What is the need for fundies to always talk about 'the movement'?

I would agree with that assessment Greg.
And I, too, admire the solid stand Bro. Cloud takes.
That being said, I think the compromisers are what is wrong with "Fundamentalists" today. I mean to say, that it is those men who would compromise with worldly things while at the same time loudly proclaiming to stand for the "Fundamentals".
They will allow compromise in dress, appearence, music, to name a few off the top of my head. Others will allow compromise on the Bible issue. (I won't go down that road here. Suffice to say, that by Bible issue, I mean they are willing to accept even the hopelessly corrupt Living Bible, i.e. Billy Graham, who once claimed to be a fundamentalist. OK?)
Their reasoning seems to be that those particular issue are not in the "List", therefore should not be an issue. I would counter that when practicle Holiness is not an issue then all that was good and noble in the "movement" has been lost.

What do you fellers think of those thoughts? Am I off base?
In HIS service;
Jim

 

^^^

Greg,

I am aware of his website and newsletter; I had become acquainted with Way of Life literature while I was in college & seminary. The others you mentioned I also read on occasion. I may not necessarily agree with them 100%, but they are good to get information about news in general. Can you post here a list of the websites to these (I know of Wayoflife.org) 'news and views' publications? I think that would be very helpful to everyone here!

 

^^^

Jim, I see you are up as late as I am! I am at work, actually. Monitoring alarms is not exactly exciting work, unless someone's out to break into a building.

I had taken a 'survey' that was posted by another person on the Fundamental BB; it was intended for 'younger' Fundamentalists like myself (I'm 33 years old). Very interesting questions, I might add. Older people can also take the survey, but I don't think that they will be tallied in the final results. Hmmm....

Fundamentalism is defined on one's stance on Biblical issues + separation from error. One's own personal views on non-essentials (denominational distinctives, personal values not specifically addressed in the Bible, Calvinism/Arminianism, version preference, etc...) are always not to be confused with the distinctives of Fundamentalism. Too often these become blurred with older 'fundamentalists', particularly of IFB's, where personal 'standards' become the issues of Fundamentalists. This is why some of our younger people are falling away from fundamentalism!
I don't necessarily think you are off base about your perceptions about fundamentalists (Jim), but one's personal views should not be confused with the 'Fundamentals' of our faith.

 

You are of course correct, in that, one's personal views/convictions should not be the defining criteria as to what the fundamentals are.
So...should seperation (as a Biblical priciple) be defined as such?
For example, one can make the perfectly legit argument that the profane should be seperated from. How would you define the profane in a Biblical manner as it applies to seperation?
See what I am getting at? Many would hold to defining the profane as anything which tends to blur the line. There ought to be a definitive line in the sand. And that would apply to any issue. We ought to say, THIS is what we are seperating from. Shouldn't we? Or would you argue that there are grey areas? Frankly, I do not see grey areas in the matter of personal or corporate holiness.
Thoughts?
(BTW, I am a night owl by nature. Also, I have been recuperating from knee surgery, so bed time is non-existent)
In HIS service;
Jim

 

Well, can you give an example of what is profane? Perhaps this would be helpful to me since I don't really understand your question fully. As far as separation is concerned regarding on what cause a church should separate is rather clear from the Scriptures. Fundamentalism should be defined in these terms, but perhaps you are referring to personal separation instead?

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/index.html

http://members.citynet.net/morton/

http://www.tbaptist.com/aaa/pages/publications.html
http://www.biblebelievers.com/

http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/

http://www.flamingtorch.org/

http://www.invitation.org/topsites/in.php?id=58

http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

http://fundamentaltop500.com/

http://www.baptisttop1000.com/index.asp?from=201

http://biblicalevangelist.org/history.php

http://fundamental.org/resources/index.php3?sid=521408&CategoryID=6

http://cnview.com/index.html

http://www.blessedquietness.com/

http://www.opendoors.org/

http://persecution.com/

LRL...as requested,here is a link list of the websites I most frequently go to for pleasure,reading,and research.There's plenty of stuff here to keep anyone busy for awhile.Enjoy!

Greg Sr.

 

LRL;
I might get some flack for this, but here goes...
Profane in music. CCM for example. But it is not just CCM which I would call profane, but most if not all of "Southern Gospel". Just two examples to give you an idea of what I am talking about.Other styles of music are just as bad, I would say. Too much "Hellywood" in it.
Dress and demeanor. Girls should LOOK like girls and boys should LOOK like boys. Too much of our culture has dictated what our people should cover their bodies with. While we cannot escape being in our culture, it ought not be IN us. Demeanor= manners, ettiquette, persoanl carriage of one's body, and one's speach.
In a short concise sentence it boils down to this.
The WORLD should be able to look and listen to us in everyday life and SEE a marked difference in everything about us, prompting them to ask of the hope which lieth within us. If they can SEE no difference then I ask IS there a difference?
They took note of the apostles and noticed that they had been WITH Jesus, did they not? If so, then why is it so different today? Compromise with the profane is why.
I hope that makes it as clear as mud for you.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

Jim,

Thanks for clarifying the context of your earlier comments regarding 'profane'. I believe you are referring to personal separation. Let me state what I think when someone says to me, "What is Fundamentalism?", I usually refer to the term applying strictly to ecclesiastical separations that Fundamentalism adheres to, and not the personal connotations that are associated to the 'standards' held to by some within Fundamentalism. I think by now that you realize that what we are talking about is like comparing apples to oranges. I believe that the seriousness of the separation issue becomes clouded when Fundamentalists associate ecclesiastical separation with personal separation, and therefore link the two as being the same thing that defines Fundamentalists. I think that this is where we might disagree, where I don't think that Fundamentalism is defined where personal separation issues should dictate primarily how we define a person as whether or not he/she is a 'fundamentalist'. While I was in seminary (and college, to a lesser extent), the issues of personal separation were not defined in a way that enabled believers to separate from one another in personal fellowship-- or even at the level of church to church fellowship and co-operation. Too often it has been the case that Fundamentalists have separated from each other either personally or ecclesiastically (or, both!) because of non-essentials and in areas where the Bible is silent about. What one perceives as being an essential to 'separation' when it is not is not an excuse or an option to separate from one another.

Now, as to your statements about two subjects which you gave as examples, I think that we are in agreement as to the principles in which we strive to serve the Lord, in which you said, "The WORLD should be able to look and listen to us in everyday life and SEE a marked difference in everything about us, prompting them to ask of the hope which lieth within us." I think even that it would be better said this way: "GOD should be able to look and listen to us in everyday life and SEE a marked difference in everything about us, prompting HIM to ask of the hope that lieth within us". I think you would agree that this statement would be better since it is God in whom we are able to please in our service to Him.
Now, to the examples of which you stated, which are:
1. CCM
2. Dress and demeanor.
I hope that you realize that we are essentially agreed in principle about these issues, but we aren't in agreement as to their applications. I look at CCM and Southern Gospel as that-- music. Some of it is indeed 'profane', but we can as believers discern what is acceptable without drawing a line in the sand. I regularly listen to CCM music so long as I perceive that the music is glorifying to God and is theologically sound. God is concerned about our attitudes and desires in everything we do, but there aren't any indications from the Bible that there is a hard and fast rule in which to apply a standard to the music we listen to. A couple of fallacies that many within the CCM music industry make is that music is amoral, and the other fallacy is that some within the industry are as depraved as their secular counterparts, yet still don't have a clue as to their indifference to spiritual things.

As far as a believer's dress code is concerned, this one is much more likely to be addressed in Scripture. I do think that there isn't a hard and fast rule about how a believer should dress, but if one is being obedient to God and is being illumined by the Holy Spirit which inhabits each and every believer, then this should not be an issue. I would agree heartily that the culture of our day is rather depraved and without any goodness that could be attributed to personal demeanor, and this has too often influenced Christians. We should strive to serve God and not the flesh.

 

Unless I have misunderstood some of the previous posts, two of the elements that define a fundamentalist is the way they dress and their appearance (I assume this means their hair style, the absence or presence of facial hair, etc.).

Admittedly, I am confused over all of this...call me dense.

My banker has a goatee. He is not a Christian. Does that mean I should not wear a goatee because some non-Christians wear them?

My hair, when combed straight down on the sides bearly touches the top of my ears, and it is squared off at the back of my neck. Is God offended by this? Does this hair style give the appearance that I am not a Christian?

What about my blue jeans and pull-over golf-type shirt that I wear most of the time? I have noticed that most of my non-Christian acquaintances wear these items, too. Have I compromised by dress standards?

Since I like to smell good, most days I put on a hint of Aramis aftershave. Is that okay, or does it reflect femininity and make me suspect?

These questions are serious, because I really need some guidance on how a fundamentalist should "look."

If I dress in a suit...or a sport coat and slacks (pleated)....or casual pants and a pullover...or wear tennis shoes...or ankle-high boots...or cowboy boots...or sandals...I look around me and see unsaved people dressed in all of these things. What are my other choices so that I can appear fundamental??

 

If a fundamentalist would wear biblical clothes such as a robe and sandals he would be highly noticed. He would only need to have a hair cut once or twice a year to be biblical. To conform to the culture of the time he should wash his clothes about twice to six time each year.

 

It's interesting how the same ones who condemn certain hair styles and dress for the attention they draw to oneself, can then require women to stylishly ski down a hill with culottes pulled over their snow bibs. It's interesting how the same ones who condemn anything fashionable in dress and hair as being worldly, can possess the latest computer, cell phone and transportation. All I can say is that if "being separate from the world" requires looking different from everyone else, I received plenty of ideas during my last trip to New York City. How sad when the focus of our "difference" revolves around anything other than the greatest commandments we have been given...to love God, and to love others.

 

Brothers and Sisters...we are ALL,as Christians,subject to the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh.I think we all need to remember that our manner of appearance and dress should NOT draw attention to things that are improper or immodest.Many of the current fashions and styles of dress and appearance CROSS THAT LINE and not only look worldly but may as well be an immodest stumblingblock to not only the lost world around us but also to each other as Christians.I'm not saying we should all wear burlap sacks but REALLY people.We need to have standards of dress that reflect modesty and holiness.I have witnessed women AND men in my own fellowship that were as vain and immodest as any in the world and I am sure that it leads to no good many times.People should be able to look at us and know right away that we aren't the same even before we open our mouths.JMO

Greg Sr.

 

^^^

Dr. Bob,
Technically speaking, legalism has another theological meaning, but I know what you're talking about. My pastor refers to this as "Pharasaism", in which rules and regulations were made up to make one look pious in place of 'real' religion which changes one's own soul. I think that each and every believer has his/her own 'soul liberty' (a Baptist distinctive, no less!) to make decisions about how one carries his/her self. Too often we rely on Christian schools and colleges make those decisions for us, and we tend to forget and lose what it is that actually changes one into how Christ wants us to be.....!

 

OK guys...granted...we have all seen the legalism get out of hand...I thoroughly agree....BUT..that being said,what ARE the proper standards from a Biblical point of view?Anybody want to put their head on the choppingblock here?I was generalizing in my previous post while trying to make a valid point but I don't pretend to know all the answers.Just what ARE the proper cloths for a biblically modest(as it should be)child of God,either male or female...and where DOES the music cross the line and become something foreign to what glorifies our Lord?I agree that the standard should always be something biblically defensible.

Greg Sr.

 

I agree Gragory Sr.;
And Dr. Bob, you can count me OUT of the extreme bunch.
I dont' want to be extreme. No sirree!
So...I'll stay moderate if that is OK with our good Dr. B.
Moderately ethical. Moderately well mannered. Moderately clean spoken. Moderately Biblical. Moderately witnessing. Moderately prayerful. Moderately seperated. Moderately Trinitarian. Moderately well groomed. Moderately honest on my taxes. Moderately within the speed limit. Moderately drunk. Moderately faithful to church. Moderately faithful in giving. Moderately holy. Moderately...

No sirree, I won't be one of them EXTREMISTS, nosirree!
In HIS service;
Jim