Introduce yourself here!

[Sockroteez]

I'm rather new to the boards, and would introduce myself as a 'former fundamentalist'. Former in that I have come reject the literalist view of the totality of the Bible; mostly regarding the 'Creation' account in Genesis. Why? Physical evidence in many branches of science. I believe in One God in Trinity, the dual nature of Christ (human and Divine), the true death, burial and resurrection of Christ and His eventual return to judge the living and the dead. (essentially I accept the Original Nicene Creed, minus the heretical filioque clause)

I was in an Independent Baptist Church for 3 years (a few others as well for about 7 years) but when I began to study various branches of science, and compare it to what my Pastor was claiming, I found his positions untenable, and through him, many claims of fundamentalism in general.

I am planning to attend an Anglican Congregation... but essentially, beyond the core elements defined in the Creed, I am essentially agnostic.

 

[Saint_Rita]

Hi Rita, and welcome!
If you agree with our forum's FSG's (found here) you are more than welcome to join!

Yup - read and agree... oh and I'm really Dani... need to figure out how to change my user name now though as it reflects a different time in my life.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm rather new to the boards, and would introduce myself as a 'former fundamentalist'. Former in that I have come reject the literalist view of the totality of the Bible; mostly regarding the 'Creation' account in Genesis. Why? Physical evidence in many branches of science. I believe in One God in Trinity, the dual nature of Christ (human and Divine), the true death, burial and resurrection of Christ and His eventual return to judge the living and the dead. (essentially I accept the Original Nicene Creed, minus the heretical filioque clause)

I was in an Independent Baptist Church for 3 years (a few others as well for about 7 years) but when I began to study various branches of science, and compare it to what my Pastor was claiming, I found his positions untenable, and through him, many claims of fundamentalism in general.

I am planning to attend an Anglican Congregation... but essentially, beyond the core elements defined in the Creed, I am essentially agnostic.

I'm not quite exactly a fundamentalist myself, but as one guest to another, welcome!

You might want to read this forum's FSGs more carefully, especially with an eye to what is NOT in them. Specifically, to qualify as a fundamentalist by their definition, you do not need to believe in a literalist view of the Bible, though you do need to believe it is inerrant (a reasonable version of that, as in the Chicago Statement, will do). And you don't need to believe in Young Earth Creationism. There's nothing in the FSGs about the age of the Earth.

In fact, there's nothing doctrinal in the FSGs that I can't swallow. It's the militant, confrontational tone of them that puts me off. I like my orthodoxy generous rather than militant, and that's why I still consider myself a guest here.

Your last sentence puzzles me: You affirm the essentials of the faith, as given in the Nicene Creed (minus the filioque which you don't buy), but except for that you're essentially agnostic? So that means except for being solidly Christian, you're not sure what to believe? That's a pretty big except! ("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")

 

[Sockroteez]

Your last sentence puzzles me: You affirm the essentials of the faith, as given in the Nicene Creed (minus the filioque which you don't buy), but except for that you're essentially agnostic? So that means except for being solidly Christian, you're not sure what to believe? That's a pretty big except! ("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")

What I mean is that I do not adhere to any sect of modern Christianity 100%. That would include Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and all of the hundreds of Protestant-born sects. (I completely reject the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and by default any denominations that teach dogma in conflict with the Nicene Creed) There have been, and still are, just too many people of various positions all stating that they are 'doing God's will', or that 'God spoke to them'. So, in reference to the multitudes of subsequent creeds, confessions and dogmas put forward since the Nicene Creed was established, I am agnostic. As one example, I do not claim to know the manner in which the 'End Times' are going to pan out. As a second, I do not claim to know if the 'Gifts of the Spirit' (especially tongues) ended with the apostles, or if they continue to the present. I also do not know if Mary was taken to Heaven, if the 'Saved' are so because God 'Predestined' them, I do not even claim to know if salvation is by faith alone without works.

Honestly, it is because of so many self-proclaimed teachers, preachers and prophets all barking out the 'truth' while contradicting each other.

 

[desmalia]

What I mean is that I do not adhere to any sect of modern Christianity 100%. That would include Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and all of the hundreds of Protestant-born sects. (I completely reject the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and by default any denominations that teach dogma in conflict with the Nicene Creed) There have been, and still are, just too many people of various positions all stating that they are 'doing God's will', or that 'God spoke to them'. So, in reference to the multitudes of subsequent creeds, confessions and dogmas put forward since the Nicene Creed was established, I am agnostic. As one example, I do not claim to know the manner in which the 'End Times' are going to pan out. As a second, I do not claim to know if the 'Gifts of the Spirit' (especially tongues) ended with the apostles, or if they continue to the present. I also do not know if Mary was taken to Heaven, if the 'Saved' are so because God 'Predestined' them, I do not even claim to know if salvation is by faith alone without works.

Honestly, it is because of so many self-proclaimed teachers, preachers and prophets all barking out the 'truth' while contradicting each other.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm glad Izzy asked you that because I was confused too. Here's the thing though... if Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, would it not make more sense to call yourself a Christian, or at least follower of Christ instead of Agnostic? The things you mention there, like predestination, eschatology, etc. are not things that have to be solidified in order to become a believer. They are doctrines that we explore and learn as we grow in the faith.

And I quite understand your disillusionment with modern day teachers. There are a lot of false ones out there. It's taken me quite a while to come to a point that I trust any of them. And still it's only a very few. And I certainly do not consider any of them to be infallible.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

What I mean is that I do not adhere to any sect of modern Christianity 100%. That would include Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and all of the hundreds of Protestant-born sects. (I completely reject the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and by default any denominations that teach dogma in conflict with the Nicene Creed) There have been, and still are, just too many people of various positions all stating that they are 'doing God's will', or that 'God spoke to them'. So, in reference to the multitudes of subsequent creeds, confessions and dogmas put forward since the Nicene Creed was established, I am agnostic. As one example, I do not claim to know the manner in which the 'End Times' are going to pan out. As a second, I do not claim to know if the 'Gifts of the Spirit' (especially tongues) ended with the apostles, or if they continue to the present. I also do not know if Mary was taken to Heaven, if the 'Saved' are so because God 'Predestined' them, I do not even claim to know if salvation is by faith alone without works.

Honestly, it is because of so many self-proclaimed teachers, preachers and prophets all barking out the 'truth' while contradicting each other.

Well, most of that describes me too. I don't adhere to the doctrines of any particular teacher or church. I belong to a church (Assemblies of God) but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with their official position on everything. Doctrinally, I'm probably more Anglican than anything, but that doesn't mean a lot because Anglican doctrine is very broad, wide enough to encompass liberals and conservatives, Calvinists and almost-Catholics. I do believe in the continuing Gifts of the Spirit, because they're common enough in my church, and it's hard to see them operate without believing in them.

Martin Luther and John Calvin gave us a lot of good insights, John Wesley too, and I'm grateful to them, but at the same time there's a fair bit of theology that I think the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have a better handle on than the Protestant traditions. In the end, it's only Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit that I'm loyal to. Our various doctrines and traditions are worthwhile only to the extent that they bring us closer to God.

 

[cubanito]

At no time has Sockroteez suggested he's an agnostic. He was using "agnostic" more like a verb, to explain that on many things beyond some basics, that he is unsure.

From his statements, I do not believe that he is a fundamentalist, and would object to him debating in this area.

JR

 

[Nadiine]

Well, most of that describes me too. I don't adhere to the doctrines of any particular teacher or church. I belong to a church (Assemblies of God) but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with their official position on everything. Doctrinally, I'm probably more Anglican than anything, but that doesn't mean a lot because Anglican doctrine is very broad, wide enough to encompass liberals and conservatives, Calvinists and almost-Catholics. I do believe in the continuing Gifts of the Spirit, because they're common enough in my church, and it's hard to see them operate without believing in them.

Martin Luther and John Calvin gave us a lot of good insights, John Wesley too, and I'm grateful to them, but at the same time there's a fair bit of theology that I think the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have a better handle on than the Protestant traditions. In the end, it's only Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit that I'm loyal to. Our various doctrines and traditions are worthwhile only to the extent that they bring us closer to God.

you know... it just came to mind after reading this post (combining them with others I've seen you make on your beliefs) that you might as well just call yourself "non denominational"... you don't seem to ascribe to any 1 denom. in fullness - I don't either, that's why I'm technically non denominational, yet I fully adhere to the absolute truth and fundamental [central] Orthodox Christian tenets of the Holy Scriptures and I can get along with/ be at peace with so many denominations that ascribe to the traditional Orthodox Christian teachings without division.

Just thinking out loud

 

[Nadiine]

At no time has Sockroteez suggested he's an agnostic. He was using "agnostic" more like a verb, to explain that on many things beyond some basics, that he is unsure.

From his statements, I do not believe that he is a fundamentalist, and would object to him debating in this area.

JR

I don't consider myself any 'judge' on any 'fundy panel' here...

I'll just state that these statements from his post concern me

<snip>
I also do not know if Mary was taken to Heaven, if the 'Saved' are so because God 'Predestined' them, I do not even claim to know if salvation is by faith alone without works.

Honestly, it is because of so many self-proclaimed teachers, preachers and prophets all barking out the 'truth' while contradicting each other.

That to me isn't fundamentalism, it's more confusion and uncertainty imho.

I don't want to shut anybody out who believes in the same Lord - I hope that maybe we can help clear up some of the confusion. I truly understand why it could exist. CF isn't the beacon of Christian clarity, not even close unfortunately.

But there some truth found here

 

[Nadiine]

And I wanted to add that I think he leans towards fundamentalism -

& as for this statement:

I do not adhere to any sect of modern Christianity 100%. That would include Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and all of the hundreds of Protestant-born sects. (I completely reject the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and by default any denominations that teach dogma in conflict with the Nicene Creed)
There have been, and still are, just too many people of various positions all stating that they are 'doing God's will', or that 'God spoke to them'.

If he's referring to unorthodox type churches like the ones who wrangle snakes to prove their faith... I'd agree. & I also don't adhere to Catholicism or EO fully either.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

you know... it just came to mind after reading this post (combining them with others I've seen you make on your beliefs) that you might as well just call yourself "non denominational"... you don't seem to ascribe to any 1 denom. in fullness - I don't either, that's why I'm technically non denominational, yet I fully adhere to the absolute truth and fundamental [central] Orthodox Christian tenets of the Holy Scriptures and I can get along with/ be at peace with so many denominations that ascribe to the traditional Orthodox Christian teachings without division.

Just thinking out loud

Right, I could go to any church that's got the basics of the faith right, so I'm non-denominational in that sense. But according to the ND forum FSGs, I'm disqualified because my church is affiliated with a denomination.

 

[Sockroteez]

From his statements, I do not believe that he is a fundamentalist, and would object to him debating in this area.

JR

What is it that you would define as 'Fundamentalist', and which of the dogmas do I oppose that you would ban me from 'debating' here?

 

[Sockroteez]

And I wanted to add that I think he leans towards fundamentalism -

& as for this statement:

If he's referring to unorthodox type churches like the ones who wrangle snakes to prove their faith... I'd agree. & I also don't adhere to Catholicism or EO fully either.

Fundamentalism in terms of the movement of the last hundred years or so I do not adhere to. (though the foundational doctrines that accompany the movement doubtless rest in the Reformation. I believe the Reformation was good in the sense of breaking the grasp of Medieval Catholicism, but it really was not the blissful restoration of New Testament Christianity that so many of the Fundamentalists of our day think it have been; the freedom that it brought has had the consequence of the multitudes of denominations that continue to form). It was a rejection of this that caused me to leave a very Fundamentalist Baptist Church. I suppose I could be called an 'Old Fundamentalist' in that I accept the Fundamentals of the Christian faith as hashed out and defined by the Fathers up to and culminating in the 4th Century. Insofar as where I'd be if it were up to me 100%: I'd be at a local Russian Orthodox Church. Since my wife doesn't like the Liturgy, and has problems breathing the incense, we chose what I perceive to be the most open to Eastern Orthodoxy, which is the Anglican Church.

In reference to another post that perceived my position as due to confusion, let me say that it was by bouncing around the various flavors of contemporary Churches that caused confusion. Eventually the thought that implanted itself in my mind was this: "If all [these people] (theologians, teachers, pastors, priests) believe they are right, but are in disagreement, how can I, as one less learned than they, think to possess the truth? After all, in agreeing part and parcel with various teachings, but rejecting others, I am in effect creating my own personal 'Church'." This, to me, is an untenable position, and actually hypocritical. Thus it was that I looked to the period when the Church was one Church. That was what led me to a decision between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Since Catholicism has continued to pile up susequent dogma over the centuries since the Great Schism of 1054, I chose Eastern Orthodoxy. (which as a happy coincidence was the most enjoyable to me). In thus choosing Orthodoxy, I consider all dogmas or doctrines developed after the Schism to be suspect and subject to doubt. (to an Eastern Orthodox Christian, the Reformation isn't a really big issue; when some Protestants visited the Orthodox in the 16th or 17th century to present their views, the Orthodox basically told them 'No thanks, go home')

It is in terms of the agreed Doctrines of the Universal Church before the Schism and the Reformation that I am 'Fundamental' in my beliefs. It is in terms of all subsequent doctrines Catholic or Protestant that I am 'Agnostic'.

 

[icedtea]

I think I've always been a fundamentalist, and Saturday it will be 30 years I've known Jesus!

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Fundamentalism in terms of the movement of the last hundred years or so I do not adhere to. (though the foundational doctrines that accompany the movement doubtless rest in the Reformation. I believe the Reformation was good in the sense of breaking the grasp of Medieval Catholicism, but it really was not the blissful restoration of New Testament Christianity that so many of the Fundamentalists of our day think it have been; the freedom that it brought has had the consequence of the multitudes of denominations that continue to form). It was a rejection of this that caused me to leave a very Fundamentalist Baptist Church. I suppose I could be called an 'Old Fundamentalist' in that I accept the Fundamentals of the Christian faith as hashed out and defined by the Fathers up to and culminating in the 4th Century. Insofar as where I'd be if it were up to me 100%: I'd be at a local Russian Orthodox Church. Since my wife doesn't like the Liturgy, and has problems breathing the incense, we chose what I perceive to be the most open to Eastern Orthodoxy, which is the Anglican Church.

In reference to another post that perceived my position as due to confusion, let me say that it was by bouncing around the various flavors of contemporary Churches that caused confusion. Eventually the thought that implanted itself in my mind was this: "If all [these people] (theologians, teachers, pastors, priests) believe they are right, but are in disagreement, how can I, as one less learned than they, think to possess the truth? After all, in agreeing part and parcel with various teachings, but rejecting others, I am in effect creating my own personal 'Church'." This, to me, is an untenable position, and actually hypocritical. Thus it was that I looked to the period when the Church was one Church. That was what led me to a decision between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Since Catholicism has continued to pile up susequent dogma over the centuries since the Great Schism of 1054, I chose Eastern Orthodoxy. (which as a happy coincidence was the most enjoyable to me). In thus choosing Orthodoxy, I consider all dogmas or doctrines developed after the Schism to be suspect and subject to doubt. (to an Eastern Orthodox Christian, the Reformation isn't a really big issue; when some Protestants visited the Orthodox in the 16th or 17th century to present their views, the Orthodox basically told them 'No thanks, go home')

It is in terms of the agreed Doctrines of the Universal Church before the Schism and the Reformation that I am 'Fundamental' in my beliefs. It is in terms of all subsequent doctrines Catholic or Protestant that I am 'Agnostic'.

Alrighty, now that makes perfect sense to me. And "Old Fundamentalist with Eastern Orthodox sympathies" is a description I'd be comfortable with myself.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I think I've always been a fundamentalist, and Saturday it will be 20 years I've known Jesus!

Good to see you, HD!

 

[icedtea]

good to see you also.

 

[Catanga]

Hallo,

I'm Catanga and a Christian Right. The foundament of my believe is only Bible truth and I very seldom go to church because most of the churchs today are corrupted and commited adultury with the sinned society.

I sure that USA and US - Christian Rights are last hope for Christian World because Europa will changed to Islam in the next 30 - 40 years.

I studied the Bible with Jehova Witnesses, fundamental Baptists, Mormons.
Very seldon I go to Romer Catolic or Orthodox Church but I looking now for one ultrafundamentalist church in USA. Maybe you can help me.

I happy that I'm not alone as Christian fundamentalist.