"Fundamentalist" as a term of abuse

[Stone Butterfly]

I think there is enough abuse and disrespect among people of the world already. It is a terrible testimony that Christians would choose to abuse one another. And especially over the fundamentals, or the label that attaches, as relates to the faith in Christ.

 

[Jipsah]

Well, I see nothing wrong with being fundamentalist, people that have a problem with that are deluded.

Again, the problem with fundamentalism is that they've missed the actual fundamentals, as contained in the Creeds of the Church, and substituted some made-up "fundamentals", some of which have little or nothing to do with the Christian Faith.

 

[Pteriax]

Again, the problem with fundamentalism is that they've missed the actual fundamentals, as contained in the Creeds of the Church, and substituted some made-up "fundamentals", some of which have little or nothing to do with the Christian Faith.

I think you are confusing fundamentalists with Catholics, LOL!

 

[Gnarwhal]

My beef with the Fundamentalists is that I don't agree with them on what constitutes a fundamental belief of the Faith. Mine are pretty easy - the ancient Creeds of the Church: The Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Fundys, however, seem insistent on having "fundamentals" that aren't actually essential to the Faith, and in some cases aren't even true.

For instance, Fundamentalists insist on a literal reading of Genesis, and the belief in a young Earth. I don't believe that Genesis was ever meant to be understood literally, and the notion of a young Earth appears to me to fly in the face of observable data. Neither of those things seems to me to have diddly to do with faith in Jesus Christ.

While Fundamentalists insist on Genesis being literal, they're just as insistent the Scriptures involving the institution of the Eucharist must be taken symbolically, and absolutely reject the Real Presence. Thus it appears that they take an altogether dogmatic view of stuff that doesn't have any real soteriological significance, and dismiss with an airy wave of the hand matters that are of ultimate importance to Christians, the very Words of Christ Himself. They seem to have somehow gotten things back to front and wrong side out.

As for what atheists say about Christians, how could anyone possibly care less? These are folks who cling to a notion that, if taken to its logical conclusion, can support nothing but either solipsism or the complete abandonment of any kind of epistemology at all. On one path they're stranded at the Cartesian "Cogito" and incapable of moving away from it in any direction. On the other path, since all the universe is simply a product of the random interaction of particles and energies, then all "knowledge" goes out the window, all of it being equally meaningless.

The atheist gets to say, " I think, therefore I exist." and stop there, unable to escape the universe inside his own head, of he can say nothing at all, since his every word and thought is, with all else in the universe, a random phenomenon.

So there.

Brilliantly written, I agree with this completely.

When I think of fundamentalists, I can't help but think of folks like Fred Phelps. Granted, not all fundamentalists are like him, but most of those who claim some brand of fundamental Christianity they have come across as militant as he is.

 

[Dunban]

Being militant for Jesus is the only way to be.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't see covetousness, by definition, as an accurate term for what you are describing in employing it.

Perhaps, "Egoism", better fits. Along with any number of synonyms associated with.

Covetousness[N] [T] http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/covetousness.htmla strong desire after the possession of worldly things ( Colossians 3:5 ; Ephesians 5:5 ; Hebrews 13:5 ; 1 Timothy 6:9 1 Timothy 6:10 ; Matthew 6:20 ). It assumes sometimes the more aggravated form of avarice, which is the mark of cold-hearted worldliness.

it's defo covetousness in that inward way. it's a coveting of their own way being everyone elses way.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Jipsah

Again, the problem with fundamentalism is that they've missed the actual fundamentals, as contained in the Creeds of the Church, and substituted some made-up "fundamentals", some of which have little or nothing to do with the Christian Faith.
​

I think you are confusing fundamentalists with Catholics, LOL!

You mean they aren't the same?




.

 

[frogman2x]

Again, the problem with fundamentalism is that they've missed the actual fundamentals, as contained in the Creeds of the Church, and substituted some made-up "fundamentals", some of which have little or nothing to do with the Christian Faith.

Most are not familiar whit the the origin of the term and use in as referring to those who insist on a literal interprettion of the Bible and that is not how they started out.


The original fundamenntalist insisted on 5 basic principles.

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy 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

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". In practice, the first point regarding the Bible was the focus of most of the controversy.*

*Source: Wikepedia.

I bet you accept those 5 principles and if you do, you are a fundamentalist.

kermit

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The original fundamenntalist insisted on 5 basic principles.

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this (inerrancy is unbiblical )

Virgin birth of Jesus (Of course Jesus was a virgin when he was born, aren't we all? )

Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin (I don't believe substitution atonement, it paints God as an unregenerate human)

Bodily resurrection of Jesus (yepp got me there)

Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus (Yepp i believe in miracles .. where ya from .. )


I think where the other definition comes from is .. that some of the fundamentalist beliefs were cultural constructs . and since they've since become antiquated .. it causes those who still believe those "five points" to become angry at how others have moved on from their opinions on how to read the scripture . With the exception of of the Resurrection one, that one's pretty standard throughout the ages .

What's antiquated about the Miracles one is it is only in the past tense, so it's not authentic Christianity.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Being militant for Jesus is the only way to be.

Disagree.

I imagine you're a Fred Phelps fan then?

 

[Jipsah]

I think you are confusing fundamentalists with Catholics, LOL!

Not a bit of it. We're talking about the folks who insist that Christians must believe that God created the universe in six 86,400 second days, but who ain't all that killin' sure about the Incarnation. Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not a bit of it. We're talking about the folks who insist that Christians must believe that God created the universe in six 86,400 second days, but who ain't all that killin' sure about the Incarnation. Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels!

I love your strawmen! One of the reasons I left the UPCUSA was because they had officially rejected the Five Fundamentals of their faith in 1929.

 

[Jipsah]

I bet you accept those 5 principles and if you do, you are a fundamentalist.

WE don't agree at all on what Scriptural inerrancy means. Most if not all fundys insist on a literal reading of genesis, which I find ridiculous. This is especially true in light of St. Peter's statement that God not only reckons time differently than we do, but that the difference is so profound that what we'd call a single day might equate to 1000 years in "God's Time", but that at the same time, what we'd count as 1000 years might only represent a single day to God.

There are other differences as well, but that one serves to illustrate my objection to Fundamentalism's view of what are fundamentals. I still see no reason to make up new rules when the Creeds have stood for centuries upon centuries, and have been accepted as true where ever people name the Name of Christ.

My assumption is that fundies felt the need to make up a truncated set of confessions because they felt that the Creeds were just too Catholic for their comfort. I find that kind of partisan motivation annoying at best, and diabolical at worst.

 

[Jipsah]

I love your strawmen! One of the reasons I left the UPCUSA was because they had officially rejected the Five Fundamentals of their faith in 1929.

"Splain to me what it is that you're rejecting as a strawman. An when I was a Korean Presbyterian, which is under the umbrella of the PCUSA in this country, we accepted all the Creeds as true. Do your 5 Fundamentals somehow trump the Creeds?

 

[Albion]

Most are not familiar whit the the origin of the term and use in as referring to those who insist on a literal interprettion of the Bible and that is not how they started out.


The original fundamenntalist insisted on 5 basic principles.

Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy 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

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". In practice, the first point regarding the Bible was the focus of most of the controversy.*

*Source: Wikepedia.

I bet you accept those 5 principles and if you do, you are a fundamentalist.

kermit

There are many here who actually do not accept all of those, but the notion (expressed by Jipsah) that they "have little or nothing to do with the Christian Faith" floors me.

 

[Jipsah]

There are many here who actually do not accept all of those, but the notion (expressed by Jipsah) that they "have little or nothing to do with the Christian Faith" floors me.

OK, I'll bite. What does it matter from a Christian perspective whether God took six days, six thousand years, or six minutes, to create the universe?

 

[prov1810]

WE don't agree at all on what Scriptural inerrancy means. Most if not all fundys insist on a literal reading of genesis, which I find ridiculous. This is especially true in light of St. Peter's statement that God not only reckons time differently than we do, but that the difference is so profound that what we'd call a single day might equate to 1000 years in "God's Time", but that at the same time, what we'd count as 1000 years might only represent a single day to God.

There are other differences as well, but that one serves to illustrate my objection to Fundamentalism's view of what are fundamentals. I still see no reason to make up new rules when the Creeds have stood for centuries upon centuries, and have been accepted as true where ever people name the Name of Christ.

My assumption is that fundies felt the need to make up a truncated set of confessions because they felt that the Creeds were just too Catholic for their comfort. I find that kind of partisan motivation annoying at best, and diabolical at worst.

The IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) has nothing on creation in their statement of faith, but you are correct that many fundamentalists do interpret the creation account literally.

Denominations and independent churches aren't disowning the Ecumenical Councils by making their own confessions. Conservative Protestants usually consider these creeds to be normative. Fundamentalists vary on this because of independent polity and not recognizing any authority other than the local church. However, an IFCA statement on doctrine says, "Out of these councils came declarations of the Christian faith from which we find a basis for defending the historical fundamentals of the Christian faith."

 

[Albion]

The IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) has nothing on creation in their statement of faith, but you are correct that many fundamentalists do interpret the creation account literally.

Denominations and independent churches aren't disowning the Ecumenical Councils by making their own confessions. Conservative Protestants usually consider these creeds to be normative. Fundamentalists vary on this because of independent polity and not recognizing any authority other than the local church. However, an IFCA statement on doctrine says, "Out of these councils came declarations of the Christian faith from which we find a basis for defending the historical fundamentals of the Christian faith."

You're right, but the bigger point is that people use the word to describe what they think MOST fundamentalists believe as individuals...but, true or not, such matters as a six-day creation are not part of the definition of fundamentalism.

 

[Tzaousios]

You're right, but the bigger point is that people use the word to describe what they think MOST fundamentalists believe as individuals...but, true or not, such matters as a six-day creation are not part of the definition of fundamentalism.

I would think that fundamentalists such as dad and AV1611VET would disagree with you if they saw this.

 

[Pteriax]

Not a bit of it. We're talking about the folks who insist that Christians must believe that God created the universe in six 86,400 second days, but who ain't all that killin' sure about the Incarnation. Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels!

That technically is not one of the fundamentals, although it is very common in fundamentalist groups. Which does make it a straw man argument as one pointed out already.