Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by DrJamesAch, May 8, 2013.
Shouldn't this thread title be "why fundamentalists don't listen to some wacko critics?" Otherwise you present fundamentalists as nut-jobs believing their belief system is without blemish. Lots of scripture points to the wisdom of seeking info from mature Christians.
WACKO is an acronym in that particular article and is directed toward a particular group of people, but applicable to critics in general in many areas.
Certainly fundamentalists have their weaknesses and I've written about some of those on there, but the critics against fundamentalism are not satisfied with seeing flaws ameliorated, they want the total destruction of fundamentalism, period.
That site is poorly designed. I had a hard time reading it.
I'll just say that I am glad that I now belong to a Baptist group that does not have to publish such articles to toot their own horn or to cover up well-known heresies and sins by attacking their critics.
I'm a fundamentalist and I listen to my critics. Sometimes they are right. Then I change.
Being a fundamentalist is not the same as saying someone is a brick-head. You can be a brick-head whether you're a fundamentalist or not.
Fundamentalists (of any faith) are people who adhere to the fundamental doctrines of their faith. I am a fundamental Baptist. I believe that there are fundamental doctrines that are imperative to salvation, and additional ones that are imperative to proper sanctification and/or understanding of Scripture.
There are some doctrines that you have to separate on, and some that you don't. If someone isn't a fundamental Baptist, it doesn't mean they're not saved, nor does it mean they aren't serving the Lord. It does mean that I don't see eye to eye with them on a lot of details, and I believe that in many cases the differences are things that will hinder them in their spiritual life. But it isn't something to fight and get mad over. It is something to prayerfully consider and draw your lines of separation over. Meaning, I am not going to go into some joint ministry with a group of Presbyterians or Pentacostals, even though they may very well be true believers, I can't throw my lot in with them and minister together with them in an official capacity. But one on one, I can have fellowship with them and pray together and have a good time in the Lord.
Would you agree with me that "biblical seperation" seems to be the biggest difference between Fundamentalists/Evangeklical Baptists...
For example, if a non baptist church or churches were holding a Crusade, Evangelics would be part IF the churches were teaching sound doctrines, but Funamentalists would see it as supporting "not like minded" groups?
"Y" .... if a Fundi saw me drinking a beer in public , I would be Labeled a Sinner & not associated with. Or if , heaven forbid, I was caught dancing at a Wedding Function....again, "Sinner"
Its just not worth the time to discuss it any more.
A "fundy" doesn't separate from you simply because you are a sinner, because then we would all be an island. It is when the practice of sin becomes a normal and acceptable lifestyle that continues unabated.
Even if I or others did not consider ourselves fundamentalists, 1 Cor 5:11 is still in the Bible. Now if you don't believe the Bible, then that's an entirely different subject.
That is a fair assessment although you have much more grace than I do in having a good time with and praying with Pentacostals.:laugh:
I do believe that Baptists can be over-reaching in their application of separation. The definition may be spot on, but the implementation of it is sometimes at odds with scripture. I have had those separate from me simply because I do not worship a man in a pulpit even though I do not meet the criteria of what a Baptist would normally consider grounds for separation. I see nothing in the Bible that says "If a brother or sister is not in agreement with your view of your pastor, ye shall have no company with him". And it gets even worse if you dare write an article about that pastor or pastors.
The article was directed at a particular crowd. It was not meant to imply that fundamentalists are beyond criticism. There is a particular crowd that have made their mission in life to blame the evils of the world on the IFB, and if an IFB preacher does not mention the word "abuse" in every sermon or article, or somehow incorporate it at least once a day in a conversation, then that person is considered a supporter of abuse that is apathetic towards victims. And because that crowd seems to be the most outspoken against fundamentalists, that is who the article is directed at.
There are some preachers, some Baptist and some not, that occasionally will notice something among fundamentalists that is awkward, sinful, or hypocritical, and speak according on the matter, but they do not treat the subject as if it is a full time job with benefits to tear down every element of fundamentalism.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so occasionally the regular critic may say something that has merit, but on the whole, so much of what is said against fundamentalists falls into the categories listed in the article that it falls on deaf ears.
I guess my reaction after reading your response is, "why post here on the BB about the "wacko" critics?
I do not believe that Dow, Bass, or Joyce post here on the BB. So I don't see what your motivation for placing the link in your first post is?
The fact that I didn't list those names in this thread, but you know who I am referring to shows that are a sufficient amount of people that are on this forum that read their blogs, and that is enough motivation for me to post it here.
Or perhaps I am mistaken where the header of this forum says BAPTIST board. Thus if this is a BAPTIST board, I would think it is relevant to post articles about those who make it their mission in life to attack Baptists.
I don't believe the Pope posts on BB either, so does that mean none here should write about Catholicism?
I am not aware of those names due to reading them on the BB, nor from reading their blogs. As a matter of fact, I don't even recall those names having been mentioned on here in the past, although they may have been in the far distant past.
I just don't see the relevancy of dragging your dirty laundry in here, but if it floats your boat, then happy sailing.
Here is where I call non-sense on that statement, sorry.
On my website, I use the name Jeri Massi on a few articles when referring to Jeri Massi's blogs. Not once have I EVER used the term "BASS" to describe Jeri Massi, which only a person that knows Jeri's blog handle on other websites would know that she uses the name "Bassenco" and "BASS" for short.
In post 11 above, you stated "I do not believe that Dow, Bass, or Joyce post here on the BB. So I don't see what your motivation for placing the link in your first post is?"
So I do believe that you kind of indicted yourself in critiquing my post
"Bass" used to post on the old FFF, which is how I know her nom de plume. I've never read her blog to my recollection.