|
I thought you were bang on with your previous
definition of a good fundamentalist. Those are fundamentals and everything else
that is true and important will connect with what you wrote. Is there really
anything more to add than the fact that we belong to God and our response is
obedience? Even Barth would probably say no. Can you think of anything that
would be outside of your two criteria? I can't.
Love,
Caroline
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:55
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TruthTalk Are we
on the same page?
Caroline Wong wrote:
Okay, so you have more to add
to Terry's original definition of what is the best kind of
fundamentalist. It seems that only (some) Baptists qualify as
fundamentalists. Evangelicals are not fundamentalists.
The next question would be
1. Terry, what is your response to this? Do you
consider yourself a fundamentalist?
2. Kevin, are Evangelicals disobedient and if
so, how are they disobedient?
Love,
Caroline I consider
myself a fundamentalist because I believe in the fundamentals. I do not
know how many fundamental things are involved. I have never bothered to
count them. Probably varies from fundamentalist to fundamentalist.
I do know that the term "Fundie" is somewhat abrasive to me as I am sure "Lib"
is to some liberals. Not enough to start a hassle over though.
Seems it is just a way to put someone into an inferior position, the way that
John did with his group A and group B.
Terry
|
