I have several questions about Fundamentalism.

[expos4ever]

Why is it, that Fundamentalists are called "extremists"? And are hated and criticized for taking the bible literally? Isn't the ENTIRE point of the bible to take it literally? Otherwise, what is the point in the bible being created at all? The bible was created so that God could share his word with all of creation!

You appear to think that the only way that God can communicate "his truth" to us is through a fully literal Bible. But there are thousands of plays, poems, works of fiction, movies, etc. that communicate important truths through "non-literal" means.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus said that the old testament and the entirety of the bible is true. So if you don't believe the bible is true, you're calling Jesus a liar.

Not so fast. If you can provide a statement from Jesus telling us that all the Bible is literally true in all respects, then you would have a point.

But I am confident there is no such statement. And there is the fact that Jesus clearly Himself uses literary devices to make points. When He tells Caiaphus that he (Caiaphus) will see Jesus "coming on the clouds", He is certainly not suggesting that one day, Caiaphus will look out his window and see Jesus hitching a ride on a cloud. If we know our Bibles - which many fundamentalists don't - we will know that Jesus is invoking the Daniel 7 image of a son of man figure who battles the great beasts and is then raised to heaven in vindication.

It is a metaphor of Jesus' victory over sin, death, Rome, corrupt Jerusalem and the host of other enemies that plague mankind. And to represent Jesus as ascending to heaven on the clouds is a powerful image, yes image, to convey this.

He never, I suggest, intended for us to take that statement literally.

 

[W2L]

I don't think he really considered himself perfect or came across as such. I just think he came across as ignorant of scripture.

I was just saying the he was guilty of misinterpreting scripture too, just as you also say. In another thread he broad brushed all Americans as ignorant. Now its in this thread, he broad brushed all fundamentalists as well.. He doesn't see his own ignorance though. I was just trying to say that in a nice way. Maybe i failed.

 

[W2L]

If we could ALL admit our own ignorance, then we could truly be wise. WE are all ignorant, and thats a fact. THe question is whether we see it or not. THis GT debating is not what we see in scripture. WE instead see the apostles teaching us to be humble-minded and to consider others as better than ourselves. Humble minded is not to think we are above others, and that we can speak down to them in love, because that is instead condescension, not humbleness. To truly be wise we must know we are fools, and that every second we are need of God to help us not stumble. Its to walk a very fine line of understanding. THat is wisdom. AS James said, who is wise among you? Let them show it by their good speech and good deeds. THe bible says that its good to consider others as better than ourselves and the apostle paul commands, or exhorts us to think that way. That is wisdom. I understand how we get divided in our groups, and our group is right and every one else is wrong. I keep telling myself that i know why people are that way because i was that way too. NOt that im any different oe better now, just that i see it now, and i cannot judge others for being like myself.. THis debating is not going to help any of us, unless we consider others as better than ourselves. THis isnt done by an outward show of humility or wisdom, but is done by doing what is necessary to edify another person. Do they need to be treated with respect? Then give it to them. Do they need a friend? Give it to them. Im not perfect but i know this is right. This wont work though unless we do it together, having one mind and one voice.

 

[dqhall]

I recall Jesus taught it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. I suppose much has been wasted in buying things I cannot use for the good of others. Much time has been wasted in not serving others. A presumed wealthy tax collector named Matthew left his tax collecting station to follow Jesus. Some fishermen in Capernaum left their nets with no certain prospects of a paycheck to follow Jesus. Some risked helping the poor to try to gain a better reward in this world and to try for an eternal reward. It may be better to give good teaching and instruction than a loaf of bread, yet people need both.

I remember people were critical of a television preacher and his wife for having a big house with an air conditioned dog house and gold faucets for this was not the example Jesus gave to us. Jim Bakker was sent to prison for fraud. His wife Tammy Faye died at the age of 65. Jim Bakker preached the Bible was true and should be taken literally. It is not good enough to say the Bible is perfect and then go rip off the congregation.

 

[W2L]

teaching and instruction than a loaf of bread, yet people need both.

I wont get into the bulk of your post, i just want to comment on one thing you said. Good instruction is worthless if its not done with love. Love is not condescending but is humble minded, considering others as better than itself. Without love, we are only putting the scriptures in the mouth of the enemy. That enemy is within us all. Christ called peter Satan. Peter then warned us that the enemy goes about like a lion, seeking its prey. THe problem with GT is that many peopple actually believe their Church is the true one, or the first one. Such thinking is what robs us of any true understanding. All denominations are flawed, none of them are completely right. THere are no apostles anymore. THis is not theology i learned but is an observation. No one today is like the apostles who raised the dead, endured great suffering, and were given the task of establishing doctrine. Perhaps God doesnt send apostles anymore because we already have their words. Their doctrine is not about praying certain ways, or believing in this version of Revelation verses that one. Its not about Popes, Mary, Josesh smith, Ellen white, any prophets. ITs about Christ. Its about putting on Christ. He was lowly and gentle. Come learn from me all you who are weary. Thats what he said. We dont need prophets and Popes, or politicians either. We need to put on the mind of Christ. No m,ore no less. Its just that simple. Learn from me says the Lord, learn from me. Paul also, he is the example that we were given. He follows Christ. Its not about baptisms, communion, priests, prosperity doctrine or teachers. Its about reading the words of paul and Christ. They are our prophets and teachers. Its about meditating on their words and examples, and putting on that mind. Forget prophets and teachers. WE have the spirit. THe only question is do we have enough faith to trust God and his word?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have to say, the Lutheran ministers have a pretty snappy dress code. Aren't they the ones that wear the grey wool jacket with the purple cassock underneath, or is that the Anglican Church ? And the RCC priests have got that whole basic black Jonny Cash thing going on, (that's a timeless look),

The sorts of vestments worn by clergy in Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic (etc) churches is all pretty similar because the vestments typically have a symbolic significance--the colors change based on the liturgical season. Purple would be associated with Lent and Advent, as Lent and Advent are regarded as penitential seasons, blue is sometimes used instead of purple for Advent, with blue being the color of the sky, and thus reminds us of Christ's future coming in glory as He will come again from the heavens even as He ascended after the resurrection. Vestments and paraments therefore reflect the liturgical season.

It's not a dress code--there's nothing, for example, in Lutheran teaching that would say that a Lutheran pastor has to wear traditional vestments, but Lutherans always have because the thing about Lutheranism is that it didn't do away with adiaphoric traditions just because. Anything that was neither commanded nor forbidden, but had been in use throughout the history of the Church, and which ostensibly had beneficial purpose (and the wearing of vestments would fall under this category) were retained because there was no reason not to retain them. Change for the sake of change is meaningless. The goal of the Reformation was reform: cleaning the house, not burning it down and building a new one just because one could.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

The sorts of vestments worn by clergy in Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic (etc) churches is all pretty similar because the vestments typically have a symbolic significance--the colors change based on the liturgical season. Purple would be associated with Lent and Advent, as Lent and Advent are regarded as penitential seasons, blue is sometimes used instead of purple for Advent, with blue being the color of the sky, and thus reminds us of Christ's future coming in glory as He will come again from the heavens even as He ascended after the resurrection. Vestments and paraments therefore reflect the liturgical season.

It's not a dress code--there's nothing, for example, in Lutheran teaching that would say that a Lutheran pastor has to wear traditional vestments, but Lutherans always have because the thing about Lutheranism is that it didn't do away with adiaphoric traditions just because. Anything that was neither commanded nor forbidden, but had been in use throughout the history of the Church, and which ostensibly had beneficial purpose (and the wearing of vestments would fall under this category) were retained because there was no reason not to retain them. Change for the sake of change is meaningless. The goal of the Reformation was reform: cleaning the house, not burning it down and building a new one just because one could.

-CryptoLutheran

Reform is sometimes seen in not clinging to the old at all. Clinging to the old only resists true reform. That's my opinion anyway. What good does reform do? Has it actually changed the "my church is the true church" mentality? NOt that i see. True reform is to put off denominations and instead put on Christ. People will stay divided over baptisms, popes, prophets, communion and many such things. My heart however tells me that none of that is important, and what is important is doing good, and putting on humility, truth, love, justice, mercy, righteousness. To do that though we must be humbled, and only after we see our own wretchedness can we ever me humbled, as im sure you already know.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Reform is sometimes seen in not clinging to the old at all. Clinging to the old only resists true reform. That's my opinion anyway. What good does reform do? Has it actually changed the "my church is the true church" mentality? NOt that i see. True reform is to put off denominations and instead put on Christ. People will stay divided over baptisms, popes, prophets, communion and many such things. My heart however tells me that none of that is important, and what is important is doing good, and putting on humility, truth, love, justice, mercy, righteousness. To do that though we must be humbled, and only after we see our own wretchedness can we ever me humbled, as im sure you already know.

Because "non-denominationalism" is just a denomination of another sort.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

Because "non-denominationalism" is just a denomination of another sort.

-CryptoLutheran

No, not really. It depends maybe, on who is using that term. ARe you looking for a reason to cling to the old? IS that why you put yourself in denial? Do you actually believe that you need a prophet, teacher, or denomination? Isnt it correct to put on acts of love, righteousness, mercy, humbleness, and true self awareness of ones own wretchedness? If a person does those things, because they put faith in Christ and his words, are they still wrong if they dont join a denomination? Look at such a person, do they argue for anything more than is expressed in scripture? Are they adding the necessities of prophets, specific prayers or other such things? Do they not admit they are a sinner, and they need to put on acts of love and righteousness? Is that not enough? Why would you argue for clinging to a denomination anyway? For what purpose? Does a denomination have some secret knowledge that transcends what i have already mentioned? No, but if you say that they do, then you will only keep debating it til you die because everyone else thinks their denomination is that way too. Isnt simplicity more logical, and more wise?

 

[Light of the East]

I could explain why we get angry. It isn't right for ANY Christian to get angry. So on behalf of Fundamentalists everywhere, I apologize. But, Fundamentalists get angry because, we believe that the bible is meant to be taken literally.

And you would be wrong.

The literal sense is just one sense in which the Bible teaches. There are analogies, metaphors, poetry, and imagery. There are parables. Literalism is to good biblical interpretation what kindergarten is to high school.

For instance, what does it mean that Jesus is the "Last Adam?" (1 Corin. 15:45) You can in no way make sense of that using the literal words "last" and "Adam." So you are faced with a problem: either ignore the scripture or dig deeper and try to make sense.

What does it mean that God the Father identifies Himself as husband to Israel in Hosea? Again, does Israel have a body and a wedding ring on the finger? Does God? Or are these figures of speech by which we are called to study and come to deeper understandings of God?

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, not really. It depends maybe, on who is using that term.

A denomination is simply a denominated thing: Whether it's something like a large theological tradition such as Lutheranism or Methodism, or larger organized structures within a tradition (the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, et al); and it works just as well to describe a neighborhood independent "Bible Church" which isn't part of a larger organizational structure but simply at the congregational level, or if you have some sort of "house church" which is basically just Bob's Weekly Bible study. It doesn't matter, you're not going to avoid theology, praxis, differences of opinion on various doctrinal matters. So the very concept of "non-denominationalism" is simply another form of denominationalism, regardless of how it manifests itself--it is unavoidable.

ARe you looking for a reason to cling to the old?

Scripture is reason enough to cling to "the old", St. Paul is explicitly clear that we are to hold fast to the teachings and traditions which we have received from the beginning, to confess the Gospel which we have received from the beginning, and that to believe another gospel, to follow after false teachers, etc is anathema. That seems like good enough reason to me.

IS that why you put yourself in denial?

I'm not sure what I'm in denial about.

Do you actually believe that you need a prophet, teacher, or denomination?

Who said anything about prophets? The Church does need teachers however, Scripture is pretty clear on that. And if I am going to participate in Christian life I should do that in such a way that is biblical and which does not violate my conscience--which is why I'm a Lutheran. I'm not a Lutheran because I need a tribe to be against other tribes; but because I want to be faithful and conscientious to Holy Scripture and the great deposit of faith of Christ's holy Church--I'm a Lutheran because I could not be otherwise without violating my own conscience. I would hope that is true of other Christians and why they are Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Anglicans or otherwise.

Isnt it correct to put on acts of love, righteousness, mercy, humbleness, and true self awareness of ones own wretchedness? If a person does those things, because they put faith in Christ and his words, are they still wrong if they dont join a denomination?

If one is not participating in the Christian life of faith, which also includes hearing the Gospel, the Sacraments, and the gathered and corporate worship of the Church, then they aren't putting their faith in Christ or His words, even if they are doing the rest. Faithfulness is not limited to individual works of charity and repentance, but is found in the fully immersed life of faith, worship, Word and Sacrament, etc.

So, no, you can't be faithful to Christ if you are actively avoiding His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

A denomination is simply a denominated thing: Whether it's something like a large theological tradition such as Lutheranism or Methodism, or larger organized structures within a tradition (the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, et al); and it works just as well to describe a neighborhood independent "Bible Church" which isn't part of a larger organizational structure but simply at the congregational level, or if you have some sort of "house church" which is basically just Bob's Weekly Bible study. It doesn't matter, you're not going to avoid theology, praxis, differences of opinion on various doctrinal matters. So the very concept of "non-denominationalism" is simply another form of denominationalism, regardless of how it manifests itself--it is unavoidable.



Scripture is reason enough to cling to "the old", St. Paul is explicitly clear that we are to hold fast to the teachings and traditions which we have received from the beginning, to confess the Gospel which we have received from the beginning, and that to believe another gospel, to follow after false teachers, etc is anathema. That seems like good enough reason to me.



I'm not sure what I'm in denial about.



Who said anything about prophets? The Church does need teachers however, Scripture is pretty clear on that. And if I am going to participate in Christian life I should do that in such a way that is biblical and which does not violate my conscience--which is why I'm a Lutheran. I'm not a Lutheran because I need a tribe to be against other tribes; but because I want to be faithful and conscientious to Holy Scripture and the great deposit of faith of Christ's holy Church--I'm a Lutheran because I could not be otherwise without violating my own conscience. I would hope that is true of other Christians and why they are Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Anglicans or otherwise.



If one is not participating in the Christian life of faith, which also includes hearing the Gospel, the Sacraments, and the gathered and corporate worship of the Church, then they aren't putting their faith in Christ or His words, even if they are doing the rest. Faithfulness is not limited to individual works of charity and repentance, but is found in the fully immersed life of faith, worship, Word and Sacrament, etc.

So, no, you can't be faithful to Christ if you are actively avoiding His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

And the merry-go-round continues then brother.

If one is not participating in the Christian life of faith, which also includes hearing the Gospel, the Sacraments, and the gathered and corporate worship of the Church, then they aren't putting their faith in Christ or His words, even if they are doing the rest. Faithfulness is not limited to individual works of charity and repentance, but is found in the fully immersed life of faith, worship, Word and Sacrament, etc.

I guess it depends on what a person sees as love, and what situation they find themselves in. Love fulfills the Law. There are necessities that must observed but not everything is a necessity.

 

[dqhall]

I wont get into the bulk of your post, i just want to comment on one thing you said. Good instruction is worthless if its not done with love. Love is not condescending but is humble minded, considering others as better than itself.

I agree. Good instruction must be done with love as long as love is good. For love that is not good is corrupt. Some thought fornication/illicit sex was love. Others loved money more than righteousness.

 

[Open Heart]

Why is it, that Fundamentalists are called "extremists"? And are hated and criticized for taking the bible literally? Isn't the ENTIRE point of the bible to take it literally? Otherwise, what is the point in the bible being created at all? The bible was created so that God could share his word with all of creation!

PART ONE: WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST

Yes, LITERALISM is part of fundamentalism. For example, Fundamentalists take Genesis 1 quite literally rather than figuratively. But literalism is hardly the only trait of fundamentalism.

Although it is becoming less common, Fundamentalists tend to ADD LAWS for Christians to follow that are traditions not spelled out in Scripture, such as not drinking or not going to R rated movies. I grew up fundamentalist and we had more rules than Orthodox Jews: no makeup, no short skirts or midriffs or two piece swim suits or short shorts, no shaving of the legs, no jewelry, no playing cards, no alcohol, no going to the movie theater, no TV or stores or restaurants on Sunday...I could go on and on.

Fundamentalism is ANTI-SCHOLASTICISM. In fact, this was why fundamentalism originated in the first place in the late 1800's. Scholasticism means to apply literary, historical, and scientific analysis to the texts of the Bible. For example, traditionally, Moses is said to have written the first five books of the Bible and Fundamentalists hold to this tradition. But Scholars tell us that there are four sources, which came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D's contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P.

Fundamentalism is ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. A pastor need only be spirit led, which is determined by his charisma and oratory skills, and the few Biblical texts favored by his church such as the Pauline epistles. He need not be well taught in Bible, Greek, Church history, or Theology. Laity need only the basics of education and seldom go beyond high school. If they go to college at all, it is to fundamentalist colleges such as Bob Jones or Liberty where they can be sheltered from such ideas as evolution or the Big Bang and where a hefty dose of Bible classes are a required part of the curriculum.

Fundamentalism is ANTI-SCIENCE. The view is that Christianity and Science are enemies, or at least Christian literalism comes first and science may *only* prove what Christianity teaches--which is not science at all. Because they tend to be uneducated, they often don't know what scientific method even is, what many of the best known transitional forms are, or other basics of evolution. The don't understand that the Big Band is essentially Creation -- something from nothing. Nor do they understand that God created life from non-life, which is essentially what abiogenesis is. The most reactionary of them even believe in a flat earth.

Fundamentalism, like liberalism, is an EXTREME form of Christianity. They are the two opposite poles, one being everything is literal, and the other being everything is metaphor. I remember a pastor from my youth saying, "Liberals make the mistake of attributing to man many things done by God, and Fundamentalists make the mistake of attributing to God many things done by man."

The middle road, the most correct road, is simply to read each part of the Bible for the genre it is. For example... The Psalms are poems and songs. The prophets are symbolic visions and exhortations. The beginning of Genesis is myth, teaching eternal truths but not historical. Kings and Chronicles are books of history. Obviously, if one reads that the rivers clap their hands in the Psalms, one know that rivers do not have hands and do not clap -- it is figurative. And if one is reading the story of Samuel saying to Saul, "What is that blee-e-e-e-eating of sheep that I hear?...To obey is better than sacrifice!" one knows that it is historical and literal.

PART TWO: HOW POST-MODERN FUNDAMENTALISM IS FALLING APART

The following article argues that post-modern culture is seeping into fundamentalism and will eventually destroy it. Indeed,the decay has already begun. http://www.straightwayonline.org/articles/265/postmodernism-and-post-fundamentalism I will add my own thoughts.

Post-fundamentalism is basically a milder, more comfortable, compromised kind of fundamentalism. As one of the above posters has already stated, the statement of faith for the fundamentalist forum in CF is no different from that of Evangelicalism. It risks being absorbed by the other movement, losing itself and its uniqueness.

Fundamentalists today are simply not as strict about their morality. Some of the legalism is good riddance. Most drink, or smoke, go to movies (even R rated ones), wear makeup and jewelry, do not observe the Sabbath on Sunday... They will allow their children to date non-fundamentalists, and are more relaxed about one on one dates, and sexual behaviors in public, such as kissing. But it is complicated with SIN. The truth is that many Fundamentalist young adults simply decide that God is okay with them sleeping together -- so much for the Bible.

Today in fundamentalism, MUCH of post-modern secular thought has been adopted. One example: reticence to adopt labels and the blurring of lines between different groups (such as denominations) and yet at the same time, fragmenting even further (beginning new churches left and right, as old churches suffer from the loss of parishioners). Another example: the rejection the possibility that there might be a single lens through which the world and its history should be viewed; instead, society is fragmented and territorial. Another: rejection of elite authority over culture, and replacing it with pop culture. Just look at the presence of reality TV. Another: a disregard for history and empiricism. I could go on. This does not bode well. What happened to the Bible????? Indeed what even happened to Christianity??????

 

[Deadworm]

1. mmbattlestar: the bible contains the ENTIRETY of Jesus's life...!
Nonsense, apart from the Infancy narrative, the Bible contains just one story about Jesus prior to His ministry in last 3 1/2 years of His life Luke 2:41-2).

2. mmbattlestar: "Jesus said that the old testament and the entirety of the bible is true"
More Nonsense! None of the NT even existed until decades after Jesus' death. In fact, even the NT statements about the biblical inspiration apply only to the OT because the NT, as a canonical collection of 27 books didn't even exist until around 200 AD. It's ironic that Fundamentalists who pontificate about the inerrant Word of God can't even identify the criteria that determined the NT's book selection nor the date of the NT's formation! This humbling question must be posed: If the NT doesn't, indeed can't, comment on its own inspiration, why should be accept what it says about OT inspiration?

3. mmbattlestar: "the bible is supposed to be the ONLY thing left in the world that we can turn to that is pure, perfect, and holy besides the Lord himself!"
On the contrary, the Bible contains too many errors to mention. For the sake of brevity, I'll confine myself to just 2 erroneous texts, both from the Pastoral Epistles which 89% of Bible scholars recognize were written in the next generation after Paul's martyrdom. Both texts are guilty of creating negative stereotypes of entire categories of people:

(a) "All Cretans are liars (Titus 1:21-13)." It is ghastly bigotry to stereotype a whole ethic group simply because of a few problems one encounters with particular members of that ethnic group!

(b) Or consider the reasons given by the author of 1 Timothy 2 for relegating women to silent submission and denying them a church leadership role:
(i) For Adam was formed first, then Eve (13)."
By implication, women can't be church leaders because woman was an afterthought. Man was more important to God than woman simply because man was created first.

(ii) "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became the transgressor (14).
By implication, a 2nd reason to deny women a leadership role is that women are gullible and morally inferior to men because men are harder to deceive. Of course, this is nonsense because Adam was present for the serpent's deception and was similarly deceived. Adam just didn't speak up! "She [Eve) gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate (Genesis 3:6)." The author of 1 Timothy buys into the stereotype shared by the Judaism of the NT era that Eve's role illustrates the moral inferiority of women. By contrast, the authentic Paul blames Adam, not Eve, for the Fall.

(iii) "Yet she will be saved though child-bearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with modesty (15)."
Unlike the real Paul, this author teachers that woman's role as a baby machine saves her soul. The faith requirement is secondary. Nor can this implication be evaded by the desperate claim that "saved' here means "preserved for her proper function.

(4) mmbattlestarThen there are the people whom I find really offensive. The hypocritical Christians who claim that ALL Fundamentalist Christians are against helping the poor, and are for power and greed.

You creating a phony strawman created to evade the reality of widespread fundamentalist apathy towards the poor. For example, I our town, 5 churches cooperate to provide a free meal for the poor 5 days a week. Only one of these churches is Fundamentalist.

5, mmbattlestar: "Then there's the Christians that claim that we're full of hate. No, we're not. We're full of LOVE. "

Your generalization merely reflects your defensive self-image and is contradicted by my own experience of growing up in a large evangelical church; and scientific research into the reality behind the evangelic hype refutes your generalization:
htmhttp://www3.dbu.edu/jeanhumphreys/SocialPsych/evangelicalmind

Indeed, there is a mass exodus of young people from our churches and modern young people (age 16-29) because find evangelicals appalling due to their widespread perception of them as judgmental, anti-gay, and sheltered (i. e. trapped in a myopic Ghetto mentality:
https://www.thinkingchristian.net/C246305481/E20071021094207/index.html

What is the basic problem here? Evangelicals tend to respond to outside criticism by invoking their self-image as righteous Christians rather than the perceptions of outsiders. At a recent denominational conference, one evangelical found his homophobia challenged by a gay man. The evangelical responded defensively: "I do love you; I love you enough to tell you what the Bible says about homosexuality." That sounds righteous, but in my view is actually hate speech--a poor substitute for striving to be a companssionate good listener.

Love is too easily reduced to a meaningless jargon word. The intended recipient of our love is usually a better judge of its authenticity than we are. What is missing from evangelical love is profound respect. We would do well to heed Paul's admonition about genuine love:
"Let love be genuine...Outdo one another in showing honor (Romans 12:9-10)."

 

[dqhall]

PART ONE: WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST

What happened to the Bible????? Indeed what even happened to Christianity??????

After being lost in anarchy, lawlessness, sin and despair, I remembered some teachings about God and prayed for salvation. I began to reread the Bible and all its imperfections. I was eventually led to read hundreds of other books to gain more knowledge. I also learned God could communicate with me directly at times. While the communication is not constant, it is appreciated. While I am not impressive, I was not abandoned. What I was before was much worse. God has delivered many sinners from the errors of their ways through instruction and by sending instructors.

As for modern fundamentalists smoking, drinking and having illegitimate sex that might lead to children being raised without both parents present, there have always been religious people making mistakes. Not all fundamentalists live such a depraved life. There have been religious people succeeding with their works and deeds becoming important to the community. They may not even agree the Bible contains no errors, they just happen to be in groups with fundamentalists and do not share the exact same views.

 

[W2L]

PART ONE: WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST

Yes, LITERALISM is part of fundamentalism. For example, Fundamentalists take Genesis 1 quite literally rather than figuratively. But literalism is hardly the only trait of fundamentalism.

Although it is becoming less common, Fundamentalists tend to ADD LAWS for Christians to follow that are traditions not spelled out in Scripture, such as not drinking or not going to R rated movies. I grew up fundamentalist and we had more rules than Orthodox Jews: no makeup, no short skirts or midriffs or two piece swim suits or short shorts, no shaving of the legs, no jewelry, no playing cards, no alcohol, no going to the movie theater, no TV or stores or restaurants on Sunday...I could go on and on.

Fundamentalism is ANTI-SCHOLASTICISM. In fact, this was why fundamentalism originated in the first place in the late 1800's. Scholasticism means to apply literary, historical, and scientific analysis to the texts of the Bible. For example, traditionally, Moses is said to have written the first five books of the Bible and Fundamentalists hold to this tradition. But Scholars tell us that there are four sources, which came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D's contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P.

Fundamentalism is ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. A pastor need only be spirit led, which is determined by his charisma and oratory skills, and the few Biblical texts favored by his church such as the Pauline epistles. He need not be well taught in Bible, Greek, Church history, or Theology. Laity need only the basics of education and seldom go beyond high school. If they go to college at all, it is to fundamentalist colleges such as Bob Jones or Liberty where they can be sheltered from such ideas as evolution or the Big Bang and where a hefty dose of Bible classes are a required part of the curriculum.

Fundamentalism is ANTI-SCIENCE. The view is that Christianity and Science are enemies, or at least Christian literalism comes first and science may *only* prove what Christianity teaches--which is not science at all. Because they tend to be uneducated, they often don't know what scientific method even is, what many of the best known transitional forms are, or other basics of evolution. The don't understand that the Big Band is essentially Creation -- something from nothing. Nor do they understand that God created life from non-life, which is essentially what abiogenesis is. The most reactionary of them even believe in a flat earth.

Fundamentalism, like liberalism, is an EXTREME form of Christianity. They are the two opposite poles, one being everything is literal, and the other being everything is metaphor. I remember a pastor from my youth saying, "Liberals make the mistake of attributing to man many things done by God, and Fundamentalists make the mistake of attributing to God many things done by man."

The middle road, the most correct road, is simply to read each part of the Bible for the genre it is. For example... The Psalms are poems and songs. The prophets are symbolic visions and exhortations. The beginning of Genesis is myth, teaching eternal truths but not historical. Kings and Chronicles are books of history. Obviously, if one reads that the rivers clap their hands in the Psalms, one know that rivers do not have hands and do not clap -- it is figurative. And if one is reading the story of Samuel saying to Saul, "What is that blee-e-e-e-eating of sheep that I hear?...To obey is better than sacrifice!" one knows that it is historical and literal.

PART TWO: HOW POST-MODERN FUNDAMENTALISM IS FALLING APART

The following article argues that post-modern culture is seeping into fundamentalism and will eventually destroy it. Indeed,the decay has already begun. http://www.straightwayonline.org/articles/265/postmodernism-and-post-fundamentalism I will add my own thoughts.

Post-fundamentalism is basically a milder, more comfortable, compromised kind of fundamentalism. As one of the above posters has already stated, the statement of faith for the fundamentalist forum in CF is no different from that of Evangelicalism. It risks being absorbed by the other movement, losing itself and its uniqueness.

Fundamentalists today are simply not as strict about their morality. Some of the legalism is good riddance. Most drink, or smoke, go to movies (even R rated ones), wear makeup and jewelry, do not observe the Sabbath on Sunday... They will allow their children to date non-fundamentalists, and are more relaxed about one on one dates, and sexual behaviors in public, such as kissing. But it is complicated with SIN. The truth is that many Fundamentalist young adults simply decide that God is okay with them sleeping together -- so much for the Bible.

Today in fundamentalism, MUCH of post-modern secular thought has been adopted. One example: reticence to adopt labels and the blurring of lines between different groups (such as denominations) and yet at the same time, fragmenting even further (beginning new churches left and right, as old churches suffer from the loss of parishioners). Another example: the rejection the possibility that there might be a single lens through which the world and its history should be viewed; instead, society is fragmented and territorial. Another: rejection of elite authority over culture, and replacing it with pop culture. Just look at the presence of reality TV. Another: a disregard for history and empiricism. I could go on. This does not bode well. What happened to the Bible????? Indeed what even happened to Christianity??????

I dont agree that all those things are good, which you say fundamentalists appose. What is intellectualism? THe flesh loves intellectualism, but we have Gods wisdom given to us through scripture and spirit. Intellectualism fuels the flesh but love edifies. I see some intellectuals boasting about their strength and intellect. They lack understanding however. They lack true wisdom and understanding. Science is another area of consideration. Its just unwise to believe everything the world feeds us through scientific knowledge.

What do i know though, im just a fool for Christ.

 

[pescador]

The first sin ever was when God told Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and, in their desire to gain that knowledge, they disobeyed God. I get tired of people debating doctrine, i.e., what is good and what is evil. Rather they should be committed to living of life of love, first toward God, and second toward their neighbor. Trying to prove other people wrong pales in comparison to doing something meaningful for them.

 

[sculleywr]

So, I have several questions and statements about Christian Theology. Fundamentalism in particular.

Why is it, that Fundamentalists are called "extremists"? And are hated and criticized for taking the bible literally? Isn't the ENTIRE point of the bible to take it literally? Otherwise, what is the point in the bible being created at all? The bible was created so that God could share his word with all of creation!

The bible was created so that all of humanity can know the word of God! As times change and religious denominations slowly defecate all over the word of God, the bible is supposed to be the ONLY thing left in the world that we can turn to that is pure, perfect, and holy besides the Lord himself!

Yet, there are so many Christians out there that don't even BELIEVE in the bible yet, believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. How contradictory is that? If you believe in Jesus Christ and salvation, you HAVE to believe in the bible! Because, the bible contains the ENTIRETY of Jesus's life and what is required for our salvation!

Jesus said that the old testament and the entirety of the bible is true. So if you don't believe the bible is true, you're calling Jesus a liar. And, how is that fair to Jesus. The man who gave his life on the cross for you so that you can be cleansed and forgiven for your sins!

There are also so many Christians out there that don't take the bible seriously and, keep throwing Matthew 7:1 in people's faces. Especially the faces of Fundamentalists. Yet, they use it so out of context that they only end up looking like ignorant 3 year old's. Matthew 7:1 does NOT tell Christians to not judge sin. In fact? For telling us to not judge sin? You're judging us. It warns us against sinning in HYPOCRISY. It tells us to Judge others RIGHTEOUSLY. And to not Condemn other people. Simply put? Jesus did not agree with Hypocrites. To him, you could not love God and call yourself a follower of God if you lived your life in sin and did not follow God's word like it says in Matthew 7:21. There also, are several places in the bible where it commands us to Judge for sin.

There are so many Christians out there, that don't even bother to study and learn the bible and only listen to like one or two verses. Or, they'll pick the parts of the bible that they like and call the rest of it "useless garbage" and "Just a story".

It's NOT just garbage! It's the word of God! Am I the only one that's slightly offended by these comments?

Then there are the people whom I find really offensive. The hypocritical Christians who claim that ALL Fundamentalist Christians are against helping the poor, and are for power and greed.

Probably because of Donald Trump and what's going on with him and what he protrays list Christianity to be. Donald Trump is NOT a Fundamentalist Christian.

If a Fundamentalist Christian is REALLY TRULY Fundamental than they would be FOR giving to the poor NOT against it! They would be AGAINST personal power and they would be AGAINST Greed. An immediate and OBVIOUS contradiction. Want to know why I know this? Because, the bible says so. The bible warns us repeatedly about greed and how we should cut it out of our lives, the bible warns us repeatedly to help the poor and the less fortunate, the bible warns us repeatedly about the lust for power. Fundamentalists take the bible literally so, if a person is truly fundamentalists than they'd follow the bible and word of God.

Then there's the Christians that claim that we're full of hate. No, we're not. We're full of LOVE. Despite what Satan wants you to believe? Educating people on Scripture is NOT hate. Despite what Satan wants you to believe? We don't hate you. We teach you scripture because, we LOVE you! We teach you scripture because, we want you to be SAVED! We teach you scripture because, we want you to prepare for Judgement day!

Fundamentalist Christians are among the most selfless people in the world. In actuality? Even the most are kind when you look at their original meanings and when you look at the word of God. For example, God won't let you abort your baby? Oh no! It's the end of the world that you can't murder your own fetus! You know? The gift that God gave you?

Or another example, Slavery. A very sensitive topic in the bible.

Despite popular belief? God (And the bible) did NOT give humanity the right to mistreat slaves. Also? Slaves were not exclusive to race. It wasn't until America came along that slavery, really changed for the worse. And also? The bible didn't COMMAND us to have slaves. It only said that, if we wanted slaves? We had the option.

The bible is, was, and always will be full of love. Just as we will always be full of love.

Just because we like to tell the word of God like it is, does not mean that we are Self Absorbed or Egotistical people. Wake up and quit being deceived by Satan!

It is a fact though, Fundamentalist Christianity didn't start until the late 19th Century. But, that's because the word of God started to disappear from our Churches. That's because the word of God started to disappear from our world. That's because people today, are worshiping more and more false idols than before without even realizing it.

That's because the day of the "new" started. And people started to "get with the times."

Fundamentalism? Had to start.

And that's okay, we can take the hate. The bible did warn us, that True Christians would be hated by the world. That many would disagree with us. The fact that so many Fundamentalists are flamed into oblivion, and are considered extremist jerks only proves the totality of the bible even more. It only proves that the day of the rapture? Is getting closer and closer. It only proves that the day of Judgement? Is near. Where will you be when the day of Judgement comes?

The biggest problems I have with Fundamentalism are two fold:

1. Firstly, the assumption that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. In many portions, yes. In fact, the doctrinal portions in the epistles, and other portions wherein doctrines are given words are meant to be taken literally (for example, James 2). However, there are several genres of writing in Scriptures, and they are to be taken in the same way that genre is intended. Apocalyptic literature is most definitely not meant to be taken literally, and for the most part, Revelation and the last half of Daniel aren't really written for those of us who come before the events described therein. They are intended for the Church in the time of the Tribulation, and the events of the Tribulation will elucidate the meaning of the books as they occur. The Psalms can be a mixed bag of literal and figurative language. Overall, a literal interpretation of Scriptures is not what the Apostles and Prophets intended.

2. The "fundamentals" to which Fundamentalists hold are, at best, only a century or two old. They are not the tried and true beliefs of the two past millennia of Christians, but are basically what Grandpa held to, and for some, what Grandpa started. Why should I believe that these fundamentals are the Truth as compared to teachings which can be traced back to the first three centuries after Christ?

Certainly, it is understandable to have a desire to get back to the basics, but the basics that Fundamentalists hold to are not necessarily the same as the basics that the Apostles taught.