[OPEN]What are the Fundamentals?

[DailyBlessings]

The term fundamentalist is tossed around CF so frequently that it's meaning is often forgotten, but it was chosen intentionally by those who launched it. The series of books called "The Fundamentals" laid out a tableau of beliefs deemed essential to Christianity.

Do you consider any particular beliefs as absolutely critical to a definition of Christianity? If so, what are your "fundamentals"?

Or what, if it were taken away, would leave something no longer defineable as Christianity?

Passing fundamentalists are welcome to answer this as well as liberals, (provided of course that rules are followed) as I am curious about your opinions as well.

 

[Im_A]

the fundamentals to me? hmm.i guess for me, it's pretty simple:Love God with all your heart soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. i'm not trying to oversimplify a big question, but if the law was the way given from God to set out His people amongst the nations, and if now either because of Jesus, Paul, or the Noahide laws that the Gentiles are can sojourn with the Jewish people spiritually, then Jesus summed up the law in its entire manner, thus giving us the fundamentals of "Christianity."the only other thing i would add into the fundamentals, is that God's Will will be done, no matter what because of His sovereignity. i admit tho, that this part is rather reactionary/personal from me, but in a way, i see the law as "reconciling humanity under the saving knowledge of Christ" especially if i am supposed to believe that Christ is Divine/"God".but the first part i put, is something i see reaching beyond all personal opinions, and reaching beyond all reactionary arguments.

 

[Im_A]

i apologize DailyBlessings for not answering the other parts of your OP. i view God's Will as crucial to the fundamentals of Christianity. without it, i truely wonder if Christianity would fall apart and be a fallacy. this is because i view EVERYTHING under the light of God's Will of reconciling all in the saving knowledge of God. i guess the Will of God being forever and realizing what it is, has forever changed my theology, and what i believe the fundamentals should be/are.so yes, without God's Will, i believe Christianity would be a fallacy and something worth throwing out as a non-sensical idea.i personally, put equal importance with Jesus and God's Will to be the most crucial points with Christianity. without these, again i would see it being a fallacy. and while their may be issues that some find Jesus, i guess i see God's Will as reconciling every argument/criticism that one may give in regards to Christ.i hope that all made sense.

 

[No Swansong]

the fundamentals to me? hmm.i guess for me, it's pretty simple:Love God with all your heart soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. i'm not trying to oversimplify a big question,

Why not? it is exactly how Jesus simplified it. I think it is a wonderfully concise statement. Speaking as a Fundamentalist myself you have my support in this idea.

 

[Joykins]

The teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I'll second this..........

 

[Mling]

Recently, I have started drawing a strict devision between the concept of "Christian" and the concept "Follower of Christ."

Christianity is an Earthly relgion, created and supported by human beings. Ostensibly, it was originally modeled after the teachings of a man/diety called Christ, but, as a religion, it can "mean" whatever humans decide it means. It's fundamentals can be whatever enough people decide is its fundamentals.

A Follower of Christ follows Christ. Christ made two major statements in this regard. Paraphrased a bit: "Nobody comes through the Father except through me," and "I will divide the sheep from the goats. I will accept the sheep because they did my will, and reject the goats because they did not. My will: that you care for those who are weaker than yourselves, with special care given to those who have nobody else to care for them. I am with those people most especially, so treat them well, because I am one of them, and they are me."

The first statement can be taken a few ways. Either it was an assertion of divinity, ie: I am God. Therefore, anybody who comes to the Father, comes through me, also. It can also be taken as instruction--I am the only way to the Father. Therefore, if you want to reach the Father, you must follow me.

If the latter meaning is correct, than the other statement clarifies how a person follows him. At no point does he say that a person needs correct doctrine, or to belong to the correct religion. The fundamental is a particular sort of lifestyle.

 

[Multi-Elis]

the fundamentals to me? hmm.i guess for me, it's pretty simple:Love God with all your heart soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Same here.

For me the main thing that bothers me about fundumentalism is giving more importance to doctrinal details, selective doctrinal interpretations of the bible, etc, than to love. And there again, with real fundumentalism, being loving is doing what is best for them which is following the details and the rules, and making sure people have the right doctrinal interpretation on the bible.

This seems to be pretty much the case of fundumentalism in all religions. Osama Bin Laden is perfect in terms of obeying all the rules. But he gives his rules and his interpretaions more importance than loving others. The jewish fundumentalists who would persecute us, gave more importance to their narrow interpretation of the bible and the conclusions they derived from it (that believing that Yeshua is the messiah is wrong, and that trying to stop them justifies harming property and lying about it. The only thing they weren't allowed to do for the cause was break the sabath) than in loving and serving others.
The christian fundumentalists I argued with, would talk about doctrinal issues as if it was a matter of salvation. The reality is that the stupedest peasent women who knows nothing about doctrine can be saved. So can a 6 year old who knows no docrine. An intuition that this is the right thing usually suffices.
The only fundumentalist who turned me off forever, was a christian who seemed to give more importance to the details and a letter of the law reading of the bible than to love. In theory, love was most important to him. But in practice, he was trying to pressure me to follow his set of rules, implying implicitly that if I didn't, I wasn't a real christian. I'm sure he thought he was doing this out of love, and I'm sure he didn't realize what he was doing.

Real fundumentalism is salvation by law, by following all the codes and rules, by being perfect. Real faith is salvation despite our imperfections, and growing into an attitude of love and service to others, despite their imperfections. Fundumentalism in modern jargon "stems from ego". Faith defeats ego.

You don't have to be a fundumentalist to desplay behavior and thinking that stems from the ego. I don't consider myself a fundumentalist, and I am guilty of attitudes steming from the ego. I too have doctrines. And people can have conservative and literal interpretations of their religion and still be loving.

Any love taken out of christianity is no longer christianity. Everything else is tolerable as imperfection. Even not believing in the litteral death and resurection of Yeshua, but rather seeing it as a myth/parable is tolerable as an (imperfect?) way of seeing things. Wow, it's amazing how wrong you can be on doctrine, and still be right on actions, and still be saved. It's amazing how wrong you can be when you think you know all the answers, all the doctrine, wrong in the attitudes, defakto. (I'm guilty of this too, not just fundumentalists.)

 

[stumpjumper]

I guess it depends on what you are trying to describe when you say the fundamentals of Christianity...

I tend to think that without acceptance of the trinity and the Incarnation you are left with pretty much a message that is not theologically understandable...

That's not to say that those who don't believe in the trinity or Jesus as Lord and Savior are not followers of Jesus but that, essentially, certain aspects of their beliefs are untenable.

So, I would say it is pretty much foundational to accept that Jesus was the incarnation of God, was crucified, and was resurrected and that his disciples understood his teachings well enough not to lead us astray with the Gospel accounts that we penned by the various Christian communities in the years following Jesus' death...

 

[ImaginaryVoyager]

The only fundamental to Christianity is that someone must sincerely believe they are a Christian. I have no right or desire to judge them beyond that.

As far as the term 'fundamentalist' is concerned, there is an excellent definition in the rules thread of the fundamentalist forum on CF.

 

[Catherineanne]

Do you consider any particular beliefs as absolutely critical to a definition of Christianity? If so, what are your "fundamentals"?

Or what, if it were taken away, would leave something no longer defineable as Christianity?

Love.

A Christian who does not demonstrate Christ's love in his or her life is difficult to reconcile with anything at all. We are told that by this will all men know that we are Christ's disciples, and that is good enough for me. We start by loving those who love us, and we graduate to learning how to love our enemies. But this takes a lifetime to learn.

All else follows from love; Christ's love.

Alternatively, anyone who elevates the Bible to the status of God, to me risks idolatry, and a distortion of the nature of the Godhead. Which is not a road I personally would feel safe in travelling.

 

[Catherineanne]

The teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is not intended as a personal slur, Joykins, but these things without love are meaningless, imo.

You appear to have missed the cake, upon which to place the icing which is the teachings, crucifixion and resurrection.

I assume you are presupposing that love is there, but it is perfectly possible to have all you state, and precious little sacrificial love whatever. Just look around you at the Christian church, and you will see this.

 

[Joykins]

This is not intended as a personal slur, Joykins, but these things without love are meaningless, imo.

You appear to have missed the cake, upon which to place the icing which is the teachings, crucifixion and resurrection.

I assume you are presupposing that love is there, but it is perfectly possible to have all you state, and precious little sacrificial love whatever. Just look around you at the Christian church, and you will see this.

Love is at the core of all the teachings, and "teachings" was meant to encompass that aspect.

But God's love and self-sacrificial love are not unique to Christianity.

Love of enemies may well be.

 

[stumpjumper]

Catherineanne

But you can have love and not be a Christian.

Is it essential to Christianity? Yes. But it is not Christianity without a theological message. Stating that love is all that is needed is philosophy not theology...

 

[Catherineanne]

Love is at the core of all the teachings, and "teachings" was meant to encompass that aspect.

You are right that it certainly should be there.

But God's love and self-sacrificial love are not unique to Christianity.

Maybe not, but they always derive from God, imo, and refect the presence of God, whoever manifests them.

Love of enemies may well be.

Nope, I believe Ghandhi understood this concept very well, and he was Hindu.

 

[Mling]

But you can have love and not be a Christian.

Using my definition of "Follower of Christ" one cannot have love without experiencing God/following Christ to some degree. If God is the source of and embodiment of love, than to love is to experience a bit of God.

 

[Catherineanne]

Catherineanne

But you can have love and not be a Christian.

Quite right. But can you have love, and manifest love, and not be accepted by God? I personally do not think so.

Is it essential to Christianity? Yes. But it is not Christianity without a theological message. Stating that love is all that is needed is philosophy not theology...

You think so?

Interesting point of view.

Care to look again at what I actually said, rather than what you think I said.

"Love.

A Christian who does not demonstrate Christ's love in his or her life is difficult to reconcile with anything at all. We are told that by this will all men know that we are Christ's disciples, and that is good enough for me. We start by loving those who love us, and we graduate to learning how to love our enemies. But this takes a lifetime to learn.

All else follows from love; Christ's love."

It is not a case of; 'love is all you need'. It is 'Christ's love is all you need.' Somewhat different, I think.

 

[Catherineanne]

Using my definition of "Follower of Christ" one cannot have love without experiencing God/following Christ to some degree. If God is the source of and embodiment of love, than to love is to experience a bit of God.

Quite right.

Just as nobody can say 'Jesus is Lord' without the Holy Spirit being present, so nobody can demonstrate love for a neighbour, let alone for an enemy, without God being present, who is Love.

 

[Im_A]

The term fundamentalist is tossed around CF so frequently that it's meaning is often forgotten, but it was chosen intentionally by those who launched it. The series of books called "The Fundamentals" laid out a tableau of beliefs deemed essential to Christianity.

Do you consider any particular beliefs as absolutely critical to a definition of Christianity? If so, what are your "fundamentals"?

Or what, if it were taken away, would leave something no longer defineable as Christianity?

Passing fundamentalists are welcome to answer this as well as liberals, (provided of course that rules are followed) as I am curious about your opinions as well.

let's remember this (the bold part i put in to DailyBlessing's OP.)

 

[stumpjumper]

Using my definition of "Follower of Christ" one cannot have love without experiencing God/following Christ to some degree. If God is the source of and embodiment of love, than to love is to experience a bit of God.

But then you are redefining Christian to mean anyone that experiences God... I would agree that anyone that abides in love abides in God as 1 John says but that is not the fullness of Christianity or the full Christian message.

It is a part of the message and, perhaps, in the end the most important one because God is love but it is still lacking in some areas...