What makes a "good" fundamentalist?

You say yourself that you believe the KJV is the MOST accurate, not absolutely accurate, so in your line of reasoning you have just disqualified yourself.

You have also disqualified every believer of every non-English speaking country in the world as well as those who lived prior to 1611 or whatever revision of the KJV you prefer.

The type of thinking displayed in this and other threads on similar subjects reminds me why so many committed evangelicals have abandoned the term fundamentalist. I can't say I blame them.

 

The contention that most fundamentalists feel that the KJV is the most accurate version may or may not be true. You provide no evidence.

Even if you're correct, you in no way prove that most fundamentalists believe KJV usage is a defining characteristic of a fundamentalist.

Your view is patently unsupported in historic fundamentalism.

My opinion is that this interpretation of fundamentalism is lunacy. That is simply opinion, but at least I'm honest enough to admit opinion rather than try to pass it off as fact.

 

Pretty much everyone who is knowledgeable of the history agrees on the historic doctrines that defined fundamentalism. They also generally agree that some form of militancy is needed in addition to the pure doctrine.

My question is whether that militancy must consist of ecclesiastical separation, or whether it may be simply "contending for the faith."

As an example, SBC conservatives are contending but not separating--and they're winning, unlike the conservatives who stayed in the NBC 70 years ago. Are they fundamentalist by the historical definition?

 

Siegfried asked:

I think you could argue that they are. Consider battle between liberals and fundamentalists in the Presbyterian church in the early 1900s. Liberalism began to infiltrate the seminaries, and conservatives rose up to protest it. A battle ensued and conservatives lost the battle for the seminaries. As a result, conservative J. Gresham Machen left Princeton Seminary and started Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. From this example (and I think a similar pattern sould be shown in other denominations) we can see that fundamentalists first fought to keep control of the denominations, and left--practiced seperation--only after the battle for control had been lost.

The difference for Southern Baptists is that they lost control of the denomination in the 50s and 60s to liberals and decided to live with the situation rather than seperate. Then, in the 70s, some of them decided to try to take it back. It seems they are succeeding, though the process is long, and, in my judgement, incomplete.

If you judge fundamentalism by the five fundamentals, they are both fundamental (though the KJVOnly strain in fundamentalism is an aberration from the position on scripture taken by historic fundamentalists). If you judge fundamentalism by action, you could argue that both are contending for the faith within the flow of their own history. The distinctions between Southern Baptists and IFB's have to do in part with the differing paths they chose in the past.

 

swaimj,

I tend to agree with you personally. I'm not sure that older IFB pastors and professors would agree with us. The ironic part of history as I understand it is that the men that formed the GARBC pulled out of the NBC before the men that later formed the CBA and eventually the FBF in its current form. Now the FBF guys tend to be more hard-line in their separation than the GARBC.

You are absolutely right that the SBC reformation is incomplete, but still moving forward. My opinion is that the separation vs. contending issue is spawned by denominationalism. Apart from the denominational structure that can motivates conservatives to fight for the denominational institutions (seminaries, mission agencies, etc.), there would be no reason NOT to separate.

That's one point where I think the IFB's have definitely gotten it right.

I would be curious to hear the Calvary professors' perspective on separation vs. contending. Do you have a feel for where they're at?

 

hey Hedied4u
I am right there with you. Never fear nobody before 1930 believed in KJVO. and I like CCM, this isn't a position out of ignorance either. I've held every possible position on that subject, and I don't say put a punk band on stage, but I do think it's an area of liberty. If baptists have hisorically given each other space over something like soteriology (Cal vs.Arm ) then I think there is room to delegate the music issue to an area not worth separating over.
reubdog

 

Adam,
Through the years music styles have always been in some state of change. We don't sing without music like some of the Primitive Baptists. We don't chant like some of the Catholic Orders. We don't have just an organ for church music like other denominations. There are some baptists who believe only a piano should be allowed in the worship service! None of these things amount to a hill of beans if the gospel message is ignored. It is my conviction that if any song does not build up the Message of the saving grace of God through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; but is classified as 'christian' then that song may not be worth listening to.
In Christ,
Jeff

 

jl wade

Amen, brother! IN essentials unity, in non-essential liberty. in all things charity!
reuben

 

Amen

In all things -- faith, hope and love.