Here is a short and sweet synopsis of IFB's and the CBA's history, written by a pro-IFB site[1]:
(read FBFs=IFBs)
The FBF traces its roots to the formation of the Fundamentalist Fellowship of Northern Baptists in 1920. A more militant segment of these early Fundamentalists formed the Baptist Bible Union in 1923, which in 1932 separated from the Northern Baptist Convention (NBC) and formed the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. The Fundamentalist Fellowship men, however, stayed in the NBC and tried to reform it until the 1940s, when they were practically forced out. The issue that caused much of the conflict was the foreign mission society's adherence to the "inclusive policy," which meant that it approved liberal as well as evangelical missionaries.
In 1943 the Fundamentalist Fellowship (FF) was instrumental in starting the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society. In 1946 the FF changed its name to the Conservative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), and in 1951 by public resolution it disavowed any further relations with the American Baptist Convention (formerly the Northern Baptist Convention).
In 1948 the CBF organized an association of churches, the Conservative Baptist Association of America, and two years later it helped bring into existence the Conservative Baptist Home Mission Society.
In the Conservative Baptist movement, the CBF stood against the ecumenical evangelism, exemplified by Billy Graham, and New Evangelicalism and its compromise with liberalism. The beginning of the end of the CBF's involvement with Conservative Baptists occurred in 1961, when it helped to form a mission board that would appoint only premillennial missionaries, the World Conservative Baptist Mission (now Baptist World Mission).
In 1967 the CBF felt compelled to break all ties with the Conservative Baptist movement it had founded. The Conservative Baptist Fellowship was finally completely independent. To distance itself from the Conservative Baptist movement, the CBF changed its name to the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. Since that time it has continued and prospered as a loose fellowship of individual like-minded Baptists.
You can see in this article that in their mind there is a clear thought of "compromise" of the truth in what comprised the teachings of Billy Graham in the 50s and 60s.
[1] Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International, history.
37 comments:
Wow, Michele,
You are learning a lot about these things.
Two things stood out to me because of my own familiarity with them:
The first paragraph of what you quoted: I am a member of one of the original churches (109 years old) that was founded by these so-called "militants" (heehee) who eventually formed the GARBC.
Also - Dr. Pickering who baptized and discipled my husband for many years (who I also knew for about a year and was baptized by) helped to start the Baptist World Mission, (I am pretty certain of that, but not positive) which I think is also the mission board that Lou Martuneac served with.
Loved reading their perspective on it! ;~)
Rose,
Well, I know you were trying to say something important in response to Lou who asserts the need for biblical separation, through your associating yourself with Pickering.
I still don't know anything about Pickering except what you've already shared at your blog. All I know are the scriptures which Lou has shared. But I don't need to understand it.
I hope you see this? You two are talking right past one another.
What else! can explain two people who vehemently disagree, yet quote the same source in their defense??
Michele
Just for notes:
IFB/FBF = Lou
GARB = Rose & John
CBA = Michele
And anyone else can add their ID to the list.
Michele:
To Rose and John you wrote, “Did you know how much you two have in common with Lou?”
The Coles and I do share a Baptistic heritage and a personal relationship with the late Dr. Ernest Pickering.
I am going to address each of those relationships in two separate comments.
#1 Baptist Heritage: At his blog John (and I assume Rose) identify with the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC). I am quite familiar with the GARBC, primarily through personal meetings with leadership in their missionary arm ABWE.
The GARBC began in 1932 with a good beginning separating from the modernism that crept into the Northern Baptist Convention. The GARBC was formed in part to be a biblically separatist movement.
However, since the late 70’s the GARBC has drifted from its separatist roots in many ways. For a detailed history with documentation of the GARBC forsaking its biblical separation roots see GARBC: From Separatism to Inclusivism.
The effects of the GARBC’s shift toward inclusivism is seen clearly in Rose’s approach to the heretics of the Crossless gospel.
So, the bottom-line, John and Rose have very little in common with me as Baptists when it comes to the biblical mandates for separation from teachers of false doctrine.
LM
Michele:
#2 Mutual relationship with Dr. Pickering
They were relatively young people and immature believers (newly born again I believe) when Dr. Pickering was their pastor. They did not have the opportunity I had to work alongside him for seven years.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that Dr. Pickering would have been as strongly against the GES Crossless interpretation of the Gospel as he was against Lordship Salvation.
If he was still her pastor today and had read her statements such as the Crossless gospel is a “mere theory,” a “doctrinal nuance” or “a difference of opinion that is acceptable,” he would have counseled her to stop lending aid and comfort to the GES’s reductionist heresies. He also would also have biblically counseled her to understand that Hodges and Wilkin were far off in their understanding of the content of saving faith.
Sadly, Rose and John have adopted the ecumenical spirit of compromise for the sake of unity with her friends, who are teachers of “contrary” and egregious errors. This is a tell-tale symptom of how the GARBC’s Inclusivism has affected their interpretation of the biblical mandates that forbid cooperation and/or fellowship and support with those who are the prime instigators of false doctrine.
Unity at the expense of doctrine is the mantra of ecumenicals, which Rose and John have been mimicking when it comes to their friends who are the prime advocates of the GES’s reductionist assault on the necessary content of saving faith.
I’ll close with some penetrating observations from Stephen and Rachel Stark who have interacted with Rose.
Stephen wrote, “Rose isn’t committed to anything except the middle -- and this is one of those cases where being in the ‘middle’ reveals a compromised stance rather than balance.
Like I said, none of this is strictly new info, but putting it together casts a whole new light on it for me. IMO, saying Rose is crossless is truly not a correct label to saddle her with... her actual position is, IMO, worse than crossless in that it is couched in comfy post-modern terms -- ala ‘we just can’t know.’ Rose may think she is a harbinger of peace and reason with such a position, but she is, probably unwittingly, chipping away at the idea of objective knowable truth. No wonder she is on the fence so often in this regard; she seems to think ‘the fence’ is a reasonable position, at least in regard to this topic. This kind of lukewarm view of objective truth is central to what I have read in J. B. Hixson’s Getting the Gospel Wrong. My heart breaks with compassion for Rose and those like her who have bitten the apple of post-modernism’s uncertainty.”
Rachel wrote, “So Rose’s contention that this is a ‘doctrinal nuance’ is simply indefensible! Yet for some reason(s) Rose is unwilling to explore the issue any further at this point. Perhaps she is the type of person who, when confronted or forced into a corner, has a tendency to push back merely for the sake of pushing back as a sort of defensive posture. But when given time to dwell on it on her own, without pressure, she may be more willing to come to a particular conclusion.”
Lord willing Rose and John will one day come to understand that the Crossless gospel is an anti-biblical assault on the Person and work of Jesus Christ and come out as strongly against it and its advocates as they do now in regard to Lordship Salvation.
LM
Lou,
Thanks for participating. I want to read that link you offered.
Michele
Lou,
Give me at least some time to read everything you give there. There is a lot of helpful material. I'm following a link at this current moment on critical comments of Campus Crusade for Christ, which I had thought was associated with free grace. There is a lot of reading to do. I appreciate you answering these questions, especially since I can't get a hold of those books at this time.
-Michele
Lou,
Those are interesting observations that Stephen and Rachel made of me. Was that something he emailed to you? Interesting how you and your friends would spend any time theorizing about what motivates lil' ole me. :~)
...but you all are wrong. You haven't figured me out just yet.
BTW - I knew Dr. Pickering after I had been a Christian for about 6 years, but I had never been baptized and so I had the privelege of him doing so for me.
John knew him up until the time he was enrolled at Central Baptist Seminary as a student under Dr. Pickering's watch there.
Oops. - More wrong assumptions.
Lou,
I'm making a request that you not address Rose here. You can address me as much as you like.
There is a broken dyad here and I want there to be some sort of growth of understanding on your part, and yes I want you to lead the way since you are the initiator in the relationship. (Any missionary must keep in mind his manner of living to not hinder the message.)
Humbly,
Michele
Sorry Michele, but it is not right for you to allow Rose to comment to me without allowing me to refute and injustice she just committed.
LM
Lou,
You actually posted articles about me and your frineds and you made comments about my thoughts and intents? I would assume that you would know that only God can see this. Well, I won't read those links because I won't visit your blog anymore until we're friends again.
I actually find posting an article positing theories and gossip on what motivates an individual person of no consequence to be extremely less ethical than exchanging private emails.
I do hope we can find peace with one another some day, but I don't sense a mutual desire for it right now so I think Michele is right in that we had better not converse here.
Readers,
I deleted the second of Lou's comments. I haven't read it yet so I will repost it perhaps if there's anything he'd like to reiterate in the proper way.
Michele
Lou,
I like you. I even support you. But there is more in obeying God than just the grasp your own conscience finds acceptable and agreeable.
This is what Paul wrote during the rule of one of the most unjust and oppressive emperors in all history:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. rom 13:1-2
I am not a part of government but who might establish a blog, or a readership, except by the qualities of their own character and devotion to God? And that is what I've done. Personally, I'm a big fan of free speech which is why I let all kinds of open discussions happen here.
I only make a couple rules, which are for the protection for the most severe concerns.
You know that I have been a part of some of the most devastating cults. I hope it is not a stretch for you then to realize I am interested in conduct first and foremost. Within the right atmosphere, doctrines might be sorted out.
There is a morality, a biblical code of right and wrong, for two parties who theologically disagree. You are spending many of your opportunities in ways lacking proof your intentions aren't simple rebellion.
-Michele
Michele:
Rose's "thoughts and intents" toward the heresy of the Crossless gospel and its prime advocates have been stated by her in her own words, which have been cited by Stephen, Rachel and others and responded to.
I have no desire for fellowship or cooperation with any one who supports, defends or tries to justify the heresy of the GES's Crossless gospel.
It is a sin to disobey the biblcial mandates that forbid fellowship with the teacher of gross heresy or those who support their views.
It is unbiblical to portray a facde of unity with the prime instigators of the reductionist assualt on the content of saving faith that is the legacy of Zane Hodges.
LM
Rose,
If I asked you to not address Lou when he comments on my blog, would you do as I ask? Would that be problemary for you? I might do that just to be fair to Lou since he claims it is too difficult for him otherwise.
Thanks, Michele
Lou,
You said:
Sorry Michele, but it is not right for you to allow Rose to comment to me without allowing me to refute and injustice she just committed.
What do you mean, "Not allowing you to refute?" Think again. I did not ask you to not reply, just not to her.
You guys are a hot angry painful mess. What you need is information that will equip and facilitate effective communication.
Respond please,
Michele
Readers,
Lou's comment contains the same material he has published many times in many places. The only thing of note in my mind, was this comment:
You will suggest and condemn unethical behavior without verification that you wanted to believe I committed, but you will excuse and justify from your “friend” those very practices.
I have been encouraging Lou that he should keep his head above the fray....
Humbly,
Michele
That is fine, Michele. I'm sorry - I don't want to argue.
Rose,
Don't apologize, don't you do that. I'm only asking this for Lou's sake.
Love, Michele
Lou,
I humbly thank you for taking my wishes and running with them.
-Michele
Michele:
You write, in regard to me, "I might do that just to be fair to Lou since he claims it is too difficult for him otherwise."
Please do NOT put words in my mouth as I said no such thing. If you are going to reference me, then quote me verbatim like I do you and others.
What is happening in this thread is you are allowing Rose to post to or about me with impunity while blocking and/or editing my comments. That is considered, in professional circles, bias and censorship by omission.
Furthermore, the folliwing you clipped from my blocked comment was directed to Rose,
"You (Rose) will suggest and condemn unethical behavior without verification that you wanted to believe I committed, but you will excuse and justify from your “friend” (Antonio) those very practices."
LM
Readers,
Lou pointed this out to me in another post:
You write, in regard to me, "I might do that just to be fair to Lou since he claims it is too difficult for him otherwise."
Please do NOT put words in my mouth as I said no such thing. If you are going to reference me, then quote me verbatim like I do you and others.
What is happening in this thread is you are allowing Rose to post to or about me with impunity while blocking and/or editing my comments. That is considered, in professional circles, bias and censorship by omission.
I hadn't realized I left out an important part of his interpretation of Pickering and that indeed is useful.
I think somewhere in the disjoined flow of posts, he was able to get that important link published. I'll look at it as soon as we get these logistics down, even if for now the conversation is ending.
Michele
Lou,
Sometime last week I did make a restriction that you not specifically mention the names of any person unless that person is established by institution as a teacher of doctrine.
I have never met a person belonging to a proselytizing faith who did not also promote it. So everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone has an opinion even if it's offensive or wrong.
This thread and our conversation in the larger sense is about ecumenism, fundamentalism, and how Dr. Pickering's teachings can be interpreted differently by different sects. In this sense it only makes sense to have some small provision for distinguishing yourself from Rose. But even if I thought it were okay, it suddenly becomes irrelevant what I think if Rose disagrees.
Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. rom 14:16
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. rom 12:17
If Rose gives the word, and I am not quite sure if she already has, this conversation, as in times passed, is over.
It is my opinion that you should leave Antonio out of it. The issue isn't so much the man himself but that the heart's loyalties lie in something other than the truth -- this is what you are saying, right? You don't need to use a name to make this point.
Ecumenism, is relevant Lou and I want to talk about this issue with you. As far as I am concerned, though, Rose is in charge of whether or not the discussion can even happen.
Please share your reaction as it is appropriate,
Michele
Lou,
If you still have a complaint, please say it again, because I think I made it fair when I asked her to do as I asked you, with no personal addresses.
I want you to respond to the scriptures above; you call it interference and I call it obeying biblical mandates.
Again, you are free here to call a spade a spade; go ahead and make and defend your claims to wrongly-placed loyalties. All I'm asking is that you not use names. You have every other place in the internet to do that. You and me and all the people interested in reading a comment thread this long have no confusion over who you have in mind.
Or else, explain.
Thanks, Michele
Hi Lou,
I'm doing these threads to help the issue of conduct. Appearances, intentions, and so forth. It makes no sense to host these discussions if you are not committed to thinking about "conduct." Rose was willing to do as I ask. Are you? I just have a couple rules. If not, let's find something else to do with this public space and our time. Your help and participation here should not be a contradiction of the purpose.
With compassion, Michele
Lou,
I appreciate, in observation of you, that when I ask for a verbal agreement you then change your behavior so that it is agreeable to my eyes, and it has succeeded on many occasions to quell my discomfort with your participation. But it remains: I am going to persist for a verbal acknowledgement of the rules.
Misunderstandings always happen in a conversation, but as long as I was working with you, you have no valid complaints of me, though you may always make complaints to me and I will keep making progress as previously demonstrated (December 20, 2008 7:13 PM).
I sympathize because I see how you may be so prone to think only in terms of your own sensations of right and wrong, that it becomes very difficult for you to yoke yourself with any other thing. This is your devotion to God and I don't want to interfere.
Nevertheless, there are rules everywhere you go in this world. I don't know how to make this any easier on you except remove all but the most essential rules. I'll explain them to you sometime; they come from my experience with cults and what I consider harmful behavior, though you do not mean it and I will defend your good intentions to the death, it nevertheless is destructive to others and you're going to have to trust me about that.
You think this has to do with taking sides. I am clearly sided to your ministry to correct error (heresy). I host you because I want to facilitate it. I will also be unabashedly sided on making this as you observed, much more easier on the ones for whom you wish to receive correction.
No one will listen to what feels like an attack, but they will take criticism from a friend.
I can help you translate your best intentions as dominant in your communiques. I've done it before with the LDS. But you have to work with me and not show yourself rebellious. I am asking for your verbal agreement:
1 - no specific names unless they are a teacher or in exceptions such as Rose's specific absorption of Pickering.
2 - those who have embraced what you claim as ecumenism (or any other error) have to feel comfortable with the discussion or else I consider it sin (gossip or slander) and it's over.
3 - Keep your most well-known doctrinal replies to a paragraph; links are permitted.
I think that's it.
Michele
Michele:
I'm not sure what you could have misunderstood from my previous post, which I am reposting here, that would lead you to believe that I have any intention of continuing here.
It has become apparent that you are determined to bypass the biblical mandates that guide our response to the teachers and sympathizers of the Crossless gospel’s reductionist assault on the content of saving faith. You have been running interference for the advocates and blog partners/sympathizers of “REDEFINED” Free Grace heresy.
Over the last few days you have run interference for and protected several Crossless gospel teachers from legitimate scrutiny. You have blocked some of my comments to protect Crossless sympathizers. You have attributed quotes to me that I never uttered to you in public or private. It is NEVER appropriate to practice censorship by omission, twisting and/or reinventing statements to steer a discussion in a direction you’d prefer it would go.
You have demonstrated a preference for a type of “conduct” that is in fact a call for warm, mushy dialogue that prefers the “appearance” of unity at the expense of compromising the Scriptures.
I’ll take a pass on forsaking fidelity to the Scriptures to put on a façade of unity with the teachers of the GES’s reductionist heresy and their ecumenical sympathizers that you host here.
If at some future time I can contribute a helpful comment, I will think long and hard before posting it.
I feel no ill-will toward you, but I am NOT going to be part of an ecumenical festival that stifles the Scriptures and free speech to protect the teachers of known and egregious errors that are rooted in the reductionist teachings of the late Zane Hodges, who began, but did not finish the race well.
I am hopeful that your close interaction at your blog with those who have already been deceived and ruined by Hodges’s and Wilkin’s Crossless heresy, which has been Verified & Affirmed will not lead you to stumble into the same trap of reductionist heresy they have fallen into.
LM
Lou,
I chuckle because I realize at this point, we're not communicating well.
You said:
You have blocked some of my comments to protect Crossless sympathizers. You have attributed quotes to me that I never uttered to you in public or private. It is NEVER appropriate to practice censorship by omission, twisting and/or reinventing statements to steer a discussion in a direction you’d prefer it would go.
Did I not afterward republish your comments? I didn't leave anything out I thought? You were right that I misquoted you so I even posted it myself to correct that. I'm dealing with a stupid email client, and I've never done comment moderation before and I found it quite annoying. I think it's quite stunning that you have this ability to manage it all the time because I find moderation tiring.
I welcome your content, just not your disobedience:
You said:
Sorry Michele, but it is not right for you to allow Rose to comment to me without allowing me to refute and injustice she just committed.
(December 20, 2008 2:02 PM)
You said it wasn't fair, I fixed that. You said it skipped necessary content, I fixed that.
I mean, feel free to exit the conversation, but I don't see what you see at this time.
Michele
Post a Comment