What is YOUR meaning of FUNDAMENTALIST?

We are definitely being exposed to the type of fundamentalist Lace is. He is the type that was part of the terminology hijack

 

Amen Lace. As I posted earlier, I am NOT ashamed to be identified as a Fundamentalist - and now apparently a cultist because I use the King James Version. Thanks, Dr. Bob.

 

BBB, I don't think anyone thinks you are part of a cult because of using the KJV. It is KJVO (huge difference) that is the cult.

Btw, just as a historical fact, the ASV is what the original Fundamentalists used in their arguments. That is why KJVO is not fundamentalist.

 

Thank you. I should say that I "prefer" the KJV

 

Thank you. I should say that I "prefer" the KJV (been memorizing it for years) - I don't have a problem with the A.S.V. - so I guess I'm not a cultist. YEAH!!!

 

Thanks for the clarification Daniel David. I agree.
Murph

 

I'm sorry, it seemed as if You attacked me without provocation. This appears to be rather like sport to me.

Didn't You misjudge me and my core beliefs and attacked me based on my failure to repond the way you wanted? I am not one to answer any question when it isn't asked nicely...(I learned that from my husband.) Isn't this going off half cocked?

You will find that You are wrong about me. Click on this link to get an accurate discription of what I believe on this topic as well as others. I don't resent your stand on Liberals. I reacted to what you said to me when I didn't go out of my way to agree with you.

I use my Bible every day. It doesn't need me to sharpen it.

Murph told me once to not let people run me off because they are more aggresive than I am. So I have to stand my ground, try to provide some sort of response to defend myself with, when my instinct is to cry into my pillow. So, I'm here for the duration.

I am sorry. Want to start over and attack the heathens instead of each other? You are a worthy opponent, but seeing as we are on the same side...this just seems foolish and a complete waste of energy. Besides I can't argue without crying. That's why I didn't become a lawyer, and went into teaching instead.

In Christ,
Laurenda

 

Amen, Sister Laurenda!

-ed, President of Sister Wisdom Seeker
Support Group.

 

Amen, Sister Lace -- Preach it!



The basics of Fundamentalism are:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture
2. the diety of Christ
3. the substitutinary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

I believe a fundamentalist is one who
adheres to these basic fundamentals and
gives emphasis to them in their life and
ministry.

 

I'm wondering if the following has ever come up in the Fundamental Baptist Forum and I hope it doesn't start a firestorm but do any others want to see the "6 day creation" teaching added to the previous list given. It could be that some posts were deleted in this thread, so I apologize in advance if I am opening any old wounds.

I realize that this list was part of the essentials given at the 1895 Niagra Bible Convention (I believe). This was at a time when evolution was not a major issue and considered just what it is - a theory.One might say , yes because it is part of the Bible, but so is the deity of Christ which the convetioneers saw fit to isolate.

What do others think, is a creation view necessary to be called a "fundamenntalist" ?

And yes, I hold to a 6 day (24 hour) creation view and personally I think it should be part of the meaning of "fundamentalist".
Also I believe that they added the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ as high on their list. I would do the same.

HankD

 

I'm going to give a real simplistic answer to the question pertaining to the literal Creation view.

I believe that I would be willing to die for certain absolute fundamentals such as the five listed preceeding the above.

Other doctrines, which I would refer to as "convictions" - those truths that I believe that I have arrived at on the basis of personal Bible study and my increasing knowledge of the Person of GOD - that I believe in with all my heart, yet probably would not "die" for.

The literal view of Creation is one of those truths.

Fine men of our Fundamentalist ilk have disagreed (I believe it is an unfortunate attempt to appease the Theistic evolution crowd) with the literal view. But in grace I can give them some wiggle room, in other words - I don't think it is something to break fellowship over.

 

I do not think you are correct. When Dr. Bob mentioned the first Niagra Convention (1895) yesterday, I immediately did an internet search and pulled up the 14 fundamentals of the first Niagra Convention. I believe I can wholeheartedly affirm all 14 points without any qualms, but I would not be able to affirm a 6 literal day creation view as a "fundamental" of the faith.

I identify very strongly with the very early fundamental leaders but have rejected the "fundamentalism" that followed where additional non-fundamental views were added in order to separate the wheat from the alleged tares before the final harvest. Far too much wheat has been mistakenly (and sometimes maliciously) pulled out causing great damage to the Kingdom of God.

 

I agree with qualification, and I'm just following the thought of the purpose of this thread :

"what is YOUR meaning of FUNDAMENTALIST?"

What is it that you would break fellowship over is another, howbeit related matter.

To me a lteral view of creation is essential because in the final analysis, evolution (even theistic/deistic) strikes at another essential Christian doctrine :

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Evolution is a process of death and rebirth from before the "creation" of Adam.

If folks want to limit the "death" in Romans 5:12 (even though I believe them to be wrong) to humanity as beginning with a real person called Adam, I can handle it (for what its worth) as long as these folks can say that Adam is/was a real person as Paul does in the infallible and inspired Scripture. Otherwise, they must of necessity make Adam an allegory or a figurative representative of this product of "evolution" be it theistic deistic secularistic or whatever. I would then have a problem with fellowshipping (again, for whatever that's worth to anyone) because it undermines the authority of Scripture concerning the reality of the literal person named Adam, his sin and consequential death upon him and his race.

To those who believe this might be "malicious":

This is not malicious on my part, just a statement of personal fact. If you see it as malicious, so be it, that is your right. It is not out of maliciousness but conviction on my part.

HankD

 

You are correct, as I remember they didn't include it and I thought I had acknowleged that and asked if 6 day creationism should have been added.

I do.

HankD

 

Oops!

Sorry I believe I misunderstood the meaning of your post.

 

Dear BB,

No problem, let me clarify the fuziness:

I believe it was not included because it was not a "hot" enough issue being but 60 or so years old (at the time of the connvention) since Charles Darwin made his trip on the Beagle to the Galapagos.

If they perhaps could have known that in less than a century it would be taught in public schools and believed by society as fact, they just might have included it and in fact I believe they would have.

HankD

 

I agree with you entirely, HankD. Romans 5:12 IS effected by our interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

 

Those who do not hold to a literal six-day creation do not necessarily hold to a theory of evolution (theistic or otherwise). That’s one of the traditional problems in this long-running debate: preachers and religious leaders have oversimplified the issue to the point where you’re either a six-day creationist or an evolutionist.

NOTE: I don’t care to debate the following points, but I’m listing simply to explain my current position on the matter.

For instance, I don’t believe in six-day creation because of the nature of the text of Genesis 1 and 2. I do not believe it is meant to be literal. This is the most important aspect of my view of origins/creation.

I also don’t believe non-theistic evolutionary thought because of the lack of evidence of transitional species and the inherent catastrophic nature of mutations. (Animals who are genetic mutations are rarely – if ever – healthy or fertile.)

I appreciate the theistic evolution concept that if macro-evolution did occur, God was responsible for the extended creation cycle. Yet I am not convinced by the evidence regarding the evolutionary origins of humankind for a variety of reasons – including the theological problem of death as you have mentioned.

Yet I am convinced of the great age of the earth and the universe. I have seen it in many ways and in many places. For instance, in the northeast and extreme north central region of New Mexico one can see enormous fossilized coral reefs stretching for miles (there’s a major highway that runs parallel to it). With the issues of both the length of time it takes for coral to grow and the length of time it takes for coral to become fossilized, we can know that the coral reef is ancient – unless one subscribes to the theory that there has been enormous climate change and the rates for both of these processes have changed dramatically. But then you still have to deal with the rates of expansion of the universe and all of the other data that supports the traditional understand of the dates of the universe. (I know that 6-day creationists have developed many counter-arguments for this type of evidence and I am willing to examine it, but that’s not our purpose here…)

While I personally hold to the view that Adam was a historical person, it is almost as easy to understand Adam (literally “man”) as a type of humanity for the purposes of theological teaching.

I see you picked up my word. I do not see your expression of your conviction as being malicious. It is only malicious when you use your convictions as a guide to determine who is a “true believer” and who is not.