Attitutudinal Issues

Would you say Jack Hyles was immature?

The point is: most of the legalism stems from the pulpit down, so are you suggesting these pastors are immature?

 

Then I'll state it once again.

You believe that Christians cannot reach the lost if we look and act like them. Those are your words.

I disagree. We reach them by telling them that Jesus Christ died for them, not by them seeing us dress different and having a desire to come based on being "different," which is your belief. We preach reconciliation to God through the shed blood of the Saviour. That is what needs to draw them, not our ideas of what being "different" is. </font>[/QUOTE]I did NOT say that the lost will come to US or to Christ based solely on the fact that we look differently. You are REALLY reading into what Im saying. I am in no way espousing "lifestyle evangelism." I AM only trying to say that when we participate in the sin of the world, and make no effort to be different from the world, then the ones who are around us won't really care what we have to say about Christ.
But obviously the gospel must be preached!

And ya know what? If dress standards actually do NOTHING to help our testimony, I would still hold to them, because thats what God's Word says. This goes for any of the standards Im talking about. LIving right is ALSO in order to obey God, and to keep ourselves free so we can serve God better.

 

AAG,

Jack Hyles had standards. These other men had standards. HAVING the standard does not make you immature.

As a pastor these men have the responsibility to teach their people what God has taught them in the Bible. They have the responsibility to teach them what they have learned about holiness, and right living, and keeping pure, and modesty.

IM not a pastor, most people I know in IFB are not pastors. Im the only one in this discussion who is not a preacher of some sort. So my viewpoint is solely from that of the layman. I don't go around telling people how they ought to live, or "informing" them of my standards and issuing decrees that everyone must be just like me.

A PASTOR, however, FROM HIS PULPIT, has the right and duty to teach and preach what he sees in God's Word. Jack Hyles, and I daresay whichever other pastors you're talking about, DID not and DO not just walk up to people on the streets and harangue them about how they are or are not dressed, or what they are or not drinking/smoking/cussing, "you fill in the blank."

The pastors YOU sit under do the same thing....or excuse me, you as a pastor yourself do the same thing. You preach and teach what you see as holiness and proper conduct within God's Word. Well, what if someone comes along and has some issue with what you are saying? What if he disagrees with how you are interpreting some passage? Do you change what you believe based on what he says? Most likely not. It is the same with Dr Hyles and these other men you refer to anonymously.

I can tell you, Dr Hyles had scriptural support for every standard he preached about. I HEARD him preach and use those scriptures as his basis for what he was saying. Ive also read his books on standards and such. The same thing. He used Scriptures as the reasons for what he was saying.

You might not agree with what he saw in those verses, but that is NOT the same thing as a man just making up stuff out of "whole cloth."

I also don't necessarily agree that what you describe comes from the pulpit down. Do all your people exhibit the attributes that you most wish them to? Of course not.
I DO believe that much of the "legalism" and "judgementalism" comes from
A)immature people who are going to be that way no matter who they are listening to

and

B) very zealous younger Christians whose personalities are rougher or whose zeal has gotten the best of them and left them without much tact for the time being. This second group has seen MANY good people come out of it, and grow into loving preachers and laymen.

The first one is probably going to be found everywhere in every sort of church.

 

I don't accept your totally blanket statement. How am I supposed to remark on it?

"Everyone on here who is not a fundamentalist, or used to be a fundamentalist knows of their tendancy to be hyper-crtical and judgemental of fundamentalists."

Why is this so difficult to acknowledge?

 

Agreed,C4K. He's not debating, just throwing out the same old same old anti-fundamentalist cliches. It is really boring hearing the old legalism charge. "Personal separation equals legalism." Ho hum.

 

I don't accept your totally blanket statement. How am I supposed to remark on it?

"Everyone on here who is not a fundamentalist, or used to be a fundamentalist knows of their tendancy to be hyper-crtical and judgemental of fundamentalists."

Why is this so difficult to acknowledge? </font>[/QUOTE]Acknowledged. I've had my share of IFB's, both as a member and as in a circle of IFB preachers. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Extra-biblical teachings. Teaching the doctrines of men as the commandments of God. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.

 

So you acknowledge Gershom, that you (and possibly others) judge all all fundametalists on the basis of your unfortunate experiences?

 

Yes. From experience and from testing according to the Word.

I guess it's really a judgment of the IFB movement or group rather than an individual judgment.

 

That's unfortunate - I am saddened that it is impossible to differentiate between people and a movement.

Is this not the same sin of which you accuse fundamentalists.

 

It is what it is. IFB's obviously have a reputation of being extra-biblical and holding Christians accountable to those doctrines of men, even to the point of dis-fellowship.

 

Obviously to whom? Those who have unfortunate experiences?

Reputations are not always accurate. Reputations are often based on prejudice. It is the prejudicial attitude that most concerns me.

 

This thread is on page twenty. Since I have been involved in the debate I will not close it in a way that appears advantageuous to me, but will notify the other moderators that it is on page twenty and request that it not be closed before 1430 EST today.

 

"I see this consistently with IFB'rs, there is a whole group that goes around badmouthing us, as if they KNOW our hearts. They talk about how wrong we are who don't fit their personal definition of holiness, and talk about our "slipping" standards, when in my experience, many of these are just better at keeping their pet sins under the covers."

see, I can come up with cliche and innuendo too, it makes as little sense as the broad generalizations Gershom is being dogged for.

I have no problem telling anyone how ridiculous their extrabiblical positions are, because I am not EX-IFB, or whatever group you are referring to. I have not given up on the movement, I have great respect for some that have gone before, and I think it is a terrible tragedy what a few bad apples have done to the movement. Its nothing new, Paul fought it in just about every church he visited, but the level at which non-essentials and human opinion have been elevated in some IFB circles causes me to doubt whether they are still fundamentalists. After all, anyone who believes that salvation or sanctification are a result of following rules is embracing a dangerous doctrine that has doomed millions to hell.

 

superdave,

then you don't fit in to the group I was referring to. As long as you do not lump all of us who hold to having standards in our lives as belonging to a group that embraces the "doctrine" that believes that salvation is a result of following rules.

We all know there are some who act that way. All of us have acknowledged that.

 

Isn't it more because Satan is running around this earth and causing havoc on people's lives?

Are we suppose to be fighting for this or fighting for God?

Again, I think we take our "fighting" stance too far. We shouldn't be fighting in Wars, unless it's the War to Save people Souls.

Just my opinion.....

Jamie

 

bapmom,

Your post on Hyles validates everything I have said. You simply do not (and apparantly will not) get it. Can you understand that having "biblical references" for legalistic standards does not make them authentic and does not make them any less legalistic???

It is amusing for me to watch the other IFBers in this discussion remain quiet on some of the things you say. You are supporting the exact opposite of what C4K and others are trying to prove. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for me to take seriously C4K's claim that fundamentalism is not about these things (along with my years of experience in the movement). He is perhaps the only one in this entire discussion on that side of the fence that has not proven our very accusations by his words (intentionally or unintentionally).

 

C4K,

Are you denying the "blanket" statement? Are you saying there is not a tendency among fundies to belittle or criticize those who hold different positions?

Here is an easier question for you: Is it a common characterstic for (add most here if it makes you feel better) fundamentalists to "contend" for their beliefs?

In response to your question (this seems to be a common thread -- you defer, I answer), yes I would say former fundies have a tendency to be critical of fundies. What must be dealt with are the criticims that appear valid. While the spirit may be inappropriate at times, the criticism are most often valid. That is the point.

C4K: do you affirm the things bapmom has said about standards, legalism, and men such as Hyles? If not, where do you as a mainstream fundamentalist disagree?

 

AAG,

I also wait for C4K's response to your last post, but I don't see how you can say Im going against anything he's said. I thought I'd agreed with him all along the way.

Please remember, you don't know what my standards are that I refer to. You don't know if you agree with them or not (except KJV), because this discussion is not supposed to be about getting anyone else to "comply" or agree to my own personal standards. But you keep referring to them as legalistic, even though you don't know what the majority of them are. Personally I think your definition about legalism is more along the lines of anything that a person is dogmatic about.

 

I never said that there are not pockets of fundamentalism that I do not agree with. My contention, from my own personal experience in the fundamentalists circles that I "run in" is that they are not those who base spirituality outward appearances and personal standards. There is not tendancy to belittle anyone in the fundamental churches I am familiar with. I have attempted to answer your questions, but apparently not to your satisfaction.

I would agree that fundamentalists, and I hope all believers, have a desire to follow Jude's advice to earnestly contend for the faith.

I have met the kind of groups you are talking about, but from my 30+ years as a fundamentalist do not consider them mainstream.

I will not reply to my feelings about bapmom's postings. She and her church have liberty in Christ. They will be happy to answer to God alone for the stance they have taken adn do not need answer to you or me.

 

I'll take that as a "no".

Where would you disagree with a fundamentalist like bapmom has portrayed?