O.K. Now that you have this fine education,

I don't know you, and don't do crusades anyway, so that wouldn't work out very well I don't think.

 

Spoken like a true politician!

I think you know what point I was driving at. Hypothetically, if you did do revivals, you wouldn't do one with me!

 

There was nothing political about what I said. I meant it. I don't know you. How would I possibly know whether or not I would have an ecclesiastical affiliation with you? You want me to be what you think is a typical fundamenatalist ... someone who doesn't think through the issues before speaking. You want me to make a decision without all the information. But you need to know that there are a lot of us fundamentalists who refuse to do that. We wait until we have the information before we make a decision.

It also doensn't make much sense to answer a hypothetical.

 

Are you sure you're not running for office?

Larry, we've had enough exchanges on BB for you to have formed an opinion. Let's just say I won't be getting an invitation to speak at your church any time soon!

 

Honestly, Paul, there are issues that concern me, but I really don't have an informed opinion so I refuse to be trapped into that. I don't know, and it makes no sense to try to answer a hypothetical.

 

The concept of this thread has convicted me!

Of myself I say, "Ever learning but never doing."

I'm an old man and need to get going!

Bill

 

Lighten up, guys. Is it OK for a fundamentalist to have fun?

My favorite story about separation was in a small group bible study I had years ago. One guy, who is VERY intelligent and a good Christian, also happens to get emotional about certain beliefs. In discussing one particular doctrine, I suggested that there are differing opinions within Christianity. My friend kept getting more and more excited at the idea that there could be someone who disagreed with him. He got more and more upset, finally blurting out "THOSE GUYS CAUSE DIVISION, AND I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM!!"

I smiled to myself at the obvious contradiction, and quietly changed to subject. I wonder what things I'm equally blind about.

 

What obvious contradiction? Without knowing the doctrines at stake, Paul was clear that the people who teach what the Bible does not are the ones causing the division. It is not the ones "who have nothing to do" with false teachers who are divisive. That often gets overlooked, but it is right there in Rom 16:17-18.

No doubt we all have our blind spots and need to be careful. But let's not avoid division when it is truly necessary.

 

Rhet

Let's sign up on our knees. I'll pray for you, and you for me.

Thankyou LORD for what we've learned. Help us find people and places to serve. Use us despite our age.

 

Agreed!

 

Ditto. Guys like Machen. </font>[/QUOTE]Having come late to this thread, please allow me to sift these comments and offer a few of my own observations. Fundamentalists of the old school seem to get a lot of bad press nowadays. They are caricatured as divisive, ignorant and divisive. Although I obviously did not know the first generation (I’m not that old!) of Fundamentalists, I did know some of the second generation who knew the first. The men whom I knew were kind, gracious and godly men. They fought for issues, ideas and truth but they never entered into a vindictive, personal attack on a brother. Machen, whom Paul mentioned, was not a Fundamentalist although he was orthodox and an ally of Fundamentalism. However, he exemplified the conduct of a gentleman of breeding and character that was characteristic of this period. Machen strongly argued and defended truth but he rose above inconsequential striving. The early Fundamentalists were gentleman of the same high caliber.

It was probably in the third generation of so-called Fundamentalists that personal vindictiveness and bitter dissention prevailed. Little preachers trying to achieve status abused the Biblical doctrine of separation. They tried to boost their own spiritual standing and fame by bashing another brother. They settled petty personal issues by appealing to separation principles. The early fundamentalists separated from others, even rank liberals, because truth and Scripture demanded it. They did it with sorrow, weeping and broken hearts. It was after a long, hard struggle to bring others into the right course that separation occurred. On the other hand, some of the later Fundamentalists quickly chopped off their own Bible-believing brethren right and left with glee for the most trivial reasons. They massacred their own wounded.

Furthermore, many of the later Fundamentalists separated for self-serving reasons rather than truth and Biblical mandate. When invited to preach in some places, their message was almost invariably separation with each vying to go farther than the other. In certain quarters of IFB even today, spitefulness and hateful preaching are almost considered badges of distinction. They boast of “hard preaching.” For the most part, it is not hard preaching but it is petty-fogging self-serving meanness. Unfortunately, it has left the critics with a mean, hateful caricature of Fundamentalism in general and IFB in particular.

In case you wonder where I stand, I will state that I strongly hold to Biblical separation from Modernism, Liberalism, and Neo-evangelicalism. On the other hand, I do not spend my time bashing people in these camps. If an issue arises, I meet it head-on. There are times when we must separate from a believing brother—e.g. if he is unruly or divisive or a fornicator. My friend Bob was a high roller. He liked to take me with him to swanky events to meet important people. Yet, I eventually had to cool off our friendship and quit going places with him because he flaunted open sin in his life. Was he saved? Yes, I believe so. God, I believe, later judged him through sickness and death. I tried to lead him back into fellowship and a walk with God but he chose his own path. I could not travel with him along the same path without loss of testimony and my own spiritual detriment.

The main problem today, IMHO, is that folks have a very hard time separating issues from the person. Our psychological society is personality driven. People take it personally when you attack their ideas. Conversely, people attack you instead of your ideas and beliefs. Thus, it is difficult to maintain a rational debate of ideas with most moderns—even educated ones. Personality and ego should be left in the background when pursuing truth.