What is an Independent Fundamental Baptist?

No, its anyone that agrees with ME completely.

 

Or perhaps for some non-IFBers it is anyone who disagrees with me!!!

 

Can we answer the OP? It's a good question, particularly in view of the fact that I think it is fair to say that we over here are fairly ignorant of the term. 'Baptist' I can grasp, 'fundamental' is totally open to interpretation/ opinion but I presume has to do with the Niagara Convention of 1895 and the Fundamentals of 1911(?), and 'independent' I presume means these are individual congregations not affiliated with or in membership of any Association or Convention.

Am I on the right lines or wildly stabbing in the dark?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Independent - should be easy - although some of the associations can almost border on denominations.

Fundamental - there's the tough one

Baptist - what brand?

Good question Archi - do you have an answer, or was your original question in jest because of some of the squabbles that break out here?

 

Pretty close. Originally, it was a scholarly response to higher criticism. It demanded a very orthodox, high view of the Bible. It was not opposed to lower criticism but in fact embraced it. Fundamentalism was not originally denominational but became more associated with Baptists as liberal, modernistic higher critics gained control of mainline denominations. It was probably the Baptist tendency toward local church autonomy that separated them from the others.

True fundamentalism is much broader than most seem to think. The original fundamentalists were not KJVO... they weren't even monolithic on the exact nature of the Bible's inspiration. They differed on escatology, polity, baptism, and other areas.

They didn't always agree on interpretations but they did agree that the Bible was authoritative when interpretted correctly. Most, if not all, of the Baptists that participate on this board would share agreement on the things that the original fundamentalists counted as essential. One notable exception might be the KJVO's. They probably could not affirm the view of scripture taught in "The Fundamentals."

 

From what I understand, the higher critics said that the Bible had no bearing on modern life. These became evangelicals - those that thought winning people to Christ was all that mattered. The other group said the Bible was applicable in every facet of life and that we should let the Bible be our guide in all we do. This group bacame known as the fundamentalists.

 

There are only about two people posting on this board that have any idea.

 

Although they like to fancy themselves as such, KJVOs are NOT fundamentalists.

 

An Independent Fundamental Baptist, IMO, is a Baptist who believes in the autonomy of the local church, he opposes all forms of liberism and modernism, and he subscribes to the major tenets of the Fundamentalist Movenment.

Reviewing the five major tenets, I see no reason why one holding the KJVO view cannot be labeled a Fundamentalist. The truth is, it was a non-issue. Going by the previously posted criteria, there are many who post here that would have to be considered something other than Fundamentalists because:

 

??

 

Yep you are definitely a modern IFB fundamentalist

 

Yep you are definitely a modern IFB fundamentalist </font>[/QUOTE]Come on... there is no reason to insult the rest of us.

Call him a pseudo-fundamentalist or a neo-fundamentalist or any of a number of names... but an IFB fundamentalist, he is not.

 

In SBC's defence - he did use the word "modern" as a disclaimer