Church Standards?

[JamesL]

What's in a name? The only difference I see between "ist" and "no ist" is that one is a noun and the other an adjective.....

what's in a name is what instantly comes to mind when hearing that name.

There have been more than a couple of people who have noted certain characteristics with those who are called Fundamentalists.

StephanM noted almost the same as I did.
Evangelist6598 mentioned his time at Bob Jones University in the same vein.
Salty, though objecting, betrayed himself when he associated this warped pants standard with "Fundys"

Those who call themselves Fundamental seem to be denoting fundamental doctrines

But those who call themselves Fundamentalist almost certainly are denoting fundamental behavior

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The "FIGHTING FUNDAMENTALISTS!" Oh God, please protect us from that insanity!!!

 

[Jerome]

So now it's Fundamental vs. Fundamentalist?

Huh? What happened your capitalization-focused classification scheme?:

Lower case fundamentalism relates to the fundamentals of the faith

Upper case Fundamentalism = Westboro Baptist, wacky, legalistic, fringe fanatic.

 

[JamesL]

So now it's Fundamental vs. Fundamentalist?

Huh? What happened your capitalization-focused classification scheme?:

Fundamental seems to go hand in hand with fundamentalism, both in contrast with Fundamentalism.

But as I've said more than once, these "seem" to be the case, "from what I've seen"

I haven't embarked on any kind of scientific study to determine which of them is more or less like the other. I just leave them to their error

 

[TCassidy]

But those who call themselves Fundamentalist almost certainly are denoting fundamental behavior

Wrong again. It is about the fundamentals of the faith.

 

[JamesL]

Wrong again. It is about the fundamentals of the faith.

You keep saying that, but you haven't given any substantive answer to StephanM, Evangelist6598, Salty, me, or anyone else here who has noted the same exact traits in the same brand of churches, in varyious areas of the country.

Maybe you should take a closer look instead of denying the obvious truth expressed by multiple posters

 

[TCassidy]

I just leave them to their error

Which of these do you believe is their "error?"

1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

2. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

3. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

You keep saying that, but you haven't given any substantive answer to StephanM, Evangelist6598, Salty, me, or anyone else here who has noted the same exact traits in the same brand of churches, in varyious areas of the country.

Maybe you should take a closer look instead of denying the obvious truth expressed by multiple posters

I have given examples twice which you have ignored. Just because a couple people say "Yeah, that's right. They are all a bunch of legalists" doesn't make it true of all those who, as fundamentalists, believe the fundamentals of the faith (even if you did read it on the internet!).

How many churches have you been a member of, or attended long enough to know where they stand on issues of separation, legalism, etc.?

I have been a member of:

FBC, Rkfd, IL
4th BC, Mpls, MN
NBC, Bloomington, MN
VBC, Golden Valley, MN
WBC, Loves Park, IL
WCBC, Vista, CA
LBC, Oceanside, CA
FBC, Escondido, CA
FHBC, Spring Valley, CA
FBC, Spring Valley, CA

All of them identified as Fundamentalist, and NONE of them were radical fringe, legalist, or extreme in any way.

And you do a great disservice to them and the cause of Christ by making such a slanderous accusation against them. Shame on you.

 

[StefanM]

And to be fair, I did add qualifiers to my statements. I had a stronger stance until people on this thread changed my mind. I doubt I will ever need to join an IFB church (a LOT of SBC churches are around), but I am not automatically assuming all are legalistic anymore.

I do categorically reject any KJVO churches as unacceptable for me, though.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JamesL]

And to be fair, I did add qualifiers to my statements. I had a stronger stance until people on this thread changed my mind. I doubt I will ever need to join an IFB church (a LOT of SBC churches are around), but I am not automatically assuming all are legalistic anymore.

I do categorically reject any KJVO churches as unacceptable for me, though.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also added qualifiers like "from what I've seen" and didn't take your statements as being without qualification.

 

[StefanM]

I also added qualifiers like "from what I've seen" and didn't take your statements as being without qualification.

Fair enough!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And I'll add Hamilton Square Baptist Church of San Francisco, CA founded in 1881.

I have given examples twice which you have ignored. Just because a couple people say "Yeah, that's right. They are all a bunch of legalists" doesn't make it true of all those who, as fundamentalists, believe the fundamentals of the faith (even if you did read it on the internet!).

How many churches have you been a member of, or attended long enough to know where they stand on issues of separation, legalism, etc.?

I have been a member of:

FBC, Rkfd, IL
4th BC, Mpls, MN
NBC, Bloomington, MN
VBC, Golden Valley, MN
WBC, Loves Park, IL
WCBC, Vista, CA
LBC, Oceanside, CA
FBC, Escondido, CA
FHBC, Spring Valley, CA
FBC, Spring Valley, CA

All of them identified as Fundamentalist, and NONE of them were radical fringe, legalist, or extreme in any way.

And you do a great disservice to them and the cause of Christ by making such a slanderous accusation against them. Shame on you.

 

[JamesL]

I have given examples twice which you have ignored. Just because a couple people say "Yeah, that's right. They are all a bunch of legalists" doesn't make it true of all those who, as fundamentalists, believe the fundamentals of the faith (even if you did read it on the internet!).

Do you always live life on a pendulum? One extreme or the other? It's either none or all?

How many churches have you been a member of, or attended long enough to know where they stand on issues of separation, legalism, etc.?

Do I have to be a member to observe patterns of practice?

I have been a member of:

FBC, Rkfd, IL
4th BC, Mpls, MN
NBC, Bloomington, MN
VBC, Golden Valley, MN
WBC, Loves Park, IL
WCBC, Vista, CA
LBC, Oceanside, CA
FBC, Escondido, CA
FHBC, Spring Valley, CA
FBC, Spring Valley, CA

Look, just because you've had a problem with church hopping doesn't mean I have

All of them identified as Fundamentalist, and NONE of them were radical fringe, legalist, or extreme in any way.

Says you....

And you do a great disservice to them and the cause of Christ by making such a slanderous accusation against them. Shame on you.

The legalistic "christians" I'm talking about do a disservice to Christ by making Christianity more about behavior than hope in Christ.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Only difference I've ever seen is that Westboro is just a little more vocal about it. They're less than an hour from me, ya know.

False. I am a Fundamentalist...and I don't believe it standing on streets and holding signs that God hates fags and preaching hate. Those people preach hatred to such an extreme... They once had a homosexual comeTo their church and they told
Him he wasn't welcome at their church...made me angry they should have preached the gospel To him.. Westboro is not representative of the IFB circles that I am part of.

And yes we believe is separation and high standards. Call it legalism, I believe the bible teaches the things many here cry and claim "legalism".

 

[StefanM]

I think it's safe to say on average that a typical SBC church isn't going to have the same "flavor" as an IFB church. The likelihood that a modern version of the Bible will be used from the pulpit in an SBC church is pretty high. It's lower in an IFB church. Even further, it's much more likely on average to find a KJVO church in IFB land than in SBC land.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that all IFBs have the same ideas. They're likely going to "do church" differently than SBC churches, but it's up to individual congregations.

I think everyone should be able to agree on these points.

 

[TCassidy]

One extreme or the other? It's either none or all?

Please post a quote from me where I said any such thing.

Do I have to be a member to observe patterns of practice?

First hand information is required. Second hand information is called "hearsay" and "gossip" is not admissible. Check your bible.

Look, just because you've had a problem with church hopping doesn't mean I have

Are you accusing God of sin for leading me to other churches to serve in? Every church I ever left to serve in another church I left with the blessing of my pastor. And when I was senior pastor I did the same with my staff. When they were ready to move on to bigger and better things I did not accuse them or God of instigating "church hopping."

When you are in your 70s with close to 50 years of service to Christ come back and tell me how many churches you served in.

Says you....

Are you accusing me of lying?

The legalistic "christians" I'm talking about do a disservice to Christ by making Christianity more about behavior than hope in Christ.

But you are not saying "legalistic christians." You keep saying "Fundamentalists." I have been trying to educate you to the fact that not all Fundamentalists are "legalistic christians."

 

[Smyth]

I think it's safe to say on average that a typical SBC church isn't going to have the same "flavor" as an IFB church. The likelihood that a modern version of the Bible will be used from the pulpit in an SBC church is pretty high. It's lower in an IFB church. Even further, it's much more likely on average to find a KJVO church in IFB land than in SBC land.

The SBC is a very big tent. Entry restrictions extend little beyond:
1) Baptism by immersion
2) Only male pastors
3) No Pentecostalism

#2 compels SBC churches to lean to the conservative (Bible-believing) side.

SBC churches did a good job of sticking to the KJV and NKJV, at least before [Edited] (excuse me) [You are not excused] unleashed the HCSB to draw SBC churches away from the KJV and NKJV. The HCSB Bible, produced by the SBC's publishing arm, is very modern nothing like the KJV or NKJV.

 

[TCassidy]

I think it's safe to say on average that a typical SBC church isn't going to have the same "flavor" as an IFB church.

That may, as a general observation, be true. But the SBC church I now attend is virtually identical in its services to the IFB church I pastored for 27 years.

The likelihood that a modern version of the Bible will be used from the pulpit in an SBC church is pretty high.

I would agree the percentages would be greater in an SBC church.

It's lower in an IFB church.

Percentage wise, probably. But a lot of IFB churches use modern versions.

Even further, it's much more likely on average to find a KJVO church in IFB land than in SBC land.

When only considering SBC churches that is probably correct. But there are a lot of non-baptist KJVOs too.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that all IFBs have the same ideas. They're likely going to "do church" differently than SBC churches, but it's up to individual congregations.

Exactly. And that is what I have been trying to convey. It is always an error to broad brush all those of a certain identity as being identical to all the others.

I think everyone should be able to agree on these points.

I agree. And that is what I have been trying to get the nay sayers to understand.

 

[JamesL]

False. I am a Fundamentalist.....

so what? How are you gonna try to tell me what I haven't seen?

 

[JamesL]

" I have been trying to educate you to the fact that not all Fundamentalists are "legalistic christians."

good grief, Tom. You've lost all sense of objectivity.

I have said over and over "FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN"

Now, until I see something different, then what I see will remain the same. But you still keep using verbiage that makes it look like you're accusing me of having said EVERY...ALL...BAR NONE...WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Now please notice that I didn't say you made an accusation, but simply noted that your choice of words "looks like" an accusation.

That's how these circus act threads evolve, man. And that's why the church hopping comment. I don't think that for one second.

It was designed to make the point that you don't like it when people read into your words, and neither do I.

I have said "From What I've Seen" Fundamentalists are.....

All I can say is this. If what I've seen of your brand offends you, then you need to work at cleaning up your brand in my area.

If I say that ghettos in KC have a drug problem, don't try to drag me off to a suburb in Georgia to prove that what I've seen in KC isn't true.