Fundamentalism

[DeaconDean]

Oh...just a question for my own understanding.

When the word "Fundamentalism" is being used here, is it "Fundamentalism" as defined by the Nicene Creed, or is it Fundamentalism as defined by Fundamentalists?

Because I like the 14 points of the 1878 Niagara Creed for Fundamentalists.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Upon further examination, I'm gonna make a statement shortly which might offend my Catholic brothers and sisters. First off, no offense is meant. Its just something that comes up as a result of a statement made earlier. And, if I were to meet the Pope face to face, there would be no way I would disrespect him. I would, however, show him all the respect a person in his high office is deserving of. But I also would in no way bow or kiss his ring either.

"Inspired" was used to describe the scriptures in a previous post.

I do hold "inspiration" dear. AS a Fundamentalist, this is one of my cherished beliefs. But in saying so, let me clairify. I believe that the original autographs, as penned by the Apostles and Prophets, to be "the inspired" word of God. What we have at best can be described as copies of copies.

As to "infallible", I do hold that if a person could follow all that the Bible teaches, it would be impossible to err. AS definded here:

It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose.

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility

But, why is it that some will subscribe to the "infallibility of the Pope" and not to the "infallibility" of the scriptures?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Geralt]

the essential doctrines of christianity which you listed below is not simply man-made but is based on the teachings of both christ and his apostles, in other words both the cornerstone (which is christ) and the foundation (which is the apostles) upon which the church of christ is built.

however our society does give everyone the right of preference from the clothes they wear, the food they eat, or even the religion they find convenient for themselves. they can even call themselves christians.

but the true followers of christ always abide with the vine.

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!

 

[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 ...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?

People
who trust in Jesus
still make mistakes.

 

[Tina W]

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!

You have to at least believe all of those things in roder to be a Christian.

 

[Albion]

People
who trust in Jesus still
still makes mistakes.

 

[theniceiceman]

It seems to me that there's 1000 different ways certain Scripture or aspects of the Christian life can be interpreted. Some people believe you can lose your salvation, some can't. Some people believe that you need to be baptized (in water), some don't. Some people believe Heaven and hell are real, some don't. Some people believe Paul's thorn was physical, some don't. Some people believe Christians can be possessed by demons, some don't. Some people believe we go to Heaven/hell immediately when we die, some don't. Some people believe speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift, some don't. Some people believe that believers can still speak in tongues/heal/perform miracles today some don't.

So, how do we know what's right? The majority of us, I would say, go by what we're taught. I've heard from numerous people that the Holy Spirit revealed to them through study and prayer that Universalism is true. I've also heard from people that have read the Bible, studied it, prayed over it, and came to the conclusion that annihilationism is true. And then there's other people who have studied the Bible, prayed, and came to the conclusion that hell is a real and eternal place of torment.

Why do people come to different conclusions? I don't know. If you ask them, they say it's what the Holy Spirit revealed, but then he seems to reveal something different to somebody else. We know that's not the case, so one of those people, logically, must be incorrect. But which one?

Christianity has been around for centuries. People have said their 'two cents' in various matters pertaining to it. Some of those cents stuck around and became popular--the Protestant Reformation, for example. Were Luther, Calvin, and the others right? Who can say?

I think anyone who believes in Jesus and what he did on the cross, and has a heart that loves and desires to please God, is good to go. It seems to me that the other things--the nitty-gritty details that people don't agree upon--aren't as important.

 

[Hieronymus]

Can the Spirit of Truth be in a person who rejects the simple truths of Fundamentalism?

The truths of the fundaments rather, the Bible being the fundament.

I hope it can be possible what you ask.
But i fail to see how.
I think the Bible and / or the faith is a "package deal".
Replace parts with naturalistic ideas and it will cause difficulties.

 

[Job8]

Where do we draw the line and say "this person is a born-again Child of God," and "this person is not"?

Only God knows the hearts, therefore only God can make that determination (as to who is a child of God). At the same time Christians can assess where others stand by how they regard and reverence Scripture.

For example, if the Bible plainly reveals that humans beings (and all creatures) are direct creations of God, and were fully functional as we see them today, and that man was created in the image and likeness of God, that automatically cancels evolution. If someone comes along and says "I am a Christian but I also believe in evolution" then that is not possible. Christians DO NOT DENY what God and Christ affirm.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I think anyone who believes in Jesus and what he did on the cross, and has a heart that loves and desires to please God, is good to go. It seems to me that the other things--the nitty-gritty details that people don't agree upon--aren't as important.

Right. Anyone who truly believes the Gospel is a saved person. However, I do think the nitty-gritty is important: maybe not in salvation, but certainly in our pursuit of God and His Truth. I just personally can't understand why someone with God's Spirit would be lead to reject certain truths.

 

[theniceiceman]

Right. Anyone who truly believes the Gospel is a saved person. However, I do think the nitty-gritty is important: maybe not in salvation, but certainly in our pursuit of God and His Truth. I just personally can't understand why someone with God's Spirit would be lead to reject certain truths.

Maybe because of a misunderstanding, or a lack of understanding. We're human and we aren't going to understand everything. I would suspect the reason God doesn't reveal every single answer to every single person is because He wants us to throw up our hands and say 'I don't have a clue what I'm doing, God, or what's right and what's not, so I just need to trust You and put it all in Your hands.' That can be really hard to do.

 

[Hoghead1]

Only God knows the hearts, therefore only God can make that determination (as to who is a child of God). At the same time Christians can assess where others stand by how they regard and reverence Scripture.

For example, if the Bible plainly reveals that humans beings (and all creatures) are direct creations of God, and were fully functional as we see them today, and that man was created in the image and likeness of God, that automatically cancels evolution. If someone comes along and says "I am a Christian but I also believe in evolution" then that is not possible. Christians DO NOT DENY what God and Christ affirm.

I don't think your post is fully appropriate here. You are casting undue aspersion on the character of your fellow Christians who do not agree with you. That is a major no-no in a serious theological discussion. It is true that any Christian scholar, no matter how much evidence presented, who dares disagree with the fundamentalist version of the Bible is automatically labeled a child of the Devil, ignorant, you name it. That's exactly what happened to Albert Schweitzer, who was a theologian before he became a physician. The problem is that fundamentalists fail to realize they are not the only possible version or dimension of Christianity. Christianity is not a monolithic religion, just one way. Christianity represents a plurality, a rich tapestry of divergent POV's. Unfortunately, there has been too much unnecessary fighting and blood shed because many become arrogant and intolerant, and assume their church is the one and only true church and everyone else is wrong. No one has a monopoly on God's truth, lest of all fundamentalists. That's why we have such a plurality. What may meet the spiritual needs of one Christian may not meet the needs of another. One God, many paths. Different stokes for different folks. The vast majority of Christians have no trouble accepting evolution. The big flab in England was resolved by the end of the nineteenth century. The only major exception is the American Bible Belt. What the Belt forgets is that it is going on certain fallible, man-made theories about how God may be related to Scripture. As such, they can and should be tested out. That is something fundamentalists are unwilling to do. Nobody comes to Scripture , with a blank mind. Everyone views Scripture through a lens. Many view Scripture through the lens of traditional church teachings. I is a foregone conclusion in their minds that Scripture is an inerrant witness. The way the Bible says things happened is exactly the way they did happen. No question about it. Anyone doubting or questioning this is a lost soul. In biblical studies, that is about the worst possible way to come to Scripture. You should come with an open mind, seek a more objective approach. You should view Scripture through the lens crated by a healthy skepticism for tradition. Maybe Scripture is inerrant, maybe not. Let's test it out and see. Now one test would be looking to what science has to say. Under the circumstances, it does not appear Scripture is an inerrant geophysical witness at all. Therefore, the rational conclusion is to is to understand that God did not intend Scripture to be a an accurate geophysical witness and with good reason. Of course, no fundamentalist will accept anything, no matter how rational, that deviates from their ideological version of the Bible. So all other fellow Christians who do are automatically denounced as heretics, you name it. I well recognize that the Bible Belt assumes it is automatically ticketed into Heaver, whereas all fellow Christians who hold with "eviloution" are bound for Hell. But I say, "Big deal? So what?" Under the circumstances, I am glad I am going to Hell, simply because I know I will be able to hobnob with as better-educated, higher-level clientele.

 

[Job8]

I don't think your post is fully appropriate here. You are casting undue aspersion on the character of your fellow Christians who do not agree with you.

Not character. Just beliefs. If someone comes along and says "I am a Christian, but I do NOT believe that Jesus is God", that is pure heresy, no matter how wonderful the character of the person holding to that belief.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I well recognize that the Bible Belt assumes it is automatically ticketed into Heaver, whereas all fellow Christians who hold with "eviloution" are bound for Hell. But I say, "Big deal? So what?" Under the circumstances, I am glad I am going to Hell, simply because I know I will be able to hobnob with as better-educated, higher-level clientele.

Not only do you stereotype anyone who believes the Bible as being from the Bible Belt, but you put words into our mouths that we do not say. I've never said that people who believe in evolution are going to hell, nor have I ever called anyone demon-possessed. You are very prideful as you think that everyone who believes the Bible is somehow less intellectual or less educated than you are. You are just offended that someone would actually believe God's word over what the world says is logical and rational. Newsflash! The cross has never been logical or rational to unbelievers! I've seen you share your beliefs, and even in this post you reveal a lot: you are a universalist and a pluralist who rejects the scriptures. Have I called you a heretic? No. Have I claimed you are demon-possessed? No. Have you claimed I'm an ignorant Bible Belt Fundamentalist? Yes, many times.

 

[Hoghead1]

Not only do you stereotype anyone who believes the Bible as being from the Bible Belt, but you put words into our mouths that we do not say. I've never said that people who believe in evolution are going to hell, nor have I ever called anyone demon-possessed. You are very prideful as you think that everyone who believes the Bible is somehow less intellectual or less educated than you are. You are just offended that someone would actually believe God's word over what the world says is logical and rational. Newsflash! The cross has never been logical or rational to unbelievers! I've seen you share your beliefs, and even in this post you reveal a lot: you are a universalist and a pluralist who rejects the scriptures. Have I called you a heretic? No. Have I claimed you are demon-possessed? No. Have you claimed I'm an ignorant Bible Belt Fundamentalist? Yes, many times.

Well, you keep obsessing on the point that those who hold with evolution are going against God's word and not good Christians. To you, we don't have any true faith and so you are automatically sentencing us to Hell. See, you just accused me, above, of rejecting Scripture , or at least your definition thereof. I never said Bible Belters were ignorant. I have said and will say that the Bible Belt is an anti-intellectual theology and faith. I have also said and wills ay that it is way behind the times because it wants to hang on to old-fashioned religion, actually praises it in song. "Gimme that old-fashioned religion." The big flap between evolution and the Bible was resolved way back at the end of teh nineteenth century, in England. So yes, the Bible Belt is hanging on to the 19th-century natural theology, which the vast majority of Christians moved forward from years ago. It is also the case that historically, fundamentalists have been extremely intolerant of scholars who disagree with them. Read about Schweitzer, for example.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Well, you keep obsessing on the point that those who hold with evolution are going against God's word and not good Christians. To you, we don't have any true faith and so you are automatically sentencing us to Hell. See, you just accused me, above, of rejecting Scripture , or at least your definition thereof. I never said Bible Belters were ignorant. I have said and will say that the Bible Belt is an anti-intellectual theology and faith. I have also said and wills ay that it is way behind the times because it wants to hang on to old-fashioned religion, actually praises it in song. "Gimme that old-fashioned religion." The big flap between evolution and the Bible was resolved way back at the end of teh nineteenth century, in England. So yes, the Bible Belt is hanging on to the 19th-century natural theology, which the vast majority of Christians moved forward from years ago. It is also the case that historically, fundamentalists have been extremely intolerant of scholars who disagree with them. Read about Schweitzer, for example.

I have no authority to say whether someone will end up in hell or not, as God's grace is able to save anyone at any time. I never said people who believe in evolution have no faith or can't be saved, but I do personally think they are going against the clear teachings of the Bible. My authority being the Bible, I do have problems with those who hold to teachings that clearly contradict it, but I've never condemned anyone for that.

Btw: You know Bible Belt is a generic term for the religious southeastern United States, right? The Bible Belt has no unified theology and faith. You saying that me or anyone else is from the Bible Belt is stereotyping us as ignorant southerns.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have no authority to say whether someone will end up in hell or not, as God's grace is able to save anyone at any time. I never said people who believe in evolution have no faith or can't be saved, but I do personally think they are going against the clear teachings of the Bible. My authority being the Bible, I do have problems with those who hold to teachings that clearly contradict it, but I've never condemned anyone for that.

Btw: You know Bible Belt is a generic term for the religious southeastern United States, right? The Bible Belt has no unified theology and faith. You saying that me or anyone else is from the Bible Belt is stereotyping us as ignorant southerns.

The Bible Belt is more than a geographical location, it is a state of mind. You don't have to live in the south to be into Bible Belt faith, anymore than you have to live in the South to be into country music or Dixieland or anything else " southern." Again, I didn't say you were ignorant. It's just that I have a hard time accepting the notion that the society that brought the Scopes Trial represents the most scientifically minded, tolerant, rational, up-to-date form of Christianity on the planet. William Jennings Bryant was an intelligent, brilliant man. But up-to-date, taking science with sufficient seriousness, moving beyond 19-century natural theology, I just don't think so.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

The Bible Belt is more than a geographical location, it is a state of mind. You don't have to live in the south to be into Bible Belt faith, anymore than you have to live in the South to be into country music or Dixieland or anything else " southern." Again, I didn't say you were ignorant. It's just that I have a hard time accepting the notion that the society that brought the Scopes Trial represents the most scientifically minded, tolerant, rational, up-to-date form of Christianity on the planet. William Jennings Bryant was an intelligent, brilliant man. But up-to-date, taking science with sufficient seriousness, moving beyond 19-century natural theology, I just don't think so.

I think there is a big misunderstanding about what Fundamentalism actually is. Many think that to be a Fundamentalist means that you are a religious zealot who doesn't think, and while there certainly are people like that from every faith, Fundamentalism is not synonymous with closed-minded religious intolerance. Fundamentalism is simply holding to the fundamental beliefs in a given faith, and for Christianity that is things like the inerrancy of scripture and the atoning work of Christ. I call myself a Fundamentalist because I believe in those things. I wasn't raised to be one, and I don't hate people who aren't Fundamentalists. There need not be all this extra baggage thrown in with the term. You prefer to believe the secular world regarding how humanity came to be, and I choose to believe the Genesis account of creation; there need not be any intolerance or hatred towards one another.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think there is a big misunderstanding about what Fundamentalism actually is. Many think that to be a Fundamentalist means that you are a religious zealot who doesn't think, and while there certainly are people like that from every faith, Fundamentalism is not synonymous with closed-minded religious intolerance. Fundamentalism is simply holding to the fundamental beliefs in a given faith, and for Christianity that is things like the inerrancy of scripture and the atoning work of Christ. I call myself a Fundamentalist because I believe in those things. I wasn't raised to be one, and I don't hate people who aren't Fundamentalists. There need not be all this extra baggage thrown in with the term. You prefer to believe the secular world regarding how humanity came to be, and I choose to believe the Genesis account of creation; there need not be any intolerance or hatred towards one another.

Well, maybe, just maybe, you and I agree, but the truth of teh matter is that many fundamentalists do not. That is well evidenced on this site by the derogatory language and inflammatory personal attacks they launch. And I could cite any one of a number of other, more dramatic examples. Did you read about Schweitzer? Are you aware that fundamentalist colleges will tell you right on their job application form that they will not hire or tolerant any faculty who believe in evolution, or, for that matter, permit women to teach theology? Check out Cedarville University, for example. So don't give me this line that fundamentalists aren't intolerant.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Well, maybe, just maybe, you and I agree, but the truth of teh matter is that many fundamentalists do not. That is well evidenced on this site by the derogatory language and inflammatory personal attacks they launch. And I could cite any one of a number of other, more dramatic examples. Did you read about Schweitzer? Are you aware that fundamentalist colleges will tell you right on their job application form that they will not hire or tolerant any faculty who believe in evolution, or, for that matter, permit women to teach theology? Check out Cedarville University, for example. So don't give me this line that fundamentalists aren't intolerant.

I just think it is a mistake to associate any ideology or theology with the people who hold to it. Sure, there are many intolerant and hateful Fundamentalists, but that doesn't mean Fundamentalism is the problem. I dislike hypocritical Christians just as much as you do.