RE: Fundamental Baptists.....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
Who's making stuff up? My list is entirely made up of real standards preached as "biblical" by Fundamentalists.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You will have to make up your mind. Either the standards are made up, or they are real biblical standards. Now, which is it. Pick one from column A or one from column B.

 

I didn't say they were "real biblical standards." I said they were "real standards preached as 'biblical.'" If you're going to try to make me look silly, please attempt to do so without misquoting me.

I refer to real standards held to by real people that may or may not be based on a valid biblical principle. I would be wrong to criticize someone who has been led by God to a more stringent standard than I, but I reject their right to cajole me into accepting theirs. I work for God, not men (Romans 14).

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

 

Thomas,

I await a defense of your replacing the biblical term "modest apparel" with the extra-biblical term "appropriately lowered robes" to defend your opposition to women wearing slacks.

 

"If God doesn't speak to you about things that should chnge in your life you need to check and see if you really know him."

Ernie why is this the typical fundamental response?? IF they dont agree then its implied that their Relantionship with the Lord must be in question.

I will agree with you about Standards, what they are i suppose is up to the Pastor and Elders to decide. My family visited a church Evan. Free I believe it was and I met the man in charge of Small family Bible studys and I thought what a great ideal, next week his daughter was sitting beside him in front of us, he looked in here twentys
pink hair lost count on the earrings in the ear i could see and I thought to myself how does this reflect on the Dad and his Ministry? Should it?

Scott

 

Beep, Beep!

 

Ernie,

Please go back and review my posts to see if I stand where you accuse me. FYI I happen to be a IFB missionary who does know Christ and who has experienced change in my life due to God’s work of conforming me into Christ’s image (II Cor. 5:17, Eph 2:10, Rom 8:28,29).

Let me remind you that it was your post and strong words about so-called Fundamentalist being liars due to a lack of “bible” standards that caused me to respond. Since you equated standards with being a Fundamentalist, I asked for a definition. Even after your snotty remarks about my “comprehension” I politely asked you to describe the lack of standards in that church you called “liars.”

If you know the standards you have are clearly biblical you should have no problem with putting them on the table and being able to defend them. It’s not a waste of time, even if you are the only one God has convicted in a certain area (Rom 14:4). Who knows I as well as others might even agree with you. Case in point you listed a biblical standard of modesty, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE WITH. I probably would not call the person a liar who wore those skin-tight clothes as you described, but I’d surely not encourage it and would seek to teach and instruct if given the opportunity rather than to condemn.

You use the religious leaders of Christ day to make a point. What you forgot to mention was that the religious leaders were the ones who looked down on Christ and others that did not meet their level of standards or convictions. Rather than call people liars who did not meet His holy standard, Jesus humbly accepted people where they were at. The ones he had a real problem with were the ones who lifted themselves up to a higher spiritual plane of self-righteousness and condemned those who did not meet their standard. (See Matt 23).

What scares me about your post to me is the condemning attitude that you take. It’s one thing to possibly have differences and state them, but a far different thing to tell someone they don’t love Christ as much as you, and might even be still a slave to sin because I questioned your post and asked for clarification. I don’t think there is a need for me to demand an apology; you seemed to have a feeling it would be in order anyhow.

I was not trying to be “smug” in asking for what standards were lacking in the church you called “liars.” And what is this comment all about?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
“well if you can't pray and study God's word and come to the same conclusion many who truly love Christ have, then you have a serious problem!!”
[QB][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If everyone had the same convictions on things there would be no need for scripture such as Romans 14. I share your conviction on modest dress, in the example you gave, but that does not mean that others who do not share our “conclusions” love Christ any less. You may want to rethink that statement based on Romans 14.

If my joking with Dr. Bob about the outhouse offended you, I am sorry. I was making light of some of the other posts on that thread.

Packer Backer

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: PackerBacker ]

 

TCassidy &gt;I already responded to your post. If you did not read my other post why should I have any confidence you will read another one?


RR- Oh, brother Thomas! The only problem is you were not asked to respond to my post, but to publish this list of Bible standards. You are slick, dude, because you quite frequently try to cloud things up. I know you can dance, but can you sing?

You've come up with one, (that nobody keeps) ie that women should wear a long robe. And the reason I never found it was because I was reading an English Bible- silly me!

 

Bacpacker, you seem to be in a foul mood. All you do is attack me without considering what I am saying.

When we vacation we try to attend a church that will feed us spiritually. After our experience with the church mentioned we spend more time in prayer about where to attend church. By the way the one dressed immodestly was on the church staff!

Guess it would be a good idea not to mention the sermon as that would be considered judging!

Maybe some don't consider the Lord while vacationing, but we need good preaching even while on vacation. The fellowship with God's people in a strange place is very sweet, and no I don't attend a church just to "check it out", but blatant things are an indicator of things to come in the message! Or not to come. I want to be preached at when I attend church, to be exhorted, rebuked, and encouraged. Am I wrong to expect an IFB church to be spiritual enough that the church staff at least dress modestly? Am I to be attacked because I try to warn others that all who call themselves IFB are not? To be fundamntal to me means also separated, have Biblical standards, etc. If these are lacking it is the same as the Baptist churc I attended as a boy. One where the gospel wasn't preached, the SS teachers didn't care for the souls of their students, or explian the meaning of the 23rd Psalm. Yes I may be judgemental but there are those out there who aren't what they say!

This is my last post on this subject, if you can't understand what I am trying to say, well I apologizee for my lack of ability to communicate.

God has standards and while vactioning we will continue to search out churches that uphold these truths and standards; it would be much easier if one could just look in the phone book, but that its not so.

By the way we traveled 2hrs and stayed overnight on out last vacation just to visit a church that we knes was sound!

Feel free to continue to attack and slam me, but there will be no response. It matters not what men will say.
Ernie

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Feel free to continue to attack and slam me, but there will be no response. It matters not what men will say.
Ernie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ernie,

The "Woe is me" song doesn't play well here. You made some strong statements and were asked to defend them. You did not do it. It is a shame that those who call themselves Independent Fundamental Baptists cannot or will not defend their positions. We ought to be able to tell why we believe what we believe.

 

Being raised by people born as far back as 1857, I can tell you from experience, the standards by which people judge today are “substantially lower” than their standards.

I can remember when people tried to “hid their sin” because condemnation of their sins brought a “shame to them“, but not anymore, they openly brag about their sins, even claiming “Equal rights”, and much of the “religious establishment” supports them.

Churches no longer condemn sin, or it participates, they’re afraid of causing “Emotional Trauma”, or “offending the person”.

Attending Church is fulfilling the “requirements of the law” to most people, it isn’t a “pulloff your shoes, you’re standing on “Holy Ground” experience.

This was all prophesied in the “falling away” that would occur before the “day of Christ”. (rapture)

The question come down to what standards are being used, “This Generation’s” or “God’s”???

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PackerBacker:
What scares me about your post to me is the condemning attitude that you take. It’s one thing to possibly have differences and state them, but a far different thing to tell someone they don’t love Christ as much as you, and might even be still a slave to sin because I questioned your post and asked for clarification.
... but that does not mean that others who do not share our “conclusions” love Christ any less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen.

Herein lies the problem with the fundamentalist. One's relationship with Christ is a personal conviction ungoverned by ecclesiastical authority. No one is capable of adhering to every rule laid out in the scriptures. The "Bible standards" we should all aim for is implementation of the Christian philosophy as it applies to our own lives.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Matthew 7
3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Matthew 7
1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Luke 6
37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This list could go on for pages. It is the Biblical standard to which the fundamentalist have not subscribed. Again I will say, my beliefs are also in line with a literal reading of the Bible, but it is MY reading for which I am accountable.

May God bless you

- Clint

 

PackerBacker,

I appreciate your comments concerning the Jewish religious leaders and Christ's attitude towards them and those they criticized.

You are making my rethink my feelings toward Packer fans.

Ernie,

I appreciate and respect your commitment to attending church on vacation AND associating with one that is consistent with the standards you have chosen to set for you and your family.

My guess is our views on modesty are more similar than you might think.

What I must repudiate is yours or any other human's right to define for other people where God's line in the sand is on any issue that is not spelled out comprehensively in Scripture. It is God's responsibility to bring people to holiness in whatever way He chooses. I for one, think He can handle it.

 

Clint,

I understand your sentiments toward Fundamentalists, because so many are judgmental. However, I don't think judgmentalism is what identified Fundamentalism historically. Unfortunately, the movement has been so perverted that such has become the case.

What did and should distinguish Fundamentalism is a willingness to fight for the truths that are elemental to the Gospel. I think Evangelicals are beginning to see the need for that fight as a result of the open theism controversy. The opening salvos of that battle were fired in the Evangelical Theological Society meetings in Colorado back in November.

I hope that both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism can move towards unity focused on the truth and an unwillingness to compromise the Gospel.

The local members of the body of Christ will never manifest themselves in exactly the same way with exactly the same standards, but hopefully we can all be humble enough to admit that no man our group of men has a corner on the mind of God.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
I understand your sentiments toward Fundamentalists, because so many are judgmental. However, I don't think judgmentalism is what identified Fundamentalism historically. Unfortunately, the movement has been so perverted that such has become the case. ... I hope that both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism can move towards unity focused on the truth and an unwillingness to compromise the Gospel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting how fundamentalism and evangelicalism have become distinct. It has not always been so. In the first half of this century, evangelicalism was fundamentalism. They were synonymous. I have a book on my desk that I am reading now by Machen called Christianity and Liberalism written in 1923, showing that there were only two groups. Now there are three.

In the 1940s, a segment of fundamentalism/evangelicalism broke off deciding to make their own path. They called themselves "the new Evangelicals" thus showing that they were splitting from the old evangelicals, now known as the fundamentalists. Evangelicalism as we know it today did not come out of liberalism towards fundamentalism; it came out of fundamentalism towards liberalism. (I am not equating evangelicalism with liberalism). If you were to draw a line with fundamentalism on one end and liberalism on the other, the new evangelicals would be on the right half of the line towards fundamentalism but with a decided move toward the left half of the line. Over the past 50-60 years, the evangelicals have not moved closer to their roots in fundamentalism but have instead moved away from it. There are some, as Siegfried has said, that are now trying to take a stand on the gospel and some other issues.

My point in saying this is to say that both evangelicalism and fundamentalism are not where they started for the most part. Certain standards were always a part of biblical Christianity. The move in recent years has been away from all standards instead of a move away from man-made standards. It has resulted in a dumbing down of Christianity, an appeal to the lowest common denominator. There is a place for freedom but there is also a place for holiness.

Fundamentalism has been accused of being judgmental unfairly. Though there are certainly many who are, there are a good number who are not. We believe in biblical standards and principles that grow from those. "Judgmentalism" is a poor reason to abandon the ship of fundamentalism. It is a good reason to kick some off the ship though to be sure.

To me, the breakdown was not in holding standards. The breakdown was not in teaching why we hold them. A whole generation of people in fundamental churches were brought up with standards with no teaching. Thus, they rebelled because they did not understand the background. Some standards were just plain ****** and should have never been taught. But we have, in many cases, thrown the baby out with the bathwater in the name of grace, often forgetting that grace has called us to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age (Titus 2:12-13).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
If you're going to try to make me look silly, please attempt to do so without misquoting me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are doing an excellent job of that all by yourself!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Siegfried:
I await a defense of your replacing the biblical term "modest apparel" with the extra-biblical term "appropriately lowered robes" to defend your opposition to women wearing slacks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Any first year Greek student can see that καταστολε is a construct formed from κατα (down, as in come down, lowered down, or hanging down) and στολε the common Greek word for robe. I don't have to defend the word of God. I just have to believe it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roadrunner:
RR- Oh, brother Thomas! The only problem is you were not asked to respond to my post, but to publish this list of Bible standards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I was not. Ernie was. You don't seem to be able to keep your posters straight. I responded to your post regarding the three things you posted. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[sleazy personal attack snipped]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Thomas I did ask you, because you talked as if you knew what they were. Here's a quote from me to you--

"What are the true Bible standards?"

And here is another quote from me to you--

"Yes he did say Bible standards, Thomas, and I'd still like to know what THAT means...."

So here we are, your honor is defended and still we have no list!

RR

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Any first year Greek student can see that καταστολε is a construct formed from κατα (down, as in come down, lowered down, or hanging down) and στολε the common Greek word for robe. I don't have to defend the word of God. I just have to believe it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And any first year Greek student should be aware of the "root fallacy" of which one extension is that a compound word does not always equal the sum of its parts. I have searched the lexical sources here (EDNT, TDNT, BAGD, NIDNTT (no mention), TLNT (no mention). No of them agree with you. They all give a meaning of modest, esp. with reference to demeanor. Your assertion that katastole deals with a "lowered robe" seems without merit among the lexical sources.

I would be interested in you defending your assertion with something besides yourself (as opposed to the Word of God). Do you have a source(s) that takes this as you have? I can't find any.