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

[Luke2427]

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!

 

[Ruiz]

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!

The old statement rings true, "If it is new, it probably is not true. If it is true, it probably is not new."

Modernism, fundamentalism, dispensationalism, and a myriad of other theologies were mainly progressed in the last 2 centuries. Yet, there are a number of churches who make the major tenants of these "new" theologies essential or, in the case of modernism, they throw out most theology in favor of a version of Christianity that is impotent.

I agree, if it is new it probably is not true and if it is true it probably is not new.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Remember this: the most important thing, the most imortant issue is whether the wimminfolk wear skirts or slacks.

Who cares if lost people are dying and going to hell! We must all go to war over this critical issue of "skirts vs slacks" before it is too late. Obviously it was on Paul's mind since every paragraph of his letters tackles this issue.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The old statement rings true, "If it is new, it probably is not true. If it is true, it probably is not new."

Modernism, fundamentalism, dispensationalism, and a myriad of other theologies were mainly progressed in the last 2 centuries. Yet, there are a number of churches who make the major tenants of these "new" theologies essential or, in the case of modernism, they throw out most theology in favor of a version of Christianity that is impotent.

I agree, if it is new it probably is not true and if it is true it probably is not new.

Here I totally agree & especially when you stress the word "Impotent" :applause:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Remember this: the most important thing, the most imortant issue is whether the wimminfolk wear skirts or slacks.

Who cares if lost people are dying and going to hell! We must all go to war over this critical issue of "skirts vs slacks" before it is too late. Obviously it was on Paul's mind since every paragraph of his letters tackles this issue.

....yea & what about kilts? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Don]

I'm a "KJV-preferred," not "only"; but I do have to point out that the movement regarding what are considered "wrong" translations started within the last 100 years because the glut of questionable translations has only occurred within the last 100 years; thus, your statement about "1900 years" is off the mark. But your point is taken.

Other than that minor technicality, your rant is acceptable. One has to wonder why you suddenly decided to return with a posting that was harsh, instead of simply posing some challenges to IFB-held tenets and working to correct those beliefs in a spirit of meekness and love (Gal 6:1).

 

[webdog]

Why did it take centuries for sola fide to take hold in the church?

 

[Luke2427]

Why did it take centuries for sola fide to take hold in the church?

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.)

 

[Luke2427]

I'm a "KJV-preferred," not "only"; but I do have to point out that the movement regarding what are considered "wrong" translations started within the last 100 years because the glut of questionable translations has only occurred within the last 100 years; thus, your statement about "1900 years" is off the mark. But your point is taken.

Other than that minor technicality, your rant is acceptable. One has to wonder why you suddenly decided to return with a posting that was harsh, instead of simply posing some challenges to IFB-held tenets and working to correct those beliefs in a spirit of meekness and love (Gal 6:1).

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.

 

[JesusFan]

Here I totally agree & especially when you stress the word "Impotent" :applause:

Think that we have to consider here though that sometimes God DOES bring back a neglected truth, as in faith alone/grace alone of the Reformation, and that sometimes also we assume that the Church was all one mind regarding say covenant/dispy theology, gifts ceasing/not etc, so we have to be able to recognize that some "newer" things might indeed be true, while the Church NEVER has a sole viewpoint established on "grey" discussion doctrines!

 

[Luke2427]

Think that we have to consider here though that sometimes God DOES bring back a neglected truth, as in faith alone/grace alone of the Reformation, and that sometimes also we assume that the Church was all one mind regarding say covenant/dispy theology, gifts ceasing/not etc, so we have to be able to recognize that some "newer" things might indeed be true, while the Church NEVER has a sole viewpoint established on "grey" discussion doctrines!

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.

 

[Don]

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.

Absolutely correct. My observation is a personal one of you and your methods, which can be summed up as: Do you always come out swinging?

 

[JesusFan]

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 early Church indeed held to what we would call"historical" pre mill , at least until the time of the RCC spiritualizing almost all of the prophecies in the OT to be seen as being fulfilled now in the Holy Catholic Church here on earth!

Would say that Dispy pre trib pre mill viewing came along later in the Church age, but still would be a valid way to view End times events...

The same with Pentecostalism.

Would agree with you on the extreme excesses seen among cultic/heretical groups like WoF/prosperity etc, BUT still think case can be made from the scriptures that at least NOT a total given of it ceasing after Apostolic Age!

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.

Are you calling out here non cals in particular though?
or is it Arminians/non calls etc all together now?
Just curious!

Would have to say that IF it is biblical in its doctrine/theology, Or IF it is a position that can be reasonable defended at least from the Bible....

 

[Luke2427]

Would have to say that IF it is biblical in its doctrine/theology, Or IF it is a position that can be reasonable defended at least from the Bible....

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.

 

[Luke2427]

Absolutely correct. My observation is a personal one of you and your methods, which can be summed up as: Do you always come out swinging?

No. I do not.

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

 

[JesusFan]

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.

i am NOT discussing in this point the "Azuza revivals", as I tend to view that as NOT being of God, but DO think a basis can be laid via the Bible that at least can consider that Spitual Gifts still can function today, but in BIBLICAL order and practice!

 

[Jerome]

What does any of this have to do with Fundamentalism?

 

[Luke2427]

i am NOT discussing in this point the "Azuza revivals", as I tend to view that as NOT being of God, but DO think a basis can be laid via the Bible that at least can consider that Spitual Gifts still can function today, but in BIBLICAL order and practice!

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.

 

[Don]

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

Agreed.

No. I do not.

Are you sure? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Luke2427]

What does any of this have to do with Fundamentalism?

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.