20 Reasons I Don’t Take Potshots at Fundamentalists

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Revmitchell, Jun 2, 2016.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    789
    1. They are humble and respectful and courteous, and even funny (at least the ones I’ve met).

    2. They believe in truth.

    3. They believe that truth really matters.

    4. They believe that the Bible is true — all of it.

    5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.

    6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.

    7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).

    8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.

    9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.

    10. Their “social action” is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn’t usually get written up in the newspaper.

    11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don’t have any better track record than non-Christians.

    12. They resist trendiness.

    13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.

    14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.

    15. They still sing hymns.

    16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.

    17. They give some contemporary plausibility to the New Testament claim that the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

    18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.

    19. My dad was one.

    20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    The next time I feel like taking a potshot at someone that I disagree with I think I might make a list of why I shouldn't - many of the reasons will parallel this list.

    Rob
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Revmitchell
    Some are...some are quite uptight and ridgid.

    Any believer claims to believe in truth. What can be said is some do. With others this turns into a subjective thing.
    ok....sort of.
    They say that, but if they explain away parts of it is that claim still true?

    Sure...but the fact that every other sermon harps on this to a point where legalistic standards replace biblical ones , makes this issue disturbing.
    This many times is just stubborn fleshly resistance to any thing they do not like.
    .
    subjective at best
    yes
    .
    yes
    subjective
    questionable
    the same way they resist truth
    subjective
    sometimes are not much different
    ok
    not necessarily positive
    good starting point
    or...maybe not.
    ok
    subjective
    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists[/QUOTE]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,207
    Likes Received:
    1,316
    Six reasons I don't take pot shots at fundamentalists.

    1. They believe in the virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

    2. They believe in the substitutionary atonement.

    3. They believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    4. They believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures.

    5. They believe in the second coming of Christ.

    6. As I too believe all of the above, I too am a fundamentalist. I believe the fundamentals.

    We don't take pot shots at our own. We leave that to the enemy of our souls.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    326
    I don't take shots at them because I was in their circles for a good 15 years.
    As with any national grouping there are some good apples and there are some bad apples. I was blessed to be in a very solid fundamental church. I grew in my faith more in that church than I ever had in any evangelical church. Now while I am convinced that many fundamentalist take the idea of separation too seriously , I'm equally convinced that most evangelical churches don't take separation seriously enough and as far as I can tell from personal experience the latter cause much bigger problems.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    That list was just for fundamentalist?... I've never associated with those who are but points on the list don't just apply to fundamentalist... Those are my thoughts... Brother Glen
     
  7. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    326
    I don't think the list was intended to say that the reason only applies to Fundamentalist. I have never read it that way in all the times I have seen the list. I've always read it as just the reason that the author does not take pop shots at them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    [/QUOTE]
     
  9. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,933
    Likes Received:
    96
    .....and legalistic.








    .


    t
     
  10. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    326
    In the vain of other post on here, that is not just a problem in fundamental churches. Ironically the most legalistic church I have ever been in has also been the most theologically liberal. Getting into fundamental circles was actually a break from legalism for me. Now don't get me wrong I know what kind of fundamental churches you are referring too.
     
  11. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Yes BW.....right now we are using a broad brush kind of description.Fundementalism started as a good thing back in the 1920s standing against error and apostasy. Good ones still do.....but the others......:Cautious:oops::Cautious
     
  12. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    blessedwife318,
    yes....
    those are who I am thinking of.
    yes....that is why we are under the judgment of God for the most part....at least in the USA.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  13. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    326
    Yeah I know. Every time my husband and I walk past the local Fundamentalist church in town we shake our heads, because it would be so nice if it was one we could go to instead of driving an hour every Sunday for church. But that's why I said you have to take them on a church by church basis. I think within any solid denomination there are some really good churches and there are some really bad churches.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    It should not be that any church in town should be a one and done when visiting them. We are still visiting several , with the most solid ones being the furthest away. We are trying to see if we can work in and be a help, not hurt the closest one.
    The Pastor is not a KJVO fanatic.....church had a split 3yrs ago.....it is a mixed work at best...We will see what the Lord has in mind here shortly.
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    The mantra against "fundamentalists" seems to be "they are legalists".

    Can some one define what "legalism" is that can be applied across the board to Christianity.

    I don't think its fair to accuse a group of "legalism" without defining just exactly what it is.

    Brother Tom has given the only definition of a "fundamentalist" that I have ever heard.
    Is there any other than simply declaring that a fundamentalist is one who defends the classic fundamentals of the faith?


    HankD
     
  16. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    326
    I was taught that the defining mark of Fundamentalism is the willingness to separate, both 1st and 2nd degree. That was the issue that split evangelicals from fundementalist in thr 40s and 50s.

    Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    OK IMO that's a great start.

    However we again (IMO) need to back up first and define "separate" , "separation".
    Then we need to understand how to apply the adjectives "1st degree", "2nd degree" to said separation.

    This is NOT a gotcha' but we need to understand what I believe is an unnecessary cause of dissension among the churches.

    You've heard of "home wreckers" well, IMO this game of dropping the "legalistic" (or "L" bomb) against a church or religious group without first defining terms can be a "church wrecker" because folks inadvertently poll parrot others without thinking the harm they could be doing and that to the earthly body of Christ.

    e.g. "they are charismatic" has a pretty clear definition with the evidence being that the church in question allows and promotes speaking in tongues (glossolalia).

    What would be the signature event of "they are legalistic".
    Or to speak in the vernacular - what is the dead giveaway of a legalistic church?
    That they believe in the classic fundamentals of the faith as Tom iterated or what 318 has said (after we define terms).
    Perhaps we can start there? Unless no one wants to do so.

    Scripture regarding legalism - ? - scan comes up empty.
    Scripture regarding separation - Several, many do not seem to apply - here is the central passage in my estimation.

    2 Corinthians 6
    14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
    15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
    16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
    18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

    Thanks
    HankD
     
    #17 HankD, Jun 2, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  18. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    326
    Well I won't get into legalism but I will define separation as I was taught.
    The idea was that we are to separate from the world, but even bigger is the idea that we are to separate from apostates, or heretics.
    This is where 1st and 2nd degree comes in.
    1st degree is not associating with heretic X.
    For example my old church would not be involved in any event run by the Mormons.
    2nd degree is not associating with anyone that does associate with X even if they themselves may be orthodox.

    Well I guess I will get a bit into legalism here. Where the problem can arise is when the issue of separation happens over other things besides doctrine. For example music, or dress, or Bible Versions.
    This is where I will acknowledge there are some bad eggs within Fundamentalism because they can pick their hobby horse to go on about.
    I think the most well known would be KJVO churches. My old church was not a KJVO. That meant that the other Fundamentalist church in town would not have anything to do with us because they were KJVO. My church would have had no problem working with them, but they did because of our stand on the KJV.

    Of course the question is what are issue that should be separated over and what are not. And therein lies the legalism issue.

    But as I also said I don't think legalism is unique to fundamentalism. From my view liberal churches are just as legalistic just in different ways.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/bl...between-and-evangelical-and-a-fundamentalist/
     
  20. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    "HankD,
    I know a pastor who was invited to a conference at a church as a guest speaker.
    before he preached the home pastor told him he was "in sin" because he did not have a white shirt on....he wore a light blue shirt with his suit, and had facial hair...[beard]
     

Share This Page

Loading...