Can you be...

[Don]

go2church,

Your name is a fundamentalist precept. Why do you have a screen name with an implied directive, yet talk about all fundamentalists as if they're different?

Why should I go to church?

Take a look at the responses I gave to ex-fundy, and know this: I almost posted those same responses to you.

I am a fundamentalist; this means I believe:
The inerrancy of the Scriptures
The total depravity of man
The deity of Christ
The virgin birth
The second coming of Jesus
The substitutionary atonement

Are there any of these fundamentals you disagree with?

 

[go2church]

You're young enough to be my son. But if you are my brother, why are you calling my beliefs evil?

If you were saved in a Fundamentalist church, why aren't you grateful? Why are you calling us evil? So you were saved through an evil movement, educated in an evil school and served in an evil church, but now you are good because you left the movement, is that it?

And this is absolutely wrong. Fundmentalism is based on the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God and the defense of the Word of God. We obey the Biblical command, "earnestly contending for the faith."

Once again, you slander my beloved parents and grandparents. My parents served God faithfully for all of their lives. Dad preached the Gospel faithfully for 60 years. When he was dying with Alzheimer's he still tried to preach the Gospel to the other patients in the hospital. My grandfather was John R. Rice, a Fundamentalist among Fundamentalists, who saw over 200,000 saved through his ministry, had his tract translated into over 40 languages and 40,000,000 distributed. And you call the system of beliefs he helped develop evil.

You are entirely free to criticise Fundamentalism. I have no problem with that. I have good friends, including some on the BB, who are not Fundamentalists. But they don't indulge in slander. Shame on you for slandering good people.

By your statement "the inclusive message of Jesus" I suspect you are one of these types who says, "good conservative, good liberal, good Catholic," condemning no group calling itself "Christian" except Fundamentalists.

My beef is with fundamentalism and not just Christian fundamentalism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." This is the type of fundamentalism that is evil and destructive and reflects none of the character of Jesus, but rather the character of the Pharisees

I am grateful that the Gospel is stronger then any man-made doctrine, I am grateful that I church I was saved in has moved away from fundamentalism, that I went to another school and that I no longer serve in a fundamentalist church.

Your tone in calling me "son", having nothing to do with my age, your questioning of me being a brother or not with the use of "if" are all signs pointing to a less then kind hearted movement that you speak of

I never meet your family, did read some of their books. If you feel that calling into question the system of fundamentalism is the same as slandering their good name I am sorry for hurting your feelings.

I will say what I feel needs to be said when I feel it needs to be said. Fundamentalists are not exempt nor are they the only target of my criticism. For example prosperity gospel teachers and materialistic Christians where all in the target this past Sunday.

 

[go2church]

go2church,

Your name is a fundamentalist precept. Why do you have a screen name with an implied directive, yet talk about all fundamentalists as if they're different?

Why should I go to church?

Take a look at the responses I gave to ex-fundy, and know this: I almost posted those same responses to you.

I am a fundamentalist; this means I believe:
The inerrancy of the Scriptures
The total depravity of man
The deity of Christ
The virgin birth
The second coming of Jesus
The substitutionary atonement

Are there any of these fundamentals you disagree with?

You should go to church to be with God's people to hear God's word

Inerrancy of scripture - disagree with word usage, prefer to say I believe the bible is the inspired word of God

Total depravity - disagree in a Calvinist sense, agree with in an Arminian sense

Deity - agree

Virgin birth - agree

Second coming - agree (Amillennialist)

Atonement - agree though I understand that substitutionary is one of many workable theories of the atonement

 

[go2church]

BTW going to church is not a fundamentalist precept. People where going to church long before fundamentalism came along.

 

[John of Japan]

My beef is with fundamentalism and not just Christian fundamentalism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." This is the type of fundamentalism that is evil and destructive and reflects none of the character of Jesus, but rather the character of the Pharisees

Do you realize that by this definition you would be considered a Fundamentalist? That is, if you believe in Hell and if you believe that the Bible is "the only rule of faith and practice" as a Baptist distinctive.

The secular press has co-opted a good term for their own purposes, and now uses it for such vicious people as the Taliban. I'm disappointed that you would go with a secular definition.

And of course, if you think that it is Fundamentalism which makes people intolerant, you are sadly mistaken. It is the wickedness of the human heart that does so. I am currently in correspondence with an SBC prof who has told me that SBC liberals in his school in the 1970's were very nasty.

Your tone in calling me "son", having nothing to do with my age, your questioning of me being a brother or not with the use of "if" are all signs pointing to a less then kind hearted movement that you speak of

I had no idea that calling you "son" would offend you. I did not mean it as an insult. (Everyone who knows me knows that I don't use insults.) My generation uses that word in a very different way than you are taking it. I'm sorry for offending you.

As for using the word "if," I don't apologize for that. You misunderstood. I was certainly not doubting your salvation. I will explain. The English languages uses the word "if" in such cases to mean "since." For example:
A: "I saw you at the restaurant last night."
B: "If you saw, me, why didn't you say hi?"

I never meet your family, did read some of their books. If you feel that calling into question the system of fundamentalism is the same as slandering their good name I am sorry for hurting your feelings.

No, I don't feel that calling into question the system of fundamentalism is slandering my family. I feel that calling fundamentalism "evil" is slandering them and me and all genuine, historical fundamentalists.

I will say what I feel needs to be said when I feel it needs to be said. Fundamentalists are not exempt nor are they the only target of my criticism. For example prosperity gospel teachers and materialistic Christians where all in the target this past Sunday.

That's your right. I just question why you are doing it on a forum specifically for us Fundamentalists. You are an intruder.

 

[John of Japan]

BTW going to church is not a fundamentalist precept. People where going to church long before fundamentalism came along.

Your name suggests a mandate. Taken as is, in the English language, it is a command. The secular press would consider that narrow-minded and intolerant--even Fundmentalist!

 

[go2church]

There is no doubt about it...I am inconsistent and in the strictest sense you are probably right. But that really helps to make some of my point. Fundamentalism is as I see it an attempt to remove the grey or better yet the mystery inherent with religious belief. This is something that in my opinion cannot be done, that is sort of the point of religion. That is on a broad sense.

Concerning Christianity, using the same understanding how can you remove the mystery surrounding the desire of God to send his only Son? How can we even begin to understand the concept of being chosen yet at the same time choosing ourselves? Why the First Century and not the 18th Century? I could go on and on.

It is my feeling that when you "answer" all the questions, create the check list of approved and not approved you are destroying the faith. If you encounter something destroying the faith what would you call it? I used the word evil. I am sure there is a better word as I am sure that at times (far more then I would care to admit) I slip into a fundamentalist attitude concerning my desire to see fundamentalism set aside for which I apologize. Romans 7:15

 

[bobbyd]

I believe that i am "fundamental" in terms of my theology, but i am not part of a "fundamentalist" church, and i am not legalistic based on the common definitions of what we say "legalism" is...so i would say, yes, you can be fundamental and not legalistic.

 

[Don]

There is no doubt about it...I am inconsistent and in the strictest sense you are probably right. But that really helps to make some of my point. Fundamentalism is as I see it an attempt to remove the grey or better yet the mystery inherent with religious belief. This is something that in my opinion cannot be done, that is sort of the point of religion. That is on a broad sense.

This is the only part of your post that needs to be discussed.

Fundamentalism IS an attempt to remove the grey, but not the mystery.

For, you see, there is no gray in the Bible. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

That's the fundamental of the Bible, and that's why I'm a fundamentalist.

The fundamentalists you describe are people who adhere to sets of rules, and make up rules where there are no biblical rules to cover them; i.e., dress standards, hair length, etc.

Those aren't fundamentals, and the people living by them aren't fundamentalists. They may call themselves that, but Jesus called them something else: "Pharisees." "Vipers." "Hypocrites."

 

[John of Japan]

It is my feeling that when you "answer" all the questions, create the check list of approved and not approved you are destroying the faith. If you encounter something destroying the faith what would you call it? I used the word evil. I am sure there is a better word as I am sure that at times (far more then I would care to admit) I slip into a fundamentalist attitude concerning my desire to see fundamentalism set aside for which I apologize. Romans 7:15

I get so tired of uninformed criticisms of the Fundamentalist doctrine of personal separation, what you refer to here as a "checklist of approved and not approved." Every church has a list of rules. It's called a constitution, or maybe bylaws. More than that, every church that does not have rules in other areas is headed for trouble. For example, in the 21st century any American church without strict rules regarding children's ministries may someday face a lawsuit that will destroy that church.

The doctrine of personal separation is Biblical. It is the teaching that we should have standards that keep us from temptation. It only becomes legalism when we believe that we become righteous through keeping those rules. (And I admit that there are Fundamentalists who make this error.) The difference in this regard between Fundamentalism and other evangelical movements is that Fundamentalists make this a doctrine, personal separation, while other groups have rules without any doctrine governing how they are to be administered.

Don't tell me you don't have standards at all for your life. There are many things you hold to that are not specifically spelled out in Scripture. Do you allow yourself to be in the same room alone with a beautiful young lady? Would you counsel a woman with just you two in your study? Do you allow rap music using sexual language to be played in your church? All of these are rules--or should be.

Furthermore, many historical Christian movements now admired by evangelicals had doctrines and practices similar to Fundamentalism in this regard. Some of these groups made modern Fundamentalists look positively liberal. The Puritans come to mind immediately. Hudson Taylor's China Inland Mission is another. When he took the first boatload of CIM missionaries to China, Taylor forbade the reading of novels, among other things. (I can document this easily.) Charles Spurgeon, in his criticism of the Downgrade Movement, lamented that so many pastors were going to the theater.

So enough with this charge that Fundamentalism is evil because it has rules. It's bogus.

 

[go2church]

We are just talking past each other now. I never said rules are bad, I said believing you have all the answers, which fundamentalism clearly does, and that there is no grey is the problem.

You believe fundamentalism is the greatest thing in all the world, you believe I have not encountered the "right" kind of fundamentalism or I would think differently. You seemingly celebrate secondary seperation and are confused thinking Puritans where fundamentalist when clearly they where not.

I believe fundamentalism is not the greatest thing in all the world and at its core is an destructive to the Christian faith. The OP was can you be a fundamentalist and not be legalist... my answer is no, fundamentalism is legalism. Nothing said in the past couple of days as changed my opinion. I don't want a Christianity that stops people from reading novels or keeps them going to the theater.

 

[Andy T.]

We are just talking past each other now. I never said rules are bad, I said believing you have all the answers, which fundamentalism clearly does, and that there is no grey is the problem.

But I guess that attitude is o.k. for you - because in this thread, you clearly have "all the answers" as to why fundamentalism is "evil" and "destructive." You decry the fundy's certainty with your own brand of certainty.

I don't want a Christianity that stops people from reading novels or keeps them going to the theater.

Further evidence that you do not the grasp the heart of classical Fundamentalism.

 

[go2church]

You are right I am guilty of everything you said as my previous post stated earlier.

Is it possible to have the discussion "Is Fundamentalism a flawed system?" or are we going to not even question the validity of the system as a whole and just mention the issues on the fringe such as which bible version you carry or how long someones hair is?

What does it mean in Galatians 5 when it says for freedom we have been set free? I don't think it means we "reject" one enslaving system to embrace an equally enslaving system with a different name.

 

[John of Japan]

We are just talking past each other now. I never said rules are bad, I said believing you have all the answers, which fundamentalism clearly does, and that there is no grey is the problem.

Fundamentalism does not believe that it has all the answers, it believes the Bible has all the answers.

You believe fundamentalism is the greatest thing in all the world, you believe I have not encountered the "right" kind of fundamentalism or I would think differently.

Oh, come now, stop putting words into my mouth. I never said this. And my point has never been that you have not encountered the "right kind" of fundamentalism. It is that you don't understand Fundamentalism. Frankly, I don't want you back in Fundamentalism. You're no doubt doing fine where you are.

You seemingly celebrate secondary seperation

The is baloney. You have no idea what I think of secondary separation. I haven't mentioned it in this discussion.

Secondary separation is not a sine qua non of Fundamentalism. In fact, in a famous dispute in 1972, John R. Rice wrote articles in the Sword of the Lord decrying the secondary separation of Bob Jones Jr. Again, John R. Rice's 1975 book, I Am a Fundamentalist, clearly opposed secondary separation.

and are confused thinking Puritans where fundamentalist when clearly they where not.

Now you are again putting words into my mouth. I never said this. I simply pointed out that the Puritans had a system of standards that make Fundamentalism look loose.

I believe fundamentalism is not the greatest thing in all the world and at its core is an destructive to the Christian faith. The OP was can you be a fundamentalist and not be legalist... my answer is no, fundamentalism is legalism. Nothing said in the past couple of days as changed my opinion. I don't want a Christianity that stops people from reading novels or keeps them going to the theater.

What, did I say I didn't believe in reading novels? Of course not! I'm in the middle of a great thriller right now. Go back and read what I said, for goodness sake. I now know why you don't understand Fundamentalism. You can't even figure out what I'm saying in a few simple lines in an Internet "debate."

 

[Don]

....I don't want a Christianity that stops people from reading novels or keeps them going to the theater.

Again, as I said on previous page:

The fundamentalists you describe are people who adhere to sets of rules, and make up rules where there are no biblical rules to cover them; i.e., dress standards, hair length, etc.

Those aren't fundamentals, and the people living by them aren't fundamentalists. They may call themselves that, but Jesus called them something else....

The question is, go2church: Are you too prejudiced to realize that not all fundamentalists fit your narrow view? Or is it just easier for you to say all fundamentalists are the same?

 

[av1611jim]

Don;
If I may........I must correct one of your statements. You said that people living by certain standards are not fundamentalists. (paraphrased) I must step out and correct that view. They indeed are in most cases fundamentalists. But their "standards" are NOT part of the historical fundamentals of the faith. There is a real and clear distinction between the two concepts. One is standards. The other is doctrine.

I have found that MOST of the people who hold to strict standards are also they who hold the tightest to the fundamentals. It is wrong to say that KJVO or no-rockin in church or no hippie long hairs are not fundamentalists. Granted, many of those same folks confuse the difference also and that is unfortunate. But standards and fundamentals are not the same.

 

[Don]

Before I concede to that point, we both have to agree that the Pharisees were also fundamentalists.

 

[John of Japan]

Before I concede to that point, we both have to agree that the Pharisees were also fundamentalists.

I emphatically deny that the Pharisees were Fundamentalists. They worked hand in hand with the Saducees, who denied most of the OT (except the Five Books of Moses), as well as the resurrection, Heaven and Hell. No historical Fundamentalist would ever cooperate with such a group. But there is no record in Scripture or history that I've ever heard of that the Pharisees took a stand against the Saducees, other than to argue doctrine once in awhile. In fact, they often came together to oppose Jesus.

 

[John of Japan]

Don;
If I may........I must correct one of your statements. You said that people living by certain standards are not fundamentalists. (paraphrased) I must step out and correct that view. They indeed are in most cases fundamentalists. But their "standards" are NOT part of the historical fundamentals of the faith. There is a real and clear distinction between the two concepts. One is standards. The other is doctrine.

I have found that MOST of the people who hold to strict standards are also they who hold the tightest to the fundamentals. It is wrong to say that KJVO or no-rockin in church or no hippie long hairs are not fundamentalists. Granted, many of those same folks confuse the difference also and that is unfortunate. But standards and fundamentals are not the same.

I agree pretty much with this, av1611jim. It is certainly wrong to say that having strict standards means you are not a Fundamentalist. To say this indicates a lack of knowledge about Fundamentalist history.

 

[Don]

Your average "fundamentalist" has very little, if any, knowledge of fundamentalist history. It certainly isn't taught in "hardcore" independent, fundamental Baptist churches (I refer to Hyles as one type, and only one, of several). As such, many "baby" Christians in those types of "fundamentalist" churches grow into Christian maturity believing that altar calls have always been around; good fundamentalist men should wear a tie and every woman a dress; every truly saved member of the church should be out on Thursday evenings and Saturday mornings, and working the bus routes on Sunday; and if you ain't preaching against something, you ain't preaching correctly. If you fail in one of these areas, then there's something wrong with your walk; and God help you if you fail in more than one.

Having strict standards doesn't make you a fundamentalist, any more than being a fundamentalist means you have strict standards. It's when the two get mixed up, and the focus is on the standards instead of the fundamentals, that the problems occur. And those unable to distinguish the two, such as go2church, see only the strict adherence to standards by a group that calls themselves fundamentalists, and mistakenly identify fundamentalism as a focus on standards rather than biblical fundamentals.

This isn't a problem with history; it's a problem with perception. I myself know an outstanding preacher, who's as fundamental as they get; but that church also uses standards to "weed out" those that they don't believe properly represent the church. They've gone beyond fundamentalism, and are guilty of asking people why they pluck corn on the sabbath.

As for me and mine, my wife and daughters wear dresses at all times; for no other reason than because scripture says "dress modestly."

P.S. - This is one of the reasons I like the Baptist Board: being challenged to defend my beliefs, and wondering if I have the courage to change those beliefs if/when shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Capiche, go2church?