Comments on: Voice on Fundamentalist Ecumenism http://austinmatzko.com/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/ A blog about philosophy, Christianity, web development and whatever else I feel like writing about. Mon, 20 May 2013 11:02:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2-RC4-18391 By: NeoFundamentalist » Separation - Supplemental Material http://austinmatzko.com/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/comment-page-1/#comment-13184 NeoFundamentalist » Separation - Supplemental Material Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:44:34 +0000 http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/#comment-13184 [...] Austin Matzko on “Il Filosofo” [...] [...] Austin Matzko on “Il Filosofo” [...]

]]> By: filosofo http://austinmatzko.com/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/comment-page-1/#comment-362 filosofo Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:56:14 +0000 http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/#comment-362 Nathan, I'm not addressing whether "secondary separation" can be practiced in a just manner. I'm just suggesting that historically its practice in fundamentalism has led to an emphasis on groups and associations over beliefs. Nathan, I’m not addressing whether “secondary separation” can be practiced in a just manner. I’m just suggesting that historically its practice in fundamentalism has led to an emphasis on groups and associations over beliefs.

]]> By: Nathan http://austinmatzko.com/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/comment-page-1/#comment-360 Nathan Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:42:59 +0000 http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/#comment-360 What you do is always a reflection of what you believe. I'm certain you agree with this. So what is the problem with separating from people who demonstrate what they believe, namely that its not important to adhere to the biblical demands to separate from disobedient brothers, by their unwillingness to do what the Bible says? What you do is always a reflection of what you believe. I’m certain you agree with this. So what is the problem with separating from people who demonstrate what they believe, namely that its not important to adhere to the biblical demands to separate from disobedient brothers, by their unwillingness to do what the Bible says?

]]> By: SharperIron http://austinmatzko.com/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/comment-page-1/#comment-359 SharperIron Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:18:48 +0000 http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/#comment-359 <strong>Weblog Watch | 10 January 2006...</strong> Il Filosofo comments on an article in BJU's alumni magazine in "Voice on Fundamentalist Ecumenism."... Weblog Watch | 10 January 2006…

Il Filosofo comments on an article in BJU’s alumni magazine in “Voice on Fundamentalist Ecumenism.”…

]]> By: Dad http://austinmatzko.com/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/comment-page-1/#comment-352 Dad Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:35:24 +0000 http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2006/01/08/voice-on-fundamentalist-ecumenism/#comment-352 Don't overlook an important practical consideration in early 20th-century fundamentalism: the ownership of church property. Methodist and Presbyterian churches were (and usually are) owned by their denominations. Baptist churches are usually owned by the congregation. During the early 20th century when fundamentalist Presbyterians and Methodists wanted to leave their apostate organizations, they usually had to give up their buildings as well. Small groups of these fundamentalist believers then often joined a sound Baptist church; large groups often formed new churches with a congregationalist government--they weren't about to lose their buildings a second time--often with the name "Bible" in them. Taps for fundamentalist Presbyterians and Methodists. Although congregationalism is great for holding property, it's less helpful in setting doctrinal standards. How does one independent congregation judge the biblical orthodoxy of another independent congregation? So as a sort of ersatz replacement for denominations, contemporary fundamentalists have adopted a BJU circle, a Hyles-Anderson circle, a Sword of the Lord circle,etc. Don’t overlook an important practical consideration in early 20th-century fundamentalism: the ownership of church property. Methodist and Presbyterian churches were (and usually are) owned by their denominations. Baptist churches are usually owned by the congregation. During the early 20th century when fundamentalist Presbyterians and Methodists wanted to leave their apostate organizations, they usually had to give up their buildings as well. Small groups of these fundamentalist believers then often joined a sound Baptist church; large groups often formed new churches with a congregationalist government–they weren’t about to lose their buildings a second time–often with the name “Bible” in them. Taps for fundamentalist Presbyterians and Methodists.

Although congregationalism is great for holding property, it’s less helpful in setting doctrinal standards. How does one independent congregation judge the biblical orthodoxy of another independent congregation? So as a sort of ersatz replacement for denominations, contemporary fundamentalists have adopted a BJU circle, a Hyles-Anderson circle, a Sword of the Lord circle,etc.

]]>