Is there any true fundamentalist on this board

I am a true fundementalist.

And welcome to the board.

 

I attempt (and often fail) to adhere to scriptural fundamentals. Hence, I'm a fundamentalist.

 

"I believe we are in the Laodicean Church age and the two greatest signs of our lukewarmness are the many modern versions of the Bible and the contemparary Christian music that is becoming so popular."

So of all the evil and worldly things going on you're two biggest concerns are the NIV and contemporary music? Exactly where are those two things in the Bible?

What about gay marriage? What about abortion? What about the fact that many of our youth are being raised in a complete secular society?

If someone has told you that Satan's biggest triumphs are the NIV and CCM you might want to look elsewhere for guidance.

I suppose that the third worst thing is women wearing pants?

 

Me too...

I adhere to the original five fundamentals:
</font>

• Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the originals of each scriptural book)</font>
• the virgin birth and deity of Christ</font>
• the substitutionary view of the atonement</font>
• the bodily resurrection of Christ</font>
• the imminent return of Christ</font>

 

I am not particularly stirred up but I will give you answers to your points.

This is based on an interpretation of scripture and our times- that may or may not be true. The most learned "fundamentalist" Jews of Jesus day missed their Messiah because they clung too tightly to a particular interpretation of prophecy.

Believe what you want but it is dangerous to build a doctrine on Bible versions on top of an escatalogical interpretation.

BTW, your view doesn't hold water historically. It considers the English reformation to be the Philadelphian age... a simple survey of the historical facts of that period will quickly dispel such a notion. We have apostates today but they don't have the power of the church-state to punish those who disagree with them.

Show me scripture that says your version of the Bible and style of music are the only ones that is biblically acceptable then you can call these "fundamentalist". Otherwise, they are men's opinions.

BTW, I use the KJV as my primary Bible and am very uncomfortable with most CCM and Southern Gospel. Both tend to appeal to the flesh in my opinion.

The Bible doesn't have a great number of direct statements on music... it has none on Bible versions.

That is your prerogative... but your choice or that of those you respect, does not make it a fundamental.

Beyond not being a biblical fundamental, this statement is biblically not fundamental. The received text was derived from 6-12 mss that differed among themselves. To believe that the TR is without error is to believe that the RCC scholar Erasmus was divinely inspired to perfectly reconstitute the original text... no thanks.

I believe that all of the evidence is valuable but tend more toward the Byzantine text position. The KJV, NKJV, WEB, and others in most cases agree with the MT.

You need to learn your fundamentalist history. The original fundamentalist stood up and took on REAL liberals on REAL biblical issues. They used the ASV, RV, and KJV to do it. Many of them believed the ASV to be superior to the KJV.

None of them were KJVO or only KJV. None of them were TR only. None of them believed in the word for word perfection of any collated text- not the TR (whatever edition) nor any critical text.

Short answer if you've made it this far: The people you think are fundamentalists probably aren't and many that you think are off to the left are genuine fundamentalists. In fact, if you are looking to the Baptist Board for an example of a genuine, historical fundamentalist- Dr. Bob Griffin or Pastor Larry come as close as anyone.

 

Brad14

If that is all you are concerned about then you are a liberal KJVO. [questioning salvation snipped]

[ November 08, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Brad14 said "I again ask the question are there any true fundamentalist on this board?"

No, you're the first. The rest of us are lukewarm Laodicean pretenders. Welcome, Brad.

 

Many KJVO's who consider themselves a True Fundamentalist, seem to be ignorant of the fact that some old time Fundamentalists they revere were not KJVO, namely John R Rice, Chas Spurgeon, J Frank Norris, etc.

 

True fundamentalists do NOT believe the false "Church Age" doctrine promoted by that charlatan William Branham. This, like the KJVO myth, is another purely MAN-MADE doctrine, not found in SCRIPTURE.

Before you tell me to read the beginning of Revelation, please note that ALL SEVEN of these churches existed SIMULTANEOUSLY, and NOWHERE does Jesus say His church will go through an age that will spiritually resemble each of them in succession. And althouth Branham didn't invent this doctrine, it would have remained virtually unknown if not for him.

Here's a typical article, chosen by me at random, from the many articles revealing his true colors:

http://www.discernment.org/precedin.htm

Read your own Bible to verify what I say about his false doctrines. Branham was phony as a football bat.


As I am pretty much a "Sola Scriptura" Baptist and do NOT believe any of the extra-Biblical doctrines being bandied about by the purveyors of bunk...and the fact that I attend an ole-fashioned Baptist church where the BIBLE is preached, that makes me a FUNDAMENTALIST by reality.

 

Brad14 said:

I believe we are in the Laodicean Church age and the two greatest signs of our lukewarmness are the many modern versions of the Bible and the contemparary Christian music that is becoming so popular.

This true fundamentalist doubts there is any such thing as a "Laodicean Church age" and thinks that the Bible version and music issues are smokescreens by crotchety old preachers who can't get their flocks interested in their personal preferences, so they make it into a doctrine. Certainly they have nothing to do with "true fundamentalism."

 

I'm a fundamentalist.

 

--------------------------------------------------
brad quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you were going to label me i would be considered, only King James b/c it is translated from the Received Text instead of the critical text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott J. quote:

That is your prerogative... but your choice or that of those you respect, does not make it a fundamental.
--------------------------------------------------


It is not a "perogative" but a FACT. The critical text is from CORRUPT texts, from one location on the globe. The TR is from the churches throughout history spread throughout the globe, even until this day, regardless of who compiled them. The critical text was not recognized in the churches UNTIL 1881, and to which was REJECTED by ALL SCHOLARS previous to Tishendorf. The critical text is A NEW THING, being accepted by the Lukewarm church of this generation.


--------------------------------------------------
None of them were KJVO or only KJV. None of them were TR only. None of them believed in the word for word perfection of any collated text- not the TR (whatever edition) nor any critical text.

--------------------------------------------------


They, however, did not have all the choices and varieties of the favorite flavors of the month either. Guaranteed, if they lived today, would also be labeled as some of us here on the BB as KJBO. And this label curtosy of the mv proponents.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Amen, Russell55!

And the same goes for me. I am as fundamental as they come...and SBC, to boot! Go figure that one out!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Michelle! Welcome back.

Michelle: "The critical text was not recognized in the churches UNTIL 1881"

What text have those Egyptian Coptic Christians been using from the late second century until the present day? I don't think you want to know....

 

--------------------------------------------------
True fundamentalists do NOT believe the false "Church Age" doctrine promoted by that charlatan William Branham. This, like the KJVO myth, is another purely MAN-MADE doctrine, not found in SCRIPTURE.
--------------------------------------------------


Oh really? This is not what our Lord has said:

Revelation 3

14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.


What do you suppose Jesus Christ our Lord is referring to in verses 16 and 18? Why do you suppose these warnings and encouragements are given in the Book of Revelation? Do you suppose that there are people in churches such as these, living in all ages from the time of the first churches until the last? There are definately Laodiacean type christians in the churches in these days, and most definately churches of this nature. One thing to look at, is Jesus Christ will "spew them out of his mouth". Then verse 18 says they will be tried by fire. I think this is very good indication of the church, just prior to the tribulation period, of God's wrath upon this earth, PRIOR to his return. This passage is telling us the church is a COMPROMISER which we see ever so increasing among the churches of THIS GENERATION, than ever before.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle! Welcome back.
---------------------------------------------------

Thanks Ziggy! I have been posting lately on the theology forum. I don't expect to be posting much here anymore, and only browse. If I see something worth responding to, then I do. It is good to see you again also.


--------------------------------------------------

Michelle: "The critical text was not recognized in the churches UNTIL 1881"

What text have those Egyptian Coptic Christians been using from the late second century until the present day? I don't think you want to know....
--------------------------------------------------

The Egyptian Coptic Christians DO NOT represent the ENTIRETY of the churches throughout the ages, as was my point. Just because one locale veiwed this text as being uncorrupted, does in no way, shape or form, mean that this is true. The evidence is, that the churches throughout the globe, have relied upon, believed and kept preserved the TR. The critical text is only found in one locale throughout history, which is at much variance with the rest of the world, to which the gospel was preached and believed. Use common sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle