Baptist and fundamentalists

[Servant of the Kingdom]

What's the differance?

 

[TwinCrier]

Good question. Wish I had an answer. I do know that most baptists that are labled fundamental are extremely conservative and Orthodox... like me. There are liberal Baptist groups like American Baptists that use the word Baptist but are not fundamental.

 

[LuxPerpetua]

Having been raised a Southern Baptist, I'd say that most Baptists I knew were Fundamentalists in that they believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible (real Noah, real Flood, real miracles, etc.) and they believed in moral absolutes (homosexuality is absolutely immoral, etc.). Most non-fundamentalists believe that evil is relative (what is right for you may not be right for me) and they tend to take a rationalist or pick-and-choose approach to Scripture (disbelief in miracles, Adam and Eve were archetypes and not real people, Jesus may not have been virginally conceived, etc.). Probably by this definition most Catholics, Orthodox, Southern Baptists, and Lutherans (especially WELS and LCMS) would be considered Fundamentalists.

 

[jenptcfan]

Most Baptists I know are fundamentalists. There's not necessarily a difference.

 

[bleechers]

that they believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible (real Noah, real Flood, real miracles, etc.)... most Catholics, etc.

For the record, the Catholic Church does not teach a literal interpretation of scripture. Particularly the first 11 chapters of Genesis and the Book of Daniel are rejected as non-literal (Pontifical Biblical Commission). The RCC (Eastern Orthodox, etc.) also rejects many other "fundamentals."

FUNDAMENTALIST is a term taken from a series of books written around 1912 that were a response to the liberal/modernist movement of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. The Fundamentals are boiled down to 10 areas (this is VERY much a simplification, but not too far off for discussion's sake):

1. Verbal and Plenary inspiration of the 66 books of the Bible (rejection of Apocrypha).
2. The absolute and full atonement of Christ' work on Calvary and bodily resurrection.
3. Salvation by God's free grace through the faith of the believer.
4. A literal hell for those rejecting the gospel.
5. The virgin birth, the sinless life and impecable nature.
6. A literal interpretation of the Bible.
7. The full and eternal deity of Christ (equal to the Father)
8. The person of the Holy Spirit (and full deity).
9. A personal devil.
10. The bodily ascension and bodily return of Christ to this earth.

If you hold to these (like I do) you are essentially a "Fundamentalist." Many Baptist do not hold firmly to all of these (although a majority of Southern Baptists do).

"Fundamentalism" has receieved a bad name as of late. Well, a good CPA is a "fundamentalist" CPA... the CPAs at Arthur Anderson were not, and look what trouble they got in.

 

[Adoniram]

Bleechers-

Being fundamentalist myself, I agree with your description. But what is the deal with your signature? PUC? Is it a joke, or sarcasm?

 

[bleechers]

But what is the deal with your signature? PUC? Is it a joke, or sarcasm?

I'm an ex-RC, but once you mention the "C" word, most Evangelicals don't want to talk about the need to reach them with the gospel... so I created a new Church (the PUC)...

When I present the doctrines of the PUC to Christians and ask them if they are compatible with Christianity and the gospel, they obviously say "no" (my web site has a more extensive list of PUC doctrines). I then point out that every doctrine of the PUC is based on official RC doctrines... like the two listed in my signature.

Thanks for asking!



I am, Michael I, Successor to Paul, Supreme Procurator of the PUC, forgiver of sins, and the sole interpreter of scripture

I'm hoping Jim Dobson will someday refer to me as "the greatest Christian leader in the world."

​

 

[Blackhawk]

Some baptists are fundamentalists and some are not. There are though two different types of Fundamentalists. One is as described above. However another def. of the word fundamentalists is a little different. Many when they say someone is a fundamentalist mean that they are against the culture today and that they hide from the culture instead of being in it. They are very legalistic and very judgmental. many state that everyone except a fundamentalist or maybe even trheir type of fundamentalist is going to hell. When I think of fundamentalist I think of the ones who have website stating that Billy Graham and other Christian figures are not really Christians through a twisting and miunderstanding of their words.

 

[sobresaliente]

Not all Baptists are fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are baptist. It goes beyond denomination and into a mindset, a way of thinking holding the Holy Scripture above all save God. Not taking the Pope or any other denominations word for it, until further study. Not that I give the Pope any authority.

 

[Hands&Feet]

Praise God that His unconditional love for us is not limited by our propensity for stereotyping. Praise Him, also, because His Kingdom is bigger than one denomination! Praise Him again for the fact He sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins rather than to leave us here to have to figure out precisely just the right theology to embrace in order to enter His Kingdom!! Halelujah!!

 

[Echoes Peak]

Praise God that His unconditional love for us is not limited by our propensity for stereotyping. Praise Him, also, because His Kingdom is bigger than one denomination! Praise Him again for the fact He sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins rather than to leave us here to have to figure out precisely just the right theology to embrace in order to enter His Kingdom!! Halelujah!!

Amen.

 

[bleechers]

pay the price for our sins rather than to leave us here to have to figure out precisely just the right theology

Although I can appreciate this sentiment to some degree, the New Testament puts a serious premium on "sound doctrine" to the point that Paul even uses the words "rebuke them sharply" for those who promote a "wrong" theology.

The "Fundamentals" are not a complex set of theological platitudes, they are exactly as they are presented "fundamental" to the faith. "The faith" is what we are commanded to "earnestly contend for."

Weheras we can disagree about a lot of things and still remain brothers, the "fundamentals" are essential to "the faith." They are all connected and they are all relevant to "sound doctrine."

precisely just the right theology to embrace in order to enter His Kingdom

But this is exactly why we must have fundamentals to gather around. Enetrance into the Kingdom is, by Jesus' words, a "narrow way" which "few" find. We are warned repeatedly in the New Testament against false doctrine, false teachers and false gospels. In fact, that is the reason that most of the NT epistles were written (to correct error).

You wouldn't trust an electrician unless he believed in the "fundamentals" of electricity would you?

 

[Hands&Feet]

But this is exactly why we must have fundamentals to gather around. Enetrance into the Kingdom is, by Jesus' words, a "narrow way" which "few" find. We are warned repeatedly in the New Testament against false doctrine, false teachers and false gospels. In fact, that is the reason that most of the NT epistles were written (to correct error).

You wouldn't trust an electrician unless he believed in the "fundamentals" of electricity would you?

I can agree with you to an extent, but the problem is that the "fundamentals" that one church gleans from the scriptures is not necessarily the fundamentals of another church. Many churches place entirely too much focus on inward obedience(and making sure everyone else is focusing on it as well) and far too little on being ministers of God's grace and unconditional love to the world--something that Jesus deemed of utmost importance--so much so that the "keepers of the law" killed Him for it.

WHen we are being the hands and feet of our Lord to a needy world, when all of our efforts are expended on taking care of the needs of the poor and oppressed, and in tearing down strongholds of social injustice, etc., the inward "fundamental doctrines" have a tendency to take care of themselves--a lot better than they do when we are self-righteously tending to their disciplines rather than being the ministers of Love and compassion we are called to be. It is so sad that there are so many churches who want to condemn everyone who doesn't believe the way they do. I've been on that side of the fence--was there for a long time--and I can tell you it bears no good fruit.

Life is too short to not be spending it loving people into the Kingdom, and there is too much work to be done to spend so much time demonizing everyone else's theology--especially when we may someday discover that it was our own that was found wanting.

Now here is some sound doctrine: Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong, for they are weak, but He is strong--Strong enough, in fact to save us even when we would rather convince ourselves that it is our command of Biblical understanding that saves us. He is simply a wonderful and fantastic God!!!

 

[bleechers]

Again, nice sentiments, just not Biblical.

I can agree with you to an extent, but the problem is that the "fundamentals" that one church gleans from the scriptures is not necessarily the fundamentals of another church

Paul warned in the most strongest terms concerning "another gospel" and "another Jesus." If anyone does not come preaching the same gospel Paul preached or the same Jesus Paul preached, he said "let them be accursed" and he called them "the ministers of Satan" (his words). Satan presents himself as "an Angel of Light" and false teachers come as "wolves in sheep's clothing."

Need I quote the multiple warnings from Jesus, Paul, Jude, John and Peter about the necessity of sound doctrine? I'm not talking about minutia or denominational rules, but the very foundational truths of "the faith" that we are COMMANDED to "earnestly contend for." At what point do you separate?

WHen we are being the hands and feet of our Lord to a needy world, when all of our efforts are expended on taking care of the needs of the poor and oppressed, and in tearing down strongholds of social injustice, etc.,

We are commanded to FIRST take care of those of the house of God. We must then be able to determine who is of the true faith to be able to do that. Our primary command from Christ and from Paul is to PREACH THE GOSPEL. To do that, we must, obviosuly, know what the gospel is. How can two who disagree on something as basic as the nature of God or the finality of His work on Calvary possible be brothers?

It is so sad that there are so many churches who want to condemn everyone who doesn't believe the way they do. I've been on that side of the fence--was there for a long time--and I can tell you it bears no good fruit.

You're right, we don't have to condemn them. Jesus said they were "condemned already" and Paul said they are "accursed of God" if they preach not the gospel. Paul wished they were "cut off". But if we're going to reach people who are trusting in a false gospel, it is useful to show the contrasts.

Life is too short to not be spending it loving people into the Kingdom, and there is too much work to be done to spend so much time demonizing everyone else's theology--especially when we may someday discover that it was our own that was found wanting.

How do we "love people into the Kingdom?" We are commanded to "speak the TRUTH in LOVE." Speaking the truth does not mean that we do not love. That is a far worse accusation than anything that has been said on this board.

Did Jesus go around hugging the Pharisees and their traditions? Did Paul sugarcoat his admonitions to reject heretics, "sharply rebuke" error or to remove false teachers? How can one know what is false if one refuses to defend what is true?

Now here is some sound doctrine: Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong, for they are weak, but He is strong--Strong enough, in fact to save us even when we would rather convince ourselves that it is our command of Biblical understanding that saves us

You hater!

This doctrine of "Jesus saves" apart from baptism and adherence to the Code and Decrees of the New Law of the Catholic Church is anti-Catholic!

This doctrine is anti-Muslim for they hold that Jesus didn't even die on the cross and he can't save anyone. Why are you demonizing their beliefs! Can't you just love and accept them into the Kingdom?

The Bible tells you so? Don't you know that only the Pope and the Magisterium are the "sole interpreters of scripture"? You are causing strife with our Catholic brothers by claiming that the Bible is the source of truth.

Hindus are up in arms at your failure to mention the Vadas! The Bible is but one of many holy books. All are equal. Jesus is just one of 330 million gods and he cannot save you. Why do you hate Hindus so?

The Apocrypha and the Pearl of Great Price are not in your Baptist Bible. Why are you so anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic?

Jesus cannot save you alone! You need the Treausry of Merit, your own suffering, the deeds of the Law, multiple incarnations, the grace of Allah, absolution from a priest, baptism, good works, The Koran, the Vedas, the Council of Trent, the Book of Mormon, etc...

The way I fugure it, you're anti-Catholic, anti-Church of Christ, anti-Lutheran, anti-Orthodox, anti-Jewish, anti-Mormon, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Hindu, anti-Muslim, anti-Mel Gibson, anti-Deist, anti-Unitarian, anti-Amish, anti-Animist, anti-Sihk...

Boy, your DOCTRINE of Jesus Saves is such a hateful thing!

Now really, would Jesus want us going around offending so many people by sticking to this "Jesus saves" doctrine that only causes strife?

You need to start loving people into the Kingdom... wait a sec... "the Kingdom" is a doctrine too... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!



I use (my attempt at) humor to make a point.



PS: I'm glad somebody loved me enough to tell me the truth.

 

[Frankie]

For the record, the Catholic Church does not teach a literal interpretation of scripture. Particularly the first 11 chapters of Genesis and the Book of Daniel are rejected as non-literal (Pontifical Biblical Commission). The RCC (Eastern Orthodox, etc.) also rejects many other "fundamentals."

FUNDAMENTALIST is a term taken from a series of books written around 1912 that were a response to the liberal/modernist movement of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. The Fundamentals are boiled down to 10 areas (this is VERY much a simplification, but not too far off for discussion's sake):

1. Verbal and Plenary inspiration of the 66 books of the Bible (rejection of Apocrypha).
2. The absolute and full atonement of Christ' work on Calvary and bodily resurrection.
3. Salvation by God's free grace through the faith of the believer.
4. A literal hell for those rejecting the gospel.
5. The virgin birth, the sinless life and impecable nature.
6. A literal interpretation of the Bible.
7. The full and eternal deity of Christ (equal to the Father)
8. The person of the Holy Spirit (and full deity).
9. A personal devil.
10. The bodily ascension and bodily return of Christ to this earth.

If you hold to these (like I do) you are essentially a "Fundamentalist." Many Baptist do not hold firmly to all of these (although a majority of Southern Baptists do).

"Fundamentalism" has receieved a bad name as of late. Well, a good CPA is a "fundamentalist" CPA... the CPAs at Arthur Anderson were not, and look what trouble they got in.

Well, I guess according to the above, I am not fundamentalist then...LOL, all those people who have called me this in the past will be so disapointed.

I agree with everything you listed above except for number 6. The reason I don't agree with number 6 is that I believe that sometimes the Bible is speaking mediforically. One example I can think of right now is where it says that God will cover us under His wings. I do not believe that God is a big bird with large wings. I believe this is a mediphore for God's love and protection of us.

Frankie

 

[bleechers]

I agree with everything you listed above except for number 6. The reason I don't agree with number 6 is that I believe that sometimes the Bible is speaking mediforically. One example I can think of right now is where it says that God will cover us under His wings. I do not believe that God is a big bird with large wings. I believe this is a mediphore for God's love and protection of us.

Well, "literal" means that the Bible means what it says when it speaks factually. Obviously, if the bible is using a metaphor, we take the metaphor "literally" as it were.

If I said that it was raining cats and dogs. You know what I mean. It was "literally" raining and raining hard at that. It does not mean that I truly believe that cats and dogs were plummeting out of the sky.

A literal interpretation means that if Adam or Noah or Jonah are presented to us as actual persons, then we accept that. This does not exclude recognizing metaphor where God clearly uses a metaphor ("I am the door" or "I am the bread of life, etc.").

Just like when He says "This is mt Body." We do not take that to mean that the bread is the flesh that was sitting there in front of them, etc.

So maybe you are a fundamentalist after all!

Remember, it just means that you hold to the basics, the essentials. If I can put in one post, it could hardly qualify as a complex theological system (as some have suggetsed).

Thanks!!

 

[Hands&Feet]

All I can say bleechers it that true faith necessarily transcends intellectual understanding in every way shape and form and it was completely necessary for God to have it this way for the very reasons which we are debating. As one who has traveled extensively for many years, I must say that I have met many wonderful believers everywhere I have been. These are people who are excited about their relationship with God and grateful that Jesus paid the price for their sins on the cross, grateful that they have eternal life and grateful that the Holy Spirit has changed and continues to change their lives daily. Aside from that, if I were to put them together in a room, tell them to arrive at the fundamentals of their faith because, although they all believe Jesus is their Savior, that His salvation is still conditional on them all following all the same doctrines, they would wind up tearing each other to shreds.

Rich Mullins once said that the one thing he noticed having traveled around the world is that everywhere he went, people had different things underlined in their Bibles. He concluded that if he were to put them all together, the whole Bible would be underlined. I can attest to you that I have made very similar observations. Our relationship of God and our understanding of Him varies a lot from region to region.

Because of the nature of my business, I have the opportunity to share my faith deeply with unsaved people nearly every day. There are very few of these people who, when honest with themselves, have any problem accepting the fact that they are sinners. It is a rare occasion that I find someone who has no concept of right and wrong. They can see this clearly by the mistakes they have made. Most believe, at least agnostically, in God. Most atheists, I have found, have rejected the God of most religions because they assimilate Him as espousing the judgmentalism, self-centeredness, uncharitableness, hypocrisies of so many of those who profess to be His people. They observe how churches cannot get along with one another, how they often cannot even get along with themselves. If this was truly representative of the true God, they would be quite right in not wanting to have anything to do with Him. Who would? But when I can show them that the people of these churches are merely being human, and that God loves them in spite of their stubborn humanness, they begin to grasp the concept of a God who so loved the world, in spite of all their shortcomings, that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. It is then that they begin to see that God's gift of salvation is free; they then can understand that they don't have to somehow arrive at just the right level of perfection to be accepted by God, but that He accepts them, just as they are. The revelation that it is the Holy Spirit that will begin to convict them and change their hearts and minds is a freeing experience to them, for there are so few examples of such fatherly unconditional love on earth.

Jesus did not win the masses of people who followed Him by condemning them. He said, follow me, you who are weak and heavy burdened, and I will give you rest. These people were already feeling condemned by religion, by oppression, by the injustices of government and religious institutions. They needed rest from it. They needed this unconditional love from one who spoke with authority. Jesus did, indeed, love these people into the Kingdom. None of them had an intellectual understanding of the theology behind His love, but they followed Him anyway. Even the disciples had few clues. Even after the ressurection and pentecost, we see how the legalism of religion kept creeping in and trying to rob them of grace. From those accounts God has warned us that there will forever be those who will attempt to do the same.

I am of a protestant background and I know some Orthodox and Catholic people who are convinced that they are the only ones with the truth and that since I am not a part of their religious institution that I have rejected Jesus' gift of eternal salvation. I also have a large number of Orthodox and Catholic friends whom I love dearly and who love me and who also know better than to think that.

I have many protestant friends who think very closely to the way I do, but I also have a lot of fundamentalist friends who might find themselves a bit skittish of my faith, but none who doubt my salvation.

All of these people I mention love the Lord immensely. Obviously, we are talking a lot of intolerant doctrinal differences between them. Nevertheless, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the God of all of them. And Jesus is Savior of all of them and they all accept that gift of salvation, although many add other elements to it.

If wasn't for no reason that Jesus placed such emphasis on the faith of a child. Our salvation need not be so complicated. But,if you feel that it is necessary to adhere to the doctrines of the Bible as interpreted by your theological perspective, by all means do so. If you want to preach the gospel in that way, by all means, go preach it. There are surely those out there who need it presented to them your way. You say this is true of yourself. Perhaps one day when we get to Heaven, we will all find out that you were the one who got it right and the rest of us were wrong.

I honestly don't spend that much time exegeting the Word as I used to because God has me in a place where most of my time is spent out there loving people and, in many cases, loving them into the Kingdom. So, perhaps my theology is lacking somewhat. I don't deny that that is possible. But one thing I know for certain and that is that I anxiously await the day when I am worshipping at the feet of the Lord and I am going to be doing it with a whole lot of people who can't get along with each other here on Earth, and to me, although it will be great then, it is a sad commentary today.

So like I said in my first post,
Praise God that His unconditional love for us is not limited by our propensity for stereotyping. Praise Him, also, because His Kingdom is bigger than one denomination! Praise Him again for the fact He sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins rather than to leave us here to have to figure out precisely just the right theology to embrace in order to enter His Kingdom!! Halelujah!!

See ya there, bro!!

 

[bleechers]

they all believe Jesus is their Savior

No problem... but the reality is, Mormons and JWs deny His deity and The RCC deny the finality of His work. I don't want to tear them to sheds, I just want to reach them with the true gospel.

Rich Mullins once said

...that our works are "salvific" and he denied the new birth. So...? No problems with that?

Our relationship of God and our understanding of Him varies a lot from region to region

Does that "understanding" extend to Islam and Hinduism?

to share my faith

Sarcasm here : What faith? What gives you the right to suppose that their faith is not just as legitimate? On what basis can you possibly suggest that they might be wrong? Are you attacking Catholics by suggesting that they may know that they are saved? A doctrine condemned "in their understanding"?

I thank God someone loved me enough not to leave me in my Catholicism on the premise that they might "offend my understanding". I was very offended... and seven years later I was very saved because of the seed of the gospel planted. Thank you Lord for faithful servants!

He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. It is then that they begin to see that God's gift of salvation is free; they then can understand that they don't have to somehow arrive at just the right level of perfection to be accepted by God, but that He accepts them, just as they are.

This "doctrine" is wholly, absolutely and utterly condemned by the Catholic Church. Is pointing out that FACT such a bad thing? Do you not want people in a system that denies the gospel of the free grace of God to know the truth?

Jesus did not win the masses of people who followed Him by condemning them

Could you please quote where I condemned anyone? Jesus said that outside of the gospel we are all "condemned already" and warned that if you reject the gospel that the wrath of God abides on you. I don't go around condemning people, but I will defend the faith (as commanded by God) against systems that condemn the gospel.

You assume quite a bit here as well. I don't go around screaming at people. I point out the doctrines of the RCC and compare them with scripture. I point out where those doctrines are incompatible with saving faith. It's called "contending for the faith "(Jude 3) and loving people enough to tell them the truth.

I also have a lot of fundamentalist friends who might find themselves a bit skittish of my faith, but none who doubt my salvation

Question: on which "fundamental" of the faith do you depart from fundamentalists?

And Jesus is Savior of all of them and they all accept that gift of salvation, although many add other elements to it.

Read Galatians. It's the "other elements" that reveal that they never acccepted the gift. Rome condemns that doctrine REPEATEDLY with anathema. Now, you might know a saved person who attends a Catholic Church, but if they believe they are saved, they are not really Catholic.

If you keep trying to pay for a gift (and the "gifts" of your deceased family and friends) have you truly understood the gift?

Catholicism is not how we define it, it is how Rome defines it. It's like saying that I enjoy the fellowship at my local Mosque. I'm a born-again Muslim...? There is no such creature. Islam is Islam, Catholicism is Catholicism, we can't define them any way we want.

Our salvation need not be so complicated

Complicated? I boiled down the fundamentals to 10 simple statements in one post! I can preach the gospel in 30 seconds! It is Rome you need to be talking to... they have a library of books on their faith and a lifetime of effort to earn entrance into heaven.

I wrote to a Catholic apologist in Baltomore and asked him "what must I do to be saved?" His answer: "The answer to that would take volumes, but essentially it is in the teachings of the Catholic Church." Volumes? I preach "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved."

Now, that statement necessitates that people understand "believe," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ," and "saved."

propensity for stereotyping

It is you who have stereotyped fundamentalists. Could you quote a streotype that I posted?

I haven't stereotyped Catholicism, I merely posted what they believe! They should thank me for publicizing their doctrines. If stating what their church tells them is the truth is "stereotyping" then I must have another definition of that word than you do.

As Paul said "Am I become your enemy because I tell you [them] the truth?"

 

[Frankie]

Well, "literal" means that the Bible means what it says when it speaks factually. Obviously, if the bible is using a metaphor, we take the metaphor "literally" as it were.

If I said that it was raining cats and dogs. You know what I mean. It was "literally" raining and raining hard at that. It does not mean that I truly believe that cats and dogs were plummeting out of the sky.

A literal interpretation means that if Adam or Noah or Jonah are presented to us as actual persons, then we accept that. This does not exclude recognizing metaphor where God clearly uses a metaphor ("I am the door" or "I am the bread of life, etc.").

Just like when He says "This is mt Body." We do not take that to mean that the bread is the flesh that was sitting there in front of them, etc.

So maybe you are a fundamentalist after all!

Remember, it just means that you hold to the basics, the essentials. If I can put in one post, it could hardly qualify as a complex theological system (as some have suggetsed).

Thanks!!

I guess I am a fundementalist then. LOL. I absolutly believe that the people spoken of in the Bible were real people that breathed and lived. I even believe that Jonah was swallowed by a huge fist like the Bible says. Yep, I guess I am a fundamentalist after all

 

[Frankie]

I have to agree with bleechers on this one. The JW totally deny the diety of Christ and do not believe in the Triune God. They do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible and therefore do not have salvation in the true Jesus. The LDS believe in a Jesus that is the litteral offspring of God, not God in the flesh. The Jesus they believe in is the litteral spirit brother of Satan and they believe that we all lived in a pre-existance as God's "litteral" spirit children before coming to earth. They also believe that everyone will receive a level of glory when they die and that, that was was purpose of Jesus's death on the cross. The do not believe that His atonement covers all sin either, only that it made it possible for everyone to go to one level of glory. They do not believe in a litteral hell either and they believe that Jesus is a created being. This is clearly not the Jesus of the Bible or the one that I know and love.

If you want to learn more about it, you could go to the UO section of this forum and read their posts on their churches teachings.

Also, one more thing, they believe that Jesus paid the price for sin in the Garden of Eden, not on the cross of calvary. Is this the Jesus you love and worship? It sure isn't mine.