1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What is an Independent Fundamental Baptist?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Archippus, Dec 10, 2003.

  1. Archippus

    Archippus Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It appears from many posters here that an Independent Fundamental Baptist is "anyone who agrees with me" completely.
     
  2. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Ratings:
    +0
    No, its anyone that agrees with ME completely. [​IMG]
     
  3. All about Grace

    All about Grace New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,680
    Ratings:
    +0
    Or perhaps for some non-IFBers it is anyone who disagrees with me!!! [​IMG]
     
  4. Matt Black

    Matt Black New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Ratings:
    +0
    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
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    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?
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    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."
     
  7. TC

    TC Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +33
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  8. Shiloh

    Shiloh New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    Messages:
    937
    Ratings:
    +0
    There are only about two people posting on this board that have any idea.
     
  9. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Ratings:
    +0
    Although they like to fancy themselves as such, KJVOs are NOT fundamentalists.
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,463
    Ratings:
    +86
    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:
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    ??
     
  12. Archippus

    Archippus Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    There are only about two people posting on this board that have any idea.

    It appears that my original question has more merit than I thought it did. Only two people have any idea Shiloh? Does that mean you have found one person you can agree with?
     
  13. All about Grace

    All about Grace New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,680
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yep you are definitely a modern IFB fundamentalist :rolleyes:
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yep you are definitely a modern IFB fundamentalist :rolleyes: </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.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    In SBC's defence - he did use the word "modern" as a disclaimer
     
Loading...