The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Sam, the someone else who started the thread is inclined to identify with fundamentalism and merely asked why he shouldn't. It does seem like you're bashing fundamentalists and fundamentalism in general, painting all with a rather broad brush -- even after Pastor John identified himself as a doctrinal fundamentalist. If others who identify themselves by those terms mean something different by them than you do, then what's the problem with allowing their definitions? After all, we're just talking about labels here, not Scripture or doctrine. Doesn't grace extend to such things?

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I believe in the fundamentals and in being evangelical.
However, some others think the fundamentals are different from what I think they are, and their idea of being evangelical can be different from mine.

As a chaplain in a hospital or to people I do not know I would not say I am a fundamentalist evangelist as there is different and negative connotation generally associated with that combination of labels by the general public and by many Christians.

I do understand that there is a technical sense that e.g Pastor John uses, but this is familiar to only a very specialised audience. In general, I would expect that Pastor John would ususally have to qualify his usage with an explanation of what he means.

This reminds me of the term 'environmentalist' which means 'anti-progressive tree-hugger' to some, and 'person with concern for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment' to others.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

Hi Cale,

You wrote:


That's tantamount to saying, "I'm right and no one can say otherwise".



Nitpicking, but Pastor John identified Dan Wallace as a "doctrinal fundamentalist". Some people think that the latter is interchangeable with "orthodoxy", but that term itself depends on the viewpoint. As far as the RC is concern, the Reformers are the heretics, the heterodox.



This allows people to excommunicate, disenfranchise, disallow fellowship, etc. If we say a view is within the ream of possibility, in view of other Scripture seeming to support, for example, Naphal's conclusion (to bring in a real life case), it allows humility to come into play in those judging.

The last link was a RETRACTION of a view supporting Piper and against Wright. I agreed. Later on I felt I was wrong. Dr Wallace may also have doubts about his former view. THAT is humility. We can all make mistakes. The highly qualified can make even more serious mistakes it seems! And it's not below anybody's dignity to admit it.

Here's a link to a bible.org forum moderator's blog:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... ss-of-god/

_________________
Sam

All Scripture references from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.

Sam,

Lets weed out all the distractions of articles which IMO does not apply to the topic at hand. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a person who agrees with a proper understanding of the work The Fundamentals and is therefore a "Fundamentalist" is, again in your opinion, equated with the Pharisees of the NT period.

Have you read the work itself? If not, how is it you can properly make this judgment?
If so, what in particular (either article or point) do you disagree with in this work?


You use this to argue against Gideon but, according to your posts, it seems to be your very own position. You have applied your judgment to what a "fundamentalist" is and, again IMO, misrepresent others who use the term in another context than that spoken of here.
It appears to me that you have applied a judgment without understanding the heart of the issue which is clear in the first post. The first post was not a complaint nor did the first post here seek any "fundamentlist" bashing. You have looked at extremists and defined a group by these extremists which is not in any way fair.
Once again, have you read the work itself?

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

Huh? I'm sorry, Sam, but your response to my comment doesn't appear to be in response to the comment you quoted. If it is, I can't see how it makes sense.

John did both (see here).

pastorjohn wrote:
That is why I call myself a conservative evangelical or a doctrinal fundamentalist.

I don't understand your response, Sam. As I noted before, we're talking about a man-made label (not Scripture or doctrine) and allowing others who identify themselves by that label to apply the historical meaning of the term to it and to themselves.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

_________________
Some say Jesus was not a pacifist...

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Matthew 26:52 (NIV)

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.
Galatians 5:14

Randy wrote:


The person who started the thread has not read the Fundamentals himself, but he assumes that he would agree with all the contents.

The idea I find objectionable is that he thinks they are set in stone. They aren't. They are not Scripture. They are “interpretations”. The word fundamental is synonymous with axiomatic, underived. Are the contents of any book except Scripture fundamental in that sense?



If the misapplication has been made it is by the thread starter.

See above.


The complaint is in the title(!) and it was:


IOW, why am I being criticised for claiming to be a Fundamentalist?



Common Sense Realists are ALL extremists. That is the point. A common sense realist will say that's what the Bible says, I believe it and that settles it. How can a person believe unless he understands? And how can he understand unless he is warned about the common mistakes a person can make in understanding and learns how to avoid them?

Gideon wrote:

A fundamental fact is an axiomatic fact. It cannot be denied!



I am wrong. I humbly apologise for my error! I may have been guilty also of assuming it was an undeniable fact! Mea culpa!



See above.

I will clarify any more points you both may object to. Please put them forward.

_________________
Sam

All Scripture references from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.

Earlier in one of your posts "Footwasher" you stated that "A fundamentalist condemns; an evangelical thinks." This is a vast overstatement and incorrect generalization. I personally as a fundamentalist use secular sources in my lessons and sermons, I read those of differing opinions and I dialogue with people of different faiths and denominations. To say that fundamentalists condemn rather than think is an incorrect statement. Where did you get your information on fundamentalism?

Have you studied the history of the fundamentalist movement??!!

You know, Sam, as the one that started this whole discussion, I have to jump in here. You are making assumptions that are not warranted based on anything I have written. Whiile The Fundamentals may not be written in stone, they are written on something, so what they say is a matter of record, which again I admit to never having read. However, you are sorely mistaken that I would equate them with Scripture. If I did, I would surely take the effort to read them. But, I doubted that, if I had read them, I would find much to disagree with. Maybe I would, I don't know.

I have criticized others for objecting to the use of labels because, to me, well-defined labels can shortcut a lot of words. But herein lies the problem. It seems to me that the word "Fundamental(ism/ist)" is not a well-defined word. And so in using that particular label, it may not shortcut the explanation, but rather it may misdirect the explanation.

In my original post I quoted Psychobobicus. Now, he and I have both been posting long enough on Bible.org that I know full well we are very close theologically. (He may beg to differ and is certainly free to do so). I was not complaining about anything. But rather wondering how people view that tag. As I stated in the original post:



I am certain that in the minds of some, I am a "fundamentalist." I also consider myself an evangelical. So I might well also be called a "fundamentalist-evangelical." But, I don't think it goes against Scripture to drink wine or beer, or to do many other things that you might identify with being a fundamentalist. Therefore, if you knew me, maybe you would say, "Hey, Jim, you're not what I think of as a fundamentalist when I use that label." (Then again, maybe not.)

Well, I really should go back to work, but I wanted to interject my thoughts after seeing your most recent post.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

Pastor John posted about doctrinal fundamentalism

Here is a critique of fundamentalism as a method of relating.. I have come across this. It is a memorable experience that makes other definitions pale.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

One self-proclaimed "Fundamentalist" that certainly is not close-minded and which I deeply respect and follow his writings is Kevin Bauder (President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary). He writes a weekly (or nearly weekly) paper ("In The Nick of Time") that has been helpful over the last couple of years for myself to read and better understand thoughtful Fundamentalists. While I would not agree with everything he says, yet no one could accuse him of being "unthoughtful" (which was really a quaint manner of an over-simplified categorization by Dan Wallace in the article cited earlier. I think he would likely agree there are numerous "thinking" fundamentalists...and was being exaggerative in his article IMO). He actually wrote a 24 part series on the issue of being a Fundamentalist, its history and the distinction from Evangelicals. I found it quite helpful.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

John Chaplin posted:


I understand that you are not aiming this at me or other folk on this thread, but yet this caricature of fundamentalism is much more negative than real-life fundamentalism. I can think of a few people like that - even perhaps a church or two, but most fundamentalists will pull your ox out of the ditch. They will also make sure that you get fed and will watch your children if you are sick. I know this because my Mom's Dad and Uncle were 2 of the founders of the GARBC. (Harry and Robert Ketchum)

Now there were some fumdamentalists who would not have approved of us and I thought they were extreme - Bob Jones comes to mind. John R Rice was sometimes helpful and other times way too rigid, but I have watched the cultural baggage slowly fall away from many fundamentalist churches. At one time my use of the NIV eliminated me from consideration at many SBC churches, but the leader of the Southern Baptists churches in Indiana now regularyly used the Homan Christian Standard.

My wife thinks I am done - so I better go - I am sure that she is cuter than any of you guys.

pastorjohn

_________________
"The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Gal 5:6b

Pastor John C. Blackburn

It's a description rather than a caricature.

There have been some inappropriate chaplains who have told sick people that they are going to hell. Those chaplains have not been welcome back. They confuse people's rejection of them with rejection of God.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

In my teens in the UK the term evangelical was used of independent evangelical churches which had no other denominational name such as Baptist, which were also evangelical.

In Australia the term conservative evangelical is used mainly to distinguish some 'low' Anglicans from High Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics.
The Uniting church of Australia is also broadly evangelical, with a strong concern for social justice.

Fundamentalist is a further adjective used to describe an extreme in denominations.

A quick search of Australian websites brought up this (admittedly old) article Gov'ts Need Christians to Tackle Religious Fundamentalism, Says Evangelical Head.

There are secular fundamentalists. Richard Dawkins has been characterised as a fundamentalist evangelical atheist.

You may wear the label of fundamentalist proudly, but you should be aware of the connotation that most people associate with it, as you may well be telegraphing a different concept from the one you have in mind.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

This is a problem with the person and not the principles. Once again you are judging a group by a few radical individuals.

IMO this is why we are even having this conversation. A radical group of folks have co-opted a set of good principles and removed those principles (The Fundamentals - the book) from consideration. Already we have folks accusing people of equating this inter-denominational collection of writings as "inerrent" and comparing folk who agree with this work as "Pharisees" without stepping back and viewing the forest for the trees.

I oppose the KJV-only group as much as anyone but do not equate them with fundamentalists because their very KJVO position is opposed to the concepts within that work. Many of the more radical Fundy's I greatly oppose because they are indeed quite pharisaical. But I oppose quite a few charismatics for the same reason...and I don't equate all charismatics with those few as "Pharisees".

However, at the very moment you judge a person, who agrees with the work noted HERE, as a "Pharisee" or "fundamentalist" (meaning all of the negative baggage) without ever reading or considering the arguments of that particular book then it is you who are being Pharisaical and not the individual you are judging.

I do sidestep the label "Fundamentalist" because of the negativie connotations. But many of you have accepted those negative viewpoints without truly understanding the position and the truth of the position and its adherants. You judge a whole by a very small, yet quite loud, part and yet get upset when others imply that you are being judgmental of something of which you are quite obviously ignorant. I have some quite zealous Baptist bretheren out there who, frankly, embarrass me. We all have some very zealous Christian bretheren out there who are very embarrassing. Some overly conservative and some overly liberal in their positions.

Theologically speaking, I agree with the principles of the written work The Fundamentals by R.A. Torrey . As far as labels are concerned I do not want to carry the label "fundamentalist" because of the skewed message of some of my overly zealous bretheren.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online