Featured Fundamentalists create liberals?

Wow....amazing question! Can you Luke take a bias against this group andxtransend it to love? If you can't, well I will go no further.

 

You've answered your own question.

Seeing some of the teaching of baptists on here and in real time, it's no wonder they are hoodwinked out of IFB's into cults. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Why? They're not being taught TRUTH and that is a fact, and this is why they are easily deceived -- Hebrews 5:11ff.

Your post supports the OP perfectly and actually facilitates its perceived indictment. I highly doubt many nor any IFB's will wake up to these facts. They're too proud.

 

Such is too common among fundamentalists, there is little to no candor and honesty among them concerning these things.

 

No, he is saying that you have too little information to make the conclusions that you do from the book.

I've basically posted the same.

This is really so very inaccurate of John's posts.

He answers questions, he applies Scripture and language skills, and has a history of being extremely factual.

That he now steps away from your rant is warranted. Even the OP assumes what the article does not share as the OP account, and more you have yet to document from the author the points of your rant.

Frankly, I am beginning to consider that you actually know nothing of John R. Rice, nor Andrew's actual writing.

John answered the questions, but you refused to acknowledge the answers because they didn't agree with your bluster.

I don't care.

We aren't comparing who is greater based on works. That is elementary.

What I have suggested is that you do your homework before you are critical of John R. Rice.

You claimed he was "narrow minded" but that was proven false.

You claimed Andrew credits the grandfather with his rebellion, but that was proven false.

You claimed that folks turn to rebellion out of rejecting the preaching of fundamentalists, but that was shown as false.

I will suggest once more. Until you actually discover the person and discuss doctrinal errors and moral failures you have no Scriptural stand to criticize.

Really?

And YOU are not passing judgement? You are not posting extremist thinking and broad brushing?

YOU, who have misread the article and cannot post proof for the accusations?

John R. Rice and I did not agree on every thing. John of Japan and his grandfather did not agree on everything - he has posted areas as examples.

But, I never met a man who spent more time in prayer, had a greater desire that believers mature in the Scriptures, and had an enormous drive to witness to the unsaved.

You could take a few lessons from his character.

Millions flowed through his fingers and he lived what we might consider simple means. John actually used the word "frugal" if I recall correctly in another thread.

Unbelievable influence among all races of believers and among Baptists of different views, he was highly regarded, sought after, and in demand among many SBC pastors as well as IFB folks, yet would take time to visit with the humblest with as much intensity of love and concern as expressed to any other.

I am not exalting him, but reporting his some of his character and accomplishments.

You have so missed the mark as to his preaching style, and that shows how very little you really know about this issue, too.

 

What things?

What questions did John of Japan not answer that were honestly put to him?

I have found him very skilled in the use of Scriptures, factual as far as the history - particularly if the IFB/SBC interactions and conflicts, one who knows original languages, and one who is not "puffed up" as some of the more calvinistic thinking folks are known to exude.

In remarks about his grandfather, he has been remarkably frank in the threads and has shown some of the areas of agreement and disagreement.

If I have read with understanding, John will respond to a point with a posting until that person has shown them self as entrenched and unteachable.

At that point, further posting is basically futile.

If you think that I am wrong, then look back at the threads in which he has posted. You will see the proof of what I have shown on this post.

I have no problem when one publishes documentation of Scripture error and moral failure as a warning to others who may be influenced by that person.

I posted on a near thread two books and authors who factually wrote the errors of an IFB preacher/pastor who was doctrinally and morally called into question as an example of what is to be expected.

Martin Luther did the same when he posted the thesis.

THAT is the appropriate examination that should take place when investigating a pastor or other leader.

What IS NOT up for critic is the discussion of another assemblies choice of preaching style they desire.

Some like the sing song of the black church.

Some like the spit and froth of those who jump on pulpits and break microphones.

Some like more stoical and scholarly.

Some like...

The fact is NNE has the right to be critical of what another assembly chooses as a pastor in style of preaching and leadership UNLESS there is doctrinal error and moral failure that can be documented.

If you disagree, then show me by Scriptures what warrant you possess to be critical.

 

The things that I quoted from luke2427 which happen in too many IFB church's, thus, note I said 'fundamentalists' not joj. Nothing in what I quoted from him had to do with joj nor with the rest of your rant which is baseless and off track.

 

I agree.

One of the heartache that I faced and contended with BOTH in the SBC and the IFB is the lack of systematic Scripture teaching.

There was far too much emphasis on evangelism in the IFB church and the typical church was more often judged upon the "souls saved" rather than the growth of the believers and their ability to handle the Scriptures with accuracy.

However, this is not just a baptist issue. It is throughout the whole of English speaking Christendom.

The typical charismatic assembly is getting even less factual Scripture training and in some areas a doctrinal compromise is becoming a growing concern.

This is one of the reasons I am concerned about the emotional driven "worship" that is no better than the emotional driven preaching which produces emotional driven folks who have no great depth of substance and Scriptural understanding.


I have often longed for folks to not be consumed in what sound right and what they think is right and seek what God holds as right.

Being "rooted and grounded" - is not the same.

It is the use of an agricultural term and an architectural term. The believer is to be rooted (agriculturally speaking) sending roots deep into the Scriptures to extract all nutrients necessary for daily living. The believer is to be grounded (the architectural term) that they construct what is of precious substance - not to be burned into a char in that fire.

But how can a believer who is not feed be sufficiently? Peter - feed my sheep.

 

Baseless and off track?

Luke is critical - unnecessarily so - of John of Japan and makes nonfactual accusations drawn from making conclusions that are not found in the article referenced in the OP.

That you have agreed with his posts with out pointing out the error, shows that my post to you was not baseless or off track.

 

I agree with you on this. Any person who denies the two posts herein is turning a blind eye to reality. IFB's are a mess, and there are too many within them that think they base all they believe on the Word, yet they in fact do not, their understanding is shallow and hollow, and a lot of the fault lies within the pulpit. They've created this mess. It's time to own up yet they are too proud to do so.

 

I agreed with a portion of his post, you've taken it as an commentary on joj. It wasn't. My post was responding to the happenings in IFB church's NOT on dialogue between joj and luke2427. Please reconsider brother. I apologize if this wasn't clear.

 

Let me see if I understand the discussion at this point:

Luke: "I've had some experience with some bad fundamentalists,and I read an article by a relative of John R. Rice."

John of Japan: "I grew up with the author of the article, and have read his book from which the article is based."

Luke: "Yeah, well, you're wrong."

Does that about sum it up?

 

Way too funny!

 

Amen to the above agedman.

But I would make some qualification to your last sentence. Criticism is fine but being hateful is not. Luke is transparent enough in his posts about the IFB/Fundamentalists that his hatred is clearly seen. He rails against this and that in a spirit that is worse than the shortcomings he is so upset about. One day with some years under his belt he will perhaps see the error of his ways. He is super-charged with vitrol. That's not a good thing, especially for someone in the ministry. Upon more mature reflction he will mellow out hopefully. Being angry all the time makes one embittered. He needs to voice his objections in a more nuanced way or he will gain no hearers. He will deserve no hearers.

Luke, you may have a wonderful ministry. You might do many fine deeds unselfishly. But all of that can be negated with your youthful tirades. Listen to others here who have said about the same things I have. Turn things around for the better.

 

Lets face facts.... its the natural man coming out & not the spiritual one, I can see it clearly because I'm in the same boat, except my natural man hates all churches that I dont see as humble. You know what though, sometimes not a bad thing....I'm sure Luke can sense a phony from 200 yards & thats good .... puts him on his guard & he isn't getting abused. But it has also tarnished him cause he cant stand anyone using Christ for their own agendas.

Truly I am much more in Luke's camp than I am with the St. Francis's of the world & I enjoy a Good Ole "scorched earth" get together now and again.

 

We need to use good discernment, that is for sure.

And yes, some fundamentalists and holiness and various other groups are narrow minded. But sometimes that narrow-mindedness is in the eye of the beholder.

I have a relative who once visited me after we had not seen each other for years. At a picnic he offered me a can of beer, which I refused. He railed on and on about my narrow minded refusal of a simple can of beer.

He never let me speak the whole truth: yes, the church I was in prohibited it. But I could not and would not have had a beer anyway. Nor would I have accepted a soda pop at that point if he had offered it. Nor tea nor coffee.

Only the beer was prohibited by my decision to join my church and abide by their covenant. But even so, I had at the time an untreated health issue. All I knew was that if I had a beer, a soda pop, tea, or coffee I would be flat on my back writhing in pain in a few minutes time.

I've encountered the same thing when a back issue put me in skirts for a few weeks while I healed. Ditto some minor surgical matters.

We need to truly listen, not just assume that if someone doesn't go to the movies (asthma and perfumes?) or wears skirts and dresses (back issues, etc) or doesn't consume certain foods or drinks (reflux, allergies, etc), listen to the radio (hard on those with perfect pitch), etc that they think they are better than we are.

Even if their reasons are religious, we shouldn't equate their disapproving of actions we approve of with judging us as "less than."

That is the exact tactic the lgbt crowd uses in our town. Either you approve of their actions or you are narrow minded and condemning of them as persons.

Nope. Nada. Don't fly. So when my Mennonite friends grimace at my jeans I just figure we have a difference of opinion, not that they are narrow minded.

Truly grace covers a multitude of attitudinal sins.

 

Sure it does. You just don't want it to, because you know that what you're saying is right.