Can you be...

[wifenmother]

I attend a fundamental baptist church, but I try very hard not to adopt an overly legalistic point of view. In my (fairly young) Christian viewpoint, I believe that Christ spent a lot of time rebuking the then religious "elite" for adhering to their rules instead of seeking an actual relationship with their Creator.

God is always more concerned with our motives and our hearts. While there are things that are clearly right and wrong, a pure heart is ultimately what the Lord seeks from us.

 

[jshurley04]

Not a Fundamentalist

Who defines the catagory's? That has always been the problem for me with fundamentalism and the reason why I refuse to consider myself a fundamentalist. You have neatly defined understandings that melt under the heat of "fired up" fundamentalists. It becomes a mark of how "great" a preacher you are by how many people you can offend. You see folks stand out on the street corner yelling at passing cars, yet refusing to give the homeless guy a buck cause he is just going to go spend it on booze anyway. Fundamentalism at its core is evil and destructive to the living, transforming faith of Jesus Christ.

Dude, you have just described every legalist I know. Legalism is not constrianed to the IFB's only, there are a great many friends of legalism in the A.G. church and others. You do not describe a fundamentalist, you describe the opinions of man caught in the stupidity of negative progress. They still think that you can do things as they were done 75 years ago. Go to a real IFB church that understands the difference between today and 75 years ago and you will see that you can still be an IFB and not be a legalist.

 

[jshurley04]

The No's of Funnymentalism

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

If I upset an apple-cart with this then so be it. In your two No answers, they completely complement one another and explain very much of some of the posting that I have seen. It would explain why there is a problem with IFB churches. My personal conclusion would be that you are not a Fundamentalist. The sad part is in light of the OP, you could still be a legalist. Ultimately, legalism is about man's opinion and the imposition of that said opinion upon the lives of others.

 

[Orion41]

Just a thought, but being a "fundie," as I've been called before, means that I take the Word of God literally correct? Maybe I'm a little odd, but I don't mind being labeled as long as it fits. I do believe that the majority of the Bible should be taken literally, although parts of Psalms are poetic in nature and it seems to me should be taken metaphorically, and some of Paul's Epistles seem to be more so the Christians can fit into the society well enough to reach others. For example:

1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.
1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
1Co 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.

Something that's bothered me recently along this same line is that I've been called legalistic before, and knowing that's wrong I don't want to be that. How would ya'll define that?

 

[John of Japan]

Hi, Orion41.

Welcome to the Baptist Board! I hope you'll be blessed and be a blessing.:wavey:

If you'll read this whole thread I think you'll find some good definitions of legalism. Also, if you'll look back, occasionally on this sub-forum there have been discussions of what it means to be a Fundamentalist. Or, you can start a new thread with your particular questions and we'll have some fun!

God bless!

John :type:

 

[bapmom]

If I upset an apple-cart with this then so be it. In your two No answers, they completely complement one another and explain very much of some of the posting that I have seen. It would explain why there is a problem with IFB churches. My personal conclusion would be that you are not a Fundamentalist. The sad part is in light of the OP, you could still be a legalist. Ultimately, legalism is about man's opinion and the imposition of that said opinion upon the lives of others.

sadly this is not what many people mean by legalism. When the word "legalistic" is flung at us, it usually is in regards to standards....and usually standards which we apply to OURSELVES.

As you stated before, legalism is when standards or rules (opinions) are elevated to the level of salvation-earning....legalism is 'works salvation.' This is why it is such an affront to us fundamentalists when it is applied to us simply because we believe in some stricter standards.

It is very 'easy' to be a fundamentalist without being a legalist. It is always rather offensive to me when we are lumped together with legalism, as this thread seems to be implying.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If we were to have to use a word for what fundamentalists are often accused of I think a better choice than legalism would be galatianism.

I think legalism does have a broader meaning than just works for salvation, but can also apply to works which are an attempt to please or placate God. However, what Paul writes about in Galatians is more apt to describe what, whether justified or not, some fundamentalists are accused of.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

For Your Information

I moved Orion's post to this thread from another thread in this forum. It was somewhat nonsequetorial in the original thread. I thought it fit better here.
That means Orion didn't read the previous posts to this thread.

 

[Bro. Williams]

fundamental without being legalistic?

I sure hope not..

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I sure hope not..

Say brother,

Could you clarify this for us please? It sounds like you see legalism as a positive thing and almost synonymous with fundamentalism from this post.

 

[Bro. Williams]

What, you all don't?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

What, you all don't?

If by this (please use the quote feature and snip as needed) you mean Fundamentalism equals legalism and that legalism is a good thing, the answer is no. Roger and I do not think Fundamentalism equals legalism. We also do not think legalism is a good thing.

If I did not understand your question, please clarify.

 

[John of Japan]

What, you all don't?

Bro. Williams, maybe this will help you. Here is the commonly accepted definition of legalism I gave on page 1: “Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).

I'm pretty sure you don't believe in legalism by this definition--unless you are a Seventh Day Baptist, maybe. :smilewinkgrin: We can believe in Fundamentalist standards of dress, behavior, etc., without being legalists. Unfortunately, many non-Fundamentalist Christians have invented a new meaning for legalist: anyone who believes in personal separation.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Legalist isn't in my 1828... i'm at a loss...

 

[jshurley04]

Legally Keeping your salvation

sadly this is not what many people mean by legalism. When the word "legalistic" is flung at us, it usually is in regards to standards....and usually standards which we apply to OURSELVES.

As you stated before, legalism is when standards or rules (opinions) are elevated to the level of salvation-earning....legalism is 'works salvation.' This is why it is such an affront to us fundamentalists when it is applied to us simply because we believe in some stricter standards.

It is very 'easy' to be a fundamentalist without being a legalist. It is always rather offensive to me when we are lumped together with legalism, as this thread seems to be implying.

In the strictest sense, yes that is what legalism means, working for your salvation in addition to God's work of Grace. However, the more damning definition refers to the attitude that my opinion is God given so it is just as if it is scripture (no matter how I arrived at this opinion and how I erred in scriptural interpretation) and you have to live up to it or you cannot possibly be right with God or a follower of Christ. My standard determine your righteousness.

It is a way that immature spiritual leaders keep their people from growing up in grace and knowing the true freedom we have in Christ. Ultimately it is not about the betterment of fellow believers, legalism is about controlling as many as possible and making them act their way and not the way of the Spirit.

 

[dcorbett]

Dr Caner's definition of a legalist: A Christian who thinks they are trying to get you to be more like God, when actually they are trying to get you to be more like themselves instead!

Our church secretary fits that definition to a tee.

I don't, and I am a fundamentalist.

Debbie Mc

 

[tjfkbrawny]

I am a fundamentalist, I even bleed fundamentalism, but I abhor legalism.

 

[Askjo]

Legalism? Double standard!

 

[Askjo]

"Fundamentalist" was originally a term that applied to people who adhere to the fundamentals of the faith, or more loosley in common terms, people who take their faith literally.

Only us Baptists tend to make a distinction of a sect that is particularly legalistic (short hair on men, no movies, KJV-only, etc). Of course, as Baptists, even those withing that category vary quite a bit.

They watched TV at home instead of going a movie somewhere. They are TV watchers. Big eyes!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

it's a fixed poll. what's the point in voting?

Fundamentalism is legalism and religious tradition mixed.

I pity the people really. 90% of them wouldn't know Jesus, if he came up and slapped them...

the dumb chickenhawks...

If you are an "ex-fundy" what are you now?I voted yes btw, assuming fundamentalism is understood properly and legalism is understood properly.