P.O.W.

[1Timothy115]

Good point. I have a feeling there is more a foot here than the surface level discussion.

[speerjp1]

Eternal security (or perseverence of the saints) is the P in the Calvinist TULIP. I know plenty of fundies that aren't Calvinists. There are many fundamentalist free-will Baptist churches.

Eternal Security is not the same thing as the perseverance of the saints. Eternal Security was taught in God's Word long before Calvin invented his phony religious system.

[John81]

This is off-topic, I know, but I couldn't help commenting here. Wilchbla, why do you say that these are two major tenets of fundamentalism? Where did you get that information? Are you basing this statement on your own experience, or on documentation that every fundamentalist would agree with?

Eternal security (or perseverence of the saints) is the P in the Calvinist TULIP. I know plenty of fundies that aren't Calvinists. There are many fundamentalist free-will Baptist churches.

KJVO-ism is also not a "major tenet of fundamentalism." I know many, many fundamentalists (myself included) who are not KJVO.

A fundamentalist is someone who believes the fundamentals of the Christian faith. This would include the inspiration of the Bible, the creation of man, the virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, salvation by faith through grace, etc. Another defining doctrine/quality/behavior (that differentiates a fundy from a mainline evangelical) is separation. IMO, anyone who believes these things can be called a fundamentalist. Opinions about how Scripture was preserved (shades of KJVO-ism included), eschatological persuasion, and certain applicational issues (like pants on women or approval of musical styles) are disagreed upon within the group of fundamentalism. The very fact that you see things like these debated on an IFB board proves my point. Fundamentalists don't agree on everything. We're not unthinking zombies, blind followers, or conformers. Don't make us out to be these things.

For the most part you are correct. However, as Speer pointed out, eternal security and the Calvinist concept of perseverence of the saints are not one and the same. While eternal security is not one of the fundamentals, it is an issue where the vast majority of fundamentalist have agreed upon; "once saved, always saved."

As to the rest of your post, anyone familiar with the history of fundamentalists will know what you say to be true.

[Revelation3:20]

The very fact that you see things like these debated on an IFB board proves my point. Fundamentalists don't agree on everything. We're not unthinking zombies, blind followers, or conformers. Don't make us out to be these things.

What is debated on this forum is a poor test of what is IFB. Many are the times when I have seen fundamental doctrines of the faith argued against by some.

[Pastor Matt]

Since this topic is not even close to the OP I will lock this.