A legitimate question.

I don't know Dr. Bob. I kind of like the "Sword of the Lord."

 

Shiloh,

I myself am an IFB. I do not believe in drinking, smoking or the others that you mentioned, but yes I agree, most people on this board do not agree with me. ***versions will not be argued on this forum*** So, we are here you just have to look for the threads that are all heated, there has to be an IFB in there for it to be heated!


Sword of the Lord is a great site. I support it!

[ December 10, 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

I don't consider myself liberal, but some women preachers give me a headache. Some are good. But, I can say that about the men, too.

I don't drink, but I have drank wine at the Lord's supper, and I have drank to take care of stomach problems. This is biblical.

I like to dance, and enjoy letting children dance. I plan to dance with my husband at my wedding at church. But, there is compromising dancing.

I believe in loving homosexuals to salvation, as much as I beleivein the same for whores, adulterers,liars, and --those who sin.

there may or may not be earthly reasons for miracles. Who cares. That doesn't make them any less of miracles.

I own a KJV. But, I own many others.

I didn't know who any of those men were except Jack Hyles, and I didn't know who he was until he died.

I don't read those things you named.

 

Amen, me too!

[ December 10, 2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Count me in too! I agree with LauraB!

Even though the only Bible I read is KJV, I own another one, but I will not debate Bible versions, so I guess I am KJV preferred and not KJV only; but that makes me no less an INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST!

 

I'm an Independent Fundamental Baptist and I'm King James 1611 ONLY and proud of it.

 

I'm a New American Standard Only Independant Original-Fundamental Baptist and I am grateful that God has shown me the truth.

 

I wonder what all those people did who lived before King James and the Church of England gave the world the only true word of God? What did they read for 1600 years, counterfeit scripture?

Just think, God waited 1600 years to give the world His only true word through a king and a baby-baptizing, monarchical bishop-led church! Hmmm....if He gave His only true word through this church, amybe this is also the only true church. Maybe, then, we should all become Anglicans. I'm sure our friend Jude here would agree with this.

 

I thought the thread title was "a legitimate question"

 

We are all commanded to preach the gospel. The Bible forbids women the office of pastor and does not allow women to teach or exercise autority over men in the church and home.

Some of the original fundamentalists drank in moderation. There are those who believe that Christ and the Apostles drank alcoholic wine. I don't believe this way but the proof for our interpretation is not bullet proof.

When in doubt, I believe we should take the safer course... at the same time, we are not to disallow the liberty of others.

I don't dance. At the same time, I am not aware of any scripture that categorically condemns all dancing.

Please cite the scripture that says we should 'hate' sinners into salvation...

One of the most loving things you can do for someone is to tell them that their choices will destroy them. There is no room for compromising with the sin of homosexuality. There is also no room for not expressing a Christlike spirit toward the lost, no matter how depraved.

Thank God someone loved me into salvation.

I have seen some of this here but I don't think it is a wholesale problem. Some folks don't deny miracles but simply try to imagine how God might have manipulated the forces of nature to accomplish His deed.

Many of us are pro-KJV but anti-KJVO. KJVOnlyism is not "fundamental". In fact, it runs contrary to true fundamentalism. KJVOnlyis is a blight that threatens to destroy fundamentalism.

Don't know the last two... probably for the best.

Jack Hyles was egocentric. He was credibly accused of adultery and never repented nor stepped down (adultery made him unqualified to continue as a pastor). Worse yet, he taught a false form of salvation and was responsible for giving thousands a false hope of salvation.

Don't know Revival Fires.

The Sword of the Lord has some good stuff in it. Would have been much better had it not drifted off into the KJVO error. It wasn't that way when Dr. Rice was still alive... in fact, I think he published an open condemnation of KJVOnlyism in the Sword of the Lord circa 1980.

I hope you weren't comparing Jack Hyles to John the Baptist???

 

Just curious or just trying to start a fight? If the former then please accept my apology for doubting you but if the latter please stop, there will be enough fighting in the natural course of posting without anyone throwing gas on the fire.
Murph

 

I'd say disappointed would be more accurate. I know that when I came to the BB I found that most were in favor of the things I was opposed to and opposed to the things I was in favor of.

I was raised in what I considered to be "Fundamental" circles, but those here claiming to be fundamental don't believe anything like I believe.

If one states that he's against practically anything, he's immediately labeled a "legalist." We've lost the concept of biblical separation. The Bible clearly teaches us to "come out from among them [the world] and be ye separate saith the Lord." It also teaches us to "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world."

Although most would admit that the Bible does in fact teach these truths, the same people would malign and criticize those preachers and publications who emphasize these very truths.

I think that Shiloh does indeed have a very legitimate question. I very clearly feel his frustration.

 

The difficulty is that the things Shiloh is asking about are not all fundamentalist issues.

Women preachers and earthly reasons for miracles are fundamentalist issues. The rest are not.

It is not that we are losing our separatism or our commitment to biblical truth. But drinking alcoholic beverages is not categorically condemned in Scripture. I am of the opinion that it is unwise, but it is not condemned and I can say no more about it than Scripture does (which I have done). Dancing is not an issue of fundamentalism. There is nothing unbiblical with dancing. If a man and wife decide to dance together, more power to them. It is a good thing. Loving homosexuals into salvation is the biblical way of evangelism. What is the alternative?? Hate them into salvation?? Shiloh has made the fundamental mistake of confusing "love" with "acceptance of behavior." That is an error in thinking on his part. "Love" is a biblical command. We are to love homosexuals. That does not mean we condone or excuse their sin.

The KJV is used by many fundamentalists. The KJVO position is not a position that fundamentalists hold. That is an addition to the truth of Scripture and by definition, cannot be a fundamental of the faith. The early fundamentalists expressly refuted the ideas of the KJVO movement. There are a great number of fundamentalists that use modern versions and Shiloh has been around here long enough to know. (This is what leads me to believe his question is disingenuous ... he has been shown many times that being KJVO is not a fundamental and using modern version does not mean one is not a fundamentalist.)

Jack Hyles was a very ungodly man. He should have repented and turned back to God many many years before he died. He was not a fundamentalist. The other two I am not familiar with but by their association with Jack Hyles I can assume they are less than what fundamentalism is.

Revival Firss is a waste of paper; the Sword is a waste for the most part. But regardless of one's opinion of them, they are not issues of fundamentalist. One can be a fundamentalist and not read either one; one can be a fundamentalist and not even like either one.

The bottom line is that this list is a hodge podge of hobby horses, not a list of biblical fundamentals. The greatest problem is that people have been brough up in churches who do not know what fundamentalism is and thus are mistaken about many things. Your yourself said, "I was raised in what I considered to be "Fundamental" circles, but those here claiming to be fundamental don't believe anything like I believe." I would humbly suggest that the circles you were raised in are not the defining circles of fundamentalism. I mean no ill will towards you at all. I appreciate you and your participation. I would simply suggest that it is unwise to define the fundamentalist ideal by such a narrow circle without necessary reflection on teh broader issues of the past that dispel a great many of these notions.

 

Larry, I posted on another thread that the definition of Fundamentalist is a very vague one indeed. CLICK HERE to read those comments.

Many of the issues we face today would not be considered fundamentalist issues because they were non-issues in those days. As you are well aware, the five key fundamentals that became crucial in the fundamentalist/modernist controversy were:
1. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture
2. The deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. The literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. The literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

As I stated in the aforementioned thread, the list has been expanded many times.

I do not contend that strict adherence to the contents of The Fundamentals is what makes one a fundamentalist. I'm sure that you nor I would agree 100% with some of the prominent "fundamentalists" of the past i.e. J. Frank Norris (1877-1952), Clarence E. MaCartney (1879-1957) who rejected the premillenial, imminent return of Christ. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), William Bell Riley (1861-1947) and others.

We are indeed losing our separatism when we look for freedom to be involved in an activity based solely on the fact that it is not "categorically condemned in Scripture." We are justifying our "sins" by looking to the letter of the law instead of the principles of God's Word. There is far more at stake than just right or wrong. There is our testimony in front of the lost world. There is our effectivness in reaching the lost. There is our ability to help a weaker brother to grow in the Lord.

I agree. There is a balance here that needs to be kept. We are to love the sinner without condoning or accepting the sin. We are to speak the truth in love, but the truth needs to be presented. I think Shiloh is speaking of those who would pacify the homosexual and tolerate their lifestyle and try to reach them that way. That is not the biblical way. We need to be like Jesus and proclaim in love, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

I agree it may not have been a position that the original fundamentalist held, but many fundamentalists do hold that position today. Again, please refer to the definition on the thread I referenced earlier.

I have seen no evidence where the topic was addressed at all. I maintain that is was not an issue.

I agree, that is why the version issue has no bearing in who is and who isn't a fundamentalist. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture as given in the originals is something that we can all agree on. Like so many other "fundamental" issues, the beliefs begin to branch out from there.

Jack Hyles was not an ungodly man any more or less than you and I are ungodly. The truth is, we are all ungodly. Bro. Hyles faced his accusers and answered all the accusations. As far as I'm concerned, the matter should have stayed within the walls of that local church. He was most definitely a fundamentalist in that he opposed liberalism and modernism of all sorts. Even by your definition he was a fundamentalist. He held to the five basic tenets and many more.

John R. Rice was one of the leaders of the Fundamentalist Movenment and is respected as one of its foremost writers. The Sword of the Lord began in September 28, 1934. "An independent religious weekly, standing for the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, salvation by faith, New Testament soulwinning, and the premillennial return of Christ. Opposes modernism, worldliness, and formalism." That sounds pretty fundamental to me.

I believe the greatest problem is people being brought up to believe that as long as they believe the five points presented in The Fundamentals then they are a fundamentalist. The Fundamentalist movement moved far from those early preachers who wrote those volumes.

I totally understand and respect your motives and your views.

I agree and would add that we must reflect not only on the past but also look at the growth of fundamentalism as a whole and see that we can no longer define "fundamentalism" by the work The Fundamentals. That was but a starting point.

 

I think fundamentalism is probably not as vague as your definition. Historically, it involves commitment to and defense of the fundamentals of the faith (and a list of five is too simplistic for most, even historically) and a separation from those who denied those or compromised biblical obedience.

And that was exaclty my point about Shiloh's list. He listed many things that have nothing to do with whether or not one is a fundamentalist.

I agree ... But that was not the issue. What is "separatism" to many involves insisting on everyone holding to their personal ideas, not to Scriptures. The fact that something is not categorically condemned in Scripture does not make it right. But the fact that it is not categorically condemned means that it is an issue worthy of discussion.

Then Shiloh should have said that. Knowing Shiloh from other posts, I doubted that is what he was saying. I agree that we need to speak the truth in love.

As I have shown in other threads, the case can be made that once one holds to a doctrine of Scripture believed by the KJVO crowd, they have denied the biblical doctrine of Scripture. Keep in mind that what I am referring to is not using or preferring the KJV. It is not even thinking that the KJV is the best translation. It is a far different matter to be KJVO and it disqualifies one from being a fundamentalist because they have denied the primary fundamental of the faith.

I have seen no evidence where the topic was addressed at all. I maintain that is was not an issue. </font>[/QUOTE]Read James M. Gray in the Fundamentals. He expressly contended for inspiration of the originals and against inspiration or perfection of any one translation. That is an express denial of the KJVO position.

And this was my point. A KJVO will not grant that position. Just read the BVT forum where users of MVs are accused of being Bible changers, of not believing the Bible, of twisting it, of being modernists and liberals, etc.

Jack Hyles' ungodliness was open and flagrant. It was never addressed. It should have been by that local church, you are right. That church body should have stepped up and demanded his resignation and disciplined him from that body. He was not blameless. But those issues did not dismiss him from fundamentalism and I did not say that he wasn't a fundamentalist. The implication of SHiloh's statement was that refusing to accept Jack Hyles disqualified one from being a fundamentalist. I would make that case that refusing to separate from Jack Hyles (an unrepentant sinner) would be a violation of the fundamentals.

The point is that accepting Jack Hyles does not make one a fundamentalist and exposing and rebuking him does not make one a liberal.

Irrelevant. That didn't have anything to do with my point. Again, read Shiloh's post. He asked if there were any fundamentalists here and tied that to being against the SOTL and Revival Fires. My point is that acceptance or rejection of either one has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist.

That was my point.

I do think Fundamentalism has moved far past those volumes. I would also contend that Fundamentalism is no longer a movement, but rather an ideal. It is not closely defined and can be different things to different people. But we need to be careful writing people out of fundamentalism because they hold to what the original fundamentalists held to. Shiloh set up an unacceptable criteria for defining a fundamentalist. That was what I was objecting to.

 

Brother, I'm not wanting to be confrontational, but could you explain the obvious contradiction in these two statements. Do you or do you not feel that Jack Hyles was a Fundamentalist? Why or why not?