So what is a fundamentalist?

[danthebaptist]

Ok,
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm new here to this computer business. I've posted a few days on the Genral Baptist forum only to be lambasted by liberals. Of course, I realize liberal and conservative are terms. The most liberal Baptist may seem conservative to an Episcopalian or an ELCA Lutheran.

I will admit to being old fashioned and trying to hold to how things were. Making that statement some judgmental people accused me of being anti-airconditioning and going on and on about how can air conditioning be a sin. I never said it was, just that I feel I can't afford to waste money on it for the few days a year it is uncomfortable. The same reason we don't have it at church. We decided if we had that kind of money, it would be better spent helping a church in Russia get a furnace.

Back now to the question and I'm hoping to find a few more like minded brethren here.

I consider myself a conservative and a fundamentalist. I'm sure there are some who might think I'm liberal and plenty of liberals who would call me an old time crazy nut.

I would just like to know what people's opinions are without bashing eachother over the head. :tonofbricks:

I feel the word fundamentalist gets a bad rap because of the "fundamentalist muslims" and so people feel that fundamentalist is bad or eccentric. I have always held that to be a fundamentalist means to believe what the Bible says, that the Bible is literally true, and that we try to live by the word. That the most superior translation of the scripture in English is the Authorized Version.

So what think ye?

Dan

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ok,
That the most superior translation of the scripture in English is the Authorized Version.

So what think ye?

Dan

Fundamentalists are defined by the fundamentals of the word of God. You will have a hard time finding this fundamental in Scripture.

 

[Rippon]

Fundamentalists are defined by the fundamentals of the word of God. You will have a hard time finding this fundamental in Scripture.

Right you are ! Dan , your view here defines Fundamentalists too narrowly . You would leave out many Fundamentalists in the first half of the 20th century who did not use the KJB as their primary translation .

 

[Jim1999]

Labels are often given by the opponent, and not claimed by the user. We were called fundamentalists by our more liberal brethren in the 40's and 50's. We accepted the label and got on with preaching the word. It had nothing to do with which version of scripture we used. It had to do with the deity of Christ, His virgin birth and the veracity of scripture.

After the avent of neo orthodoxy, these labels took on new meaning, and fundamentalists withdrew from fellowship with some churches, believing that the truth was being compromised, and this led into the translation controversies.

I believe in the fundamentals of scripture, but have a liberal application. At the school where I lectured, I was called a fundamentalist by the liberal professors, and a liberal, by association, by my fundamentalist brethren.

So much for labels. They work great on drug bottles, food containers and clothing, but have never been of much use in church circles.

What think ye of the Christ, and whose Son is He? A more valid test of fellowship than any label.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Karen]

Hi, dantheBaptist,
Please note that I was not accusing you of being anti-airconditioning.

What I said was that many people who hold to some of your viewpoints are not as literal on verses about men as on verses about women. That I have a book somewhere that an old-time Baptist preacher wrote, in which HE said it was a sin for men to have air-conditioning since Genesis says they should labor by the sweat of their brow. While I think he misapplied the text, I think he was self-consistent. Many are not. Maybe you are, maybe you are not.
And having air-conditioning would not necessarily mean you were inconsistent.

The broader point, once again, is that many men worry less about verses addressed to them than addressed to women.

 

[StefanM]

That the most superior translation of the scripture in English is the Authorized Version.

That's really more a distinguishing characteristic for IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist) circles than for "fundamentalism."

I personally prefer the term evangelical (NOTE: REAL evangelical, not pseudo-evangelical like the ELCA) because the term "fundamentalism" has changed in meaning over time. What used to mean a stance for things like sola scriptura, the virgin birth, and the inerrancy of scripture has been transformed into a KJV-only, no pants on women, no contemporary music stance.

 

[danthebaptist]

While I hold that the KJV is superior, when asked by someone "which version should I have?" My reply has been: "The one you will read"

I feel the KJV is the most accurate English translation, yet having worked with Native American people, I have also realized an "easier to read" version was of more value to them. We shouldn't have to teach people to read and understand Elizabethan English as a prerequisite.

I would agree our terms or how we "pigeon hole" people depends on which yard you are standing in yourself.

As far as evangelical as a term, I would suppose that too means diffn't things according to which yard you all are standing in. Like was pointed out, I wouldn't consider the ELCA to be evangelical but they would argue with that. In fact, I have a friend who is a very "evangelical" Catholic. I believe he is wrong, and I believe that everyone is entitled to be wrong if they want to. As an "Evangelical" Baptist I would love to see him come to the truth, and of course from his viewpoint he no doubt wishes the same of me. raying:

I would say, that I've found a number of ABC, BGC, and NAB people who consider themselves to be evangelical and I would definately say they are not fundamentalists and they would agree thereto.

I know fundamentalist like the name Baptist was tacked on our people by our enemies, but I would wear either label without fuss and as I stated over at the other site that considers me an antiairconditioning Baptist that I take the name old fashioned as a compliment.

Hey, maybe I could start a new conference. The Old Time Anti-airconditioning Baptist Church. :smilewinkgrin:

But then I guess we would no longer be Independent would we?

 

[skypair]

At the school where I lectured, I was called a fundamentalist by the liberal professors, and a liberal, by association, by my fundamentalist brethren.

Bless you, jim. You didn't end up schizo or paranoid, did you? :laugh:

Glad you're here now. :godisgood:

skypair

 

[tinytim]

Labels are often given by the opponent, and not claimed by the user. We were called fundamentalists by our more liberal brethren in the 40's and 50's. We accepted the label and got on with preaching the word. It had nothing to do with which version of scripture we used. It had to do with the deity of Christ, His virgin birth and the veracity of scripture.

After the avent of neo orthodoxy, these labels took on new meaning, and fundamentalists withdrew from fellowship with some churches, believing that the truth was being compromised, and this led into the translation controversies.

I believe in the fundamentals of scripture, but have a liberal application. At the school where I lectured, I was called a fundamentalist by the liberal professors, and a liberal, by association, by my fundamentalist brethren.

So much for labels. They work great on drug bottles, food containers and clothing, but have never been of much use in church circles.

What think ye of the Christ, and whose Son is He? A more valid test of fellowship than any label.

Cheers,

Jim

YOU liberalmendalist!!!

Or is is funlibber...

Or funderal.... no that has the ring of death to it....

uh...

libalist....

YOu decide.:saint:

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Dan: I am an IFB in a very traditional church and we use the KJV.

I know you would call me a liberal because I do not have long hair, but I am very conservative and I don't believe that term has anything to do with hair length.

 

[John of Japan]

Ok,
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm new here to this computer business. I've posted a few days on the Genral Baptist forum only to be lambasted by liberals. Of course, I realize liberal and conservative are terms. The most liberal Baptist may seem conservative to an Episcopalian or an ELCA Lutheran.

I will admit to being old fashioned and trying to hold to how things were. Making that statement some judgmental people accused me of being anti-airconditioning and going on and on about how can air conditioning be a sin. I never said it was, just that I feel I can't afford to waste money on it for the few days a year it is uncomfortable. The same reason we don't have it at church. We decided if we had that kind of money, it would be better spent helping a church in Russia get a furnace.

Back now to the question and I'm hoping to find a few more like minded brethren here.

I consider myself a conservative and a fundamentalist. I'm sure there are some who might think I'm liberal and plenty of liberals who would call me an old time crazy nut.

I would just like to know what people's opinions are without bashing eachother over the head. :tonofbricks:

I feel the word fundamentalist gets a bad rap because of the "fundamentalist muslims" and so people feel that fundamentalist is bad or eccentric. I have always held that to be a fundamentalist means to believe what the Bible says, that the Bible is literally true, and that we try to live by the word. That the most superior translation of the scripture in English is the Authorized Version.

So what think ye?

Dan

As one who grew up in a prominent Fundamentalist family, has attended three Fundamentalist schools, and preached in many Fundamental churches (not all IFB) as a missionary on deputation and furlough, here is my definition:

A true, historical, Biblical Fundamentalist is one who believes the Fundamentals of the faith, and is willing to take a stand for them against apostasy and compromise. It is not enough to simply believe the Fundamentals without taking a stand, since by definition evangelicals do so. However, leading evangelicals such as Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry and Francis Schaeffer have all openly rejected the term.

Some disagreements occur when people have different lists of the Fundamentals. The usual list looks something like: the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, the deity, virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace through faith alone. Usually the second coming of Christ is added, and sometimes something like "creation of the universe by a direct act of God. Nowadays some IFBs add the preservation the KJV, but that did not start being added until probably the late 1970's--I never saw it in any list until probably our furlough of 1986. :type:

 

[abcgrad94]

Dan: I am an IFB in a very traditional church and we use the KJV.

I know you would call me a liberal because I do not have long hair, but I am very conservative and I don't believe that term has anything to do with hair length.

Same here. Fundamentalism is not about a bunch of man made rules!

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

The usual list looks something like: the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, the deity, virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace through faith alone. Usually the second coming of Christ is added, and sometimes something like "creation of the universe by a direct act of God.

That would be me. No place in our SOF does it say that we cannot wear make-up or have short hair.

 

[John of Japan]

That would be me. No place in our SOF does it say that we cannot wear make-up or have short hair.

Very seldom does a SOF include these issues, which come under the term personal separation. The great majority of fundamentalists hold to some form of personal separation, but it is not a fundamental doctrine. For that matter, down through the years evangelicals have often held to a strict form of personal separation. The China Inland Mission was extremely strict. (My parents went to their boot camp in the 1940's. Whew!! :BangHead: )

Another thing that is not a fundamental, but very important to Fundamentalists is personal evangelism, or soul-winning as most would have it. :type:

 

[bapmom]

Am I missing something? In this thread DantheBaptist has not brought up women's hair length nor make-up.....

We each fit in a different place on the spectrum - someone to the "left" of me would call me a KJV-readin', long-haired, non-pants-wearing wacko "fundamentalist" freak lady (lol, ok, maybe not that extreme), but someone to the farther "right" might call me liberal because I wear make-up and jewelry and fellowship freely with those who have different standards than I have.

Like you said, it's all relative to where we stand ourself. Maybe God has His own reasons for having convicted some people of one thing and not another, and then leading someone else down that other road.

Or maybe you're all wrong and I'm right. Just kidding! lol
:laugh::wavey::godisgood:

 

[tinytim]

KJV-readin', long-haired, non-pants-wearing wacko "fundamentalist" freak lady

YOU weirdo!!! :laugh:


OUCH,,,

NOW why do you have to throw bricks...:tonofbricks:



Dollar bills would work!:wavey:

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Hi bapmom! :wavey:

This is a spin-off of another thread that Dan started in which he condemned short hair on women and women wearing make-up. That's why I threw that in there.

Our church is separated, but not to that point. The Bible says that nature itself teaches us it is wrong for men to have long hair.

I believe this speaks of the natural hairline in the back. I don't know what else it could refer to.

IMO, it means the men should not have hair longer than that and the women should not have hair shorter than that.

I'm ducking now...bring on the :tonofbricks:

 

[bapmom]

YOU weirdo!!! :laugh:


OUCH,,,

NOW why do you have to throw bricks...:tonofbricks:



Dollar bills would work!:wavey:

heehee! Ain't it fun?

 

[bapmom]

Hi bapmom! :wavey:

This is a spin-off of another thread that Dan started in which he condemned short hair on women and women wearing make-up. That's why I threw that in there.

Our church is separated, but not to that point. The Bible says that nature itself teaches us it is wrong for men to have long hair.

I believe this speaks of the natural hairline in the back. I don't know what else it could refer to.

IMO, it means the men should not have hair longer than that and the women should not have hair shorter than that.

I'm ducking now...bring on the :tonofbricks:

I'm with ya sister. :thumbs:

Actually I did a little more tooling around on here today and saw he's been stirring up quite a few places, so now I understand a little better.

 

[John of Japan]

YOU weirdo!!! :laugh:


OUCH,,,

NOW why do you have to throw bricks...:tonofbricks:



Dollar bills would work!:wavey:

Hey, throw the dollar bills back in bapmom's direction. She's an official deputation missionary now! :thumbs: