Who says Fundamental Baptists Don't Write

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by Squire Robertsson, Mar 12, 2011.

  1. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,626
    Likes Received:
    310
  2. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,626
    Likes Received:
    310
    113 Views as of this post

    and no comments. What gives?
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I looked around on the site. I will look around again when I have some spare time.

    Under the Maranatha Commitment Statements in the section on Soteriology I found the following:

    "We recognize that good men have differed throughout church history regarding the difficult questions of election and predestination...We grant both our faculty and students the liberty to investigate the sovereignty of God...We do not support positions...that limit the extent of the atonement to the elect...The Bible Department believes that carelessly disparaging men as Calvinists or Arminians is unhelpful and intellectually chilling."

    I have some problems with the lack of consistency here. On the one hand they grant freedom it seems to the Calvinistic side to have their own views. But then,in the next breath they take it back by saying they do not support positions that limit the extent of the atonement to the elect. You can't have it both ways.

    And then the mystifying statement about calling folks Calvinists or Arminians is disparaging. Most Calvinists do not not mind being called Calvinists since they refer to themselves that way anyway! Arminians though take different tactics. Though they have affinity with the Arminian school of thought -- they vehemently deny any such correlation. Thankfully on the BB we have a few self-confessed Arminians.

    I regret that they emphasize Dispensationalism as they do. And I don't think a KJVism (not KJVOism) stance will win them any standing in academia. I know,you'll say that they aren't seeking the applause of men for that that one. But my criticism still stands.

    I appreciate any good they might accomplish for the extension of the Kingdom of God. I trust that their journal will grow into a reputable one.
     
  4. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the term "fundamentalism" has different meanings outside the USA. It is a term we changed in Canada to "evangelical". We remain fundamental to the faith, but we do not include either dispensationalism or premillenialism as a requirement.

    Personally, I do not fancy labels.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  5. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,626
    Likes Received:
    310
    Brethren, the school is what it is. Its DNA flows through the pre-convention Northern Baptist movement. The movement was "dispensational" and followed the Fullerite side of soteriology as it developed over the years. As for the version question this is the operative phrase in MBBC's statement "This version is the preference of multiple churches within our constituency." MBBC's founders (Drs. Cedarholm, Hollowoood, and Weeks) were in the second generation leadership of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. So, pardon the school for being a tad parochial.
     

Share This Page

Loading...