Any Fundamentalists here?

[Byfaithalone1]

This text does not address the issue. They were wrong in their conclusions because they did not appreciate the full power of God.

According to Jesus, didn't their error result (at least in part) because they didn't know the Scriptures. Is Jesus suggesting that, if they had known the Scriptures, they wouldn't have accepted error?

This does not mean they were in error as we mean it here.

Can you explain the difference?

The original is whatevery existed before humans arrived on the planet. It includes all the laws of nature.

The "original" would not include the Scriptures?

BFA

 

[sentipente]

According to Jesus, didn't their error result (at least in part) because they didn't know the Scriptures. Is Jesus suggesting that, if they had known the Scriptures, they wouldn't have accepted error?



Can you explain the difference?



The "original" would not include the Scriptures?

BFA

The Scriptures wouls likely include some error because they reflect man's understanding of the original. Making a mistake does not mean one is "in error." "In error" seems to imply a quasi-permanent position.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The Scriptures wouls likely include some error because they reflect man's understanding of the original. Making a mistake does not mean one is "in error." "In error" seems to imply a quasi-permanent position.

If a person does not view the definition of "truth" and "error" as you do, should we conclude that such person is a "fundamentalist?"

BFA

 

[BrotherAtArms]

All the stories are true? Meaning they actually happened or that some truth is revealed through the stories? For instance the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The story was not used to tell people what life after death is like, but to express the unbelief of some, who would ultimately not believe if someone came back from the dead...which is what Jesus actually did. But if that story is true then the concept that God is love cannot be true, because love would not act like that (unless you redefine love to be cruelty).

Do you really believe what it says of the future is true literally? That is do you believe that the locusts in the future will have faces like men and sting like scorpions with the pain lasting for 5 months.

How do you know what books were written by Moses? Is Jewish tradition reality, Did Moses write about his own death?

What you wrote above sounds good but it produces a lot of questions about why and how you really accept the stories, the predictions and even the traditions about who wrote something.

I'm sure it does produce a lot of questions, and that's what I like Doesn't it make you want to know more? Doesn't it make you want to study more instead of rely on someone else's studies? It did me.
I heard about a guy who died for me and came back to life, I heard about a man who lived to be over 900 years old, I heard of a man riding to Heaven in a carriage of fire, I heard that there were prophesies about today's time (which have been coming true) and that there is a peace in the midst of any storm through the name of Jesus... I studied and so far, it's all been right.
It would take me hours to pour into this thread all the answers to the questions you asked because I'd have to sit here and bring up resources and studies and notes which sadly I don't have the time for, but like I tell my youth group all the time, "Get in the Word and study it". I don't want someone just listening to me because what I said sounded good, I want them to be intrigued enough to want to study it for themselves.
It doesn't sound good if someone proclaims that Jesus rose from the dead and if someone asked, "How do you know?" the person says, "Someone told me."

As far as the locusts and all that, I believe John wrote down as best as he could describe it. Some like to try and translate it as a helicopter or something. But I do believe it, with all my heart. Today's events just point back to the Bible, if you read it right.

It's actually really cool that you ask those qeustions because I'm starting a series tonight at church called "Study to show yourself approved" where we dig into the Bible and learn to back up our words with scripture.

 

[moicherie]

It's actually really cool that you ask those qeustions because I'm starting a series tonight at church called "Study to show yourself approved" where we dig into the Bible and learn to back up our words with scripture.

The problem is that has happened before and many heinous acts (or prejudices entrenched - look how women have been treated for millenia) in the name of scripture so where should the foundation be based? In the character of the Creator or in the words of texts written by men who had a different outlook on life due to their circumstances and/or cultural?

 

[JonMiller]

Ooooh! That's so mysterious.

If you define fundamentalism as a 100% belief in something. This means that you can have fundamentalist scientists, capitalists, etc.

I view this as positive as people who have 100% beleive in a thing, will defend it to the best of their ability. So even if the majority of people don't agree with them, they will still hold to their position. This insures that ideas get defended and everything doesn't just sway with popular opinion/culture.

I actually think that most people are fundamentalists of one sort or another.

Jon Miller

 

[JonMiller]

I am a fundamentalist in my believe of God. And probably my belief that Christianity is in the right general direction.

But my (pseudo) orthodox Christian beliefs aren't at 100%.

Jon Miller

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I actually think that most people are fundamentalists of one sort or another.

That was the point I was trying to make, but didn't articulate it quite so clearly.

BFA

 

[Adventtruth]

I'm sure it does produce a lot of questions, and that's what I like Doesn't it make you want to know more? Doesn't it make you want to study more instead of rely on someone else's studies? It did me.
I heard about a guy who died for me and came back to life, I heard about a man who lived to be over 900 years old, I heard of a man riding to Heaven in a carriage of fire, I heard that there were prophesies about today's time (which have been coming true) and that there is a peace in the midst of any storm through the name of Jesus... I studied and so far, it's all been right.
It would take me hours to pour into this thread all the answers to the questions you asked because I'd have to sit here and bring up resources and studies and notes which sadly I don't have the time for, but like I tell my youth group all the time, "Get in the Word and study it". I don't want someone just listening to me because what I said sounded good, I want them to be intrigued enough to want to study it for themselves.
It doesn't sound good if someone proclaims that Jesus rose from the dead and if someone asked, "How do you know?" the person says, "Someone told me."

As far as the locusts and all that, I believe John wrote down as best as he could describe it. Some like to try and translate it as a helicopter or something. But I do believe it, with all my heart. Today's events just point back to the Bible, if you read it right.

It's actually really cool that you ask those qeustions because I'm starting a series tonight at church called "Study to show yourself approved" where we dig into the Bible and learn to back up our words with scripture.

Thank you for this posting

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

The problem is that has happened before and many heinous acts (or prejudices entrenched - look how women have been treated for millenia) in the name of scripture so where should the foundation be based? In the character of the Creator or in the words of texts written by men who had a different outlook on life due to their circumstances and/or cultural?

Actually this is a very good question.

For me its in the middle. We should seek to understand the context and culture in which a passage was written to draw our conclussions today.

Example, stoning was a practice of a certain time because of sins against the law of God. Why don't we practice this today and what conclussion can we draw from it?

We should seek to undersand the context of prophecies to determine if its literal or metaphorical in nature. Is the lucust coming out of a bottomless pit literal or does it have a deeper meaning for us today?

We should also seek to understand who was being addresssed and why. Is all that was commanded of Israel under the Old Covenant apply for gentiles today?

We should look at the old covenant stories to draw positive conclussions about Gods dealings with mankind. All of these considerations could help us to better understand God and His will and purpose for our own lives.



AT

 

[BrotherAtArms]

The problem is that has happened before and many heinous acts (or prejudices entrenched - look how women have been treated for millenia) in the name of scripture so where should the foundation be based? In the character of the Creator or in the words of texts written by men who had a different outlook on life due to their circumstances and/or cultural?

I see what you're saying, and I've found certain things that you're talking about before. At least I think I know what you're talking about, whether it be slavery, or how to treat women or whatever, however the things about these "instructions" were based on culture, not God's character. Such as in slavery back then not being what we know it as today, slaves were actually pretty well treated.
And as far as women not speaking in churches and so forth, all that was cultural. We see that one verse in the Bible explains that in Heaven there is no gentile or jew, male or female, etc.. In the Kingdom of Heaven, there is no one greater than the other, but I do see that there is a Biblical respect for earthly culture and authority.
I hope I was talking in context of what you were saying, otherwise I may have been way off o0

 

[sentipente]

If a person does not view the definition of "truth" and "error" as you do, should we conclude that such person is a "fundamentalist?"

BFA

Why should we? How did you get to that point from what I posted?

 

[BrotherAtArms]

Why should we? How did you get to that point from what I posted?

Though I'm not part of the conversation, I will say that it is a curious question.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Since there still seems to be some confusion about what Christian fundamentalism is here is a portion from the oxford English Dictionary:

fundamentalism -- A religious movement, which orig. became active among various
Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918, based on strict
adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal inerrancy of Scripture) held to be
fundamental to the Christian faith; the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and
modernism.

[Usage]

1925 K. Lake. The most energetic ... group, but the least well educated, is the
Fundamentalist. The Fundamentalists have zeal, but it is certainly not according to
knowledge.

1926 H.F. Osborn. The fundamentalist movement ... sought to re-establish the Biblical
literalism of the time of Cromwell, Milton, and the Puritans.

Times 1955. `Fundamentalism' ... appears to have been used first in connexion with
the (American) Northern Baptist Convention of 1920 to describe the more
conservative delegates who desired `to restate, reaffirm, and re-emphasize the
fundamentals of our New Testament faith'. Now `fundamentalism' ... appears to
describe the bigoted rejection of all Biblical criticism, a mechanical view of inspiration
and an excessively literalist interpretation of scripture.
http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/church/fundamentalism/fund5.pdf

Just to reiterate for any moderators these quotes are from a dictionary please do not assert that I am flaming or feeding trolls etc.

 

[sentipente]

Though I'm not part of the conversation, I will say that it is a curious question.

You may need to be a little clearer here.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

You may need to be a little clearer here.

... How? I quoted the question:

If a person does not view the definition of "truth" and "error" as you do, should we conclude that such person is a "fundamentalist?"

BFA
​

Why should we? How did you get to that point from what I posted?

I really only came to this thread because I'm curious about fundamentalism. I want to see if I'm in that category or not... Though I'm not crazy about titles, I am curious.

 

[sentipente]

BOA, if you look closely you will find that you quoted two (three) questions. Which one were you referring to? Further, why is it curious to ask someone how they came to a conclusion that was not implied in the statement to which they were responding?

 

[AzA]

You may have already seen an interview segment with Dominic Crossan on the differences between Christian fundamentalism and Biblical literalism.

Marcus Borg also distinguishes between fundamentalism and literalism in a comment on the value of the Bible.

 

[AzA]

(Man, that automatic layout thing is not pretty.)

 

[BrotherAtArms]

BOA, if you look closely you will find that you quoted two (three) questions. Which one were you referring to? Further, why is it curious to ask someone how they came to a conclusion that was not implied in the statement to which they were responding?

I can't make it any clearer, if you're not getting it then don't worry about it.