Can you be...

[John of Japan]

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[1]

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[2]

Now how many of us will stand firm on these beliefs?
I will.

Amen, brother! :thumbs: :jesus:

There is not much left of Christianity if we don't hold to these. And they are all connected.

 

[tinytim]

And by holding and standing on these does not make us legalists...
We are simply standing on the word of God.

Not wanting to hijack this thread, but where I disagree with a lot of modern fundamentalists is the secondary seperation issue... along with stuff like KJVOism, No CCM, etc..

But to me that stuff is secondary issues not founded in the fundamentals.. IOWS, I use the KJV for preaching and teaching, but I also use other versions in other situations... But I still believe the Bible is inerrant...
I like CCM, and P&W.. but nothing in my preference of music goes against the fundamentals...
I don't seperate from someone just because they choose to hold a revival in a Methodist church....etc...

It is the extra stuff that newer fundamentalists have added to what it means to be fundamental that drives me batty...
And when asked for scripture to back it up, they have to take scripture out of context to prove their points...

But as for the 5 (or 6) fundamentals listed in my previous post, they are ever so clear in scripture....
Therefore, I will stand for them.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I can stand solidly on those. What is PW? I'm not crazy about CCM but that's mostly cause I'm old. I know I don't hold for the 7-11 stuff or chanting.I don't think it is inappropriate for the ladies to wear pants , I think it's more important we dress modestly and respectfully.Men should look like men and women should look like women.No Adam and Steve stuff and I'm right to life.I don't think that makes me extra legal or UFO.:godisgood:

 

[go2church]

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[1]

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[2]

Now how many of us will stand firm on these beliefs?
I will.

No, inerrancy because it is a highly qualified, largely misunderstood word. Even inerrancy backers can't agree on the definition see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy for an example of the qualifiers. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and the criteria for interpretation is Jesus Christ

Yes, virgin birth

Yes, substitutionary atonement, but understand there are other orthodox understandings of the atonement

Yes, resurrection

Yes, miracles

No, pre-mill second coming, I am a-mill, but understand there are other orthodox understandings of the second coming

 

[John of Japan]

No, inerrancy because it is a highly qualified, largely misunderstood word. Even inerrancy backers can't agree on the definition see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy for an example of the qualifiers. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and the criteria for interpretation is Jesus Christ

Inerrancy is a very straightforward word. It means "no mistakes." It only has to be qualified because people who don't believe in it don't want to be known as liberals, so they fudge. Therefore, believers in inerrancy must add qualifiers. The word "infallibility" used to be used until liberals fudged with that too much.

 

[tinytim]

I can stand solidly on those. What is PW? I'm not crazy about CCM but that's mostly cause I'm old. I know I don't hold for the 7-11 stuff or chanting.I don't think it is inappropriate for the ladies to wear pants , I think it's more important we dress modestly and respectfully.Men should look like men and women should look like women.No Adam and Steve stuff and I'm right to life.I don't think that makes me extra legal or UFO.:godisgood:

Praise and Worship... probably what you would call 7-11... but there are alot of newer P&W that don't do that... I don't like the repetition songs, myself... the one that really gets me, is repeating "I can sing of your love forever" and we repeat it for 25 times... I begin to wonder if we will ever stop singing!!!

I think the UFOs (fundy legalists) are the ones that include what you said into the core beliefs of Fundamentalism... Of course, I agree with you on the modesty stuff and right to life....But I don't see pants, or music styles , or Bible versions addressed in the Bible.. so all we have are my interpretation and your interpretation.

There should be primary beliefs that all must stand firm on...
ie. The Fundamentals...
Then there are secondary beliefs that are not as important... but it may determine, where you worship...But to exalt these as primary, without Bible proof is wrong...
ie. CCM, KJVO, Pants,etc
Then there are beliefs that come third, that we must concede are just opinions and interpretations... and are willing to worship and work with those that are different from ours.
ie. order of worship, carpet color, smoking, chicken instead of Turkey...lol

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Inerrancy is a very straightforward word. It means "no mistakes." It only has to be qualified because people who don't believe in it don't want to be known as liberals, so they fudge. Therefore, believers in inerrancy must add qualifiers. The word "infallibility" used to be used until liberals fudged with that too much.

Inerrency is based on God's absolute integrity. If one views Scripture as God-breathed, written as God moved the writers (verbal plenary inspiration), then it reflects His integrity. Anything less than a Scripture without error in the whole or in the part, means it lacks God's absolute integrity.

Claiming "other orthodox understandings of the atonement", requires some explanation. If the atonement wasn't substitutionary, what was it? Keeping in mind, the multiple and near instantaneous (to the human mind) ramifications of Our Lord's death on the cross are to me as complex as quantum physics. Claiming orthodoxy without citations won't make the grade in this forum.

 

[John of Japan]

Inerrency is based on God's absolute integrity. If one views Scripture as God-breathed, written as God moved the writers (verbal plenary inspiration), then it reflects His integrity. Anything less than a Scripture without error in the whole or in the part, means it lacks God's absolute integrity.

Amen! Theopneustos (God-breathed) demands inerrancy!

Claiming "other orthodox understandings of the atonement", requires some explanation. If the atonement wasn't substitutionary, what was it? Keeping in mind, the multiple and near instantaneous (to the human mind) ramifications of Our Lord's death on the cross are to me as complex as quantum physics. Claiming orthodoxy without citations won't make the grade in this forum.

Amen!

 

[go2church]

You didn't know there are other theories of the atonement? I would have thought folks as well read as you all would have been familiar with such things as the Governmental, Sacrificial, Moral-Influence theories of the atonement. Ultimately I think they highlight an aspect of the atonement whereas the substitutionary theory is a more comprehensive view including many of the individual aspects highlighted by the other theories.

The Bible is the inspired word of God and the criteria for interpretation is Jesus Christ. Do you apply inerrancy only to the originals or to translations as well and if to translations, which one(s)?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I'll let others reply to atonement topic. My main area of interest is Baptist History. Have you read Wayland on the topic? I haven't check his Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches (published in 1856 long before the Modernist/Fundamentalist controversy) out. I will later on today. I'm sure he has some remarks on the subject.

As for the other, I apply inerrency to the originals and supernatural preservation to the copies and translations.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Tiny,
As I mentioned the deal on CCM is purely personal and mostly due to being an old dude(hard to teach an old dog new tricks). You may have missread my note on the ladies wearing pants, I have no problem with that or which translation of the Bible you read or study, because it is as you say, the Bible makes no mention of these things.

 

[go2church]

Little clarification please
When you say "I apply inerrency to the originals and supernatural preservation to the copies and translations." are you saying:

1. I believe in inerrancy of the originals and I believe in the supernatural preservation of the copies and translations

2. I believe in inerrancy of the originals includes the supernatural preservation of the copies and translations

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Little clarification please
When you say "I apply inerrency to the originals and supernatural preservation to the copies and translations." are you saying:

1. I believe in inerrancy of the originals and I believe in the supernatural preservation of the copies and translations

2. I believe in inerrancy of the originals includes the supernatural preservation of the copies and translations

Using Occam's Razor, I'll go with number one. It's the simplest. God in His providence preserved His Word through out the generations. I don't think JoJ, POB, Tiny T, holds an extreme KJVO position. I know I don't. I've spent too much time involved in translation work (as has JoJ) to go that route.

 

[John of Japan]

The Bible is the inspired word of God and the criteria for interpretation is Jesus Christ. Do you apply inerrancy only to the originals or to translations as well and if to translations, which one(s)?

The originals, of course. This is the standard position of evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, both. All of the classic Fundamentalist writers on the Bible held this position: Warfield, Rice, Custer, etc.

The radical KJVO position that inerrancy applies to the translation rather than the originals is a recent innovation (1970's), and only a small minority of Fundamentalists today hold that position, regardless of your minimal experience with our group.

Now since you evidently do not believe in inerrancy, I'll tell you once again. You are an intruder on this forum. Read the "stickies." The first one says, "Welcome to the Fundamental Baptist Forum, we hope you enjoy posting here. This forum was born out of a cry from many who despaired that their conservative and traditional views were constantly being attacked. It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate."

It was instituted on the BB for Fundamentalists to get away from people like you. If you want to attack us, feel free to do so on "General Baptist Discussions" or "Baptist Theology and Bible Study."

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Amen!:thumbs:

 

[go2church]

I'll go you obviously don't want to be confused or challenged with any facts! Too much of daddy's and grand-daddy's history to be step over I guess.

Your response is a reminder why fundamentalism is destructive. Because I don't believe in the man made doctrine of inerrancy I somehow now don't believe the Bible. Translated = since you don't believe like me GET OUT! See you on the other forums

 

[John of Japan]

I'll go you obviously don't want to be confused or challenged with any facts! Too much of daddy's and grand-daddy's history to be step over I guess.

I actually laughed out loud when I saw this. go2church has given nothing but unsubstantiated opinions and attacks in this thread. :laugh:

Your response is a reminder why fundamentalism is destructive. Because I don't believe in the man made doctrine of inerrancy I somehow now don't believe the Bible. Translated = since you don't believe like me GET OUT! See you on the other forums

I simply reminded you of the BB rules. :tongue3:

 

[dcorbett]

At the heart of fundamentalism is legalism, the need for control and strict adherance to prescibed set of beliefs. It requires that you believe in only a certian way and calls into question your salvation if you don't believe exactly like "they" want you to believe.
When you examine the fruit of fundamentalism you are left with the sinking feeling that they are so close yet so far away.

That is YOUR definition. Not mine, and not the definition that many many wonderful Christians adhere to.

Debbie Mc IFB

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I'll go you obviously don't want to be confused or challenged with any facts! Too much of daddy's and grand-daddy's history to be step over I guess.

Your response is a reminder why fundamentalism is destructive. Because I don't believe in the man made doctrine of inerrancy I somehow now don't believe the Bible. Translated = since you don't believe like me GET OUT! See you on the other forums

G2C, I'm not a first generation Christian. But, I am a first generation Baptist and Fundamentalist. As for your second paragraph, JoJ is simply saying you've knocked over the furniture once too many times. I agree.

 

[Jules80]

No, I do not believe the two can co-exist