Repost: Questions for Fundamentalists (Civil Discussion ONLY)

.

I believe that, too, tcassidy. You do not believe the crud I am condemning.

I tried to be very clear in this OP by indicating that all fundamentalists do NOT believe this stuff. I thne called on them to join with the rest of us in condemning this thinking.

I think that not only is this the RIGHT thing to do befor God, but that it is good for these people who believe these things too. They need to be turned around.

I am familiar with this information. These mythical baptists that you obviously do not believe in that others do believe in are supposed to have never been "catholic".

While Athanasias was drawing up the treatise on the Trinity, these mythical baptists were baptizing believers only and were totally separate from Athanasias.

These baptist people who believe this mess often say, "We didn't come from no whore (the catholic church)"

Agreed. They are called ecumenical creeds and are most valuable above all creeds because they came into existence when the true church was ONE church before the major corruption of Romanism crept in and before she split into numerous major factions.

But even after these days- even after major corruption crept in the TRUE CHURCH was located, at least primarily, within the ranks of the Catholic Church.

I have illustrated it this way. The Episcopalians are ordaining homosexuals. That may or may not mean they have gone fully apostate. I tend to think it is a very bad sign for them. HOWEVER- there are undoubtedly (I know one of them) thousands of Episcopalians who vehemently oppose this move. Many of them are not where I'd be on these matters and many others but they stay in in hopes to be able to reform the straying movement from within. I hope they can.

These people are part of the TRUE CHURCH.

That was the case with the TRUE CHURCH during the centuries of Roman corruption. MAny of these are not where MOST of us on bb would be on many things. But they were the TRUE CHURCH. And many of them were willing to stay in for various reasons. Some for fear of their lives, no doubt. Others in hopes to reform the Church from within. But they were the TRUE CHURCH held hostage by Romanism.

That's where we came from, tcassidy. Not this mythical line of baptists that were never part of the catholic church.

Montanus was condemned as a heretic. Montanus believed God spoke to him and promoted wild worship much like that which we find in Pentecostalism today.

I do not doubt that you have great respect for history. You simply ar not one of the people who have the thinking I condemn.

I appreciate your response but you are under a mistaken impression that I am condemning ALL fundamentalists. I am not. I am a fundamentalist. I am calling on all thoughtful fundamentalists like yourself to differentiate themselves from these people who hijack the title "fundamentalist" whon have all kinds of DEADLY ideals and philosophies.

.

Agreed. I did not change horses. You just THOUGHT I started riding a different horse and I did not. I hope now you understand.

I simply do not accuse YOU of anything.

I think it is apparent that you do not promote this backwards thinking that I condemn as wickedness.

I do hope that you will condemn the thinking that is KILLING the name "fundamentalist" and is terribly divisive in Body of Christ, gives the Church of Christ a bad name in our society, ostracizes believers, slows the progress of the Kingdom, etc...

.

I wish I could see it- even on here would be wonderful.

I think the issue is that not enough people see this thinking as it really is- as I see it- as WICKEDNESS.

I think too many see it as harmless- but it is NOT.

They are not a FRINGE, T. They may be in your world. They are in John of Japan's world. I am glad for you guys.

But they are MAIN STREAM in MANY of our worlds.

On baptistboard ALONE there are about a dozen people who regularly testify that it is the MAINSTREAM in the fundamentalism their worlds.

It is the testimonies of SEVERAL of us on bb that we're basically SHOCKED that there are people like you who are oblivious to broadness of this kind of thinking within the ranks of fundamentalism.

I mean this respectfully but it's almost as if some of you guys think that just because it is not rampant in your worlds- that it MUST of necessity be FRINGE. That is not proper thinking.

Some of you guys say you've been to hundreds of these churches and seen very little of it. I believe you. But several more of us say we've been to hundreds of these churches and seen it in MOST of them.

It is not fringe. It simply is not.

 

TCassidy said:

I don't believe in an unbroken line of baptist churches. I do believe in an unbroken line of "the faith once delivered to the saints." That faith was often to be found in the dissenting churches that were anathamatized by Rome.

I believe the same - I never once said that the BAPTIST church went that far back. What I did say was that the N.T. church is what we based our Baptist distinctives on, and some form of the N.T. church was always around, totally apart from the catholic heresy. It might have had to go underground to survive, since so many true Christians were fed to the lions or burned at the stake because they wouldn't acknowledge the pope
as the head of the church (Jesus is the head of the church) and they wouldn't baptize their babies.

I do not believe that the distinctives came out of Luther's dissent, or anyone else's PROTEST.

Baptist roots are not Protestant. And this belief in a certain pattern of history is not wickedness of any type.
There are many many God-fearing upstanding theologians who believe just as I do. To accuse someone of wickedness
because they choose to believe differently on a purely historical fact is ridiculous.

 

Until you do a comprehensive and quantitative study of IFB churches you cannot state this as a fact. I am IFB and the kind of craziness you apply to the IFB in general is, from my experience, symptomatic of a fringe group of the IFB churches in general.

When you, or someone else has studied them all and can come up with verifiable numbers you can make your statement. Until then it is, like mine, an opinion based on anecdotal evidence.

 

Then my opinion is as valid as yours since you have not done this research yourself nor have you found anyone who has.

Therefore, my claim that it is not fringe is AT THE VERY LEAST as valid as yours that it is fringe.

And if I cannot say that it is NOT fringe then by the EXACT SAME TOKEN you cannot say that it is.

Yet you post that it is your experience that it is fringe.

So be consistent.

If I can't say that it is the experience of numeorus BAPTISTBOARD members who've been exposed to MANY IFB churches that this thinking is NOT fringe-

then NEITHER can you say that it is.

I'll stop when you do.

But frankly, the idea that you cannot post that hundreds of churches think this way in IFB based on your OWN PERSONAL experience and the experience of numerous other people INCLUDING bb members seems totally illogical to me.


It is clear that it is NOT fringe based on numeorus testimonies here on baptistboard ALONE.

That's not to mention things like mess that is preached and shouted down at MAJOR IFB CONFERENCES LIKE THE SWORD, and all other kinds of evidence that ought to be compelling to objective thinkers.

You may argue that it is probably not a MAJORITY; but I think it is silly, in light of all the testimony and evidence to the contrary, to pretend that it is a fringe.

Most of us on bb KNOW BETTER.

 

Since no one has done that, I don't see the point of this post.

Please try to argue what I ACTUALLY say. This would be SUCH a blessing to me.

 

What gives you the authority to "call" on anybody outside of your congregation? Do you have delusions of being a great reformer like Calvin or Luther?

I have a verse for you

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

I am not questioning your salvation at all. I do believe you love the Lord and that you are sincere in your beliefs and even your crusade against IFB.

What I am questioning is if you have the maturity to pastor a church. I am also questioning your right to condemn others for practices you disagree with.

I also disagree with the legalism and tyranny in some IFB churches, but they still teach a solid doctrine of the Gospel. Their practices may be wacky but it doesn't make them heretic.

If they want to use the KJV only, then let them, at least they are teaching from the Word of God. You say that KJVO is a false doctrine. Please show me where in the Bible it says that. In fact, it is not a doctrine at all since it does not change the Word of the Gospel one bit.

Yes Luke, I believe you are a novice, and I think you should back down before you embarrass yourself further.

You are never going to be Calvin or Luther no matter how much you daydream about it.

John

 

I agree.

I have never claimed anyhting more for my point of view. I admit it is an opionion based on personal observation in hundreds of churches.

As long as you ackonwledge that your opinion is nothing more than that we agree.

 

God always had those whom were saved by his Grace, the elect, in all of the differenent traditions/branches/denominations etc of the Universal Church since pentacost forward!

 

I'm not a novice.

I believed almost EXACTLY like you when I was a novice.

That's why I come against it so hard.

People like what it seems to me you are- I could be wrong- are what produce people like I used to be.

These people need to be confronted and their thinking needs to be obliterated.

I believe they are more dangerous than JW's in this culture.

And I believe the same flawed, arrogant, irreverent hermeneutic that gave rise to JW's and Mormons and Jim Jones is what gave rise to this thinking that is rampant in "fundamentalist" circles.

The only thing that keeps many IFB from being cults is their closeness to the Historic Christian Faith though they deny it. But the further they get from an appreciation for this, the more cultic they become. Many, imo, are already FULLY cults.

But it is ACTUALLY the fact that many are not cults yet that makes them so dangerous. They are legitimized and defended because they are not yet cults.

That is what we see here on baptistboard.

If they would abandon the orthodoxy that they got FROM THE HISTORIC CHRISTIAN FAITH and try to establish their own- which only makes sense since they deny any link to the HISTORIC CHRISTIAN FAITH (not all I know)- then they'd not be so vigorously defended and embraced by Christians on bb.

But they embrace just enough of it to keep Christians from ostracizing them. They embrace it, though, while spitting on it.

 

You seriously need to seek out some good professional help.

Though i doubt you could accept any counseling without "obliterating" the thinking of the counselor.

John

 

As an ex-IFB, I believe IFB doctrine to be more ideological than theological. The self-proclaimed fundamentalists of all religious groups have certain commonalities.

1. The believe that they alone are the true followers of their religion with exclusive roots to the foundation of their faith.

2. All other factions/denominations are openly condemned as being inferior & less spiritual.

3. Leaders are believed to have attained a higher level of understanding & spiritual awareness than the common laypersons which results in their every word & doctrine being accepted without question.

4. Their is an undue focus on an earthly church/kingdom/religion.

5. Any nonconformity to the group's set of standards is not tolerated.

6. A separatist mentality of the leadership which pits the group against the rest of the world.

 

You are describing Luke2427 to a tee.

Every one of these is a depiction of Luke, I am not trying to be funny here nor trying to inflame him, but this is him!!!

John

 

Another unwarranted claim.

You constantly hurl accusations like this without substantiation.

Do you know what argumentation is?

You do realize that your comments are totally meaningless if you cannot substantiate them, right?

 

This is the experience of most of us on bb whove had any dealings with the IFB.

It is unfortunate that some pretend that this thinking is fringe when testimony after testimony after testimony comes forward to prove the opposite.

 

The scary thing is he is a youth pastor.

 

Has anyone ever actually discussed the different "camps" within IFB? i.e., Hyles, with its OBC and other offshoots; vice BBF; vice the west coast and beyond areas; etc.?

Tom, I've known you (through this board, and possibly another) for a long time; you never cease to amaze me with your even-handedness, even when you and I disagree (as we recently did down in the "News" section).