Featured Emerging from Fundamentalism

I'll answer the rest of your post in the morning. It's getting late here in Japan. But tell me if you don't think Michael's post (which Luke agreed with completely, and I think others did also) was vicious:

So according to Michael, Luke and others, we Fundamentalists are not well-intentioned, we are wicked with narcissistic self-righteousness, we are evil, we are all spiritually babies, we are pharisees (unsaved people), we are hypocrites in our claims to win people to Christ. we have a false form of godliness, we are sending people to Hell, many of us are not even going to make it to Heaven, and we are a cult.

And you don't think this is a vicious attack?? And you say instead that I'm the guilty one??

 

Brother John,

I see what you are saying. I must admit that what Michael said actually does reflect some in that movement, and that is unfortunate but nonetheless it is true. The problem comes with broad brushing. I know some fine men who are IFB and that are solid Bible teachers and preachers. I also know of several that fit in the above picture.

I would only rebuke him for broad brushing, and I haven't personally experienced what he has.

John, I only wish you'd hold the same disdain for the vitriol, accusatory behavior of one from your own camp who is partaking in this thread. And we can add another to that list as well. It is immature, caustic, and shows an unforgiving malignant spirit.

Have a good night.

 

I also am a calvinist, yet don't any need to destroy any brother in the Lord!

 

Think we have 2 main camps of Fundamentalists in discussion here!

One group hold to essentials of the christian faith, practice seperation based upon doctrinal errors, but do that in a christ like fashion

another group does same, but also seperates based upon ONLY preferences/convictions, and are hotile and angry against those christians who dare to say intheir :wicked ways!"

 

I appreciate your attitude. I am not one who says there are no good Christians outside of Fundamentalism. I have some friends who are not Fundamenalists--good friends.

Some Fundamentalists do go too far. I realize that. But I think that is because we have reacted to being the "offscouring of the world," attacked often by not only the secular media but our brothers in Christ.

Here is a definition of legalism by a well known Southern Baptist theologian that I hope you'll ponder: “Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by Millard Erickson, p. 990).

 

I'm mystified. I really don't know what you are talking about. Who have I insulted, and what did I say to insult them?

Sorry, I don't see such things as my problem.

You are welcome to whatever definition you want to have about what it means to be a Fundamentalist. I can't change that. My definition, however, is based in historical reality and the work of scholars. Surely an honest researcher would not want to head off on his own tack, contrary to historical reality.

So you reject history? I see I'm going to have to give some quotes to prove that this is not simply my own opinion. I did not invent the position that a Fundamentalist is one who not only believes the Fundamentals but actively defends them.

Are you familiar with Millard Erickson, the SBC systematic theologian? He wrote a book entitled, The New Evangelical Theology (1968), in which he points out, "The new evangelicalism holds much of its theology in common with fundamentalism and other orthodox theology" (p. 85). So there is my view that simply believing the Fundamentals makes one an evangelical, not a Fundamentalist. (Evangelical is not a dirty word to me. I see Fundamentalism as one branch of evangelicalism.)

Concerning the idea that Fundamentalists fight for doctrine, he says about the deity of Christ and why it was defended but not the humanity of Christ, "Fundamentalism was a movement involved with defense, and one does not defend that which is not under attack" (p. 108). There is much more in this book that is very perceptive about the two movements, but I'll move on.

Are you familiar with Robert Lightner, a Dallas TS prof back in the day? His book, Neo-Evangelicalism (1965), gives the following definition of Fundamentalism: "The movement which was born in the early part of the twentieth century in opposition to and as a reaction against liberalism.... The term was used to designate the defense of these fundamentals when it was first coined and this is the true meaning of it today" (p. 24).

In 1957 the break came between Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals when Billy Graham refused to seat a committee for his NY crusade of only Fundamentalists, and insisted that liberals be on the committee. In other words, Graham decided that defending the faith against liberalism was not worth it, and we should cooperate with them instead. I fully document this incident here on the BB at: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4309

I could give many more quotes, including from Graham's autobiography, the Ockenga press release of 1957 (I think it was), etc. etc. However, if these quotes from well-known evangelical scholars don't convince you than nothing will.

Yes. Take a look at your post #26 in this thread, where you say, "A true fundamentalist is one who adheres to The Fundamentals...."

Wherever you got this, you didn't get it from me. I hold to none of these as part of Fundamentalism, have never preached them, have never heard most of them preached--certainly not the wire framed glasses or the root beer bottle thing. (I love IBC myself, but can't get any root beer in Japan, alas.)

None. I have no list of rules for you. To be a Fundamentalist means fighting for the fundamentals, not a list of rules.

Good testimony. Thank you.

 

I think you are right. In which case, the broad-brushing going on here displays ignorance of this historical development.

 

My goose is cooked, then?

 

It's a little nervous though, what with Thanksgiving soon and turkeys being hard to find in Japan.

 

Yes...

Sad but invariably true Brother John...sad but true!:tear:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Wow!

Oh aged one (lol)...I won't needlessly cloud what you said to John with anything more that a heartfelt AMEN!:applause:...particularly that last paragraph...that was wonderful Brother! My first Pastor after I got saved was one of John R's son-in-laws so I saw and heard much of Dr. Rice's ministry. I too believe he would (and is) pleased with his grandson's ministry!

Bro. Greg Perry Sr.:saint:

 

I've already stated belief in them and defending them. You purposely overlook that fact to continue to rant about nothing.

I stated:

To which you responded:

No, actually you're incorrect and overlooking other things to maintain this purposeful and deceitful opinion. You're putting words in my mouth and taking some away. I'm beginning to sense that old bitter IFB spirit in this back and forth with you as you misrepresent me intentionally. Nothing in what I've stated says it is only believing it. That said, put an end to misrepresenting me and what I've stated.

By the way, there is nothing different in what makes you a fundamentalist and what makes me one, unless you want to come right out and tell me what rules must be obeyed. Like, can a woman wear pants to church and be a fundamentalist or not?

And one more time, where's your hatred shown towards those who've acted in this thread in the same manner as the ones you've attacked for allegedly doing the same?

 

That is so sad. And that is exactly what he has been talking about in this thread. But you don't get it do you?

 

Great. I believe you. (Never said I didn't believe what you were saying, I just didn't understand it.)

Sigh. I thought I was quoting you precisely. In fact, I used the quote feature the BB software has so I got you exactly right. Absolutely no deceit was intended, and I was not trying to put words in your mouth. And I certainly did not misrepresent you on purpose. Please forgive me for misrepresenting you.

I simply quoted what you said and drew what I thought was the obvious conclusion from it. You seemed to be saying that to be a Fundamentalist you simply had to believe the Fundamentals. Now you say that's not what you meant. Okay. I'll accept that. So we are apparently fairly close in what we believe a Fundamentalist is. So can we stop this now, the accusations that I am being deceitful, etc.?

Just to be clear, please show me where on the thread you said before this that to be a Fundamentalist one must fight for the fundamentals, because I haven't been able to find that. I don't want to misrepresent you again, so it would be nice to have a quote.

??? I already said I had no rules for you to follow to be a Fundamentalist. So yes, of course a woman can wear pants to church and be a Fundamentalist. I don't know what else I can say to make my position clear. You can be a Fundamentalist and go to the movies. You can be a Fundamentalist and drink alcohol. You can be a Fundamentalist and listen to rock music. Anything else?

I don't hate you, I don't hate those who have been vicious on this thread towards Fundamentalists, I don't hate anyone. To hate is to not follow Christ. But may I ask (without misrepresenting you) if your use of the word "allegedly" means that you believe what Michael said was okay to say?

 

Good, then we are clear and we won't hear the evangelical thing? :laugh:

By the way John, I never stated you hate a person, I'm simply noting that the same vicious behavior you've attacked you've also allowed to come from others in this same thread. Consistent disdain is what I was looking for, instead of this you actually egg on others who come in to stir the pot because of whose camp a person is in, and you won't touch the others who come in with the same vile nonsense.

 

Who did I egg on?

And my purpose on this thread was to oppose the vicious attack on my people. If you want to oppose a Fundamentalist on this thread, why do you ask me to do so? Why aren't you doing it yourself? I'm from Tennessee, where we handle our own problems. Whoever on this thread you think is hateful among independent Baptists is not my problem.

 

Yeah, well I'm from Ohio where we call people on their hypocrisy. :thumbs:

Who said these were fundamentalists? All I am saying is that you're being inconsistent in your attack. IOW, you only have attacked those outside your camp while those perceived to be in your camp you've said no word about their behavior.

Hey, you're the one bringing up vile behavior and making it YOUR personal problem. Be consistent when you take these things on as your problem.

Now, if I wanted to take them on for their comments, I would. I just overlook that ignorance for the most part.

That's not your problem huh? Then why attack michael? That was your problem wasn't it? Yes, you took it personally.

By the way John, what michael mentioned is actually true, and luke supporting him is ok with me and I actually support his statement as well. They've called a spade a spade, and somehow that hit deep when you read it. You will go to no end to protect fundies and won't acknowledge michaels assessment as factual. That's somewhat deceitful behavior on your part. Many of us have seen this behavior among fundies, and it's well known. The culture of the IFB needs to change as there are too many of these tyrants in the pulpit.

 

Since you feel that I am hypocritical and deceitful (not to mention your support of the idea that IFBs are evil and unsaved as per Michael), I can see that civil discourse is over here. Have a good one.