Fundamentalist Survival Mechanism

Good for him! I think he's right on target.

 

I've been following Trevin for some time. He is an articulate voice for Christendom.

He has also just taken a new position with LifeWay Christian Resources. Now he can put up with Rainer, Stetzer, Wagener, Helems and company... :thumbs:

 

Hello Rhetorician

And thank you very much for bringing this message to my attention.

As for my thoughts of it.....
He is very clever, is the way he built this straw man, so that he could tear it down.

Did you notice how he cleverly identified himself as “a fundamentalist”, by saying....

He may exaggerate his differences with others, but I don’t.
--------------------------------------------------
He also said.....

This is a half-truth, because the “creeping influence of liberalism” he spoke of, was embodied in a retreat from God’s Word.
Which is really the main issue.
--------------------------------------------------
This next paragraph is a jewel............

Here he compares taking a stand on the infallibility of God’s Word, to taking a stand on a woman who wears pants.
--------------------------------------------------
He continues...........

I praise the Lord, that I am not a protestant of any kind.
I started off in the SBC, but I left not because I was protesting anything, but because I was taking a stand(and obeying the Lord’s instructions).
--------------------------------------------------
As I have learned over the years, noone can hide their liberal tendencies:
His came out for all to see, in the next three paragraphs..........

This is the perfect example of what happens, when you start sliding away from God’s Word..........
➀ You start accepting women pastors:
➁ You start clearly rejecting verbal inspiration:
➂ You start slipping into the enemies camp(Comparing the charismatics & the Catholics)
Note: Although the charismatics are in error, they are our brothers and sister in Christ.
(But the Catholics, preach a different Gospel!)
--------------------------------------------------
Finally a paragraph that can really help all of us............

This is the great danger, that all of us face.
The mistake of separating “Bible Doctrine” into different classes.
(First-order, second-order, third-order)

Bible Doctrine is “Bible Doctrine”, regardless of how important we may think it is.
--------------------------------------------------
I will stop their, but there is plenty more.

One particular statement he made, that I deliberately passed over, was........

Saying that you believe in “the perfect inspiration of Scripture”, is kind of like saying that “you believe in God”........
James 2:19
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

I will not elaborate on this here, because this is the wrong part of this forum.

 

Once again, you prove how inaccurate your moniker is.

 

Amen... But some folks evidently feel challeneged to hate as many other brothers and sisters as possible. :BangHead:

Wonder how that is all going to work out for them when we all stand arm-in-arm at the throne of our Lord some day?

 

The goals of fellowship and unity are worthy goals, but there are several problems standing in the way.

One, classifying the issues into first, second and third order. Each of us will have a different list.

Second, it's quite hard to have fellowship and be unified with other believers with whom you are not unified. Simply declaring unity is dishonest at worst and naive at best.

It is quite difficult to say, "in the name of unity, I will consider this doctrine (name one) as not very important." One must be careful in observing that there is disagreement over a doctrine or practice, but he will not make it a test of fellowship. There are some (eschatology is one), but one must not elevate unity over doctrine. Particularly unity at all costs.

I value unity. It's important to me. I have seen, and been part of, church conflict. I'll go a long way to avoid it again. So much so that I will be extremely careful about issues on which I will part company with other believers.

 

Hi Tom Butler

And thank you for clearing that up for me.

The part of the message that talks about these three orders is......
“Let me be clear on something. I do not believe we should do away with doctrinal distinctives. I am a Reformed-leaning, complementarian, Bible-driven minister who holds tightly to the fundamentals of the faith.

But I will not confuse second-order doctrinal distinctives with first-order doctrines. Once we journey down that road, we’ll eventually start confusing third-order doctrinal distinctives with first order doctrines, and we’ll wind up as isolated, irrelevant, and shrill as our independent friends.

We should not locate our Christian identity in what separates us from other believers, but in the gospel that unites us with other believers, the gospel that calls us out of the world to serve the world.”
--------------------------------------------------
Now, I better understand what he is getting at.

But his statement, that.....“We should not locate our Christian identity in what separates us”, needs some clarification.
For instance, my Christian identity, as a Bible believing Baptist, means that I do not accept today’s version of tongues or women preachers.

Now even though my Church would never have joint services with a Charismatic Church, this doesn’t stop me from being friends with a Charismatic, but I also have learned not to bring up tongues or women preachers, to him.

Therefore, I do base my Christian identity, on even these 2nd or 3rd order doctrines.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I did not get the idea that he was talking about second and third order doctrines that separate Baptists from Charismatics or other denominations. I believe he's talking about the man made opinions that separate us Baptists from each other. Issues like women wearing pants, versions, hairstyles, C/A, etc.

 

Hello abcgrad94

You may be right.
But I would not call things like, women wearing pants or hairstyles, doctrinal issues.
The Bible does not really say one word about them.

Although I do consider the version debate, to clearly be a doctrinal issue, because of all the Bible has to say about inspiration and preservation.
--------------------------------------------------
But clearly he is trying to downplay the version debate, to the level of these other issues.

 

I can't see where "versions" come into play, and using the Scriptures in support of a translation that was written hundreds if not over a thousand years later is in all likelihood a huge error and eisegesis instead of exegesis.

 

What one calls a "doctrinal" issue, another calls a "personal preference." We have way too many personal preferences being taught as doctrine, as interpreted by certain men or pastors. I think what he's saying is that these should not be dividing issues by which we separate from each other. What he's pointing out is that Baptists have a problem with majoring on MINOR issues, instead of just agreeing on the basic doctrines. This is the reason why we have a bizillion different sects of "Baptist." It's crazy.

In my small town alone, we have about 20 different churches that all average a handful of people. (Not all are Baptist) Why? Because they cannot agree on stupid things like whether or not one should be baptized in a baptistry or a creek, or whether a woman should wear pants or cut their hair, or whether one sings hymns only or incorporates modern songs, whether or not the church lets the youth do fund raisers, etc. Christians, especially Baptists, have become regarded as people with petty differences instead of a believers who unify in love for Christ and each other.

 

Hello again abcgrad94

You said........

You are right, but it is easy to distinguish between the two.
Bible Doctrine, is defined as “Bible teachings”.

If something is not taught in the Bible, people can call it anything they want, but it is not a "doctrinal issue”: It is a "personal preference".
--------------------------------------------------
You continue........

I fully agree. I call this legalism.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said..........

Now we come to his intent.
When I read his message, I see a veiled attempt to criticize Fundamentalists like myself, for making a big deal about the Word of God.

By implying that the whole KJB debate, is just like debating whether a woman should wear pants(as I pointed out in my first post).
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said...........

I kind of agree with all of this.

But when it comes to things like, singing hymns only or incorporating modern songs, or a church letting the youth do fund raisers, I can see some problems.

Admittedly the music issue, is a personal preference with many(including myself), but the question of how God’s Church should be supported, is clearly laid out in Scripture.

But if I lived in a town, with only one Baptist Church, and it had these problems, I would think that the Lord would allow me to join it, anyway.

 

Yup... Well said.

Stilllearning... Wasn't ALL music new once? Just sayin'... I had this debate with two deacons (all we had in that small church) once and they were all upset because I was introducing "modern" music aka, contemporary Christian hymns. I agreed with them, then asked them why that was a problem. They indicated that this new music was just not God-honoring. I said, okay, le'ts open one of our hymnals and see when the songs that you prefer were written. As we turned to hymn after hymn, we discovered that the oldest one they preferred was written in 1898. Most were written in the 1920-1950 era -- NEW music when they were young! My point was made.

What are the most ancient songs and hymns of the church and why are they more relevant than modern hymns?

 

I do not feel that the KJB is a doctrinal/scriptural issue--it is an issue of preference. While the KJV crowd will quote verses they believe supports this, other people do not interpret those verses that way. That doesn't make them hell-bound, apostate Bible-haters (as I've heard preached.)

I've had people tell me that "dresses only" is MANDATED by scripture because of how *they* interpret certain verses. For them, it's a doctrinal issue, but because I don't interpret the verses that way, it is NOT a doctrinal issue for me. I see the KJV debate the same way. It's not a issue worth separating over. God's word will not return void. You can get convicted and saved while reading the KJV, a NASB, or an NIV.

The problem is when people believe their opinion of scripture is the ONLY CORRECT interpretation. I would much rather be known as someone who is about the Lord's business, who loves God and loves others, rather than someone who always is "against" this or that.

 

Shhhhh... don't talk about loving others.. you're on the fundamentalists forum!

YOu know, you don't sound like too many modern day fundamentalists here in the great state of WV.. are you sure you are? :thumbs:

OR are you slowly seeing the error of your way... ROFL...
OK,, I'm ducking out before a rollingpin comes my way.

 

Yeah, I'd like to find a good Baptist church that still believes the fundamentals of the faith but doesn't major on the minors. It seems like all the churches are one extreme or the other--either very "loving" without much doctrine, or very "grounded" with no true love or tolerance for other opinions.

 

• Do not ever clap in church because someone might sue the church for damaged hands.
• Do not sing any of the Psalms because for over 1000 years the church did not sing at all.
• Do not bring on any new leadership because the younger generation lacks experience in using formaldehyde. They need to know its proper use so that they can pickle others around them. The older generation, the Geritol gang, needs to teach the younger generation how to lead in undertaking because they certainly would not want the young people to know who the uptaker is first.
• Pool tables should not be in the church. Those were found at bars and will only get damaged.
• We need to save our money for a rainy day because we might need it later. That church lost everything except $3,000 in a poor investment.
• The younger generation needs to sit under the teaching of old folks for many years so they know how to do church right. After all Paul told us how to do it right and the young people should know that just like the congregations Paul started with the old believers from antiquity that had been Christians for about three years or less.
• Certainly we would not want air conditioning in a church because that would cater to modernism and is not found in the Bible.
• We should not translate the Bible because the people might misinterpret scripture by reading a translation.
• A piano has no place in the church because it was once found in bars.
• Ladies should not wear makeup because only prostitutes wore makeup.
• Women should never work outside the home because Proverbs 31 says that women are to buy a field and plant it.
• God never intended people to drink coffee and tea because those could stimulate the body.
• God never intended a church to own property because it should always be the property of the pastor and that will be his retirement when he sells it to the next pastor.
• Paying for a pew space must be done to ensure an income for the church and to give the rich the best pews in the church because they are the prominent people in society and the church. After all it would not look good to see poor people in the front pews.
• We certainly would not want to sing any CCM music that Isaac Watts wrote. Especially some of the modern music such as “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross.”
• Do not ever sing any of the new songs because they have a beat and a beat is from Satan.
• If people want to know Jesus they will come to church just like a person who wants a drink will go to a bar.

 

By God's grace, exactly while I was reading this, a modern interpretation of this very hymn was playing on my Pandora computer radio station.