Point One of What is a Fundamentalist

[WannaWitness]

I had always considered myself somewhat of a fundamentalist seeing that I take the entire Word of God as infallible truth from beginning to end, and have standards according to my understanding of the Scriptures. However, I'm not sure how I really match up with what many consider a "real" fundamentalist. I always figure people will have differences of opinion based on the views I have given in the past. If I am a fundamentalist, I am not one of the "stereotypical" variety (think 10,000-page book of rules and managing to find evil in everything from a teddy bear to a glass of lemonade to a swing set in a city park). Honestly, these labels can be confusing sometimes, and that's why I've been trying to shy away from them.

I will go as far as to say that I am a Bible-believing Christian. I strongly believe that Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6), and no other so-called "gods" are before Him, or even equal to Him. The Bible is our guideline in our walk with the Lord, and the full inspired truth from beginning to end. In it are "fundamentals" (or "basics" or "ideals") which we as believer apply to our daily lives. By that reasoning, some would say I could fit the description of the fundamentalist. However (yes, a big however), I also believe that God speaks to His children as the unique individuals that we are and convictions and opinions can be different based on how certain Scripture might stand out to us as believers (and this is where I may not fit the description of a "fundamentalist" to some people) No, I am not referring to things that are clearly sin according to Scripture, but disputable or debatable matters (which is touched on in Romans 14) where something that is basically clean in and of itself can be considered off-limits to one believer and okay for another. For instance, some Christians think that it's a sin to watch movies or TV or listen to secular (non-Christian) music, while others think it's okay as long as Biblical standards are applied to what they do view or listen to. Some think women should wear only skirts or dresses, others do not. Some read only KJV, others do not. And of course, the list goes on. But I don't think so-called "fundamentalism" is about following a set of rigid "rules", but following Christ to the best of our ability, making mistakes along the way (no, not one of us here can claim perfection), but working hard to grow as we serve and walk with Him.

I am not the best at explaining things, so here are some links that describe what fundamentalism is (and what it is not), how it is sometimes confused with legalism, and much more. I have posted them on this site before, but people seem to come and go on CF and I see some newer people who may not have seen them, therefore, I don't deem it unnecessary to post them. I sincerely hope they are helpful. As always, I wish not to debate.

Fundamentalism and separatism

Fundamentals and secondary issues

 

[brinny]

Concerning Wescott. He stated:
"Many years ago I had occasion to investigate spiritualistic phenomena with some care [more than likely the Ghostly Guild], and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope."

The source for this is from one of the links I provided.

Carefully read and consider the information in all of the links I have posted. That's all I have to say in this matter.

If you choose to continue to consider only one side - the KJV Only side - of the issue, we have nothing further to discuss.

You began the discussion with me. You can end it if you wish. No hard feelings.

The bottom line, is that the Bible ALREADY forbids what you just described in your post.

It's an abomination to God.

It is best to take God at His Word, and to study and meditate on His ENTIRE Word. All throughout His Word it is written what is an abomination to Him.

King Saul was condemned when he sought help from the witch for instance, and was insulting God and piling on one abomination after another, even as he already knew how abominable to God it all was.

This comes to mind:

"He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy" ~Pr 29:1

 

[brinny]

Concerning Wescott. He stated:
"Many years ago I had occasion to investigate spiritualistic phenomena with some care [more than likely the Ghostly Guild], and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope."

The source for this is from one of the links I provided.

Carefully read and consider the information in all of the links I have posted. That's all I have to say in this matter.

If you choose to continue to consider only one side - the KJV Only side - of the issue, we have nothing further to discuss.

See post #62.

 

[Mark Dohle]

One problem with fundamentalist thought is that everyone delegates to him or herself the cloak of infallibility. Then two opposing sides bury each other in biblical quotes proving their point.......apart from that. Most fundamentalist that I know, are very fine, loving people. My sister is among them. I to hope this forum become stronger.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

One problem with fundamentalist thought is that everyone delegates to him or herself the cloak of infallibility. Then two opposing sides bury each other in biblical quotes proving their point.......apart from that. Most fundamentalist that I know, are very fine, loving people. My sister is among them. I to hope this forum become stronger.

You seem to contradict your own point - if "everyone delegates..." then that includes your sister and "most ...that you know"....

So then, who do you know that delegates the cloak of infallibility to themselves ?

The only ones , almost, that I am aware of are quite different from fundamental , let alone quite different and not at all like fundamentalists.

 

[Mark Dohle]

From my experience fundemmenlist, even those who have just converted, suddenly are filled with the Holy Spirit and preach, and believe that anyone who disagrees with them, is wrong.....again I am speaking from experience. So my take on this is limited. Even if there is much disagreement, there is the central faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

I have nothing against that, as long as they don't tell me or the millions that disagree with them are going to hell.....West Boro Baptist comes to mind. The worst example of what fundementlist can become.......

My sister is a very kind person, loving, but we do not really talk religon, but we do talk Christ Jesus.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

From my experience fundemmenlist, even those who have just converted, suddenly are filled with the Holy Spirit and preach, and believe that anyone who disagrees with them, is wrong.....again I am speaking from experience. So my take on this is limited. Even if there is much disagreement, there is the central faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

I have nothing against that, as long as they don't tell me or the millions that disagree with them are going to hell.....West Boro Baptist comes to mind. The worst example of what fundementlist can become.......

My sister is a very kind person, loving, but we do not really talk religon, but we do talk Christ Jesus.

For clarity and perspective, without guessing, where does Jesus say most people are going ? ( for search purposes online Bible use the terms "the whole world" to find references)

 

[Mark Dohle]

For clarity and perspective, without guessing, where does Jesus say most people are going ? ( for search purposes online Bible use the terms "the whole world" to find references)

I am not sure when Jesus talked about the wide and narrow paths, he was talking about a mathematical equation. It was directed at those with whom he was teaching, as well as anyone who reads this section of scripture. One thing Jesus did preach on in no uncertain terms is that we are not to judge......one thing that is most forgotten when we deal with others. I am talking about myself here, not you are anyone else.

We can easily become like the Pharisee praying in the temple, next to the tax collector....

Peace
Mark

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I am not sure when Jesus talked about the wide and narrow paths, he was talking about a mathematical equation. It was directed at those with whom he was teaching, as well as anyone who reads this section of scripture. One thing Jesus did preach on in no uncertain terms is that we are not to judge......one thing that is most forgotten when we deal with others. I am talking about myself here, not you are anyone else.

We can easily become like the Pharisee praying in the temple, next to the tax collector....

Peace
Mark

God teaches us to learn to judge rightly, instead of to become like a hypocrite/deceiver,
so we may
become enlightened child of God beyond the milk and learn how to judge righteously as Jesus taught,

so when , for instance, we drive up to a traffic light, we can rightly judge/ discern/ whether it is our turn to go, slow down, or stop accordingly.
and
when someone continually sins and refuses to repent in the assembly,
we know they are sinning (right judgment) and
we know what to do about this (what God says to do) .

Also the children must be trained right in the way they should go,
learn to rightly judge what they are told , so they don't run off with Herr' Chrizznas or other cults....

As written "IF we judge ourselves today, we will not be judged later" ...

Many times in TORAH, PROPHETS, PSALMS and NEW TESTAMENT judgment is required/necessary/ taught correctly instead of in error,
so
people can learn and know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, and
so they can obey God instead of continue as pagan/heathen do.

 

[Mark Dohle]

God teaches us to learn to judge rightly, instead of to become like a hypocrite/deceiver,
so we may
become enlightened child of God beyond the milk and learn how to judge righteously as Jesus taught,

so when , for instance, we drive up to a traffic light, we can rightly judge/ discern/ whether it is our turn to go, slow down, or stop accordingly.
and
when someone continually sins and refuses to repent in the assembly,
we know they are sinning (right judgment) and
we know what to do about this (what God says to do) .

Also the children must be trained right in the way they should go,
learn to rightly judge what they are told , so they don't run off with Herr' Chrizznas or other cults....

As written "IF we judge ourselves today, we will not be judged later" ...

Many times in TORAH, PROPHETS, PSALMS and NEW TESTAMENT judgment is required/necessary/ taught correctly instead of in error,
so
people can learn and know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, and
so they can obey God instead of continue as pagan/heathen do.

Good points, we can judge actions, but the state of soul is only known to God......Rilght judgement is rare i believe, sinful judgement much more common. In anycase, you did bring up so very good points. Thank you.

Peace
Mark

 

[Endeavourer]

I would consider myself a fundamentalist in that I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

I define the Scripture that is inerrant as the original writings in the language they were written in. For my use, I use and prefer the KJV. (In my opinion, distinction of the worst translation out there goes to the ESV.)

However, my studies recently have shown the influence of men and their contemporary cultures in the ways they selected words in the KJV.

So the following is NOT a debate on the roles of women; it's a discussion on potential biases based on their own pre-existing presumptions behind the word choices in the KJV translation. If you want to debate about the roles of women, please debate somewhere else.

For example, the word hesuchia:

Strong's Concordance definition, two tenses the word:
2271 hēsyxía (from hēsyxos, "quiet, stillness") – quietness, implying calm; for the believer, 2271 (hēsyxía) is used of their God-produced calm which includes an inner tranquility that supports appropriate action. This term "does not mean speechlessness, which is more directly indicated by 4602 (sigḗ) (J. Thayer). See 2272 (hēsyxios).

2272 hēsýxios (an adjective derived from hēsyxos, "quiet, stillness") – properly, quiet (still), i.e. steady (settled) due to a divinely-inspired inner calmness. 2272/hēsyxios ("calmly quiet") describes being "appropriately tranquil" by not misusing (or overusing) words that would stir up needless friction (destructive commotion).

So the same word is used in 1 Tim 2:2:
2 For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet (2272) and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

The word here could not possibly mean silence because we are not called to live a silent life. It clearly means an external manifestation of calm and tranquility.​

as for 1 Tim 2:12
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (2271).

Silence/speechlessness is exactly what the word does not mean.​

From my research, it appears that the KJV translators may have applied their filters (pre-existing presumptions) in the translation of that verse.

Further, the word behind "usurp authority" in v 12 points to a more violent over taking of another's position than to simply be in a peaceable line of authority. The word in this verse (1 Tim 2:12) is not used anywhere else in the whole New Testament, and is not the same word used in any of the other passages where authority is discussed.

So with these discoveries, and a few others, I am becoming unconvinced that the KJV translators had some special private interpretation of the original Scriptures, or that their translations per se were as faithful and correct as the original inspired Words breathed from the Holy Spirit to the original authors.

Thoughts about word choice discrepancies? Yes/no/maybe so?

(again, please no discussion on the topic of women's roles)

 

[thomas15]

I would consider myself a fundamentalist in that I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

.................................I define the Scripture that is inerrant as the original writings in the language they were written in. For my use, I use and prefer the KJV. (In my opinion, distinction of the worst translation out there goes to the ESV.)………………………………….

Just a small little comment. The ESV isn't really a "translation" rather it is an update of the Revised Standard Version. Where it consults the greek NT it follows the USB/NA or majority text. It is maybe a tad more "conservative" than the NIV. Which brings me to the reason for it's existence, many in the reformed Presbyterian circles resent paying Zondervan royalties to use that translation. Same thing in the Southern Baptist Convention so they cooked up the Holman Christian Standard Bible (CSB).

Way way back at the beginning of this thread a poster said that the New King James Version (NKJV) uses corrupt CS or CV) greek text. Actually the NJKV uses the TR same as the KJV. Where the UBS/NA greek would result in an alternate reading, the NKJV puts the reading from the TR in the text but notes the alternate rendering as a text note in the margin.

Fun thread this is.

 

[Endeavourer]

Just a small little comment. The ESV isn't really a "translation" rather it is an update of the Revised Standard Version. Where it consults the greek NT it follows the USB/NA or majority text. It is maybe a tad more "conservative" than the NIV. Which brings me to the reason for it's existence, many in the reformed Presbyterian circles resent paying Zondervan royalties to use that translation. Same thing in the Southern Baptist Convention so they cooked up the Holman Christian Standard Bible (CSB).

Way way back at the beginning of this thread a poster said that the New King James Version (NKJV) uses corrupt CS or CV) greek text. Actually the NJKV uses the TR same as the KJV. Where the UBS/NA greek would result in an alternate reading, the NKJV puts the reading from the TR in the text but notes the alternate rendering as a text note in the margin.

Fun thread this is.

Interesting information. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Newtheran]

West Boro Baptist comes to mind. The worst example of what fundementlist can become.......

Just an aside...you realize that Westboro Baptist is a false flag operation, right? One family of attorneys, former Al Gore supporters, that go around stirring the pot to give the church a black eye.

 

[Hazelelponi]

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;

Has this changed? Is this no longer the case? Do we still believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible? Do we believe that God is able to preserve and protect His Word down through the centuries of human existence? Do we still have a "more sure word of prophecy?" Do we still have "a double-edged sword?"

Have we succumbed to the view that all these things are true ONLY in the originals, and does not apply to the oldest English Bible in the English-speaking world?

I notice that this "fundamentalist" forum seems to be dying. I see very few posts and many of them are dating back to 2017. Have we lost our zeal? Do we believe that we have lost our purpose? Have we lost our way?

Is this forum worth reviving? As I understand it (and I am new here) that this forum is not open to anti-fundamentalist arguments.

So, the bottom line is, Fundamentalists? Do we STILL maintain an IMMOVABLE ALLEGIANCE to the Word of God, or have we allowed the correctors to win?

Are you trying to say Fundamental is in some way equal to KJV only?

Jesus, in his day, quoted from the Septuagint, the Hebrew, and on a couple occasions even the Aramaic..

What mattered to Him was that the meaning of the text was accurately conveyed to those listening - not the words themselves.

I find it a bit sad that some people have decided specific words in an archaic language (even if it is English it's no longer spoken in the same way today) matter more than accurately conveying God's intended meaning to His people, who need understanding now more than ever.

 

[Mark Dohle]

Just an aside...you realize that Westboro Baptist is a false flag operation, right? One family of attorneys, former Al Gore supporters, that go around stirring the pot to give the church a black eye.

Thanks, but they have beein around a long time, way before Gore.

Peace
mark

 

[Newtheran]

Thanks, but they have beein around a long time, way before Gore.

Peace
mark

That wasn't my point. The point is that it was a false flag operation from the beginning.

Encyclopedia Britannica: "Westboro Baptist Church was founded in 1955 by Fred Waldron Phelps, who served as its pastor for many years thereafter. Even after Phelps’s death in 2014, his extended family was believed to constitute most of the membership."

 

[Mark Dohle]

That wasn't my point. The point is that it was a false flag operation from the beginning.

Encyclopedia Britannica: "Westboro Baptist Church was founded in 1955 by Fred Waldron Phelps, who served as its pastor for many years thereafter. Even after Phelps’s death in 2014, his extended family was believed to constitute most of the membership."

For many they represent what fundementlist really are, a sad state of affairs, silncethey are way over on the fringe. They believe what they preach, even if crazy. They also have problems keeping their young ones.

Here is abook written by one women who got out:
https://www.amazon.com/Banished-Surviving-Westboro-Baptist-Church/dp/1455512427

Another one
Unfollow: A Journey from Hatred to Hope, leaving the Westboro Baptist Church by Megan Phelps-Roper


Peace
Mark

 

[cubanitomd]

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;

...
Have we succumbed to the view that all these things are true ONLY in the originals, and does not apply to the oldest English Bible in the English-speaking world?
...
So, the bottom line is, Fundamentalists? Do we STILL maintain an IMMOVABLE ALLEGIANCE to the Word of God, or have we allowed the correctors to win?

 

[cubanitomd]

Having led the writing of the original statement of faith on this forum some 15 or so years ago, no sir, it has ALWAYS meant the originals; not the textus receptus or whichever one of many KJV versions or Erasmus/Beza manuscripts they were based on.
Please acquaint yourself with the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, including the signatories, and you might understand the error of your post: The CHICAGO STATEMENTS on INERRANCY and HERMENEUTICS

Unfortunately, while I am back after a long abscense, I cannot be as active as I used to be.