Can you be...

If you would define the terminology then I can vote knowledgably.

Fundamental = ?

Legalistic = ?

 

I am assumming by legalistic you are referring to long hair on men,short hair and pants on women,secondary separation, am I correct?:godisgood:

 

Science, I'm a realistic fundamentalist

This is my reply to the poll can you be a Funamenental realist.
Today, there is almost no Science being taught only "science falsely so called". Evidenced by evelution and other Humanist teachings that deny God.

While this is true, let's not go to far believing things like the sun revolves around the world!
Sure there is scriptures that say the sun rises. I believe in taking God's Word literally to a point b/c it is not a Science text book. After all The Bible is meant for admonishon, encouragement, and how to live the Christion life. It would take many pages to give the reason the world revolves around the sun.

* I could be wrong but I don't think so...

This is my reply to the poll can you be a Funamenental realist.
Today, there is almost no Science being taught only "science falsely so called". Evidenced by evolution and other Humanist teachings that deny God.

While this is true, let's not go to far believing things like the sun revolves around the world!
Sure there are scriptures that say the sun rises. I believe in taking God's Word literally to a point b/c it is not a Science text book. After all The Bible is meant for admonition, encouragement, and how to live the Christian life. It would take many pages to give the reason the world revolves around the sun.

* I could be wrong but I don't think so...

Thank you for letting get that of my chest any replies are welcome from Christians.

Thanks,
John R. Baskette
Bachelors of Science in Information Technology/MIS.
The University of Texas, Arlington
Email: [email protected]

 

"Fundamentalist" was originally a term that applied to people who adhere to the fundamentals of the faith, or more loosley in common terms, people who take their faith literally.

Only us Baptists tend to make a distinction of a sect that is particularly legalistic (short hair on men, no movies, KJV-only, etc). Of course, as Baptists, even those withing that category vary quite a bit.

 

Fundament W/O Legalistic?

"Legalistic" needs to be defined! Either it is what the world, Hollywood, & current media calls "Legalistic".
Or The literalness of God's Word, KJV, YES, I attend such a church Amen! I consider myself fundamental in both of the above ways; b/c the world (which is the enemy of God) may think I'm legalistic AND THAT IS FINE! We should please God rather than men!

So with the above definition in mind, I suppose my answer would be NO. You cannot be a Fundamental Christian without appearing to the world as "legalistic".

In Christ;
John. Attending Kingdom Baptist Church

 

it's a fixed poll. what's the point in voting?

Fundamentalism is legalism and religious tradition mixed.

I pity the people really. 90% of them wouldn't know Jesus, if he came up and slapped them...

the dumb chickenhawks...

 

No, really, tell us how you feel.

And please, don't hold back; make sure you use some more demeaning remarks in order to get your point across.

 

Absolutely wrong. Not even close in your bilious assessment.

I take you you have never studied the history of Fundamentalism. I also take it that, since you were offended by your short stay in one small church in one corner of Fundamentalism, you now lump us all together as the objects of your disdain. Not even counting other denominations of Fundamentalist, there are about 10,000 IFB churches in the States (and 1000s in other countries), in many different groups: GARB, BBF, SBF, WBF, MBF, etc., etc. And to you they are all the same.

And once again we ask you: if you are an "ex-fundy," why are you posting in a forum which is for Fundamentalists? There, now you may feel free to insult me as you did Squire Robertsson on another thread (without answering his points, I hasten to add).

As to the OP, the answer is a resounding yes if legalism is defined correctly in its theological sense. “Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).

 

And by the way: You're probably right. Because if He's in you, I sure ain't recognizing it.

 

John has the right answer here. If you are a fundamentalist and you believe in salvation by grace you must reject legalism if it includes earning your salvation through your works.

So the answer to the poll is not just yes but to realy be a fundameltalist you must be (not legalistic that is)

 

At the heart of fundamentalism is legalism, the need for control and strict adherance to prescibed set of beliefs. It requires that you believe in only a certian way and calls into question your salvation if you don't believe exactly like "they" want you to believe.

When you examine the fruit of fundamentalism you are left with the sinking feeling that they are so close yet so far away.

 

I understand where you are coming from go2church and I have been in churches like that before. But the truth of the matter is that they are not the true fundamentalists. If you really believe in salvation by grace and the individual priesthood of the believer then you will reject ideas like questioning the salvation of anyone that doesn't believe just like you do.

Are there churches out there like that? Certainly, but they are not the real fundamentalists.

 

Who defines the catagory's? That has always been the problem for me with fundamentalism and the reason why I refuse to consider myself a fundamentalist. You have neatly defined understandings that melt under the heat of "fired up" fundamentalists. It becomes a mark of how "great" a preacher you are by how many people you can offend. You see folks stand out on the street corner yelling at passing cars, yet refusing to give the homeless guy a buck cause he is just going to go spend it on booze anyway. Fundamentalism at its core is evil and destructive to the living, transforming faith of Jesus Christ.

 

Son, you have a massive ignorance of true Fundamentalism. You have just slandered many of the most godly, God-fearing people I've known, including my parents and my grandparents.

I suggest you actually read something scholarly about the history of Fundamentalism instead of spouting out uninformed opinion. Then I'd be happy to discuss what is wrong with Fundamentalism with you.

 

I am not your son, but rather a brother. I have done scholarly reading about fundamentalism. In fact I was saved in a fundamentalist church, went to a fundamentalist school and worked at a fundamentalist church. My opinion is not as uninformed as you think.

What's wrong with fundamentalism is fundamentalism. It is based not on the inclusive message of Jesus but like the Pharisees is rooted in the narrow interpretations of men.

 

You're young enough to be my son. But if you are my brother, why are you calling my beliefs evil?

If you were saved in a Fundamentalist church, why aren't you grateful? Why are you calling us evil? So you were saved through an evil movement, educated in an evil school and served in an evil church, but now you are good because you left the movement, is that it?

And this is absolutely wrong. Fundmentalism is based on the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God and the defense of the Word of God. We obey the Biblical command, "earnestly contending for the faith."

Once again, you slander my beloved parents and grandparents. My parents served God faithfully for all of their lives. Dad preached the Gospel faithfully for 60 years. When he was dying with Alzheimer's he still tried to preach the Gospel to the other patients in the hospital. My grandfather was John R. Rice, a Fundamentalist among Fundamentalists, who saw over 200,000 saved through his ministry, had his tract translated into over 40 languages and 40,000,000 distributed. And you call the system of beliefs he helped develop evil.

You are entirely free to criticise Fundamentalism. I have no problem with that. I have good friends, including some on the BB, who are not Fundamentalists. But they don't indulge in slander. Shame on you for slandering good people.

By your statement "the inclusive message of Jesus" I suspect you are one of these types who says, "good conservative, good liberal, good Catholic," condemning no group calling itself "Christian" except Fundamentalists.