[But if you want to see this Pastor get riled up and in your face, just try pushing any form of legalism on any brother or sister in the lord when I’m in the house!]

So you’re form of legalism is getting up in people’s face when you think they are being legalistic?

Jim E:[But if you want to see this Pastor get riled up and in your face, just try pushing any form of legalism on any brother or sister in the lord when I’m in the house!]

Paul D:[So you’re form of legalism is getting up in people’s face when you think they are being legalistic]?

It’s funny how we pick and choose what’s legalistic and what’s not, based on our own likes & dislikes. 

Just like the whole t-shirt thing, where it was ok to reprove the kid wearing the shirt, (which by the way was not commiting and outward sin in anyway).  But yet, talk about reproving a brother who is actually in sin, and let the ranting begin about casting stones!

Kent, I’ve appreciated your posts today.  Thanks for sharing.  I couldn’t agree more with your statement that “the heart is...the issue.”

You said, “‘Terms’ aren’t the issue....  The world isn’t against the ‘terms’, they [are] against what the terms stand for. Just as ‘born-again’, ‘saved’ and ‘Christian’.” Again, I agree. 

I would suggest that in speaking with Nicodemus, Jesus could just have well used some term other than “born again.” Would we then hold tightly to that term?  (We probably would.) SHOULD we, though?  I’m not so sure.  It seems to me that it is the CONCEPT that he communicated that is more important than the actual phrase.

And, to the extent that the term “born again” is associated in the minds of many non-believers with other terms that have come to have very negative connotations, I would have no problem avoiding that term.  In fact, I would advocate avoiding it in those circumstances. 

Jesus’ example was to communicate with his audiences in terms that held meaning for them.  With “ranchers” he spoke of being a shepherd; with fishermen, he spoke of “fishing for men”; with religious leaders trying to catch him choosing between God and Caesar, he took what some may call the middle road. 

When he used terms that would obviously strike a negative reaction in the minds of his hearers, it was clearly intentional and designed to point out (often) their own hypocrisy.  Most often, those hearers were the religious leaders trying to catch him or someone else in sin.

[You don’t have to pretend that you are someone you’re not. I don’t want to anger any brother or sister in Christ so I will leave it at that. I think I will be leaving this site for now and I just pray for everyone here that they will come into a personal, transparent relationship with the Lord that deepens every day. God bless you all.]

Am I pretending to be someone I am not???

Don’t leave now, I thought YOU were going to be transparent and share all about you or is this your way of being NOT transparent while calling others to not only be transparent but also someone they are not???

Talk about hiding…

“Be transparent - I’m leaving” LOL

Thanks Todd… I needed that… I was going into a gallup that Whoa… slowed me down

Have a great weekend.  The Lord bless you way too much!

Thanks, Randy…

Just fyi, NO ONE has offended me. Thanks to all. I hope I haven’t offended anyone, I tried not to.

In roughly the words of someone else who posts here (I love this, I’m gonna use it all the time)…

God bless you all WAY too much

The only thing that was offensive over the last week was a personal statement someone made to me via email.  If I have offended the person I would hope they would say so because it is not good to harbor hate ("if your brother has sinned against you") but if not, I’m sorry if I have offended this person or anyone else.

Todd, please don’t take any of my statements personal, my remarks are intended for a general overall “movement” and I repent of any offense against you that is wrought in sin.

Guys and Gals,

For the record, no one here has offended me even in the cases where our differences of ministry philosophy are quite obvious.

BeHim has several times today referenced something offensive that was sent to him in an e-mail.  He is referring to my response to an e-mail he sent me.  I know that he intended to respect Todd by not making his lengthy comments to me on the blog.  I was not offended, I just did not want to allow my mailbox to be used for blog side discussions.

For the record, I would welcome an e-mail from any of you asking a question or for information about something I might have made reference to, and like all humans, I love encouragement.  But . . . there is (or should be) a certain safety in having to discuss our differences of opinion in this public venue which Todd provides for us.  I have more than once in my life shot off an e-mail to someone, saying something I wish I could take back and would probably not have said (even electronically) if others were listening in.  Randy and Jim reminded us today about the value of this forum, and the importance of respectful and God honoring discussions.  I receive their counsel and think we all should.

I want to be open to those who might disagree with me, but I think a healthier and more appropriate place for us to disagree is here, not to move our point making to one another’s e-mail boxes.  If others of you want to do so, that is up to you.  But if I have a point I feel compelled to make to one of you in response to something you posted, I promise to do so here and not via an e-mail.  I’d ask the same of you.  It is simply my preference.

Thanks cyber friends,

Wendi

A couple thoughts....  Jesus said that if anyone says “RACA” to his brother, that is tantamount to murder.  (VERY paraphrased, but work with me here! And I am intentionally using what I believe is the Aramaic word.) So let’s take from that instruction that calling someone RACA is a sin. 

If you call me RACA, but I am not offended - simply because I am not easily offended - are you any less wrong for saying that? 

I ask this because several people responded to my previous post by saying “I wasn’t offended.” That’s great!  I think we need to have thick skins sometimes, and not be easily offended.

On the flip side, just because you weren’t offended by my comment doesn’t mean that my comment wasn’t sinful.  In other words, if I’ve sinned, your thick skin(!) doesn’t save me or excuse my sinful words or behavior.

As I said in my earlier post, ["My own opinion is that some have written more in haste than in grace, and may have erred in what they wrote. ...I’m talking about harsh words that may have bordered on (or crossed the line to) verbal attacks."] Those words were directed at writers, not readers.

“So, if a non-believer sees Jesus in my life and experiences something of His grace from me, and still labels me a fundamentalist...or born again or baptist or Christian...I’ll accept that. But if I insist on labeling myself a fundamentalist or born again or baptist or Christian - and they DON’T see Jesus in me and DON’T experience His grace, then I’ve got a problem. I think Jesus is far more concerned with how I live and I how draw others to him than with what arbitrary, 20th- or 21st-century label I wear.”

Sorry for the late post.  I’ve been on vacation!!  But, Randy, the quote listed above that you posted is, to me, the most profound statement of this entire argument.

Personally, my beliefs are “fundamentalist”, but I am so thankful to be free from all the additional rules that so many fundamentalists (or “funnymentalists” as my late father used to say) adhere to.  I don’t think anyone disagrees with following the Bible to a T, but what most people associate with “fundamentalists” is having to follow not only the Bible, but also the “Rule Book” for their church or denomination.  It has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with man. 

I understand the posts that ventured into the territory of legalism.  That is essentially what the term “fundamentalist” so often implies.  And I’m talking about in Christian circles.  My experience is that most non-Christians don’t give a rip what you call yourself.  If you are going to reach them, forget the labels and show them Jesus.

Great post, as always, Todd!

What an interesting subject.  There are some really great posts. And everyone’s definition is a bit different.  So I’ll through in my two cents.

I looked in my 1828 American Dictionary of The English Language by Noah Webster Fundamentalist was not found, but fundamental was, so the word itself is a modern word.

Here is what Mr. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary had to say:

Fundamental
a. adjective. Pertaining to the foundation or basis; serving for the foundation.  Hence, essential; important as a fundamental truth or principle; a fundamental law; a fundamental sound or cord in music.
b. noun. A leading or primary principle, rule, law or article, which serves as the ground work of a system; essential part; as the fundamentals of the christian faith.

So if we use this as the base for the word the definition would be one who hold to adheres to the basic, primary principle, the foundational truth of (in this case) christian faith.

Today within the christian community we have the fundamentalist the ultra-fundamentalist and those who have no foundation at all.  What is fundamental to one man or group’s faith or religion may not be to another.  All consider themselves fundamental in their beliefs.  The problem comes when we take what God has said in his word and put our own importance on or too it.  Like dress/can a woman where pants, music/drums are of the devil, worship style, and which Bible is the correct one/the KJV only stand.

The question is what is fundamental to the christian faith?  What are the foundational truths, the primary principles, rules or laws that would make one a “fundamentalist”?  AND what does the word of God have to say on the issue.

Dress, music, style of worship, and Bible although are at least in part covered in the scriptures these are not the foundation of the faith and as used today or should I say as they are abused and misused today, really have mo bearing on or to the fundamentals of true Christian faith.

The Bible itself reveals that there are doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace alone, 3) Resurrection of Christ, and 4) the gospel. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these four are the only ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential. A non-regenerate person, or a cultist (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness and others), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines.  Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also, the Trinity being one. 

So if believing these 4 things is essential to the christian faith, then I am a fundamentalist in the true meaning of the word.  As I believe in, and adhere to, these 4 basic, foundational, fundamental principals of the christian faith. To get all bent out of shape about dress as long as it is modest, music as long as it is God pleasing and honoring, etc. . . . is taking things out of context and is a “man” thing and not what God intended IMHO.

The world we live in today is becoming blurred in its definition of the word and view as one fundamentalist is the same as the next, christian, Islamic, etc. . . .  And this is where things I believe will get dangerous.

Time is running out do something radically different today; make it a point to share the gospel with someone, take the time, make the time, and do something that could change eternity, share the gospel of Jesus Christ with someone.  And you to can be a fundamentalist.

Peter, MY point was exactly what I said.  It is a new modern word.  It has everything to do with fundemental, as it is the “specifically defined set of “core beliefs"” that defines the fundementalist.  In the case of a “christian” fundamentalist it is or at least should be the “doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith” as provided by the scriptures.

I didn’t bother to give the modern definition as it was already posted.

The qusetion is; is the core beliefes the right ones or have they been addid to, changed or modified, by man, in this case?

Thank and praise God for his grace, love and mercy.  For without it I would be lost, and under HIS condemnation, without hope.  But we have HIS blessed hope, by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ his son, who brought salvation to us by being the lamb of God and sacrificing himeself for us.  This is the Gospel.

Good topic, great discussion.