What is wrong with a “fundamentalist spirit/attitude” that cannot discern nuances in disagreements on secondary and tertiary issues in other Christians?
Dr. White discusses an upcoming possible debate (sometime in 2020) with Sam Shamoun over 2 issues: 1. Limited Atonement and 2. TR Onlyism (that only the Textus Receptus, TR = “Textus Receptus” Greek text platform is the only proper Greek text and the claim that this is the ONLY preserved perfect “Word of God” for all of history for the church) .
Dr. White also points out that Sam Shamoun is continuing to exude bad character in apologetics by calling Muslims names like “the slime of Islam”. How will Muslims listen to you when you call them names at the beginning of your attempts to reason and win them? I have confronted Sam many times on this issue, and yet, he refuses to listen.
There is a difference between the doctrinal understanding of a Fundamentalist = one who holds to the fundamentals / foundational doctrines of the Christian faith (which is a good thing); vs. “a fundamentalist spirit” = one who cannot tolerate anyone else who does not agree with them on every minor point of doctrine or practice. We Christians who believe the Bible are all “fundamentalists” to Muslims and atheists and skeptics and the secular world. (all Christians who believe the Bible is God’s word, ie, the doctrine of inerrancy, and that Jesus gave His life in a real effective atonement that truly forgives sin, that Jesus rose from the dead, that He was born of the virgin Mary, that homosexuality is sin, etc.)
The Pulpit and Pen folks are hard to understand in their harshness and anger (same for Shamoun) – for both Shamoun and Pulpit and Pen have some good material. But they destroy credibility by that “fundamentalist spirit”, although Shamoun’s is different, since he also has no problem, it seems, promoting (on his Facebook page) other issues from the nutty hate-filled KJV-Only-ist Steven Anderson and open-theist Greg Boyd, and others who are also either KJV-Only or TR only types that have no tolerance for the eclectic method of using all of the Greek NT manuscripts available for forming a Greek Text platform, etc. I still think that Dr. White’s method in dealing with textual variants is the best that gives us apologetic credibility with those liberals and scholars who bring up the textual variants and history of the transmission of the text, like Bart Ehrman, and Muslims who use them to try and act like they are the intellectual ones, like the way Paul Williams, the British convert to Islam, uses liberal scholarship in his Da’awa methods for Islam.
Listen to the whole program – most of it, after the first 15 minutes or so, is really valuable in showing why the attitude behind TR-onlyism is wrong.
The “fundamentalist spirit / attitude” is the same basic attitude that several conservative Christians had when they reacted against Dr. White’s apologetic dialogues with the Muslim, Yasir Qadhi. (See many of my past posts on that issue and attitude – see three of them under “Related” at the bottom of this article.)