Ecclesiastical separation applied selectively

And if this thread can't stay on topic and stay away from the version issue it will be closed as well.

 

Paul33 writes:

Ed writes:

Wrong! I have never used the words "hobby horse" in any post in any thread, FTR. So I could have made NO accusations that ANY thread was anybody's "hobby horse".

I have made exactly four posts in this thread.

The first was one of amusement at a post of Rhetorician (page 1).

The second (on page 2) was a question as to arbitrary distinctions in Categories of Truth, as described by Squire Robertsson. I'd still like an answer to that question, BTW.

The third was a full agreement, on one point, and a partial disagreement, on another point, with Paul33 (Page 2), on the two, and only two, points I commented on.

The fourth was an agreement with a statement made by John of Japan.

Like me or dislike me, or agree or disagree with my positions, as you (or anyone else) choose. But I do not think I'm asking too much from anyone, where I'm involved, to get the facts straight. That is simply not asking too much.
In his grace,
Ed

 

Methinks the gentleman DO have a point!
Ed </font>[/QUOTE]One was shut down because the question posed hit too close to home. The question was, "Why hasn't Jesus been given an honorary doctorate?"

The other two threads were shut down because people went off topic, not because of the original post.

Smear tactics never end with you two. That's too bad.

Deal with the topic, ok? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry you think that "smear tactics never end" with me. Please check a dictionary for the meaning of "smear." I have never smeared you.

But I seem to have offended you, not meaning to. Please forgive me for that.

 

Don't forget the old old fundamentalists that are more like the young fundamentalists than the old fundamentalists. NOW I"M CONFUSED!!!!

I just think the young fundamentalists are taking the fundamental movement back to the original fundamentals where it started.

 

I agree. The problem with this type of debate is like hunting. It isn't hard to hit a non moving target but a moving target is harder. We aren't fighting the same battles today as yesterday. Satan is always moving and coming at us in another direction.
Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's much was over Higher Criticism, that the Bible was true and we could trust it. Many used different translations and came from different churches, not just Baptist. As you said what worked in the last war will not or might not work in the next war. One of the problems is very few of us read history and even less of us read history of the church.
We are fighting different battles today.

 

I'm more about sound doctrine. What I mean I am not into emotions but into the Word of God.
John 15:5"Without me ye can do nothing"
We are to reach the lost and teach the saved through Christ. It isn't me or you but it is Christ.
Good men can disagree with in the church as long as they are putting Christ first. However when I put self first I'm helping Satan.

Are they really about Promise Keepers, Piper, and MacArthur, or is it something else? No,no,no.

I migh disagree with you on the mechanics of salvation but I'm not going to question your salvation. Your talk talks and your walks talks but your walk talks louder than your talk, talks.

It looks like today with in the church so many are ready for a fight at the drop of a hat, rather than learning about the other and being able to give good answers why we agree or disagree with the other.

 

I will agree to a point that Old Fundamentalism has its faults.
1. It got caught in a time warp and still fights the same old irrelevant battles of bygone years. In other words, we have moved past the point where Liberalism and Modernism are viable threats. The NCC and WCC are huge cavernous organizations without much clout or credibility.
2. It fractured and split over personalities and turf instead of truth and principle. There are too many petty turf wars within the ranks.
3. Too many sensational and superficial matters were promoted and preached without dealing with underlying foundational issues.

On the other hand, I can see the foibles of the New Fundamentalism as well.
1. The emphasis seems to be style over substance. I really don’t see the depth of understanding and wisdom in the new leadership. Style reigns over content. This is a weakness.
2. Much like Neo-orthodoxy, the words are the same but the meanings are different. The terms just don’t carry the same meaning as with the old-timers. They pledge allegiance to empty ideals. Call it a problem of contextualization.
3. Many of the New Fundamentalists don’t thoroughly understand their history or their beliefs. They accept insipid ideas from Bultmann, Brunner and Barth that were rejected by the Old Fundamentalism. Of course, Old Fundamentalism owed a debt in its intellectual foundations to Machen and Van Til who were orthodox but not Fundamentalists. I don’t know anyone today who has filled their place even though there is a blight of wannabe apologists.
4. They fail to define and tackle the cultural and contemporary religious issues confronting Fundamentalism today. I have seen little serious response to Joel O’Steen, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, John Hagee, etc. These popular religious icons deceive more people than the old Liberalism-Modernism ever did. Furthermore, they are not dealing with the high divorce rate in their congregations and they are not confronting materialism and loose living among their people. Fundamentalism cannot run forever on feel good religion. We must face the cold, hard realities.

As I have suggested elsewhere, Fundamentalism may be moving from an American phenomenon to a world-wide movement. It is almost as if Fundamentalism has been enervated among American WASPS and is spreading throughout minorities and third world countries. It seems to me that Fundamentalist Hispanic churches are growing rapidly in America.

With all said and done, I will stipulate that God is still on the throne. He has His people throughout the world and there are many, many faithful pastors, missionaries, evangelists, teachers and everyday Christians serving the Lord.

 

Would only the issues in 2005 be the same as those in 192x. Regretfully, this is not the case. We can't unring the bell. For reasons good, bad and ugly, the old Northern Baptist movement is splintered. Billy Graham and his methodology caused men to take positions (pro and anti). The NBCs rump (the ABC) has progressively taken Modernistic/Liberal positions.

To me the problem lies in men seeking to refight battles that were decided twenty and thirty years ago. (But then military historians have an axiom. Generals plan, organize, and train to win the last war.) Instead of looking to win past battles , we need to look to see how to meet future challenges. </font>[/QUOTE]Some of the battles today do have their intellectual roots in the old battles. The three B's (Bultmann, Brunner, and Barth) sowed ideas into religious circles that still germinate and produce weeds.