yes we are christian but the bible is the word of god and if you do not do what the bible said you are not a christian. I am one man and i know it is hard to be a Christian, and i do not know what to call my self but i know the law of GOD AND I KNOW I CAN NOT DO ALL OF THEM. But i can say I am a christian.  rhitnan7

Comments on your pod cast on fundamentalism. I agree with you that the term fundamentalism is a label. I don’t agree with you that labels are obstacles. We deal with labels every day. Just imagine what life would be like to remove all labels. New evangelicalism has been trying to remove the label of fundamentalism since 1947 when Harold J. Ockenga coined the term. Ockenga said the strategy of new evangelicalism was one of infiltration not separation, the end justifies the means or situation ethics. You defined this perfectly by your example of a missionary going to a field, where you said you could give examples all day long, of a man wearing a grass skirt and the woman wearing pants. I wonder what or where that field would be?
You mentioned that when people think of a fundamentalist they think of Jack Schaap? We do? Hmmm, I don’t think so. What about men like J. Frank Norris, William B Riley and Canadian Thomas T. Shields, who started the term fundamentalism as we know it today. . You then went into a lengthy discussion of the favorite new evangelicalism straw man, pants on woman and movies and alcohol. I was waiting for the long hair on men and short hair on women but it didn’t come. Maybe it came after I turned it off.
There is more to fundamentalism that the doctrine of the inherency of the Scriptures and the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the sinless life, the blood atonement, the bodily resurrection and ascension. There is the rapture and the tribulation the second coming of the lord in great power and great glory. There is the millennial reign, the judgment of satan and unbelievers. There is the New Jerusalem and eternity. There is the fundamental doctrines of conduct and ordinances of the church. There is the believer’s relationship with the world and separation from worldly things. On and on we could go but main and foremost, the thing that sets the new evangelical apart from the fundamentalist is what we find in Paul’s words in IITim.4:1-4. Jude tells us to “earnestly contend for the faith”, not earnestly contend against those who are still standing for it.  Stephen J. Nissley

Thank you for your comments Stephen, I will try to address a couple of your statements here…

Stephen J. Nissley: Ockenga said the strategy of new evangelicalism was one of infiltration not separation, the end justifies the means or situation ethics. You defined this perfectly by your example of a missionary going to a field, where you said you could give examples all day long, of a man wearing a grass skirt and the woman wearing pants. I wonder what or where that field would be?

I can assure you I’m not an infiltrator. The illustration I used of a missionary going to a country where the women wear pants and the men wear dresses is not a straw man, it was (as I said) a hypothetical situation. This hypothetical situation was given to be a thought experiment. If a fundamentalist missionary went to a village where the women wore pants, and the men wore dresses, what would that missionary’s response be? What would your response be? If your response would be to react by changing the culture there, then you are promoting a sub-culture, not promoting Christ. If your reaction would be to change your standard of dress to gain credibility with those villagers, then you are promoting Christ, not a sub-culture.

Stephen J. Nissley: There is more to fundamentalism that the doctrine of the inherency of the Scriptures and the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the sinless life, the blood atonement, the bodily resurrection and ascension. There is the rapture and the tribulation the second coming of the lord in great power and great glory. There is the millennial reign, the judgment of satan and unbelievers. There is the New Jerusalem and eternity. There is the fundamental doctrines of conduct and ordinances of the church. There is the believer’s relationship with the world and separation from worldly things. On and on we could go but main and foremost, the thing that sets the new evangelical apart from the fundamentalist is what we find in Paul’s words in IITim.4:1-4.Jude tells us to “earnestly contend for the faith”, not earnestly contend against those who are still standing for it.

Well, you actually somewhat validated our point. Fundamentalism, as a label, no longer means “Adherence to the “5″ Fundamentals of the Faith”… it means much more than that as you said. It now means; dispensational, pre-tribulation eschatology, high demands for piety, a literal interpretation of the book of Revelation, specific practices and worship styles in the Church, and a tendency to hatred and malevolence toward anyone who disagrees.

Some Fundamentalists will even go further than doctrine to describe what constitutes Fundamentalism; for example: specific lengths of hair for men and women, facial hair standards, white shirts only while preaching, no women on the platform in Church, no paperback song books, bus routes are mandatory for a fundamentalist Church, etc, etc, etc… I’ve heard it all.

You should have listened to the end of the podcast. That’s where the good stuff was   John Hardin

John Hardin, “The illustration I used of a missionary going to a country where the women wear pants and the men wear dresses is not a straw man, it was (as I said) a hypothetical situation. This hypothetical situation was given to be a thought experiment. If a fundamentalist missionary went to a village where the women wore pants, and the men wore dresses, what would that missionary’s response be? What would your response be? If your response would be to react by changing the culture there, then you are promoting a sub-culture, not promoting Christ”.

First of all, it seems to me you people have an issue about pants on women. That’s all you want to talk about. That seems strange for preachers that are against topical preaching. If I were to go to a place where the dress standards are different then mine to reach them for Christ why would I try to look like them. We have a daughter who along with her husband are missionaries to the folks of Greenland. The people of Greenlanders dress different then they do. Do they have to look like Greenlanders to reach the Greenlanders?  Stephen Nissley

Many scholars believe that “abstain from all appearance of evil” is best translated, “Avoid evil every time it appears”. Puts a different perspective on it than just not going to the movies because someone might see you.  Jessica Baker

Very interesting perspective on that phrase Jessica. Thank you.  John Hardin

The ESV translates that verse, “Abstain from every form of evil”. I wish I had brought that up during the podcast. Great insight Jessica!  Pastor John

John Hardin said: If a fundamentalist missionary went to a village where the women wore pants, and the men wore dresses, what would that missionary’s response be? What would your response be? If your response would be to react by changing the culture there, then you are promoting a sub-culture, not promoting Christ. If your reaction would be to change your standard of dress to gain credibility with those villagers, then you are promoting Christ, not a sub-culture.

EVANGELIST GOODWIN SAID: Wow…. more proof of what a liberal minded non biblical host we have here!! Would someone tell “John” our job is to preach the whole councel of God… and help conform the “natives” to Christ and His Word…. not live like the sinful natives in hopes they will respect us more as we mire in the hog pen with them and then let us tell them of Christ!!  Evangelist

Evangelist:
EVANGELIST GOODWIN SAID:Wow…. more proof of what a liberal minded non biblical host we have here!!Would someone tell “John” our job is to preach the whole councel of God… and help conform the “natives” to Christ and His Word…. not live like the sinful natives in hopes they will respect us more as we mire in the hog pen with them and then let us tell them of Christ!!

Hi Dan, good to hear from you again. Since you are referring to the hypothetical question I posed regarding a missionary to a foreign field, I would like to ask you; what part of the “whole counsel of God” tells us that we should convince or coheres non-believers to submit to a cultural standard? Could you give me a chapter and verse to defend your position?

In 1 Cor. 2:2 the Apostle Paul says he didn’t preach dress standards to the Corinthians when he was there. In 1 Cor. 9:22 the Apostle Paul indicated that his ministry is marked by a ‘conformance’ to the cultural standards of any particular region, not an effort to change the culture of any region.

This kind of mistake is what happens when you have men who don’t know the “whole counsel of God” preaching what they believe to be the “whole counsel of God”.  John Hardin

Stephen Nissley:
First of all, it seems to me you people have an issue about pants on women. That’s all you want to talk about. That seems strange for preachers that are against topical preaching. If I were to go to a place where the dress standards are different then mine to reach them for Christ why would I try to look like them. We have a daughter who along with her husband are missionaries to the folks of Greenland. The people of Greenlanders dress different then they do. Do they have to look like Greenlanders to reach the Greenlanders?

Of course you don’t have to look like Greenlanders to reach Greenlanders. But you surrender your credibility with them if you look down your nose at their culture, and present your own cultural standard as more holy than theirs. People aren’t stupid, they know a hypocrite when they see one. And anything a hypocrite says is going to go in one ear and out the other. Why do think Fundamentalist Churches are suffering today? When people want to learn about God, they don’t go to those they view to be hypocrites, they go to someone that has established credibility in that community, someone that loves them as Christ loves them, not for what they could become if they changed their dress standards and other outward aspects of their lives.  John Hardin

The hypothetical situations don’t seem all that relevant to me, and I do not wish to argue about how missionaries should dress but, so long as the native attire isn’t ungodly, a missionary should make all attempts to be a part of that culture. The bottom line concerning pants on women is that there is not an ounce of Scripture forbidding ladies from wearing pants. The New Testament teaches distinction and modesty. How a lady chooses to follow that is between her and her Lord.  Pastor John

John Hardin asked me: what part of the “whole counsel of God” tells us that we should convince or coheres non-believers to submit to a cultural standard? Could you give me a chapter and verse to defend your position?

Evangelist Dan: 2 Tim 2:2
How about the 3rd part of the great commission of Matthew 28:19-20
AHHH.. how about Daniel keeping HIS custom of praying 3 times a day even though it was against the custom of Babylon???
John…. you gonna bring your rug to Iran with you and bow down to Mecca to keep the customs and make friends with the people??
If God has a law/standard about mens and womens attire… and he certainly does…… then it is the preacher’s job to teach that after getting them saved and into the church. (Matthew 28:19-20 2 Tim 2:2)

JOHN HARDIN SAID: In 1 Cor. 2:2 the Apostle Paul says he didn’t preach dress standards to the Corinthians when he was there. In 1 Cor. 9:22 the Apostle Paul indicated that his ministry is marked by a ‘conformance’ to the cultural standards of any particular region, not an effort to change the culture of any region.

EVANGELIST GOODWIN: You should have kept reading… when he gets to chapter 3 he says they are carnal and can only drink milk and he rebuked them for this. Don’t sound to me like Paul only preached salvation !!! Obvious that he also was trying to teach them how to live and be spiritual!
If you think Paul becoming weak in chapter 9:22 means he would sin by being naked to reach the naked….. well…. you better get some help.  Evangelist

Evangelist: John Hardin asked me:what part of the “whole counsel of God” tells us that we should convince or coheres non-believers to submit to a cultural standard? Could you give me a chapter and verse to defend your position?Evangelist Dan:2 Tim 2:2
How about the 3rd part of the great commission of Matthew 28.19-20
AHHH.. how about Daniel keeping HIS custom of praying 3 times a day even though it was against the custom of Babylon??? John…. you gonna bring your rug to Iran with you and bow down to Mecca to keep the customs and make friends with the people?? If God has a law/standard about mens and womens attire… and he certainly does…… then it is the preacher’s job to teach that after getting them saved and into the church.(Matthew 28:19-20 2 Tim 2:2)

You’re being ridiculous. Of course I wouldn’t bow toward Mecca. That would be counterproductive as a “Christian” Missionary now wouldn’t it?

I would be grateful if you would show me in the scripture where God specifically tells His children what to wear.

JOHN HARDIN SAID: In 1 Cor. 2:2 the Apostle Paul says he didn’t preach dress standards to the Corinthians when he was there. In 1 Cor. 9:22 the Apostle Paul indicated that his ministry is marked by a ‘conformance’ to the cultural standards of any particular region, not an effort to change the culture of any region.EVANGELIST GOODWIN:You should have kept reading… when he gets to chapter 3 he says they are carnal and can only drink milk and he rebuked them for this. Don’t sound to me like Paul only preached salvation !!!

Are you trying to tell me the Apostle Paul was apologizing to the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. 2:2 for not preaching dress standard to them?  John Hardin

John,

I think you have a stalker!  Pastor John

John, you have bought into the protestant lie of what is a church, you think you can go to the greek and better understand what God said than the translators, you no longer believe Christ is coming for His bride before great tribulation, you do not understand the 7th day of creation being God’s millennium/rest….. John…. you are sinking into a hole of false doctrine faster than anyone can make a rope long enough to reach you.  Evangelist

Pastor John: John,I think you have a stalker!

LOL! Does that mean I’m famous now?   John Hardin

Evangelist: John, you have bought into the protestant lie of what is a church, you think you can go to the greek and better understand what God said than the translators, you no longer believe Christ is coming for His bride before great tribulation, you do not understand the 7th day of creation being God’s millennium/rest….. John…. you are sinking into a hole of false doctrine faster than anyone can make a rope long enough to reach you.

Translation:
I believe in the Universal Church.
I don’t subscribe to King James Onlyism.
I’m Amillennial in my eschatology.
I don’t believe preachers who try to set dates for our Lord’s return.

By golly I am a historic Baptist!  John Hardin

Dan,

You refuse to listen. John, along with everyone else that has posted on this site FIRMLY believe in the imminent return of our Lord. We believe in the Lord’s soon return, we just don’t have to perform hermeneutical gymnastics to get there.

You have no Scriptural grounds for interpreting creation as being prophetic. Every attempt you make to prove your idea is the furthest thing from sound exegesis.

Furthermore, your view of the Church is not the product of Biblical exposition but rather tradition and the teaching of fellow landmarkers.  Pastor John

Really not interested… and no I dont want to dance either.
See you fellows.  Evangelist

THE DEBATE ON THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH THAT BEGAN AT THIS POINT HAS BEEN MOVED TO THIS NEW POST. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS TO THAT PARTICULAR DEBATE SHOULD BE MADE THERE. THANK YOU…. CARRY ON.  John Hardin