I'm wondering: What exactly is a Fundamentalist Christian?

[Jack Koons]

I am an Old Fashioned "Fundamental" Baptist, and as such, here is what Fundamentalism was founded upon:



1878 Niagara Bible Conference Creed

God Bless

Till all are one.

I will not deny that the above evidence presented by DeaconDean is a proper presentation of the belief of a particular group of those who called themselves “Fundamentalists”. However, this evidence does not reflect 1) the beliefs of all those who called themselves “Fundamentalists”; or 2) the oldest beliefs concerning Baptists that called themselves “Fundamentalists”. Nearly 200 years earlier, (these were the 'real Old Fashioned “Fundamental” Baptists”), these 'fundamentalists' made a Confession.

The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689

While it is basically the same as the one produced in 1878, paragraphs 5 & 8 of Chapter 1 (in the 1689), shows very clearly that their belief of the scriptures being providentially preserved by God differed from those in the 1878 Niagara Bible Conference Creed.

Jack

 

[DeaconDean]

Dear Angelqill,

I must apologize.

The poster above me, deems it necessary to nit-pick everything I say or post.

According to history, and this site, the term "Fundamentalism" was first used in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. This usage derives from a late 19th and early 20th century transdenominational Protestant movement that opposed the accommodation of Christian doctrine to modern scientific theory and philosophy. With some differences among themselves, fundamentalists insist on belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus Christ, the vicarious and atoning character of his death, his bodily resurrection, and his second coming as the irreducible minimum of authentic Christianity. This minimum was reflected in such early declarations as the 14 point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878 and the 5 point statement of the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910.

Fundamentalism

I also said that if one would read the handbook of theology for Fundamentalists, one would see articles were contributed by Baptists, Presbyterians, and the Reformed community.

If anyone, would take the time to read and see where Fundamentalists came from, you would see that they sprung from Baptists, Presbyterians, and the Reformed community.

All one has to do is read: "The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth" published between 1910 and 1920 and look at the contributing authors.

I mentioned that I am a Baptist, for your sake, as one who adheres to Fundamentalist beliefs the same as the one in 1878, but also to Baptist beliefs.

And for the record, the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, was different by little measures than the first Calvinist Baptist Confession in America of the Philadelphia Baptist Association of 1742. There are minor differences, but it is the almost the same.

But if you like, I can post the section of the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742, or any of the other Baptist Confessions you wish, but in none of them do they say specifically, plainly:

The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.

They do say, however,:

the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them... therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,

The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. 1

So again, I apologize that everything I post has to be "nit-picked" to death.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Angelquill]

Yes it does.

You must go where the Holy Spirit leads, and where your convictions lead.

Would it proper to say your a "Protestant"?

Denominations are not a bad thing. Sooner or later, somewhere down the line, you will have to take a stand on what you believe.

Pentecostals aren't that bad. The only thing I have against them is the improper use by some churches (not all mind you) but by some in the exercise of the "gift of tongues".

I'm a Baptist, my ex brother-in-law is Church of God, and we agree more than we disagree.


He even went to seminary (Baptist) classes with me.

Just take you time, visit, look at what is being taught, look at what they believe in, and pray, pray, pray.

God will lead you where He wants you to be.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I believe that Jesus Christ is God, Himself, come to us in the flesh. I don't understand the conflict between "Oneness" and Trinity, since they both seem to mean the same thing.
I believe that He came to us for several reasons. For one thing, He wanted us to get to know Him face to face. He wanted to clarify some things, as there seemed to be some misunderstandings about what He expects of us. And, of course, He came to conquer death for us, so that He might give us eternal life.
I'm pretty sure that there is life on other planets, and that He did the same thing for them as for us, but I don't think it's important enough to argue over.
I strongly suspect that this old world has been spinning for a lot longer than even science thinks it has, and that we've got our dating all wrong, at least till we get up around Abraham.
I think that men once had a very advanced civilization, comparable to our own. I think that the "sons of men" who took the "daughters of men" for wives were the fallen angels, and that they brought this forbidden technology to us...and God wiped it out with the flood. When it looked as if they might start rebuilding, God confused their languages so that they couldn't communicate with each other. Surely, no one seriously thinks that God was upset by the notion that they might build a tower to heaven, or worried that they weren't spreading out too quickly. Again, I don't think it's important enough to argue about.
Those are some of my stranger ideas...

I speak out against abortion...it is something I am passionate about.
I don't believe homosexuality ought to be something that Christians sanction, and I have said so, loudly, and in public.
However, I do believe that women can and should serve in any capacity within the church, including as pastors. Men and women can serve side by side, without either taking precedence over the other.
I think we are, indeed, in the "end times"...but I know that I could be wrong, so I don't make a huge deal out of it. I have my ideas about what God has planned, but I don't pretend to know. I doubt if anyone is going to be "raptured"...but I'm not about to argue if God decides to take me out of here.
I don't believe that anyone suffers for an eternity in "hell". I do believe that the wages of sin is death...not the physical death of the body, but the final and irrevocable death of the soul...
I believe that the charismatic movement is a lie, and that people need to be warned against it. I strongly suspect that it is demonic.
These are some of my ideas that are not so strange, but not everyone shares them.

These are some of the things I feel strongly about.

So...where do I belong??

 

[DeaconDean]

I believe that Jesus Christ is God, Himself, come to us in the flesh. I don't understand the conflict between "Oneness" and Trinity, since they both seem to mean the same thing.
I believe that He came to us for several reasons. For one thing, He wanted us to get to know Him face to face. He wanted to clarify some things, as there seemed to be some misunderstandings about what He expects of us. And, of course, He came to conquer death for us, so that He might give us eternal life.
I'm pretty sure that there is life on other planets, and that He did the same thing for them as for us, but I don't think it's important enough to argue over.
I strongly suspect that this old world has been spinning for a lot longer than even science thinks it has, and that we've got our dating all wrong, at least till we get up around Abraham.
I think that men once had a very advanced civilization, comparable to our own. I think that the "sons of men" who took the "daughters of men" for wives were the fallen angels, and that they brought this forbidden technology to us...and God wiped it out with the flood. When it looked as if they might start rebuilding, God confused their languages so that they couldn't communicate with each other. Surely, no one seriously thinks that God was upset by the notion that they might build a tower to heaven, or worried that they weren't spreading out too quickly. Again, I don't think it's important enough to argue about.
Those are some of my stranger ideas...

I speak out against abortion...it is something I am passionate about.
I don't believe homosexuality ought to be something that Christians sanction, and I have said so, loudly, and in public.

Up to here, I wouldn't bother to argue about.

However, I do believe that women can and should serve in any capacity within the church, including as pastors. Men and women can serve side by side, without either taking precedence over the other.

We part ways here.

I think we are, indeed, in the "end times"...but I know that I could be wrong, so I don't make a huge deal out of it. I have my ideas about what God has planned, but I don't pretend to know. I doubt if anyone is going to be "raptured"...but I'm not about to argue if God decides to take me out of here.

No argument here.

I don't believe that anyone suffers for an eternity in "hell". I do believe that the wages of sin is death...not the physical death of the body, but the final and irrevocable death of the soul...

I, and others, would disagree here.

I believe that the charismatic movement is a lie, and that people need to be warned against it. I strongly suspect that it is demonic.

Again, your opinion, not mine, but not worthy of debate.

These are some of my ideas that are not so strange, but not everyone shares them.

These are some of the things I feel strongly about.

So...where do I belong??

Good question.

I'm sure, my response here will be nit-picked.

May God Bless you in your search.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

On second thought, perhaps its best if I just bow out gracefully.

Lest I be accused of something.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jack Koons]

In post #22, DeaconDean improperly quotes Paragraph 8 of Chapter 1, in The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. This is exactly what was quoted, as well as how it was quoted:

the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them... therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,

Deacondean is incorrect in his accusation,

The poster above me, deems it necessary to nit-pick everything I say or post.

There have been many posts made by DeaconDean that I have made absolutely no comment whatsoever. However, in this case, I did comment, for a good reason. Neither DeaconDean, nor JR, have addressed the FACT that The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 contains the words, “being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic”. The use of these words PROVE that Baptists (which believed in the very same doctrines of Fundamentalists), believed God providentially kept His word “pure in all ages”, which completely nullifies the false “in the originals” doctrine taught by textual critics.

Since DeaconDean thinks he is being “nit-picked”, allow me to get “nit-picky”.

The proper procedure for making the above quote would have been to include an 'ellipsis' ( … ) in the beginning, and the end of what was being quoted, to show that it was an incomplete quote. The proper technique would have been:

… the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them... therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, …

DeaconDean, I always try to be very professional, even at times when you (and others) have been less than professional. JR told you once that you needed “thicker skin”, he was absolutely correct.

Now let's get back to the business at hand.

You will notice in DeaconDeans quote above, that there is an ellipsis between the words “them”, and “therefore”. Whenever I see an ellipsis, I always wonder why the ellipsis was used. (Why not just insert the words? Unless it is a very lengthy passage.) The following, are the words that were replaced with the ellipsis:

“But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,”. Now before you tell me I failed to use 'ellipsis'' (as did DeaconDean), remember that I am quoting 'exact' words, including the description, that these 'particular' words were replaced by an ellipsis. The entire paragraph reads as follows:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.”

Even though I have covered this before, I will briefly cover it again.

1) The first part says that the scriptures were “ … immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic …”

Notice the last three words “are therefore authentic”. This is in the present tense. The scriptures that have been inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic. (That is not referring to the originals.)

2) (The part DeaconDean replaced with an ellipsis.) “But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them,”; (Again, these are the precise words used, but replaced by an ellipsis.) These are very interesting words. Let me break this down in an outline form:

1) But because these original tongues are not known to all people
These Baptists understood that not every person in the world reads, and speaks Hebrew and Greek.
2) who have a right unto
These Baptists further emphasize that these people who know not Hebrew and Greek, have a right to possess these same pure and authentic Scriptures, that have been kept pure in all ages
3) and interest in the Scriptures
These Baptist affirm that non Hebrew and Greek speakers have an interest in the Scriptures
4) and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them
These Baptists further affirm that whether we have the ability to read Hebrew and Greek, we are still commanded “in the fear of God to read, and search them”. It is clear, that these Baptist, (and I believe the Presbyterian and Reformed communities) believed that they 1) were in the possession of the pure Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures; and 2) that God had given the translators of the King James Bible that wisdom which is from above, to translate properly the Scriptures from the Hebrew and the Greek, the vulgar tongue of the people to which this text was delivered; English. This proper translation would allow them to do as they were commanded by God to do; “read, and search” the pure Scriptures.
Now you might ask, How do you know they were referring to the King James Bible? Because the year was 1689, the original 1611 had gone through both the 1629, and the 1638 editions, and was the accepted Bible in that age. There is no justifiable reason that we should consider that these Baptist were using any Bible, other than the King James.

Finally, we will look at the end of this paragraph:

“that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.”

It is very clear that the Baptists who wrote The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 believed that the English-speaking Baptists of London in 1689 possessed the pure “Word of God”; hence, the statement, “they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope”. Their hope, was in the English Scriptures, which they believed had been translated from the pure “native language”.

One additional note. DeaconDean also stated:

According to history, and this site, the term "Fundamentalism" was first used in the late 19th and early 20th century.

This statement is true. In hindsight however, one can see that the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Reformers of the 1600's believed the teachings of “fundamentalism”, before the name ever existed.

Jack

 

[musicalpilgrim]

Hi Guys,

Wow, and I was only browsing! This is pretty deep stuff! Yea, maybe I am a fundermentalist...lots to think about here. I think I had better come back tomorrow when I am awake...
Now I may just call into the coffee shop for a virtual pot of coffee and a large plate of virtual doughnuts...

Psalm 90: 14
Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love,
that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.

 

[cubanito]

Jack and DeaconDean are at each other again. I count both as well informed fundamentalist Christians, and agree way more with them than disagree. When I bash either, it is as a brother, but man, they are both thin skinned!

DeaconDean has again threatened to pick up his marbles and not play. I wish he would play and not be so easily offended. Jack is passionate about his belief that the Textus Receptus (which version I do not recall) is THE inspered Word of God. Some accuse him of being KJV only but that is not exactly true, though very close to it. I do not agree with Jack on this.

On multiple occasions I have ridiculed DeaconDean and Jack but, since I ridicule myself even more often, I will continue to do so. If God instructs us that we are to be as children well then, I am that mischiveous 6 year old trouble making boy, the class clown. I generally only ridicule those I Love and agree with greatly.

As to Angelquill, I do not think you are a fundamentalist. You may well be a wonderfull Christian and far more so than I; but anyone who places their own opinion above the clear words of Scripture is NOT a fundamentalist. It is VERY important to note that being a fundamentalist Christian in no way places you above any non-fundamentalist Christian. My favorite author outside the Bible, CS Lewis was very decidedly NOT a fundamentalist.

I hope this helps clarify.

JR

 

[Jack Koons]

Jack and DeaconDean are at each other again. I count both as well informed fundamentalist Christians, and agree way more with them than disagree. When I bash either, it is as a brother, but man, they are both thin skinned!

DeaconDean has again threatened to pick up his marbles and not play. I wish he would play and not be so easily offended. Jack is passionate about his belief that the Textus Receptus (which version I do not recall) is THE inspered Word of God. Some accuse him of being KJV only but that is not exactly true, though very close to it. I do not agree with Jack on this.

On multiple occasions I have ridiculed DeaconDean and Jack but, since I ridicule myself even more often, I will continue to do so. If God instructs us that we are to be as children well then, I am that mischiveous 6 year old trouble making boy, the class clown. I generally only ridicule those I Love and agree with greatly.

As to Angelquill, I do not think you are a fundamentalist. You may well be a wonderfull Christian and far more so than I; but anyone who places their own opinion above the clear words of Scripture is NOT a fundamentalist. It is VERY important to note that being a fundamentalist Christian in no way places you above any non-fundamentalist Christian. My favorite author outside the Bible, CS Lewis was very decidedly NOT a fundamentalist.

I hope this helps clarify.

JR

No JR, I am not "thin-skinned" at all. To be truthful, I kind of chuckle when DeaconDean actually thinks I'm being "nit-picky" toward his posts. While some may think I am, I assure you, I am not. My latest 'correction' of DeaconDean's post, was but a small taste of what I would do, were it not that I value my professionalism. I have never claimed to be the sharpest knife in this 'forum'; but I assure you, I am not the butter knife.

I think both you and DeaconDean are assuredly great Christians, and defenders of the faith; too bad neither of you truly understand the reality of Textual Criticism, and the KJV.

Jack

By the way, I stand behind Scrivener's TR of 1894, and I am KJV Only, just not the typical KJV Only; my own study of too many years to tell brought me to this place. That is what separates me from so many others, as well as DeaconDean and yourself; I decided to check the facts for myself, and stop relying on the textual critics.

 

[cubanito]

You're correct Jack, you're not generally thin skinned. Thick headed maybe, but not thin skinned; that should have been meant to DeaconDean only.

As to your being KJV only, I do not want to open this thread up to another KJV debate, However, if you could briefly define what your position is I would welcome it. I did not mean to misrepresent you, though I clearly have.

JR

 

[Angelquill]

Jack and DeaconDean are at each other again. I count both as well informed fundamentalist Christians, and agree way more with them than disagree. When I bash either, it is as a brother, but man, they are both thin skinned!

DeaconDean has again threatened to pick up his marbles and not play. I wish he would play and not be so easily offended. Jack is passionate about his belief that the Textus Receptus (which version I do not recall) is THE inspered Word of God. Some accuse him of being KJV only but that is not exactly true, though very close to it. I do not agree with Jack on this.

On multiple occasions I have ridiculed DeaconDean and Jack but, since I ridicule myself even more often, I will continue to do so. If God instructs us that we are to be as children well then, I am that mischiveous 6 year old trouble making boy, the class clown. I generally only ridicule those I Love and agree with greatly.

As to Angelquill, I do not think you are a fundamentalist. You may well be a wonderfull Christian and far more so than I; but anyone who places their own opinion above the clear words of Scripture is NOT a fundamentalist. It is VERY important to note that being a fundamentalist Christian in no way places you above any non-fundamentalist Christian. My favorite author outside the Bible, CS Lewis was very decidedly NOT a fundamentalist.

I hope this helps clarify.

JR

I didn't actually think that I was a fundamentalist, and I think I would have been sorry to find that I am one. Not that I have anything against anyone...just that I don't like labels. The only Name I wish to wear is the Name of the Prince of Peace...
I do have to wonder, though...where did I put my own opinion above the clear words of scripture? If I have done that, please, correct me, so that I might amend my fault.
It is true, there are some things that I think might be true, although I do not have a "thus saith the Lord". I don't claim to know those things are so, however. If anyone can show me from God's Word that something I think is true, is something that the Bible clearly teaches is not true, I am willing to rethink my "unscriptural" beliefs. In fact that has actually happened, once or twice. Someone showed me from scripture where I was mistaken, and I changed my thinking to bring myself in line with what the Bible teaches. I'm not so proud that I have to be right, even if it means that God must be wrong...
So if you see that I have put my own opinion above God's at any time, please, teach me, JR...

C.S. Lewis is one of my very favorites, too.

I like that you do not come off all arrogant...as if you think that you are the Voice of God...like so many others who come to the internet to teach us the "TRUTH". I only pray that I can learn humility from you...
I say that truth is something we must continually seek for ourselves. We must take our place with those noble truth seekers, the men and women of Berea, who searched the scriptures daily.

 

[Jack Koons]

You're correct Jack … JR

You know JR, you could have stopped right there, and made everything soooo simple!


Okay, okay …

You're correct Jack, you're not generally thin skinned. Thick headed maybe, but not thin skinned; …

JR, I know you will find this extremely hard to believe, but you are by no means the first person to characterize me as being thick headed, hard headed, or other adjectives along those lines.

As to your being KJV only, I do not want to open this thread up to another KJV debate, However, if you could briefly define what your position is I would welcome it. I did not mean to misrepresent you, …

JR

I do not believe you intentionally misrepresented me (just don't let it happen again).

Briefly, my position on the Scriptures, is as follows:

1) I believe the Scriptures (the written record of the word of God, commonly known as the Bible, were given by God to man, via inspiration.
2) I believe further, that those same words, by the providence and care of God, were kept pure in all ages, in particular copies of the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and the Majority Greek Text, found in the Byzantine family of Greek manuscripts.
3) I believe further, that God gave Erasmus “that wisdom which is from above” for the purpose of collating the copies of 'preserved' Greek texts. This same “wisdom from above” was given to Stephanus, Beza, and others, that edited the Greek texts, prior to their being used by the King James translators.
4) I believe further, that God gave the translators of the King James Bible, not only “that wisdom which is from above”, but also the theology, philosophy, and knowledge of the original languages needed to properly translate the Scriptures, for English-speaking people.
5) I believe further, that due to the poor standardization of the English language, together with the poor printing conditions of the previous centuries, by the providence and care of God, the King James Bible was brought into the standardized text we see today.
6) I do not believe the King James Bible is the result of “double inspiration”. Rather, I believe (according to Acts 4:12), that, “The word of God is quick”, meaning alive. Since the scriptures were breathed out from God, they (the words) have remained alive, since being spoken by God.
7) I do not believe the King James Bible corrects the original languages from whence they are derived.

As a note of definition of “the providence and care of God”, and “wisdom from above”; these actions and application and proper discernment of knowledge, is the direct intervention of God in the actions and work of God by His servants, when these same servants absolutely yield themselves to Him. It is not man relying on his own abilities, which he has acquired through a life time of learning, and gaining experience.

I hope this helps the readers (JR) understand my position.

Jack

 

[cubanito]

Thank you Jack, we still disagree of course.

Thank you Angelquill for thinking and writing too kindly of me. I did want to make it clear that being a fundamentalist does not mean one is a "better" Christian, simply correct in one area. The Scriptures are quite clear that women are not to hold any position of authority over men in the Church. For 2,000 years those passages were simply understood and applied. If you wish to re-interpret Scripture to suit your modern sense of fair play, then your opinion is above Scripture.

However, many self-described fundamentalists forbid drinking any alcohol, which is contrary to clear Scriptural passages. They also place their opinions, and the traditions of men, above Scripture. I am CERTAIN that I place some of my opinions and traditions above Scripture because I deny that I am perfect. However, I do not know which those are.

On many things, like the baptism of infants, the Scriptures are NOT sufficiently clear and so I hold only a personal opinion but do not claim is is from Scripture. It would be very helpful if Baptists and Presbytereans would confess that the Scripture is NOT clear on when to baptise and allow for individual conscience. Both groups twist Scripture to support their traditions and do great diservice to the clarity of Scripture.

We are all a "glorious ruin" (CS LEwis quote?) and see now but darkly.

JR

 

[Angelquill]

I might have known it would be the woman in church thing.
Let me show you some scripture...from the pen of no less than the great Apostle Paul, himself:

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

Phebe, a woman, was "a servant of the church". The church in Rome was instructed to "receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints", and to "assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also."

Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house....
Notice that Priscilla's name was first, indicating her importance. Earlier, in Acts, she and her husband had taught Apollos. The church was in their house.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Ahh, Junia. That lady is rarely mentioned from behind any pulpit. You won't hear very many men teach about her.
I want yo to notice, my friend, that Paul (that woman hating misogynist) calls her nothing less than an apostle. A female apostle? Uh huh. A girl apostle. And before you get the idea that she might be somehow a "lesser apostle" than the men, note that Paul puts her on equal footing with Andronicus, saying that they both are "of note among the apostles".

Rom 16:12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.

Two more lovely ladies whom Paul comments for their "labour in the Lord".


This is only a partial list of the ladies mentioned in that one verse, and just a microscopic dot of the important women who served God throughout the bible as everything from prostitutes to prophets, and everything in between.

 

[Angelquill]

My opinion that women can and should serve in the church is based on scripture.
I think the letter I quoted from was meant for the church at Rome.
The letter to Timothy was meant for Timothy.
The letter to the Corinthians was meant for the church in Corinth.
In Ephesus, for instance, giving women authority in the church at that time could have been a bad idea, because the cult of Diana was huge in that city. My understanding was that this cult was presided over by priestesses who held the power of life and death over the men.
Now, before you get to thinking "that's what happens when you give women too much authority", consider some things that the church has done under strictly male authority. I'm thinking about the Inquisitions, for instance.
Maybe giving authority exclusively to either sex is a bad idea....

 

[Tellastory]

I'm curious.
I've been called a Fundamentalist (actually, the term used was "fundie", and I don't think it was meant as a compliment), but I don't actually know what that means.
So, what is a "Fundamentalist"?
And, could I be one?

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just wondering what the word means.
Is there a particular set of beliefs attached to being a fundamentalist? Is it more of a way of thinking about God? What, exactly, is it?

It should mean you are trusting Jesus Christ as your Good Shepherd to help you understand and abide in His words as kept by the KJV in living as His disciple.

Nowadays, people confuse christians fundamentalists with muslim fundamentalists, but Jesus had never taught His disciples to kill, but to love their enemies whereas the whole teachings of the Quaran does not.

You will get different views on what a fundamentalist is, but we should be seeking to be His disciples rather than seek to be known by what may misrepresent us.

 

[standingtall]

.....but we should be seeking to be His disciples rather than seek to be known by what may misrepresent us.

Exactly.....I've never heard it put this way before.

 

[cubanito]

A servant is not necessarily one in authority. Phebe was well known and approved of by the Apostles, but not an Apostle. Being noted by a group does not infer that you are a member of that group. Priscilla did not speak to Apollo on her own. She may indeed have been far more eloquent than her husband, women generally are better at language than men, and she may have been wiser ect ect ect but ability is not the issue.

If we are to take instructions to a particular person or Church as not extending beyond that, we will have very very few principles that apply throughout.

However, I am wandering off topic so I'll shut up now.

JR

 

[cubanito]

...I don't believe that anyone suffers for an eternity in "hell". I do believe that the wages of sin is death...not the physical death of the body, but the final and irrevocable death of the soul...These are some of the things I feel strongly about.

So...where do I belong??

The above is also totally against Scripture. The suffering of the lost for ever is the most uncomfortable of all Christian doctrines to me (and a lot of others) but it is undeniable.

Your rejection of it is incorrect. It is neither Biblical nor congruent with known physical reality. It starts by not understanding what death is. Death is not a synonym for ceasing to exist. Death is a synonym for separation. Physical death is the separation of the spirit/mind from the body, but all of them continue. Matter does not cease to exist, and so while the body may decay and be scattered to the windws, it does not cease to be. When Adam sinned, on that day Adam died. His died to God, he died to Eden.

For me Scripture is final. There are many things written in Scripture I do not like. I will not twist the meaning to suit my fancy. That is why I consider myself a fundie, because even when I do not agree with the Bible, I will not re-interpret it's clear meaning to suit me.

JR

 

[Angelquill]

A servant is not necessarily one in authority. Phebe was well known and approved of by the Apostles, but not an Apostle. Being noted by a group does not infer that you are a member of that group. Priscilla did not speak to Apollo on her own. She may indeed have been far more eloquent than her husband, women generally are better at language than men, and she may have been wiser ect ect ect but ability is not the issue.

If we are to take instructions to a particular person or Church as not extending beyond that, we will have very very few principles that apply throughout.

However, I am wandering off topic so I'll shut up now.

JR

First of all, I notice that you did not comment on Junia, the woman who was of note among the apostles. She's kind of a tough case for those who think that God shut women away from serving in His church, isn't she?

Here's an interesting example:
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Guys love those verses, don't they? But what are we to make of these verses from the same book?

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Wait a minute, here, Paul! I thought we weren't supposed to speak in church! Now, I suppose I could pray quietly, to myself. But if I'm going to prophecy...in my new Sunday hat, of course...I'm gonna have to talk.