Do you affirm the fundamentals?

Do you believe in the fundamentals?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 67.7%
  • No

    Votes: 20 32.3%

  • Total voters
    62

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's a very simplistic explanation of Lutheranism, and somewhat erroneous on numerous points.

My church's worship has liturgy that is almost identical to Roman Catholics. That isn't rare among North American or Scandinavian Lutherans. While we consider worship a secondary matter, we have strong preferences for liturgical worship, and we generally are traditionalists.

We are not just generic Protestants. In terms of sacraments and a sacramental worldview, we are decidedly Catholic. In fact we affirm some of the same doctrines as Catholics do, such as the value of praying for the dead or the real presence of Christ at the altar. In terms of our ethical tradition, we have much less in common with other American Protestants.

I could go on but needless to say, I don't see how the "fundamentals" describe the essence of my faith. It's more of an Anglo-Reformed issue. Lutherans have other issues they have dealt with, and Fundamentalism is more an import from the Anglo-American churches that only has relatively recently been an issue (in the 1970's which lead to a split in the LCMS, and a small exodus to what later became the ELCA).

It is true: in my experience the Protestants most similar to Catholics in concepts and practices are Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists, but the ones most similar to Catholics in MINDSET and cultural reference points are Midwestern American Lutherans.

The only real differences I've perceived in general outlook is that Lutherans seem to feel less guilty than Irish Catholics do.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That's an interesting take, Vicomte. Do you think you could argue that Christ's death, for gentiles, substitutes for our own (which was the penalty for sin for all humankind), and that this is what allows us eternal life?
 
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
As a good Anglican and in line with the 39 articles I will affirm ONLY those 'fundamentals' which can be proven by reference to the clear word of God as expressed in Scripture.

So: 1 no; there is no Scripture to justify such a claim.
2 yes.
3 yes.
4 perhaps partly but that is not the whole picture
5 yes.
6 a whole lot more that you have missed, which I would regard as equally important.
Regarding number 1 St. Paul says:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

1 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV
 
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Fundamentalism (as a movement primarily within American Protestant Christianity).

It's really only something that arose in the 19th century, in reaction to other movements within Christian thought (particularly critical scholarship and theological liberalism), and the work I referred to was published in the early 20th century, and gave the movement its key theological reference points.
They are foundational beliefs of Christianity. They were postulated as the Fundamentals as a line in the sand against Modernism. As a Catholic, I wholeheartedly agree with them, even if Fundamentalism itself has issues for me.
 
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I deny that those are an adequate explanation of the Christian faith. I'll stick with the historic confessions of my church, thank you.
I didn’t say they were an adequate explanation of the faith, only that they are fundamental to Christian theology.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,456.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Your church as a whole has tended to reject fundamentalism, and steered a middle course between modernism and fundamentalism. Vatican II embraced certain aspects of modernism, things that the Pope had previously condemned in the early 20th century. IMO, the Vatican did not understand the theology of modernists, and got themselves caught in a bit of a trap for a while.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
They are foundational beliefs of Christianity. They were postulated as the Fundamentals as a line in the sand against Modernism. As a Catholic, I wholeheartedly agree with them, even if Fundamentalism itself has issues for me.

As an Anglican, I see the emphasis on these things (to the exclusion of others long considered foundational and non-negotiable) as a mistake. In particular, the way that fundamentalists have typically understood Scripture and atonement introduces distortions (at best) to the way these things have historically been understood by the Church. (See Thomas Aquinas on the literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical senses of Scripture, for example).

It's not that these five things are wrong (with the caveats I put in my first post in this thread), but it's that putting these five things forward as the litmus test of adequate Christianity is both to miss much that is essential to Christianity, and to divorce your own understanding from that of the Church through the ages.
 
Upvote 0

Myychael

Newbie
Supporter
Dec 14, 2010
101
48
✟79,084.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Your church as a whole has tended to reject fundamentalism, and steered a middle course between modernism and fundamentalism. Vatican II embraced certain aspects of modernism, things that the Pope had previously condemned in the early 20th century. IMO, the Vatican did not understand the theology of modernists, and got themselves caught in a bit of a trap for a while.[/QUOT

Two young girls about 11 and 12 went to stay with their Grandmother during a summer from school vacation their Grand mother was a strong Baptist and took the girls with her to Sunday school and Church services after a period of time the Pastor gave an alter call and the two young girls received Christ as their personal savior.The girls mother was Roman Catholic and after finding this out went to the Baptist Pastor fuming mad and said they hadn't been confirmed and this and that.The Pastor posed a question to the Lady if your two children had been killed in a car wreck would you be happy to know that they came forth to the alter and accepted Jesus Christ and verbally professed Christ to be their Savoir in front of the congregation
if you were that mother or Father what would be your answer ?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
As an Anglican, I see the emphasis on these things (to the exclusion of others long considered foundational and non-negotiable) as a mistake. In particular, the way that fundamentalists have typically understood Scripture and atonement introduces distortions (at best) to the way these things have historically been understood by the Church. (See Thomas Aquinas on the literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical senses of Scripture, for example).

It's not that these five things are wrong (with the caveats I put in my first post in this thread), but it's that putting these five things forward as the litmus test of adequate Christianity is both to miss much that is essential to Christianity, and to divorce your own understanding from that of the Church through the ages.
I sort of agree. It's five hot button issues from the very early 1900's. Nothing 'complete' about them. Correct enough as they stand, but not an adequate summary of the complete faith.
 
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Regarding number 1 St. Paul says:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

1 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV

So how does Paul’s reference to the Jewish scripture in anyway justify statement 1? I agree with Paul they are useful for teaching etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
So how does Paul’s reference to the Jewish scripture in anyway justify statement 1? I agree with Paul they are useful for teaching etc.
He says “all scripture.” Seeing as God saw fit to preserve that line in the Bible, we can logically infer it refers to the entire Bible, not just the Old Testament.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
He says “all scripture.” Seeing as God saw fit to preserve that line in the Bible, we can logically infer it refers to the entire Bible, not just the Old Testament.

No you can’t in my opinion, Paul could not be talking about scripture that didn’t exist. Wishful thinking at best for someone trying to prove the unprovable.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,787
Pacific Northwest
✟728,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Other than dress codes this pretty straight Protestant i haven't read the Catechism is it bylaws further explanation are all the same?

Lutherans don't have dress codes. The use of vestments by clergy and lay ministers isn't a "dress code".

The Lutheran Confessions are found in the Book of Concord, which includes Luther's Small and Large Catechisms; but arguably the most important confessional text in Lutheranism is the Augsburg Confession. This was the confession read out loud at Augsburg before the Holy Roman Emperor in which the Lutherans set the record straight as to what they (we) believed, in contrast to what many were saying against them. In the Augsburg Confession we read this:

"This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches.
" - Augsburg Confession, Article XXI, 5-15

We are thoroughly Catholic in our faith and practice; what is rejected are those things which were regarded as late innovations, abuses, and in some cases those things which while not inherently problematic were done away with in order to avoid abuse. But as to what had been taught and confessed by the unanimous confession of the historic catholic Church, we did not do away with it.

I find it strange all have the same belief in the Rapture as stated you must have to believe that to
be a Lutheran is that correct and no room for debate?

Lutheranism doesn't believe in "the rapture" because no such doctrine existed until the early 19th century.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Regardless of your denominational affiliation, do you affirm and believe the five so-called fundamentals?

Here they are:

1. That the Bible is inspired and without error.

2. That Jesus Christ is God.

3. That Jesus was born to a virgin.

4. That Jesus died as a substitutionary atonement for our sins.

5. That Jesus literally died, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will return to earth.

Point #1 needs this addition for me to agree with all 5 points: 'That the Bible is inspired (breathed out by God) and without error in the original manuscripts'.

I do not accept that any translation is breathed out by God, whether that be the Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe's Bible, the 1611 KJV, Douay-Rheims, NAB, JB, NRSV, NIV or NLT.

Oz
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Actually I do. I don't like the wording of number four but I'm able to track with all five. J. Gresham Machen and the other founders of the movement got some things right.

chevy,

Good to see you posting here!

What do you think would be a better biblical summary statement of #4?

Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Inspired, yes. "Without error" - if by that you mean literal readings of it trump complex understandings of science or critical readings of history - no. But without error in what it teaches us of God and salvation, yes.

Paidiske,

How do you deal with 2 Tim 3:16 (NIV), 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness'.

Here's the Greek: 16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ]ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,

θεόπνευστος, theopneustos, means 'God-breathed'.

The meaning of γραφὴ, graphḗ, is 'writing or scripture'. See the article: 'The meaning of Theopneustos'.

It's important to note theopneustos is not a verb, but an adjective, so the translation, 'God-breathed Scripture', is suitable. Since ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is 'useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness', what is the origin of this Scripture?

God himself. What are three of the defining attributes of God?

  1. 'so that we who have found refuge in him may find strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us through two unchangeable things, since it is impossible for God to lie' Heb 6:18 NET).
  2. Deut 32:3-4 (ESV): 'For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God!
    “The Rock, his work is perfect,
    for all his ways are justice.
    A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
    just and upright is he
    '.
  3. Isa 65:16 (ESV): 'so that he who blesses himself in the land shall bless himself by the God of truth, and he who takes an oath in the land shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten and are hidden from my eyes'.
That describes attributes of the God who gave us the 'God-breathed Scripture'. He is the God who,
  • cannot lie;
  • his work is perfect;
  • All his ways are justice;
  • He is faithful and there is no iniquity [sin] in him;
  • He is just and upright;
  • He is the God of truth.
Therefore, it is a logical correlation that this God should provide Scripture that is perfect, without sin - and thus, inerrant.

It would be an oxymoron for the God who cannot lie and is the God of truth, to provide God-breathed Scripture in the original documents that cannot be trusted to be without error.

Oz
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I don't see Scripture as lying or imperfect on its own terms. I just object to allegories being read as a science textbook, for example.

Could you please give an example of what you are addressing with those statements?

What does 'on its own terms' mean?

What allegories are Christians reading as a science text book? To which allegories do you refer?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0