Fighting Fundamentalism

[Dr. Walter]

"...except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees....ye have heard that it was said by them of old time....but I say..... Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time...but I say....It hath been said......ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time..but I say......ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,.....Ye have heard that it hath been said....Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. - Mt. 5:20,21,27, 29,31,33,38,43,48

Will you admit that the context between verse 20 and verse 28 is Christ correcting the lower level of interpretations of God's laws by the elders?

 

[billwald]

Yes, I'll admit it as long as you admit that we don't know the details of what he was talking about because there is no first century Jewish commentary available. As Jacob Neusner teaches, the most reliable information we have about Jewish 1st century practice is the NT.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, I'll admit it as long as you admit that we don't know the details of what he was talking about because there is no first century Jewish commentary available. As Jacob Neusner teaches, the most reliable information we have about Jewish 1st century practice is the NT.

That is fine! But the point remains that their level of interpretation was LOWER than that of Christ's and we do know that at least two of the ten commandments were involved, thus the moral law of God is included.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Yes, the Jews focused upon external actions, but Christ taught that internal motivations are just as important. The kind of righteousness He taught surpassed the kind of righteousness the Jews taught. It went the extra mile.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, the Jews focused upon external actions, but Christ taught that internal motivations are just as important. The kind of righteousness He taught surpassed the kind of righteousness the Jews taught. It went the extra mile.

The "KIND" of righteousness that Jesus taught that went the "extra mile" was the ONLY KIND of righteousness the law REVEALED:

Rom. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God

It is the same kind that all men have "COME SHORT" of! It is the same kind that violation in ONE POINT violate it in ALL POINTS, it is the kind that Jesus demands that only God measures up as "GOOD" by its standard and it is the kind that is as GOOD as GOD - "be ye therefore PERFECT even as your Father in heaven is PERFECT."

It is the kind you repudiate and reduce to the LOWER standard of "characteristic" righteousness instead of ABSOLUTE righteousness.

It is the kind Jesus demands for ENTRANCE into the kingdom of God but the kind that those within the kingdom of God do not have personally in regard to their own unglorified condition, as those who teach others to disobey God's commandments are only the "least" IN the kingdom.

 

[brucebaptist]

I wholeheartedly believe in all of the fundamentals of the faith, but I am not in complete agreement with the separatistic spirit of fundamentalism.

are you gonna address the Scripture i provided on separation or just ignore it?

 

[Dr. Walter]

are you gonna address the Scripture i provided on separation or just ignore it?

That is why neo-orthodoxy was born into the world because they thought they had a better idea than God. Instead of separate they thought it was a better idea to integrate and win them by love = ecumenicalism = truth compromised = apostasy = God not glorified but rebelled against.

 

[John of Japan]

That is why neo-orthodoxy was born into the world because they thought they had a better idea than God. Instead of separate they thought it was a better idea to integrate and win them by love = ecumenicalism = truth compromised = apostasy = God not glorified but rebelled against.

Don't you mean neo-evangelicalism?

 

[brucebaptist]

That is why neo-orthodoxy was born into the world because they thought they had a better idea than God. Instead of separate they thought it was a better idea to integrate and win them by love = ecumenicalism = truth compromised = apostasy = God not glorified but rebelled against.

yep. they just come up with their own way of spreading the Gospel instead of just doing it God's way. obedience IS what defines a Christian. when a Christian wants to do it their way... it just shows their rebellion.

its a shame that a Christian wants to 'fight' another group of Christians who may believe that the KJ is the Word of God and not the NIV, or choose not to lie to their kids about santa claus, or they choose to separate from error instead of joining error...

he doesn't know how right he was before when he said, 'fighting fundamentalism is satanic'...

 

[DHK]

Don't you mean neo-evangelicalism?

It sounds like it, but in the case of adisciplinedlearner, he might be referring to the fact that he keeps redefining basic theological terms of the Bible to fit his own unbiblical brand of theology. Adisciplinedlearner has a bad habit of doing that. In that case it would be neo-orthodoxy.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Don't you mean neo-evangelicalism?

slip of the tongue! Yep, that is what I meant "neo-evangelicalism". Thanks for the correction.

 

[John of Japan]

It sounds like it, but in the case of adisciplinedlearner, he might be referring to the fact that he keeps redefining basic theological terms of the Bible to fit his own unbiblical brand of theology. Adisciplinedlearner has a bad habit of doing that. In that case it would be neo-orthodoxy.

It must be catching then, because this one was by the good Dr. :smilewinkgrin: And Dr. Walter has now responded, so it is clear he was not redefining anything.

 

[John of Japan]

slip of the tongue! Yep, that is what I meant "neo-evangelicalism". Thanks for the correction.

It's been a long time since I saw the "neo-" moniker (as opposed to "new") on this one. I have Robertner Lightner's 1965 book calling it that.

 

[DHK]

It must be catching then, because this one was by the good Dr. :smilewinkgrin: And Dr. Walter has now responded, so it is clear he was not redefining anything.

Perhaps not this time. Would you put the person who defines salvation as baptismal regeneration as neo-orthodoxy or just one who holds to blatant heresy. :laugh:

Here is an example

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1574330&postcount=90

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

For the record, I do not define salvation as baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration is a Catholic doctrine.

 

[DHK]

For the record, I do not define salvation as baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration is a Catholic doctrine.

This post says it all. It is definite proof:

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1574330&postcount=90

 

[Dr. Walter]

For the record, I do not define salvation as baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration is a Catholic doctrine.

For the record, you certainly do - as you teach unrepentant and unbelievers enter the water and come out repentant and believing. Find anywhere in the New Testament where unrepentant unbelieves were ever baptized by anyone.

 

[John of Japan]

Perhaps not this time. Would you put the person who defines salvation as baptismal regeneration as neo-orthodoxy or just one who holds to blatant heresy. :laugh:

Here is an example

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1574330&postcount=90

Wow, I really hope he mis-spoke himself there!

 

[Dr. Walter]

It's been a long time since I saw the "neo-" moniker (as opposed to "new") on this one. I have Robertner Lightner's 1965 book calling it that.

There are some very good studies on "neo-evangelicalism" on line. I was looking for the last one I read to cite it, since it was well written but I could not find it.

 

[DHK]

Wow, I really hope he mis-spoke himself there!

No, he was serious.