How do you identify yourself? If you used to, and no longer do, what changed?
Do you identify as a Fundamental Baptist
- Thread starter FSSL
- Start date
Up until 2003, I used the term “Baptist” and “Fundamentalist” of myself.
I graduated from a Fundamental Baptist College (1988 BA Maranatha) Fundamental Baptist Seminary (1995 MDiv Detroit).
I served as an associate pastor in three independent fundamental Baptist churches from 1988 until 2003.
I was on the board of a church planting Association of fundamental Baptist churches for a number of years during that time
I say all that to share my background in that I have a strong understanding of what fundamental Baptists are and who they are.
So what happened? I went into church planting in 2003. In our part of Michigan, the “Tom Malone” style of Baptist could be found in nearly every town. The name “Baptist” lost all resemblance of Baptists, historically. “Fundamental” was also a term that people didn’t know (or had other ideas about).
We just called ourselves a “Bible church.” That meant, our Fundamental Baptist brethren were very critical of us and we were not a part of any fellowships. Oh well.
I graduated from a Fundamental Baptist College (1988 BA Maranatha) Fundamental Baptist Seminary (1995 MDiv Detroit).
I served as an associate pastor in three independent fundamental Baptist churches from 1988 until 2003.
I was on the board of a church planting Association of fundamental Baptist churches for a number of years during that time
I say all that to share my background in that I have a strong understanding of what fundamental Baptists are and who they are.
So what happened? I went into church planting in 2003. In our part of Michigan, the “Tom Malone” style of Baptist could be found in nearly every town. The name “Baptist” lost all resemblance of Baptists, historically. “Fundamental” was also a term that people didn’t know (or had other ideas about).
We just called ourselves a “Bible church.” That meant, our Fundamental Baptist brethren were very critical of us and we were not a part of any fellowships. Oh well.
I've been involved in fundamental baptist churches for about 16 years. Started off in fundamental free will baptist then when I moved to another area of the country switched to IFB. About the only difference between the two brands is that the fundamental free wills believe you can throw away your salvation although it's very, very, very unlikely one ever would. I'll still be a part of an IFB for another year. The IFB I'm currently part of has a Hyles-Anderson pastor but seems to be leaning more West Coast now. I'm in agreement with the historical fundamentals just not all of the "extra" fundamentals. I would avoid calling myself a fundamentalist just because of it's connection with IFB churches. I'm agreement with the Baptists essentials and some non-essentials but probably not quite enough to call myself Baptist.
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
Generally, I use the moniker of "Bible Believing Christian".
I agree (O My SOUL!) with tmjborg about "extra" fundamentals such as "Dress codes" (except for staff), landmarkism, briderism, etc.
I agree (O My SOUL!) with tmjborg about "extra" fundamentals such as "Dress codes" (except for staff), landmarkism, briderism, etc.
... and you are agreeing with me, more and more!
I bet you even agree with Tarheel in this, somewhere! Lol
I bet you even agree with Tarheel in this, somewhere! Lol
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
Now you've gone from preachin' to meddlin'!
I am a Bible-believing, fundamental, independent Baptist believer.
I graduated from a fundamentalist, independent Baptist college in 1975 and from a fundamentalist, independent Baptist seminary in 1977.
Would you agree that KJV-onlyism is also an extra fundamental that some have tried to add?
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
I've never seen anyone DEMAND anyone hold that position. No doubt there are those who try and I would disagree with it being a forced position.
In your opinion, what would be some of the differences between a Hyles-Anderson church and a West Coast church?
Just from my interactions with the two factions the West Coast group seems to be a little less "in your face". Some of the Hyles guys get into screaming and ranting. The West Coast guys I've seen seem to be more analytical. Interestingly the two Freewill Baptist churches I was a part of and my current IFB church all seemed to prefer West Coast-and the IFB church has a Hyles pastor.
UGC should probably make this clear since we keep getting accused by some unorthodox Free Will Baptists of being "Mormon Ruckmanites" (whatever that is),
James in particular started his training under Dr. Ralph "Yankee" Arnold, a well known Free Grace, Classical Dispensational Pastor who has been defending the Gospel for half a century now. They use the KJV, but are not KJV-O in the sense that they believe the KJV is perfect and inerrant (they still go back to the Greek sometimes), but rather in the sense that it is the most accurate English translation, understanding the corruptions brought in by the NV's.
Dr. Arnold's church does not identify with the IFB Movement, as there is much legalism in the IFB. In truth, the orthodox Baptists are traced back to a historical division between those who saw a distinction between national Israel and the Church and foresaw the return of the Jews to their homeland well ahead of time (the Dispensationalists), and the Calvinists who began to influence the Baptists after the 16th Century (Calvinists have tried to flip this narrative and say Dispensational positions were invented after Calvinism, but threads here prove there are writings in nearly every single century disproving this).
Neither James nor Abraham are Ruckmanites: James studied the Mid-Acts position later, finding it insightful but in some places "hyper" in its dividing the word of God. Afterward, James read up on Dr. Ruckman and found 2 aspects of his doctrine incredibly impactful:
1. He refined Dispensationalism by placing the Covenants more in center-focus as a means of identifying transitions and differences in scripture: a groundbreaking approach that refutes the standard Covenant Theologian assertion that one is either "Dispensational" or "uses Covenants as his foundation". In this regard, Ruckman's work did unify both Covenants and Dispensationalism in a clearer light than others before him.
2. He took a position in between Classical Dispensationalism and Mid-Acts, who he also referred to as too "hyper" in some regards.
UGC does not agree with everything Ruckman taught, but we could not deny these 2 points. UGC are seekers of truth, and are willing to learn from the message itself rather than be distracted by sweepingly generalizing the messenger for his flaws.
The Doctrine of Complete Dispensationalism takes a position in between Dr. Ruckman's and Classical Dispensationalism, moving further back toward Classical orthodoxy albeit without ignoring all the brilliant, lifelong groundwork made by both Dr. Ruckman and the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, still taking these into account.
James in particular started his training under Dr. Ralph "Yankee" Arnold, a well known Free Grace, Classical Dispensational Pastor who has been defending the Gospel for half a century now. They use the KJV, but are not KJV-O in the sense that they believe the KJV is perfect and inerrant (they still go back to the Greek sometimes), but rather in the sense that it is the most accurate English translation, understanding the corruptions brought in by the NV's.
Dr. Arnold's church does not identify with the IFB Movement, as there is much legalism in the IFB. In truth, the orthodox Baptists are traced back to a historical division between those who saw a distinction between national Israel and the Church and foresaw the return of the Jews to their homeland well ahead of time (the Dispensationalists), and the Calvinists who began to influence the Baptists after the 16th Century (Calvinists have tried to flip this narrative and say Dispensational positions were invented after Calvinism, but threads here prove there are writings in nearly every single century disproving this).
Neither James nor Abraham are Ruckmanites: James studied the Mid-Acts position later, finding it insightful but in some places "hyper" in its dividing the word of God. Afterward, James read up on Dr. Ruckman and found 2 aspects of his doctrine incredibly impactful:
1. He refined Dispensationalism by placing the Covenants more in center-focus as a means of identifying transitions and differences in scripture: a groundbreaking approach that refutes the standard Covenant Theologian assertion that one is either "Dispensational" or "uses Covenants as his foundation". In this regard, Ruckman's work did unify both Covenants and Dispensationalism in a clearer light than others before him.
2. He took a position in between Classical Dispensationalism and Mid-Acts, who he also referred to as too "hyper" in some regards.
UGC does not agree with everything Ruckman taught, but we could not deny these 2 points. UGC are seekers of truth, and are willing to learn from the message itself rather than be distracted by sweepingly generalizing the messenger for his flaws.
The Doctrine of Complete Dispensationalism takes a position in between Dr. Ruckman's and Classical Dispensationalism, moving further back toward Classical orthodoxy albeit without ignoring all the brilliant, lifelong groundwork made by both Dr. Ruckman and the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, still taking these into account.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,295
- Reaction score
- 2,944
- Points
- 113
I usually say something like "Hi, I'm ALAYMAN, pleased to make your acquaintance".
Seriously, I have no qualms about identifying as a Fundamentalist, but as any other issue about communication it requires proper context. For instance, fundamentalist has a connotation in many circles in the media has being knuckle-dragging pagan Neanderthal-ish. If I was to be engaging in conversation with people in the field theological persuasion then I would be glad to identify as a fundamentalist in the Christian mold. Otherwise for most simplistic descriptors I call myself a Christian, Bible believing, and Baptist particularly.
After reading the room with keen social awareness, right.
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
Was thinking today about this topic and I'm glad there is still a small remnant that is willing to be identified as Baptists!
I know a man who came to our area to start a Baptist church about 4 years ago or so. I know some good people that left another good Baptist church to go help start this new one.
Today, that church is no longer a Baptist church, but a "non-denominational" church that is part of a group of churches in the same geographical area.
This man graduated from a well-known BAPTIST college. He no longer calls his work Baptist.
Now here's the kicker: Those members who left a good Baptist church to help him? They are still there!
Why? Simple answer: They never had convictions on their position or history. It's meaningless to them.
I'm not surprised. These same people vote, but they couldn't tell you who their elected officials are, where they stand on important issues or much of anything else.
Why? They don't care.
When you boil it down, most people only really care about 2 things; family and work.
Most any IFB website in existence has the good ole 1611 KJV listed as part of what they believe concerning the Scriptures.
Irony is they're using a book that came into existence because a unworthy self proclaimed head of the "church" decided to destroy the Bible of the Reformation. The Geneva Bible.
There are more flavors of "baptist" then they are ice cream at Ben and Jerry's. Division is what anyone should think when they hear the word "baptist".... They can't even get along with one another much less anyone else.
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
So what? Do they DEMAND that you agree with them?
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
Again, so what? At least those have the gumption to stand for what they believe. (Yes, yes, the libs do to)
The difference between a Hyles church and a West Coast church?
Example:
Hyles style: First Baptist Church Hammond
West Coast style: Lancaster Baptist
the latter is heavily accused of being liberal.
Example:
Hyles style: First Baptist Church Hammond
West Coast style: Lancaster Baptist
the latter is heavily accused of being liberal.
I'm actually curious to hear more about this.
In what ways would Lancaster be considered more liberal?