Fundamentalism

[DeaconDean]

It seems to me that the other things--the nitty-gritty details that people don't agree upon--aren't as important.

Not quite true!

There are groups who teach that one must "work" for their righteousness and salvation.

There are groups who teach that the act of baptism washes away sin.

There are groups that teach that nothing except the New Testament epistles apply today.

There are groups that teach that unless you speak in tongues when baptized, you haven't received the Holy Spirit.

Those "nitty-gritty" details, are important!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I have said and will say that the Bible Belt is an anti-intellectual theology and faith. I have also said and wills ay that it is way behind the times because it wants to hang on to old-fashioned religion, actually praises it in song. "Gimme that old-fashioned religion."

I take great offense to this. I am from the Bible belt, and from North Carolina. I have an associates degree in Pastorial Ministries.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding on to "that olde tyme religion".

I urge you to take that statement back. And I also urge you to read the 1742 Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith just to see what "olde tyme religion" said in America.

The big flap between evolution and the Bible was resolved way back at the end of teh nineteenth century, in England.

It may have been in England, however, see "The Scopes Monkey Trial".

So yes, the Bible Belt is hanging on to the 19th-century natural theology, which the vast majority of Christians moved forward from years ago. It is also the case that historically, fundamentalists have been extremely intolerant of scholars who disagree with them. Read about Schweitzer, for example.

Have you ever read "The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Are you aware that fundamentalist colleges will tell you right on their job application form that they will not hire or tolerant any faculty who believe in evolution, or, for that matter, permit women to teach theology? Check out Cedarville University, for example. So don't give me this line that fundamentalists aren't intolerant.

And what is wrong with that?

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the oldest in the South, was founded by James P. Boyce. They stand on scripture, as many of us do. I whole heartedly agree with their Abstract of Principles.

Have you ever heard of Crawford Howell Toy?

Where did his "secular" teaching of a mixture of evolution and Genesis led him to?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[1213]

I've been wondering this question as of late because I am genuinely concerned with those who hold to beliefs that contradict scripture. Can someone be a Christian yet reject doctrines like: ...

Christian means originally disciple of Jesus. Disciple of Jesus can be anyone who fits in to this:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

Sins are forgiven for all people, at least if they welcome it. And salvation means that person is saved from the judgment that comes because of sin. However eternal life is for righteous. So, if person continues in sin, forgiveness is not useful.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:20

That is why Jesus taught that people should repent.

I tell you, no, but, unless you repent, you will all perish in the same way.
Luke 13:3

And righteous lives, because he is faithful to God.

Behold, his soul is puffed up. It is not upright in him, but the righteous will live by his faith.
Habakkuk 2:4

And I have understood that faithfulness to God means we want to live as he has commanded, love our neighbor as our self. If one loves as God has commanded, I think the rest is not so meaningful and can be forgiven, if there is something that is not perfect.

The judgment really is by this:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

 

[theniceiceman]

Not quite true!

There are groups who teach that one must "work" for their righteousness and salvation.

There are groups who teach that the act of baptism washes away sin.

There are groups that teach that nothing except the New Testament epistles apply today.

There are groups that teach that unless you speak in tongues when baptized, you haven't received the Holy Spirit.

Those "nitty-gritty" details, are important!

God Bless

Till all are one.

Because I disagree with those, and because they just flat-out aren't biblical principles, I'd consider them unimportant. However, I do see what you're saying in that people who are taught those beliefs probably DO agree with them, and therefore are holding themselves to standards that God never intended.

 

[Hoghead1]

And what is wrong with that?

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the oldest in the South, was founded by James P. Boyce. They stand on scripture, as many of us do. I whole heartedly agree with their Abstract of Principles.

Have you ever heard of Crawford Howell Toy?

Where did his "secular" teaching of a mixture of evolution and Genesis led him to?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yep. Sure have heard of him. One of my heroes. He proves my point. The SOP is that any scholar who dares disagree in the slightest with the fundamentalist version of the Bible is automatically written off as a child of the Devil, you name it. Hence, Southern fired him and so he moved on to Harvard. Probably a promotion upward anyway. Proves my point: fundamentalists have a history of being intolerant and persecuting progressive intellectuals. Look at what happened with Schweitzer.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yep. Sure have heard of him. One of my heroes. He proves my point. The SOP is that any scholar who dares disagree in the slightest with the fundamentalist version of the Bible is automatically written off as a child of the Devil, you name it. Hence, Southern fired him and so he moved on to Harvard. Probably a promotion upward anyway. Proves my point: fundamentalists have a history of being intolerant and persecuting progressive intellectuals. Look at what happened with Schweitzer.

Hence my argument.

Since when, or where does the Bible teach:

"Toy began to see Darwin's theories as truth revealed by God "in the form proper to his time." Shaped by the historical-critical method of studying scripture that had been popularized in Europe by Julius Wellhausen, Toy came to believe that the writers of the New Testament—using a rabbinical hermeneutic of their day—misunderstood the original meaning of several Old Testament passages (e.g., Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 53) when they placed a christological emphasis on them."

Source

Either you believe the scriptures, or you don't.

Nowhere in them does it teach evolution as the source God used for the creation event.

And that was the bottom line in Toy's firing.

And even James P. Boyce went pleading to him to not teach that contrary to the AoP again. But it fell on deaf ears.

"The founding president of Southern, Dr. James P. Boyce, asked Toy to refrain from teaching contrary to the school's Abstract of Principles on the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Toy, however, insisted on answering questions by students pertinent to his modernist understanding of the Old Testament."

Source

From 1742 until 1871, when Toy was fired, all Baptist, Presbyterian churches believed in the creation account as recorded in the scriptures. (For reference: check any historical confession of Presbyterians and Baptists) To go against them is serious.

If I own a business, and tell you to do something my way, and you don't then teach others to do it your way, I'd fire you too.

In 1858, James P. Boyce wrote:

"I. THE SCRIPTURES

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience."

Source

Furthermore, when Crawford H. Toy agreed to teach, he also agreed to abide by this:

"Every Professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist Church; and all persons accepting Professorships in this Seminary, shall be considered by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down."

Source

This was his "contract", he willingly agreed to it. And then you guys want to beat Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for standing by their standards.

He broke his contract, plain and simple. He taught contrary to the principles he agreed to.

He sould have been fired.

Say what you want, but I applaud them for their principles.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hoghead1]

Hence my argument.

Since when, or where does the Bible teach:

"Toy began to see Darwin's theories as truth revealed by God "in the form proper to his time." Shaped by the historical-critical method of studying scripture that had been popularized in Europe by Julius Wellhausen, Toy came to believe that the writers of the New Testament—using a rabbinical hermeneutic of their day—misunderstood the original meaning of several Old Testament passages (e.g., Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 53) when they placed a christological emphasis on them."

Source

Either you believe the scriptures, or you don't.

Nowhere in them does it teach evolution as the source God used for the creation event.

And that was the bottom line in Toy's firing.

And even James P. Boyce went pleading to him to not teach that contrary to the AoP again. But it fell on deaf ears.

"The founding president of Southern, Dr. James P. Boyce, asked Toy to refrain from teaching contrary to the school's Abstract of Principles on the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Toy, however, insisted on answering questions by students pertinent to his modernist understanding of the Old Testament."

Source

From 1742 until 1871, when Toy was fired, all Baptist, Presbyterian churches believed in the creation account as recorded in the scriptures. (For reference: check any historical confession of Presbyterians and Baptists) To go against them is serious.

If I own a business, and tell you to do something my way, and you don't then teach others to do it your way, I'd fire you too.

In 1858, James P. Boyce wrote:

"I. THE SCRIPTURES

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience."

Source

Furthermore, when Crawford H. Toy agreed to teach, he also agreed to abide by this:

"Every Professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist Church; and all persons accepting Professorships in this Seminary, shall be considered by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down."

Source

This was his "contract", he willingly agreed to it. And then you guys want to beat Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for standing by their standards.

He broke his contract, plain and simple. He taught contrary to the principles he agreed to.

He sould have been fired.

Say what you want, but I applaud them for their principles.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I side with the Higher Criticism and the DH. I think they provide the most accurate, scholarly account of the Bible. I'm not concerned with what outmoded man-made religious ideologies teach, I'm concerned about what a modern, scientific study of Scripture shows.

 

[DeaconDean]

I side with the Higher Criticism and the DH. I think they provide the most accurate, scholarly account of the Bible. I'm not concerned with what outmoded man-made religious ideologies teach, I'm concerned about what a modern, scientific study of Scripture shows.

From my viewpoint, doing a study on "Textual Criticism", no doctrine of Christianity either stands or falls on any "disputed" scripture.

From "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth".

"As an introduction to the fundamental fallacies of the higher criticism, let me state what the higher criticism is, and then what the higher critics tell us they have achieved.

The name "the higher criticism" was coined by Eichhorn, who lived from 1752 to 1827. Zenos,* [* "The Elements of the Higher Criticism."] after careful consideration, adopts the definition of the name given by its author: "The discovery and verification of the facts regarding the origin, form and value of literary productions upon the basis of their internal characters." The higher critics are not blind to some other sources of argument. They refer to history where they can gain any polemic advantage by doing so. The background of the entire picture which they bring to us is the assumption that the hypothesis of evolution is true. But after all their chief appeal is to the supposed evidence of the documents themselves.

SECOND FALLACY: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION APPLIED TO LITERATURE AND RELIGION.

II. A second fundamental fallacy of the higher criticism is its dependence on the theory of evolution as the explanation of the history of literature and of religion. The progress of the higher criticism towards its present sate has been rapid and assured since Vatke (Die Biblische Theologie Wissenschaftlich Dargestellt) discovered in the Hegelian philosophy of evolution a means of biblical criticism. The Spencerian philosophy of evolution, aided and reinforced by Darwinism, has added greatly to the confidence of the higher critics. As Vatke, one of the earlier members of the school, made the hypothesis of evolution the guiding presupposition of his critical work, so today does Professor Jordan ("Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought," T. and T. Clark, 1909) the very latest representative of the higher criticism. "The nineteenth century," he declares, "has applied to the history of the documents of the Hebrew people its own magic word, evolution. The thought represented by that popular word has been found to have a real meaning in our investigations regarding the religious life and the theological beliefs of Israel." Thus, were there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no higher criticism. The "assured results" of the higher criticism have been gained, after all, not by an inductive study of the biblical books to ascertain if they present a great variety of styles and vocabularies and religious points of view. They have been attained by assuming that the hypothesis of evolution is true, and that the religion of Israel must have unfolded itself by a process of natural evolution. They have been attained by an interested cross-examination of the biblical books to constrain them to admit the hypothesis of evolution. The imagination has played a large part in the process, and the so-called evidences upon which the "assured results" rest are largely imaginary.

But the hypothesis of evolution, when applied to the history of literature, is a fallacy, leaving us utterly unable to account for Homer, or Dante, or Shakespeare, the greatest poets of the world, yet all of them writing in the dawn of the great literatures of the world. It is a fallacy when applied to the history of religion, leaving us utterly unable to account for Abraham and Moses and Christ, and requiring us to deny that they could have been such men as the Bible declares them to have been. The hypothesis is a fallacy when applied to the history of the human race in general. Our race has made progress under the influence of supernatural revelation; but progress under the influence of supernatural revelation is one thing, and evolution is another. Buckle ["History of Civilization in England"] undertook to account for history by a thorough-going application of the hypothesis of evolution to its problems; but no historian today believes that he succeeded in his effort, and his work is universally regarded as a brilliant curiosity. The types of evolution advocated by different higher critics are widely different from one another, varying from the pure naturalism of Wellhausen to the recognition of some feeble rays of supernatural revelation; but the hypothesis of evolution in any form, when applied to human history, blinds us and renders us incapable of beholding the glory of God in its more signal manifestations."

The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, THE FALLACIES OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM, By Franklin Johnson, D.D., LL.D. Volume I, Chapter III, Source

Oh well, to each his own I guess.

I'll stick to what scripture says and not the theories of evolutionists.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Job8]

I'm concerned about what a modern, scientific study of Scripture shows.

Well you should have started a thread on Theological Liberalism and its Benefits to Mankind.

 

[DeaconDean]

I side with the Higher Criticism and the DH. I think they provide the most accurate, scholarly account of the Bible. I'm not concerned with what outmoded man-made religious ideologies teach, I'm concerned about what a modern, scientific study of Scripture shows.

Higher Criticism, and all it espouces, teaches contrary to the beliefs of Fundamentalism.

Christianity, from a historical standpoint, was founded by Christ, the church that spread out through the world was by men who saw God with their own eyes. Walked and talked with Him. Saw Him die, was there when He appeared from the grave, and went out unto all the world. As much as I disagree with Catholics, they stay true to their beliefs established by the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. Same with Orthodoxy, Presbyterians and Baptists. While theology may be founded upon mans study of scripture and their interpretation thereof, everybody has a "theology". And "Higher Criticism" is not within the beliefs of Fundamentalists.

What road does "Higher Criticism" led to?

" Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail...Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. Religious faith — faith that there is a God who cares what name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is coming back to earth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. — is on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas...The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying;..We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous."

Sam Harris, Science Must Destroy Religion

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hoghead1]

From my viewpoint, doing a study on "Textual Criticism", no doctrine of Christianity either stands or falls on any "disputed" scripture.

From "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth".

"As an introduction to the fundamental fallacies of the higher criticism, let me state what the higher criticism is, and then what the higher critics tell us they have achieved.

The name "the higher criticism" was coined by Eichhorn, who lived from 1752 to 1827. Zenos,* [* "The Elements of the Higher Criticism."] after careful consideration, adopts the definition of the name given by its author: "The discovery and verification of the facts regarding the origin, form and value of literary productions upon the basis of their internal characters." The higher critics are not blind to some other sources of argument. They refer to history where they can gain any polemic advantage by doing so. The background of the entire picture which they bring to us is the assumption that the hypothesis of evolution is true. But after all their chief appeal is to the supposed evidence of the documents themselves.

SECOND FALLACY: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION APPLIED TO LITERATURE AND RELIGION.

II. A second fundamental fallacy of the higher criticism is its dependence on the theory of evolution as the explanation of the history of literature and of religion. The progress of the higher criticism towards its present sate has been rapid and assured since Vatke (Die Biblische Theologie Wissenschaftlich Dargestellt) discovered in the Hegelian philosophy of evolution a means of biblical criticism. The Spencerian philosophy of evolution, aided and reinforced by Darwinism, has added greatly to the confidence of the higher critics. As Vatke, one of the earlier members of the school, made the hypothesis of evolution the guiding presupposition of his critical work, so today does Professor Jordan ("Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought," T. and T. Clark, 1909) the very latest representative of the higher criticism. "The nineteenth century," he declares, "has applied to the history of the documents of the Hebrew people its own magic word, evolution. The thought represented by that popular word has been found to have a real meaning in our investigations regarding the religious life and the theological beliefs of Israel." Thus, were there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no higher criticism. The "assured results" of the higher criticism have been gained, after all, not by an inductive study of the biblical books to ascertain if they present a great variety of styles and vocabularies and religious points of view. They have been attained by assuming that the hypothesis of evolution is true, and that the religion of Israel must have unfolded itself by a process of natural evolution. They have been attained by an interested cross-examination of the biblical books to constrain them to admit the hypothesis of evolution. The imagination has played a large part in the process, and the so-called evidences upon which the "assured results" rest are largely imaginary.

But the hypothesis of evolution, when applied to the history of literature, is a fallacy, leaving us utterly unable to account for Homer, or Dante, or Shakespeare, the greatest poets of the world, yet all of them writing in the dawn of the great literatures of the world. It is a fallacy when applied to the history of religion, leaving us utterly unable to account for Abraham and Moses and Christ, and requiring us to deny that they could have been such men as the Bible declares them to have been. The hypothesis is a fallacy when applied to the history of the human race in general. Our race has made progress under the influence of supernatural revelation; but progress under the influence of supernatural revelation is one thing, and evolution is another. Buckle ["History of Civilization in England"] undertook to account for history by a thorough-going application of the hypothesis of evolution to its problems; but no historian today believes that he succeeded in his effort, and his work is universally regarded as a brilliant curiosity. The types of evolution advocated by different higher critics are widely different from one another, varying from the pure naturalism of Wellhausen to the recognition of some feeble rays of supernatural revelation; but the hypothesis of evolution in any form, when applied to human history, blinds us and renders us incapable of beholding the glory of God in its more signal manifestations."

The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, THE FALLACIES OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM, By Franklin Johnson, D.D., LL.D. Volume I, Chapter III, Source

Oh well, to each his own I guess.

I'll stick to what scripture says and not the theories of evolutionists.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I've heard all of this before. Save it for the old lady in Dubuque, as they used to say. I'm interested in serious scholarly study and the Higher Criticism is where I and the majority of modern biblical scholars stand on the matter.

 

[DeaconDean]

I've heard all of this before. Save it for the old lady in Dubuque, as they used to say. I'm interested in serious scholarly study and the Higher Criticism is where I and the majority of modern biblical scholars stand on the matter.

"Science" dictated to us some 500 years ago the earth revolved around the sun.

"modern, scientific study" now wants to dictate to us the sun revolves around the earth. They would have us to believe in "Geocentrism".

Go ahead and follow "modern, scientific study".

As said in the movie "Planet of the Apes":

"You'll find evidence of the master of this house,"

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[lesliedellow]

"We are the only true Christians."

Now where have I heard that before?

 

[Lazarus Short]

IIRC, Jesus told us to love, pray, and believe. The judgment is His part, so let Him judge. Later, when we are up to the task, we get to judge angels - boy, howdy!

 

[Open Heart]

Either you believe the scriptures, or you don't.

This is just not true. There are oodles of Christians on this planet, yet look how many 10's of thousands of denominations and independent churches there are, disagreeing with each other how to interpret scripture.

You say that there is just one way to interpret the Bible, YOUR way. That just shows how lacking you are in empathy and tolerance. I may believe that my interpretations are the right ones, but at least I acknowledge that other Christians can mean well in their wrong headed interpretations.

 

[Open Heart]

"modern, scientific study" now wants to dictate to us the sun revolves around the earth. They would have us to believe in "Geocentrism".

What are you talking about?

 

[DeaconDean]

This is just not true. There are oodles of Christians on this planet, yet look how many 10's of thousands of denominations and independent churches there are, disagreeing with each other how to interpret scripture.

You say that there is just one way to interpret the Bible, YOUR way. That just shows how lacking you are in empathy and tolerance. I may believe that my interpretations are the right ones, but at least I acknowledge that other Christians can mean well in their wrong headed interpretations.

"I don't care whay you say, that's funny right thar.

"I may believe that my interpretations are the right ones"

Interpretation...that is a whole 'nother matter.

Tell me, where in this thread did I say: "You say that there is just one way to interpret the Bible, YOUR way"

I believe what I did say however, was: "Either you believe the scriptures, or you don't."

So please, get your accusations correct.

As a matter of fact, Baptists, such as myself, believe everybody is free to interpret the scriptures.

In fact, it is said:

God alone is Lord of the conscience; and He hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to His word, or not contained in it.

Abstract of Principles, James P. Boyce, XVIII. Liberty of Conscience. 1858

So, either God created everything that is, was, or will be, just as scripture says, or He didn't.

Either Jesus was born of a virgin just as scriptures say, or He wasn't.

Etc.

I believe that scriptures should be taken literally unless the scriptures themselves say otherwise. I.E.: Job 19:20:

"My bone cleaveth to my skin and to my flesh, and I am escaped with the skin of my teeth."

In this instance, are we to accept that our teeth literally have skin? No, that's an allegory.

So please, get your accusations correct.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

What are you talking about?

In ancient times, it was believed that all the planets and the sun, revolved around the earth. Search history.

many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy. As such, they believed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled Earth.

Source

In the 17th Century, several discoveries led to a great questioning of this theory.

However, it is making a resurgence in this era.

Search the internet, you'll soon find out.

I've seen many debates in the Baptist area on this subject.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Open Heart]

In ancient times, it was believed that all the planets and the sun, revolved around the earth. Search history.

But that's not what you said. You said MODERN SCIENCE supports Geocentrism. Care to take that back?