Is there any true fundamentalist on this board

Sealed Eternal said:

C'mon, man, gimme a break. Do you own the house you live in ? Does it have a battlement as in Deut. 22:8 ?

When you go to church, are all your clothes made of one sort of material ? All wool ? Including your underwear, socks, and ties ? No polyester thrown in ? No cotton mixed with polyester or wool ? Remember Deuteronomy 22:11 says:

Remember, if one lives by the law, he has to live by every law, not just pick one and disregard another.

If that's your idea of fundamentalism, you can keep it. I don't want none of it.

 

[post snipped - non baptist]

[ December 05, 2004, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

I agree, transvestism is wicked, I don't see anything about pants in that verse, did you forget to quote the right scripture?

What is long hair anyway? I just got mine cut pretty short, does that mean that I repented since it was long yesterday compared to how it is now. What is the principle involved? you can't just parrot scripture verses that match a keyword search of your particular belief and use that as proof, you actually need to distill some meaning out of it first.

 

Uh, I'm a female and I wear nice long pants and I dress very neatly. Aren't we talking a little too legalistic here?

 

Okay, let's not be legalistic! What's wrong with guys wearing dresses? Would you want your husband to wear a dress or skirt to work?

 

The problem with this thread is that posters want to throw around buzz words, build straw men, and develop spurious arguments to win their own point of view. What are the Biblical principles concerning dress and hair? Off hand, there are two prominent issues: modesty and a distinction between the sexes. Whereas there is large latitude of subjectivity here, one would be hard pressed to deny that the blending of gender styles has tracked concurrently with sexual promiscuity and deviation (i.e. homosexuality and lesbianism). IMHO, this collapse of social conventions, which is not necessarily and explicitly defined as sinful of itself, contributes to the overall moral decline and breakdown of inhibitions. In other words, where the line has not been clearly defined in more concrete terms of social behavior, it becomes blurred and society loses sight of where the moral line should have been. Social taboos are not always bad because they often serve as the handmaiden of morality.

A third consideration is the matter of conscience. It seems that the more liberal constituency delights in stretching the conscience of the more conservative. Yet, the Bible is very clear that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. In other words, it is sinful for a woman, who believes it is wrong, to wear pants. Furthermore, it is sinful for one person, who does not hold the same belief, to encourage another to go against his own conviction. So, I logically conclude that wearing slacks can be sinful for the one who goes against her conscience as well as the one who encourages her to violate her conscience.

 

C'mon, man, gimme a break. Do you own the house you live in ? Does it have a battlement as in Deut. 22:8 ?

When you go to church, are all your clothes made of one sort of material ? All wool ? Including your underwear, socks, and ties ? No polyester thrown in ? No cotton mixed with polyester or wool ? Remember Deuteronomy 22:11 says:

Remember, if one lives by the law, he has to live by every law, not just pick one and disregard another.

If that's your idea of fundamentalism, you can keep it. I don't want none of it. </font>[/QUOTE]Pinoy, you have failed to conceptualize the meaning of the Scriptures. Whereas you live legalistically in the letter of the Law, the important teachings are the precepts behind the specific instance. Unless you are a hyper-dispensationalist, you must agree that the OT moral principles are operant today. The whole point of Deuteronomy 22 is a matter of teaching discernment and distinction. One of the specific applications is the matter of gender in apparel. Is unisex Scriptural? Is there no distinction between male and female? Are the roles the same? Is transvestitism wrong? If so, what is your Biblical basis? Please carefully define the boundary between cross-dressing and unisex?

Depending on how you answer the above questions, you need to go back and rethink (or, think through) your position. Just where is the line between sin and sanity? Do you want boys dressing like girls? I sorta like being able to tell the difference—it may save me some embarrassment.

BTW, you are a genuine, dyed in the polyester legalist. By every definition of the word, you see only the letter, not the spirit, of the Law. Imagine……….thinking it was all about mixing wool and cotton….HA. This is the same mistake that the Pharisees made. It’s not the one who applies the principles (i.e. ladies not wearing pants) but it is the one sees only the letter prohibiting a specific behavior and misses the principle that is the real legalist.

 

There are no true Fundamentalists here. They're all dead.

This is my reasoning. Modernism and liberalism are dead. Fundamentalism was a reaction to these two movements. Historic Fundamentalism was defined by its complete break and separation from liberalism and modernism as opposed to Evangelicalism and Neo-evangelicalism that cooperated. Therefore, true historic Fundamentalism ceased when modernism and liberalism became passé. There is nothing left to distinguish Fundamentalism from Evangelicalism. Since Evangelicalism and Neo-evangelicalism hold the same doctrines as Fundamentalism, it has no landscape to paint itself against and identify itself. Fundamentalism can no longer delineate itself since it is virtually impossible to draw a sharp line separating Fundamentalism clearly from the current evangelical community. The lines are too blurred and indistinct with a continuum of gray from one pole to the other.

No true Fundamentalist lives today. All we have is a bunch of wannabes.

Well, at least, it is a thought.

 

Yes, I agree, with a caveat. What do you mean by encouraging someone to go against their conscience. Paul clearly indicates in Romans that teaching what the scriptures actually say will help those with weak consciences to develop Godly perspectives from the Bible that may allow them to partake in those things which their conscience formerly disallowed.

I would share the scriptural truth regarding a specific issue or standard, and encourage a person to hold to that is the standard that their conscience should be operating on, rather than a mystical feeling that something is right or wrong. The conscience is not a magic 8 ball. It is more like a function in an excel spreadsheet, feed it correct data, and you'll get what you want. Feed it garbage assumptions and data, and thats exactly what you will get.

My pastor likes to use this example to illustrate. If he teaches his children from the time they are born that it is a sin to wear the color red (not near as silly as some standards I've seen expressed on this board) when they wear red, their conscience will be activated, and will cause them to feel false guilt, when the standard the conscience is operating on is flawed because its based on garbage.

In agreement with your post, the correct way to handle someone who has been indoctrinated with bad assumptions and extrabiblical hogwash is not to encourage them to violate their conscience, but to teach them the truth about the issue, and give their conscience new data to operate on. That is why its referred to as being a stronger believer. The more you learn what the Bible actually says, the more discerning you will be, and be able to apply the principles to every situation, not just to areas specifically addressed, and you avoid making up your own standards based on assumptions.

 

So whose definition of a fundy are we talking about here?Should'nt we first agree to what a REAL Fundamentalist is?
I like Dr. Bob's definition and by his definition I am a fundamentalist in the classical sense of his definition.

 

Goodness the clothes issue again.

I believe there is clearly a difference between women's pants and men's. I don't believe women should dress like men or men should dress like women. That doesn't mean that women should be stuck wearing the long jean skirts everyday.

 

Forgive me, a Baptist, but not a Fundamentalist, for inserting a small post here, but I would like to make an observation.

I have noticed that after Fundamentalists finish their work of seeking to destroy all who do not agree with them, they then find ways to go to war with each other. Can you not learn to accept the fact that your enemies are not perfect, you are not perfect, and that finding common ground in the Lordship of Jesus and the love he has for us all is a good thing? What will you do when there are no more "enemies" to destroy?

 

Thats quite a broad brush.

 

Fundamentalists are jealous for pleasing God. No, they're not perfect. One doesn't have to be a great artist in order to recognize a hack painter. We can recognize and denounce wrongdoing when human behavior is compared to God’s revelation. Just because we are sinners ourselves does not prevent us from denouncing sin.

Your assessment is not accurate--it is a caricature. Whereas some Fundamentalist have overstepped the boundaries, whether being overzealous or from personal motives, one cannot tar all Fundamentalists with the same brush. There are many good, gentle, kind, and sweet Fundamentalists. Your post is like saying that because some Baptist pastors have committed adultery with their secretaries, all Baptist pastors commit adultery with their secretaries.

The question is not about the kind of people who hold a certain view but it is whether the position is true or not. Deal with the issue, not the fallible people holding the viewpoint. We’re all sinners. However, it does not follow that we should not strive for righteousness and holiness in obedience to God.

Two final questions:
Since you are a sinner yourself, can you decry homosexuality which God has clearly condemned?
If so, what are the sins that Fundamentalists should not condemn in others?

 

How about gluttony?

 

Fundamentalists are jealous for pleasing God. No, they're not perfect. One doesn't have to be a great artist in order to recognize a hack painter. We can recognize and denounce wrongdoing when human behavior is compared to God’s revelation. Just because we are sinners ourselves does not prevent us from denouncing sin.

Your assessment is not accurate--it is a caricature. Whereas some Fundamentalist have overstepped the boundaries, whether being overzealous or from personal motives, one cannot tar all Fundamentalists with the same brush. There are many good, gentle, kind, and sweet Fundamentalists. Your post is like saying that because some Baptist pastors have committed adultery with their secretaries, all Baptist pastors commit adultery with their secretaries.

The question is not about the kind of people who hold a certain view but it is whether the position is true or not. Deal with the issue, not the fallible people holding the viewpoint. We’re all sinners. However, it does not follow that we should not strive for righteousness and holiness in obedience to God.

Two final questions:
Since you are a sinner yourself, can you decry homosexuality which God has clearly condemned?
If so, what are the sins that Fundamentalists should not condemn in others? </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your answer. But again please note that my post was an observation based upon what I see those who call themselves Fundamentalist doing to each other. I might be making a stereotype, and if so I am sorry to do so, but it is a stereotype that has an awful lot of weight behind it. I've never, and I mean never, met a Fundamentalist who was more concerned with the log in his own eye than he was with the specks he/she finds in everyone else. It seems that Fundamentalists as a whole do not pay much attention to the warnings of Jesus regarding casting stones, being judgemental, and lacking compassion and mercy. Sorry. But if the shoe fits, where it.

Dave

 

Looking Like OJ trying on size medium leather gloves, Superdave struggles to get into that shoe.

 

You first.

HankD

 

Yeah, I'm a "fightin' fundamentalist" and proud of it! As a young believer, I "grew up" in GARB and IFCA churches in the Midwest where the pastors didn't hesitate to name names. This was before the government sent men in suits to talk to pastors about sermon content, so these same pastors didn't hesitate to tell you how you should vote and exactly why certain men should not be supported. I'd like to think these same men would not worry about their 501(c)3 status today, but, of course, they're all gone.

I would presume that today's pastors are still taught that there are three divinely ordained institutions, but, if they are, they must also receive a warning that they are never to mention one of them!

Read recently of a psychological profile study made of a sample of today's pastors. The results didn't surprise me. They were determined to be, on average, highly effeminate. Don't believe it takes a PhD in psychology to reach that conclusion after hearing the sermons from the weak sisters who inhabit our pulpits. Where are the men to replace those who once called this nation to righteousness?