Are you a fundie?

[Nadiine]

Aw, thanks!


Ah, well I'm with you there. Though I respect those who do take a stronger stand on these issues too.

I do too. I just don't respect when those who are stricter come attacking others who are not in those areas.
I think God is fully capable of conviction within the spirit of a believer if something needs to be stopped or removed.

 

[lincolngreen50]

I believe in God through his Son Jesus Christ by His Word in the Scriptures.

 

[cubanito]

What do u call a french/swiss fundy?

Fondue

JR, staying w his day job...

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

lol cubanito... chocolate or cheese?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm fonda fondue, preferably cheese.

And on reconsideration, prompted by a private conversation, I guess I am a fundie, sorta kinda anyway. I don't disagree with any of the doctrine in the FSGs. Rather, I have a negative reaction to the militant tone of them. So, I don't have a problem with what they say, only with how they say it... but I guess that still means I'm not a native here.

 

[Nadiine]

I'm fonda fondue, preferably cheese.

And on reconsideration, prompted by a private conversation, I guess I am a fundie, sorta kinda anyway. I don't disagree with any of the doctrine in the FSGs. Rather, I have a negative reaction to the militant tone of them. So, I don't have a problem with what they say, only with how they say it... but I guess that still means I'm not a native here.

& I think we also tend to have a negative tone towards most all of liberalism and things that even show hints of it - most fundamentalists I know do.

 

[cubanito]

Cheeeeezzzze, gooey, garlicky, with more than a dash of red wine.

Haven't had fondue in over 20 years (it aint the healthiest choice for me). My wife is one of those lucky people that can gorge on butter (she eats it with a spoon sometimes) pork rinds and so on and her cholesterol does not get above 140. She does, however, increase her plumpness. Even there she's got some luck: I like plump, even past plump.

I think I'm gonna have some this weekend.

JR's tribute to Freud for today.

 

[SteveR2021]

Statement of Faith:

We adopt the Definition by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976, to wit:


A born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
   
   
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
   
   
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
   
   
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
   • The doctrine of the Trinity
   • The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
   • The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
   • The resurrection of saints to life eternal
   • The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
   • The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
     
     
5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
   
   
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
   
   
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

Thus a Fundamentalist can be from quite a few Protestant denominations, even nondenominational. Those that defer to a view that sacred tradition is equal to scripture (not sola scriptura) would not.

Amen. I've never posted here before so I hope you don't mind my commenting 'out of the blue' like this. But I did like your post.

 

[Nadiine]

Amen. I've never posted here before so I hope you don't mind my commenting 'out of the blue' like this. But I did like your post.

Hi and welcome! Post here anytime

 

[BigNorsk]

Almost, but not quite. I can go mostly go along with that, but the differences are too important to gloss over.

1. I believe the Bible is perfectly what God intended it to be. I can go with inerrant (God didn't make any mistakes) and infallible (having already affirmed inerrancy, this is from the Dept. of Redundancy Dept.? ), but I stick on the phrase "verbally inspired", which seems to imply God dictated the exact words to the human writers, allowing no role for them other than automatons, and that isn't God's way as I see it.

2. Alrighty, but I bet many of the folks here are "literalist" in their understanding of that, and I am not. I think that arose from the "modernist" outlook, and would have been foreign to the early church.

3. I'm only mostly Protestant. My church is in that tradition, so I am one by definition, but I'm not protesting anything, and I don't think the Catholic/Orthodox approach is entirely wrong. I don't see tradition as equal to scripture by any means, but I'm willing to allow it some role.

...
7. Aye, I try to do that.

And I stick on the phrase "militant orthodoxy". I like orthodoxy (right beliefs) but I think orthopraxy (right practice) is also important. But I would choose "generous" as an adjective modifying orthodoxy (with a nod to Brian McLaren) rather than "militant".

So as defined by the FSGs, I guess I'd be "conservative" but not "fundamentalist".

1. You are misunderstanding verbal inspiration. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does a good job of explaining what it does and doesn't mean. While there are some places in the Bible that were dictated, most are not. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

This becomes important because of Biblical interpretation. If the word is not inspired, then how do you go about studying the words in order to interpret the Bible? Answer is, it's difficult at best. And so groups that reject the verbal inspiration of the Bible generally use some form of higher criticism of the Bible for interpretation whereas groups that accept the verbal inspiration use methods in line with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermaneutics. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

Some groups and many individuals try to live in a twilight zone of studying the words yet rejecting their inspiration.

2. Literalist is not equivalent to literal, the Chicago statements also provide guidance there. What really send me up a wall is not only literalist, but a literalist interpretation that relies on the English. One that doesn't even occur in the original languages and often even between translations. Note: Literalist interpretation is often used by some to "prove" one translation is superior. Literalist interpretation shipwrecks on the many figures of speech that fill scripture. Literal interpretation doesn't.

3. Sola Scriptura is a big hang up for a lot of Pentacostal/Charismatics there is a tendency to take claimed special revelations as authoritative. Sola Scriptura is not a Protestant invention but is the Historic Faith Tradition of the Church. Some groups of course dispute that, but Jesus repeatedly pointed to "It is written" as a no arguement authoritative statement. He never pointed to anything else the same way. Church fathers too repeatedly pointed to scripture as the only way to know, not any tradition.

7. lex orandi lex credendi is the statement that has historically been used that says how we worship and how we believe are not separable. What we do reflects what we believe. I don't think you can have right practice without right belief and if you have the right belief, the right practice will be there. Your argument is against dead scholasticism. A wrong belief and a wrong practice.

Didn't mean to single you out or anything, I thought you actually did an excellent articulation of some common sticking points, and only wanted to explain them to you.

Marv

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

1. You are misunderstanding verbal inspiration. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does a good job of explaining what it does and doesn't mean. While there are some places in the Bible that were dictated, most are not. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

This becomes important because of Biblical interpretation. If the word is not inspired, then how do you go about studying the words in order to interpret the Bible? Answer is, it's difficult at best. And so groups that reject the verbal inspiration of the Bible generally use some form of higher criticism of the Bible for interpretation whereas groups that accept the verbal inspiration use methods in line with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermaneutics. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

Some groups and many individuals try to live in a twilight zone of studying the words yet rejecting their inspiration.

Aye, I can go along with the Chicago statement. It's a reasonable statement of inerrancy that actually makes sense to me. What I'm arguing against is probably an ultra-fundamentalist position that likely none of the regulars in this forum holds, but that seems to be popular among the less theologically sophisticated.

2. Literalist is not equivalent to literal, the Chicago statements also provide guidance there. What really send me up a wall is not only literalist, but a literalist interpretation that relies on the English. One that doesn't even occur in the original languages and often even between translations. Note: Literalist interpretation is often used by some to "prove" one translation is superior. Literalist interpretation shipwrecks on the many figures of speech that fill scripture. Literal interpretation doesn't.

Good, we're agreed that literalist interpretation is bad, but that literal interpretation is often appropriate.

3. Sola Scriptura is a big hang up for a lot of Pentacostal/Charismatics there is a tendency to take claimed special revelations as authoritative. Sola Scriptura is not a Protestant invention but is the Historic Faith Tradition of the Church. Some groups of course dispute that, but Jesus repeatedly pointed to "It is written" as a no arguement authoritative statement. He never pointed to anything else the same way. Church fathers too repeatedly pointed to scripture as the only way to know, not any tradition.

I am essentially sola scriptura, but I allow for some role for reason, tradition and the experience of the believer, which may include special revelation. All those may IMO be used to help interpret scripture, though they may never be contrary to scripture. If I've stated it correctly, that's the same as the historic Methodist/Wesleyan position, which happens be the tradition my AG denomination sprang from.

7. lex orandi lex credendi is the statement that has historically been used that says how we worship and how we believe are not separable. What we do reflects what we believe. I don't think you can have right practice without right belief and if you have the right belief, the right practice will be there. Your argument is against dead scholasticism. A wrong belief and a wrong practice.

Good, we're agreed on that too.

Didn't mean to single you out or anything, I thought you actually did an excellent articulation of some common sticking points, and only wanted to explain them to you.

Marv

Thank you, Marv. I don't think we disagree on any of this. What I was taking issue with, I guess, was popular misunderstandings of those points. But it wasn't clear to me, from the way they were written, that the FSGs were not perpetuating those popular misunderstandings. The way you explain them, I'm able to subscribe to them. But I am still uncomfortable with their militant, even strident, tone.

~Izzy

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

& I think we also tend to have a negative tone towards most all of liberalism and things that even show hints of it - most fundamentalists I know do.

Yes, I've noticed that, and it doesn't sit right with me. I'm sure we agree liberals are wrong on a lot. But IMHO they aren't automatically wrong on everything just by being liberals.

 

[No Swansong]

To begin with Well done Marv. Something we as Fundamentalists need to keep in mind is that many do not understand Sola Scriptura. Patience on our part could help build bridges.

What's really interesting is that I don't find the definition abrasive at all. I am actually kind of surprised that others do.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
What's really interesting is that I don't find the definition abrasive at all. I am actually kind of surprised that others do.

I think many tend to view the whole thing through the "militant" and "zeal(ous)" lenses near the end. Words like that can be off-putting.

 

[desmalia]

I think many tend to view the whole thing through the "militant" and "zeal(ous)" lenses near the end. Words like that can be off-putting.

Yes it can. But I like it, because it is in stark contrast to the "whatever works for you" mentality that seems to be sweeping the churches these days. Such an attitude is directly opposed to what Scripture actually says. So I think the word militant has a steadfast, on guard, "hold to the truth at all costs" kind of ring to it. It's completely incompatible with the world, and that is another big reason that many don't care for it.

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

thanks for taking the time to write that Marv, It was very interesting.

 

[St. Helens]

By that definition I am definitely a fundie.

 

[cubanito]

By that definition I am definitely a fundie.

You and a lot others.

Many words get "redefined" by the world to mean something they're not. The typical idea of a fundy includes total alcohol abstention, no dancing, a know-nothing attitude and a hatred for all but the strictest adherance to an idiosyncratic code.

While indeed some fundies are like that, more are not.

JR

 

[salida]

Yes, I believe in sola scripture because this is eternal. Nothing else is eternal.

 

[Nadiine]

You and a lot others.

Many words get "redefined" by the world to mean something they're not. The typical idea of a fundy includes total alcohol abstention, no dancing, a know-nothing attitude and a hatred for all but the strictest adherance to an idiosyncratic code.

While indeed some fundies are like that, more are not.

JR

oh and don't forget the stereotype that sex is ebil & strictly off limits even to married couples unless they're trying to have another child.