Fundamental or Conservative??

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by happymom, Aug 14, 2003.

  1. happymom

    happymom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello,
    I've been reading this forum since it was started. I was happy at first to see a section of the BB set up for us independant fundemental baptists that lean to a more conservative side than every one else. I looked forward to conversations were positions on 'KJVO' and 'Dress' would be respected, not ridiculed. However, most posts I've read latley not only have no respect for these conservative ideals, but go so far as to say that they disqualify one from being "Fundemental". Perhaps this forum should have been termed "The Conservative forum" or the "Old time Baptist" forum or something. The topics above can be argued to death in the non-conservative forums of the BB. I love my conservative IFB, KJVO church and do not consider myself to be legalist or ignorant in any fashion. I'm sure there are others on this board in the same position. I think its time we start making our presence known on this.... conservative forum of the BB
    My thoughts...
     
  2. Xingyi Warrior

    Xingyi Warrior
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    I respect fundamentalist teachings. However I believe that to adhere to a fundamentalist doctrine is a matter of personal choice and represents an individuals desire to set themselves apart to follow a path of righteousness that, under other circumstances, they feel they could not attain. The problems arise when certain fundies get overzealous and begin proclaiming that their narrow walk is the only true Christian experience and is a doctrine to be adhered to with the looming threat of eternal damnation for all dissenters. I've heard fundies in my lifetime preach that people were going to be sentenced to hell for what they, the fundies, consider to be immodest dress, which amounted to something like women wearing jeans or shorts. I beleive that these types of fundamentalists sects are bordering on, if not already practicing cultic behavior. But its always the goofballs that get the most press and make a bad name for everyone who's well meaning.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    These are not conservative ideals. They are positions that some conservatives hold. The vast majority of fundamentalists do not hold these positions.

    From the other side, it is time that those who love the word of God in modern translations and who see the appropriateness of pants in some cases are respected as genuine fundamentalists who have not added to the doctrines of Scripture.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    These are not conservative ideals. They are positions that some conservatives hold. The vast majority of fundamentalists do not hold these positions because we do not see them as mandates of Scripture, but rather as standards that people have added in. To believe that a particular version is the only word of God is in direct and explicit contradiction of the tenets of fundamentalism. To hold a KJVO position does indeed disqualify one from being fundamental, according to the definition laid out by the early fundamentalists.

    From the other side, it is time that those who love the word of God in modern translations and who see the appropriateness of pants in some cases are respected as genuine fundamentalists who have not added to the doctrines of Scripture.
     
  5. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    But happymom, this is a discussion board. If a separate section is formed for every variation of belief among baptists and we segregate ourselves into areas in which only those who agree with us can enter, what will there be to discuss? If your standards and your KJVOnly position cannot bear scrutiny, it is not worth holding.
     
  6. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Names are transient; they move along with the times. In the early days of modernist invasion of the Baptist Convention in Canada, we, who held to the fundamentals of theology, called ourselves fundamentalists.

    Over time, the term embraced many who deviated from those fundamentals, including Pentecostalists of all shapes, charlatans, as telly evangelism took hold.

    We eventually abandoned the term fundamentalists. If we must embrace a label, we choose conservative, but even this term falls short.

    Fundamentalism came to include dispensationalism and premillennialism, which many of us left many years before.

    In this sense, I am not a fundamentalist, but very much a believer in the validity of the bible, in any translation, and, inerrant in the original form, but not in any translation.

    These theological beliefs have nothing to do with the side issues, but the essentials of doctrine. Side issues, dress, deportment, per se, are just that, side issues.

    Cheers,

    Jim

    PS. I happen to prefer the KJV, with all its mistakes, but I don't think it is specially inspired anymore than the RSV, NIV or any other modern translation.
     
  7. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    310
    To me the difference between a Fundementalist and a Conservative lies in how they handle a verse like Jude 3. The two may agree on many points of theology both systematic and practical. But, where they land on the question of ecclesiastical separation is another matter.
     
  8. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim1999: I happen to prefer the KJV, with all its mistakes.

    Jim . . . Jim . . . Jim, you can come out of your bomb shelter now! :D

    I respect a KJV "toter" who admits their preferred translation is not "lord" over any and all others!

    On topic: I consider myself both conservative and fundamental. I am a Southern Baptist! I stand against the invasion of liberal, post-modern theology within my denomination and within the body of believers as a whole.

    A few thoughts:
    The greatest threats to the fundamentals of the Christian faith today are post-modern "tolerance" (which differs like night and day from biblical tolerance), and evolution.

    Post-modern tolerance says: accept those whose ideas and moral values differ from yours (which biblical tolerance teaches also), but it goes beyond biblical tolerance by teaching that all ideas and moral values are equal and should be accepted also.

    Although I think evolution has crested its peak (as a threat to Christian faith) and is actually on its slippery downslope, as scientific discoveries are validating the impossibility of a cosmos existing without a Creator everyday. Still, it's the theistic evolutionist who, by their "double-minded" beliefs, create such a distorted view of what is and isn't true in the Bible that confuses "seekers" and tears down, rather than builds up God's kingdom.
     
  9. Gunther

    Gunther
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Squire, Jude 3 does not demand separation. I do believe in separation and that ecclesiastical is the primary way, but that is another passage.

    Jude commands us to contend for THE faith. That was done by the SBC leaders in taking back the convention from the apostate libs and mods (who are libs but want people to think otherwise).
     
  10. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, it is the opposition to evolution that is on its slippery slope downslope. Many staunch anti-evolutionists have conceded a little bit of evolution - even between species. The beginnings of the slippery slope. Meanwhile, the mainstream scientific establishment continues to view anti evolutionist groups as anti science kooks. This does not help us witness to them, by the way!

    What discovery are you referring to dated 8/14/2003? Or any other date you care to name?

    The proper interpretation of the bible is consistent with the truth of evolution and I can prove it.

    Here is the proof.

    a) The Bible is always true when correctly interpreted (axiom)

    b) Evolution is true (as per innumerable scientific validations)

    therefore the proper interpretation of the Bible is consistent with the truth of evolution.

    I leave the working out of the interpretation of the Bible as an exercise for the reader.
     
  11. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    310
    I am not sure exactly what the post above has to do with the topic at hand. But, then the CvE Forum is closed for a sabbatical.

    Back to my previous post. When I referred to Jude 3, for the purposes of this discussion, the operative word in the verse was "earnestly". A fundamentalist's "earnestly" may (and problably does) differ from a conservative's "earnestly". Some other verses to toss into the mix are Rom 16:17-18, II Corinth. 6:17, and II Jn 10. This list is by no means exhaustive. Nor am I interested in delving into the variant interpertations and applications of them. As I endeavored to write before, the differences in their interpertation and application (or non-application) of these verses in the matter of ecclesiastical separation mark the difference between a fundamentalist and a conservative.
     
  12. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Co-discoverer of DNA Crick, and brilliant astronomer Hoyle, both conceded that the complexity of DNA led them to conclude the mathematical implausibility that DNA could have arisen by natural causes on Earth; and so they independently proposed to the world that biological life was planted on Earth, by aliens.

    "One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups--classes and phyla--in full-fledged form, in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. This must reflect a sudden acquisition of skeletons by the various groups, in itself a problem."

    Theories and probabilities centered on genetics and variation/mutation as a cause for evolution of species are entirely inadequate. Not only do you encounter time limitation problems (probability for all practical purposes of zero chance), but observed genetic processes are working in the opposite direction of “progress.”

    Paul of Eugene: I leave the working out of the interpretation of the Bible as an exercise for the reader.

    Good! The Bible tells me that God created all that we see ex nihilo, i.e., "out of nothing." That way I don't have to do a song and dance around the many NT references to "The Fall," Adam and Eve, death entering the world thru sin, etc. ;)
     
  13. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul,

    BTW, you are trespassing in this forum as a non-creationist. Read the rules! [​IMG]
     
  14. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    310
    John, you are quite right in your last post. As our Founder saw it, this is not the forum for a CvE debate. On this forum, Creation ex nihlo is axiomatic.
     
  15. InHim2002

    InHim2002
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    could you point me to them please?

    edit:

    opps! - I didn't realise that - so anyone who believes in evolution at all is not welcome here?
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not that it is an evolutionists strong suit but would you mind citing empirical evidence for this claim?
    Typical double standard. When creationists 'adjust' their views, we are on a slippery slope. But when evolutionists are forced to face and re-explain huge chunks of previously accepted "truth", you call it honest science.

    To set the record straight, creationists believe that the animals we see today are descendents of a smaller group of "kinds" in the past through a general loss of genetic variability and increase in specialization. Past animals would have been much more adaptable with their descendents losing certain abilities. At some point in this process, breeding between isolated lines becomes genetically impossible or results in sterile offspring (the mule).

    The truth is more important than preserving the modernistic philosophical presumptions of secular 'scientists'.

    The Bible and an interpretation cannot both be true when the interpretation denies the very words of the Bible.

    There are NO conclusive scientific validations of evolution. Evolution deals exclusively with situations that at best can be proven plausible. They can never be observed and can therefore can never be termed "true" as long as any other possibility, however remote, exists.

    Fortunately, in the case of creation, the Creator did not. Genesis says what it says. Creation is ascribed to an omnipotent God speaking everything into existence by His own will. Not a single character in the NT questions the Genesis account. Jesus had no problem correcting erroneous interpretations of the OT. Yet He affirms that God made them male and female in Matthew 19. BTW, the context is divorce so it cannot apply to brute animals.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    could you point me to them please?

    edit:

    opps! - I didn't realise that - so anyone who believes in evolution at all is not welcome here?
    </font>[/QUOTE]As opposed to many later additions, creation was in "The Fundamentals" from the very start.
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    oops

    I believe in creation ex nihlo, and I think that happened at the big bang!

    But I'll conform and not follow up on that issue here
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    A fundamentalist believes the Bible which explicitly states creation ex nihilo in 6 24-hour days.

    So evolutionists can call themselves fundamentalist in some areas - but not in that.

    Hope that helps. - We would LOVE the Fundamental Forum to be JUST for "real" fundamentalists. Never can do that, without putting up barbed-wire and securing the perimeter! :eek:
     
  20. Singleman

    Singleman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've never really thought of myself as a fundamentalist, although I certainly hold to the infallibility and authority of the Bible. What label we wear is, to me at least, unimportant. God knows what I believe; I am unconcerned what others think of me. And I'm afraid that there are some (none on this board, of course) who love to call themselves fundamentalists in order to look down on other believers as being less faithful to God in some way. Why can't we have compassion on those who are in error, assuming that to be the case, rather than enjoy feeling superior to them?
     

Share This Page

Loading...