Is Premillennialism A Prerequisite for Fundamental Baptists

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Ulsterman, Jun 30, 2003.

  1. Ulsterman

    Ulsterman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a dear friend who seems set on changing his eschatological view from pre to amillennial. Does that mean he should no longer be considered a fundamental Baptist? If you are a premillennial pastor would you allow this man back in your pulpit? If your church was supporting him as a missionary would you drop his support because of this change?
     
  2. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I am a pre-mil fundamentalist, I don't consider dispensationalism to be a requirement of a fundamentalist. You have Reformed fundamentalists, Arminian fundamentalists, Baptist fundamentalist, and Presbyterian(especially in N. Ireland) fundamentalists. I think Christian fundamentalists of all strips can fellowship with each other, and even speak in each other's churches. This is the historic position.

    I would draw the line, though, on missionary support. When you send out a missionary, you want that man to support the doctrinal statement of your church. His ministry is an extension of your ministry.

    Just my thoughts.

    Andy
     
  3. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    (mild nitpicking) You would support his preaching to your local people but not support his preaching on the mission field???
     
  4. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I'm assuming that he would be gracious enough not to preach on the distinctives between him and me. Missionaries, OTOH, must preach and teach the whole counsel of God.

    Andy
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely not. He is still fundamental.
    I'm not, but I would anyway, all things equal of course.
    Of course not. Our church supports almost 10,000 missionaries, among whom you'll find various approaches to eschatology within the gospel.
     
  6. IfbReformer

    IfbReformer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not have a problem with having him in my church. Having said that I would hope he would respect your differences and not preach on them.

    I am not a dispensational-premillenialist either(I am a historic premillenialist) but I still consider myself to be an IFB.

    I think we in the IFB camp, need to leave a little more room for the differences on eschatology and systematic theology.

    We all(as fundamentalists) agree the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, that is the starting point, and ultimatly our stopping point as well.

    Sometimes though we as IFBs or fundamentalists in general - think not only the Word of God is inerrant, but that our applications, interpretations and systemizations of it are inerrant as well.

    IFBReformer
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    He could still be considered a fundamental Baptist. I don't know whether or not he could still be saved ... :D ... (I am kidding folks ... Relax).

    Probably not. There are enough other good options to have in to speak that this would be unnecessary.

    Yes. We are sending people out to do what we are doing, planting churches and teaching doctrine. While I can grant liberty to people who differ with me, there are enough missionaries who do not differ with me to use up all the support we can muster.

    There is room for difference on some of these issues. But when it comes to having someone in to preach or sending my money to support, I would draw the line pretty narrow. Now, if an amill brother wants to take me to lunch, just say when and where ... I am there.
     
  8. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not convinced that amillenialists and dispensationalists can peacefully coexist in one local church. I wish it were true--but I've never seen any evidence it could work unless they never talk about eschatology. Fat chance!
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Help me out here. I thought the final point of the Niagara Conference (1895?) that set the outline of historic fundamentalism, stated a belief that Jesus would return to establish His kingdom and rule on earth.

    That would definately make pre-mil the only "fundamentalist" position (although it could vary with pre/mid/post trib rapture).

    Am I laboring under a misconception here? No post-mill or a-mill could rightly be called historic fundamentalists.
     
  10. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yes, but who would want to be a fundamentalist ;)
    Hi my name is go2church and I am a recovering fundamentalist [​IMG]
     
  11. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Is Premillennialism A Prerequisite for Fundamental Baptists ?

    No, but it oughta be... [​IMG]
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    1895 isn't very "historic" in the big picture, being only the last 5% of church history. Or was that your point? [​IMG]
     
  13. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,626
    Likes Received:
    310
    1895 may not be all that far back in history, but the Niagra Conference represents an attempt to clearly lay out the basics of the Christian Faith (the Fundamentals if you please) as they had been commonly understood for at least the previous generation (and that puts you back to the 1860s). The Conference took place to prolmulgate an answer to the rising tide of Modernism that was flooding into the mainline Protestant and Baptist churchs, schools, and other endeavors.
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoa, 7%. [​IMG]

    Amill isn't exactly part of "the rising tide of Modernism". [​IMG]
     
  15. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,626
    Likes Received:
    310
    I didn't say it was. One thing you need to know about my posts, I have a fairly dry sense of humor, if I use it at all. I also try to put matters in their historical context.

    In this case, the a-mill position at the time was not automaticly a "Modernist" position. A.T. Robertson the eminent SB Greek scholar held the a-mill position. My point was and is the "Fundamentalist" position developed in reaction to a specific heresy. Previous generations though they had troubles of their own did not face the likes of Harry Emerson Fosdick.

    So, pre-1895 is somewhat irrelevant to the issue at hand. The term "Fundamentalist" before c1895 in today's usage was a null term.
     
  16. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is an except from an article, Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism, by Rolland McCune.

    [24] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, pp. 29, 35.

    [25] John R. Rice, “Not Landmark Nor Dispensational,” The Sword of the Lord (Mar
    15, 1975). He said clearly, “I do not regard myself as a dispensationalist” (p. 11).

    [26] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 162. See
    also Bruce A. Waltke, “A Response,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 348.
     
  17. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah. I guess the "historic" part is throwing me off. I assumed it was used to indicate "long-established". [​IMG]

    And I know all about dry humor. [​IMG]
     
  18. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob Griffin asked:

    Am I laboring under a misconception here?

    Yes. Any amillennialist or postmillennialist can affirm that "Jesus will return and establish his kingdom and rule on earth."

    The issue between them is when and in what way this is accomplished.
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Fundamentalism was formalized in 1895. "Historic" fundamentalism tries to focus on those same issues.

    The challenge today is "pseudo-fundamentalism" that is trying to rewrite history by adding new "fundamentals" or new interpretations of the historic ones. KJVO false doctrine is one of these attempts.

    The battle for "historic" fundamentalism continues.
     
  20. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Disagree with that, Scott, as that was NOT the interpretation of "return and establish His kingdom as understood.

    Proof?

    Five Fundamentals of Niagara: the inspiration of the Bible, the depravity of man, redemption through Christ's blood, the truth church made up of all believers, and the coming of the Lord to set up His reign. Much has been made of these Articles or Statements of Niagara, but a serious injustice has been done to the Conference and its speakers and to Fundamentalism in general.

    Writers and teachers have repeated the Famous Five, in some form, and held them to be the Magna Charta of Fundamentalism. Actually, the Statement of Belief listed fourteen articles; in addition to those there were the Trinity, the fall of Adam, the need of the new birth, full deliverance from guilt at salvation, the assurance of salvation, the centrality of Christ in the Bible, the walk after the Spirit, the resurrection of both believers and unbelievers, and the ripening of the present age for judgment.

    On the matter of eschatology, two things about Niagara bear mention. One was the fixed position as to the conditions at the end of the present age, for a fearful apostasy was foreseen within the professing Christian body. The second conviction was that the premillennial coming of the Lord is the only hope of man.
     

Share This Page

Loading...