Someone smarter than me might be able to point out something I missed,
but I think, like you, that that pretty well covers the essentials.
Terry
Caroline Wong wrote:
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
|
