All about Grace
New Member
We are definitely being exposed to the type of fundamentalist Lace is. He is the type that was part of the terminology hijack 
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!
BBB, I don't think anyone thinks you are part of a cult because of using the KJV. It is KJVO (huge difference) that is the cult.Originally posted by Baptist Bible Believer:
As I posted earlier, I am NOT ashamed to be identified as a Fundamentalist - and now apparently a cultist because I use the King James Version. Thanks, Dr. Bob.
I, too, prefer the KJV1769 revision for all my memorizing. And only use my old Scofield when teaching as it is "an old shoe" and "comfortable" for use!Originally posted by Baptist Bible Believer:
I should say that I "prefer" the KJV (been memorizing it for years) - I don't have a problem with the A.S.V. - so I guess I'm not a cultist.
I'm sorry, it seemed as if You attacked me without provocation. This appears to be rather like sport to me.Originally posted by Lace:
Wisdom Seeker
None of this has been done for sport
I do not go off half cocked
If I am wrong I ask forgiveness.....but it seems you have resented my stand against the liberal slant on this board...and had a snitty attitude since discovering I was not amused by ear tickling.
sharpen your Sword....because I use mine.
Amen, Sister Laurenda!Originally posted by Wisdom Seeker:
I use my Bible every day. It doesn't need me to sharpen it.
Murph told me once to not let people run me off because they are more aggresive than I am. So I have to stand my ground, try to provide some sort of response to defend myself with, when my instinct is to cry into my pillow. So, I'm here for the duration.
I am sorry. Want to start over and attack the heathens instead of each other? You are a worthy opponent, but seeing as we are on the same side...this just seems foolish and a complete waste of energy. Besides I can't argue without crying. That's why I didn't become a lawyer, and went into teaching instead.![]()
In Christ,
Laurenda
Amen, Sister Lace -- Preach it!Originally posted by Lace:
My definition of a fundamentalist is one who:
accepts God at His Word...and God's Word as the final authority.
Does not try to mold God's Word to fit his life but allows God to break and mold his life into the likeness of Jesus Christ and a useful vessel for service unto God.
is convicted of his sin unto repentance and is gradually regenerated from the sinful state God found him into the likeness of Jesus.
places their hope in this life and for eternity in nothing less and nothing more than Jesus Christ's cleansing blood.
is saved by grace.....and wants a lost and dying world to know Jesus Christ is their only hope to escape the damnation of hell and to have everlasting life in heaven.
doesn't believe it takes trendy tactics to attract the lost sinner to the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Jesus is eternal.....trends change with the tide.
I am saved by grace and fundamentalist by conviction. I thank God for not giving up on me and give Him the glory for all that I am and all I ever will be.
I do not think you are correct. When Dr. Bob mentioned the first Niagra Convention (1895) yesterday, I immediately did an internet search and pulled up the 14 fundamentals of the first Niagra Convention. I believe I can wholeheartedly affirm all 14 points without any qualms, but I would not be able to affirm a 6 literal day creation view as a "fundamental" of the faith.Originally posted by HankD:
I'm wondering if the following has ever come up in the Fundamental Baptist Forum and I hope it doesn't start a firestorm but do any others want to see the "6 day creation" teaching added to the previous list given...
I realize that this list was part of the essentials given at the 1895 Niagra Bible Convention (I believe).
I agree with qualification, and I'm just following the thought of the purpose of this thread :I don't think it is something to break fellowship over.
You are correct, as I remember they didn't include it and I thought I had acknowleged that and asked if 6 day creationism should have been added.I do not think you are correct. When Dr. Bob mentioned the first Niagra Convention (1895) yesterday, I immediately did an internet search and pulled up the 14 fundamentals of the first Niagra Convention. I believe I can wholeheartedly affirm all 14 points without any qualms, but I would not be able to affirm a 6 literal day creation view as a "fundamental" of the faith.
Oops!Originally posted by HankD:
You are correct, as I remember they didn't include it and I thought I had acknowleged that and asked if 6 day creationism should have been added.
Those who do not hold to a literal six-day creation do not necessarily hold to a theory of evolution (theistic or otherwise). That’s one of the traditional problems in this long-running debate: preachers and religious leaders have oversimplified the issue to the point where you’re either a six-day creationist or an evolutionist.Originally posted by HankD:
To me a literal view of creation is essential because in the final analysis, evolution (even theistic/deistic) strikes at another essential Christian doctrine…
While I personally hold to the view that Adam was a historical person, it is almost as easy to understand Adam (literally “man”) as a type of humanity for the purposes of theological teaching.If folks want to limit the "death" in Romans 5:12 (even though I believe them to be wrong) to humanity as beginning with a real person called Adam, I can handle it (for what its worth) as long as these folks can say that Adam is/was a real person as Paul does in the infallible and inspired Scripture. Otherwise, they must of necessity make Adam an allegory or a figurative representative of this product of "evolution" be it theistic deistic secularistic or whatever. I would then have a problem with fellowshipping (again, for whatever that's worth to anyone) because it undermines the authority of Scripture concerning the reality of the literal person named Adam, his sin and consequential death upon him and his race.
I see you picked up my word.To those who believe this might be "malicious":
This is not malicious on my part, just a statement of personal fact. If you see it as malicious, so be it, that is your right. It is not out of maliciousness but conviction on my part.