• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Well-meaning Theological Pervert

G

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
The two people I would love to see debate are Dr. Lorin Cranford and Dr. Paige Patterson.
Click to expand...
You mean like David versus Goliath?

Has your Dr. Cranford ever said anything publicly that we could link to on the internet and hear for ourselves? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know if there is anything on the internet that you could listen to. But he has been published and referenced in numerous articles. He is a professor at Gardner-Webb University.

About three years ago he wrote a NT Greek grammar.

The website for his classes is at http://www.cranfordville.com/GWUclass.htm

His resume is at http://www.cranfordville.com/Cranfordville/resumelc.htm

If you do a search under his name you will find more.
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Dr. Bob, Is your definition of a liberal anyone who is not a fundamentalist?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would say you're right on there, Michael. In the old days there would have been "evangelical" as kind of a "middle ground".

But now I am hard pressed to find someone who does not hold the basic fundamentals
</font>
  • Bible is inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God and only source of authority</font>
  • Virgin birth</font>
  • Sinless life</font>
  • Vicarious substitutionary atonement</font>
  • Bodily Resurrection</font>
  • Literal 2nd Coming in Glory for Kingdom</font>
as being anything OTHER than a "liberal". Or "moderate" as the SBC calls Liberals.

Where would the middle ground be on any of these fundamental issues? This was the 1895 reaction to "modernism" which denied or questioned every one of these salient doctrines.

Maybe if we use "fundamentalist" we should use the label "modernist" for those who are NOT fundamental in doctrine. Hmmm.
 
J

Jim1999

<img src =/Jim1999.jpg>
I think the term "fundamentalist" has different connotations than one who believes in the fundamentals of Christian theology as passed on down through the years.

In the great battle with modernism, we made no bones abot being a fundamentalist, but I would never wear that cloak to-day. I beg anyone to find where I deviate from the fundamentals.

Cheers,

Jim
 
J

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Dr. Bob, Is your definition of a liberal anyone who is not a fundamentalist?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would say you're right on there, Michael. In the old days there would have been "evangelical" as kind of a "middle ground".

But now I am hard pressed to find someone who does not hold the basic fundamentals
</font>
  • Bible is inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God and only source of authority</font>
  • Virgin birth</font>
  • Sinless life</font>
  • Vicarious substitutionary atonement</font>
  • Bodily Resurrection
  • </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed on all of the above.

    </font>[*]Literal 2nd Coming in Glory for Kingdom</font>
as being anything OTHER than a "liberal". Or "moderate" as the SBC calls Liberals.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with this one as I believe the Bible teaches the Preterist POV. I guess that would make me a liberal?

Where would the middle ground be on any of these fundamental issues? This was the 1895 reaction to "modernism" which denied or questioned every one of these salient doctrines.[/QUOTE]

There is no middle ground. Either the Bible teaches this or it doesn't.

Maybe if we use "fundamentalist" we should use the label "modernist" for those who are NOT fundamental in doctrine. Hmmm. [/QUOTE]

I wonder how you would label me.

Joseph Botwinick
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Jbot - I've always wondered about you anyway. Now what to call you. Hmmm.

Seriously, the "fundamental" that Jesus will return and set up His kingdom, probably had the most diversity back in 1895 when this was defined.

Was NOT pre-trib or pre-mil or post-mil. Nothing about a rapture or a milennial reign.

Some considered His return and kingdom to be the return and eternal heaven - nothing to do with the 1000 year kingdom.

So lots of diversity would still allow one to be a "fightin' fundie"!
 
J

Joseph_Botwinick

<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Jbot - I've always wondered about you anyway. Now what to call you. Hmmm.
Click to expand...
I am pretty much an open book. What have you always wondered about me?

So lots of diversity would still allow one to be a "fightin' fundie"! [/QUOTE]

I do find myself becoming more and more fundamentalist the more I study the Bible. Except, of course, for the rapture thing.

Joseph Botwinick
 
J

Jimmy C

New Member
Dr. Bob,

along with all of my friends, I would agree with everything you put on your list. Yet we are called moderates, and our theology is called worthless because we have strong disagreement with things have been done in the SBC over the last 12 years, and do not particularly care for the new creed, I mean Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

Any other segment in society would call me a fundy, except my own brothers - isnt that a shame!
 
G

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
I have been called a liberal by some. A moderate by others, and a fundamentalist by others. Once I was discussing this with a man I have known for a long time. He told me, "You are probably right where you should be."

I wonder what Jesus would have been called? Remember when he picked grain on the sabbath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top