Attitutudinal Issues

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I find it a bit amazing that AAG felt justified in making generalisations for about 12 pages, but the same type of generalisation aimed in the other direction is wrong.

I did not say it was wrong. Once again, I don't care. My beliefs are open game. I am not ashamed of them and will defend them. I simply find it ironic that you were so quick to scream "generalizations" and then as soon as a few other fundies wander in and start throwing out typical falsehoods about those blasted neos, you fail to rebuke your own.

Do you think the generalizations provided above are accurate? </font>[/QUOTE]I do not like the broad brush painting of any group. I am not online or at the computer 24/7 to "rebuke my own" in according to your schedule. You accused me of such without even giving me a chance to reply. Yet you had no problem when you were throwing out falsehoods about those blasted fundies.

It seems to support my contention that attacks, generalisation, and accusations are fine as long as they are only aimed in one direction.

[ November 10, 2005, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by All about Grace:

Talk about generalizations. In 3 posts we have ... new evangelicalism ... those who believe there are errors in the original autographs ... neo-theism ... universalism ... soul sleep ... cancerous ... association with those who commit evil (not even sure what this means) ... will not associate with brethren ... erroneous.

All About Grace, you really need to understand something. It is not that Fundamentalists are accusing Evangelicals of these errors. These are all errors that Evangelicals are criticizing nowadays among other Evangelicals.

For documentation about evangelical beliefs in errors in the Bible, see The Battle for the Bible and The Bible in the Balance by Harold Lindsell, and No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer. Neither one of these scholars are Fundamentalists, and would doubtless be offended to be called one.

For documentation about Neotheism (sometimes called "open theism"), which is an attack on the very nature of God, see The Battle for God, by Norman Geisler and H. Wayne House, both noted Evangelical scholars. There was recently a big fight in the Evangelical (not Fundamental) Theological Society about this very issue.

Some of these and other errors that have been mentioned can be further studied in Evangelical Hermeneutics: the New Versus the Old, by Robert L. Thomas; The Worldly Evangelicals, by Richard Quebedeaux; The Great Evangelical Disastor, by Francis Schaeffer. These are all top-rank Evangelical (not Fundamental) scholars. In particular, Francis Schaeffer lays out the reasons for these problems (and even predicted some of them).

How could you not be aware of the huge fight over inerrancy taking place in the SBC since the late '70's? While I realize that it is not right to paint all evangelicals with the same brush, there are serious problems in Evangelicalism.

And I didn't even mention so-called "Biblical feminism!" I'm so proud of myself!

 

[All about Grace]

Thanks John. I have read most of those books and am very familiar with the discussions going on among evangelicals.

The point is that you are doing the very thing that I was berated for doing to fundies -- painting with a broad brush (even though I qualified each of my statements).

And according to C4K it is possible that the same problems exist among fundamentalists since there is no defining characteristics of either group.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Each statement above was also qualified AAG. None of them stated that ALL who are not fundamentalists would fit every description.

Feel free to call yourself a fundamentalist, no one would deny you that privilage. I have at times used the title "Evangelical Christian" to describe myself.

[ November 10, 2005, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
Thanks John. I have read most of those books and am very familiar with the discussions going on among evangelicals.

The point is that you are doing the very thing that I was berated for doing to fundies -- painting with a broad brush (even though I qualified each of my statements).

And according to C4K it is possible that the same problems exist among fundamentalists since there is no defining characteristics of either group.

Then you do admit that these problems exist in evangelicalism, right? Generalization? So how particular do you really want to get? Personally I could document names of theologians, institutions, etc. I go way back in both Fundamentalism and evangelicalism. "No brag, just fact," as an obscure TV cowboy used to say. I cut my teeth a few blocks from Wheaton College, where both my parents went. But what's the point. I don't see much real debate going on here. I haven't even figured out why you think generalization is wrong, AAG.

Also, as I said, I go way back in Fundamentalism. I played on the freight elevator of the "Sword of the Lord" when I was a kid in Wheaton. And I can tell you this, no one calling themselves a Christian Fundamentalist would believe in an errant Scripture, neotheism or a non-literal Hell--all of which are currently problems in evangelicalism--generally speaking!!

Fundamentalism has a few problems (in general! ): Ruckmanism (which virtually all the fundamentalists I know reject), radical separationism (as opposed to Biblical separationism), etc. But I'd much rather take someone who over-emphasizes a Biblical doctrine than someone who denies one.

Go back and read Schaeffer's The Great Evangelical Disastor (if that is one you said you'd read). He said (particularly ): "What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger if suffficient numbers of those under the name evangelical no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical? If this continues (and it is--JOJ), we are not faithful to what the Bible claims for itself, and we are not faithful to what Jesus Christ claims for the Scriptures." (p. 64) Very sadly, I believe that this is where evangelcialism is today. Generally, that is.

 

[Rhetorician]

Hey all,

As one who was reared in the "Fundamentalist's Camp" and who has gravitated more towards an Evangelical persuasion it seems to me (IMHO) that maybe we have missed two maybe three major issues in our (this) discussion.

First,
the Evangelicals (however one would want to define the term) are generally more concerned with their understanding of the Gospel. That is not to say that we do not have "warts" as was declared above. With this focus on the Gospel, they believe that the Gospel "is the main thing!" With the Gospel "as the main thing," the other issues; be they "primary" or "secondary separation" issues; are less important to them than getting out the message of Christ.

Secondly,
the Fundamentalists, although they hold to their own understanding of the Gospel, seem (IMHO & observation) to hold to the "secondary separation" issues. They have made these their primary issue(s) rather than keeping "the main thing the main thing!" as it were.

I think we (both groups) have forgotten The Christian’s Maxim:

“In Essentials – Unity”

“In Non-essentials – Liberty”

“In All Things Charity”

Have both groups forgotten what is essential, non-essential, or charitible?

I first heard this b/f but I wrote it down when I heard Hand Hanagraff (sp?) of The Christian Research Institute say it.

And out of all of the discussions in these 14 pages on the BB I have not heard one thing concerning the historic "Essays of the Fundamentals" that were written early in the 20th century in reaction to the 19th century German Higher Criticism.

I have only heard opinions over definitions of the term(s), and personalities, and discussions over Jack Hyles, etc., et al, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. This may be the answer to my initial question concerning the attitude of the Fundamentalist's?

Does either side of this "light" vs. "heat" discussion believe for one moment that they can move the other side--AT ALL!!! It is most unlikely?!

I started to close with my "food for thought," but I decided against it. I think most, if not all of these discussions, are so much more "cannon fodder" for the ongoing and never ending war of words b/t: fundamentalists factions, evangelican factions, followers of John R. Rice, followers of Jack Hyles, followers of Bob Jones I II III IV V VI VII VII VIII IX X(anyway-you get the point), followers of Dr. Falwell, SBCers, and the "I'm agin it ifn they ain't in my camp bunch" whoever they might be!!!

sdg!

rd

 

[bapmom]

I see your point, Rhetorician,

But you must admit that your initial question was about "attitudes" within fundamentalism. It was not about doctrinal issues, or what our true emphasis is versus the true emphasis of evangelicalism.

I could give you my own experiences which would be the exact opposite of what you described above, being that the IFB churches Ive been in have been primarily concerned with getting the gospel out. The New Evangelical Free church I attended as a child never went out soul winning, and the youth group activities had no sort of spiritual bent to them that I can remember.

But its all anecdotal. I can tell you that on one hand we are "critiqued" for being too separated, and then on the other hand we are "critiqued" for having goals like how many people we can see baptized and/or led to Christ.

Perhaps part of the problem is we here on the Board are looking at what the theologians within our groups are saying more than what the actual people who are doing the work are saying.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I didn't realise that the thread was to discuss the historicity of the movement. I assumed from the title that it was about fundamentalist attitudes, therefore avoiding discussion what fundamentalism really is.

 

[Rhetorician]

bapmom,

As a theologian, I began with some basic assumptions and presuppositions that many may not hold.

One is this:

"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh!" We believe then we behave! We hold to our internal morals and from these spring our external ethic(s)! Our confession(s) comes straight from our heart's condition.

I will just leave that declaration there and not comment further at this point in time.

I will, however, reserve the right for rebuttal and/or comment later.

Food for thought!

sdg!

rd

 

[Rhetorician]

C4K,

In reponse to your last post; are not all of the issues linked intrinsically; historicity, belief(s), attitude(s), and evolution(s) of the Fundamentalist's movement?

How is it possible to "separate" all of the issues? Forgive the pun!

sdg!

rd

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Of course they are, but I truly thought the focus in this thread was to deal with attitudes.

 

[bapmom]

Rhetorician,

I agree that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth will speak. All I can speak for is my own circles, which are not exclusively my own local church. Ive been at churches of all "stripes" that don't have any sort of witnessing program but sort of leave all that up to the pastor. But then most, if not all, of the IFB churches Ive been to, and know of, have active witnessing programs.

In my experience, we are not more concerned with the outward appearance than we are with preaching the gospel.
However, I do see and hear something from those Id probably call evangelicals. And that is that they are saying they are NOT separated because they want to reach people with the gospel.
In contrast, the fundamentalist will say that they ARE separated because they want to reach people with the gospel. We believe we cannot truly reach the lost if we look and act like the world, because then how are we offering them anything different or better than what they already have?

Ive had evangelical ladies tell me that a lost person cannot possibly relate to me because Im wearing a skirt. I know she was sincere when saying that to me, but I also know from my own experience that that just isn't true. Lost ladies wear skirts too, they just usually don't make them exclusive. And when talking to a lost person we don't lead off with the clothing issue!

This is a major difference we have when it comes to our views on preaching the gospel. And it is a criticism that we would level at the evangelicals, in general....

 

[Rhetorician]

bapmom,

Your points are well taken and appreciated indeed. Your continued gracious attitude and demeanon concerning issues with which you may disagree is commendable.

These are the kind of discussions that need to be had by all; but we have been too concerned with who sat with whom on a certain platform many years ago.

We truly need more open, honest, and gracious discussions "across the board."

sdg!

rd

 

[4His_glory]

The sad realtiy is that as Christians, whether we call ourselves fundamentalist or evangelical,or whatever, have many times demonstrated a very un-Christlike spirit. I will openly admitt that I have been guilty of such even hear on these forums, of which I am ashamed.

We can disgree, and the internet is a good place to articulate those disagreements, but let us not loose sight of the fact that we are all sinners saved by God's grace, and we all have at times been in error.

 

[Rhetorician]

4His_glory,

You have articulated what I wanted the attitudinal issue to bring forth.

Well done and well said!!

I commend you, agree with you, and repent with you!

sdg!

rd

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thanks fellas. This thread was hijacked into a defense of fundamentalism and it is good to see it return to topic.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

My definition of fundamentalism would come from reading R.A. Torreys(he was the general editor)"The Fundamentals".I don't think there are very many of those today.Fundamentalism has taken on new connotations and is now identified with those who are more of the KJVO,no short hair for women,legalist variety than the classic fundamentalist.
My belief is that the New Fundamentalist(my name for them)has taken the road to legalism and KJVOism because of the sad state this country and world is in.I have often thought God is going to need to apologize to Sodom and Gamorrah(not really true just a thought)for allowing America to carry on the way she does.In this country alone we can commonly find:
1.drugs,anybody can find any illegal drug they want within 15 minutes .
2.Murder. We now have more mass murder,drive by murder,and just plain sick butchering of people than at any time in our history.Life has little value.
3.Abortion. This should come under murder because that is what it is.Abortion is used as a means of birth control.
4. Sexual promiscuity.Your chances of being born of married parents in America are only about 50/50 now.We have more STD then at any time in our history and the effects are more deadly.Porn is king on the net.Sexually deviant behavior is now considered normal in most cases except for child molestation and there is a group that thinks even that should be considered legal.The ACLU will probably come to thier aid and fight thier battle in our courts.Rape used to be a capitol offence but is now almost considered assault with a friendly weapon.
5.Lying is considered normal and in many cases is even considered moral.
6. Physical abuse in families and at schools is rampant.
7.Thievery.Many think it is alright to steal from thier employer and many just rob and steal outright.Burglery is common,car theft is common.
8.Corruption is so common in government that we have just come to accept it as normal politics.

So my thinking is that some of the ultra or New Fundamentalists attitude is reactionary to these problems.they see others as accepting the status quo and are saying we will stand the gap and we will fight back.Now some of thier stands I don't agree with (KJVO and legalistic things)but I do stand with them on many issues and I think I understand where they are comming from.

 

[All about Grace]

Let's not miss an important point in this most recent part of the discussion ... fundamentalism is a part of the broader evangelical umbrella, so in reality, when fundies attack neos or evies, they are attacking a movement of which they are considered a part (the ugly stepsister perhaps, but a part nonetheless ... JUST KIDDING ... kind of).

And just for the record:

John of Japan ~ yes all of those problems exist within the broader evangelical umbrella ... I can live with that ... what makes an evangelical an evangelical is their belief about the gospel ... based on your criticism - you just kicked C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and many others out of the camp b/c they all held to a different view of inspiration than what you probably believe ... and no it is not better to land further right than left ... and no I am not the one who has been so consumed with generalizations (go back and reread).

Rhetorician ~ I agree with your assessment on the previous page regarding the distinction between fundies and evies.

bpmom ~ your understanding of what "evangelicals" believe about separation is flawed. And you once again fall prey to the tendency among fundies to categorize those who hold different beliefs about non-essential as "worldly" or compromising in some way. IMHO you are an example of someone living in the "ditch" (a metaphor used earlier) who does not realize it. That's my opinion based on our conversations and you are welcome of course to disagree (which you will naturally do based on the metaphor itself).

And to all: I know my attitude has appeared to be harsh at times. I have no ill will toward either side of this issue. I truly respect the right for fundies to believe and articulate what they believe. At the same time, I respect the right for them to be questioned as well. As I have said repeatedly, most of the time that time of discussion seems harsh and who should know that better than those who pride themselves in "contending" for their beliefs?

Attitude is a hard thing to judge on an anonymous discussion board of differing beliefs. I can only tell you that most of my posts were written with a smile on my face. No anger. No hate. No ill will. Life is too short to be angry.

Smiling over grace ...

 

[bapmom]

What Plain Old Bill said has a ring of truth in it for me. I think very often some of us are so often having to defend our position on standards that it seems to other Christians as if thats all we think about.
If you look at it honestly though, its usually what we are being criticized for. So those of us who feel like we need to defend are going to speak on those issues which we are being criticized over.
Then of course there's the group of folks who just act like if you aren't doing what they think you should do, than you are immediately anathema. Like others have said, you find that group abundant in ALL denominations and belief systems.

AAG,
I know why you think Im in a ditch

. I don't know that you'd think that if you saw who we minister to here in Milwaukee.....but ok. I do my best (with Jesus' help) to just take people as they are and if they are lost to tell them about the gospel whenever the chance arises....regardless of what they are or are not doing/wearing/drinking/smoking/etc......

Also AAG, I was purposely general and vague about the "evangelical" viewpoint that I did mention....only PARTLY because I knew it'd needle ya a little bit.

 

[bapmom]

I must admit to the general group here as well....these terms of "evangelical", "neo-evangelical", "fundamentalist", and all the other sub-categories are extremely confusing to me. HOnestly, half the time, I don't even really know who ya'all are referring to anymore.

My only experience with anyone who called themselves evangelical is with the church CALLED New Evangelical Free Church, which I attended for a couple years as a teenager. I remember their basic philosophy and noticed what they beleived about stuff in general.