Define fundamentalist

I never thought you were attacking my grandfather, father, etc. My point in mentioning my mentors was that fundamentalism is much broader and complicated than your OP seems to have it.

If you had made this clear in your OP we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yet you called your thread "Define Fundamentalist," then gave your definition. In the future please be more plain about your intention when you start a thread.

All right, I understand. Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you for the kind words. Being a missionary is an unearned privilege, and I often thank God for calling me.

Having said that, do you really not realize how abrasive your OP was? Do you feel that to debate it is necessary to be abrasive? And is it your common practice when being abrasive to then blame the person who is offended? I live in a country where the people, the Japanese, are very polite, though heathen. I could wish that this younger generation of American Christians would take the Japanese custom to heart.

I believe it is a Biblical practice to let people know when their words are offensive, and I have done so with you until now. But I'm now thinking I should begin ignoring your abrasiveness.

Col. 4:6--Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Once again, next time please make this plain in your OP.

 

You say this is a bad example of fundamentalist attitude. I'll ask why do to label him a fundamentalist? Did he say "I'm a fundamental Christian"? Sounds like he has an overly critical spirit, but even liberals can be overly critical, but it doesn't mean we label them.


:thumbsup:

 

Not true at all. Look at their history. They are the same people now, with some cultural and behavioral changes. So they are not sweeter natured, just more polite. Americans used to be that way.

As for me embracing your abrasiveness, that's not going to happen. I don't come on the BB to experience sandpaper personalities.

I was called this morning at 7:30 by a mentally ill woman whose husband has just been arrested. The previous day it was a schizophrenic woman who has fights with her husband all the time. Then there is U. San in my church who is born again, but hasn't completely cut his ties with the yakuza (Japanese mafia). Very abrasive, as is his oyabun (yakuza boss), who I've witnessed to. So there's no reason in the world for me to sit down to my computer, get on the BB, relax and say, "I think I'll interact with some abrasive people today."

 

Yes, there are liberals with a fundamentalist attitude about their beliefs.

As he said he would not attend a 'liberal' church it seems pretty obvious to me he was not liberal or moderate. This was several years ago and I cannot remember all he said. I do remember him saying that he did not like another Baptist church in our area that is pretty fundamental.

Regardless, yes he, IMHO, had an unhealthy approach to talking with people he had just met and in making such a statement as he entered the doors of the church for the first time.

Oh, and no he never came back. Don't know why ... at least not for sure. After all we had a man preaching that morning. :laugh:

 

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the core doctrines (or the load bearing doctrines) of the Christian faith and defends them by teaching, confrontation, and if necessary, separation.

It is true that, in some ways, fundamentalism today is far different than fundamentalism of 90 years ago, but the reason is obvious to observant and thinking people: The world is far different than it was then. The battles of then are not the battles of today.

SBC has not been fundamentalist historically. Al Mohler talked about that recently in his convocation address at Southern. Even the SBC's approach to liberalism that required the so-called "resurgence" shows that the SBC wasn't fundamentalist, and really isn't today, in terms of separatism. There are fundamentalists in the SBC, but broadly speaking they are not because they are not separatistic in their ecclesiology. There's some debate about whether that is good or bad, but it is what it is.

I think there are some fundamentalists who do this, by that is not modern fundamentalism. I don't think there is any fundamentalist movement, and there certainly is no unanimity. There is a very broad swath of "fundamentalism."

I reject any kind of popedom, by either side. I reject the popes who try to kick people out of conversations because they differ just as much as the popes who try to dictate every thing in people's lives. It is true that fundamentalism is made up of people from the far right whacko side who deny biblical doctrines and who insist on dictating every area of a person's life where the Bible has not spoken. It is also made up of people like me who really doesn't care that much about that kind of stuff. I open the Bible and preach what it says. I try to make applications of it to 21st century life, but if someone disagrees with my application, I am okay with that. That's hardly being a pope. But the fact is that both are in fundamentalism and have been for a long time.

In terms of attitude, there is a particularly attitude associated with some in fundamentalism such as Luke as displayed here where any dissent is immediately attacked and people are berated and asked to leave if they dare voice any other opinion. That is the type of attitude that is prevalent in some of fundamentalism, and it's the type of attitude that thinking people reject.

The bottom line is that fundamentalism is an idea that doctrine matters, enough to be taught clearly. And when people deny it either by word or deed, they should be confronted and separated from as a last resort for the purity of the gospel.

BTW, the so-called "five fundamentals" are really rather meaningless because they identify areas of debate from a century ago. Those battles have long since passed. And consider that at least one of the primary fundamentals isn't even in that list. It is better to think of the fundamentals as the load bearing doctrines of Christianity, those doctrines without with Christianity ceases to be Christianity.

 

Debate is a form of fellowship to me, as long as it is civilized and aims at truth.

I think we strongly disagree about what wins a debate. I don't believe abrasiveness is necessary nor masculine. (And no one ever doubts my masculinity when they see my collection of black belt certificates.) I believe in (1) logic. God gave us this ability and air tight logic beats abrasiveness any day. If you've seen Star Trek, Spock's perfect logic always carried the day (and they say I look like him :love2. (2) Knowledge and wisdom. Having these means power. Prov. 24:5--"A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength." (3) Skills. I've often used my knowledge of languages in debate on the BB. Also, debate itself is a skill, and it can be developed. Note that I have over 6000 posts to my credit on the BB. I've been in many debates on this board, and never tried to be nasty (sometimes it comes without trying).

Forget the Duke. I'm a martial artist (give me Jackie Chan but not Bruce Lee) and an SF buff (Stargate!). :thumbsup:

 

Definition from an exfundamentalist

I grew up in IFB churches for the first 30 years of my life. The descriptions given of fundamentalism most certainly applies to those in the southern part of the country. I currently attend a conservative SBC, and have met several people who consider themselves recovering fundamental baptists. The following is essential IFB doctrine as I heard taught from many pulpits, schools, & youth "revival".

1. The authority if the IFB church & pastor are unquestionable

2. All of the teachings & laws of the church must be followed explicitly to have a right relationship with God.

3. Any person or church that does not adhere to IFB tenants is liberal & heretical.

4. The questioning of the pastor, church, or denomination is the same as questioning the Word of God.

5. Salvation is by grace alone, but sanctification is through the IFB preaching, teaching, & church-based works.

6. IFB churches are the only true New Testament Churches in faith & form.

7. God speaks to us through His chosen man, & if you miss a single sermon, you may miss something God is trying to tell you.

8. True worship & Biblical understanding can only be realized under the leadership of an IFB pastor & church.

I still have family members in the IFB movement, and know for a fact that these tenants have not changed.

 

Yeah, but Couture can't act worth beans. Jackie wouldn't hire him!

 

I am an IFB and can tell you for a fact that none of these tenants are related to the issue at all.