Define fundamentalist

[Crabtownboy]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
For you I'll define. Fundamentalism is a movement that not only believes in the fundamentals of the faith, but believes the Bible commands to stand for the fundamentals and "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).


I've known similar fundamentalists. But anecdotes prove nothing about a movement. In order to prove fundamentalism to be wrong, you must prove that its basic position of contending for the faith leads logically to such actions. I don't believe it does.

Where some fundamentalists go astray is broadening their list of what a fundamental doctrine is, and adding minor doctrines or standards to their list. I'll admit there are a few who do so. But the belief that we should contend for the faith, as Jude put it, does not lead to such positions.

Thanks for the reply. I agree that anecdotes do not prove nor disprove anything of importance. I do see them as indicators of that which may be right and that which may be wrong in the fundamentalist movement. I do not see this thread attempting to prove nor disprove the movement of fundamentalism. I do see it as a discussion of attitude. It seems to me that those who are pastors, missionaries, etc. who call themselves fundamentalists have a responsibility of teaching those they minister to that an improper attitude must be guarded against and to teach where fundamental doctrine ends and attitude begins. [I hope this makes some sense.]

At times I have been in discussion with some very liberal people and after listening to the I have said, "You have a very fundamentalist attitude in your opinions." Note, this speaks to attitude, not belief.

 

[Luke2427]

Sorry, can't answer this. No SBC'ers live near me, there are no SBC missionaries anywhere near me, I haven't preached in an SBC church for years. So I really don't know much about what is going on in the SBC.

I will say that the local Japanese Baptusuto Renmei church (the Japanese group started by the SBC) has a pastor that doesn't believe the miracles of the Bible are literal, among other liberal beliefs. And I take a stand against that church's liberalism as a fundamentalist.

I do know them pretty well. I've fellowshipped with undreds. I've never met an SBC who denies the miracles of the Bible. I've only ever heard of one in recent days. I'm sure they are out there but they certainly do not represent the whole.

I also have never met an SBC who does not fight for the fundamnetals of the faith.

Perhaps, John, you have not been here in America enough in the past twenty years to really know what IFB fundamentalism is degraded to here. Many of us, who live in America, who pastor near them, can tell you that many of them make a bigger deal out of King James than King Jesus.
Many of them preach standards which they have no real biblical basis for incessantly .
Many of them emphasize separation from the world more than the Savior of the world.
Many of them preach almost all junk and almost no Jesus.

And they do harm to every ministry that has the name Baptist on its sign.

Many of us are tired of it. If they are on here, we want them to make a case for what they do. If they cannot make a case for it then they ought to stop it.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that anecdotes do not prove nor disprove anything of importance. I do see them as indicators of that which may be right and that which may be wrong in the fundamentalist movement. I do not see this thread attempting to prove nor disprove the movement of fundamentalism. I do see it as a discussion of attitude. It seems to me that those who are pastors, missionaries, etc. who call themselves fundamentalists have a responsibility of teaching those they minister to that an improper attitude must be guarded against and to teach where fundamental doctrine ends and attitude begins. [I hope this makes some sense.]

At times I have been in discussion with some very liberal people and after listening to the I have said, "You have a very fundamentalist attitude in your opinions." Note, this speaks to attitude, not belief.

This is very ironic. The thread title, "Define fundamentalist," promises a sane discussion of the historical roots and meaning of the term. But what we got was a lot of "attitude" in the OP, including what I hold to be insulting terms.

Are you and Luke aware that this particular forum on the BB was started as a refuge for fundamentalists since we were attacked so much on other BB forums? See the "Fundamental Forum Guidelines," where it says,

"This forum was born out of a cry from many who despaired that their conservative and traditional views were constantly being attacked. It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate. Those who see things more liberally than we do can still be found on other forums so if you feel led to battle them then please do so."

Yet here we are, with Luke outright attacking fundamentalists in his OP. Rather gauche, wouldn't you say?

 

[TCassidy]

The problem with this entire thread is that neither John nor Luke understands what Fundamentalism is. They have both redefined the term according to their own biases.

A Fundamentalist is one who believes:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Heb. 1:8-9), the Creator God Himself (Col. 1:16; compare Gen. 1:1); Who "laid the foundation of the earth" (Heb. 1:10-12; compare Psalms 102:24-27).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Mt. 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Ro. 3:25; Ro. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Heb. :12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Ro. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20). Please note: this is NOT a reference to the "King James Only" debate; rather, this is a reference to people who claim to have revelations apart from the scriptures or who deny the scriptures are available to all and understood via the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit as opposed to an "authoritative magisterium."

So, it is obvious that I, being an Independent, Unaffiliated Baptist who believes the above is no different, insofar as the fundamentals are concerned, from a Southern Baptist who believes the same. And the same is true of a Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc.

I may differ regarding other teachings of scripture, but not about the fundamentals.

Unfortunately too many self proclaimed "Fundamentalists" of today want "Fundamentalism" to be limited in its scope to "Me, my wife, son John, his wife, us four, and no more" or, on the other extreme, to the snake handling nut jobs or the extreme dictatorial Xers. Neither position has any historical support whatsoever.

If you will actually study the history of Fundamentalism you will see that originally it included men from every conceivable denomination, convention, association, etc. Fundamentalism has NEVER been exclusive of anyone except Theological Liberals/Modernists.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Alright, I will jump into this mess.

First off, love you John, loved your grandfather and I appreciate the work you continue in Japan. You have helped me many times through your posts and notes on this board. I am not attacking you; I really don’t think Luke is either.

While a true expert and legacy of historical fundamentalism, John is probably not the best expert on the movement in the United States today. Neither is he probably as familiar with the conservative resurgence in the SBC in the United States as others here.

What is the purpose of the thread Luke? To point out that many who call themselves fundamentalists are not? I agree with you 100%

I grew up in IFB churches calling myself a fundamentalist and I hold to the title today, even though I acknowledge that it has been perverted by the “Add to the Bible, legalistic, KJVO” crowd.

What is a fundamentalist once may have seemed easy to determine, but now that is not the case. The historical definition of a fundamentalist and the definition I hold to is one who believes the fundamentals of the faith and is willing to fight for and defend those fundamentals.

But here is where it gets tricky, what are the “Fundamentals of the faith?” My definition would be the Virgin Birth, Sinless Life, Sacrificial Death, Physical Resurrection, and Imminent Return of Jesus Christ. Many fundamentalists would add to this the inspiration of the Bible, and I have no problem with that, but then you start down that slope when you ask, “What kind of inspiration?” Are we talking verbal or plenary inspiration? How do we define inerrancy? Are we talking about the inspiration of the original texts or of a modern version? You can see how quickly we fall from a shared belief and a requirement for our salvation to an opinion.

I feel your frustration with some modern self labeled fundamentalists Luke. What you need to realize, and I think you do, is that all who call themselves fundamentalists are not. Just like I learned long ago that all who call themselves Baptists do not believe like I do. Just because it’s an IFB or SBC church does not mean they are teaching and preaching the same things I do. Like you have said, anecdotes don’t prove anything about a movement or denomination. There are always going to be embarrassments that seek to affiliate themselves with us. They are not true fundamentalists and they are not true Baptists, like a phony $20 bill they are counterfeit.

So how do you fight the counterfeits? You do it by preaching the word and staying genuine yourself. Show them enough of the real thing and people will spot the phonies for themselves. I share your concern Luke that many people are led astray by these fundamentalist pretenders, and they are, but the solution, the action we can take, is not to attack the pretenders, but to ensure we remain true.

Luke, If you don’t know him, John is the real thing, and I suspect you are too. John, I really don’t think Luke is attacking real fundamentalists here, but others who have hijacked the title and in some cases once vibrant churches here in the US. I think we are on the same side here guys, lets save the aggression for the enemy.

Ok, I am off the soap box, next.

Well said TCassidy, we posted about the same time.

 

[John of Japan]

I do know them pretty well. I've fellowshipped with undreds. I've never met an SBC who denies the miracles of the Bible. I've only ever heard of one in recent days. I'm sure they are out there but they certainly do not represent the whole.

I also have never met an SBC who does not fight for the fundamnetals of the faith.

Are you aware of the history of the SBC? My grandfather was blackballed by the Texas convention because he openly opposed evolution being taught at his alma mater, Baylor U. I once corresponded with an SBC prof in a major seminary who shared with me how nasty the liberal profs were to him in his younger days because of his conservative view of the Bible. I myself sat at a restaurant in Georgia about 15 years ago with my father and an SBC pastor, who shared with us how he had lunch every week with the liberal SBC pastor across town.

It was only in very recent years that the SBC mission board finally made missionaries sign the "Faith and Practice" (Is that what you call it? I forget.) And I went to language school in Tokyo in 1981-1983 with the SBC missionaries, and knew one of the liberals who resigned with his wife rather than signing the statement. So I suggest that maybe out-of-touch non-SBC missionary, me, may know some things you don't know about the past of the SBC, though I know little about what is happening nowadays.

Perhaps, John, you have not been here in America enough in the past twenty years to really know what IFB fundamentalism is degraded to here. Many of us, who live in America, who pastor near them, can tell you that many of them make a bigger deal out of King James than King Jesus.
Many of them preach standards which they have no real biblical basis for incessantly .
Many of them emphasize separation from the world more than the Savior of the world.
Many of them preach almost all junk and almost no Jesus.

And they do harm to every ministry that has the name Baptist on its sign.

Many of us are tired of it. If they are on here, we want them to make a case for what they do. If they cannot make a case for it then they ought to stop it.

I suggest you read the Fundamental Forum Guidelines, where it says,

"This forum was born out of a cry from many who despaired that their conservative and traditional views were constantly being attacked. It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate."

Yet here you are, attacking fundamentalists in our safe haven.

 

[John of Japan]

Alright, I will jump into this mess.

First off, love you John, loved your grandfather and I appreciate the work you continue in Japan. You have helped me many times through your posts and notes on this board. I am not attacking you; I really don’t think Luke is either.

While a true expert and legacy of historical fundamentalism, John is probably not the best expert on the movement in the United States today. Neither is he probably as familiar with the conservative resurgence in the SBC in the United States as others here.

What is the purpose of the thread Luke? To point out that many who call themselves fundamentalists are not? I agree with you 100%

I grew up in IFB churches calling myself a fundamentalist and I hold to the title today, even though I acknowledge that it has been perverted by the “Add to the Bible, legalistic, KJVO” crowd.

What is a fundamentalist once may have seemed easy to determine, but now that is not the case. The historical definition of a fundamentalist and the definition I hold to is one who believes the fundamentals of the faith and is willing to fight for and defend those fundamentals.

But here is where it gets tricky, what are the “Fundamentals of the faith?” My definition would be the Virgin Birth, Sinless Life, Sacrificial Death, Physical Resurrection, and Imminent Return of Jesus Christ. Many fundamentalists would add to this the inspiration of the Bible, and I have no problem with that, but then you start down that slope when you ask, “What kind of inspiration?” Are we talking verbal or plenary inspiration? How do we define inerrancy? Are we talking about the inspiration of the original texts or of a modern version? You can see how quickly we fall from a shared belief and a requirement for our salvation to an opinion.

I feel your frustration with some modern self labeled fundamentalists Luke. What you need to realize, and I think you do, is that all who call themselves fundamentalists are not. Just like I learned long ago that all who call themselves Baptists do not believe like I do. Just because it’s an IFB or SBC church does not mean they are teaching and preaching the same things I do. Like you have said, anecdotes don’t prove anything about a movement or denomination. There are always going to be embarrassments that seek to affiliate themselves with us. They are not true fundamentalists and they are not true Baptists, like a phony $20 bill they are counterfeit.

So how do you fight the counterfeits? You do it by preaching the word and staying genuine yourself. Show them enough of the real thing and people will spot the phonies for themselves. I share your concern Luke that many people are led astray by these fundamentalist pretenders, and they are, but the solution, the action we can take, is not to attack the pretenders, but to ensure we remain true.

Luke, If you don’t know him Luke, John is the real thing, and I suspect you are too. John, I really don’t think Luke is attacking real fundamentalists here, but others who have hijacked the title and in some cases once vibrant churches here in the US. I think we are on the same side here guys, lets save the aggression for the enemy?

Ok, I am off the soap box, next.

Well said, and thanks for the kind words, NCT. And you're right, I'm no expert on either the SBC or IFB in the States nowadays. But ask me about fundamentalism in Japan! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jon-Marc]

It's impossible and a waste of time to argue (or debate) with someone whose mind is made up. That's all I have to say on this subject--except that with terrorists being called "fundamentalists", I don't think I want to be called one any more.

 

[TCassidy]

It's impossible and a waste of time to argue (or debate) with someone whose mind is made up. That's all I have to say on this subject--except that with terrorists being called "fundamentalists", I don't think I want to be called one any more.

Mormons are called "Christians." Do you no longer wish to be called a Christian either?

 

[Rhetorician]

TC Response

Mormons are called "Christians." Do you no longer wish to be called a Christian either?

Hello TC,

Can an old "recovering fundamentalist" get in here? :tongue3:

I particularly do not use the moniker of "christian" that much anymore. It has gotten where in N. America, in general and the churches of N. American in particular, that the word has completely lost its meaning. It is a little like "fundamentalist," is it not? Whoever uses the word pours their own meaning into it to a point where it has no meaning at all?!

It (they) have become such a slur or by-word that they have no meanings at all. That, to some major or lesser degree, is probably our own fault? But that is a topic for another thread is it not?!

I like the words "follower," "disciple," one who has "believes in,"-"clings to," -"relies on," -"committed to the Lordship of Christ," "fully devoted follower," et al.

"Christian" means nothing in our context because it costs us nothing to have the name or to follow the one who gave us the name!!! :tear:

Thanks for allowing a "reforming fundamentalist" in on this discussion.

Thoughts?

"That is all!"

 

[Luke2427]

The problem with this entire thread is that neither John nor Luke understands what Fundamentalism is. They have both redefined the term according to their own biases.

A Fundamentalist is one who believes:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Heb. 1:8-9), the Creator God Himself (Col. 1:16; compare Gen. 1:1); Who "laid the foundation of the earth" (Heb. 1:10-12; compare Psalms 102:24-27).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Mt. 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Ro. 3:25; Ro. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Heb. :12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Ro. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20). Please note: this is NOT a reference to the "King James Only" debate; rather, this is a reference to people who claim to have revelations apart from the scriptures or who deny the scriptures are available to all and understood via the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit as opposed to an "authoritative magisterium."

So, it is obvious that I, being an Independent, Unaffiliated Baptist who believes the above is no different, insofar as the fundamentals are concerned, from a Southern Baptist who believes the same. And the same is true of a Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc.

I may differ regarding other teachings of scripture, but not about the fundamentals.

Unfortunately too many self proclaimed "Fundamentalists" of today want "Fundamentalism" to be limited in its scope to "Me, my wife, son John, his wife, us four, and no more" or, on the other extreme, to the snake handling nut jobs or the extreme dictatorial Xers. Neither position has any historical support whatsoever.

If you will actually study the history of Fundamentalism you will see that originally it included men from every conceivable denomination, convention, association, etc. Fundamentalism has NEVER been exclusive of anyone except Theological Liberals/Modernists.

The problem with your post is that you didn't read the op.

I am familiar with what the fundamentals are as I stated in the op.

This thread is not about the original fundamentalist movement. It is about the modern fundamentalist movement.

You would have seen this clearly had you read the op.

 

[Luke2427]

Alright, I will jump into this mess.

First off, love you John, loved your grandfather and I appreciate the work you continue in Japan. You have helped me many times through your posts and notes on this board. I am not attacking you; I really don’t think Luke is either.

While a true expert and legacy of historical fundamentalism, John is probably not the best expert on the movement in the United States today. Neither is he probably as familiar with the conservative resurgence in the SBC in the United States as others here.

What is the purpose of the thread Luke? To point out that many who call themselves fundamentalists are not? I agree with you 100%

I grew up in IFB churches calling myself a fundamentalist and I hold to the title today, even though I acknowledge that it has been perverted by the “Add to the Bible, legalistic, KJVO” crowd.

What is a fundamentalist once may have seemed easy to determine, but now that is not the case. The historical definition of a fundamentalist and the definition I hold to is one who believes the fundamentals of the faith and is willing to fight for and defend those fundamentals.

But here is where it gets tricky, what are the “Fundamentals of the faith?” My definition would be the Virgin Birth, Sinless Life, Sacrificial Death, Physical Resurrection, and Imminent Return of Jesus Christ. Many fundamentalists would add to this the inspiration of the Bible, and I have no problem with that, but then you start down that slope when you ask, “What kind of inspiration?” Are we talking verbal or plenary inspiration? How do we define inerrancy? Are we talking about the inspiration of the original texts or of a modern version? You can see how quickly we fall from a shared belief and a requirement for our salvation to an opinion.

I feel your frustration with some modern self labeled fundamentalists Luke. What you need to realize, and I think you do, is that all who call themselves fundamentalists are not. Just like I learned long ago that all who call themselves Baptists do not believe like I do. Just because it’s an IFB or SBC church does not mean they are teaching and preaching the same things I do. Like you have said, anecdotes don’t prove anything about a movement or denomination. There are always going to be embarrassments that seek to affiliate themselves with us. They are not true fundamentalists and they are not true Baptists, like a phony $20 bill they are counterfeit.

So how do you fight the counterfeits? You do it by preaching the word and staying genuine yourself. Show them enough of the real thing and people will spot the phonies for themselves. I share your concern Luke that many people are led astray by these fundamentalist pretenders, and they are, but the solution, the action we can take, is not to attack the pretenders, but to ensure we remain true.

Luke, If you don’t know him, John is the real thing, and I suspect you are too. John, I really don’t think Luke is attacking real fundamentalists here, but others who have hijacked the title and in some cases once vibrant churches here in the US. I think we are on the same side here guys, lets save the aggression for the enemy.

Ok, I am off the soap box, next.

Well said TCassidy, we posted about the same time.

Very helpful. I get a little riled sometimes. If I was over aggressive I apologize. I am certain it won't be the last time but posts like this help soothe the savage beast as it were.

 

[Luke2427]

Are you aware of the history of the SBC? My grandfather was blackballed by the Texas convention because he openly opposed evolution being taught at his alma mater, Baylor U. I once corresponded with an SBC prof in a major seminary who shared with me how nasty the liberal profs were to him in his younger days because of his conservative view of the Bible. I myself sat at a restaurant in Georgia about 15 years ago with my father and an SBC pastor, who shared with us how he had lunch every week with the liberal SBC pastor across town.

You're not paying attention John. No one is attacking your grandfather. Me and all of my peers love him, have preaching tapes of him and books written by him. There is no need to keep playing that card.

No one is attacking EVERY fundamentalist as has been made clear multiple times at this point.

This thread is a challenge to the modern IFB or FWB or whoever fundamentalist who preaches ex cathedra to make a case for the junk that he preaches.

It was only in very recent years that the SBC mission board finally made missionaries sign the "Faith and Practice" (Is that what you call it? I forget.) And I went to language school in Tokyo in 1981-1983 with the SBC missionaries, and knew one of the liberals who resigned with his wife rather than signing the statement. So I suggest that maybe out-of-touch non-SBC missionary, me, may know some things you don't know about the past of the SBC, though I know little about what is happening nowadays

.

This is the very reason I qualify the term SBC every time I use it with terms like "modern" or "today". I realize the SBC movement went down a dark road decades ago- perhaps, in part, because so many of her true fundamentalists left her years ago leaving the liberals unchecked at the helm. That is a subject for another thread.

I suggest you read the Fundamental Forum Guidelines, where it says,

Yet here you are, attacking fundamentalists in our safe haven.

Boy, you and the "attacking". Is your skin that thin?? I actually think the world of you John. I think it is absolutely awesome that you are there in Japan preaching Christ. I appreciate your ministry. But I wish that you would either stay in the pocket with me and let our iron sharpen each other's iron or not post. But please stop with the "victim" business. No one here is attacking anything sacred. Let's debate if we're going to debate since this is a debate site and stop worrying so much about whether or not someone is attacking some sacred cow of ours.

No one is attacking anyone who simply adheres to the classical definition of fundamentalist set forth by this forum for about the fourth time. We are challenging the modern fundamentalist movement to make a case for their preaching.

 

[TCassidy]

The problem with your post is that you didn't read the op.

I am familiar with what the fundamentals are as I stated in the op.

This thread is not about the original fundamentalist movement. It is about the modern fundamentalist movement.

You would have seen this clearly had you read the op.

The problem is that people like you have tried to redefine fundamentalism according to your own biases. Modern fundamentalism is exactly the same as historic fundamentalism. What you are trying to label as modern fundamentalism is simply a legalistic subset of historic fundamentalism.

 

[Luke2427]

The problem is that people like you have tried to redefine fundamentalism according to your own biases. Modern fundamentalism is exactly the same as historic fundamentalism. What you are trying to label as modern fundamentalism is simply a legalistic subset of historic fundamentalism.

Whatever. You are wrong. No one is redefining anything. It is clear the folks who most loudly and proudly tout the title today are a far cry from the ones who founded what we think of as the original fundamentalist movement.

I am a fundamentalist in the sense of the fundamentals of the faith.

What you want to do is pretend that the only Christina fundamentalists in history are the ones who wrote and ascribe to the five fundamentals. There were different types of fundamentalists before that movement and there are different types today. You don;t get to pick your favorite and tell the rest of us that we can't use the term in any way but the way you tell us to.

The term is used today in more ways than just to describe those who adhere to the five fundamentals. It was used in more ways that that before that movement.

Please get on topic and familiarize yourself with the op.

 

[TCassidy]

Hello TC,

Can an old "recovering fundamentalist" get in here? :tongue3:

I particularly do not use the moniker of "christian" that much anymore. It has gotten where in N. America, in general and the churches of N. American in particular, that the word has completely lost its meaning. It is a little like "fundamentalist," is it not? Whoever uses the word pours their own meaning into it to a point where it has no meaning at all?!

It (they) have become such a slur or by-word that they have no meanings at all. That, to some major or lesser degree, is probably our own fault? But that is a topic for another thread is it not?!

I like the words "follower," "disciple," one who has "believes in,"-"clings to," -"relies on," -"committed to the Lordship of Christ," "fully devoted follower," et al.

"Christian" means nothing in our context because it costs us nothing to have the name or to follow the one who gave us the name!!! :tear:

Thanks for allowing a "reforming fundamentalist" in on this discussion.

Thoughts?

"That is all!"

I understand your position and sympathize with your concerns that we are losing the meaning of many historically understood words, but I am nothing if not stubborn. I absolutely REFUSE to give up perfectly good words because ignorant people misuse them.

Some time ago I was kicked off an IFB Xer forum for using the word "niggardly." I tried to explain, via email, that the word means "miserly or "stingy." It didn't work. The administrator was too stupid to know the meaning of the word and too lazy to look it up in the dictionary.

I have a long list of words I absolutely refuse to give over to the ignorant fools who are too stupid or lazy to understand simple English or work to improve their vocabularies.

1. Grass is for mowing, not smoking!
2. Gay is cheery, bright, and pleasant, not perverted!
3. Cool means not so hot!
4. Sick means in bed needing medicine.
5. A fagot is a bundle of sticks for burning, not a reference to #2 above!
6. Gross means before deductions, not vile!
7. Lame means a person with a limp, not posters on Baptist Board!
8. Thong means sandal, not underwear.
9. Hot is how I like my tea, not how I like my women!
10. And a bitch is a female dog, not the lead deacon's wife!

I could go on like this for quite some time, but you get the idea.

By the way, you describe yourself as a "recovering fundamentalist" - which of the fundamentals are you "recovering" from?

 

[TCassidy]

Whatever. You are wrong. No one is redefining anything. It is clear the folks who most loudly and proudly tout the title today are a far cry from the ones who founded what we think of as the original fundamentalist movement.

I am a fundamentalist in the sense of the fundamentals of the faith.

What you want to do is pretend that the only Christina fundamentalists in history are the ones who wrote and ascribe to the five fundamentals. There were different types of fundamentalists before that movement and there are different types today. You don;t get to pick your favorite and tell the rest of us that we can't use the term in any way but the way you tell us to.

The term is used today in more ways than just to describe those who adhere to the five fundamentals. It was used in more ways that that before that movement.

Please get on topic and familiarize yourself with the op.

You seem to be having difficulty following the discussion. If you will go back and read what I actually wrote you will see that most of the above is pure poppycock! I clearly stated the original Fundamentalists came from every part of the denominational spectrum, and the ONLY exclusivity was the fundamentals as enumerated.

Please get down off your high horse and stop trying to teach your grandpa how to suck eggs.

 

[Luke2427]

You seem to be having difficulty following the discussion. If you will go back and read what I actually wrote you will see that most of the above is pure poppycock! I clearly stated the original Fundamentalists came from every part of the denominational spectrum, and the ONLY exclusivity was the fundamentals as enumerated.

Please get down off your high horse and stop trying to teach your grandpa how to suck eggs.

You're right about one thing. I am having trouble following your part of the conversation. I have no idea what you mean here nor why you brought denominations.

The point of this thread that I started is to discuss the preaching of modern fundamentalists who do more than adhere to the fundamentals. I don't know why you can't stay on topic.

 

[TCassidy]

You're right about one thing. I am having trouble following your part of the conversation. I have no idea what you mean here nor why you brought denominations.

The point of this thread that I started is to discuss the preaching of modern fundamentalists who do more than adhere to the fundamentals. I don't know why you can't stay on topic.

I will try one more time, and type r-e-a-l s-l-o-w.

You said, in the OP, "What do you consider to be the necessary elements in the practices and preaching of a person for him to call himself a fundamentalist today?"

And I stated the "necessary elements" were the fundamentals as enumerated. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You don't like that answer? Tough! If you didn't want to hear the answer you shouldn't have asked the question.

 

[Luke2427]

I will try one more time, and type r-e-a-l s-l-o-w.

You said, in the OP, "What do you consider to be the necessary elements in the practices and preaching of a person for him to call himself a fundamentalist today?"

And I stated the "necessary elements" were the fundamentals as enumerated. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You don't like that answer? Tough! If you didn't want to hear the answer you shouldn't have asked the question.

Thanks for your input.