To all new movements (like IFB, etc...)

Shouldn't there be some humility if your way of thinking is no more than a century old?
Like KJV onlyism- this is a new doctrine. The church never believed this for 1900 years!!! But YOU GUYS are right about it! Is that not arrogance?

Or this hodge podge of doctrine ecclectically chosen from Arminianism and Calvinism- which believes in Substitutionary Atonement which is picked from Calvinism AND Unlimited Atonement which is picked from Arminianism at the same time. Which believes in eternal security (Calvinism) AND resistable grace (Arminianism)- doctrines that simply do not go together.

But new movements make up this NEW set of doctrines and ACT LIKE JESUS OUGHT TO BE VERY THANKFUL THAT THIS MOVEMENT CAME AROUND WHEN IT DID! Because without it the church would have continued in darkness. But these NEW movements have the truth- thank heavens!

 

Sola fide is older than the reformation.

Everybody knows that.

The Trinity is older than Athanasius- but since the truth of it came under fierce assault in his day the doctrine was defended and named. That other church fathers all the way back to the Apostles believed it is very clear.

The same with the doctrines of the Reformation.

Sola Fide was just a repetition of everything that the church fathers established in the canonization of Scripture. What was the point in canonizing the Scripture? Obviously it was that it alone was a sufficient rule for faith and practice.

But KJVonlyism has no roots in church history.
Dispensationalism has no roots in church history.
Pentecostalism has no roots in church history.
And this new nameless theology has no roots in church history. (But I will grant you this- at least it picks and chooses from movements which do have historicity. The KJV onlyers and the dispensationlists and the Pentecostals can't even say that much.)

 

Because Galatians 6:1 is not the only rule for faith and practice in the Word of God.

To emphasize that rule to the exclusion of others is a poor hermenuetic.

But just for the record, I too, prefer the King James. I think it is a wonderful version of Scripture- indeed superior to all other new versions we have today.

There are some slightly more accurate.
There are some from somewhat better texts.
But there are a host of reasons together that, imo, cause the KJV to exceed them all.

For the same reason in certain circumstances a particular way of imparting truth is better than sweetness.

Sweetness has its advantages- so does bluntness.

I don't get to call people who ONLY use sweetness (these people actually do not exist but in their own minds) cowards and compromisers who lack passion for the truth. I don't get to call them this in every circumstance because there are circumstances, as in Galatians 6:1, where sweetness is called for.

Nor do you, if you are thoughtful, get to condemn the methods of others when there methods have AT LEAST as much biblical support as the ones you cling to so dearly.

For example, in the very book you quote from Paul says that those who bring another Gospel are to be accursed- damned to hell. That's not very sweet.

The same Paul withstood Peter to the face. The language in that text is very strong.

Sweetness is not the only rule of conduct for Christians. Those who try to make it that way render us impotent- usually while themselves being hypocrites.

 

I think something like dispensationalism can pretty much be dismissed outright almost completely on the basis that it is brand new and the church never believed in it before. It is a TOTALLY new way of thinking about Scripture and that ought to be dismissed quickly.

The same with Pentecostalism.

But at least this new nameless theology is based on some historic beliefs that have roots throughout church history. They don't go together the way these folks wish they would, but at least the beliefs, however disjointed, have historicity.

 

You are wrong on Pentecostalism. Here's why:

Tongues have not been practiced for 1800 years but by heretical groups with few exceptions.

Who are these Azusa street revival people to ignore the way the church has believed about that for dozens of centuries and say that THEY are right?

That is, imo, stupid and arrogant.

Anybody who ignores church history and establishes a whole new way of thinking about Scripture with no regard to how the church has historically believed is stupid and arrogant imo.

Now what we believe can always be improving. We CAN know MORE than they knew 1500 years ago simply because we can build on what previous generations have already painstakingly carved out for us.

But a totally new way of thinking??

That kind of wicked arrogance is what gives rise to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and all kinds of other wickedness.

Pentecostals were not building on anything passed down to them. Pentecostals didn't give darn about what their forefathers believed.

They just cared what they felt.

That's arrogance and stupidity.

 

No. I do not.

But that I do it EVER is more than many panty-laced Christian men today think ought to be done.

 

I don't have a major problem with that. I don't agree with it but I think our difference on that issue is a minor thing.

But Pentecostalism is not based on that idea.

The arrogance and ignorance of people who ignore the way the church has always believed in something and then come along and pretend as if they are right and all Christians of all ages have been wrong- that is what ought to be condemned with great vehemence by all Christians.

 

Fundamentalism, as most of us on baptistboard are familiar with it, (Dr. Bob is a glaring example) is not much better than Pentecostalism along these lines.

Many of us have commented that what we have witnessed as it comes to those who most proudly bare the title "fundamentalist" is usually some IFB church or the like which rants and raves about a bunch of standards for which they have no biblical support.

And it is often from these camps that KJVonlyism comes which is another new doctrine.