Doctrine and praxis (based on doctrine) is absolutely essential.

The original blog was very good, particularly when it espoused that some wish to be known for what they oppose.

Joy anyone?

Neil S.

No has said they think that.

But the people “who the shoe fits for” are the ones I think get bent out of shape…

just my opinion.

Paul C,
I’m not saying that first order doctrines aren’t worth having an argument over. I just think linking things like music styles, wearing jeans, having chairs instead of pews, etc. are not on par with orthodox christology or trinitarian dogma…

http://samirselmanovic.typepad.com/faith_house

I appreciate your views and balance on judging those who adhere to biblical teachings and hold them as important (the word fundamentalist always makes me smile as it usually means “someone who actually believes what what they say they believe”).

Tim, not too sure about what you’re talking about in regards to the “resurrection”. Please clarify.

1. I don’t assume that all Fundamentalists are pharisees, and I don’t think being more conservative makes one a legalist. Most of my family are quite conservative – my dad is an A/G pastor and we never had any alcohol, ever. I didn’t see a movie in a theater until I was 18. I didn’t go to school dances. Yet my parents were not legalists. I had quite a bit of freedom growing up. For instance, I never had a curfew.

So I don’t make that assumption. I only assume people are pharisees when they start acting like one.

2. Similiar answer as to number 1. I’ve known many very conservative people who exhibited the fruits of the Spirit.

What you said about Peter and Paul illustrates my point. They probably had some disagreements about some issues still, but their love for each other was more important than them.

pleads for acceptance and tolerance, as long as we can unite on the “basics”.

The problem here is that this is nowhere borne out in scripture at all.

That’s really not true at all. You’ve got Paul’s discussion of freedom in regards to eating meat sacrificed to idols. As well as labeling the resurrection of first importance.

Why is there always the presupposition that those who hold to certain biblical principles must also be Pharisees and legalists and fundamentalists? Why can’t adherence to strong Biblical truths go hand-in-hand with the fruit of the Spirit as well?

Because we don’t believe they’re Biblical principles, and mostly get really irritated when man made laws are added to the gospel, kind of like Paul did when Judaizers moved into Galatia.

A question I’d like answered is why there is a presupposition that those who hold to to certain biblical principles are accused of not believing the Bible or even are Christians?

A lot of the arguments pleading for tolerance and acceptance, as long as we all believe in Jesus, are based on complete error.

What do you think Paul was referring to when he said, “the devil is transformed into an angel of light and his ministers as the ministers or righteousness”? Of course they were preaching “Jesus”.

How about Peter’s reference to how people “twist” Paul’s writings “as they do the other scriptures”. Were they preaching Jesus? of course – but with a twist.

Why did Paul lambast Hymaneus and Philetus for a simple little (sarcasm) oversight in their doctrine?

Doctrine is absolutely important.

It doesn’t mean I should become arrogant about it, but it should be the foundation of my faith, built on scripture.

I think this comment on the blog in reference should give cause for concern (as it’s the perception of someone who read the blog):

Travis said:

Wow, this is the most intelligent quote I have seen in a long time. It should be the posterboard quote of the movement to reunite Protestants into the Catholic Church.

Do you?