Featured Greek/Hebrew

No... that word connotes a radical or over-zealous mindset. That is why we use it for Islamists. Calling them a fundamentalist is the same as an extremist.

 

It doesn't have to be in some book. It is the mentality that defines the movement.

 

Just look to when someone like a Carl Henry decided to co found Christianity Today, and start to actually dialog with critical theories on Christianity, Bible, doctrines etc...

i am not faulting those in Fundamental churches/circles, but they did tend to either ignore or not be concerned with interacting with modern theories on say translation, inspiration, how the books of Bible edited, etc!

Solid evangelicals met those critical theories head on, and still were able to support the traditional held views in these areas!

 

I'm so confused. I was trying to point that out in my initial post. Jordan really just wants a Greek grammar that will either sustain his KJVO beliefs or not flow to harsh against his tide of fundamentalism. Then you started seemingly taking offense at my accusations of fundamentalism all the while affirming my point. Why are we having this conversation?

 

Maybe the fundamentalism to which you subscribe does not, but the group at large falls very much into those categories. The 20/20 investigation confirmed what I already knew firsthand.

However, I didn't realize I insinuated any of that (I think you misunderstood my points about its arrival and unacademic mindedness). I think it would be a fun thread to discuss the arrival and nature of the movement and what has caused it to have the character it has today.

 

You are not, but there are a sizabble number with certain pearts of the Movement that do seem to take a s a badge of honor staying seperated to a degree not entended by God, and who do frown upon using modern scholarship and study tools, as they tend to see many of their authors not being : conservative, solid enough"...

 

Did you really just use a secular source as a valid means to define Fundamentalism? lol

I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist (primarily because I do not associate myself with the primary groups of Baptists there are, though my fellowship belongs to the IFBC, if I am not mistaken), Greektim, and while I have no problem being labeled as zealous, or radical, or even an extrmist, lol, because sometimes I am, I don't think we can make a singular group out of all who are Independent Fundamental Baptists, and we can see extreme differences in Doctrinal positions even among those here who call themselves "Fundamental.

I also have to question you calling them unacademic, as though all fundamentalists embrace the same views (i.e., they are all KJVonlyists).

I do agree though, sounds like a fun thread.


God bless.

 

This assumes that liberals have anything to teach Fundamental Christians, lol.

Some of us radical extremists happen to think we can teach them a thing or two, and are determined to remain separate from liberal theology.

And just for the record, while I do endorse the eating of Pizza, I am not so sure that impacts our ability of discernment.



God bless.

 

Solely???

I was born and educated in fundamentalism. I only cited it as an example that others outside of the movement are noting as well. I know from experience being a former (recovering) fundie myself. I have family ties with former professors of Midwestern College in MI. I married into a KJVO family. I grew up inundated with the no-dancing, hellevision, anti-CCM rhetoric. I know of what I speak without you or 20/20 doing an expose.

As for the book, I'm not too keen on studying up on a history I feel very familiar with but more, have little interest in. That is not a slight on Beale's book. I just "have neither the time nor the inclination" (FGM quote). And the very fact that you had to clarify that even though it was written by a fundie but not acidic goes to reinforce my aversion to the movement.

Perhaps you could give a synopsis of his research as to the origin of fundamentalism. I still think that would be a fun thread.

 

I too know of the mindset of some of the more extreme branches of this group, as was familiar with a youth ministry whose goal it seemed to be each Sunday was not how/if the kids were saved, but how long theur haircuts were, if they wore a suit to church or not...

And still stand by the premise that many in their movement would define seperation to an extreme never intended for us by God, and that due to this, not able to even use standard study tools, for they were all done by "liberals", or heaven forbid, by non Baptists!

 

Cass, I love you, brother. But I think this is wishful thinking (certainly not willful naivety). As Yeshua1 and many others point out, what I am referring to is the norm for the IFB circles. I would say that you are on the fringe of the movement.

And just for clarification, fundamentalism is extremist. Your description is a redundancy of connotation. If what you have experienced is something less extreme, then that demonstrates you are in the exception, fundamentalism lite (?).

For some reason, I think you are confusing an adherence to the fundamentals (those books you mentioned and set of doctrines) with what is known today as fundamentalism. It seems like a poodle/dog issue. All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles. For example and especially in your case, you don't strike me as a fundamentalist in the general and prolific embodiment that we have with us today.