Do you consider yourself...

However I believe they were correct.
As I said above I'm a fundamentalist and have been for years.

 

Good! We're together.

Any time you stand for truth, be prepared for the name calling.

 

=======================================================
By My own definition of fundamentalism (belief in the core doctrines of scripture) I find myself a fundamentalist. David Dockery list in his book Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal defines Fundamentalist as hardlined people who often have more in common with "independent" Baptist then with the SBC heritage.

 

John, You must admit there is a huge difference between the fundamentalists of 1957 and the so-called fundamentalists of to-day. Even in 1957 some fundamentalists called us amillennialists liberal. There was a difference between fundamentalist in the USA and those of us in Canada, yet we were both wearing the title of fundamentalists back then. We were commonly fighting liberalism and those who compromised the doctrines of separation. We opposed the likes of Billy Graham and Christianity To-day, which delved into the new evangelicalism and even Barthianism, because Barth used evangelical language, with his own twists taken from German rationalism.

To-day, I avoid labels other than I am baptistic.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Sorry, your definition is inadequate. Many who believe in the core doctrines of Scripture openly reject the label fundamentalist. I refer you to such books as Cooperative Evangelism, Robert Ferm's 1958 defense of Billy Graham, or The Great Evangelical Disaster, by Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer clearly believed in the core doctrines of Scripture, but clearly rejected the term fundamentalist.

 

Sorry, Jim, I won't categorically admit a "huge difference" in the fundamentalists of 1957 and those today. The movement today is too varied to admit of such broad brush statements.

There are still many fundamentalists today who believe and stand very much like those of 1957. On the other hand, there is a segment of the independent Baptist movement which are very different from those of the 1950's, but there are many who are not.

 

=======================================================
John; Could you define fundamentalist objectively for me.

 

Here is my definition from post #20: "Historically, a Christian fundamentalist is one who not only believes the fundamental doctrines of the faith, but defends them."

The term was invented from the famous "Fundamentals" pamphlets of 1910-1915, which were designed to defend the faith. They included defenses of such doctrines as the deity of Christ, inspiration, etc., and attacks on the JEDP theory of the five books of Moses, the higher criticism of the NT, etc. Thus, fundamentalism emerged in the 1920s as not only belief in the core doctrines, but a defense of them.

Implicit in the movement from the start was also separation from liberalism. So the early fundamentalists sought to expel the liberals from their denominations. But what usually happened was that the fundamentalist was kicked out: Machen being kicked out of the Presbyterians via a heresy trial, my grandfather John R. Rice being blackballed by the Texas Baptist Convention leaders for opposing evolution at Baylor, etc.

 

You're right, man, and I'm with you.
Only that I remembered a long time ago when I first came under conversion and joined a Bible Baptist church.
Sunday schools we used to clap our hands and sing praise songs, and we had tambourines, too.
Then the "full gospel" came and the pastor dropped the clapping and the praise songs and the tambourines because the "full gospels" used them.
Then we were told to limit the "praise the Lords" because the full gospels used them.
In time, the pastor realized his error, but before he did, I just felt it was ridiculous.
But, again, yeah, you're right in what you said.

 

Never meant to criticize in a daft way, the internet can be so impersonal at times.

Coming to church was a bit of a culture shock for me, some fellowships may have embarrassed me in front of my old mates I suppose.

They just could not understand what had happened to me. Or why I had apparently become a goody 2 shoes and was hanging out with fuddy duddies and old ladies in fury hats.

 

Amen, Brother Elder Jim1999 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

I agree with that. It is keeping with the nature of our Lord also.

 

Like JohnV, when I was a new Christian, I was very much fundamentalist, and biblical inerrantist, which seem to go together. However, as I learned more, I have become convinced that that position is in error, and have moved toward a much more liberal theology and view many of the Biblical passages to be allegorical in nature, rather than literal.

 

Well, there are 2 side: Modern fundamental or Old Fashioned fundamental; Modern God or Old Fashioned God? Which one do you select?

 

So what are you doing in this forum then? You sound like just the kind of person we are trying to escape from in this forum. The sticky on guidelines says, "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."

 

Because it was an invitation. Otherwise all answers would be "yes", thus no need for it. And it appears that it is you who is attacking me. I said nothing that can remotely be construed as an attack, so simmer yerself down there.

 

Like MP, I am also not a fundamentalist, but I don't think I ever was one. I agree with MP about it being appropriate for him (and me) to respond to the OP. The post that you quoted above also contains the following quote.

Tim Reynolds

 

You said, "However, as I learned more, I have become convinced that that position is in error." And you don't understand how that was insulting??? You're educated, but we fundamentalists are ignorant....

 

Appropriate to respond, yes. Appropriate to insinuate that he learned enough to grow out of fundamentalism, no. That was supercilious.

 

You are reading more into it than was intended, John. I was stating my belief. I was not saying you are ignorant.

My intent is that there was some explanation needed as to my change of mind. That is all. Notice, I said "I became convinced". That is about me, and no one else. It does not say "I am smart, you are stupid."