What is the difference between the classic Fundamentalist and the Modern day

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?

 

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.

 

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.)

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?"

 

I suggest you take a look at this thread 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:

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.

 

Great stuff. I've read some of Francis Wayland's other books!