DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "FUNDAMENTALIST AND EVANGELICAL"

[Joykins]

These are generally considered the "fundamentals"

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillenial second coming)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

I personally would not draw the boundary lines of "essential beliefs" there.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I have a concern about that source. This is from Wikipedia's main page:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly."

In other words, it is altered by anyone - and that person does not necessarily have scolarly authority, and may have an agenda or bias. I have been disturbed by a number of the articles.

 

[Flynmonkie]

I have a concern about that source. This is from Wikipedia's main page:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly."

In other words, it is altered by anyone - and that person does not necessarily have scolarly authority, and may have an agenda or bias. I have been disturbed by a number of the articles.

You should be concerned about all sources!! But yes, this is what I tried explaining earlier. Erroneous information does not "stay" very long. There are people monitoring. I have contributed to research there, and if it could not be verified, it has to be removed. Many use this - I have seen lopsided issues, but usually someone comes in and they balance it out again. I have been using this site for quite a while now, in fact many do, but of course I love both sides of the issue situations.. all cards on the table, it helps strengthen my case - I just make sure I check everything I read.

 

[Razorbuck]

My apologies, are you implying that I allow the "Kook Fringe" to make my choices on definition, because I honestly do not know what that comment is directed at?

I was a bit unclear. Joykins summarized my position very well.

There was a time when basing our lives on the fundamentals of the faith was considered a good thing. Now we have a tiny but visible minority of idiots who bomb abortion clinics and scream and shout about this or that and we say that this is the face of Christian fundamentalism. Then the line becomes blurred even further when sincere Christians who practice separation from the world are lumped in with the kooks.

Here's a label for you: I am an Independent, fundamental Baptist who stands on the KJV as the translation of God's Word in English. Because I identify myself as such, I am immediately judged my many to be some sort of a nut!
It happens to me all the time. (and I confess it gets tiresome)

I was not implicating anyone in this thread, simply making an observation.

not worthy but His,

Razorbuck

 

[If Not For Grace]

Being a literalist or legalistic bothers me (no spiritual discernment

Me too, I'm w/ Paul All things are legal for me, just not all things are beneficial.
I gain discernment by study, prayer, revelation etc. Jesus said Love God and Love your neighbor, this is what we should strive to do. Fly is on the mark on this one.

Razor: I would say you are indeed a fundamentalist. Why is the KJV so important? Why are other versions translated from the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic not equally important. What about religous writings not discovered at the time the KJ was printed, must they be completely discounted? (Writings of Phillip, Mary, Stephen, and Others).

Inerrant? How can anything handled by man be inerrant--"There is a way that seems right unto man". This seems to be the type of stuff we get bogged down in, the kind of things that drove Luther, Paul and others nuts. Thank God for Both of those saints..

 

[Razorbuck]

Razor: I would say you are indeed a fundamentalist. Why is the KJV so important? Why are other versions translated from the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic not equally important. What about religous writings not discovered at the time the KJ was printed, must they be completely discounted? (Writings of Phillip, Mary, Stephen, and Others).

Inerrant? How can anything handled by man be inerrant--"There is a way that seems right unto man". This seems to be the type of stuff we get bogged down in, the kind of things that drove Luther, Paul and others nuts. Thank God for Both of those saints..

Beloved in the LORD,

Yes, I am a fundamentalist, so already we agree on something! A beginning, eh?

A KJVO debate seems beyond the scope of this thread, but since you asked I will give a brief explanation of my convictions on this subject.

About seven years ago a friend told me that the RSV I had used for years was based on a corrupt text and that I should look into the KJV. I was offended and a little angry (my mother gave me my RSV) and told him in as loving a way as I was capable of then to go fly a kite. His comments pestered me though, so I began to do some research on English Bible versions and their origins, mainly to show this guy how soft in the gourd he was.

To make a long story short, after researching the subject for nearly two years I became convinced that he was right! Many, many prayers and hundreds of hours of reading and comparing brought me to the place where I am.

You asked how anything handled by man could be inerrant. God has used man over and over to accomplish His purposes, and He promised to preserve His Word! The inerrancy is of Him, not us.

You said, "This seems to be the type of stuff we get bogged down in". Who gets bogged down? I have burdened no one by by convictions.

May I now ask you a question? Why should my belief that God preserved His Word perfectly in the English language in the form of the KJV bother anyone? Why does this conviction make me "suspect" in certain circles of Christendom? I judge no one for what they believe God's Word to be, why then do so many tell me I am wrong to believe as I do? In my local church we study and preach from the KJV only. If someone else wishes to use a paraphrase or a version from what I believe to be a corrupt text stream, that is between them and the Holy Spirit.

Please don't misunderstand me. My original comments were in reference to a general attitude I have experienced in my life, I have been ostracized by no one here. I merely sought your input.

Peace to you,

Razorbuck

 

[MatthewPoole]

Night and Day Difference.

Good book to read is "The Fundamentals" Edited by R.A. Torrey.

Christian Book Distributors has it as a 2 volume set.

MP

 

[HumbleMan]

May I now ask you a question? Why should my belief that God preserved His Word perfectly in the English language in the form of the KJV bother anyone? Why does this conviction make me "suspect" in certain circles of Christendom? I judge no one for what they believe God's Word to be, why then do so many tell me I am wrong to believe as I do? In my local church we study and preach from the KJV only. If someone else wishes to use a paraphrase or a version from what I believe to be a corrupt text stream, that is between them and the Holy Spirit.

Bolded mine.

Many peoples experiences with KJVO advocates have caused hard feelings. Whereas you are happy with it, and leave it up to other people to reconcile thier interpretation with the Spirit, many KJVO's regularly tell people they're going to hell using a MV, or that Satan has corrupted them, or (if you believe Peter Ruckman) that the KJV corrected the originals, and you're not really saved unless you were convicted using the KJV.

I personally like the KJV for it's language, but don't think it's the only correct version.

PS: being a fundie doesn't mean you are a KJVO.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Razorbuck thanks for your clarification. The fundamentals of the faith are important. But carrying a love for the KJV is quite a bit different than KJ Onlyism. I guess I sit on the opposite side of experience here from you. I don't believe Gods word is only a "book" however I find the language and translation of the KJ fascinating and beautiful. When interpreted correctly, the reference and cross-reference of passages is nothing short of amazing! But God works through and with many things. I take Him at His word that no matter what version someone is viewing - He will lead him or her in the direction He wills. Sometimes I am attacked because I prefer this version - and accused of this. Each time having to explain myself. Truly this is why I cannot stand placing a tag on someone’s faith. The only time I see a need to do this is in "higher theological" discussion - even then not one of us is completely right.

Bolded mine.

Many people’s experiences with KJVO advocates have caused hard feelings. <snip>

I personally like the KJV for it's language, but don't think it's the only correct version.

PS: being a fundie doesn't mean you are a KJVO.

HM, Thats why I have come to dislike labels. I love my KJV 1611. However, I do not limit God to this being His only source of communication. But I can say that we attend a fundamental Baptist church and KJOism is not in our vocabulary.