Southern Baptists

[vatuck]

Do you all consider Southern Baptists fundamentalists?

[Vambram]

Do you all consider Southern Baptists fundamentalists?
I believe that the theologically conservative Southern Baptists believe in the basic Fundamentals of the Faith, and thus that makes them by definition, Fundamentalists.

[NewGuy101]

Do you all consider Southern Baptists fundamentalists? Are you one? Thats why you are asking?

[Christian Soldier]

I'm a theologically conservative Southern Baptist who believes in the basic fundamentals of the Faith, but I am NOT a fundamentalist. I am a conservative evangelical.

People confuse fundamentalists and evangelicals, but there are very distinct differences between the two.

[BereanTodd]

I'm a theologically conservative Southern Baptist who believes in the basic fundamentals of the Faith, but I am NOT a fundamentalist. I am a conservative evangelical.

People confuse fundamentalists and evangelicals, but there are very distinct differences between the two.

Actually, in the readers' digest short version, historically "evangelical" is a word that was made up by fundamentalists tired of the baggage attached to the title fundamentalist. I would be very interested to know what distinctions you think exist though.

[vatuck]

Are you one? Thats why you are asking?

I am. I get confused by all the lingo used, such as what was mentioned here.


People confuse fundamentalists and evangelicals, but there are very distinct differences between the two.


I have just never really given any thought to these definitions before and wanted to get some opinions here.

[Christian Soldier]

The differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/evangelicalism.html

[DeaconDean]

Well, here is one Southern Baptist who is Fundamenalist.

And darn proud to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention!

And you can quote me on that!

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BereanTodd]

The differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/evangelicalism.html

Sorry that article is a bunch of bunk. The "fundamentalism" he is describing is an extreme (and more uncommon) form of fundie, the KJO, anti-intellectualism. But to label all fundamentalists with that label is completely and wholly innacurate. It is historical fact that evangelicalism is nothing more than an invented word from the early/middle 20th century, created for the purpose of moving away from the use of the word fundamentalist because of the baggage that built up over that word. Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are the same thing, there are just (as with all views) some extremist wackos who would claim the title of fundamentalist who hold to some crazy views.

[Christian Soldier]

Sorry that article is a bunch of bunk. The "fundamentalism" he is describing is an extreme (and more uncommon) form of fundie, the KJO, anti-intellectualism. But to label all fundamentalists with that label is completely and wholly innacurate. It is historical fact that evangelicalism is nothing more than an invented word from the early/middle 20th century, created for the purpose of moving away from the use of the word fundamentalist because of the baggage that built up over that word. Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are the same thing, there are just (as with all views) some extremist wackos who would claim the title of fundamentalist who hold to some crazy views.

Sorry, but your post is a bunch of bunk. :)


Some general characteristics/opinions of the typical fundamentalist:

1. KJO only.
2. Very likely to believe that Catholics are "going to hell", along with a lot of non-fundamentalist Protestants.
3. Very unlikely to send their children to a secular university.
4. Tend to have a "bunker mentality", often having little or no interest in evangelism and missions.
5. Often have a pronounced "end is near" outlook on the world, which relates to #4.
6. Likely to believe all secular music is bad and should be avoided, along with contemporary Christian music and Christian Rock.
7. Very likely to believe that all drinking is sinful, even one glass of wine with dinner, and believe that Jesus and the Apostles were only drinking "grape juice".
8. They correctly believe that evolution is a bogus theory, but won't usually lift a finger to educate people about evolutionary theory's many faults and inconsistencies. They usually insist that evolutionary theory should not be taught to students at all, even though it's common sense that to thoroughly refute something, a student needs to understand it thoroughly.

Some general characteristics/opinions of the typical conservative evangelical:

1. A deep respect for the KJV, but sees nothing wrong with a few of the modern English versions.
2. Doesn't believe that devout Catholics and many non-fundamentalist Protestants are "going to hell".
3. Will consider sending their children to one of the better secular universities or non-fundamentalist Christian colleges.
4. Strongly support evangelism and missions.
5. Understand that Christ instructed us to "Occupy until I come", i.e. get out there and fulfill the Great Commission, rather than idly waiting for his second coming.
6. Will listen to some of the better secular and contemporary Christian music/rock, while being careful to avoid the bad.
7. Tend not to drink themselves, but don't think that people who drink a glass of wine with a meal occasionally are sinning, and understand that Jesus and the Apostles drank real wine, not grape juice.
8. Believe that people should be taught about evolution, with special attention being given to the faults and inconsistencies in the theory. They should also be taught about young earth creation, old earth creation, progressive creation, theistic evolution, intelligent design etc.

[BereanTodd]

Some general characteristics/opinions of the typical fundamentalist:

1. KJO only.
2. Very likely to believe that Catholics are "going to hell", along with a lot of non-fundamentalist Protestants.
3. Very unlikely to send their children to a secular university.
4. Tend to have a "bunker mentality", often having little or no interest in evangelism and missions.
5. Often have a pronounced "end is near" outlook on the world, which relates to #4.
6. Likely to believe all secular music is bad and should be avoided, along with contemporary Christian music and Christian Rock.
7. Very likely to believe that all drinking is sinful, even one glass of wine with dinner, and believe that Jesus and the Apostles were only drinking "grape juice".
8. They correctly believe that evolution is a bogus theory, but won't usually lift a finger to educate people about evolutionary theory's many faults and inconsistencies. They usually insist that evolutionary theory should not be taught to students at all, even though it's common sense that to thoroughly refute something, a student needs to understand it thoroughly.


At the very least the emboldened points above are bogus and are not descriptive of fundamentalism, but rather of a gross characteture of some extreme sects of it. Here are some definitions of fundamentalism from online sources:

freedictionary.com

Fundamentalist
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.


From Meriam-Webster's online dictionary:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?fundam04.wav=fundamentalism')) Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1922 1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fundamental) to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>



The historical facts are plain for all to see. In the late 19th and early 20th century biblical liberalism and minimalism was on the rise, and the Christian faith was under attack. Fundamentalism was the movement in response to this that held a high view of the Bible, believed in inerrancy, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the physical ressurection, etc, etc.

Later in the 20th century as this view point became maligned and the term fundamentalist began to carry excess baggage the term evangelical came into usage as an alternate. The words are interchangable and merely mean someone who holds to the fundamentals of the orthodox faith, including specifically a high view of Scripture, the virgin birth, the trinity, Christ's divinity and physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith.

Any attempt to make the fundamentalist into this back-woods monster you described is simply buying into the BS and stereotyping the movement in the same way that the liberal attempt to. You are helping them out. If you hold to the smiple fundamental issues i just described, then like it or not you are a fundamentalist.

[BereanTodd]

And for the record this is one unabashed fundamentalist who does not hold to or fit a single one of your 8 insinuations about us.

[BigNorsk]

The article does a good job of articulating what I would refer to as a stereotypical fundamentalist.

The thing is that such a person really denies the fundamentals of the faith. And they would appear to have no clue in fact about what is fundamental and what is not.

A fundamental doctrine is Christ. We are saved by Christ alone. But a stereotypical fundamentalist turns to pietism or legalism. They look to the people for proof. The Bible teaches that he who believes shall be saved, but the sterotypical fundamentalist takes things from the holiness movement and inserts them instead. So they turn once more to law to perfect the gospel.

The characterization of Conservatives is also a mistake. A conservative is one that does not add. If they think devout Catholics are saved, then they have added to the faith. Instead of people saved by faith, it must be faith and works. Not at all a conservative Christian position. Maybe a conservative Universalist, but not a conservative Christian.

That is not to say that all Catholics are condemned, not at all. That is because there are many Catholics that when it comes down to it reject the Roman Catholic teachings that are contrary to the gospel. They may when intellectually asked promote the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, but when it really gets down to it they turn to Jesus in faith and are saved. The basic problem with the statement is the use of the term "devout Catholics", now if we deal in stereotypes which would seem to be logical since the entire article is written about stereotypes. A devout Catholic would be one who goes beyond the average Catholic in what the Catholics would see as the way to salvation, which is not Christ alone as the Bible teaches, it is not faith alone as the Bible teaches.

I would also point out that the history of the term evangelicals is wrong. It is what Lutherans called themselves a long time ago. It was to stress that Lutherans taught the Good News as contrasted to the law that had been substituted for the gospel, the good news, by the Roman Catholic church. If "evangelical" is now someone who has abandoned the good news and instead believes there are multiple paths to God, then they are not evangelicals at all.

Terms are often highjacked. People call themselves fundamentalists who specialize in nonfundamentals. People who add to scripture call themselves Conservatives. And people who think the good news is that we are all good people call themselves evangelicals. But what you call yourself and what you are are often two different things. Look at those who appeal to Jesus as to their status as Christians for having claimed to do all sorts of things in his name, and yet he says he never knew them.

Enough ranting for now.

Marv

[Christian Soldier]

The article does a good job of articulating what I would refer to as a stereotypical fundamentalist.

The thing is that such a person really denies the fundamentals of the faith. And they would appear to have no clue in fact about what is fundamental and what is not.

A fundamental doctrine is Christ. We are saved by Christ alone. But a stereotypical fundamentalist turns to pietism or legalism. They look to the people for proof. The Bible teaches that he who believes shall be saved, but the sterotypical fundamentalist takes things from the holiness movement and inserts them instead. So they turn once more to law to perfect the gospel.

The characterization of Conservatives is also a mistake. A conservative is one that does not add. If they think devout Catholics are saved, then they have added to the faith. Instead of people saved by faith, it must be faith and works. Not at all a conservative Christian position. Maybe a conservative Universalist, but not a conservative Christian.

That is not to say that all Catholics are condemned, not at all. That is because there are many Catholics that when it comes down to it reject the Roman Catholic teachings that are contrary to the gospel. They may when intellectually asked promote the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, but when it really gets down to it they turn to Jesus in faith and are saved. The basic problem with the statement is the use of the term "devout Catholics", now if we deal in stereotypes which would seem to be logical since the entire article is written about stereotypes. A devout Catholic would be one who goes beyond the average Catholic in what the Catholics would see as the way to salvation, which is not Christ alone as the Bible teaches, it is not faith alone as the Bible teaches.

I would also point out that the history of the term evangelicals is wrong. It is what Lutherans called themselves a long time ago. It was to stress that Lutherans taught the Good News as contrasted to the law that had been substituted for the gospel, the good news, by the Roman Catholic church. If "evangelical" is now someone who has abandoned the good news and instead believes there are multiple paths to God, then they are not evangelicals at all.

Terms are often highjacked. People call themselves fundamentalists who specialize in nonfundamentals. People who add to scripture call themselves Conservatives. And people who think the good news is that we are all good people call themselves evangelicals. But what you call yourself and what you are are often two different things. Look at those who appeal to Jesus as to their status as Christians for having claimed to do all sorts of things in his name, and yet he says he never knew them.

Enough ranting for now.

You're reading WAY too much into what I said.

My reference to "devout Catholics", means devoted to the BASIC FUNDAMENTALS of Christianity---Christ is the Son of God, Christ died on the Cross for our sins, Christ is the only way to eternal life, the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God etc.

I did NOT mean Catholics who are devoted to the unique teachings and doctrines of the Catholic church which have nothing to do with salvation.

So I have added NOTHING to conservative evangelicalism. YOU have ADDED an incorrect interpretation of my words. :wave:

[Christian Soldier]

And for the record this is one unabashed fundamentalist who does not hold to or fit a single one of your 8 insinuations about us.

And for the record, I used words like "some general characteristics/opinions", "tend to", "likely", "very likely"---to describe the average fundamentalist.

Which to the literate and intellectually honest individual, CLEARLY indicates that I was not claiming ALL fundamentalists adhere strictly to every one of those points.

Having lived in the South for 35 years and attended many Christian churces, conferences and events---I have run into a significant number of fundamentalists who fit my description points to a "T".

I'm not helping the liberals at all, in fact I actively educate people in Christian apologetics, Creation evidences, Evolution criticism etc.

The intransigence of many fundamentalists is the best friend the liberals ever had, because the liberals can paint all Christians as "rubes", based on "guilt by association" tactics.

[BigNorsk]

What you do is largely to characterize fundamentalism as legalism. In other words you do not actually go to fundamentalism but rather to the shall we say children of fundamentalism.

While fundamentalism has always existed, it, like a lot of other movements in Christianity started as a reform movement in response to abuses.

It was largely started by conservative, evangelical Christians to combat the errors of modernism.

It got it's name because it affirmed a set of fundamental beliefs.
1. The inerrancy of the Bible,
2. the Bible was the soul source and norm of the Christian, i.e. sola Scriptura.
3. the virgin birth of Christ, commonly rejected by modernism as were all supernatural miracles.
4. the substitutionary atonement
5. the resurrection of Jesus
6. the imminent return of Jesus.

There have been various morphings among many groups since that time. With many groups drifting into folk religion or legalism yet still thinking of themselves as fundamentalists. For instance you would have a generation grow up while the pastor stretched out the Bible and proclaimed it in opposition to modernism as the Word of God. It got warped when many came to believe it meant only that particular Bible was the Word of God. Since it was often the KJV and since there were those who attacked other versions, it is not unusual to see the children of fundamentalism drawn into KJO positions.

The word now is probably on it's last legs. Since it has become popular to characterize extremists in religions all over the world as fundamentalists it is in many ways losing its meaning. Other terms like evangelical, conservative and so on are also changing and getting away from their traditional meanings.

Marv

[vatuck]

Wow. Much food for thought. Thanks guys.

[IamRedeemed]

Good post. I consider it to be very accurate description you gave of what a fundamentalist
actually is as well as an accurate description of the misconceptions of fundamentalism
as well as explanation of some of the "morphs" that have formed along the way.
Thanks for your post. :thumbsup:

God bless.


What you do is largely to characterize fundamentalism as legalism. In other words you do not actually go to fundamentalism but rather to the shall we say children of fundamentalism.

While fundamentalism has always existed, it, like a lot of other movements in Christianity started as a reform movement in response to abuses.

It was largely started by conservative, evangelical Christians to combat the errors of modernism.

It got it's name because it affirmed a set of fundamental beliefs.
1. The inerrancy of the Bible,
2. the Bible was the soul source and norm of the Christian, i.e. sola Scriptura.
3. the virgin birth of Christ, commonly rejected by modernism as were all supernatural miracles.
4. the substitutionary atonement
5. the resurrection of Jesus
6. the imminent return of Jesus.

There have been various morphings among many groups since that time. With many groups drifting into folk religion or legalism yet still thinking of themselves as fundamentalists. For instance you would have a generation grow up while the pastor stretched out the Bible and proclaimed it in opposition to modernism as the Word of God. It got warped when many came to believe it meant only that particular Bible was the Word of God. Since it was often the KJV and since there were those who attacked other versions, it is not unusual to see the children of fundamentalism drawn into KJO positions.

The word now is probably on it's last legs. Since it has become popular to characterize extremists in religions all over the world as fundamentalists it is in many ways losing its meaning. Other terms like evangelical, conservative and so on are also changing and getting away from their traditional meanings.

Marv

[Project 86]

And for the record, I used words like "some general characteristics/opinions", "tend to", "likely", "very likely"---to describe the average fundamentalist.

Which to the literate and intellectually honest individual, CLEARLY indicates that I was not claiming ALL fundamentalists adhere strictly to every one of those points.

Having lived in the South for 35 years and attended many Christian churces, conferences and events---I have run into a significant number of fundamentalists who fit my description points to a "T".

I'm not helping the liberals at all, in fact I actively educate people in Christian apologetics, Creation evidences, Evolution criticism etc.

The intransigence of many fundamentalists is the best friend the liberals ever had, because the liberals can paint all Christians as "rubes", based on "guilt by association" tactics.

I belong to a fundamentalist church that has a fundamentalist seminary that has many fundamentalist ties with fundamentalists around the globe. Though some things on your list may fit some fundamentalist groups it is not as popular as you make it out to be. I would ask you to educate yourself more on the history of fundamentalism and where it is today. I believe you have been only exposed to a small part of fundamentalism, a part that is in the right ditch by taking some of the things you mentioned too far.

That said I believe number 2 is true if the catholic believes they need works to get into Heaven. There is nothing wrong with number 3. There are many great Christian Universities. Number 4 I have yet to run into any fundamentalists anywhere like that. The KJVO crowd doesn't even fit that mold. Number 8 I know is not true because at Issues That Matter (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com)we have a whole part of the site dedicated to the evolution debate. I could go on but I just wanted to give you some information from a fundamentalist point of view.

[WannaWitness]

To me, a fundamentalist believes the whole Word of God as infallible and takes it for what it is, so it would seem to me that fundamentalists can come from various denomiations.



Some general characteristics/opinions of the typical fundamentalist:

1. KJO only.
2. Very likely to believe that Catholics are "going to hell", along with a lot of non-fundamentalist Protestants.
3. Very unlikely to send their children to a secular university.
4. Tend to have a "bunker mentality", often having little or no interest in evangelism and missions.
5. Often have a pronounced "end is near" outlook on the world, which relates to #4.
6. Likely to believe all secular music is bad and should be avoided, along with contemporary Christian music and Christian Rock.
7. Very likely to believe that all drinking is sinful, even one glass of wine with dinner, and believe that Jesus and the Apostles were only drinking "grape juice".
8. They correctly believe that evolution is a bogus theory, but won't usually lift a finger to educate people about evolutionary theory's many faults and inconsistencies. They usually insist that evolutionary theory should not be taught to students at all, even though it's common sense that to thoroughly refute something, a student needs to understand it thoroughly.

Here are a few more beliefs, although they may only be true of a very few people:

Many consider it a sin for a woman to be in pants at any time (they think they're "immodest" or "clothing that pertain only to men"), playing cards (even for innocent games of "go-fish") are wrong to have because they're used to gamble. Also, for some, being in possession of a television set is completely out of the question.

However, there are more people considering themselves fundamentalist that have broken this mold, and aren't exactly as strict as one would think. Like myself, for example. I like a variety of music, I'm not "King James Only" (I use NKJV, as well), I have a TV, and I definitely wear pants most of the time.

[TimRout]

The differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/evangelicalism.html
I have reviewed your suggested reading and find it to be exceedingly tendentious. As previously suggested, I see little relevant difference between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists.

[FundamentalistJohn]

The differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/evangelicalism.html
If this is an actual portrayal of Fundamentalists in the UK then Fundamentalists in the UK are very different than Fundamentalists in the U.S. For example Fundamentalists in the U.S. are not anti-intellectual, nor do most have racist tendencies. There are other points that do not apply as well. For example U.S. Fundamentalists only apply literalism to Scriptures that are written in a manner that would indicate they were intended to be literal. We in general recognize, prophetic/apocalyptic, poetic, and typical styles of writing in addition to literal writing.

I would guess that the author was either writing most specifically about UK fundamentalists or doesn't have a accurate understanding of fundamentalism.

[JoeV]

Marv, I really suggest that you look into Catholic doctrine a little bit more. Salvation outside of Christ is the last thing we would profess.