Emerging from Fundamentalism

[John of Japan]

John, I've come to respect you on BB. However, you have insulted others here with your prior statement.

I'll answer the rest of your post in the morning. It's getting late here in Japan. But tell me if you don't think Michael's post (which Luke agreed with completely, and I think others did also) was vicious:

I agree with most of what you've said. I would only take issue with the idea that they are/were well-intentioned. I once believed this, until I understood the depth of their sin, the wickedness of their narcissistic self-righteousness, the evil of their pursuit of unScriptural priestly authority over others, their abominable efforts to keep God's people in shallow spiritual darkness to keep them in spiritual infancy; ever dependent on the spoonfuls of curdled milk that never allows them to become strong, mature Christians.

There is a Biblical name for such men, pharisees. And, having grown up in this cult, I believe there will be many times more people in hell because of them than the number of people they actually "won" to Christ. Fundamentalists, & other like-minded denominations, have inoculated this nation with a false form of godliness, which has made the masses they have influenced immune to hearing the truth of the gospel.

These who think they will be first in Heaven will be last, with the blood of many on their hands. Many of these wolves will be told "I never knew you", claiming their great works (preaching against "sin" & condemnation of others) to be proof of their righteousness.

So according to Michael, Luke and others, we Fundamentalists are not well-intentioned, we are wicked with narcissistic self-righteousness, we are evil, we are all spiritually babies, we are pharisees (unsaved people), we are hypocrites in our claims to win people to Christ. we have a false form of godliness, we are sending people to Hell, many of us are not even going to make it to Heaven, and we are a cult.

And you don't think this is a vicious attack?? And you say instead that I'm the guilty one??

 

[preacher4truth]

I'll answer the rest of your post in the morning. It's getting late here in Japan. But tell me if you don't think Michael's post (which Luke agreed with completely, and I think others did also) was vicious:


So according to Michael, Luke and others, we Fundamentalists are not well-intentioned, we are wicked with narcissistic self-righteousness, we are evil, we are all spiritually babies, we are pharisees (unsaved people), we are hypocrites in our claims to win people to Christ. we have a false form of godliness, we are sending people to Hell, many of us are not even going to make it to Heaven, and we are a cult.

And you don't think this is a vicious attack?? And you say instead that I'm the guilty one??

Brother John,

I see what you are saying. I must admit that what Michael said actually does reflect some in that movement, and that is unfortunate but nonetheless it is true. The problem comes with broad brushing. I know some fine men who are IFB and that are solid Bible teachers and preachers. I also know of several that fit in the above picture.

I would only rebuke him for broad brushing, and I haven't personally experienced what he has.

John, I only wish you'd hold the same disdain for the vitriol, accusatory behavior of one from your own camp who is partaking in this thread. And we can add another to that list as well. It is immature, caustic, and shows an unforgiving malignant spirit.

Have a good night.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh John you have made a terrible mistake. You have had the gall to post something that is in opposition to a Calvinist on the BB. Therefore you must be destroyed. That is all there is too it.

I also am a calvinist, yet don't any need to destroy any brother in the Lord!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'll answer the rest of your post in the morning. It's getting late here in Japan. But tell me if you don't think Michael's post (which Luke agreed with completely, and I think others did also) was vicious:


So according to Michael, Luke and others, we Fundamentalists are not well-intentioned, we are wicked with narcissistic self-righteousness, we are evil, we are all spiritually babies, we are pharisees (unsaved people), we are hypocrites in our claims to win people to Christ. we have a false form of godliness, we are sending people to Hell, many of us are not even going to make it to Heaven, and we are a cult.

And you don't think this is a vicious attack?? And you say instead that I'm the guilty one??

Think we have 2 main camps of Fundamentalists in discussion here!

One group hold to essentials of the christian faith, practice seperation based upon doctrinal errors, but do that in a christ like fashion

another group does same, but also seperates based upon ONLY preferences/convictions, and are hotile and angry against those christians who dare to say intheir :wicked ways!"

 

[John of Japan]

Understood. Rules are important, I understand that.
When I say legalism, I usually mean when the more debatable stuff, such as KJO, is given undue emphasis, taught with a huge emphasis in a church's sermons. That had been the case in my childhood church at the point when I began to question whether I was getting spiritually fed there or not.
Perhaps legalism isn't the right term for that, though?

In any case, I have family and relatives, and a few friends, who are fundamental and believe some things that I no longer agree with, including KJO. But we still share the same core beliefs. My aunt and I were having a discussion on music, and her views on it are different and much more restrictive than mine. I chalk it up to Romans 14. We are told to respect those kind of differences. My aunt is awesome and I don't have to agree with her on everything.

That's harder to achieve on a forum where no one is speaking face to face so that we lose that feeling that we are talking to another person to some extent. So I can be more argumentative online, although I try to watch myself.
But we are all one in Christ, and it does bug me that those on this forum seem to forget that sometimes. I forget it sometimes, although I try very hard not to.

I appreciate your attitude. I am not one who says there are no good Christians outside of Fundamentalism. I have some friends who are not Fundamenalists--good friends.

Some Fundamentalists do go too far. I realize that. But I think that is because we have reacted to being the "offscouring of the world," attacked often by not only the secular media but our brothers in Christ.

Here is a definition of legalism by a well known Southern Baptist theologian that I hope you'll ponder: “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 Millard Erickson, p. 990).

 

[John of Japan]

John, I've come to respect you on BB. However, you have insulted others here with your prior statement.

I'm mystified. I really don't know what you are talking about. Who have I insulted, and what did I say to insult them?

Well, if what I've said offended you, I don't know what to tell you. I am being as honest as you are in my assessment. I don't see the vile behavior you refer to. I do however see that behavior from one of your own in this thread. It's shameful and I've learned to simply avoid him as it only costs one and isn't profitable.

Sorry, I don't see such things as my problem.

I adhere to and defend the fundamentals but I don't need to be called one and I don't really want to be called one due to the ugliness of what it has become. But what I am equals fundamentalist nonetheless. What rules must I adhere to in your definition to be a true fundamentalist?

You are welcome to whatever definition you want to have about what it means to be a Fundamentalist. I can't change that. My definition, however, is based in historical reality and the work of scholars. Surely an honest researcher would not want to head off on his own tack, contrary to historical reality.

John, you make pretense that others don't defend the fundamentals and label these types 'evangelical'. That's unfortunate. John, to be honest, this brings back that old and tired essence of polemic fundamentalism in your statement, one that reeks of the 'holier that thou' attitude that is rampant in IFB circuits, and reminds of the old preaching, stomping and snorting nonsense when comparing one to another. It's shameful, it's self-righteous and it's plain ugly.

So you reject history? I see I'm going to have to give some quotes to prove that this is not simply my own opinion. I did not invent the position that a Fundamentalist is one who not only believes the Fundamentals but actively defends them.

Are you familiar with Millard Erickson, the SBC systematic theologian? He wrote a book entitled, The New Evangelical Theology (1968), in which he points out, "The new evangelicalism holds much of its theology in common with fundamentalism and other orthodox theology" (p. 85). So there is my view that simply believing the Fundamentals makes one an evangelical, not a Fundamentalist. (Evangelical is not a dirty word to me. I see Fundamentalism as one branch of evangelicalism.)

Concerning the idea that Fundamentalists fight for doctrine, he says about the deity of Christ and why it was defended but not the humanity of Christ, "Fundamentalism was a movement involved with defense, and one does not defend that which is not under attack" (p. 108). There is much more in this book that is very perceptive about the two movements, but I'll move on.

Are you familiar with Robert Lightner, a Dallas TS prof back in the day? His book, Neo-Evangelicalism (1965), gives the following definition of Fundamentalism: "The movement which was born in the early part of the twentieth century in opposition to and as a reaction against liberalism.... The term was used to designate the defense of these fundamentals when it was first coined and this is the true meaning of it today" (p. 24).

In 1957 the break came between Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals when Billy Graham refused to seat a committee for his NY crusade of only Fundamentalists, and insisted that liberals be on the committee. In other words, Graham decided that defending the faith against liberalism was not worth it, and we should cooperate with them instead. I fully document this incident here on the BB at: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4309

I could give many more quotes, including from Graham's autobiography, the Ockenga press release of 1957 (I think it was), etc. etc. However, if these quotes from well-known evangelical scholars don't convince you than nothing will.

You've erected a straw man John. Can you show me where I've ever stated that it is only believing in the fundamentals?

Yes. Take a look at your post #26 in this thread, where you say, "A true fundamentalist is one who adheres to The Fundamentals...."

That's good but this doesn't prove that not going to movies, KJVO, women not wearing pants, not wearing wire framed glasses, not drinking from a long neck root beer bottle, among other things are defending Bible affirmations.

Wherever you got this, you didn't get it from me. I hold to none of these as part of Fundamentalism, have never preached them, have never heard most of them preached--certainly not the wire framed glasses or the root beer bottle thing. (I love IBC myself, but can't get any root beer in Japan, alas.)

Perhaps I'll read it someday. I simply asked you what other rules some must obey to be what you feel is a true fundamentalist.

None. I have no list of rules for you. To be a Fundamentalist means fighting for the fundamentals, not a list of rules.

I think you can see by my system of thought that I am a fundamentalist. I just don't adhere to the traditions and commandments of men that have been added and distort what it truly is. I'll put it to you like this. I heard the Gospel and was saved in a fundamental Baptist church in the North East. It was a solid Bible preaching church. There was nothing said about versions from the pulpit, nothing said about public bathing, nothing said about pants on women, nothing about the sins of going to movies (although wickedness in movies was probably preached against) albeit we did have a few divisive persons who held to KJVO, pants, movies &c but they held no strong influence in the church. Once we moved to go to school, we came to the Bible belt and were introduced to the backwards fundies in these parts and all their rules, vitriol and divisiveness.

Good testimony. Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

Think we have 2 main camps of Fundamentalists in discussion here!

One group hold to essentials of the christian faith, practice seperation based upon doctrinal errors, but do that in a christ like fashion

another group does same, but also seperates based upon ONLY preferences/convictions, and are hotile and angry against those christians who dare to say intheir :wicked ways!"

I think you are right. In which case, the broad-brushing going on here displays ignorance of this historical development.

 

[John of Japan]

Oh John you have made a terrible mistake. You have had the gall to post something that is in opposition to a Calvinist on the BB. Therefore you must be destroyed. That is all there is too it.

My goose is cooked, then?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As far as I'm concerned, your goose is alive and well. It's out honking in the barnyard.

My goose is cooked, then?

 

[John of Japan]

As far as I'm concerned, your goose is alive and well. It's out honking in the barnyard.

It's a little nervous though, what with Thanksgiving soon and turkeys being hard to find in Japan.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Yes...

You are correct, Greg, about my reason for not posting much here anymore. This "Fundamental Baptist Forum" in particular, and the BB in general, is currently more hostile to Fundamentalism (and less understanding of what it is) than at any time since I joined (2005, I think). The "Fundamental Baptist Forum" is no longer a welcome place for us, but a place for bile against us.

Sad but invariably true Brother John...sad but true!:tear:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Wow!

John, I do understand.

I would be considered a "militant fundamentalist" and have been ridiculed by some concerning what I hold as doctrinally sound and as Scripturally principled.

Just as you, I have witnessed when legalism supersedes sound principle teaching. Such was most characteristic in some independent Baptist churches between the 60's and 90's. But, there were a majority that did not chase down that rabbit trail of shame.

Just as you, I have been dismayed at the temperament of some threads on the BB.

Just as you, I have contemplated if being a dinosaur to the "modernist driven fundamentalist" hasn't been shown as unprofitable.

True historic fundamentalists of the past stood against the evils of society and desired that folks remove themselves from the world and embrace a pure walk with Christ - avoiding even the appearance of evil.

Sure some were not to my liking.

Those from the Frank Norris background (Hyles is an example) and I would lock horns as quickly as any modernist. I long disputed "easy believism" type "soul winning."

In general, I sense that some on the BB don't care for principled churches. Churches that not only agree with the fundamentals of the Scriptures, but are urging a separation from worldliness to Godliness - who set a standard of conduct based upon what they consider Scriptural principle; that encourage true worship and shun much of the emotionalism; that God is not to be approached in some casual manner, but by a sincere heart of truth. Such churches are no longer being esteemed, but mocked, and resigned to the archaic - assigned as no longer relevant.

Some on the BB would ridicule historic fundamentalists, who certainly had feet of clay, and openly endorse participation in the "pleasures of this world" even bringing them into the assembly.

Some schooled writers have published derogatorily toward the men of the past, not considering the true heart of the person, not accounting for the cultural distinctions, and not giving credence that most did what they really considered right - despite societal/political pressures.

But, John, is there not a cause?

Does the Lord not call watchmen, such as you?

Watchmen, who show balance and call for a principled stand.

Watchmen, who are tenderhearted, who grieve over those who are religiously righteous, yet kiss the worldliness?

Watchmen, who get discouraged, run to the cave to find God already waiting for them, letting them know they are not alone?

Watchmen, who have not just seen and heard and learned, but are doing the work of the Lord?

I understand, John.

I don't know that we have met, but from your writings, and the heart exposed in your work, I sense "Grandpa" would be pleased both in your maturity in Christ and your grief in the work, for I perceived in him the same.

Oh aged one (lol)...I won't needlessly cloud what you said to John with anything more that a heartfelt AMEN!:applause:...particularly that last paragraph...that was wonderful Brother! My first Pastor after I got saved was one of John R's son-in-laws so I saw and heard much of Dr. Rice's ministry. I too believe he would (and is) pleased with his grandson's ministry!

Bro. Greg Perry Sr.:saint:

 

[preacher4truth]

So you reject history? I see I'm going to have to give some quotes to prove that this is not simply my own opinion. I did not invent the position that a Fundamentalist is one who not only believes the Fundamentals but actively defends them.

I've already stated belief in them and defending them. You purposely overlook that fact to continue to rant about nothing.

I stated:

You've erected a straw man John. Can you show me where I've ever stated that it is only believing in the fundamentals?

To which you responded:

Yes. Take a look at your post #26 in this thread, where you say, "A true fundamentalist is one who adheres to The Fundamentals...."

No, actually you're incorrect and overlooking other things to maintain this purposeful and deceitful opinion. You're putting words in my mouth and taking some away. I'm beginning to sense that old bitter IFB spirit in this back and forth with you as you misrepresent me intentionally. Nothing in what I've stated says it is only believing it. That said, put an end to misrepresenting me and what I've stated.

By the way, there is nothing different in what makes you a fundamentalist and what makes me one, unless you want to come right out and tell me what rules must be obeyed. Like, can a woman wear pants to church and be a fundamentalist or not?

And one more time, where's your hatred shown towards those who've acted in this thread in the same manner as the ones you've attacked for allegedly doing the same?

 

[DHK]

And one more time, where's your hatred shown towards those who've acted in this thread in the same manner as the ones you've attacked for allegedly doing the same?

That is so sad. And that is exactly what he has been talking about in this thread. But you don't get it do you?

 

[John of Japan]

I've already stated belief in them and defending them. You purposely overlook that fact to continue to rant about nothing.

Great. I believe you. (Never said I didn't believe what you were saying, I just didn't understand it.)

No, actually you're incorrect and overlooking other things to maintain this purposeful and deceitful opinion. You're putting words in my mouth and taking some away. I'm beginning to sense that old bitter IFB spirit in this back and forth with you as you misrepresent me intentionally. Nothing in what I've stated says it is only believing it. That said, put an end to misrepresenting me and what I've stated.

Sigh. I thought I was quoting you precisely. In fact, I used the quote feature the BB software has so I got you exactly right. Absolutely no deceit was intended, and I was not trying to put words in your mouth. And I certainly did not misrepresent you on purpose. Please forgive me for misrepresenting you.

I simply quoted what you said and drew what I thought was the obvious conclusion from it. You seemed to be saying that to be a Fundamentalist you simply had to believe the Fundamentals. Now you say that's not what you meant. Okay. I'll accept that. So we are apparently fairly close in what we believe a Fundamentalist is. So can we stop this now, the accusations that I am being deceitful, etc.?

Just to be clear, please show me where on the thread you said before this that to be a Fundamentalist one must fight for the fundamentals, because I haven't been able to find that. I don't want to misrepresent you again, so it would be nice to have a quote.

By the way, there is nothing different in what makes you a fundamentalist and what makes me one, unless you want to come right out and tell me what rules must be obeyed. Like, can a woman wear pants to church and be a fundamentalist or not?

??? I already said I had no rules for you to follow to be a Fundamentalist. So yes, of course a woman can wear pants to church and be a Fundamentalist. I don't know what else I can say to make my position clear. You can be a Fundamentalist and go to the movies. You can be a Fundamentalist and drink alcohol. You can be a Fundamentalist and listen to rock music. Anything else?

And one more time, where's your hatred shown towards those who've acted in this thread in the same manner as the ones you've attacked for allegedly doing the same?

I don't hate you, I don't hate those who have been vicious on this thread towards Fundamentalists, I don't hate anyone. To hate is to not follow Christ. But may I ask (without misrepresenting you) if your use of the word "allegedly" means that you believe what Michael said was okay to say?

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't hate you, I don't hate those who have been vicious on this thread towards Fundamentalists, I don't hate anyone. To hate is to not follow Christ.

Good, then we are clear and we won't hear the evangelical thing? :laugh:

By the way John, I never stated you hate a person, I'm simply noting that the same vicious behavior you've attacked you've also allowed to come from others in this same thread. Consistent disdain is what I was looking for, instead of this you actually egg on others who come in to stir the pot because of whose camp a person is in, and you won't touch the others who come in with the same vile nonsense.

 

[John of Japan]

Good, then we are clear and we won't hear the evangelical thing? :laugh:

By the way John, I never stated you hate a person, I'm simply noting that the same vicious behavior you've attacked you've also allowed to come from others in this same thread. Consistent disdain is what I was looking for, instead of this you actually egg on others who come in to stir the pot because of whose camp a person is in, and you won't touch the others who come in with the same vile nonsense.

Who did I egg on?

And my purpose on this thread was to oppose the vicious attack on my people. If you want to oppose a Fundamentalist on this thread, why do you ask me to do so? Why aren't you doing it yourself? I'm from Tennessee, where we handle our own problems. Whoever on this thread you think is hateful among independent Baptists is not my problem.

 

[preacher4truth]

Who did I egg on?

And my purpose on this thread was to oppose the vicious attack on my people. If you want to oppose a Fundamentalist on this thread, why do you ask me to do so? Why aren't you doing it yourself? I'm from Tennessee, where we handle our own problems.

Yeah, well I'm from Ohio where we call people on their hypocrisy. :thumbs:

Who said these were fundamentalists? All I am saying is that you're being inconsistent in your attack. IOW, you only have attacked those outside your camp while those perceived to be in your camp you've said no word about their behavior.

Hey, you're the one bringing up vile behavior and making it YOUR personal problem. Be consistent when you take these things on as your problem.

Now, if I wanted to take them on for their comments, I would. I just overlook that ignorance for the most part.

Whoever on this thread you think is hateful among independent Baptists is not my problem.

That's not your problem huh? Then why attack michael? That was your problem wasn't it? Yes, you took it personally.

By the way John, what michael mentioned is actually true, and luke supporting him is ok with me and I actually support his statement as well. They've called a spade a spade, and somehow that hit deep when you read it. You will go to no end to protect fundies and won't acknowledge michaels assessment as factual. That's somewhat deceitful behavior on your part. Many of us have seen this behavior among fundies, and it's well known. The culture of the IFB needs to change as there are too many of these tyrants in the pulpit.

 

[Salty]

...Correct. It isn't about legalistic issues, 'canned music', going to movies, 'public bathing', teetotalism, attire, Bible versions &c.

found this from a FB friend:
"When we miss the mark of a biblical balance, we tend to wander toward legalism or license... The stronger our critical attitudes are toward others, the greater distance our own attitudes may be from a balanced view." -- Eddie Rasnake

 

[John of Japan]

Yeah, well I'm from Ohio where we call people on their hypocrisy. :thumbs:

Who said these were fundamentalists? All I am saying is that you're being inconsistent in your attack. IOW, you only have attacked those outside your camp while those perceived to be in your camp you've said no word about their behavior.

Hey, you're the one bringing up vile behavior and making it YOUR personal problem. Be consistent when you take these things on as your problem.

Now, if I wanted to take them on for their comments, I would. I just overlook that ignorance for the most part.

That's not your problem huh? Then why attack michael? That was your problem wasn't it? Yes, you took it personally.

By the way John, what michael mentioned is actually true, and luke supporting him is ok with me and I actually support his statement as well. They've called a spade a spade, and somehow that hit deep when you read it. You will go to no end to protect fundies and won't acknowledge michaels assessment as factual. That's somewhat deceitful behavior on your part. Many of us have seen this behavior among fundies, and it's well known. The culture of the IFB needs to change as there are too many of these tyrants in the pulpit.

Since you feel that I am hypocritical and deceitful (not to mention your support of the idea that IFBs are evil and unsaved as per Michael), I can see that civil discourse is over here. Have a good one.