Can I be fundamentalist and still be charismatic?

[kenneth558]

Besides discussing the question in the title, could anyone tell me of a denomination or church that believes like me? I would love to fellowship with like-minded believers. I consider myself hyper- or ultra-fundamentalist, charismatic, non-dispensational, and "non-cultural". By non-cultural I mean that I refuse to accept the popular notion that certain New Testament teachings were only intended for specific cultural settings without specifically so stated in context. Ask me for more details if you'd like.

[No Swansong]

Besides discussing the question in the title, could anyone tell me of a denomination or church that believes like me? I would love to fellowship with like-minded believers. I consider myself hyper- or ultra-fundamentalist, charismatic, non-dispensational, and "non-cultural". By non-cultural I mean that I refuse to accept the popular notion that certain New Testament teachings were only intended for specific cultural settings without specifically so stated in context. Ask me for more details if you'd like.


Using the definition (see stickys) that we use here I do not see why a Charismatic couldn't be a fundamentalist.
Anybody else?

[TwinCrier]

When I hear charamatic I think of pentacostals, and, except for the speaking in tongues is evidence of being filled with the spirit thing, I agree with them the vast majority of the time, so I don't see why not.

[oliveplants]

To your posted question: that sounds quite familiar; tell on!

To your titled question: Of course!

[kenneth558]

To your posted question: that sounds quite familiar; tell on!I stated a reply to you late at night and hit a wrong button and deleted it all. I'll get back to you later....

[kenneth558]

To your posted question: that sounds quite familiar; tell on!...Ultra-fundamental, charismatic, non-cultural: The Bible is inerrant and the final authority - God magnifies His word above all His name. His word is written for those of us upon whom the ends of the world are come even more than, for example, 1 Corinthians was written for the first-century Corinthian church. Whenever we embrace any verse of 1 Corinthians for ourselves, it is a witness against us that we are supposed to embrace every other verse as well.

Non-dispensational: The only dispensations God tells us about in His word can also be called "assignments" or "stewardships". A popular misconception is that the Old Covenant is obsolete because it was for a particular "dispensation", that is, time period. This warped mentality extrapolates into many Christians discarding any verse even in the New Testament they are offended at, under the claim that it was for a different "dispensation". The truth is, the Law of Moses was and is for certain people, not a certain time period, certainly not the same time period in history for everyone. This is made crystal clear in Paul's epistles. It is not a covenant for Gentile believers to enter into, and it is not a covenant for unbelieving Israel to forsake except for the New Covenant. And even then I wonder.

Does you husband post here?

[oliveplants]

Thank you.

No my DH does not post here, because of tie constraints, mostly. As my Dear Son said just a few days ago, "Daddy plays cars on the computer, and you [mama] play 'internet'."

We also believe that the Bible can't be picked over and only favorite verses applied to one's self. Also 'charismatic,' and quite different from the normal culture.

Perhaps we shall bump into each other again around the boards.

[DiscipleOfIAm]

When I hear charamatic I think of pentacostals, and, except for the speaking in tongues is evidence of being filled with the spirit thing, I agree with them the vast majority of the time, so I don't see why not.

I, too, think of pentecostals when thinking of charismatic. My pastor has a series on the charismatic movement and some false teachings that opened my wife's eyes. She grew up in AoG. Little things like Eternal Security, Tongues and Interpretations, and such made her realize that charismatic / pentecostal is not in line with IFB.

However, IFB are not the only fundamentalists, so I suppose one could be charismatic and fundamentalist.

[kenneth558]

duplicate

[kenneth558]

Thank you.

No my DH does not post here, because of tie constraints, mostly. As my Dear Son said just a few days ago, "Daddy plays cars on the computer, and you [mama] play 'internet'."

We also believe that the Bible can't be picked over and only favorite verses applied to one's self. Also 'charismatic,' and quite different from the normal culture.

Perhaps we shall bump into each other again around the boards.Could you be the very first person I've ever met who believes as I do in observing the head coverings teaching in 1 Corinthians 11, and at the same time believes we are to covet to prophesy according to 1 Cor 12:31, 14:1, and 14:39, and at the same time believes it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church in the context of 1 Corinthians 14:35 ?

[kenneth558]

I, too, think of pentecostals when thinking of charismatic. My pastor has a series on the charismatic movement and some false teachings that opened my wife's eyes. She grew up in AoG. Little things like Eternal Security, Tongues and Interpretations, and such made her realize that charismatic / pentecostal is not in line with IFB.

However, IFB are not the only fundamentalists, so I suppose one could be charismatic and fundamentalist.Well let's say that a true fundamentalist believes what the Bible says about eternal security, tongues and interpretations. Help me determine if I am believing truly fundamentally about those things:

I believe Romans 11:22 is an excellent synopsis concerning eternal security:
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
I believe 1 Cor. 14:39-40 is an excellent synopsis of tongues and interpretations:
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order."In order" was just defined in the preceding verses.

What d'ya' think?

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Well let's say that a true fundamentalist believes what the Bible says about eternal security, tongues and interpretations. Help me determine if I am believing truly fundamentally about those things:

What d'ya' think?

John 10:27

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
-----
1 John 5:11

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
----
That's what I think about Eternal Security.

God Bless!

[MaidforHim]

All the titles and descriptions confuse me. Is there a Christian dictionary that explains them?

[No Swansong]

All the titles and descriptions confuse me. Is there a Christian dictionary that explains them?

You might want to try our Wiki here it is pretty good.

[No Swansong]

All the titles and descriptions confuse me. Is there a Christian dictionary that explains them?

Well let's say that a true fundamentalist believes what the Bible says about eternal security, tongues and interpretations.

I think the distinction is that the Fundamentalist would say that what the Bible says about these subjects is infallible. But, we as human beings can be wrong about what the Bible says. What the Bible says is always true, whether we understand it or not is a different story sometimes.

[cubanito]

Of course a charismatic (dispy or not) can be a fundamentalist. Why do you even ask?

As for headcoverings, I am dispy, non-charismatic, and believe in headcoverings for women. This whole phenagling with "cultural setting" could just as easily be used to excuse homosexual marriage. But leaving that aside...

Seriously WHY would you ask such a silly question? It would be like asking "can I be an apple and still be ripe?"

JR

[No Swansong]

I think the individual may have asked because not all Fundamentalist are cut from the same cloth. I have known Fundamentalists who would claim that those who speak in tongues were posessed etc. If I didn't realize that these were not the only breed of fundamentalists then I certainly would not associate with Fundamentalists.

[MaidforHim]

You might want to try our Wiki here it is pretty good.


:thumbsup: Thank you

[oliveplants]

Could you be the very first person I've ever met who believes as I do in observing the head coverings teaching in 1 Corinthians 11, and at the same time believes we are to covet to prophesy according to 1 Cor 12:31, 14:1, and 14:39, and at the same time believes it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church in the context of 1 Corinthians 14:35 ?
Sorry I missed this post. Don't know if I'm the ONLY one, but I do agree with you. (Also on your next post about security and prophesy.)

[kenneth558]

Sorry I missed this post. Don't know if I'm the ONLY one, but I do agree with you. (Also on your next post about security and prophesy.)oliveplants, I appreciate your response more than you know. Do you know of a church or denomination that believes this way?

[oliveplants]

oliveplants, I appreciate your response more than you know. Do you know of a church or denomination that believes this way?
Answered in PM. For others who are reading along, the short answer is "no."

[cubanito]

Some Fundamentalists believe that charismatics are heretics, but I think they are in the marked minority.

In fact, I know of none. For an example of a major fundamentalist figure who has explicitly written on the errors (as I see them) of charismatics, I recommend John Macarthur's "Reckless Faith." Throughout the book he repeatedly refers to charismatics as "dear brothers" who may well be wrong on a number of issues, but still very much Christians. RC Sproul also writes against charismatic theology and practices, while at the same time considering them feloow brothers. I have yet to see a post here of anyone that would deny that a charismatic can not be a fundamentalist, or a Christian.

There is no doubt that some of the things I believe counter to Scripture (ergo, they are errors). Of course where I to KNOW of my errors, I would change my mind. Other than Christ, everybody here has some erroneous ideas.

To be a Fundamentalist means one is, at least theoretically, willing to be swayed from one's error by Scriptural evidence ALONE. That means that one tries not to re-interpret Scripture to fit with current fads (be they cultural, scientific or whatever).

In reality, we all to some degree come to Scripture with cultural baggage and thus, to some degree, twist the message within Scripture. The question is, do we do this willfully, or are we willing to at least try to see Scripture as supreme?

Charismatics in general very much view Scripture as supreme. That I believe they misinterpret, or more precisely, MISAPPLY certain portions does not take away from my acknowledging their zeal to adhere to Scripture. For this reason, in general, I assume charismatics to be not only fellow Christians, but fellow fundamentalists, despite thinking much of their theology to be flawed.

I also know of no church in my area that still asks women to cover their heads, though I can't fathom why. It is clearly taught in Scripture, and a near-universal practice among all branches claiming Christianity for 2,000 years. It is irritating to me that such a clearly taught reality has been so carelessly tossed aside with minimal discussion.

JR

[kenneth558]

....I also know of no church in my area that still asks women to cover their heads, though I can't fathom why. It is clearly taught in Scripture, and a near-universal practice among all branches claiming Christianity for 2,000 years. It is irritating to me that such a clearly taught reality has been so carelessly tossed aside with minimal discussion.

JRThank you for these challenging words.

As for your other comments, I was raised non-charismatic and to view charismatics very negatively for many of the reasons you and others point out. But after letting go of commentaries, I found that anti-charismatics don't have things right, either. Namely, they think God's giving of certain or all spiritual gifts has changed since the New Testament was penned - that He doesn't give them any more or want to give them. THAT is what I disagree with anti-charismatics about. I happen to agree with them that tongues are not practiced biblically many times, etc.

The Lord bless you.