I'll answer the rest of your post in the morning. It's getting late here in Japan. But tell me if you don't think Michael's post (which Luke agreed with completely, and I think others did also) was vicious:
So according to Michael, Luke and others, we Fundamentalists are not well-intentioned, we are wicked with narcissistic self-righteousness, we are evil, we are all spiritually babies, we are pharisees (unsaved people), we are hypocrites in our claims to win people to Christ. we have a false form of godliness, we are sending people to Hell, many of us are not even going to make it to Heaven, and we are a cult.
And you don't think this is a vicious attack?? And you say instead that I'm the guilty one??
Emerging from Fundamentalism
Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by humblethinker, Nov 16, 2013.
Page 4 of 5
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I see what you are saying. I must admit that what Michael said actually does reflect some in that movement, and that is unfortunate but nonetheless it is true. The problem comes with broad brushing. I know some fine men who are IFB and that are solid Bible teachers and preachers. I also know of several that fit in the above picture.
I would only rebuke him for broad brushing, and I haven't personally experienced what he has.
John, I only wish you'd hold the same disdain for the vitriol, accusatory behavior of one from your own camp who is partaking in this thread. And we can add another to that list as well. It is immature, caustic, and shows an unforgiving malignant spirit.
Have a good night. -
-
One group hold to essentials of the christian faith, practice seperation based upon doctrinal errors, but do that in a christ like fashion
another group does same, but also seperates based upon ONLY preferences/convictions, and are hotile and angry against those christians who dare to say intheir :wicked ways!" -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Some Fundamentalists do go too far. I realize that. But I think that is because we have reacted to being the "offscouring of the world," attacked often by not only the secular media but our brothers in Christ.
Here is a definition of legalism by a well known Southern Baptist theologian that I hope you'll ponder: “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 Millard Erickson, p. 990). -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Are you familiar with Millard Erickson, the SBC systematic theologian? He wrote a book entitled, The New Evangelical Theology (1968), in which he points out, "The new evangelicalism holds much of its theology in common with fundamentalism and other orthodox theology" (p. 85). So there is my view that simply believing the Fundamentals makes one an evangelical, not a Fundamentalist. (Evangelical is not a dirty word to me. I see Fundamentalism as one branch of evangelicalism.)
Concerning the idea that Fundamentalists fight for doctrine, he says about the deity of Christ and why it was defended but not the humanity of Christ, "Fundamentalism was a movement involved with defense, and one does not defend that which is not under attack" (p. 108). There is much more in this book that is very perceptive about the two movements, but I'll move on.
Are you familiar with Robert Lightner, a Dallas TS prof back in the day? His book, Neo-Evangelicalism (1965), gives the following definition of Fundamentalism: "The movement which was born in the early part of the twentieth century in opposition to and as a reaction against liberalism.... The term was used to designate the defense of these fundamentals when it was first coined and this is the true meaning of it today" (p. 24).
In 1957 the break came between Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals when Billy Graham refused to seat a committee for his NY crusade of only Fundamentalists, and insisted that liberals be on the committee. In other words, Graham decided that defending the faith against liberalism was not worth it, and we should cooperate with them instead. I fully document this incident here on the BB at: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4309
I could give many more quotes, including from Graham's autobiography, the Ockenga press release of 1957 (I think it was), etc. etc. However, if these quotes from well-known evangelical scholars don't convince you than nothing will.
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
As far as I'm concerned, your goose is alive and well. It's out honking in the barnyard.
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Yes...
Sad but invariably true Brother John...sad but true!:tear:
Bro.Greg:saint: -
Wow!
Bro. Greg Perry Sr.:saint: -
I stated:
By the way, there is nothing different in what makes you a fundamentalist and what makes me one, unless you want to come right out and tell me what rules must be obeyed. Like, can a woman wear pants to church and be a fundamentalist or not?
And one more time, where's your hatred shown towards those who've acted in this thread in the same manner as the ones you've attacked for allegedly doing the same? -
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I simply quoted what you said and drew what I thought was the obvious conclusion from it. You seemed to be saying that to be a Fundamentalist you simply had to believe the Fundamentals. Now you say that's not what you meant. Okay. I'll accept that. So we are apparently fairly close in what we believe a Fundamentalist is. So can we stop this now, the accusations that I am being deceitful, etc.?
Just to be clear, please show me where on the thread you said before this that to be a Fundamentalist one must fight for the fundamentals, because I haven't been able to find that. I don't want to misrepresent you again, so it would be nice to have a quote.
-
By the way John, I never stated you hate a person, I'm simply noting that the same vicious behavior you've attacked you've also allowed to come from others in this same thread. Consistent disdain is what I was looking for, instead of this you actually egg on others who come in to stir the pot because of whose camp a person is in, and you won't touch the others who come in with the same vile nonsense. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And my purpose on this thread was to oppose the vicious attack on my people. If you want to oppose a Fundamentalist on this thread, why do you ask me to do so? Why aren't you doing it yourself? I'm from Tennessee, where we handle our own problems. Whoever on this thread you think is hateful among independent Baptists is not my problem. -
Who said these were fundamentalists? All I am saying is that you're being inconsistent in your attack. IOW, you only have attacked those outside your camp while those perceived to be in your camp you've said no word about their behavior.
Hey, you're the one bringing up vile behavior and making it YOUR personal problem. Be consistent when you take these things on as your problem. :)
Now, if I wanted to take them on for their comments, I would. I just overlook that ignorance for the most part.
By the way John, what michael mentioned is actually true, and luke supporting him is ok with me and I actually support his statement as well. They've called a spade a spade, and somehow that hit deep when you read it. You will go to no end to protect fundies and won't acknowledge michaels assessment as factual. That's somewhat deceitful behavior on your part. Many of us have seen this behavior among fundies, and it's well known. The culture of the IFB needs to change as there are too many of these tyrants in the pulpit. -
"When we miss the mark of a biblical balance, we tend to wander toward legalism or license... The stronger our critical attitudes are toward others, the greater distance our own attitudes may be from a balanced view." -- Eddie Rasnake -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 4 of 5