Fundamental Baptist Heritage

"Too bad some preachers haven't been as loyal to their fundamental Baptist heritage as they are to their favorite sports teams."

I read this tweet today and I had to laugh.  Quotes like these are so common from some of the outspoken KJVO, IFB, separated, blah blah blah pastors and preachers on Twitter.  And while I can appreciate their zeal for what they stand for, they really ought to learn to stand for whatever it is they want to stand for because it's right and not worry about "heritage" and "old paths."  They also ought to study history a little more.  You see "fundamental Baptist heritage"  was not KJVO by any stretch of the imagination: just read John R. Rice's book "Our God-Breathed Book" or look to see fundamentalist hero Curtis Hutson's name appear on the committee list of the New King James Bible.  Although these are just two individuals, they echo the sentiment of the movement.  That is why when Jack Schaap said his position on the KJV (which is that it is neither inspired or preserved, just the Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek) is the same has historic fundamentalism, he wasn't lying...for a change.

Here is exactly what fundamental Baptist heritage believed as written in a work titled "Doctrinal Non Issues in Historic Fundamentalism" by Rolland D. McCune and published by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:

"Early fundamentalists did not champion a particular version of the Bible as their official version or elevate a particular codex, text type, or translation to the special status of being inspired or of being the very Word of God to the exclusion of all others. While the King James Version was used overwhelmingly in public, the American Standard Version (1901), for example, was widely assigned and used as a study Bible in fundamentalist schools and was used by many teachers in the classroom [in other words they were lying to their congregations]. Pastors, evangelists, and Bible teachers had no hesitation in recommending it for clarity of reading and understanding. Even the Revised Standard Version New Testament, in use from 1946 to 1952, before the Old Testament came out, was used, recommended, and even advertised for sale by some fundamentalists."

Don't be fooled to think that it is any different today.  KJVO fundamentalists (if they truly are) are the minority of that movement and they certainly don't speak for the "heritage" of the Baptist's that jumped onto this protestant movement.  The heritage that was started is still where the movement stands today; again, Jack Schaap was right.  And while I am glad that they stand for the right Book (publicly at least) here is what the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship (pillars of their movement) had to say at a recent annual meeting concerning the KJVO position:

"In a day when translations abound, fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both selection and rejection of translations.  Some professing [are they suggesting that REAL fundamentalists are not KJVO?] fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God's Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of fundamentalism.  Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalists must be rejected."


Are you a fundamentalist?  Is this your position?  If not then you do not hold to the heritage of fundamental Baptist's nor do you hold to the current position of the fundamental movement.  You are an individual; stand as such in the power of God and his might: which is in the Authorized Version, and not in a movement with a protestant brand name.  The King James Bible is 400 years old.  The fundamental movement is only about 1/4 of that age and Baptists have been part of it for less time than that.

But I guess, if you want to cling to a Bible-rejecting heritage you do have soul liberty.  Amen.