A Chart

http://sharperiron.org/sites/default/files/reference/fund_taxonomy_chart.pdf


I wonder why some men seem so engulfed in classifying their brethren.

 

I wonder why others are more concerned with legalistic posturing that with the spread of the Gospel.

That's touche', if you're not conversant in non-1611 speech...

 

What an intriguing chart. Thanks

 

um, engulfed by what?

or possibly engrossed?

but yeah, charts have limited usefulness. how could they leave out such humble n self-effacing leaders like me? :wavey:

 

I find it pretty interesting. Thanks, HG...

oh, forgot- I am on ignore.... no need to thank you then.


:laugh:

 

yet "non-1611" speech is on the downward trend.

The chart shows the distinct departing from not only sound doctrine but also departing from the faith once handed down to the saints.

The Gospel is the message of salvation, but God is pleased by our excercise of the faith measured to every man. So limiting the word of God to only the Gospel and then making the accusation of legalism as if that coincides, nowhere, nohow is being truthful. Yet that accusation is an attack against the holiness God expects his people to also become.

No " touche' " there.

Although the chart is supposed to show an extremism in fundamentalism, it rather points out liberalism and how it has devastated the church by inviting in all types of worldliness.

 

easy:wavey:

 

"Sharper Iron" is passe, with little influence in fundamentalism anymore. Since it was sold earlier this year it has become more and more a website for a small group of Calvinist fundamentalists who brook no dissent on the forum. The owner even jumps in, comments, then closes down the thread if it doesn't agree with his view! (This literally happened to me. I've not been back.) If you'll look at the threads you will see that very few of them have been posted in for days and days, sometimes weeks or months.

Edited in: I want to add that this is a shame. SI started out as a great idea with great discussions and articles, and some of the articles are still worth reading.

 

No, the chart is nothing more than the subjective categorization of persons based on their own definitions of persons.

The chart also incorrectly identifies hyperfundamentalists as strongly anti-calvinist. That's also not correct. While it is true that hyperfundamentalists tend to be arminian more often than calvinist, arminianism is not a prerequisite of hyperfundamentalism.

 

What is the alternative. For the person who makes the chart to classify people in a way that he thinks is incorrect?

I find the chart to be pretty spot-on and helpful.

 

To be objective rather than subjective.

 

Yeah, but since the group that the author identifies with appears in the chart, he cannot be objective. You' d have to have someone who is none of the groups to make a chart to acheive objectivity. In fact, the purpose of the chart his for him to explain to his own group how his own group relates to others.

 

Not so sure. You can be a member of a group and be objective. In fact, being a member of a group is not a license to be unobjective. That aside, it's quite self evident on its owm merits that the aforementioned chart is not only subjective, but wrong on several counts.

 

Because humans are fallible, I am not sure that we can practice objectivity under any circumstance.

That aside, maybe you could give some examples of things that you think are incorrect. Not trying to be in your face, I'm interested in hearing your opinion (objective or not!).

 

Blithering blather...

 

We can certainly strive for it. The chart in question doesn't even attempt it.

Sure, I've already noted how the chart incorrectly identifies hyperfundamentalists as strongly anti-calvinist (While it is true that hyperfundamentalists tend to be arminian more often than calvinist, arminianism is not a prerequisite of hyperfundamentalism).

Note that it lists Bill Hybels as "emergent". That is by no means correct. Hybels is classic Reformed, not emergent. Likewise, Mark Driscoll is strictly Calvinist, almost to a fault. The chart claims that Hybels and Mark Driscoll hold to a view of the Bible being infallible only when culturally understood. They do not. They both are strict adherents to the Calvinist view of scripture being inerrant and infallible.

Also, note that it attempts to use the use of contemporary Christian music as a litmus test for theological position, which is like trying to use hair color as a litmus test for being bald.

 

Thank you, JoJ, my thoughts exactly. Although I never visited their forum I did use some of their stuff previously before the sale.

I had noticed their staunch Calvinistic stand on some of their stuff and avoid them now even though I found this chart to reveal much about the departing from the fundamentals most of us grew up with.

 

I'm not Arminian, yet I am "hyperfundamentalist".

Your ascertian lacks comprehension in that you said the chart is subjective then you say it is incorrect. The chart is a very good one which exemplifies what I have stated about the inset of liberalism in regards to the church.

Most of us would cause our predecessors to have to backslide in order that they might fellowship with us.
On the Calvinism note, I find too many passages which deny me accepting the "core doctrines" which make it up.

 

Not the typical mantra of any BJU grad post 1982

 

Many hyperfundamentalists are not arminian (despite the fact that the chart uses arminianism as a hyerfundamentalist requisite.

It's obviously not objective, and it's obviously not correct.

If it's incorrect and subjective, it's a bad chart. The fact that you identify yourself as arminian and hyperfundamentalist is an example of the chart's inaccuracy.

Neither strict calvinism nor strict arminianism are a core scriptural cotrine.

??? Please explain.