A Baptist Or Just A Fundamentalist

Recently I shared a graphic designed to describe the difference between a fundamentalist Christian and a Fundamental Baptist.[1]

Fundamentalism is a historical event. Christians of several denominations agreed together to battle modernism within Christianity by promoting five fundamental doctrines true of those in the several denominations. These fundamentals are basic and vague enough that Christians in a broad range of churches could agree. It seems obvious that, though a Christian agrees with them, they do not define his specific faith. The graphic I shared is meant to describe, in very basic terms, the position of. Fundamental Baptist. Amazingly, I’ve experienced some push back just from sharing this graphic. 

One who responded is a young pastor.

I don’t think I know him personally. The church I pastored supported his dad’s missionary ministry maybe thirty years ago. Perhaps he visited our church back then, I don’t know. This young preacher has released a music recording I enjoy very much. For these reasons, I reached out to him. Shortly after the connection, I had reason to suspect this young preacher has been influenced by Stephen Anderson and I backed off my connection.

He was the first to respond to the graphic. He felt it was important to point out that the Baptist distinctive does not mention either the timing of the rapture or one’s position on Israel. 

The second response was from an elderly pastor, now retired. 

I know this pastor quite well. I used to visit his church whenever he hosted preachers such as Bob Gray, Jack Hyles, and Curtis Hutson. I met with him for several days, years ago. The result of that meeting was a simple philosophy statement I still hold to, “Salvation, Instruction and Hope”. (I also learned to be content in whatever ministry God gives me by observing his lack of contentment.) In the final years of his ministry, he changed his standards and his convictions, making a public statement acknowledging this change through a book he authored.

His response to the graphic was to ask;

·       Is a church that does not use the KJV Baptist?

·       Is a church that doesn’t have a deacon Baptist? and

·       Is a church that does not hold to Baptist perpetuity Baptist?

In response 

I would like to point out that the graphic is meant to be a basic description of Baptist convictions. Obviously, there are differences among each Baptist church. I would also remind readers, and those who would push back, that the first Baptist distinctive is a desire to be biblical. We don’t view Baptist history as our authority. We view the Bible as the authority for our faith. 

Regarding the timing of the rapture, I propose it is suggested in the fundamental of the second coming of Christ. I understand that Protestants are frequently post-millennialists and that some Baptists have been post-tribulationalists. However, I insist that the Bible is pre-tribulational in its timing of the Rapture.

As to the issue of Israel, the nation of Israel today is not where God will one day have them. Christians today are the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true circumcision of this age. Still, God’s Word is clear, God will once again take up His people and there is a blessing on those who support them. 

As for the question about the King James Version, this issue has no place in the discussion unless it is implied in the fundamental of inerrancy. My position is in favor of the KJV but bringing it into this discussion is, with respect to the preacher who brought it up, baiting and argumentative. 

The question of the deacons is simple, it has to do with the difference in polity between the various churches. Baptists have only two offices, pastors and deacons, as opposed to the presbyterian and episcopal polities. The distinctive does not require deacons. It does require no other offices (cardinals, bishops popes, etc) than pastors and deacons. 

Finally, on the question of perpetuity, my senior preacher is clearly baiting an argument. Perpetuity is neither implied nor proposed in the graphic. For my part, perpetuity is fact. Baptists are not, must not be Protestant. To believe that Baptists began in England at about the same time as Congregationalists, Pilgrims, Separatists, Puritans and etc., is tantamount to identifying as Protestant and not Baptist.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1]I suppose there is also a difference between a fundamentalist Baptist and Fundamental Baptist.

Compromise Is Always Loss

I admit it; I have been a "gadget junky" ever since 1992, when I got my first computer. It wasn't that long after I got my first cell phone and, Brother, I was hooked. I resist buying the latest and greatest, and I avoid updating software like the plague. But still, I enjoy the gadgets and many times have found them to be helpful to my ministry. I had a PDA early on in their history and remember telling my wife not would be wonderful if the engineers would design and cell phone/PDA in one gadget. When the smart phone came out I was early on the bandwagon. And I learned very early that those smartphones could be used for other things, like reading books. In the early days I found books posted on a website and read them right off the Site. Not long after my phone had the capability to read books in pdf format. Very shortly thereafter my phone was capable of reading almost any electronic book. And I used it for that.

It was a natural then, for me to become interested in the electronic readers like Kindle and Ipad. The first Kindle I purchased was actually a gift for my oldest son. At the time I bought the second one for my second born son, I was still reading with my smartphone. Two more e-readers and my wife and one daughter in law were equipped. Me? Still using my phone. Then it was my turn. I purchased an Ipad which I have thoroughly enjoyed. But there have been new gadgets to explore. I watched the gadget world after the Kindle Fire came out until I was able to buy a refurbished one for a discounted price. It has become my typical nightstand reader, replacing first my phone and then my Ipad.

I now find myself packing not one but three electronic gadgets. My problem is that each of the three does something so much better than the other two that, to give up any one of the three would mean to compromise some functionality.

My smartphone does the most.

Frankly, it comes the closest to being the go to gadget of the three. If I could only have one it would be the phone. But it is just too small for Web research and reading for an extended period.

The Ipad is a good research tool.

However it has no phone capability and it would be a catastrophe to give it that function. Also it's virtual keyboard is clumsy to me. It's just a little too big for regular use. I much prefer the thumbs only virtual keyboard on my phone. The Ipad is also large enough that it becomes uncomfortable to read with it for any length of time.

My Kindle Fire is an ideal reader.

I do not like it as a Web research tool, I hate its virtual keyboard, but for reading books, especially in Kindle's proprietary format, it is hands down the machine I like to grab.

To do without any one of them would be to compromise.

Here is the problem; compromise in its basest form, is always a loss. I know our government glories in the art of compromise but compromise means something is always lost. Washington sacrifices pork spending to pass a bill that one side of the house believes is essential. In order to get the legislative, executive and judicial branches to cooperate, many times the thing they cooperate on has been so watered down with compromise that it is in effect, ineffective. Compromise always means loss.

And when that compromise happens with eternal things the loss is very often of eternal consequence. God's Word gives us no room for compromise.

• We are either saved God's way or we are hell bound
• We are either at peace with God or we are at enmity
• We are either preaching truth or we are preaching heresy
• We are either walking with the Lord or we are apostate

There is no reasonable compromise between the gospel of works and the gospel of grace. The only option the Bible believer has is to contend for the truth as he sees it in the Word of God. He may stand alone. His might be few in number. But to compromise to gain a larger following or more acceptance among the religious crowds is to suffer loss of doctrinal integrity.

Compromise always means loss.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields