Fundamentalism

[Pinker]

Hello everyone,

I've been wondering this question as of late because I am genuinely concerned with those who hold to beliefs that contradict scripture. Can someone be a Christian yet reject doctrines like:

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Is everyone who believes Jesus is the messiah a Christian with the Spirit of God living in them? Can we say those who believe unbiblical doctrines--like evolution, universalism, or that homosexuality is not sin--are actually saved? Where do we draw the line and say "this person is a born-again Child of God," and "this person is not"?

Obviously everyone who rejects Jesus is unsaved, but what about those who profess him yet distort and reject scripture? Can the Spirit of Truth be in a person who rejects the simple truths of Fundamentalism?

I'd appreciate any feedback.
Thanks!

I have been kind of wondering the same things. However, my questions are a bit different. I am seeing that sin is no longer sin in so many ways. Living together outside of marriage...going to bars and clubs, drinking, homosexuality,etc. are things I grew up believing were wrong, with scriptural proof, the one thing that I keep going back to is "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever." Perhaps a lot of "Christians" just don't see it that way, and just think that things have evolved?

 

[Jorge]

That is an excellent question, critically important question which, unfortunately, does not receive the attention that it should.
Fundamentalism recognizes that people are saved by and through the blood of Jesus at his will. Because he is not a respecter of persons, you cannot manipulate your statement of faith enough to get saved. Those saying otherwise are adding to the blood of Christ.

It is presumptuous to believe that as soon as someone is saved that they magically adhere to the beliefs of Fundamentalist statements of faith. Since people learn with time and study, they may currently believe many things different. Too often people are chased away from Fundamentalist churches for not having proper views rather than being taught from the scriptures.

Being saved is the *beginning* of the process of sanctification, not the end. It is true, as you say, that at different times during that process people will believe many different things. That is not the issue. The issue is those that purposefully distort and interpret Scripture in a manner that "clearly" -- not just clearly to *me* but to anyone that understands plain language -- opposes what the words plainly say. There's a great deal of that going on, especially nowadays. In a previous post I gave the example of man-to-man marriage (God does NOT approve!). That's not *my* interpretation - it's the interpretation of anyone that understands basic language.

 

[Jorge]

Crystal clear to you, but it is still interpretation based on the subjectivity of mind. More is needed (historical interpretation, ecumenical agreement, etc) to define something as "clear" beyond any individual or group's feelings about what the Scriptures say.

Sounds to me like you're some kind of Nihilist. I mean, if we cannot even agree to basic objective language for communication then why are you bothering to write posts here. Any one of us could respond to you by saying, "Well, that's YOUR subjective mind, not mine" and shoo you away. The fact of the matter is that we are able to communicate because there are certain language agreements that are regarded as "objective". Some are more solid, others are less, but the fact that we live in a society and communicate routinely tells us that objectivity exists. That is what makes certain writings "clear". If you seek "everything must be crystal clear to everyone at all times" then (1) you'll never get there and, (2) you will always be able to use that "subjectivity" excuse for not accepting what you don't wish to accept.

 

[Jorge]

I have been kind of wondering the same things. However, my questions are a bit different. I am seeing that sin is no longer sin in so many ways. Living together outside of marriage...going to bars and clubs, drinking, homosexuality,etc. are things I grew up believing were wrong, with scriptural proof, the one thing that I keep going back to is "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever." Perhaps a lot of "Christians" just don't see it that way, and just think that things have evolved?

Correct - that goes with the crux of what I've been posting here so far. Distortions of what is plainly written and reinterpretations so as to conform to specific agendas - those are the things that abound today. Say a man wants to call himself a "Christian" yet marry another man --- boy, that presents a dilemma. The solution is "easy" -- simply distort/reinterpret those portions of God's Word that make it possible to have both and, voila, the "magic" has been performed! Of course, there's no chance at all that such actions will make it past God's Judgement - those people are deluding themselves.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

There is no "one-size-fits-all" answer to your question. I treat everything on a case-by-case basis - the particular circumstances and individuals all contribute to the overall situation. The main point remains: God will be displeased (rightfully so) if we - His followers - remain inert while wrongdoing and sin are happening around us. "By their fruits ye shall know them". If we display no fruits then what are we?

How is "living a life pleasing to God" not displaying fruits? You have also failed to answer my simple question to you about what, precisely, we are supposed to do beyond what I suggested.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Sounds to me like you're some kind of Nihilist. I mean, if we cannot even agree to basic objective language for communication then why are you bothering to write posts here.

Communication does not require objectivity in order to be successful. Language has no objective meaning; it is an agreement between persons upon what meaning linguistic symbols should embody; however, the history of language clearly shows that meaning changes over time, not to mention the fact that not everyone uses the agreed-upon symbols the same way as everyone else.

Any one of us could respond to you by saying, "Well, that's YOUR subjective mind, not mine" and shoo you away.

If one would want to take an uncritical approach to the subject, sure. But the subjectivity of language is no reason to stop discussion, given that the supposed "objectivity" of language is impossible to establish.

The fact of the matter is that we are able to communicate because there are certain language agreements that are regarded as "objective".

Regarding a thing as objective, and the thing being objective in and of itself are universes apart in meaningfulness. People use the word "objectivity" as if it is a commodity; but it is the most illusory of concepts, given the inherent subjectivity of human thinking.

Some are more solid, others are less, but the fact that we live in a society and communicate routinely tells us that objectivity exists.

And...so what? Society claiming that "objectivity" exists does not establish the existence of the same; just as people telling their children that Santa Claus exists does not change his lack of existence.

That is what makes certain writings "clear".

What is it that makes certain writings clear? A herd mentality that assigns objectivity to something when it cannot be reasonably established by any measurable criteria? That is not clarity; it is self-delusion.

If you seek "everything must be crystal clear to everyone at all times" then (1) you'll never get there and, (2) you will always be able to use that "subjectivity" excuse for not accepting what you don't wish to accept.

I'm not suggesting that everything must be crystal clear. I'll remind you that it is you who claimed that there are things in Scripture which are "crystal clear"; I was merely pointing out your failed logic in making such claims.

 

[sparow]

Hello everyone,

I've been wondering this question as of late because I am genuinely concerned with those who hold to beliefs that contradict scripture. Can someone be a Christian yet reject doctrines like:

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Is everyone who believes Jesus is the messiah a Christian with the Spirit of God living in them? Can we say those who believe unbiblical doctrines--like evolution, universalism, or that homosexuality is not sin--are actually saved? Where do we draw the line and say "this person is a born-again Child of God," and "this person is not"?

Obviously everyone who rejects Jesus is unsaved, but what about those who profess him yet distort and reject scripture? Can the Spirit of Truth be in a person who rejects the simple truths of Fundamentalism?

I'd appreciate any feedback.
Thanks!

To be saved one has to have his name in the book of life and does anyone really knows. One of the main requirements is to keep the commandments; one has to be born again; Christ lists some things that will prevent one entering the kingdom of God: wearing one's own garments; being unclean; being Lawless; following men into the ditch.

The scriptures are the bread of life and are themselves doctrine but are not suitable for basing doctrine on which translates to own garments; if the scriptures are distorted they will give one diarrhoea.

 

[spinner981]

To be saved one has to have his name in the book of life and does anyone really knows. One of the main requirements is to keep the commandments; one has to be born again; Christ lists some things that will prevent one entering the kingdom of God: wearing one's own garments; being unclean; being Lawless; following men into the ditch.

The scriptures are the bread of life and are themselves doctrine but are not suitable for basing doctrine on which translates to own garments; if the scriptures are distorted they will give one diarrhoea.

Maybe it's obvious to everyone else already, but wearing ones own garments as supposed to God's garments is synonymous with being unsaved, not washed in the blood of Christ. Everywhere the Bible mentions things that would cause a person to be unsaved, they are basically synonymous with simply not receiving salvation from Christ.

 

[1213]

Hello everyone,

I've been wondering this question as of late because I am genuinely concerned with those who hold to beliefs that contradict scripture. Can someone be a Christian yet reject doctrines like: ...

If Christian means disciple of Jesus, Jesus should be the one who defines Christian. And Jesus defines Christian by this:

"If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

Maybe we should settle to that.

 

[sparow]

Maybe it's obvious to everyone else already, but wearing ones own garments as supposed to God's garments is synonymous with being unsaved, not washed in the blood of Christ. Everywhere the Bible mentions things that would cause a person to be unsaved, they are basically synonymous with simply not receiving salvation from Christ.

I would say it is not obvious to everyone at all because most wear different garments than those provided by God, for example most have abrogated the Law which is basically abrogating God's garments.

Not saved is a consequence; wearing alternate garments to what God provides is synonymous with having a different form of righteousness as prophesied by Isaiah, or Lawlessness mentioned by Christ.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've been wondering this question as of late because I am genuinely concerned with those who hold to beliefs that contradict scripture. Can someone be a Christian yet reject doctrines like....

According to scripture, absolutely.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The immortality of the *body*, not a disembodied soul, is what Christians believe. A new creation is what's in store, not some etherial existence playing harps on clouds.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

The immortality of the *body*, not a disembodied soul, is what Christians believe. A new creation is what's in store, not some etherial existence playing haps on clouds.

I agree with you, but where did that come from in the context of this thread?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I agree with you, but where did that come from in the context of this thread?

"See, this is what I mean. I reject the immortality of the soul. . ."

 

[ClothedInGrace]

"See, this is what I mean. I reject the immortality of the soul. . ."

Right, I just couldn't tell who you were addressing. This thread is primarily concerned with Funamentalism; any thoughts on the subject you'd like to share? Can you be a Christian and reject the authority of scripture, the virgin birth, etc?

 

[Shempster]

I would not worry too much about things you cannot prove.
Just focus on the nature and character of Christ and you cannot go wrong.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this

• Virgin birth of Jesus

• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin

• Bodily resurrection of Jesus

• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

The bar for being a Christian is very low, and that's a good thing, and I'm very concerned about the same things you are. People seem to think that they can jettison anything they don't like fro scripture, from Christianity, yet still refer to themselves as Christians. It's mind-boggling.

 

[Shempster]

Hello everyone,

I've been wondering this question as of late because I am genuinely concerned with those who hold to beliefs that contradict scripture. Can someone be a Christian yet reject doctrines like:

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Is everyone who believes Jesus is the messiah a Christian with the Spirit of God living in them? Can we say those who believe unbiblical doctrines--like evolution, universalism, or that homosexuality is not sin--are actually saved? Where do we draw the line and say "this person is a born-again Child of God," and "this person is not"?

Obviously everyone who rejects Jesus is unsaved, but what about those who profess him yet distort and reject scripture? Can the Spirit of Truth be in a person who rejects the simple truths of Fundamentalism?

I'd appreciate any feedback.
Thanks!

The thing about fundamental truths is that they take on another appearance from another perspective.
We all think true Christianity looks a certain way because of our culture. Go to the other side of the world and Christianity looks much different.

I know you may think this is wrong but when we stand before Him, He will chuck out all of our beliefs...they don't matter in His testing of us!
He will look at our hearts and see if we have taken on the very nature of Christ or continued to obey the sin nature.

Seriously...I could see some people getting handsomely rewarded who aquired the nature of Christ but in their beliefs, thought his name was something else. See...it won't matter!

 

[DeaconDean]

But to claim that someone is "distorting the Scriptures" presupposes that there is a unified understanding of the whole of Scripture that is not open to debate. While there are certainly dogmatic formulations of proper theological belief (re: creeds, councilor pronouncements), interpretation of Scripture is still a difficult task, and is not immune to the subjectivity of mind. Therefore, one group's "distortion" is another's dogma, while the "errors" in another's thinking is often "the bible truth" to someone else. This historical church grappled (and continues to grapple) with this dynamic throughout its history, and often appealed to much more than the "scriptures alone" in determining the proper ways to think about God. But even in that regard, there is only a very thin layer of dogma within Christian orthodoxy, given the breadth of the Scriptures and human experience. This leaves an incredible amount of room for theological disagreement (but also theological innovation) without "distorting" the Scriptures.

See, I disagree.

There are some Word of Faith preachers who are "distorting" the scriptures.

Kenneth Hagin, “The death of Jesus Christ was not a physical death alone. If it had been a physical death, Abel would have paid the price for mankind. He was the first man that died because of honoring God and His Word. If it had been a physical death only, it wouldn't have worked! And if He hadn't died spiritually, that body never would have died.” (What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)

First and foremost, Abel was murdered, how could that have paid a "sin debt"?

Kenneth Copeland taught: "When His blood poured out, it did not atone. It did away with the handwriting of the ordinances that were against us." (K. Copeland, Form letter, March 12, 1979 )

Furthermore. Copeland also said: "Because his physical death was not enough for the payment of sins there was a another way for sins payment. Jesus put Himself into the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did [when he sinned].” (Kenneth Copeland, The Incarnation (Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-0402) side 1.)

Here all this time I thought the scriptures said Jesus cried out "Father, into Thy hands I commit My Spirit."

Kenneth Copeland also said: "Jesus death on the cross was not enough to save us.” (What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303), (Believer's Voice of Victory, September 1991)

But what did Paul say in 1 Cor. 1:18?

Distorting the scriptures?!? There are plenty of people, preachers doing that.

God Bless

Till all are one.