Has the IFB went liberal?

[37818]

u7

1) How can Fundamental be derogatory?
I am proud to be considered a fundamentalist!

2) I would consider all KJO to be ultra fundamentalist!

So "37818" let me ask you - what is your definition of a fundamentalist?

In short a Bible believing Christian who holds the 5 fundaments of the Christain faith. And stands against modernism and worldlyness.

 

[37818]

Would you prefer the title "FUNDY"? And yes, at least it used to mean the King James was the only version that wasn't a perversion, and so these others were rejected in the English.

There is, in my view,nothbg wrong with being a Fundamenalist. One can be a fundamentalist and also be a KJVonlyist.

Labeling one a hyperfundamentlist or a fundy because one is a KJVonlyist can be taken and even be meant to be derogatory.

 

[The Parson]

There is, in my view,nothbg wrong with being a Fundamenalist. One can be a fundamentalist and also be a KJVonlyist.

Labeling one a hyperfundamentlist or a fundy because one is a KJVonlyist can be taken and even be meant to be derogatory.

Of course it's meant to be derogatory my friend. I'm not a "Fundamentalist". I'm a Missionary Baptist and believe that the King James is the only version from the original texts and is the only one I will use. Yet my particular sect hasn't really been attacked for our belief in this. I wonder why?

 

[Yeshua1]

u7
In short a Bible believing Christian who holds the 5 fundaments of the Christain faith. And stands against modernism and worldlyness.

And they practice separating from even other Christians who are "too worldly"

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course it's meant to be derogatory my friend. I'm not a "Fundamentalist". I'm a Missionary Baptist and believe that the King James is the only version from the original texts and is the only one I will use. Yet my particular sect hasn't really been attacked for our belief in this. I wonder why?

The main problems with KJVO is that it is not biblical, has no textual basis, and that it has been used to bring about division and case doubt upon word of God!

 

[Salty]

The main problems with KJVO is that it is not biblical, has no textual basis, and that it has been used to bring about division and case doubt upon word of God!

fully agree with you

But we do need to be careful not to confuse KJV-O, with those of us who are KJV C and/or T (choice or tradition)

 

[37818]

8

And they practice separating from even other Christians who are "too worldly"

Yes, some do, much in the same way a Baptist fellowship would not fellowship with a sect that would not practice believers immersion.

 

[The Parson]

The main problems with KJVO is that it is not biblical, has no textual basis, and that it has been used to bring about division and case doubt upon word of God!

Thou sayest it isn't Biblical. Yet as diverse as the translations are, what should we trust?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thou sayest it isn't Biblical. Yet as diverse as the translations are, what should we trust?

Kjv, Nkjv, nas, Esv all fine!

 

[37818]

08

Kjv, Nkjv, nas, Esv all fine!

Ah they do not have in all places in the NT the same word of God, John 1:18, John 6:47, Luke 4:4 and many other places too.

 

[Salty]

Thou sayest it isn't Biblical. Yet as diverse as the translations are, what should we trust?

Until someone can show me where Paul instructs us to use only the King James Version........

 

[Salty]

8
Yes, some do, much in the same way a Baptist fellowship would not fellowship with a sect that would not practice believers immersion.

Not only that, but many will not fellowship outside their fellowship (Well, some will, some wont)
for example - GARBC and BBF; SBC and Gen Baptists; Conservative Bap and Americian Bap.

 

[Yeshua1]

Until someone can show me where Paul instructs us to use only the King James Version........

You mean Jesus did not give him that memo?

 

[Yeshua1]

08
Ah they do not have in all places in the NT the same word of God, John 1:18, John 6:47,
NO major doctrines are changed regardless, correct?

 

[Rob_BW]

1) How can Fundamental be derogatory?
I am proud to be considered a fundamentalist!

2) I would consider all KJO to be ultra fundamentalist!

So "37818" let me ask you - what is your definition of a fundamentalist?

Why would you label a KJVOnlyist as ultra-fundamentalist when KJVOnlyism has nothing to do with the fundamentals?

 

[Salty]

Why would you label a KJVOnlyist as ultra-fundamentalist when KJVOnlyism has nothing to do with the fundamentals?

Because some do think it is a fundamental issue.

In fact I have seen where some even think you cannot be saved by using a MV

 

[Dr. Bob]

We HAVE a forum for discussing all the errors every other group has on Bible Translations. We do NOT need to continue it here.

Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. NOTHING is mentioned about which "translation" in which "language" is the inspired Word of God. One may be honestly called a fundamentalist (hold to the fundamentals AND earnestly contend/defend those truths) and use any number of translations of the Word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why would you label a KJVOnlyist as ultra-fundamentalist when KJVOnlyism has nothing to do with the fundamentals?

They only exist among that group!

 

[Yeshua1]

We HAVE a forum for discussing all the errors every other group has on Bible Translations. We do NOT need to continue it here.

Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. NOTHING is mentioned about which "translation" in which "language" is the inspired Word of God. One may be honestly called a fundamentalist (hold to the fundamentals AND earnestly contend/defend those truths) and use any number of translations of the Word of God.

Indeed, as there are many good translations that can be used!

 

[ezra2020]

Of course it's meant to be derogatory my friend. I'm not a "Fundamentalist". I'm a Missionary Baptist and believe that the King James is the only version from the original texts and is the only one I will use. Yet my particular sect hasn't really been attacked for our belief in this. I wonder why?

so curious i am not missionary nor ifb or southern baptist ..i am ordained into the gen baptist but i dont teach a baptist doctrine or any other denom .. why is there a dividing factor among missionary idf southern baptist. same doctrine / seems all 3 feel or it seems they are superior in doctrine.. btw i have attended all 3 in service . here is my point paul wrote
ephesians 4
I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all..

i fail to see the unity in baptist i find more division among if any thing . if your a minister of a different flavor .the Golden Rule thou shall not participate in services. other than singing and listening to the preacher .

there are Good ministers in all but your still different if not of that Group. would you allow say a asog TO PREACH ? no a general baptist that holds to the Bible ? NO where is the leading of the Holy Spirit at . do we not think that others could preach the same word? yes i believe in guarding the pulpit and cong from strange fire. . but i also believe in having a unction /discernment . i do not suggest open up to total strangers .. but i do suggest unity among the local congregations. have a shared service a few times in they year lie every 5th sunday night .
are we that indoctrinated ?