And this just.. flows off my fingers.

All at once. I didn’t even use backspace once. That was supremely cool.

Thought it might be a blessing to someone.

Let me give you a short crash course on the origin of the term “fundamentalist”, and how the subversion of the word has become popularized, as you say (correctly) it has.

“In response to a wave of liberalism sweeping the denominations in the first three decades of this century, Bible-believing Christians tried to mount a spiritual defense of Christian truth. Here again the common understanding today is terribly distorted … A key strategy in the defense was the publication of twelve paperback volumes from 1910 through 1915 called The Fundamentals … At the heart of the defense was the affirmation of the “essential fundamentals of the faith” by a broad base of Christian laymen and the defense of these by leading Christian scholars. The fundamentals themselves are usually identified in terms of 5 essential truths: 1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible; 2) the deity of Christ and 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.

As Bible-believing Christians today we have nothing to be ashamed of concerning the early “fundamentalists” attempts to defend the truth of the gospel. Indeed, the specific doctrines which were defended as The Fundamentals are what have always been affirmed throughout the ages.”

“Dr. Machen and the other men never thought of making this an “ism”. They considered these things to be a true expression of the historic Christian faith and doctrine. They were the fundamental truths of the Christian faith – doctrine which was true to the Bible; truth which they were interested in and commited to … Soon, however, the word fundamentalist came into use. As used at first, it had nothing problematic in its use either in definition or connotation. I personally, however, preferred Machen’s term “Bible-believing Christian” because that was what the whole discussion was all about.

As time passed, however, the term fundamentalist took on a connotation for many people which had no necessary relationship to its original meaning. It came to connote a form of pietism which shut Christian interest up to only a very limited view of spirituality. In this new connotation, many things having to do with the arts, culture, education, and social involvement were considered to be “unspiritual” and not a proper area of concern for a Christian … Fundamentalism also, at times, became overly harsh and lacking in love, while properly saying that the liberal doctrine that was false to the Bible had to be met with confrontation.”

– The Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer, 1984

This is what Fundamentalism meant, and what it has become. When you know the background, the history, and the origin of “fundamentalists”, you know what we mean when we say it has been perverted, and distorted.

Is what he tells you, when you walk in the door. I have one of his cd’s I have yet to peruse, too.

Well. Let me tell you about Michael Rood.

Be fore you do anything else: Read this. When you come back, read the rest of this post.

Read the rest of this entry

Update:

No “Daily Cut” today, incidentally. I had fun, though. So, well… I think everyone will live.

I was wrong, no netzarim/nazarene heresy. Different types? Yes. He isn’t Messiah-ONLY, as far as I can tell. He’s a converted, “Messianic Jew” (read, “American, who has adopted Judaistic tendencies) with a particularly Jewish “take” on things – which, incidentally, is very, very interesting. If wrong, in most things.

I had to leave halfway through (we were at 3 hours, and it was 10 pm already – it was _half_ done.), so I didn’t catch the final part.

He did say some things I don’t agree with, and he made some connections I wouldn’t – but, I learned a LOT about Hebrew scholarship. More later. I had a good time, though, definitely.

So, the moral of the story is: Being a Berean is fun.

< ---------------------------------->

I’m going to check out a tour coming through town tonight, hosted by a Michael Rood, of the “Rood Awakening” show on Sky Angel.

It almost seems like he’s promoting the Messianic-only view of the Nazarite heresy. (I’ll explain later).

I’ll update this later.

Apologetics:

Updated:

Vox Apologia III will be at “Revenge of Mr. Dumpling”, and entries can be sent in, starting tomorrow, on the subject of “Euthanasia”.

There is a LOT more info on his site, in this post.

Entry deadline is Midnight, Sunday the 30th.

Alex is taking a break from blogging – to take a vacation. In fact, he’s visiting pretty near me. my parets vacation in Gulf Shores quite a bit.

Weapons of Warfare has a good post, titled The Tension of Evangelism.

News:

Updated:

Eric, from Evangelical Underground, announces his first annual “Evangelical Blog Awards”. These awards have many, many categories, so go check it out – then submit your nominations, per the instructions in his post. I think the only ones I would qualify for would be “Apologetics”, and “New” 😀 (And, if you ask me, Weapons of Warfare should get the nod for apologetics, if he keeps his current rate up.)

Catez, from Allthings2All has established a “Women’s aggregator” for faithbloggers, titled “Women4God”. Read about it here.

Jeremy, at Parableman, cracks down on WorldMag.

My response? From the comments at Parableman:

I have to disagree with you, for one simple reason: How the sentence is constructed.

It doesn’t match what I was told to expect. It doesn’t match your
description, when I read it. I don’t even read World Mag – so I don’t
care either way – but I dislike a big ado about nothing.

Rolling Stone’s agenda in deciding to not run that ad was, indeed,
anti-Christian. The sentence structure used clearly denotes that the
subject of the “anti-Christian” statement, was, in fact, Rolling Stone.
They are anti-Christian because their worldview is antithetical to
Christianity, and their decision to not run the ad was based on a supposed policy to exclude ALL religious advertisement. (Which, incidentally, I think is a lie, through their teeth.)

The only time the post mentioned “anti-Christian” was linked
to a noun, via possession. “Rolling Stone’s anti-Christian agenda”. I
don’t know how the statement could be any clearer. Rolling Stone has
never, ever, ever been pro-Christian. It’s a ROCK magazine.

The sentence, (read in my mind’s eye paraphrase), reads “despite the TNIV’s gender-inclusive language, the anti-Christian agenda of Rolling Stone may bear fruit for Zondervan.

The subject of the sentence prior is Zondervan, and the storm of
media attention garnered for it. The “gender-inclusive” statement is
simply referring to the prior media storm created by that gender inclusiveness.

So, what they are in essence saying, is that Rolling Stone’s bungle may have negated the storm of negative controversy, by potentially promoting Zondervan positively, as being “discriminated against”.

I don’t see anywhere where they call anyone who doesn’t agre with the TNIV as “anti-Christian” – they call Rolling Stone
anti-Christian. Which, if you’ve kept up with Rolling Stone’s policies,
and articles over the years, is indeed consistently
anti-Christian/Judeo-Christian moral values.

The article makes no “endorsements” of the TNIV, calls noone “anti-Christian”.

I don’t know World Mag, and I really don’t care either way what they
say – as I rarely read them, unless linked to them, like I was here.

But, looking at the linguistic elements, I don’t see either of the above, in any way, shape, or form.

Reading the sentence as written, even with a anti-article outlook
going in, due to your post, I saw absolutely nothing of what you
described. Linguistically, your problem doesn’t exist. If you want it
to say something other than written, thus implying that he mistakenly wrote something, but meant something else… you might have a chance to make that work. I don’t see any reason to think so, however.

Anyway – that’s my take. I don’t care about World Mag – but I don’t
see anything even remotely close to what you’re talking about in that
sentence, as written – unless you take a healthy dose of
“interpretation” to it. A VERY healthy dose.

Bleh. I hate controversy within the body – I really do. But, I’ll respond to it, if I feel it needs to be responded to. I’m an apologist, yes. However, within the body, to someone I respect… I really don’t like doing it. Oh well. I’ll just suck it up, won’t I?

Weapons of Warfare weighs in from a different perspective, with Jeremy replying.

*sigh* (HT: Smart Christian – who is also debating Jeremy’s decision.)

Is my hero.

“First it was Herod who had the children of Bethlehem killed, then Hitler and Stalin let millions of people be destroyed, and today, in our times, millions of unborn children are being killed”.

Awesome.

Of course, a storm of controversy forced him to apologize…

But… is he wrong?

Oh, no. He isn’t.

Archbishop Meisner?

Here’s a salute from a fellow Christian.

Studies would suggest it

It’s a long article, but very, very informative. I love that site. I
really don’t get people who say that gay marriage is good for anything
but the dilution and destruction of an institution already under severe
strain due to the “free love” echoes still reverberating through our
society. Don’t they read their history? Heck, I read as much history as
I do science fiction – and I read a LOT of science fiction. Do people
not LEARN their history anymore? Or are they too lazy to connect the
dots and see parallels with the historical decline of other societies?

The Clincher

I found these quotes fascinating.

 Quote:

It appears to me that our culture labors in an advanced state of decadence; that what many people mistake for the triumph of our civilization actually consists of powers that are disintegrating our culture; that the vaunted ‘democratic freedom’ of liberal society in reality is servitude to appetites and illusions which attack religious belief; which destroy community through excessive centralization and urbanization; which efface life-giving tradition and custom.

-Russell Kirk

 Quote:

As I have looked back across the ruins and landmarks of antiquity, I have been stunned by the parallels between those societies and our own. For most of us the destruction of Carthage, the rise of the Greek city-states, and the Fall of Rome are mere ghosts of the past, history lessons long forgotten. And such things as the capture of Constantinople, the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, the collapse of the kingdoms of France and Spain, and the slow withering decline of the British Empire are much less clear and less memorable. Most of us do not remember much from our history lessons about the French Enlightenment or, for that matter, the issues that led to the American Revolution. But this is the legitimate background of our own place in history, it is vital that we reconsider the nature of life in those earlier times. For within those eras and movements are the seeds of the troubles we face today.

– Jim Nelson Black

I still don’t believe why the left wing considers their viewpoint the
“intellectual high ground”. Even from a purely historical standpoint –
are they so arrogant that they absolutely refuse to admit that the same
thing can happen to us? Are they so ignorant that they don’t know their
history at all? Or are they so self-centered that they don’t care what happens to our country, as long as they keep their “pet projects” going?

It’s simply baffling. Where do they get off totally rebuilding the
society that’s made us the unchallenged, dominant force on the world
scene, seemingly on a whim?

Don’t they remember Rome? Don’t they READ anymore?

The TV is not just to stare mindlessly at. Don’t use it to vegetate in
front of a sitcom, or a ballgame – or even to watch the spoonfed drivel
they call “news”. Use it to LEARN. Or better yet – use your brain, and
READ. You know, the thing they did before they had the boob tube.

*sigh*

But who am I kidding. People get annoyed on the internet if posts go over 100 words. bleh. Frickin’ read.