# The Fundamental Baptist



## reformedman (Nov 14, 2006)

Can someone help me out here?
I'd like to know when it can be said that the fundamental Baptist denomination had it's start. 
I'm kind of leaning toward calling its beginning at the General-Baptist but then I come back to thinking that a fundamental Baptist is not Pelagian, they are more of 4 pointer to 4 1/2 pointer. I'm referring specifically to those who call themselves modern-calvinist who are people who would call us hyper-calvinists. Modern calvinist proponents like Norman Geisler assert that we didn't interpret Calvin correctly and so we should be rightly called hypercalvinists. 
Any ideas on a year?

-Thanks


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 14, 2006)

Are you speaking of the IFB?

I believe they had their beginnings along with many others after the publishing of The Fundamentals.

They are currently taking issue with the "infiltration" of 5 pointers within their ranks.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 14, 2006)

I used to be part of them. I call them "whiskey" baptists. They believe in eternal security but are Arminian otherwise. They are dispenstional, and pre-mill-pre trib all the way.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 14, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I used to be part of them. I call them "whiskey" baptists. They believe in eternal security but are Arminian otherwise. They are dispenstional, and pre-mill-pre trib all the way.



This is exactly it. Although they say they believe in TU_IP they only really interpret _ _ _ _ P correctly and claim it correctly. I was one of them many moons ago also. 



> Are you speaking of the IFB?


I'm not sure if they are called IFB, I haven't heard them termed such. The recent infiltration could be because of the solid stance that Geisler is giving them. I'm not saying it's a correct stance, I mean that he is giving their misunderstanding a footing and defined terms and statements, Geisler pretty much further strengthened what they were weak in.

But do you know a specific decade or century, though?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 14, 2006)

IFB, Independent Fundamental Baptists.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 14, 2006)

Yes, that's the one.



> I believe they had their beginnings along with many others after the publishing of The Fundamentals.


When was this aproximately?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 14, 2006)

I'm having trouble finding them online to find out. I've read a portion of them before (the part on higher critcism).

Let me look up on the IFB sites.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 14, 2006)

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


----------



## reformedman (Nov 14, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Baptist



Excellent resource thank you for your help. It gave me more than I needed it.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 14, 2006)

One of the main problems in clarifying anything regarding IFBs is the very fact that each congregation is independant. Granted certain distinctives are usually present in all of them. As far as a date I have no idea. Probably shortly after the publishing of the Fundamentals.

They all tend toward dispensationalism, and in differing degrees Zionism. Many are KJV only. And some also stress somthing they call "Standards" although I confess I have no knowledge of what they mean by that.

Being from Jerry Falwell's backyard, (SW VA) I can say we have alot of them where I'm from. And at one time I could've been considered one.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2006)

David Cloud's ministry


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 14, 2006)

Check out his "end times" apostacy database on Calvinism. He says Dave Hunt gives a "powerfull" refutation of Calvinism! What a laugh 

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/calvinism.htm


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 14, 2006)

Dave Hunt and powerfull refutation of Calvinism just don't fit in the same sentence. His book sets up a strawman and knocks it down. Frankly, I couldn't even read all of it. In my opinion it's just plain lousy.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 14, 2006)

Listen to Phil Johnsons review of Hunt's book over at Phil's bookmarks. He hesitates to even call it a book.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 14, 2006)

MrMerlin777 said:


> One of the main problems in clarifying anything regarding IFBs is the very fact that each congregation is independant. Granted certain distinctives are usually present in all of them.



The IFB church I came from was probably the only post trib pre-wrath ever. The pastor had a real hunger for the bible and we were 4 pointers there, I miss him because he really grew me. Boetner convinced me to leave through _The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination._


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 14, 2006)

I think Colleen is right. My understanding is that as a movement the IFB's mostly originated with the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the early 20th century, and probably even before that then when "Higher Criticism" began making inroads in the late 19th century.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 14, 2006)

I was raised in the IFB church...until I was 15, met hubby, then switched to that horribly liberal SBC that hubby attended. (note: being humorous)

By standards they mean standards that most half of them barely keep anymore. Skirts only (kneel on your knees and the hem better touch the floor) or culottes, KJVO, will accept into membership D&R but will not themselves remarry anyone that has been divorced, high push for church schools, bible school and early inroads to ministry for young men, etc. There are still half the churches that do hold to these. They are also big on bus ministry (there are pros and cons...I was a bus kid and it wasn't pretty). Hellfire and brimstone preaching. Sword Drills (loved those). Hit the alter on your knees alter calls.

I would say alot of their preaching has more of an emotional appeal (though I know many very intelligient ppl in the church, many just cannot grasp the concept of L and I as it goes against the core of what they are taught) and a worry that you can't miss an oppurtunity/may have missed an oppurtunity to witness. Any church that is part of a denomination is going down the wrong path because they have others that tell them what to teach...not the independents...only scripture is higher than the pastor.

Hyles Anderson is a horrible event in the IFB...note only some of the IFB churches are associated with the school. Some are associated with Pensacola. Then there are those that are disgusted with both Hyles-Scandle-Anderson and Pepsi-cola College.

I will say, I have IFB friends (one that reads this board on occasion). We have quite a bit in common, but we disagree on doctrine. Many of them have a true love for the Word and obeying Christ's commands.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 14, 2006)

reformedman said:


> The IFB church I came from was probably the only post trib pre-wrath ever. The pastor had a real hunger for the bible and we were 4 pointers there, I miss him because he really grew me. Boetner convinced me to leave through _The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination._




That is indeed unusual for an IFB church. I have noted that many Fundamental Brethren I know have a great hunger for the word. Unfortunately most also have such a huge anti-intelectualism streak that they are almost "reinventing the wheel" when it comes to interpreting, expositing and understanding the scriptures. Many refuse to see what divines that have gone before have to contribute to their studies. Wanting to grasp only the Scriptures on ones own is commendable I guess. But some that I know have a genuine mistrust of any commentary (unless it was written by an IFB of course) Alot of the ones I'm aquainted with seem to believe: Thinking Christian = Liberal Pseudo-Christian


----------



## JM (Nov 18, 2006)

reformedman said:


> This is exactly it. Although they say they believe in TU_IP they only really interpret _ _ _ _ P correctly and claim it correctly. I was one of them many moons ago also.



Eternal security isn't the same as the "P" in the TULIP.


----------



## Theoretical (Nov 18, 2006)

JM said:


> Eternal security isn't the same as the "P" in the TULIP.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 18, 2006)

True, they hold to the security of their salvation in Christ but have a extreemly truncated at times even non existent view of the believer perservering and growing in grace. (Sanctification if you will).


----------

