"Fundamentalist" as a term of abuse

[Gregory Thompson]

Nope. Is a red herring. Peter's verse compares God's patience to a thousand years, it does not state that a day to God IS a thousand years.

Not really, it just means it could be longer than 1000 years . thus giving more profound meaning to the title God is given "Ancient of Days"

The way it works out for me is .. i look at the genesis account and see the light that God measures time by formed before the stars sun and moon were formed on the fourth day . since we don't see the light source that was covered up on the fourth day .. that it is "like" a thousand years is apt . meaning it isn't exactly 1000 years (it may infact be more) .. as the OT also renders a thousand years is "like a watch in the night" to God. I don't have a problem looking at it that way . because the scripture provides plenty of evidence in the text to look at it that way . if you choose to look at it another way .. you are entitled to having your own point of view .. the internet is based in the free world .

We have 100% of the text in the original manuscripts.

we have 5000+ manuscripts . and a lot of debate between the KJV manuscripts and the more modern set used for all modern translations.

Taught by the early church and pre-Nicene ECFs. Go figure.

"let every man be persuaded in his own mind"

it is not written "let every man be persuaded because it was believed like this before"

 

[New_Wineskin]

This thread reminds me of an incident during my freshman year of college. I was a very young Christian at that time, having come out of a very liberal Presbyterian church. Next door to me in the dorm lived a very quiet, studious Baptist who used to slink off to church on Sunday so nobody would see him. One Sunday the resident Presbyterian liberal heard that we had a fundamentalist heretic living on our floor. He beat a path to my neighbor and ripped into him for quite some time until I poked my head in the door and told him to lay off with his Presbyterian liberalism. At that he glared at me and loudly accused me of being a FUNDAMENTALIST. I calmly told him, "So what if I am? What are you going to do about it?" At that the coward beat a quick retreat to his room.

The more liberal one is - the more fundy they become .
The same is true with secular conservatives and liberals ... the more liberal they are , the more unyielding , closeminded , irrational , and hateful they are .

 

[bbbbbbb]

The more liberal one is - the more fundy they become .
The same is true with secular conservatives and liberals ... the more liberal they are , the more unyielding , closeminded , irrational , and hateful they are .

Yes, that has been my own observation, as well.

 

[sunlover1]

Oh my goodness!!! Does that means I'm a Fundie?

Congratulations!!

 

[Jipsah]

I'm a Baptist, and a Fundamentalist.

Kinda gathered that.

In nearly 40 years of being a "Christian", was I ever required to study, or recite in church, any catechism or creed before they are admitted or accepted into a church.

So, in effect, you didn't have to demonstrate any substantial knowledge of the Faith your were professing at all. Right?

It is truely sad to me, that there are those who hold that the catechisms and creds are far and above the scriptures.

That's nonsense from those who don't have any clue what they're blathering about.

A Creed is a statement of belief, ie, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord..."

Now I make the rash assumption that you believe at least the things that I just quoted, because your beliefs come from the Bible, as do those of the Apostle's Creed, which I just quoted.

A catechism is a means of learning something, a set of questions and answers designed to teach the student something by memorization. For instance, this from the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q: Isn't Christ with us until the end of the world as he promised us?

A:Christ is truly human and truly God.
In his human nature Christ is not now on earth;
but in his divinity, majesty, grace, and Spirit
he is not absent from us for a moment.

The structure of a catechism provides an orderly way of answering the question, "What do we believe?" by giving answers drawn from Scripture. If my Campbellite friend had studied the Heidelberg Catechism, he'd have known better than to say we don't worship Christ.

Now y'all "no creeds!" folks don't have to use catechisms if you don't want to. Nobody has a gun to your head. But I 'spect your people would understand more about the Christian faith if you did.

 

[frogman2x]

Kinda gathered that.


Now y'all "no creeds!" folks don't have to use catechisms if you don't want to. Nobody has a gun to your head. But I 'spect your people would understand more about the Christian faith if you did.

Saying "we have no creeds" is a creed in itself.

kermit

 

[Pteriax]

I 'spect your people would understand more about the Christian faith if you did.

Doesn't seem to be doing much for you...

 

[Tzaousios]

Doesn't seem to be doing much for you...

Why not? Please be specific.

 

[Jipsah]

Doesn't seem to be doing much for you...

Any specific errors that I seem to be embracing, or was a cheap shot all you had time for?

 

[Jipsah]

Why not? Please be specific.

I think his answer was just a somewhat sanitized version of the old reliable argument that runs "Oh yeah? Well you stink!"

 

[Gnarwhal]

Doesn't seem to be doing much for you...

Oh c'mon, that's just petty and vindictive. You're doing wonders for your credibility right now.

 

[Joykins]

#75 ... so sad. Anti-intellectualism in the evangelical church is a real problem. It's a crisis.

Anti-intellectualism is at the heart of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism arose in reaction to the modernist, scholarly approach to Christianity that is generally known as liberal theology (which, historically, came first), which is why the "fundamentals" were chosen with the intent of refuting the tenets and findings of liberal theologians and secular scholars. That's not going to change. Of course evangelicals could eschew anti-intellectualism at the cost of losing their fundamentalist component.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Anti-intellectualism is at the heart of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism arose in reaction to the modernist, scholarly approach to Christianity that is generally known as liberal theology (which, historically, came first), which is why the "fundamentals" were chosen with the intent of refuting the tenets and findings of liberal theologians and secular scholars. That's not going to change. Of course evangelicals could eschew anti-intellectualism at the cost of losing their fundamentalist component.

It depends on what you consider fundamentalism to be.

 

[frogman2x]

Anti-intellectualism is at the heart of fundamentalism.

It is not. The basic reason for posting their 5 tennents was the same as those of the reformation---to return to a Bible based theology.

Fundamentalism arose in reaction to the modernist, scholarly approach to Christianity that is generally known as liberal theology (which, historically, came first), which is why the "fundamentals" were chosen with the intent of refuting the tenets and findings of liberal theologians and secular scholars.

That was a good thing because liberal theology tries to put doubt in the validity of God's word. Liberal theology did not come first. What God wrote came first. Why should anyone believe what man says when it contraditcs what God says?

That's not going to change. Of course evangelicals could eschew anti-intellectualism at the cost of losing their fundamentalist component.

How?

kermit

 

[Joykins]

Anti-intellectualism is at the heart of fundamentalism.

It is not. The basic reason for posting their 5 tennents was the same as those of the reformation---to return to a Bible based theology.

To "return" to a Bible-based theology as opposed to a theology that considered and incorporated modern scientific and scholarly discoveries. It was new because there had not previously been a lot of reason to believe that they were in conflict, although obviously there were the cases of scientists like Copernicus and Galileo.

Fundamentalism arose in reaction to the modernist, scholarly approach to Christianity that is generally known as liberal theology (which, historically, came first), which is why the "fundamentals" were chosen with the intent of refuting the tenets and findings of liberal theologians and secular scholars.

That was a good thing because liberal theology tries to put doubt in the validity of God's word. Liberal theology did not come first. What God wrote came first. Why should anyone believe what man says when it contraditcs what God says?

That logic is *precisely* why fundamentalism is anti-intellectual and this will never change. Thank you for demonstrating my point so exactly.

That's not going to change. Of course evangelicals could eschew anti-intellectualism at the cost of losing their fundamentalist component.

How?

Oh, would you stay with the evangelical church if it tried to incorporate modern scientific and scholarly discoveries, even if they contradict a literal reading of the Bible?

 

[frogman2x]

To "return" to a Bible-based theology as opposed to a theology that considered and incorporated modern scientific and scholarly discoveries. It was new because there had not previously been a lot of reason to believe that they were in conflict, although obviously there were the cases of scientists like Copernicus and Galileo.

There is no conflict between the Bible and science, old or new. Name one modern scientific scholary disovery that contradits the Bible. Be sure to include how it was proven. The conflict is between what evolution claims to be true and what the Bible refutes. I can scientifically prove more in the first chapter of Genesis than you can about all of waht evolution preaches.

That logic is *precisely* why fundamentalism is anti-intellectual and this will never change. Thank you for demonstrating my point so exactly.

You proving your point is only in your own mind. All you have done is make a statemen or two and think that means what you said is true. Yet you offerd no proof. Over the vears up to the day, some of the most intelligent people have been Christians who rejectd evolution. In factd many of the early scientists were Christians and if the Nobel Prize would have been given out in their day, they would have won it.

You really don't understand what fundamentalis is. You seem to put in the same category as the snake handling denominations.

Oh, would you stay with the evangelical church if it tried to incorporate modern scientific and scholarly discoveries, even if they contradict a literal reading of the Bible?

Here is where your ignoraqnce of evangelical Christianity is exposed. Most evangelical Christians DO NOT believe in a literal reading of all of the Bible.

The Bible uses every kind of literatry device we see in literary today. It uses allegory, metaphors, symbolism, metonymy,simile. parables etc.

In fact it uses one I have not seem in secular writings: types. The Bible says Adam was a type of Christ and there are other types as well.

We insist on a scholarly intepretation and my denomination(PCA)requires evey pastor to be a graduate of a conservative seminary. Most of them require the graduate to be proficient in Greek and Hebrew. So where is you anit-intellectualism now?

You have tried to paint us all with same brush and it is much to wide, and any intelligent person should know that.

k

 

[Joykins]

To "return" to a Bible-based theology as opposed to a theology that considered and incorporated modern scientific and scholarly discoveries. It was new because there had not previously been a lot of reason to believe that they were in conflict, although obviously there were the cases of scientists like Copernicus and Galileo.

There is no conflict between the Bible and science, old or new. Name one modern scientific scholary disovery that contradits the Bible. Be sure to include how it was proven. The conflict is between what evolution claims to be true and what the Bible refutes. I can scientifically prove more in the first chapter of Genesis than you can about all of waht evolution preaches.

I am not only talking about evolution, although the scientific evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. I am also talking about the rejection of higher criticism and its methods and discoveries.

Here is a complete list of the things I think the Bible says about evolution: .

You proving your point is only in your own mind. All you have done is make a statemen or two and think that means what you said is true. Yet you offerd no proof. Over the vears up to the day, some of the most intelligent people have been Christians who rejectd evolution. In factd many of the early scientists were Christians and if the Nobel Prize would have been given out in their day, they would have won it.

I'm not accusing anyone here of being stupid. Fundamentalists may be very intelligent (my brother, who is by any IQ measure smarter than me and a great guy btw, is an evangelical teetering on the edge of fundamentalism), but have deliberately limited the sources of knowledge that they deem acceptable. The Bible, inerrant, and interpreted literally in the special cases of the opening chapters of Genesis and the other items specified in the "Five Fundamentals," is the primary source and everything that does not appear to directly contradict it is secondary. Things that appear to directly contradict this viewpoint are deemed false by definition.

Here is where your ignoraqnce of evangelical Christianity is exposed. Most evangelical Christians DO NOT believe in a literal reading of all of the Bible.

The Bible uses every kind of literatry device we see in literary today. It uses allegory, metaphors, symbolism, metonymy,simile. parables etc.

And yet, in the conversations I have had with self-described fundamentalists here on CF, there is an absolute refusal to entertain the idea that Genesis 1-3 could be a creation myth with strong allegorical elements. They insist that the creation story must be literal and refused to entertain any other idea than that a man and a woman ate an actual fruit. The fact that the tree was named the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not significant to them to identify as a symbol. (You may believe something different; if you do, let me know and we can continue to discuss).

In fact it uses one I have not seem in secular writings: types. The Bible says Adam was a type of Christ and there are other types as well.

That's probably because typology is really more of a form of literary criticism than a kind of literary device.

We insist on a scholarly intepretation and my denomination(PCA)requires evey pastor to be a graduate of a conservative seminary. Most of them require the graduate to be proficient in Greek and Hebrew. So where is you anit-intellectualism now?

Learning 2 languages and getting a degree from a conservative seminary does not make anyone an intellectual. (It doesn't necessarily make them NOT one either, but these are not qualifications for intellectualism).

It should be pointed out that actual Christian conservative intellectuals (and yes, I am speaking with C.S. Lewis in mind), as well as major groups such as the Roman Catholic Church have been able to incorporate evolution into their worldviews without thinking it necessarily in conflict with historical orthodox Christianity.

You have tried to paint us all with same brush and it is much to wide, and any intelligent person should know that.

My original description was not of evangelicalism but fundamentalism. My statement was that IF evangelicalism wants to separate itself from anti-intellectualism, it needs to get rid of its fundamentalist components. To the extent it does not do this, it will continue to be anti-intellectual.

 

[Cjwinnit]

My original description was not of evangelicalism but fundamentalism. My statement was that IF evangelicalism wants to separate itself from anti-intellectualism, it needs to get rid of its fundamentalist components. To the extent it does not do this, it will continue to be anti-intellectual.

If you consider literal adherance to the ancient Creeds of the Church to be a fundamentalist position then make a badge for me and sign me up on the dotted line. Jesus Christ was God the Son, he died on the cross for the sins of the world, he bodily rose again, ascended to heaven and He rules. If I'm a fundamentalist for thinking that then consider me out of the closet

 

[Joykins]

If you consider literal adherance to the ancient Creeds of the Church to be a fundamentalist position then make a badge for me and sign me up on the dotted line. Jesus Christ was God the Son, he died on the cross for the sins of the world, he bodily rose again, ascended to heaven and He rules. If I'm a fundamentalist for thinking that then consider me out of the closet

That's not fundamentalism. That's historic orthodox Christianity. They are not the same.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you consider literal adherance to the ancient Creeds of the Church to be a fundamentalist position then make a badge for me and sign me up on the dotted line. Jesus Christ was God the Son, he died on the cross for the sins of the world, he bodily rose again, ascended to heaven and He rules. If I'm a fundamentalist for thinking that then consider me out of the closet

I do not see any tension between the literal adherence to the ancient Creeds of the Church and the five Fundamentals of Christianity. I stand in solidarity with all fundamentalists who embrace these things.