Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by SaggyWoman, Dec 23, 2009.
Do you consider yourself Fundamental? Why or why not?
I assume you mean "fundamentalist". When I first came to Christ, I was an on-fire religious fundamentalist. That was some 25 years ago. I've since become much more knowlegeable on scripture and Christian history, and have abandoned my early fundamentalist ways, but continue to adhere to the scriptural fundamentals.
Fundamental in theology. Liberal in application. Conservative in presentation.
Why? I think it is in keeping with scripture.
I do, because I am.
"have abandoned my early fundamentalist ways, but continue to adhere to the scriptural fundamentals."
The whole point of the movement was away from liberal junk to move to the fundamental doctrines of scripture. "Fundamentalism" of today is far from the original, not that some in the original were all that good. :thumbsup:
To the op, put me down as a yes, but in an old time way, not todays way :tongue3:
That was the intent, but not the result. The result was "Jesus movement" types of thinking in the 60's and 70's, which, I suppose, met a need at the time, but no longer works well today (nothign against Chuck Smith), but which were hyperfundamentalist in nature. BTW, I like your definition of old time fundamentals the best.
Fundamentalism is painted that way by libbies. But there is no truth th the characterization.
On the contrary. Fundamentalism is painted that way by those in the fundamentalist movement, who are quite conservative. A good example is KJVOism in IFB's. KJVOism is not uncommon in IFB churches, yet that distinction categorically makes them liberal in their theology (even though they're conservative by all other aspects). There are many other examples, but that's probably the one most can identify with on the topic.
Fundamental yes when it comes to the Apostles creed, but very reserved as well as Christianity is seemingly a bit of a mess.
Depends on how a person interpret fundamental.
Some will say, if a man has long hair, then he is a liberal
Some will say if you use a Bible version that leaves out the last few verses of Mark 16, than you are not a fundamental.
Some will say if you believe that all you need to get to heaven is to Accept Christ as you Saviour, you must be a Fundy, no matter how liberal you are in every other portion of your belief.
I do consider myself as such on the fundamentals of the faith, but some say I am too liberal, and others say I am to conservative.
I used to consider msyelf a Fundamentalist--until terrorists were classified as fundamentalists.
Yes, in that I affirm the fundamentals of the Christian religion; no in that I the term "fundamentalist" has taken on a different meaning over the years and I have big problems with the fundamentalist movement as it stands today.
I didn't know there was a fundamental movement?
Yes, I consider myself a fundamental as many others have said. I believe in the fundamentals (essentials)of Christianity. I like being called a fundamental in that I feel it's a compliment. To me it's being a true Christian that practices the basics of our faith, like a baseball player who is big on the fundamentals. Now I do believe many have made the word fundamentalist (fundy) a slang word for one who is legalistic or radically fanatical. I don't consider myself as such. Therefore when we say fundamental there are differing definitions of the word. We must be careful not to use it incorrectly.
I am a fundamentalist. I believe the Bible word for word. The Bible says
that God created everything in 6 days, and I believe it.
I believe there is only one way to avoid burning in hell...faith in a Living Savior. I believe that God gave us commandments in the Bible about a number of specific things, and if one is a fundamentalist, one will adhere.
Yes I am. I take The Bible and that counts the first 11 chapters of Genesis literal and Jesus Christ is who the Bible says he is. I believe back in the late 1800's is when the Fundamentals were written. So much was about if the Scriptures if they were the true word of God or not.
I am a fundamentalist by upbringing, training and conviction. Don't have time to say why. Maybe tomorrow.
lol...this one really made me rotfl, man.....:laugh::laugh:
Not sure why, its quite a serious question, regarding Christianity, if discussions go off on a tangent let it not interfere with the Christian beliefs.
Fundamental basically means foundational. Lets protect them, and never let the world rob us of important words like Christian and others.
Let's stand up for what we believe and not let the enemy take important statements from us.
Look at todays Christianity. What a mess.
Historically, a Christian fundamentalist is one who not only believes the fundamental doctrines of the faith, but defends them. So the early fundamentalists (1920s-30s) stood up against theological liberalism, in particular the denial of the deity of Christ (W. B. Riley & co. in the Northern Baptists, J. Gresham Machen and co. in the Northern Presbyterians, etc.), evolution (my grandfather, John R. Rice opposing evolution at Baylor U., the Scopes trial, etc.), higher criticism (all of the above), etc.
In the 1950's New Evangelicalism arose. This term was invented by Harold Ockenga to represent a movement away from strict separation (both ecclesiastical and personal). In particular, new evangelicals believed in a strategy of infiltration instead of separation with regards to theological liberalism. (Liberalism is a denial of the fundamental doctrines of the faith, such as the deity of Christ, not a denial of personal separation.) In other words, the new evangelicals believed in making friends and cooperating with liberals in various ways rather than separating from them, as fundamentalists did.
Everything came to a head in 1957 at the Billy Graham New York crusade. Fundamentalists such as Jack Wyrtzen issued an invitation to Graham to come for a cooperative campaign with only theological conservatives on the committee, but Graham instead chose to include on his executive committee rank modernist John Sutherland Bonnell. An article Bonnell wrote for Look Magazine in 1954 revealed that he did not believe in the trinity, virgin birth of Christ, bodily resurrection, Heaven or Hell, or verbal inspiration.
That year, 1957, was when the big break between new evangelicalism and fundamentalism occurred. When fundamentalists such as Wyrtzen, John R. Rice, Bob Jones Sr., etc., objected to the New York compromise, they were labeled intolerant, narrow-minded bigots.
Now in 2009 I am a fundamentalist because I openly and unashamedly oppose liberalism, ecumenicalism and cooperative evangelism (which includes theological liberals).