1. They are humble and respectful and courteous, and even funny (at least the ones I’ve met).
2. They believe in truth.
3. They believe that truth really matters.
4. They believe that the Bible is true — all of it.
5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.
6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.
7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).
8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.
9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.
10. Their “social action” is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn’t usually get written up in the newspaper.
11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don’t have any better track record than non-Christians.
12. They resist trendiness.
13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.
14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.
15. They still sing hymns.
16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.
17. They give some contemporary plausibility to the New Testament claim that the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.
19. My dad was one.
20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists
20 Reasons I Don’t Take Potshots at Fundamentalists
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Revmitchell, Jun 2, 2016.
Page 1 of 3
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The next time I feel like taking a potshot at someone that I disagree with I think I might make a list of why I shouldn't - many of the reasons will parallel this list.
Rob -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Revmitchell
subjective at best
yes
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists[/QUOTE] -
Six reasons I don't take pot shots at fundamentalists.
1. They believe in the virgin birth and deity of Jesus.
2. They believe in the substitutionary atonement.
3. They believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
4. They believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures.
5. They believe in the second coming of Christ.
6. As I too believe all of the above, I too am a fundamentalist. I believe the fundamentals.
We don't take pot shots at our own. We leave that to the enemy of our souls. -
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I don't take shots at them because I was in their circles for a good 15 years.
As with any national grouping there are some good apples and there are some bad apples. I was blessed to be in a very solid fundamental church. I grew in my faith more in that church than I ever had in any evangelical church. Now while I am convinced that many fundamentalist take the idea of separation too seriously , I'm equally convinced that most evangelical churches don't take separation seriously enough and as far as I can tell from personal experience the latter cause much bigger problems. -
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
.
t -
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
blessedwife318,
-
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Pastor is not a KJVO fanatic.....church had a split 3yrs ago.....it is a mixed work at best...We will see what the Lord has in mind here shortly. -
The mantra against "fundamentalists" seems to be "they are legalists".
Can some one define what "legalism" is that can be applied across the board to Christianity.
I don't think its fair to accuse a group of "legalism" without defining just exactly what it is.
Brother Tom has given the only definition of a "fundamentalist" that I have ever heard.
Is there any other than simply declaring that a fundamentalist is one who defends the classic fundamentals of the faith?
HankD -
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk -
However we again (IMO) need to back up first and define "separate" , "separation".
Then we need to understand how to apply the adjectives "1st degree", "2nd degree" to said separation.
This is NOT a gotcha' but we need to understand what I believe is an unnecessary cause of dissension among the churches.
You've heard of "home wreckers" well, IMO this game of dropping the "legalistic" (or "L" bomb) against a church or religious group without first defining terms can be a "church wrecker" because folks inadvertently poll parrot others without thinking the harm they could be doing and that to the earthly body of Christ.
e.g. "they are charismatic" has a pretty clear definition with the evidence being that the church in question allows and promotes speaking in tongues (glossolalia).
What would be the signature event of "they are legalistic".
Or to speak in the vernacular - what is the dead giveaway of a legalistic church?
That they believe in the classic fundamentals of the faith as Tom iterated or what 318 has said (after we define terms).
Perhaps we can start there? Unless no one wants to do so.
Scripture regarding legalism - ? - scan comes up empty.
Scripture regarding separation - Several, many do not seem to apply - here is the central passage in my estimation.
2 Corinthians 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Thanks
HankD -
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Well I won't get into legalism but I will define separation as I was taught.
The idea was that we are to separate from the world, but even bigger is the idea that we are to separate from apostates, or heretics.
This is where 1st and 2nd degree comes in.
1st degree is not associating with heretic X.
For example my old church would not be involved in any event run by the Mormons.
2nd degree is not associating with anyone that does associate with X even if they themselves may be orthodox.
Well I guess I will get a bit into legalism here. Where the problem can arise is when the issue of separation happens over other things besides doctrine. For example music, or dress, or Bible Versions.
This is where I will acknowledge there are some bad eggs within Fundamentalism because they can pick their hobby horse to go on about.
I think the most well known would be KJVO churches. My old church was not a KJVO. That meant that the other Fundamentalist church in town would not have anything to do with us because they were KJVO. My church would have had no problem working with them, but they did because of our stand on the KJV.
Of course the question is what are issue that should be separated over and what are not. And therein lies the legalism issue.
But as I also said I don't think legalism is unique to fundamentalism. From my view liberal churches are just as legalistic just in different ways. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"HankD,
before he preached the home pastor told him he was "in sin" because he did not have a white shirt on....he wore a light blue shirt with his suit, and had facial hair...[beard]
Page 1 of 3