Featured Fundamentalists abstaining from the appearance of evil?

I can call myself a horse but I still only have two legs.

If a man self identifies as a woman are you going to dislike all women, including your wife?

Do they also refuse to refer to themselves as men because some mentally ill woman thinks she is a man?

I know what makes me a man but it is not the same as what makes me a man.

Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, doesn't it?

My whole point is that the redefinition of historic words is a revisionist ploy of Neo-Orthodoxy. They were famous for using the same words Evangelicals use but changing what they meant to themselves. Thus the virgin birth was not really virgin, the Deity of Christ as not actual Deity, and the Resurrection of Christ was not really a Resurrection.

And fundamentals are not really fundamentals and fundamentalism is not really fundamentalism.

I refuse to allow the radical left to redefine the words in my vocabulary.

To me, Gay still means lighthearted and carefree.

Grass is still something you mow, not something you smoke.

"Dope" is your goofy neighbor, not street drugs.

And "fundamentalist" is still a Christian who believes the fundamentals of the faith.

 

It looks to me as if you are allowing the media to do your thinking for you.

And there you did it again.

That appears to be evil to me. Maybe you better stop doing that.

 

My church is called First Church of the Moonbeam, and we are associated with the Christian Moonbeam Association, but we decided to not use Christian in our name, due to bad feelings about that term!

So. We are no longer fundamentalists. Somebody might be offended.

We are no longer Baptists. Somebody might be offended.

We are no longer Christians. Somebody might be offended.

 

This may require a whole new discussion. In my (not entirely) humble opinion most Christians of the fundamentalist persuasion don't have a clue what Neo-Evangelicalism actually is.

My professor, mentor, and friend, Dr. George W. Dollar (he was Dean of Faculty my last year at Central and we remained in contact right up to his death) said in his book "A History of Fundamentalism in America" that fundamentalism could be divided into three parts.

#1 Militant Fundamentalism: Those who militantly exposed error in both doctrine and practice.

#2 Moderate Fundamentalism: Those who believe the same above errors were wrong but did not militantly expose those errors or those who taught them.

#3 Modified Fundamentalism: Those who not only fellowshipped with those in error, but also approved of those errors.

The last, #3, are the only ones who could rightly be called "Neo-Evangelical." But bear in mind they were still fundamentalists!

The man who coined the term "Neo-Evangelical" was Harold J. Ockenga who, in 1947, speaking at a Convocation Address at Fuller Seminary encouraged direct engagement with the culture and cooperation with other, Liberal (Modernist), Christian groups. My uncle, Kenneth Kantzer, added fuel to the fire by saying, the name fundamentalist had become “an embarrassment instead of a badge of honor."

However, today, it is "Neo-Evangelicalism" that has become an embarrassment to Christendom.

Harold Ockenga, in a Christianity Today editorial titled, "Resurgent Evangelical Leadership,” wrote, "Evangelical theology is synonymous with fundamentalism or orthodoxy. In doctrine the evangelicals and the fundamentalists are one."

However, "Neo" or "New" Evangelicalism had some serious problems.

While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, Ockenga's address at Fuller, repudiated the ecclesiology of fundamentalism, repudiated its social theory in favor of the social gospel, and the separation from the apostasy taking hold in most of the mainline denominations

He went on to explain that the "Neo-Evangelicalism" would reexamine "theological problems" such as the age of man, the flood of Noah, God's means of creation and other such "problems.” (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).

So, even "Neo-Evangelicalism" is fundamental in its theology.

Again, it may just be a function of my age, but I will resist to my death the revisionism of established theological terms in favor of the media's butchering of those terms for their own purposes.

Fundamentalism is, simply put, orthodoxy. It seems to me that to repudiate fundamentalism is to repudiate orthodoxy.

 

You obviously didn't read the last line of my post you were responding to.

 

The problem is how some define these fundamentals and how they exercise "judgment" (and who they are judging).

Most churches where I live would find it offensive to be considered a "fundamental" Baptist church. The only church I know of here is the one across town. Two summers ago a group of adults were out witnessing. They were walking the block around the church yelling at the children wearing shorts, telling them they were going to Hell for their manner of dress (one was the daughter of a friend). There are areas where "fundamental" is more associated with hate than with Christ, and rightly so.

At the same time, most of these churches would also affirm the fundamentals of our faith. They would just be Baptists (with the better ones being Southern Baptists ).

 

Completely irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with the fundamentals or what fundamentalism is about.

If we abandon everything that somebody, somewhere, misunderstands and/or misuses then all of Christendom is down the tubes and Christ lied when He said "the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

 

But it does have something to do with how one is perceived. So the question is whether a church name is to convey meaning to the church or to those outside the church. If the former, then perhaps it would be a mistake to remove "fundamental". If the latter, perhaps not.

An example would be on the Baptist use of "catholic" to refer to itself. This wouldn't do today, not because belief has changed but because of word association.