I grew up in an Independant Baptist Church. I have recently moved to El Paso where Baptist churches barely exist, much less Independant ones. So I have joined a SBC. This church seems to be ashamed to be SBc, and touts their association with Baptist General Convention of Texas(BGCT) more often. I have read some articles about the differences between the two, which explain that the BGCT was formed to combat growing fundamentalism in the SBC. The BGCT seems proud to be an association of moderate churches. What I don't really know is, what is meant by moderate and fundamentalist in the Southern Baptist world. What are the fights between the associations really about? PLease don't respond with generalizations such as, "they are liberal" I need to know how they are liberal, for example.

I just want to make sure my tithe is going to support causes I want it to support.

The most recent hubbub occurred due to the 2000 BF&M. I honestly don't know the details. I do know that the 2000 BF&M reiterated the SBC stance on women in the pulpit and homosexuality. Most of those the objected to it agreed with it but seemed to see that reiteration as being politically motivated.

I choose to attend an SBC church due to their IMB support. I've seen how the SBC supports its missions and its something my wife and I are proud of and want to be a part of.

Remember that all Baptist churches are, at their core, self governed. They are not required to hold to any creed even though the SBC F&M is offered (more forcefully since 2000), it is still not used as a test – indeed it cannot because neither the SBC nor any other Baptist convention has any hierarchal authority over the individual churches.

However, churches do often give a portion of their money to these organizations, they receive low interest loans from them for building programs, they receive counseling, they buy instructional material, etc. and often align themselves to the ones they feel most represents their views.

Here are some links worth perusal. (FYI, I just found these looking around and am not necessarily partial to them)

http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

Also, historically, the SBC and associated churches have been seen - and rightfully so - as racists. The link below is an honest acknowledgment of that from one on the inside, but it is still a problem for them even if it does not seem to be the issue most at hand these days.

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899

BTW, it’s probably worth asking your church leadership why they are trying to distance themselves from the SBC. It could be one if these issues or others we have not considered. Also, it’s probably more important to get to know the church leadership as individual persons, what they believe and, more importantly, how they will really act when things get tough.

my home church, Central Baptist in Bryan, left the BGCT because of its leadership. if you read some of the quotes from the leaders of the BGCT, you will find out that some of them question of lot of what the Bible says about Jesus, such as the virgin birth. they also don't take a strong stand on certain issues, such as abortion. in some letters they have appeared to be against abortion, but in others...they have a different stance. one of their leaders has stated in a book that he doesn't believe that Jesus died to remove the penaly of sin, he just believes that Jesus died to show that God loves us.

Central's pastor, Chris Orborne, gave a presentation (which i attented) on the BGCT which can be found here - http://kim.kairosnet.com/BGCT_Statement.html

Osborne was recently re-elected as the President of the SBTC, which believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and do not question certain passages, such as the virgin birth.

[This message has been edited by sixiron (edited 1/28/2005 8:33a).]

I am tempted to let this one pass, but I do have some "inside knowledge." I would let you know what I mean, but that would reveal more than I want known about my background.

If anyone tells you that the split off the SBC was because of liberal theology or fundamental issues. They are either deluded by inaccurate information of bold faced lying.

The split was primarily about power and control. Some issues like the dictation theory of inspiration and the role of women in leadership is touted out as the "make or break" doctrinal deal breakers. But the bottom line is simply control. If you are a Baptist and believe that scripture is inspired, but their may be some minor problems in translation, then you are a heratic, and should not be allowed to teach in Baptist siminaries. If you believe that women can hold leadership roles in the church, then you are, in their opinion, outside of scripture.

There was a "takeover" of the SBC headquarters in Nashville that was years in the making, and the end product of much strategy. That's OK, but some of the takovers were so unChristlike that I found myself actually questioning their born again status.

For example? One leader who was a staff member at the Nashville headquarters went on vacation. When he returned to his office, there was a pink slip(your fired) on his desk. No explanation, no conference, no take your time in finding another ministerial position, simply a "you have 24 hours to clear your officed. This man was not being censured for immorality of something of that nature. He simply didn't fit their narrow, tight, and stinky doctrinal shoe. So, therefore, I guess the admonition to treat him as a brother didn't apply, huh.

That's simply an example I can tell you. Others seem like such exaggerations that I am not sure I would believe them if i read them by others.

If you sense resentment, it is there. I grew up a southern Baptist, and whether you think they pass a doctrinal litmus test, they were, and maybe still are one of the strongest evangelistic forces globally. This split has put many missionaries in some dire straights. Some have been recalled from the field because they weren't "fundamental" enough.

Most members of the Texas Baptist Association are not liberals who reject basic orthodox, Christian doctrine. There are even those who are doctrinally in line with the present SBC, however, they were so offended by the underhanded, carnal tactics of the takeover,that they jumped ship because they didn't want to be identified with the current leaders.

For me, it is a grief. Many people were destroyed, and Christ was not uplifted. And the bottom line is that it really wasn't about doctrine. My own brother who has a masters degree from Southwestern Theological Seminary was grieved by the whole thing, and he said that today he would not attend the same seminary because the "faculty culling to get out those liberals" has severly damaged to educational and spiritual quality of the schooling received.

I am not alone in my grief or anger.

quote:

---

This split has put many missionaries in some dire straights. Some have been recalled from the field because they weren't "fundamental" enough.

---

I have recently seen some missionaries come over to MTW (Mission to the World) the missionary branch of the PCA. I wonder if this might be why.

quote:

---

he would not attend the same seminary because the "faculty culling to get out those liberals" has severly damaged to educational and spiritual quality of the schooling received.

---

I thought getting rid of theological libs was a good thing? Do people who are theologically conservitive have some kind of built in flaws or something that libs ballence out?


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/28/2005 9:15a).]

sixiron, I have heard Chris on several occasions and enjoy his sermons. You seem to understand Chris and his take on the interpretation of Scripture and for the most part I think many of us here would agree with that take. But here is a question. How do you think Chris would interpret Matthew 24:34?

Alpha,

you can find out directly from him by listening to his sermon on it:
http://www.cbcbryan.org/sitedata/168/files/sermons/Matthew/2003.03.02.Mat.24.32-35.rm

He finished his sermons on Matthew in December of '03. I've moved to Dallas in the past couple months but I think he is now in I Peter.

The first thing to know about Chris is that he won't just take one verse you give him. First, he'll review the context that it's in and then talk to you about it. since he's fluent in Greek, and preaches directly from Greek, i always trust his translation of what they mean, mainly because everything is taken in context.

[This message has been edited by sixiron (edited 1/28/2005 9:57a).]

sixiron, thanks for the link, I listened to Chris and his take on Matthew 24:34 is similar to most other Southern Baptists I guess. The reason I was curious came from the comments about Chris and his views on the inerrancy of Scripture. Like I said, Chris Osborne is a great preacher, but I do have some problems with his take on Matthew 24:34. While most of us believe in the inerrancy of Scripture that does not prevent error in interpretation. According to the link, Chris makes it clear that the "this generation" in verse 34 is the generation on this earth after the Rapture has occured (sometime in the future). I disagree with that interpretation and wonder if that take is considered "conservative" or if you will, while the Bible is inerrant does that fact lessen the impact of incorrect interpretations? Eschatology is important and IMO, that's not conservative or liberal, it's just a fact. Is this point of view wrong?

Every Baptist Church is independent. The congregation can determine what it wishes to do and can determine who and what sex gets ordained.

Every county in Texas (and almost every other state) has a Baptist assembly or convention that helps to coordinate what the Baptists are doing in the area. Most have records going back to the 1800s. This group helps plan missionary plans in the county, helping to build a church and so on.

At the State level there is the Baptist General Convention of (insert your state here). In some cases, like Kentucky there were two competing conventions (the lying Baptist scism, which was one of those typically stupid questions that pseudo christians ask to prove they are a better Christian than you are). The State Conventions are generally more conservative than the Southern Baptist Convention. Conservative in the sense that they keep the traditions and don't go off into wild and crazy and un-Baptist things, like the current SBC is doing.

The main reason for the Southern Baptist Convention is to coordinate foriegn missionary activities and to some extent domestic ones where there are few Baptists (and therefore few Christians). Until recently (past decade) the SBC did not control or dictate what the Seminaries taught, now because of manipulation and lies they do. Some day Christians will reclaim the SBC, but it won't be soon.

Alpha,

good question. i haven't listened to Chris' sermon on that passage so i can't really say what i think...but i understand how there is a lot of stuff in the Bible that is up for interpretation, especially when it deals with eschatology. there's nothing wrong with having an opinion on a certain passage...but i believe it's very important to realize that no one has everything figured out. there will always be some things that are debated over. however, there are some things that i don't think should need any debate, such as the death and resurrection leading to salvation.

i believe that, according to the scriptures, God blesses those that call upon His Name. I think he takes more delight in those that understand they are not capable of figuring everything out...because it's better to trust in Him, and not on your own understanding.

All of this is disturbing to study. I am more confused now than I was before.

Basically, the churches of BGCT, Mainstream Baptist churches, and CBF maintain they are breaking away because the SBC is imposing Catholic like authority upon churches, while others are saying that these churches are using this as a front to break away from scripture and doctrine that follows literal translations of the Bible.

I guess I should really find out from the church leadership what is going on in our church.

I certainly don't want to be giving money to advocates of abortion other than in the case of life of the mother, as well as supporting associations that do not believe the inerrancy of scripture in regards to the virgin birth, Jesus life, salvation and the resurrection.


Does anyone know the beef behind the fight over women in leadership roles? Is the fight over things like children's minister, or actually ordaining women pastors?


[This message has been edited by Rightwingag (edited 1/28/2005 12:40p).]

Rightwing,

i can only tell you how Central Baptist feels about women in leadership. we've had several women fill the role of Children's Minister, but we don't believe a woman should fill the role of the pastor of the church. we don't have a problem with a woman speaking/preaching (such as Beth Moore)...but we believe that they shouldn't hold that position as a pastor for the church.

hope that helps..

but definitely go approach the leadership of your church to get a better answer to your questions. trying to get answers from an organization's website(s) won't give you the help you need.

Concerns over women in leadership roles in church come from several scriptures including 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Timothy 3:2. How a church applies them varies slightly depending on how you interpret them. Some may say that these were intended for their local circumstances and times.

However, it seems that honest biblical exegesis would say that we should have some limitations on women’s services even as unpopular as that may seem in our society today. Many Baptist churches limit the restriction to women as pastors, only, but not other positions of leadership and one could even argue from scripture how that position is excessively liberal.

Bob75,

Nice post about your view on the battle between the fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists.

NotAfraid,

May be Lone Stranger is talking about those faculty members who refused to sign the F&M paperwork and hence were then shown the door. The use of "liberals" may be more in tune with those who do not subscribe to the fundamentalist paradigm and not one who holds/teaches "true liberal" ideas. In other words, "if you are not with us, you must be against us".

I am still not certain about what is meant by fundamentalist and moderate. Can anyone explain these to me, in terms of Baptist definitions?

In the Baptist Church, most people are fundamentalists. The term moderate has been used as a strawman to prove that you are less Christian than the people who ruthlessly seek power.

From Dr. Gary Leazer: "The fundamentalism that I write about is that mindset that demands everyone believe and act as they do. Christians failing to measure up to these fundamentalist kinds of narrow definitions of orthodoxy are cast out as unbelievers and infidels." p. 9, "Fundamentalism & Freemasonry, The Southern Baptist Investigation of the Fraternal Order"

The websites I have come across are pro BGCT, Mainstream Baptist, or pro Cooperative Baptist Fellowship(all seemingly breaking from SBC) and they proudly call themselves moderate, not Fundamentalists calling them moderate.

Still, what does the "moderate" believe that does not fall in line with what the "fundamentalist" believes?

Bob75,

quote:

---

Christians failing to measure up to these fundamentalist kinds of narrow definitions of orthodoxy are cast out as unbelievers and infidels." p. 9, "Fundamentalism & Freemasonry, The Southern Baptist Investigation of the Fraternal Order"

---

Freemasonry seems to always get a bad rap that perplexes. But what on earth does it have to do with the SBC? I didn't realize it was still an issue wih Baptists?

One grandfather was a Shriner, and I cannot see how anything was awry.

What is the deal with Baptists and their desire for independence and autonomy? From the congregation to the individual they scream to man and God “Keep your hands off of me”, “*I* made a decision for you God, *I* exercised *my* soverign will not to reject you”, and to the Church they say “Keep your doctrinal standards to yourself, it’s just me and my bible!” . Doctrinal standards are meant to be a shield to the flock, but it seems like Baptists get all riled up and think that Rome is coming to get them again, they all hit the door running for the nearest corner Bible Church with Pastor’s Betty Sue and Billie Bob Johnson, and their own homegrown batch of (Baptist like) mish mash doctrinal standards that they call “Thuh Bi-Ble say-es”


Disclaimer: Of course, probably none of this applies to any of the Baptists or Bible Church people on this board, nor any of their close Church friends.

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/28/2005 10:35p).]

This seldom happens, but honest, NotAfraid, I am not certain what your last post really meant; I simply didn't get it. And don't forget, they are traditionally more Calvinistic than.....

"Moderates", aka Conservatives: believe in:

Priesthood of All Believers. Each Believer is said to have free and equal access at all times to God through Christ. Baptists have traditionally opposed any distinction between ordained clergy and laity. Baptists have traditionally held that each believer has the right and responsibility to interpret the Bible as he or she is led by the Holy Spirit.

Autonomy of the Local Congregation: The local church is an autonomous body that operates through a democratic process where each member has equal responsibility in the decision-making process of the church. This has always been the hallmark of Baptist polity.

Freedom of Conscience and Speech: No individual Baptist speaks for all Baptists. See Priesthood of the Believer.

Separation of Church and State: The Baptists historically were persecuted by the State Controlled Church, see Thomas Jefferson's letter on the Separation of Church and State.

Opposition of Religious Intolerance: Baptists recognize and defend the right of others to worship as their consciences dictate. Baptissts are also known for their oppositon to intolerance by other faiths.

Fundamentalists aka Radicals

Believe the Pastor As Ruler: This is very common in mega-churches where a cult of personality is stressed and young pastors run forward to see if that aura can rub off. You can always find a Cult of Personality controlling the Church when someone starts saying that you need to listen to "Rev So and So."

Orthodoxy: You must believe as we tell you to.

Dispensationalism: This can be from the US is the "New Israel" to the "End of the World"/Jesus is at hand. Millenialism and Apocalyptism are also very important.

The Landmark Movement: (1) rejection of any New Testament entity beyond the local church; (2) only Baptists Churchs (and not all of them) are true New Testament Churches; (3) only Baptist churches can trace their lineage back to the New Testament; (4) Baptist churches are the only visible signs of the Kingdom of God; (5) all other so-called churches are merly "human societies"; (6) only a Baptist church has the authority to observe the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Inerrancy: This is a doctrine held by 19th Century Princeton Presbyterians that was adopted by the fundamentalists. This means there are "no error or mistake" in the original writings of the Bible and the Bible is without errors in all matters: theology, philosophy, history, science, geography and mathematics.

Christian Reconstructionism, aka Dominion theology from Calvinist Presbyterianism of the early '60s. This includes "Christianizin America"; bringing back Old Testament Laws; Atheists and adherents of other religions would not be tolerated; Home Schooling and/or Christian schools should replace public schools which are filled with "humanistists" and "humanistic teachings"; abolishing the federal goverment and the Constitution. Most "fundamentalists" can't be called Reconstructionists because dominion theology is postmillennial and most "fundamentalists" are premillennial, but Reconstructionism is a growing trend in the fundamentalist ranks.

Bob75,

That was a very informative post.

quote:

---

Inerrancy: This is a doctrine held by 19th Century Princeton Presbyterians that was adopted by the fundamentalists. This means there are "no error or mistake" in the original writings of the Bible and the Bible is without errors in all matters: theology, philosophy, history, science, geography and mathematics.

---

Are you saying that Baptists generally did not hold to this view in the 18th C and earlier, or is that reading too much into it?

quote:

---

Christian Reconstructionism, aka Dominion theology from Calvinist Presbyterianism of the early '60s. This includes "Christianizin America"; bringing back Old Testament Laws; Atheists and adherents of other religions would not be tolerated; Home Schooling and/or Christian schools should replace public schools which are filled with "humanistists" and "humanistic teachings"; abolishing the federal goverment and the Constitution. Most "fundamentalists" can't be called Reconstructionists because dominion theology is postmillennial and most "fundamentalists" are premillennial, but Reconstructionism is a growing trend in the fundamentalist ranks.

---

I have heard Bush called a Dominionist, and if this is the view, it explains a bit of the hyperbole rife today. However, if memory serves, this is not a Methodist viewpoint is it and would not fit?

Your explanation was so clear, that only one thing (apart from the Freemasonry thing, but you may be typing that) is hazy: what is the relation of the SBC to the sub-groups you described? In other words, how is it formed or from which? Is it then a council of all the state's individual conventions (a guess)?

quote:

---

Inerrancy: This is a doctrine held by 19th Century Princeton Presbyterians that was adopted by the fundamentalists. This means there are "no error or mistake" in the original writings of the Bible and the Bible is without errors in all matters: theology, philosophy, history, science, geography and mathematics.

---

Hmm, so Hodge and BB Warfield would consider the bible a science, geography, and mathematics book? I don’t think so… To believe the scriptures in their original languages to be the inherent word of God, far predates the Princeton theologians.


It amazes me how people continually describe views they wish oppose in extreme terms and definitions, often to the point that they are false statements.

Notafraid - I agree. His posts have been filled with a lot more rhetoric than they have truth.

For example, this gem:

quote:

---

Orthodoxy: You must believe as we tell you to.

---

I find it pretty disingenuous for someone to post something like this:

quote:

---

The term moderate has been used as a strawman to prove that you are less Christian than the people who ruthlessly seek power.

---

...only to use a whole series of strawmen to support his points.

The gyst of what I read in Chris Osbourne's sermon jives with everything I've heard. Some in the SBC saw the early underpinnings of what both Methodists and Episcopalians have dealt with at the national level. Some saw hints of pluralistic theology creeping in and did something about it. Good people have been lost both from the pulpit, the mission field, and from seminary due to the rift and that is unfortunate, but it is an unavoidable byproduct of taking a stand on a set of core principles.

[This message has been edited by Nixter (edited 1/29/2005 7:25a).]

Some of the best sermons I've ever heard under, IMO, the direction of the Holy Spirit came from the preachers in a Primitive Baptist Church. Wonder if the BGCT would claim these guys:

Articles of Faith

Union Primitive Baptist Association of Texas

We, the Primitive Baptist Churches of Jesus Christ being baptized upon a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, believing the Church to be but one in His visible appearance to the world, and believing ourselves to be so many particles of Christ's visible church, and that it is our duty to preserve the true faith of Christ's visible church, and that it is our duty to preserve the truth, faith and order of the gospel, together with the peace, harmony, Christian union and fellowship among the members of the body of Christ to the glory of God and benefit of His children do agree for this purpose to unite together and open Christian correspondence through the medium of an Association.

1. We believe in only one true and living God who is eternal, immutable the creator of all created things, visible and invisible, who governs all things in righteousness, according to the counsel of His own will; and that He has revealed Himself to the children of men in the Scriptures of Truth under the character of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

2. We believe that God created man good and upright, but that man, by his sins and transgression, has become dead in trespasses and sin, and is utterly unable to change his own heart, or to deliver himself from the fallen, depraved state which he has fallen into under the influence of the power of darkness.

3. We believe that God's elect were chosen in Christ before the world began, and were therefore appointed to faith and obedience in love, which is affected by the power and Spirit of God in the work of regeneration according as God has purposed in Himself to do. And that Jesus Christ was set up from everlasting as the head of His body, the Church, and that in consequence of this union, or relationship thereunto as the head of the body, His righteous life, death, resurrection and ascension is the means of meritorious cause by which the church is ever reconciled to God.

4. We believe that God's elect are chosen in Christ, will in due time be effectually called, regenerated, and born of the Holy Spirit, and stand justified before the purity of God in Christ, which is the righteousness of God imputed to them, and that they will persevere in grace to glory and never finally fall away.

5. We believe that good work in the acts of obedience are the fruits of faith of God's elect, and follow after they are born of the Spirit as the effect of grace in the heart, by which their justification is externally declared to the glory of God and forms one of the main basis of the Christian union and relationship which cannot be dispensed with.

6. We believe that the union and relationship of the members of the church body of Christ is such that each member should submit himself in the church with a feeling of interest therein; that we should follow the example of washing one another's feet, and that baptism and the Lord's Supper are standing ordinances in the church. And that the church should hold the keys of government, and that to be legally immersed or buried in water is the only gospel mode or act of baptism.

7. We believe that none have the right to administer the ordinances of the Gospel but such ministers as have legal authority from the laws of Zion by laying on the hands of the presbytery who act under and by the authority of the Gospel Church, and that the Church should hold the keys of government in her own hands, and the ministers with which she is blessed are to be considered her servants as light and gifts which God has given her, subject to the government and discipline of the church.

8. We believe in the internal work of the Holy Spirit, both in experimental religion and the call to the work of the ministry, and it is the duty of the Church of God to distinguish herself from all false sects by expression of faith in Christ and her understanding in the work of God, as taught by the divine Spirit, and we therefore have no Christian fellowship with those who are denying these things.

9. We believe that the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, are of divine origin and authority and the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and we therefore agree that the Scriptures of divine truth are and shall be considered the only standard by which our faith and practice are, or shall be, tried, keeping in view the expressing of our understanding therein, as principles upon which we have agreed to unite.

10. We believe that the Church or Kingdom of God set up in the world is a spiritual kingdom that men in the state of nature cannot see it. As to the spiritual existence, that is the door or medium by or through which the children of Almighty God (converted souls), the subjects of the Redeemer's Kingdom, may step into their Christian duty and show forth praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvelous light, and it is therefore the duty of the church to receive members by their hope in Christ as their experimental knowledge of Salvation wrought by the divine Spirit, which the world cannot receive, by which the heartfelt union takes place with those who have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

11. We believe that the Lord's Day or the first day of the week, should be spent in the private or public worship of God, and on that day we should rest from all temporal concerns, except of necessity or mercy.

12. We believe, in the resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust; in the general judgment, and the joy of the righteous will be eternal, and the punishment of the wicked of endless duration.

Not many Baptist associations would claim an organization with such Calvinistic leanings.

Most Baptists take elements of Calvinistic teachings of once saved and always saved, but also take some Arminian views that place the coming to Christ as man's choice, not God's elect. God calls everyone, it is up to the man to decide.

Back to the topic, Bob, so you believe the SBC is splitting because of fundamentalist creedal type control? What in the 2000 BF&M made such a stir? What in the Bible do some believe to be up for interpretation? IF you read the sermons by Chris Osborne (Dr?) you will see that some of the leadership of CBF, and professors think that such staple items as creation, the virgin birth and the ressurection are up to interpretation.

I am not yet taking sides, because I realize their is probably a lot of politics behind this whole thing, but I am of the opinion that when a body of believers starts down the road of beleiving important elements of the Bible are up for debate, then that body is heading towards apostasy.

Titan
"Freemasonry seems to always get a bad rap that perplexes. But what on earth does it have to do with the SBC? I didn't realize it was still an issue wih Baptists?

One grandfather was a Shriner, and I cannot see how anything was awry."

Freemasons are required to be able to read, this threatens the Fundamentalists.

Freemasonry advocates Autonomous Congregations, all Lodges are autonomous. Freemasonry advocates separation of Church and State. Freemasonry advocates Freedom of Conscience and Speech. Freemasonry advocates Opposition of Religious Intolerance. These are things that undermine the Fundamentalists agenda so the Freemasons must be attacked, especially as the Freemasons were and still are active in the Baptist Church. To get a Divine Right Pastor, you have to get rid of the Freemasons and other Christians on the Board of Deacons.

And yes the Fundamentalists still attack the Freemasons, I get hate mail from them occasionally, but not like in the late 80s and early 90s

Fundamentalists were evangelical Christians, close to the traditions of the dominant American revivalist establishment of the nineteenth century, who in the twentieth century militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was the most clearly set off fundamentalism from a number of closely related traditions, such as evangelicalism, revivalism, pietism, the holiness movement, millenarianism, Reformed confessionalism, Baptist traditionalism, and other denominational orthodoxies. Fundamentalism was a "movement" in the sense that it took on its own identity or development in Christian though that gradually took on its own identity as a patchwork coalition of representatives of other movements.

There have been two types of interpretation of fundamentalism that has prevailed to date.

1. The most common has been to look on fundamentalism as essentially the extreme and agonized defense of a dying way of life.

2. The second is the explanation manifested in 1970 by rejecting the social explanations of fundamentalism and relying heavily on the roots in genuine doctrinal traditions. Before I continue on with the second explanation, this interpretation seems to be true of one strain in the movement since the 1920's with the rise of today's strictly separatist and dispensational "fundamentalism". It is taught with this interpretation fundamentalism was an outgrowth of the "millenarian" movement that developed in late nineteenth-century America, especially through Bible institutes and conferences concerning the interpretation of Biblical prophecies. This theory also teaches that the Bible teachers acquired from conservative Presbyterians at Princeton Theological Seminary the newly defined dogma that the Bible was "inerrant" in every detail. Millenarianism, however, was primary.

quote:

---

Hmm, so Hodge and BB Warfield would consider the bible a science, geography, and mathematics book? I don’t think so… To believe the scriptures in their original languages to be the inherent word of God, far predates the Princeton theologians.

It amazes me how people continually describe views they wish oppose in extreme terms and definitions, often to the point that they are false statements.

---

You may scoff at the idea, but Bob75 does show there is a string that ties the fundamentalists with the teachings coming out of the conservative Presbyterian Princeton Theological Seminary in the nineteenth-century. Charles Hodge was a Baconist who had influenced with his ideas onto those who were to follow him at Princeton for the next one hundred years - specifically A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and J.G. Machean. The elder Hodge was an avowed follower of the Common Sense tradition who with his apologetics targeting trends in his day about the based knowledge of Christ on religious feelings by using the "infallible correctness of the report was essential". The infallible correctness could only be expressed in words, and the purpose of inspiration was to communicate a "record of truth".

In 1881, Archibald Hodge and a Benjamin Warfield publish a paper on the "inerrancy" of Scripture that was to build on the elder Hodge's works. They took the Catholic doctrine of Biblical Inspiration that the Scriptures not only contain, but ARE THE WORD OF GOD, and hence that all their elements and all their affirmations are absolutely errorless, and binding the faith and inspiration must extend to the words. The result was "the truth to fact every statement in Scripture."

Before I end, one must remember the work by A. Hodge and B. Warfield, to be later taken up by J.G. Machean, is the relationship of inerrancy with modernism the later nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century had taught. We take for granted the idea now, but its watershed was accomplished by younger Hodge and Warfield.

[This message has been edited by Ft Worth Ag (edited 1/30/2005 8:56p).]

I had forgotten to say, just because the fundamentalist movement has teken up the banner of inerrancy, it does not mean that Hodge and Warfield would have agreed with the fundamentalists on a wide variety of other doctrinal issues.

quote:

---

In 1881, Archibald Hodge and a Benjamin Warfield publish a paper on the "inerrancy" of Scripture that was to build on the elder Hodge's works. They took the Catholic doctrine of Biblical Inspiration that the Scriptures not only contain, but ARE THE WORD OF GOD, and hence that all their elements and all their affirmations are absolutely errorless, and binding the faith and inspiration must extend to the words. The result was "the truth to fact every statement in Scripture."

---

Or perhaps they one day decided to crack open the doctrinal standard of their denomination (Presbyterian) , the Westminster Confession Of Faith, written 275 years earlier, to find this little nugget on the first page:


IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it *is* the Word of God


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/30/2005 9:27p).]

Bob75,

quote:

---

These are things that undermine the Fundamentalists agenda so the Freemasons must be attacked, especially as the Freemasons were and still are active in the Baptist Church. To get a Divine Right Pastor, you have to get rid of the Freemasons and other Christians on the Board of Deacons.

And yes the Fundamentalists still attack the Freemasons, I get hate mail from them occasionally, but not like in the late 80s and early 90s

---

Thanks! Sorry I didn't see post till now. That explains much of it --- its a product of their stances clashing with the the more authoritarian squabbles Lone Stranger described. Especially if the Freemasons are speaking up.

Ft.Worth Ag,
The look across the movements of the 19th C was informative. Would you re-write this sentence -- I am trying to unravel it?

quote:

---

The elder Hodge was an avowed follower of the Common Sense tradition who with his apologetics targeting trends in his day about the based knowledge of Christ on religious feelings by using the "infallible correctness of the report was essential". The infallible correctness could only be expressed in words, and the purpose of inspiration was to communicate a "record of truth".

---

There is some words there, or one missing, I am sure. I re-read it a couple of times. Or could you just re-state it?

I agree there may be elements of "control" in this dispute. After all, we are human.

But at its root, this remains an argument over the inerrancy of God's Word.

It is not, even at the root, an argument of the inerrancy of God's Word. That's a power/control smokescreen. It's not even a liberal vs moderate conflict. Many Texas Baptist are as conservative as the SBCers, and if you talk to an SBCer about the inerrancy issue, you will find quite a bit of "wiggle room" on how they see the issue. It is, as stated, a whose in charge issue. Which by the way doesn't bother me itself. All Baptist churches in both conventions are autonomous, and use church democracy in their government. So, if the SBCers successfully staged a takover, that's OK. My problem is not with a legitimate takover, such is the nature of democracy. My problem is with the carnal, ungodly tactics in the power switch.

Check me out. Talk to some Texas Baptist and then talk to some SBCers and see if doctrinally they fall from differenct trees.

NotAfraid,

You missed the point - it is publication of a position in response to a non-Reformed issue that set the ball rolling. Quoting the WMCOF is all well and good, but it does not explain how Hodge and Warfield were able to provide an emerging sub-group in the evangelical movement with the idea of inerrancy. As you are a student and practioneer of the confessions, you are able to understand that there is no conflict, but for a group who really did not have direct influence with the Calvinstic teachings, it was a "fact" to be used to root out the liberal teachings.

EDIT - Perhaps a better explanation is to take a new problem or issue with society, insert modernism here, and show how it differs with the knowledge already gathered and known since 1646.

To use analogy, I could crack open my engineering book to see the formula P = V * I. It may seem simple now after a few hunrdred years, but to apply it to a new problem say sixty years ago (computer architecture in this case) is somewhat of a watershed.

titan,

Charles Hodge was a Calvinistic Presbyterian who was held by some additional beliefs of his time in conjuction with his Reformed traditions, in this case, the Scottish Common Sense tradition. To be brief, this common sense tradition, also known as Baconism, was to say one must have facts to prove a theory correct. The elder Hodge used it against those Christians who held the belief that a religious feeling was equal to the Word of God, but it should be obvious how it could also be applied to those sciences where theories are not "based" on facts (which the younger Hodge and Warfield were to explain and exploit). Hodge would go on to counter this by saying the Bible was the "record of truth" that anyone with common sense could decipher its meanings and apply them to his/her life. He is basically saying what Martin Luther had said centuries before that feelings should be based on the Word and not the Word on feelings. Hodge's explanation goes further onto the idea of dictation - which I will not cover.


[This message has been edited by Ft Worth Ag (edited 1/31/2005 10:26a).]