Fellowship with fundamentalists

[Crazy Liz]

I'd like to make an observation about posts I have seen in several threads about what Baptist, Anabaptists and Quakers (and I assume other Free Church Protestants like Evangelical Free, Covenant, and Salvation Army) share and do not share. There seem to be several members who are uncomfortable with this association, for example:

We seem to answer almost every question "differently". In fact, I've known quite a few Quakers and almost all of them are universalists and many of them are unitarian.

I addressed this in another thread in greater detail, but apart from historical roots, I see no rational reason for Baptists and Anabaptist groups being lumped together.

It'd be like creating one board for Orthodox and RCs... actually those religions are closer to each other than modern-day Baptists and Anabaptists (in general). As things are going today, the Anabaptists seem to more in common with the RCC than they have with most Baptists.

I would like to point out that there already is a separate Fundamentalist board (http://www.christianforums.com/f370). Those who have made statements like this all seem to be fundamentalists.

We first batted this around when Erwin asked us whether we wanted to use some kind of a slogan as the name of our forum, like the other denominational forums. There were a number of members who thought these groups did not share enough in common. All of them were fundamentalists.

There are several Mennonites here who are also fundamentalists. There are a number of Baptists who are not.

I would like you all to consider that these types of generalizations do not really have to do with the differences between Baptists on the one hand and Anabaptists and Quakers on the other. Actually, more of them have to do with differences between fundamentalists and everyone else. There is no need for a second fundamentalist board in CF, is there?

[bleechers]

Should we then lump all the groups we could term "sacramentalists" together?

I wish you were this upset with the unitarian and universalist Quakers as you seem to be with me! ;) Then again, you were far more upset with me than you were with the RCs when I was trying to defend the gospel then too. ;)

Among "Fundamentalists," Baptists have several distinctive doctrines that warrant a forum. There are ecclesiastical and distinctions in form that allow it to function on its own. In the US, the Southern Baptists are the second largest denomination in the nation, numbering 15 million. This clearly warrants its own forum.

The most basic "fundamental" is the finished work of Christ on Calvary. If you reject that "fundamental" or deem it not to be a core doctrine necessary for salvation, then your problem isn't with Fundamentalists, it's with the gospel...

You are missing a clear distinction here. If there are groups that tolerate and even promote universalism, then they have no business being grouped with Baptists. To be honest, universalists (and certainly unitarians) have no business on a Christians-only board, let alone a Baptist board.

Granted, "Baptists" can cover a spectrum of believers, but on the whole, "Baptists" are more universally united in the basic doctrines than many other groups (including Anabaptists).

[JM]

bleechers is right.

[Tractor1]

You are missing a clear distinction here. If there are groups that tolerate and even promote universalism, then they have no business being grouped with Baptists. To be honest, universalists (and certainly unitarians) have no business on a Christians-only board, let alone a Baptist board.


I agree 100%.

In Christ,
Tracey

[seebs]

I have met Baptists who were as close to universalism as any of the Quakers I know; a lot of Baptists exercise a great deal of the freedom nominally offered them by the faith.

[JVD]

There is an American Baptist church in my area that is the strongest pusher of homesexual rights in the area.

They are also universalist and may be unitarian.

[bleechers]

There is an American Baptist church in my area that is the strongest pusher of homesexual rights in the area.

They are also universalist and may be unitarian.

This only adds to my point. American Baptist churches are few in number and in distinct doctrinal opposition to the great majority of other Baptist churches.

Among mondern-day Anabaptists (and their splinters), liberal theology reigns in almost every quarter. Why then would you combine these groups?

Every group is going to have its minority voices and Baptists are no different. I just don't see how adding Anabaptist groups (who, as a group, are smaller anyway) to Baptists benefits anyone.

Let them have their own group. They can quarrel amongst themselves about the deity of Christ, the work of Christ and the necessity of faith. Mixing these groups with Baptists makes no sense. As I said, you don't see Orthodox mixed in with RCs merely for historical reasons... and as we've seen in this forum, RCs and Orthodox are far more united in their doctrines than say Southern Baptists and Quakers.

"How can two walk together unless they be agreed?" Amos 3:3

As for the term "fundamentalist" what's wrong with the idea of a "fundamentalist Baptist"? You are using the term incorrectly. "Fundamentalist" only means that you hold to the basic truths (fundamentals) of the belief system. Would you mix "fundamentalist Muslims" in with "fundamentalist Baptists" merely because of the word "fundamentalist"?

By the way, I hope your accountant is a "fundamentalist" accountant... the accountants at Enron were "free-thinking" accountants and look what trouble they got in. ;)

[seebs]

We've had this discussion before. There are reasons enough to mix all the baptist/anabaptist groups together, from a logistical standpoint.

[Mary_Magdalene]

Among mondern-day Anabaptists (and their splinters), liberal theology reigns in almost every quarter. Why then would you combine these groups?

sorry, what exactly do you mean by liberal theology? How do you define that? I thought anabaptists were more conservative than southern baptists...?? :confused:

[bleechers]

sorry, what exactly do you mean by liberal theology? How do you define that? I thought anabaptists were more conservative than southern baptists...??

Granted, probably a poor choice of words on my part, I was searching for the right way to phrase it, but apparently didn't hit the mark...

I guess I should say that many of the splinter groups are more comfortable with being less dogmatic on the "fundamentals" of the faith. This is particularly true among the Quakers. I hate to be anecdotal, but:

I knew a number of Quakers in NC. These were those most radical "Christians" I have ever met. In fact, one Quaker was a good friend and collegue of mine. After hearing a message while visiting my church about Christ and His Bride pictured in Isaac's unnamed servant being sent out from the father to seek a bride... she asked me:

"I'm confused. There's the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, right? Then who is the Christ and who is the Bride?" I told her that Jesus is the Christ to which she replied "I thought we all had 'the Christ' in us." I asked her where she got that idea and she said that her Quaker meeting taught that.

After ineracting with students and faculty at Quaker-run Guilford College, I was not surprised by this lack of familiarity with the "fundamentals".

The article I posted in another thread concerning the Anabaptists visiting the Pope also demonstrates this tendency to place things like "world peace" and "personal relationships" above dogmatic doctrinal stances.

Conversely, when reps from the SBC signed Evangelicals and Catholics Together, there was quite an uproar in the convention.

To continue my anecdotal arguments :) this board reflects how Anabaptists, in general, are less inclined to defend doctrine than the Baptists are.

Imagine Anabaptists meeting with the Pope! The King of Infant baptism... a doctrine that meant the death of tens of thousands of Anabaptists... and nobody seemed to even notice the irony. If you're keeping score at home, Rome still teaches infant baptism and still condemns "Re-baptism" in her sacred Tradition.

Conservative dress in some Anabaptist circles is laudable, but it is no replacement for a willingness to go to the flame for the gospel. Anabaptists used to choose the flame, now they choose to support ecumenism and things like a "Palestinian state".

It's not earnestly contending for non-violence that I am looking for, it is earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 3).

[Mary_Magdalene]

ok, i understand now (i think). i have been asking on this board recently about the belief of anabaptists (i had never heard of them before these boards did the restructuring a few months ago). i was under the impression that they were like assembly of God without using the "gifts" (dress consertive, no smoking, no drinking, general fleeing from sin, sola scripture, defending the gospel, black and white-no grey areas about the Word, etc...).

[bleechers]

To be fair, I don't pretend to represent Anabaptists (except historically, since my ancestors probably killed a few thousand). I admire them greatly in history and I like how some of their doctrines read today... my problem is more in the practical outworking of those doctrines and the emphasis put on "other" dogmas (non-violence, etc.).

So I don't want anyone here to think that I am doing anything but giving my personal observations. :)

http://www.anabaptists.org/

This site has some interesting articles and lists some doctrines.

Actually, the one thing I do agree with that is missing in SB churches is the head-covering. I think it's biblical, but not a core fundamental of the faith. :)

[Mary_Magdalene]

i agree about the headcovering. i started asking about the anabaptist cause even though i go to a southern baptist church i disagree with alot of goings on there and am currently feeling very much on the outside with my beliefs.

[seebs]

The claim that there is "Christ" in all of us is not unique to Quakers. Lewis wrote about this at length, and this way of explaining the way in which we are transformed by Christ is not an unusual one. So far as I can tell, same concept, different descriptions.

Anabaptists are very earnest in their defense of doctrines; that they may sometimes defend different doctrines than others is a disagreement, not a lack of zeal. As someone who is somewhere in the Anabaptist tradition... Of course I am friends with Catholics, despite the claims (and probable history) of violence between our faiths. If Christians cannot forgive Christians, then the entire faith is necessarily a lie. If we are to speak for its truth, we must begin with our own lives and testimony.

[Crazy Liz]

ok, i understand now (i think). i have been asking on this board recently about the belief of anabaptists (i had never heard of them before these boards did the restructuring a few months ago). i was under the impression that they were like assembly of God without using the "gifts" (dress consertive, no smoking, no drinking, general fleeing from sin, sola scripture, defending the gospel, black and white-no grey areas about the Word, etc...).

I think that would be a pretty fair description of most Anabaptists, with th epossible exception of the radically separate "plain people" - Hutterites nd Old Order Amish.