I am an independant fundamental baptist, and upon reflection: independant would not be a good way to describe myself in and of itself. If I call myself a fundamentalist, one might assume I may well be part of the Taliban or something similar.
So for the most part I tell unsaved especially, That I am a Baptist in practice and belief. I hold to all of the original baptist beliefs, and it gives a clearer picture.
Baptist or Fundamentalist?
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Siegfried, Mar 1, 2002.
Page 2 of 3
-
I would consider myself a fundamentally right, conservative, reformed baptist. That is to say that I believe the gospel as presented in the pages of Holy Writ and despise all these so-called "lower criticism" people that think they are "progressive" when it fact they are nothing but a bunch of depraved men trying to argue with God, the Holy Spirit, about the revealed word.
What is referred to as "higher" criticism is such a work of the depraved mind I can't believe any Christian would take it seriously. It certainly demonstrates the truth of 1 cor 2:14.
Anyway, for me, I love being fundementally right instead of being fundamentally wrong.
For all of you that actually think "higher criticism" has some sort of value, I would suggest that you ask the Holy Spirit to open your mind and help you understand the gospel instead of all the garbage and insanity that the minds of depraved men can think up. Peace!
James2
[ April 04, 2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ] -
I'm a Christian by the grace of God and a Baptist by choice. With that said I would have to say I'm a Fundamentalist Christian first and a Baptist 2nd.
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Conservative- gun totin', republican, right winger.
Independant- no hierarchy.
Fundamental- if it ain't in the KJV, then I don't want to hear it!!!
Baptist- Jesus walked from Nazareth to Bethabara, about 45 miles, to see a Baptist. Not John the Episcopelian, not John the tongue-speaking Charismatic, not John the Methodist, not even pope John, but John the Baptist.
Christian- Jesus died to save the wretched person that I am. -
Mr. Curtis,
And we all said AMEN!!!!! We all are glad that you were saved! -
Using the KJV has NOTHING to do with being a fundamentalist. Nothing. Nada. Keine. Zip. Nul.
If you don't want to use other versions, fine. But don't be dishonest with terms. -
I am an independent fundamentalist Baptist but I have never heard anyone described as a historical IFB. Is it a western US thing? It just isn't a term I have heard and I have been to many fundamental Baptist churches for special meetings and such.
-
-
Our pastor stresses seperation. Would you concider the historical IFB part onf the Jack Hyles "movement" (for lack of another word in my child took all my brain cells head)?
-
-
-
Furthermore, Hyles is now dead, and yet fundamentalism keeps living on. Hyles and churches that follow him are a strange subset of fundamentalism. Definitely not mainstream.
Chick -
Then what is the difference? I definately don't think we are in the Hyles camp
-
I am interested in hearing more about the historic fundamentalist view of separation. After growing up in IFB churches in the South, I had to "discover" on my own that there was such a thing as The Fundamentals and that the original rift was theological in nature and had nothing to do with men in other churches letting their hair grow too long! I would still consider myself a fundamentalist, but in the sense that Warfield was one, not Hyles.
I have no problem with separation from sin, but the idea of cultural separatism does concern me, primarily because it tended to play itself out in my experience in Faith vs. Reason categories. What is the historical fundamentalist view of separation and what is its Scriptural basis?
Mark -
I think one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that historically, in fundamentalism, separation was based upon a coherent doctrine of biblical separation that resulted in a unified practice of that doctrine. In the earliest history of fundamentalism, fundamentalists were a part of the major denominations. As liberalism began to encroach, fundamentalists at first tried to co-exist. When this became impossible, they tried to wrest control of the denominations and seminaries from liberals. When this strategy failed, fundamentalists left the denominations. However, the fundamentalists did not leave in unison. Some stayed and continued to fight and have influence long after others had left. There was disagreement as to what point of denominational departure constituted the necessity of leaving. Separation was a last resort whose necessity did not become clear to all, all at once. These differences in perception are understandable, for something was happening to the church(liberalism) that was without historical precedent. In those uncharted waters, there were differences of opinion as to how and when to respond.
-
[ April 06, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Siegfried ] -
I would consider myself a Fundamentalist, in that I am a militant Baptist Biblicist. I'm afraid I can't separate any one term from that description.
Below is an editorial I worked on a few months ago.
-
Baptist.
-
So let me reword this for clification. Do you think Jack Hyles was down the line with the historical IFB?
-
Page 2 of 3