What is the need for fundies to always talk about 'the movement'?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Daniel David, Jan 23, 2005.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this some kind of sick disease? I don't get it. Why are 'fundies' always talking about the movement?

    Is it just some sick desire to always pound our chest and drown out the noises of others?

    Take a look at the Leadership conferences the past several years and even this year at Calvary in Lansdale, PA. They are constantly these self-absorbed 'fundies' talking about their movement and the evils of other fundies like John MacArthur.

    It just seems so morbid.
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    We have a heritage of which many are proud.

    We also have a core belief which NEEDS to be defended and expounded.

    The problem is when people ADD THEIR OWN NOTIONS or BELIEFS and call them "fundamentals".

    Fundamentalism also has a "militant" wing (beside the ifbX that add things like KJVonly) from which I came. Many of them do manifest a "siege mentality". Sadly.
     
  3. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately many times it turns into "Since this guy once spoke at a church that doesn't hold to some petty secondary theological issue that is my pet, He can't be a fundamentalist any more because he clearly doesn't separate from evil"

    I could care less any more what people call me.
    The connotative definition of fundamentalism is one that I would be happier without. While I hold to the fundamentals and separation, I don't consider myself a fundamentalist in the modern sense of the word.

    Why do you think Dr. Bob always calls himself a historic IFB, he would rather not be a modern one.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is good to talk about because it is about teaching. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, and most who do know history repeat it anyway. It is good to have a historical perspective. It keeps people like the KJVOs from freely stealing the name, though they have tried hard.
     
  5. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    True there is a group of fundamentalists who are rather self-centered, and fail to understand the historical fundamentlist movenment, and how inclusive it was.

    That being said though, separation has always been a part of fundatmentalism, and is an extremely important aspect of the Christian life. Its just that many have perverted the doctrine of separation, and mutilated it to fit their own brand of fuandamentalism which is no less than isolationism.
     
  6. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was once a seminary student at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA. I would disagree heartily about those who contend that these 'kinds of fundamentalists' are self-centered. Do tell us specifically what you disagree with them, lest you make false charges of their intentions. I don't agree with CBTS on their stand on Calvinism (I am a Sovereign Grace Baptist who believes that the Bible teaches the Doctrines of Grace-- known as TULIP), but their stance on the fundamentals and its subsequent beliefs on separation from error do deserve applause. If anyone should question the actions of another, being a public entity or personality, about their lack of integrity and separation from error, then it should be exposed.
     
  7. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    LRL71,

    Sorry for the misuderstanding, I was not meaning to imply that everyone at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary is self-centered. I know some people who went their that are very sound fundamentalists. I simply wanted to point out that there is an element of fundamentlaism that does not match historicaly what fundamentalism is.

    You are right, separation from error does deserve appluse, this is a key distinctive of fundamentalism.
     
  8. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    I was actually referring to Daniel David's post, but not necessarily yours. You are right to point out that there are IFB's out there who are overly obnoxious about flouting their 'fundamental stands'.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, and it's interesting, because most IFB's are also KJVO, and KJVOism is flatly anti-fundamentalist, not to mention liberal. GO figure.
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Actually not true. Estimates are that 75%+ of historic ifb'ers eschew the KJVO nonsense.

    It is the vocal minority (again - we call them ifbX for "extreme") that gives fundamentalism a bad name.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's good to know. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I've met too many of the X kind of IFB's.
     
  12. Soulman

    Soulman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Posted by JohnV: KJVOism is flatly anti-fundamentalist, not to mention liberal. GO figure.

    You sir are flat out WRONG!! I am KJVO and a fundamentalist and have been for 30 years. Just because I am KJVO doesn't make me anti anything or liberal.

    The people on this board are anti KJVO. That is evident!

    If you want to use your NIV then fine. Use it. But don't even think of saying that people who use the KJV by choice are wrong or not fundamentalists.

    You people accuse KJVOnlyisim as being intolerant. Some of you folks are down right hateful . You want acceptance, then why not take the high road and be accepting?
     
  13. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, you're not. You might be one or the other, but you are not both. You may prefer the KJV and use only the KJV and be a fundamentalist. But you are not KJVO and fundamentalist at the same time.
     
  14. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    Pastor Larry brings up a crucial point: KJV-onlyism (not to be confused by folks/churches who prefer the KJV) is not synonymous with fundamentalism. The doctrinal errors of KJV-onlyism deny the essential doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infalliblity, and illumination. KJV-onlyism also denies the facts about how the text of the Bible was transmitted through the ages. The downright deceit, fallacies, and errors of KJV-onlyism should be vigorously attacked because it denies the truth!
     
  15. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry and LRL71 are both wrong on ALL counts. There is NOTHING in the following which would preclude a KJVO from being a fundamentalist.


    A FUNDAMENTALIST IS A BORN-AGAIN BELIEVER IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO:
    Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible;
    Believes that whatever the Bible says is so;
    Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible;
    Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
    The doctrine of the Trinity,
    The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ,
    The new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit,
    The resurrection of the saints to life eternal,
    The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death,
    The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
    Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
    Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
    Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

    In spite of their vehement vocalizing against KJVO, their voices are but tiny squeaks when seen against the distinctions of true fundamentalism. Just because SOME fundamentalists were Methodists or Evangelicals or what-have-you, does not in any way dismiss the FACT that KJVo stand for every single Fundamental Distinction.
    To try to insert what SOME see as errors of the doctrine of KJVO into the FUNDAMENTALS is a fatal error on their part simply because it is KJVo's who stand rigidly on their Bible.

    Now, you may SAY I am wrong, but it is apparent that you have INSERTED your opposition to KJVo into the fundamentals. Nothing in the Fundamentals says anything about which Bible one way or the other. Therefore, one may be MV or KJVo and STILL be a FUNDAMENTALIST.

    Them's the facts ma'am.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  16. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    :rolleyes: Oh, brother, here we go again.....

    I hope that this thread doesn't become 'reposted' into the Versions/Translations thread, but av1611jim's comments deserve some attention to his fallacious attack on the Bible and denial of the historic fundamentals of the faith. KJV-onlyism denies the Word of God what it so clearly attests, as stated from av1611jim's very statements to the historic Christian faith:

    A FUNDAMENTALIST IS A BORN-AGAIN BELIEVER IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO:
    Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible;
    Believes that whatever the Bible says is so;
    Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible;
    Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
    The doctrine of the Trinity,
    The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ,
    The new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit,
    The resurrection of the saints to life eternal,
    The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death,
    The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
    Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
    Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
    Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.


    There is nothing stated here about a 'perfectly preserved' (mmmm.... pickle [​IMG] ) version in the fundamentals, nothing about the KJV being the 'only preserved English Bible', nothing about God perfectly preserving the text of the Bible from errors in the transmission of the OT & NT texts, nothing stated that the quality of any translation having the same qualities of the inspired autographa, nothing about the inerrancy of any translation. Do you understand what nothing means? To the KJV-onlyist, it means holding on to a Bible version, not the Word of God. Dodge, flee, obfuscate, deflect, defer, hide all that they can, KJV-onlyists cannot escape their hateful rhetoric of deceit, lies, inconsistencies, and denial of the self-attesting, time-honored, historic Christian doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination. The false doctrines of KJV-onlyism, and their subsequent denials of the doctrines of the historic Christian faith, by inserting a corrupted and erroneous doctrine into the doctrines of Bibliology, can only stand as being opposed to the very Word of God itself. Such teachings go contrary to these essential doctrines because KJV-onlyists deny that the inspired autographs were the ONLY inerrant documents; inspiration (theopneustos) applies to only the original autographs and NOT to the transmitted copies. God did no act of preserving the exact words of the OT or NT in any manuscript, text-type, or translation. To even infer such requires that history and biblical doctrines be denied and be substituted by the erroneous false doctrines of a 'perfectly preserved (pickle, yum [​IMG] ) KJV'. You cannot claim both and claim to be a fundamentalist. A KJV-onlyist is NOT a fundamentalist. :mad:
     
  17. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVO fails in the following points from your list:

    1. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so;

    2. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible;

    3. Exposes and separates from all .... compromise with error;


    Andy
     
  18. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Talk about "hateful rhetoric!!! Give me a break!
    __________________________________________________

    There is nothing stated here about a 'perfectly preserved' (mmmm.... pickle ) version in the fundamentals, nothing about the KJV being the 'only preserved English Bible', nothing about God perfectly preserving the text of the Bible from errors in the transmission of the OT & NT texts, nothing stated that the quality of any translation having the same qualities of the inspired autographa, nothing about the inerrancy of any translation. Do you understand what nothing means? To the KJV-onlyist, it means holding on to a Bible version, not the Word of God. Dodge, flee, obfuscate, deflect, defer, hide all that they can, KJV-onlyists cannot escape their hateful rhetoric of deceit, lies, inconsistencies, and denial of the self-attesting, time-honored, historic Christian doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination. The false doctrines of KJV-onlyism, and their subsequent denials of the doctrines of the historic Christian faith, by inserting a corrupted and erroneous doctrine into the doctrines of Bibliology, can only stand as being opposed to the very Word of God itself. Such a concept is known as 'heresy'!
    __________________________________________________

    Mudslingers anonymous unite!

    "To the KJV-onlyist, it means holding on to a Bible version, not the Word of God."

    I am here and now calling you out brother. Produce this "Word of God" or retract.


    Consider the LAST paragraph of my post.
    Nuff said.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  19. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    Thank you, Andy! [​IMG]

    You said so much by stating so little. [​IMG]
     
  20. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now, you may SAY I am wrong, but it is apparent that you have INSERTED your opposition to KJVo into the fundamentals. Nothing in the Fundamentals says anything about which Bible one way or the other. Therefore, one may be MV or KJVo and STILL be a FUNDAMENTALIST.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     

Share This Page

Loading...