Warren vs Fundamentalism

Amen - interesting is right.

 

Mr. Warren is singularly uninformed. Unfortunately for him and all others who look down on us as "legalists," radicals and heretics (we are none of these), the fundamentalist movement is larger and stronger than ever. I estimate that there are around 10,000 independent fundamental Baptist churches around the US. (Missionaries with my board alone are supported by about 6000 churches.) This does not count other fundamental groups such as the Bible Presbyterians, IFCA, those in the SBC who claim the name, etc.

There are many IFB churches that run 1000 or more. There are some excellent IFB colleges and seminaries turning out godly men of God. There are various IFB mission boards, some of them with several hundred missionaries or more (including my board). We are starting churches of like faith and practice around the world, spreading fundamental doctrine and practice in many countries from the horn of Africa to Israel, from Japan to Bangladesh (I saw 45 former Hindus and Muslims baptized there), from France to Canada. Sorry about that Mr. Warren.

We continue to stand for the fundamentals, against liberalism, for all kinds of evangelism and against formalism, for the Lord Jesus Christ and against His enemies. I for one am grateful to my fundamentalist forebears, including my godly fundamentalist parents and grandparents, and I will continue to be voluntarily called a fundamentalist with no hesitation, in spite of the hate of the world for us and the disdain many Christians have for us. Study us some more, Mr. Warren. You might be surprised.

 

This alone shows how very ignorant Warren is about fundamentalism. "The Fundamentals" was actually a series of pamphlets (later made into a book) by many different scholars on a wide range of subjects beginning in 1909. It is generally agreed that this is where the term fundamentalist came from.

I'm not sure what in particular Warren means by "The Five Fundamentals." There have been many lists of five or more points of fundamental doctrine, going back to the millenarian conferences of the last third of the 19th century. The Niagara Creed of 1978 was one of the most influential, but it had 14 points to it. The Roots of Fundmentalism by Ernest Sandeen is a scholarly examination of the development of fundamentalism starting with the millenarian movement.

 

I'm with you brother!!!

 

You have proven Warren's point with your KJV "defenders" label. This is what RW is driving at, John of Japan, not the fundamentals of the faith as you seem to think he is, but the legalists and legalism that is wrapped in the "fundamentalism" cloak.

 

What? How is the term KJV defenders legalistic? Do you evcen know what the term means? Legalism is what Paul stood against in Galatians - adding something to the blood of Chrsit for salvation. I know no Fundy who does this. Christ plus baptsim, Christ plus tongues, Christ plus... is legalism. Standing for historic positions is not. You have proven my point about perjoratives, etc. with your ridiculous statement.

 

I know exactly what it means...hence the reason I used it. Anyone thinking the KJV needs "defending" is solely lacking for a better term. I have heard KJVO's state the NIV was satan's version...so you do not think this is "Christ plus..."?!?You have given but ONE definition for the term...it would help to search out the other meanings as well.

 

I gave the biblical definition of the term. Words have meanings. If we all can make up our own definition of any word then there is no purpose in language. To call someone a legalist is to say that he is not saved and preaches a falae gospel. I think we should be careful there. Still don't understand the bee in your bonnet about "KJV defenders." There are NASB defenders, TEV defenders, NIV defenders, etc. Although I wouldn't agree with the statement you quoted about the NIV, no the statement does not equal Christ plus. Apples and oranges.

 

Sir, I would have to ask a statement such as "It's no longer a badge of honor to be called a fundamentalist because most fundamentalists jettison the old fundamentals as they embrace new ones" such as you made above what is the difference in that and the supposed slander you are coming out against? I could say mostChristians jettison their basic belief system and embrace new ones. Then I would be stereotyping I believe RW should be accountable to his Lord and not me, but to stereotype Fundamentalist to defend him I feel is somewhat out of place.

I mean no disrespect but two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Last time I checked using the KJV wasn't a fundamental.

Just sayin'.

 

Never said it was.

 

Hmm. You quoted PastorGreg and then referred to me. A little mixed up, hmm?

At any rate, my points have not been to prove Warren was opposing the fundamentals, though I'm not convinced he even knows what they are. I don't know if he's a true evangelical or a theological liberal. What I've been saying is that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about when it came to fundamentalism.

 

Since when has the size of a movement been an indication of the correctness of the movement? The Lord, at times, had a very small following. When He ascended into heaven after the resurrection there were 120 followers. I guess they weren't correct. The Catholics are huge. Does that make them right? (Not trying to pick on the Catholics, just making a numbers point.) Numbers don't mean diddley. Osteen preaches to tens of thousands of people, yet he is wrong on a whole lot of things.

 

Soooo, from a Biblical perspective how do you brethren determine what is and what is not essential to be regarded as "fundemental" or "orthodox" in contrast to a "cult" or "unorthodox"?

 

Creeds are focused on what man believes about God, but scripture is focused on God. So it is necessary to focus on scripture.

 

I guess what I am asking, do the Scriptures provide principles to determine absolute minimual essentials of orthodoxy. For example, in Matthew 23:23 Jesus suggests that the scriptures place more emphasis upon some things than others. The use of "the faith" and other synomyns suggest that a bare bone essentials of doctrine and practice were handed down by the apostles to the churches or what was called "the apostles doctrine."

Does the Bible or Biblical principles provide any way to determine such essentials? If not, then how do you determine between orthodox Christianity and cultish Christianity?

Creeds differ! Definitions of orthodoxy differ. Do you think the Bible provides clear principles to determine orthodoxy?

 

The thread is not about heresy or cults or Catholics, but about people who believe in the fundamentals and try to win souls. In such a context numbers can mean God's blessing as witness Acts 2.

 

The Bible is clear on the fundamentals. In the case of essential doctrine, the Bible pulls no punches. I won't look up all the Scriptures right now, but I'm sure you know them. One who adds to Scripture is cursed (Rev.). One who preaches the wrong Gospel is cursed (Gal.). One who brings the wrong doctrine of Christ should not be received into one's house (2 John 9-11). There are no such admonitions for minor doctrines.

 

It looks as if you embrace the principle of non-negotiables. The scriptures treat some doctrines as clearly non-negotiable and therefore all such teachings are essential to orthodoxy.

Two other principles that I have used through the years are; (2) the distinctives and (3) teachings essential to perpetuate the above two principles.

There are distinctive doctrines and practices in the Bible that are essential to distinguish between Biblical Christianity and other world religions or predicted apostasies.

There are teachings essential to perpetuate the non-negotiables and distinctives (inspiration, preservation and final authority of scriptures; the New Testament church and its ordinances, the Great Commission continuity; etc.).

However, do you believe that there are some narrower principles furnished in what all call the Great Commission as given in Matthew 28:19-20?

 

Definitely. I'm a committed fundamentalist.

I heartily agree.

Well, being a missionary, yes I believe that there are some narrower principles furnished in the Great Commission in Matthew--and the ones in Mark, Luke, John and Acts. But please explain more what you mean.