How fundamentalist are YECs?

[laptoppop]

The poll and thread title just kind of bug me -- I think its because of labels, like vossler pointed out, and too restricted/undefined terms. I wonder what the feelings would be about a thread "How liberal are TEs?" Just as YECs tend to be conservative in biblical interpretation, I wouldn't be surprised to see a loose correlation between TEs and a more general interpretation model.
-lee-

 

[Willtor]

Willtor's Classify Yourself Thread indicates that TEs are pretty well distributed.

 

[laptoppop]

Willtor's Classify Yourself Thread indicates that TEs are pretty well distributed.

Excellent point. I wonder if the distribution would be the same with more definition of terms, but the survey results speak for themselves.
-lee-

 

[charityagape]

Historicist interpretation of prophecy

Not to sound stupid, but what do you mean by this?

Literal end-time tribulation and Antichrist

Agree.

The Rapture

Agree, but don't condisder it an essential point.

Dispensationalism

Don't agree.

Pro-Israel policy

Agree.

Brain dead (eg. Terri Schivo) should be kept alive by feeding tube

Wow. That's a difficult one.

Home schooling

Absolutely agree, keeping in mind that people shouldn't be isolationist and that sending your children to public school doesn't make you "evil".

King James is the most reliable Bible version

Don't agree and how silly.

Christians shouldn’t drink alcohol or smoke

I think moderate drinking is fine and not condemned by the bible, and hypothetically speaking smoking moderate tobacco (natural) tobacco would be fine, however, the pack of marborols (sp?) is rat poison.

 

[jereth]

Not to sound stupid, but what do you mean by this?

To explain historicism, it will also help to explain the alternatives.
Preterism = All prophecy only relates to the immediate setting of the prophet
Historicism = Prophecy is a detailed synopsis of historical events from the prophet's time to the end of the world
Futurism = Prophecy only relates to the very last things, surrounding the return of Jesus
Idealism = Prophecy is based on the prophet's immediate setting, but has general application in every age

These terms are normally used in studies of Revelation. So preterism holds that all of Revelation's content is about events in 1st century Asia minor; historicism holds that Revelation is a chart of history from the 1st century till the return of Christ; futurism holds that Revelation 4 onwards is only about the very last things; idealism holds that Revelation can be applied in every age of church history.

Historicism is often (but not always) closely allied with premilennialism and dispensationalism. It was very popular from the Reformation until roughly the 19th century, when Preterism and Idealism came into vogue. Historicism has a tendency to find contemporary events (eg. the Pope, the United States, the UN, the European Union) in the book of Revelation.

In my experience, historicism has remained popular in churches that might be labelled "fundamentalist" - hence I included it in this poll. Neo-evangelicalism and neo-orthodoxy (especially outside the US) tend to be more idealist these days, while liberalism tends to be more preterist. (I acknowledge these are generalisations)

 

[jereth]

I’ll go ahead and do the best I can to play along. My definition, and the one most commonly used to define a fundamentalist, says that I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and its authority, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles.

This is probably a very accurate historical definition of a "fundamentalist". However, it seems that contemporary fundamentalism has evolved to encompass dispensationalism and (dare I say) YECism as key ingredients. The poll seems to tentatively support this (hopefully we'll get more voters soon)

People who agree to virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection etc. but without dispensationalism/YECism would nowadays be more likely to call themselves "neo-evangelical", "neo-orthodox" or simply "conservative".

To give a practical example: in Australia (my country), very few Christians are dispensationalist or YECist, and most said Christians would be very averse to being branded "fundamentalist" because the secular media has associated "fundamentalism" with American Religious Right / Dispensationalist / Pro-Israel Christianity.

 

[Pats]

During my tenure homeschooling my son the vast majority of homeschooling families I encountered are/were fundementalist/very conservative non-denoms or Baptists. This was true for VA and PA.

Many, but not all, of these families (more so the ones in PA) also practiced a high degree of social seperation. In other words, their only real contact with the public was through the YMCA. All others needs were being met through private church and Christian family networks.

Co-Housing is another emergent area that seems to have strong shades of fundementalism/conservatism driving it.

One thing I recall from my own upbringing, wich was very sheltered much in the manor you're describing here, was that we were taught part of the meaning of the passages on not being unequally yoked, was that we were to not really make very good friends with nonChristians and or Christians of very different beliefs from our own.

Basiclly, be charitable to these people. Have superficial acquaintance type relations but don't get close.

Then, they're idea of how to share the gospel was to go out and door knock or distribute tracks to strangers.

This kind of sheltering can obviously have toxic results. Not to mention, in my opinion, the most effective whitnessing comes out of nonChristians having relationships with Christians. How else can they really find out what we're all about?

 

[Assyrian]

To explain historicism, it will also help to explain the alternatives.
Preterism = All prophecy only relates to the immediate setting of the prophet
Historicism = Prophecy is a detailed synopsis of historical events from the prophet's time to the end of the world
Futurism = Prophecy only relates to the very last things, surrounding the return of Jesus
Idealism = Prophecy is based on the prophet's immediate setting, but has general application in every age

These terms are normally used in studies of Revelation. So preterism holds that all of Revelation's content is about events in 1st century Asia minor; historicism holds that Revelation is a chart of history from the 1st century till the return of Christ; futurism holds that Revelation 4 onwards is only about the very last things; idealism holds that Revelation can be applied in every age of church history.

Historicism is often (but not always) closely allied with premilennialism and dispensationalism. It was very popular from the Reformation until roughly the 19th century, when Preterism and Idealism came into vogue. Historicism has a tendency to find contemporary events (eg. the Pope, the United States, the UN, the European Union) in the book of Revelation.

In my experience, historicism has remained popular in churches that might be labelled "fundamentalist" - hence I included it in this poll. Neo-evangelicalism and neo-orthodoxy (especially outside the US) tend to be more idealist these days, while liberalism tends to be more preterist. (I acknowledge these are generalisations)

Now that is what confused me about this poll. I would say historicism sees the Papacy throughout history, or the rise of Islam in Revelation, while futurism looks at the Pope, the United States, the UN, the European Union, global conspiracy or 'new world order' as the soon and coming fulfilment of Revelation. The Left Behind books are futurist and I would have thought them more closely associated with modern YEC rather than historicism.

 

[Pats]

This is a kind of nieve quesiton, but what is the differance between a fundalmentalist and a conservative belief system?

 

[Willtor]

This is a kind of nieve quesiton, but what is the differance between a fundalmentalist and a conservative belief system?

From Willtor's perspective: For a while, I was a fundamentalist. I went to a fundamentalist Church and thought fundamentalist thoughts. Now, my Mom is conservative, but she is not Fundamentalist. At that time, when I talked to her about a young Earth, she said she wasn't as sure of that, and I thought she was back-sliding (awful for a son to think such a thing, to be sure). It was the same with end-times views. I took Left Behind very seriously (even if I recognized it as a work of fiction). I thought (what I now recognize as) dispensationalist thoughts. Etc, etc, etc.

There is one way of looking at the Church as a spectrum of views. If one moves in one direction, one says that movement is towards conservativism. At some point, one reaches "conservative." If one keeps moving in that direction, one reaches "fundamentalist." In the opposite direction, one hits "liberal." This spectrum view tends to force people onto the line, somewhere. Of course, I'm a post-modernist, and I don't like spectrums. I like self-classifications (if you remember my thread).

 

[frankwernal]

YECs are only fundamentalist if they believe in the story of Adam and Eve; if they take that to be symbolic, then they can take many things in the Bible to be symbolic.

 

[charityagape]

YECs are only fundamentalist if they believe in the story of Adam and Eve; if they take that to be symbolic, then they can take many things in the Bible to be symbolic.

I don't think I'm a fundamentalist, I do believe the literal story of Adam and Eve.

 

[bullietdodger]

Some how my post (the following post) was posted twice.

 

[bullietdodger]

I believe the return of Christ will happen literally how the Bible reccords it. The problem is how any of us picture this could be completely wrong. The thing with prophecy is that we don't know how the prophecy looks exactly until it is fulfilled. Take the prophecys concerning Christ's first coming. Many people believe the prophecies concerning Christ to come, but they pictured Christ's coming differently than what actually was. Today we see that the prophecies concerning Christ have been fulfilled, but I suspect that if we were back in Jesus' day some of us could very well have been along side of those who wanted to crucify Him, and all because we were stuck on our own idea of what prophecy would look like.

Oh, by the way, I am not fundamentalist, mostly conservative Yes, fundamentalist-no.

 

[jereth]

The problem is how any of us picture this could be completely wrong. The thing with prophecy is that we don't know how the prophecy looks exactly until it is fulfilled. Take the prophecys concerning Christ's first coming. Many people believe the prophecies concerning Christ to come, but they pictured Christ's coming differently than what actually was. Today we see that the prophecies concerning Christ have been fulfilled, but I suspect that if we were back in Jesus' day some of us could very well have been along side of those who wanted to crucify Him, and all because we were stuck on our own idea of what prophecy would look like.

This is a very good description of why dispensationalism, historicism and futurism are so problematic (and, IMO, wrong).

 

[jereth]

Now that is what confused me about this poll. I would say historicism sees the Papacy throughout history, or the rise of Islam in Revelation, while futurism looks at the Pope, the United States, the UN, the European Union, global conspiracy or 'new world order' as the soon and coming fulfilment of Revelation. The Left Behind books are futurist and I would have thought them more closely associated with modern YEC rather than historicism.

Hmm, you might be right. I think historicism and futurism are very similar, and both are associated with contemporary fundamentalism and YECism.

 

[Assyrian]

I believe the return of Christ will happen literally how the Bible reccords it. The problem is how any of us picture this could be completely wrong. The thing with prophecy is that we don't know how the prophecy looks exactly until it is fulfilled. Take the prophecys concerning Christ's first coming. Many people believe the prophecies concerning Christ to come, but they pictured Christ's coming differently than what actually was. Today we see that the prophecies concerning Christ have been fulfilled, but I suspect that if we were back in Jesus' day some of us could very well have been along side of those who wanted to crucify Him, and all because we were stuck on our own idea of what prophecy would look like.

This is actually a very important insight

But what you need to realise is that the early chapters of Genesis are also prophetic, God telling us what happened at a time when there were no human witnesses, in this case of past events, as Isaiah 53 was God's description of the coming Messiah that no one had seen yet, or Revelation is God's description of event leading to Christ's return, which again, no one had seen when the prophecy was given. It is only when we see how events work out, or rather, how God works the events out, that we can look back at the prophecy and say, ah yes, of course.

If Genesis 1 is prophecy, then we only really learn its meaning when we find out what actually happened during the creation. To that extent, YECs are like the Jews still waiting for God to send the Messiah the way they expect. YECs look for science to reject it's mistaken views and come up with a new explanation of the history of the universe that will fit their interpretation, rather than realise their interpretations need to change when we find out what God actually did.

 

[jereth]

This is a kind of nieve quesiton, but what is the differance between a fundalmentalist and a conservative belief system?

Each of these terms could be given a hundred definitions.

IMO, Conservatism is a broad term that encompasses anyone who accepts a traditional or orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. Official Catholicism is conservative, pentecostalism tends to be conservative, evangelical protestants are conservative. If you believe in the Trinity, the substitutionary atonement, and the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus, and regard the Scriptures as authoritative, you can legitimately call yourself a "conservative".

Fundamentalism is a more specific term that (in this period of history) is usually applied to Christians who are dispensationalist, YECist, pro-life, anti-gay, pro-Israel, support right wing politics and so on.

Though in 1910 a "fundamentalist" was nothing more than a "conservative".

 

[bullietdodger]

This is actually a very important insight

But what you need to realise is that the early chapters of Genesis are also prophetic, God telling us what happened at a time when there were no human witnesses, in this case of past events, as Isaiah 53 was God's description of the coming Messiah that no one had seen yet, or Revelation is God's description of event leading to Christ's return, which again, no one had seen when the prophecy was given. It is only when we see how events work out, or rather, how God works the events out, that we can look back at the prophecy and say, ah yes, of course.

If Genesis 1 is prophecy, then we only really learn its meaning when we find out what actually happened during the creation. To that extent, YECs are like the Jews still waiting for God to send the Messiah the way they expect. YECs look for science to reject it's mistaken views and come up with a new explanation of the history of the universe that will fit their interpretation, rather than realise their interpretations need to change when we find out what God actually did.

I think you a little confused. Genesis is historical not prophetic. Prophecy requires fortelling or forthtelling. Genesis 1 and 2 is neither.

 

[laptoppop]

If Genesis 1 is prophecy, then we only really learn its meaning when we find out what actually happened during the creation. To that extent, YECs are like the Jews still waiting for God to send the Messiah the way they expect. YECs look for science to reject it's mistaken views and come up with a new explanation of the history of the universe that will fit their interpretation, rather than realise their interpretations need to change when we find out what God actually did.

Actually, most YEC's like me are not expecting "science" to change. Each scientist must make up their own mind. I just believe that the geologic and fossil record, etc. are much more consistent with a young earth, global flood interpretation than they are an evolutionary one. In terms of competing theories or models, I believe YEC fits the observed data much better than evolution -- even without including any reference to any Scripture. Sure, I believe that the Scripture is true -- but I also believe that truth can hold its own against any level of examination.

Disagreement in science, and reasonable discourse is normal and key to moving forward. Truth in science is not dependant on a popularity contest, but rather by rational investigation and discussion of the evidence. Yes, as a Christian, the Scriptures are a crucial piece of evidence, but even outside that context I believe a catastropic view of this planet's history is much more consistent with the evidence than a uniformatarian view.
-lee-