have to further understand what understanding there is concerning the understanding on the misunderstood issues concerning the understanding of what Paul understood through Holy Ghost inspiration which is more understanding than we are understood to deserve.

Yes, I would have a problem with my pastor coming into my castle to dictate his standards, unless my standards line up with his, of course. But on the same note, what if his don't line up with mine? If I look at his "job" as being the pastor that I employ, then I may have a problem; the first being that I thought I employed, or had part in employing the pastor, the second, I would need to consider his calling to be the watchman on the wall warning, not dictating, to me as under his watchful eye.

I need the devil preached out of me more than I would ever admit, (well, I just did that din't I?), but the reasoning is that what has worked for him, and is evident by his walk with God, to prove "his" standard will greatly improve my walk with God. Now mind you, I am not saying more spiritual, but a closer walk as my heart convicts me through his preaching, simply so I won't have as much as I had before to answer at the Judgement Seat.

If you want to know my personal standard, well, maybe you don't really afterall.

I preach standards, but I try my best to put them in the right perspective of not boasting them, or expecting everyone to line up with them. I compared it to having a bucket of squid and going around dumping them on everybody, the analogy being squid are good to "fish" with, and everybody who wants to catch fish should get a piece of squid at a time to try and catch soem more fish.

Now I would never sit under a pastor who had a lesser mode of conduct or dress than I, simply for the reason not to deminish his ministry, but most of all, I would consider it comprimise on his behalf.

I say this due to experience in the matter, I am no one's judge, but I won't let that dictate my standard either.

I fully recognize the right one has to interpet scripture, but when they "wrest" at them, it's time for counsel, a multitude of counsellors at that.

I'm a child of the Most High, not a member of some clic. The "clicish" type don't like me much for that, but I have the same standards as them, but I go one step further, I don't treat people the way so many of them do, it's just not like Christian character to malign a brother or sister who hasn't matured, not forgetting the "slime" they were pulled out of, to be where they are now. That could very easily and justifiably make them a hypocrite rather than the other.

"Lord, please don't let me be the hypocrite the pharisee was when he judged the hypocrite, I know I am."

 

What are the five fundalmentals?

 

There aren't five, there are seven. My "Modernism and Fundamentalism" syllabus lists them as:

The Fundamentals were published as a result of the Niagara Bible Conferences were it was agreed that Theological Liberalism and Modernism had produced an environment of -

1. declining post millennial evangelical optimism
2. the Social gospel’s tendencies to despecify its message and merge with cultural institutions
3. the rise of dogmatic Darwinism
4. the development of German Higher Criticism
5. the changing roles of women in culture and society

 

The Fundamentals were published as a result of the Niagara Bible Conferences were it was agreed that Theological Liberalism and Modernism had produced an environment of -

1. declining post millennial evangelical optimism
2. the Social gospel’s tendencies to despecify its message and merge with cultural institutions
3. the rise of dogmatic Darwinism
4. the development of German Higher Criticism
5. the changing roles of women in culture and society [/QB][/QUOTE]


Sounds like nothing has changed from 1850!