Define fundamentalist

Yes, of course. How arrogant of me to disagree with your fallacious conclusion based on an insufficient sampling.

I get it just fine. You have a very limited experience that you fallaciously extrapolate to include virtually all IFBs in your area.

Okay. In my area all SBC pastors are child molesters because 2 of them have been so convicted. (See how utterly stupid such broad-brushing is?)

Except the majority of my 35 years of experience in the ministry has been with IFB churches in the south.

As you apparently missed in my earlier post I have been in about 600 IFB churches most of which have been in the south.

No, for I would not be in such churches. I have sufficient spiritual discernment to avoid them.

 

Well, as a representative of one of the sides I am not hung up on terminology or names. I am "hung up" on the fallacious assertion that virtually all IFB churches in the south share the aberrations posited in the OP. Such is simply not the case. If the libel of IFB churches in the south continues it might behoove the moderators/administrators to close the thread to avoid liability for publishing such defaming falsehoods.

 

I made a Hyles follower really mad at me when I told him essentially the same thing, then added that I thought the main reason he went so far off the track was that Dr. Rice was no longer around to keep him on the straight and narrow.

 

Yep. Once Dr. Rice was gone Hyles acted as if he had lost his anchor.

 

Either you did not read what I wrote or you are lying. Most of my 35 years of ministry experience has been in the south. Shame on you!

Wrong again. Read my comments below.

I am going to try one more time, then just give up on you as being uneducatable.

In the mid-50s the circulation of the Sword of the Lord was greater than Moody Monthly or Christianity Today with a high of well over 300,000. There are over 60,000,000 (yes, that says 60 million!) of Dr. Rice’s books in print. Hyles and Smith's books in print combined doesn't come close to that number.

Today the circulation of the Sword of the Lord is a fraction of what it was. The current editor, Sheldon Smith, has led the Sword in a radical departure from Dr. Rice’s position. Quoting a blog written by Robert Byers, Watchman's Words

You want to argue with the facts of history? Go ahead, but you only continue to make a fool of yourself. The majority of IFBs, even in the south, do not reflect the aberrations enumerated in the OP.

I am sorry you were so abused in an IFB church or two, but your limited experiences do not constitute a universal (or even a near universal) description of IFBs in the north, south, east, or west.

 

That's impossible! According to Michael and Luke those guys don't exist!

 

One of the best weapons in the Neo-Orthodox armory is to redefine historical terms to fit their new (hence "Neo") definitions. That is what many people are doing today. They are trying to redefine the word "Fundamentalist" to fit their own pre-conceived biases.

A Fundamentalist is one who believes the following:

1. The Deity of Christ.

2. The Virgin Birth.

3. The Blood Atonement.

4. The Bodily Resurrection.

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures.

Historic Fundamentalism is divided into three main areas:

1. Militant Fundamentalism believes that the Fundamentalist must not only believe the above, but must also publicly expose those who do not.

2. Moderate Fundamentalism believes that the Fundamentalist must believe all the above but is not required to publicly expose those who do not.

3. Modified Fundamentalism believes all of the above but is open to the reinterpretation of some or all of the historic doctrines of the Christian faith including, but not limited to, the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, etc. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, the Modified Fundamentalist repudiated Fundamentalism's ecclesiology and its social theory as well as rejecting its separatism.

The error of many on this type of forum is to try to limit Fundamentalism to either just the first one, or just the first two, without recognizing the third one as being Fundamental.

 

Yes, and, unfortunately, they are so blinded by their biases that they cannot comprehend the greater world view of those who have greater knowledge and experience. A not uncommon failing of the immature, both chronologically and spiritually.