Thank you for that information. It leads me to ask this. By the way I am serious with this question. If that is what defines a fundamentalist then can a fundamentalist also be liberal in his/her doctrine and walk? The reason I ask is because none of those definitions or explanations of the differences covers ones attitude toward holiness.
Cassidy, I don't think it is debatable who knows more about the IFB movement as a whole.
No one is contending that I know half of what you know about the IFB.
I came up FWB and my segment of that movement fellowshipped a great deal with IFB churches.
That is not the point here.
The point, that surely you must recognize, is that there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of IFB people who are KJV only, who treat the SBC as an apostate movement, who preach standards for which they have no Bible, etc.
Surely you must know this.
To be honest, you have educated me to some degree.
I am actually very happy to hear that on the other hand, there are many IFB's who are not as extreme.
I knew there were some, but am glad to hear that there are many.
This thread is not about them.
This thread is about the many, many thousands who ARE legalistic and backwards who misrepresent the rest of us and do, in my opinion, more harm than good to the kingdom.
Several others on this very thread, including Michael and Berean have expressed that this is their experience as well.
This is not some weird coincidence.
It is because this has been the experience of many.
Many people, when they see on a church sign- INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL- they immediately think of
KJVO, legalistic, backwards philosophy.
Now surely you recognize this point as valid.
Surely.
This thread is not about John R. Rice and people like him.
This thread is about Sheldon Smith and Phil Kidd and Sammy Allen and the late Jack Hyles and many thousands like them.
And it is not just about the IFB.
This philosophy of theirs permeates FWB and AMB and many other Baptist circles.
That would depend on your definition of "liberal." If by "liberal" you mean theological liberalism, I.E., Modernism, then they could not coexist as Modernism is diametrically opposite to the 5 points as enumerated.
If
by "liberal" you mean "somebody who does things differently than me" then, yes, the two could coexist. :)
Well, I am not opposed to Militant Fundamentalism as long as that which we militate against is truly contra-biblical. However, what passes for militancy today is often just a preference elevated to a "conviction." In my theology a conviction must be enumerated in the bible. If the bible says do it, we do it. If the bible says not to do it, we don't do it. If the bible is silent on the subject, so are we. :)
I agree. Anytime I try to elevate my preferences to the level of authority as that of the scriptures, I would then be an idolater. :(