Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by JesusFan, Nov 2, 2011.
Are there any doctrines held by all Fundamental baptists?
Yes, but they vary, depending on to whom you ask.
I am a Fundamental Christian and I stand on the Word of God... as it is written, not by how some interpret it.
wasn't there a book wriiten on the "essentials" of the faith, early 1900's?
A series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" (later made into a book, still for sale) were published 1910 to 1915. You can see the list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals. This was the origin of the word "fundamentalist."
And if those fundamentals had remained the top priority of preaching in movements that call themselves fundamentalist, then I would be a glad to bear such a title.
But sadly, they are not in most circles with which many, if not most of us here on baptistboard are familiar.
For example, I live in the deep south. I can tell you that "fundamentalists" here are by and large a joke. They are mad men in the pulpit who preach extra-biblical standards in vehemently and hateful manners.
Earth Wind and Fire lives a long way from me in New jersey- and that is his experience with most of those who call themselves "fundamentalists" as well.
Then there are several others on this board from all over the country that we've all observed make the same observations.
A poll was just conducted on this very board for fundies here on how many of them are kjvo. MOST were.
KJVO is, in my opinion, heresy. It is indicative of the corruption that, apparently, well nigh permeates "fundamentalism."
That there are several, or perhaps, possibly many who are not of this stripe does not speak to the fact that many more are.
I was raised in such a movement.
It preached against everything as sin.
It was KJVO.
It was horrifically anti-intellectual (probably the movement's greatest wickedness).
It was thoroughly Arminian (although some Arminian movements are not totally backwards as this one was- like Methodists for example).
It was thoroughly anti-Calvinist (a result of its anti-intellectualism- even if you don't fall on the side of Calvinism, if you are not stupid, you realize that God has blessed the theology and used it mightily to give us a lot of what we have today).
It was self-righteous.
It had colleges full of unqualified professors.
It was all about private interpretation and saw no need to run its doctrines through the sift of church history and historical Christian orthodoxy.
It was hyper-autonomous.
It fellowshipped closely with IFB and had a lot of IFB preachers in its camp meetings and conferences, etc...
And that is many of our experiences with IFB and movements that tout the title "fundamentalist."
I am SBC but I still consider myself a classic fundamentalist, not the man-rules kind. I don't tout the title, but I live it, believe it, and preach it.
This from the king of Calvinism, a heresy all its own.
No intelligent Christian on earth would call Calvinism heresy.
You can disagree with all five "points" of it but if you have any theological or biblical sense at all you'll know that it is not heresy.
And by what standard do YOU jusge heresy?
Usually the term refers to doctrines that contradict the historic Christian faith.
You don't even CARE about the historic Christian faith do you?
Aren't you like Winman and Robert Snow in that area?
Calvinism, heresy? You do realize that makes nearly all (if not all) of the early founders of the SBC heretics, don't you? Not to mention the fact that 'The Fundamentals' was edited largely by men who were Reformed in doctrine, if my memory serves me well.
Let's be sensible here.
If you can call KJVO (which I'm not, I'm KJVP) heresy then I can call Calvinism heresy. I believe it is heresy to say that God did legitimately offer salvation to all mankind. I'll not get into a double talk argument with you here. I know all your traditional and historical double talk and I still know that it boils down to Calvinism meaning that God did not legitimately offer salvation to all mankind. That is heresy.
You THINK you know, just like I used to- well, whatever. This is all off the OP anyway.
Do those of us here holding to it:
Deny the trinity/Diety of Christ?
Deny the Cross as atonement?
Deny Bible as infallible/inspired of God?
deny saved by faith alone/grace alone?
deny second Coming/Virgin birth?
ecactly what heretical doctrine do we hold to?
I've already explained it in this thread. Go back and read it.
except THAT falls under "difference of interperation" NOT heretical doctrines!
Matt doesn't want to think, JF.
He isn't concerned with what is ACTUAL. He is only concerned about defending at all costs what he believes- right or wrong.
Anybody with half a brain knows that Calvinism is not heresy. When I was a dyed in the wool Free Will Baptist I had better sense than that. I knew that I disagreed with Calvinism vehemently, but I knew that there was no way it could be outright heresy if some of the greatest Christians of all time embraced the doctrine.
I knew our nation was founded MOSTLY by people who were Calvinists. I knew the pilgrims were Calvinists.
I knew the Puritans who tamed the new world were staunch Calvinists.
I knew Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were Calvinists.
I knew the Great Awakening was a Calvinist revival.
I knew John Knox and William Carey were Calvinists.
So I had enough brains even in my more ignorant days to know better than to call a theology that God had so richly blessed- heresy.
I figure God will probably judge those who do- really. I mean that.
So, will God equally judge Calvinists who equate Armenians with heresy?
1. God will "Judge" his children with mercy & forgiveness for their many sins and errors, since full and complete forgiveness was purchased on the cross. So in the final judgement, we will not be judged for our sins as we deserve to be.
2. Having convictions is not a sin. Seeking to to humbly make sense of various difficult passages in the scriptures is not a sin.
3. God WILL "correct & discipline" those who slander committed Christians who are convinced by scriptures that Calvinism in incorrect. He may allow some very negative consequences come from this type of antagonism, or he may simply allow the constant strain and rift between the Calvinist and his fellow Christians to BE the discipline that is meant to show him the error of his ways, and lead him to repent of mean-spirited attacks on those believers who seek to honor God and give him glory for their salvation, while holding to an arminian interpretation of scripture.
-A 4ish-pointer (so according to Herald: not a calvinist...according to the non-cals: a calvinist)
Yeah, yeah, we all know that those that disagree with Calvinism are ignorant fools and aren't as elite as you intellectual Calvinists. You don't need to keep rubbing it in.
God will judge people the promote the heresy of Calvinism.
Calvinist are heretics? Then you must be questioning our salvation. Hmmmmmm
While I can agree that the Fundamentals are contained there and from the titles I doubt that I would find any fault with these articles but there are far to many to be just the fundamentals.