What is the sine-qua-non of a Fundamentalist

[Vince Massi]

Brethren, in 1970, a few months after being saved, I learned the ORIGINAL definition of a "fundamentalist." It is a person who believes in:
1) The total inerrancy of Scripture
2) The Deity of Christ and His virgin birth
3)Salvation only through faith in Christ
4) The literal, physical Resurrection of Christ
5) The literal, physical, visible Return of Christ

Over the decades I have watched Bob Jones Jr. announce that you are not a fundamentalist unless you believe his error on secondary separation, and I have watched Ruckmanites teach that you are not a fundamentalist unless you believe the errors of Peter Ruckman.

Fifty years later I am still a fundamentalist, I have never stopped being a fundamentalist, and I go by the original definition.

 

[FSSL]

Great post, Vince! Thank you for contributing.

 

[FSSL]

Don't worry, I will salvage this by connecting this topic to "the fundamentals of the faith"

Since Fundamentalism is the outgrowth of the Niagara Bible Conference in the late 1800s, how does your post on Puritans help? You failed to make a connection.

 

[FSSL]

Notice how no one is calling out "logos" for veering off-topic.

A single post, off-topic, addressing a post within the thread is not hijacking the thread.

 

[UGC]

A clear response to logos, who I "helped" get back on track by proving that different denominations vary on the fundamentals, therefore all of them cannot hold the true fundamentals found in scripture, as God does not change his words to match all of their disagreements on them. Clearly the Anglican church and the Puritans, but especially the Arminians did not agree. Are you saying all these don't have their own variant viewpoints on the "fundamentals", and that all disagreeing interpretations of the "fundamentals" are acceptable despite God's words not changing themselves to fit each one? (he won't answer this question, it would lock in checkmate to his ego death). You boring, ecumenical simpleton.

Waiting for your weak-handed complaint that Logos took this thread completely off-topic by which it was then salvaged. Or will you continue to demonstrate to the world your inadequacy to debate as an adult via your passive-aggressive avoidance of the issue fallacies? No doubt the weakest among all fallacies favorited on these forums; it's no wonder you stay silent the majority of the time.

Your inconsistencies betray your man-focused, ecumenical intent. As the owner and leader of these forums, you should get your focus centered back on God, who's truth does not change for disagreements among men.

 

[UGC]

A single post, off-topic, addressing a post within the thread is not hijacking the thread.

Good. Then all of my posts, none of which were off-topic, can provide no excuse for you avoiding the issue in your own thread like a monumental hypocrite.

Answer my posts. Specifically. Answer them. You can't.

 

[tmjbog]

(Notice how no one is calling out "logos" for veering off-topic. The bias of these emotional, tribally-dependent amateurs is evident. Don't worry, I will salvage this by connecting this topic to "the fundamentals of the faith", see if you can find where below)




Then all we need is one example from the Arminian camp, which is the staunch enemy camp of Calvinism, as this alone will refute your position that "all" of them were Calvinist.



The Puritans:

"Some Protestants thought that the Anglican Church was still too much like the Catholic church. These people became known as Puritans.
...persecution of Puritans meant that most members of this religious group supported Parliament, whereas most Anglicans and Catholics tended to favour the royalists."

Notice how numerous Protestants were staunchly against corruption in the Anglican Church that echoed the Catholic Church.

"Though the Church of England in 1600 may have been unscriptural in its episcopal form of church polity, views on baptism, and an incipient lack of evangelistic fervor... The Church of England at the end of the nineteenth century still was wrong in its polity and views on baptism, but it had become completely apostate concerning the fundamentals of the faith. Though orthodox on paper, the Anglican Church by the twentieth century had loosed its moorings, effectively departing from the faith once delivered to the saints. It had become intoxicated with the liquor of German Rationalism and therefore died spiritually. Westcott and Hort clearly exhibited this in their writings."

The King James translators "were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius."

An example of one Puritan who represented numerous other Puritans on the board:

No one said they were All Calvinists. Without evidence to the contrary it would make sense that the vast majority were. And what did the Puritans believe:

What Were the Five Basic Puritan Beliefs?
Puritanism, a strict Calvinist form of Protestant Christianity, distinguished itself from mainline Christianity through five principle beliefs. These beliefs formed the Puritans' path to salvation and created a religion with a strict and rigid morality. Basic Puritan beliefs are summarized by the acronym T.U.L.I.P.: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.


Total Depravity
Most Christian sects believe in the concept of Original Sin -- rooted in Adam and Eve's temptation and fall -- and the Puritans were no exception. Puritans took the concept of Original Sin to mean total depravity. To the Puritans, people were not only sinful, but there was no horrendous crime people were not capable of committing. They believed that, like Adam and Eve before them, all people were susceptible to temptation and sin.
Unconditional Election
In other Calvinist Christian sects, the concept of unconditional election is often called predestination. Puritans believed that God chose who would be saved and who would be chosen for eternal damnation. A person couldn't do anything to determine God's choice, and being a member of the Puritan church was not enough to be elected for salvation. While other Christian denominations do believe that people can choose salvation, Puritans believed that the choice was God's alone.

Limited Atonement
Like other Christians, Puritans believed that Jesus Christ died to atone for the sins of man. Puritans, however, believed that Christ's atonement did not extend to everyone. Only those who God elected received the salvation benefits of Christ's atonement. Those elected were part of an exclusive group, and not all Puritans were necessarily considered saved.
Irresistible Grace
Puritans believed that, once God chose to elect someone for salvation, that person could never resist God's grace. Being chosen meant that a person had found the path to salvation, which included "ecstatic intimacy with the divine." Puritans could be called on both internally and externally. Being chosen internally meant that God changed a person's heart to respond to the Gospel. The external calling was to preach the word of God to others.
Perseverance of the Saints
A person elected by God's grace would never depart from the path to salvation. The person would have complete power to understand the word of God, and would never turn towards evil. By definition, understanding the word of God meant that someone would never depart from God's commands. The person would instead persevere towards salvation. This belief is in stark contrast with other Christian denominations, which believe that even people who are saved sometimes fail to understand and can choose to depart from God.

What Were the Five Basic Puritan Beliefs? | Synonym

Many people do not realize that there are many different denominations of the Christian faith. Puritans are more strict and follow more rigid guidelines of morality than their mainstream Christian counterparts. They use five core beliefs to guide their behavior on the path to salvation.

classroom.synonym.com

 

[FSSL]

No doubt the weakest among all fallacies favorited on these forums; it's no wonder you stay silent the majority of the time.

Dont interpret my silence and not getting in too deep as a weakness of my arguments. I could care less what you think.
I have a personal life and currently my cancer treatments and travels are keeping me away a bit longer than typical.

You did not identify any of the Fundamentals upon which Fundamentalism is based. You cannot interact with those specifics. Instead you parse every anecdote with silly logical fallacy statements showing that you don't understand the argument, you can only play around it.

For example: Bob Jones University. You charged me with ecumenicalism when I associated the University with Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists. I'm not ecumenical. You are ignorant of the school, itself. Started by a Methodist evangelist, you will find a mix of Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian students at that school. Your knew jerk to attempt to foist a logical fallacy argument reveals that you don't know Bob Jones University and its place in Fundamentalism.

 

[UGC]

@tmjbog He bolded it himself:

During the period of 1604-1610, back up your own claim and name the specific KJV translators that you can prove to be "not Calvinist."

Saw this coming, and knew it would be tmjbog bringing it forth:

What Were the Five Basic Puritan Beliefs?
Puritanism, a strict Calvinist form of Protestant Christianity, distinguished itself from mainline Christianity through five principle beliefs. These beliefs formed the Puritans' path to salvation and created a religion with a strict and rigid morality. Basic Puritan beliefs are summarized by the acronym T.U.L.I.P.: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.


Total Depravity
Most Christian sects believe in the concept of Original Sin -- rooted in Adam and Eve's temptation and fall -- and the Puritans were no exception. Puritans took the concept of Original Sin to mean total depravity. To the Puritans, people were not only sinful, but there was no horrendous crime people were not capable of committing. They believed that, like Adam and Eve before them, all people were susceptible to temptation and sin.
Unconditional Election
In other Calvinist Christian sects, the concept of unconditional election is often called predestination. Puritans believed that God chose who would be saved and who would be chosen for eternal damnation. A person couldn't do anything to determine God's choice, and being a member of the Puritan church was not enough to be elected for salvation. While other Christian denominations do believe that people can choose salvation, Puritans believed that the choice was God's alone.

Limited Atonement
Like other Christians, Puritans believed that Jesus Christ died to atone for the sins of man. Puritans, however, believed that Christ's atonement did not extend to everyone. Only those who God elected received the salvation benefits of Christ's atonement. Those elected were part of an exclusive group, and not all Puritans were necessarily considered saved.
Irresistible Grace
Puritans believed that, once God chose to elect someone for salvation, that person could never resist God's grace. Being chosen meant that a person had found the path to salvation, which included "ecstatic intimacy with the divine." Puritans could be called on both internally and externally. Being chosen internally meant that God changed a person's heart to respond to the Gospel. The external calling was to preach the word of God to others.
Perseverance of the Saints
A person elected by God's grace would never depart from the path to salvation. The person would have complete power to understand the word of God, and would never turn towards evil. By definition, understanding the word of God meant that someone would never depart from God's commands. The person would instead persevere towards salvation. This belief is in stark contrast with other Christian denominations, which believe that even people who are saved sometimes fail to understand and can choose to depart from God.

(notice the persistent drive to promote and defend Calvinism in any situation from the mole who created his account barely a month after UGC started posting here to expose Calvinism's infiltration into the Fundamental Baptist [not "Fundamental" Methodist Gay and Transgender Pastor Alliance] movement) Notice the staunch avoidance of the fact that the enemy camp of Calvinism, Arminianism, had clear representation on the committee due to King James' wisdom in taking heed to his Arminian advisor to ensure all were not of the same slanted dogma, then notice the red herring to redirect the focus exclusively on the Puritans having removed these variables from the equation to wrest context for his misleading conclusion.

The argument defeated, which was made by both you and Logos, was that all of the KJV translators were Calvinist because they "all" followed the Church of England (do notice that once clearly proven wrong here, it was avoided and immediately redirected by red herring, even so, setting aside the Arminian representation, the Purtians clearly did not agree with the Church of England and its many heretical practices). The subject was the Church of England and your false claim that "they all bowed down to the Church of England in one accord, therefore this made them all Calvinist". Without addressing the symptom, I refuted the root: your premise founded on the Church of England.

IMPORTANT:
Remembering that the King James translating committee was formed by King James to be a diverse one, to include Arminian representation, the Puritans are equated to "The Remnant" in the Catholic Church today: they which have identified corruption in the Catholic church and even recently blasted the Pope, yet still identify with many of its core doctrines. Therefore and quite the mirror image: the corruption in the Anglican Church (and its similarities with the Catholic Church) coexisting with its Calvinist doctrine only further calls Calvinism into question, with the Puritans functioning as "The Remnant" of this dominant church at the time.

For further context on this, see our recent podcast on "The Remnant":

 

[tmjbog]

An example of one Puritan who represented numerous other Puritans on the board:

"Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was described as a "staunch Puritan," godly, learned, and full of moderation. He also had a reputation of being a "pious Protestant," who after being converted from Catholicism turned his back on Rome. He was familiar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and was "thoroughly skilled in them." When appointed to the translation committee, he was described as being "the most grave, learned, and modest of the aggrieved sort" to represent the Puritan faction of the committee. He also was noted as an excellent preacher (82-89)."

And another:

"Dr. John Reynolds originally was a Catholic until he was converted to Christ by his brother. He went on to become a leader of the Puritan movement within the Church of England."

As we can see here, the Puritan movement was happening within the church of England. Meaning members of the Church of England did not agree with all its doctrinal or political views.

I think we may have worked our way to the truth here. There was at least one Arminian among the translators and by UGC's estimation "numerous Puritans". Since Puritans were Calvinists we can confidently now conclude there were "numerous Calvinists" involved in the translation. Note: Numerous does not equal All.

 

[sword]

I'm neither a Scholar nor a Theologian, but I would guess all fundamental baptists would say the final authority of what we believe is the Bible. I would also suggest a good percentage of those who identify as Independent, fundamental baptist prefer the KJV and many choose to only use the KJV. I have my preference and I respect others to have their preferences.

Beyond that it's my understanding that many Baptist, who consider themselves fundamentalist, look to the following historical documents as a rough guideline of what we believe. These are general guidelines that I think most fundamentalist generally agree on. It is not an exhaustive list, only coomon ground.

1689 Baptist confession
The Niagara Bible Conference Creed 1878
The Fundamental Essays 1910-1915

1689 Baptist Confession
Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
Chapter 2: Of God and the Holy Trinity
Chapter 3: Of God's Decree
Chapter 4: Of Creation
Chapter 5: Of Divine Providence
Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the punishment thereof
Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant
Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator
Chapter 9: Of Free Will
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
Chapter 11: Of Justification
Chapter 12: Of Adoption
Chapter 13: Of Sanctification
Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith
Chapter 15: Of Repentance unto Life and Salvation
Chapter 16: Of Good Works
Chapter 17: Of the Perseverance of the Saints
Chapter 18: Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation
Chapter 19: Of the Law of God
Chapter 20: Of the Gospel and the Extent of Grace thereof
Chapter 21: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience
Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
Chapter 23: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
Chapter 24: Of the Civil Magistrate
Chapter 25: Of Marriage
Chapter 26: Of the Church
Chapter 27: Of the Communion of Saints
Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Chapter 29: Of Baptism
Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper
Chapter 31: Of the State of Man after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
Chapter 32: Of the Last Judgement

The Niagara Bible Conference Creed
The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.
The Trinity.
The Creation of man, the Fall into sin, and total depravity.
The universal transmission of spiritual death from Adam.
The necessity of the new birth.
Redemption by the blood of Christ.
Salvation by faith alone in Christ.
The assurance of salvation.
The centrality of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures.
The constitution of the true church by genuine believers.
The personality of the Holy Spirit.
The believer’s call to a holy life.
The immediate passing of the souls of believers to be with Christ at death.
The premillennial Second Coming of Christ. *

I believe there was not complete agreement on number 14 as regard to premillenism and dispensalationism.

 

[tmjbog]

@tmjbog He bolded it himself:



Saw this coming, and knew it would be tmjbog bringing it forth:



(notice the persistent drive to promote and defend Calvinism in any situation from the mole who created his account barely a month after UGC started posting here to expose Calvinism's infiltration into the Fundamental Baptist [not "Fundamental" Methodist Gay and Transgender Pastor Alliance] movement) Notice the staunch avoidance of the fact that the enemy camp of Calvinism, Arminianism, had clear representation on the committee due to King James' wisdom in taking heed to his Arminian advisor to ensure all were not of the same slanted dogma, then notice the red herring to redirect the focus exclusively on the Puritans having removed these variables from the equation to wrest context for his misleading conclusion.

The argument defeated, which was made by both you and Logos, was that all of the KJV translators were Calvinist because they "all" followed the Church of England (do notice that once clearly proven wrong here, it was avoided and immediately redirected by red herring, even so, setting aside the Arminian representation, the Purtians clearly did not agree with the Church of England and its many heretical practices). The subject was the Church of England and your false claim that "they all bowed down to the Church of England in one accord, therefore this made them all Calvinist". Without addressing the symptom, I refuted the root: your premise founded on the Church of England.

IMPORTANT:
Remembering that the King James translating committee was formed by King James to be a diverse one, to include Arminian representation, the Puritans are equated to "The Remnant" in the Catholic Church today: they which have identified corruption in the Catholic church and even recently blasted the Pope, yet still identify with many of its core doctrines. Therefore and quite the mirror image: the corruption in the Anglican Church (and its similarities with the Catholic Church) coexisting with its Calvinist doctrine only further calls Calvinism into question, with the Puritans functioning as "The Remnant" of this dominant church at the time.

For further context on this, see our recent podcast on "The Remnant":

You are an odd one. You keep debating someone who does not exist. I never stated that 100% of translators were Calvinists. I don't think anyone else on this board did either.

 

[Ransom]

These are general guidelines that I think most fundamentalist generally agree on. It is not an exhaustive list, only coomon ground.

1689 Baptist confession

Well, according to UGC, by favourably citing the 1689, you've just forfeited your fundamentalist credentials. LOL!

(Don't tell him about Charles Spurgeon.)

 

[tmjbog]

Well, according to UGC, by favourably citing the 1689, you've just forfeited your fundamentalist credentials. LOL!

(Don't tell him about Charles Spurgeon.)

Sword....Welcome to the vast and far reaching Alexandrian Cult. You will be expected to know the handshake before orientation.

 

[Ransom]

Sword....Welcome to the vast and far reaching Alexandrian Cult. You will be expected to know the handshake before orientation.

On the plus side, we have donuts.

 

[UGC]

Since Puritans were Calvinists we can confidently now conclude there were "numerous Calvinists" involved in the translation.

Yes, God used a diversity of men associated with the diversely corrupt Church of England to ensure this translation had the stamp of royalty (and unfortunately, royalty and its associations are always in some way corrupt in Satan's fallen world), the stamp of a King. As clearly noted by UGC, many Calvinists are saved, but they place themselves back under a works salvation performance system due to Calvin's unscriptural "Perseverance of the Saints" doctrine (and today the New Calvinists have taken it further: they blatantly front-load and back-load the Gospel of Grace with works, many times with no mention of Christ's payment for sin on the cross: all of the burden is redirected onto the sinner to work to "Persevere" to prove themselves, a blatant Galatian situation), Calvin's "Perseverance" doctrine being an erroneous oversimplification of scripture readily accepted by royalty in earlier times as it is easy to understand, yet not immediately easy to debunk.

"Where the word of a king is, there is power" -Ecc. 8:4


Much better than a group including New Age Theosophists who's versions are published by the likes of companies like Zondervan, who've published blatantly Satanic material, a group who held whatever Westcott and Hort believed in high regard, then blatantly lied to everyone about the objective of their mission to revise the King James for their McDonald's Bibles.

The same company that publishes FFF's NIV:



I'd rather go with the Bible stamped by a King who at least made his best effort to listen to different advisors and understand the diverse doctrinal viewpoints at the time.

 

[Ransom]

The Niagara Bible Conference Creed 1878

And, of course, its 14 points were distilled later, in 1910, into the aforementioned five fundamentals.

Is what you listed the totality of the Niagara Creed? I tried doing some brief research, but all I can find is a restatement of those same 14 bullets--not, by contrast, a fuller explication of them, such as you would find in the LBCF.

 

[Ransom]

Much better than a group including New Age Theosophists who's versions are published by the likes of companies like Zondervan, who've published blatantly Satanic material,

The UGC Wonder Twins are so dumb, they think a book by prominent Christian countercult apologists, Bob and Gretchen Passantino, is a pro-satanist book.

I guess the sine qua non of their form of fundamentalism would be having their IQ surgically removed before being allowed to speak. UGC's form of "fundamentalism" is so stupid, it's gone completely to seed. Phil Johnson was completely right about the rise of anti-intellectualism in fundamentalist circles. The UGC Blunder Twins have apparently lost the ability to think at all.

 

[tmjbog]

Yes, God used a diversity of men associated with the diversely corrupt Church of England to ensure this translation had the stamp of royalty (and unfortunately, royalty and its associations are always in some way corrupt in Satan's fallen world), the stamp of a King. As clearly noted by UGC, many Calvinists are saved, but they place themselves back under a works salvation performance system due to Calvin's unscriptural "Perseverance of the Saints" doctrine (and today the New Calvinists have taken it further: they blatantly front-load and back-load the Gospel of Grace with works, many times with no mention of Christ's payment for sin on the cross: all of the burden is redirected onto the sinner to work to "Persevere" to prove themselves, a blatant Galatian situation), Calvin's "Perseverance" doctrine being an erroneous oversimplification of scripture readily accepted by royalty in earlier times as it is easy to understand, yet not immediately easy to debunk.

"Where the word of a king is, there is power" -Ecc. 8:4


Much better than a group including New Age Theosophists who's versions are published by the likes of companies like Zondervan, who've published blatantly Satanic material, a group who held whatever Westcott and Hort believed in high regard, then blatantly lied to everyone about the objective of their mission to revise the King James for their McDonald's Bibles.

The same company that publishes FFF's NIV:
View attachment 1066


I'd rather go with the Bible stamped by a King who at least made his best effort to listen to different advisors and understand the diverse doctrinal viewpoints at the time.

Since the book has the word "Cults" right on the upper right, I don't think it's a "how to book". Without actually reading it, it appears to explain the cult of satanism. Even the description it does not sound like it's in favor of it. Excellent try, though. Wait, that wasn't your trump card, was it?

 

[tmjbog]

Yes, God used a diversity of men associated with the diversely corrupt Church of England to ensure this translation had the stamp of royalty (and unfortunately, royalty and its associations are always in some way corrupt in Satan's fallen world), the stamp of a King. As clearly noted by UGC, many Calvinists are saved, but they place themselves back under a works salvation performance system due to Calvin's unscriptural "Perseverance of the Saints" doctrine (and today the New Calvinists have taken it further: they blatantly front-load and back-load the Gospel of Grace with works, many times with no mention of Christ's payment for sin on the cross: all of the burden is redirected onto the sinner to work to "Persevere" to prove themselves, a blatant Galatian situation), Calvin's "Perseverance" doctrine being an erroneous oversimplification of scripture readily accepted by royalty in earlier times as it is easy to understand, yet not immediately easy to debunk.

"Where the word of a king is, there is power" -Ecc. 8:4


Much better than a group including New Age Theosophists who's versions are published by the likes of companies like Zondervan, who've published blatantly Satanic material, a group who held whatever Westcott and Hort believed in high regard, then blatantly lied to everyone about the objective of their mission to revise the King James for their McDonald's Bibles.

The same company that publishes FFF's NIV:
View attachment 1066


I'd rather go with the Bible stamped by a King who at least made his best effort to listen to different advisors and understand the diverse doctrinal viewpoints at the time.

Here let me help you out. I feel bad. You should take this opportunity to point out that Harper Collins is the parent company of Zondervan and they publish the Satanic Bible. We then can tie all that back to this elusive Alexandrian Cult and claim our victory.