Point Two of What is a Fundamentalist

BaptistBibleBeliever

Brother Virgil
Supporter
Dec 6, 2018
95
82
70
McHenry
Visit site
✟41,417.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

No believer in the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, or the JEPD theory of Bible interpretation can be a biblical fundamentalist, or as I prefer, a “Biblicist.” These unbelieving scholars have come up with a science falsely so-called known as “higher criticism.”

The term “higher” criticism is a misnomer. It is a term invented by destructive Bible critics (mainly in Germany, 1700-1900) which they applied to themselves to make you think they were able to correct the “holy scriptures.” Among these “heady, highminded” (II Timothy 3:4), egotistical sapheads were: Kuenen, Bleek, Vatke, DeWitte, Graf, Wellhausen, Strauss, Reus, Buhl, Hoffman, Herder, Semler, Paulus, Scholtz, Lessing, Eichhorn, et al.

“J” means a writer who wrote “Jehovah.”
“P” means a writer who wrote about the Priesthood.
“E” means a writer who used “Elohim.”
“E” and “D” wrote of Mt. Horeb instead of Mt. Sinai.
A phantom “H” was added to account for and explain the genealogies in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. That makes five aliens from nowhere.

So, these folks need not pretend to be fundamental-anything.

A Bible-believing fundamentalist believes what the Bible says about a six-day creation. He doesn’t try to twist each day of creation into geologic ages that over billions of years resulted in the beginning. God said it, we believe it, and that settles it. Some do believe that the universe is older than 6,000 years—that’s fine—as long as they agree that when God created the earth, it happened in six days.

A Bible-believing fundamentalist believes that Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale, not some “great fish.” Whether whales are known to swallow a human whole is not important, this one did, because God said it. We believe whatever the Bible says is so.

We believe if the Bible said something happened after a miraculous manner, then that is exactly how it happened. We don’t use human logic to explain away Joshua’s long day, or Hezekiah’s sun-dial, or the parting of the Red Sea in the Exodus. We do not try to insist that it was really a place called the “Reed Sea” and was only a couple of feet deep and Israel waded across. Nope, we believe they went over on dry land and dry shod. At any rate, I’d like to hear these “scholars” explain how Pharaoh’s entire army, including himself, all drowned in 2-4 feet of water.

We reject anyone that claims to hold the title of “Fundamentalist” that denies these truths. You’d be better off posting in the liberal forum. In these days, even a murderous thug thinking he is doing the will of Allah is called a “fundamentalist.”

The Bible makes a distinction! You either believe the Book or you don’t! If you don’t, you don’t belong here until you do!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
A Bible-believing fundamentalist believes that Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale, not some “great fish.” Whether whales are known to swallow a human whole is not important, this one did, because God said it. We believe whatever the Bible says is so.
The gist of the op seems basically correct,
but don't forget that in english "whale" may be far from what is in the original Scripture.
Yahweh's meaning is still and always absolute TRUTH,
but man's words , man's meanings, are not necessarily reliable.

Yahweh honors His Word even more than His Own Name, so absolutely yes He and His Word is completely Trustworthy and True, no matter how mankind interprets it.

Yahweh reveals the truth of salvation, and everything concerning salvation, freely and fully to little children,
as Jesus Himself Gave Praise to Him for.

Yahweh's revealing Salvation, and giving understanding of Scripture, to His children, as He Says, does not rely on man's words or definitions,
so neither should we place too much emphasis on man's ways and words, right ?
 
Upvote 0

BaptistBibleBeliever

Brother Virgil
Supporter
Dec 6, 2018
95
82
70
McHenry
Visit site
✟41,417.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you yeshuaslavejeff.

My comments were mostly directed to those that magnify a supposed problem in order to destroy the faith in the Bible among those that are reading it, seeking for answers.

It is a matter of faith for me, but if Scripture has errors, and it is endorsed by the very name of God--than God is just as flawed as Him imperfect Word. God isn't going to let that happen. As it happens, no one has the originals and never will (unless God has them up in heaven in a lock box) so any argument that suggests that a word should be something else, based on those originals that no one has ever seen in centuries, has no true merit.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Some gentiles "have the original", according to Romans 2 (and are justified), et al.
Some Jews also, according to other Scripture and in Harmony with all.
As Yahweh is Pleased to accomplish this.

The so-called errors in English(or other) translations are not errors in Yahweh's Meaning of His Word, Plan or Purpose in Yahshua Hamashiach, are they ?
 
Upvote 0

BaptistBibleBeliever

Brother Virgil
Supporter
Dec 6, 2018
95
82
70
McHenry
Visit site
✟41,417.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
When Romans 2, as well as the rest of the Bible, was "original" when it was written. When one church sent a "copy" to another church, that church has a copy--not the original. The original is long gone, but the copies were carefully protected and divinely preserved.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
When Romans 2, as well as the rest of the Bible, was "original" when it was written. When one church sent a "copy" to another church, that church has a copy--not the original. The original is long gone, but the copies were carefully protected and divinely preserved.
When Yahweh Reveals Salvation to little children, and everything concerning Salvation,
does He Reveal the Truth, or something else ? (yes, a rhetorical question)
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

No believer in the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, or the JEPD theory of Bible interpretation can be a biblical fundamentalist, or as I prefer, a “Biblicist.” These unbelieving scholars have come up with a science falsely so-called known as “higher criticism.”

The term “higher” criticism is a misnomer. It is a term invented by destructive Bible critics (mainly in Germany, 1700-1900) which they applied to themselves to make you think they were able to correct the “holy scriptures.” Among these “heady, highminded” (II Timothy 3:4), egotistical sapheads were: Kuenen, Bleek, Vatke, DeWitte, Graf, Wellhausen, Strauss, Reus, Buhl, Hoffman, Herder, Semler, Paulus, Scholtz, Lessing, Eichhorn, et al.

“J” means a writer who wrote “Jehovah.”
“P” means a writer who wrote about the Priesthood.
“E” means a writer who used “Elohim.”
“E” and “D” wrote of Mt. Horeb instead of Mt. Sinai.
A phantom “H” was added to account for and explain the genealogies in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. That makes five aliens from nowhere.

So, these folks need not pretend to be fundamental-anything.

A Bible-believing fundamentalist believes what the Bible says about a six-day creation. He doesn’t try to twist each day of creation into geologic ages that over billions of years resulted in the beginning. God said it, we believe it, and that settles it. Some do believe that the universe is older than 6,000 years—that’s fine—as long as they agree that when God created the earth, it happened in six days.

A Bible-believing fundamentalist believes that Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale, not some “great fish.” Whether whales are known to swallow a human whole is not important, this one did, because God said it. We believe whatever the Bible says is so.

We believe if the Bible said something happened after a miraculous manner, then that is exactly how it happened. We don’t use human logic to explain away Joshua’s long day, or Hezekiah’s sun-dial, or the parting of the Red Sea in the Exodus. We do not try to insist that it was really a place called the “Reed Sea” and was only a couple of feet deep and Israel waded across. Nope, we believe they went over on dry land and dry shod. At any rate, I’d like to hear these “scholars” explain how Pharaoh’s entire army, including himself, all drowned in 2-4 feet of water.

We reject anyone that claims to hold the title of “Fundamentalist” that denies these truths. You’d be better off posting in the liberal forum. In these days, even a murderous thug thinking he is doing the will of Allah is called a “fundamentalist.”

The Bible makes a distinction! You either believe the Book or you don’t! If you don’t, you don’t belong here until you do!
Remarking with some of my friends on here I found this to add to my comments. A definition of fundamentalism I said I liked better then the Nicaean creed.

The Fundamentals, several core beliefs, including:
That JEPD thing has always seemed so pointless to me, the use of the various names of God have more do do with the definition of the word, then the author. The first five books of the OT, like the first five books of the NT, are historical narratives. This should give us a clue how important these testimonies are to the faith, to redemptive history and the exercise of faith in the lives of believers.

We are not the first to explore the fundamentals of the faith:

Lyman Stewart, mobilizing a network of conservative evangelical writers into a movement in defense of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and the core doctrines of traditional Christian faith. The 12-volume series of book-length journals contained 90 essays commissioned from leading theologians and religious leaders broadly representing conservative and evangelical Protestantism. (The Untold Story of the Fundamentals, Biola University)
It's very interesting stuff, easily found online. One theme emerges with the rise of modernism:

The dominant men of the movement were men with a strong bias against the supernatural. This is not an ex-parte statement at all. It is simply a matter of fact, as we shall presently show. (The History of the Higher Criticism, Anti-supernaturalism)​

What we think of as supernatural is perfectly natural for God. The Incarnation, Resurrection, miracles of the Bible and the epic panorama of redemptive history seems little more then myth and legend to the modern mind. So how does Christian theology get inundated at the dawn of the twentieth century with the naturalistic assumptions of modern academics? Apparently the trail leads back to the French rationalist Spinoza, who was an unapologetic pantheist. Pantheism is the idea that everything is God so what does that have to do with the rise of Higher Criticism?

1670, Spinoza came out boldly and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler. (The Fundamentals, Torrey)​

Ezra was the scribe who returned with thousands of Jews from Babylon, during that time the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt and complete under the authority of Nehemiah. The Old Testament canon was closed around that time, the last books of the Protestant Old Testament were composed including the Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Malachi would be the final installment but the modern scholar goes further then that. They believe that the entire Old Testament was somehow complied at that time.

JEPD is almost an afterthought, the dominant view is a prejudice against supernaturalism, which is really anything resembling a miracle. I delight in returning to the fundamentals, can't get enough of it. Just when you look into these things don't neglect the historical aspect of fundamentalism vs. the secular mindset, it's the whole reason the fundamentals of the faith are so important because they are always under attack.

Love your posts, like what your doing here.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
  • Agree
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
When Romans 2, as well as the rest of the Bible, was "original" when it was written. When one church sent a "copy" to another church, that church has a copy--not the original. The original is long gone, but the copies were carefully protected and divinely preserved.
Well yes, they made copies, but understand they didn't do it carelessly. The papyrus they were written on was perishable and would your church want to surrender you one copy of Paul's letter to another church? No, they would tell them, you need a scribe and took great care to make it as perfect as possible.
 
Upvote 0

BaptistBibleBeliever

Brother Virgil
Supporter
Dec 6, 2018
95
82
70
McHenry
Visit site
✟41,417.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
It's very interesting stuff, easily found online. One theme emerges with the rise of modernism:

I don't much know about the earlier ideas of the term "Fundamentalist," but I'm glad that you mentioned that it was basically the Bible believers answer to Modernism. At one point, Christians were simply those that believed their Bibles and didn't have any problems with doubting God's ability to do whatever He wanted to do when He wanted to do it!

I was saved in 1976 and was immediately drawn into the Independent Baptist fellowships of the time. The 1950's were a rather volatile time because the Southern Baptist Convention was upsetting a lot of their preachers with the cooperative movement and the introduction of Higher Criticism into their universities . . . and for me, that was my introduction to and understanding of "Fundamentalism."

Now that we are in 2018, even that 1950's movement is going the way of the very thing they rejected. I guess that any man-inspired movement only has a shelf-life of about 40 years or so, but bless God, there are still those that still simply believe the Word of God! and have no problem with the absolute truths of the Word, or the supernatural.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BaptistBibleBeliever

Brother Virgil
Supporter
Dec 6, 2018
95
82
70
McHenry
Visit site
✟41,417.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Well yes, they made copies, but understand they didn't do it carelessly. The papyrus they were written on was perishable and would your church want to surrender you one copy of Paul's letter to another church? No, they would tell them, you need a scribe and took great care to make it as perfect as possible.

Yes, the scribes were meticulous in their handling of Scripture to the point where if a copy did not exactly match the master page (and they used some kind of a mathematical process to do it, including a page that had certain points on the page which would show the accuracy) that if there was even the slightest change they would dispose of the whole page and start over.

That is behind the Siniaticus/Vaticanus issue. Tischendorf visited St. Catherine's monastery where he saw all these pages of the Bible and he took them, not realizing (or realizing and not caring) that these were from the discard pile. Those pages were full of errors, but they are now regarding as the "older and the better manuscripts."

Too bad the monks at the monastery didn't just burn the pages, but because they were (or contained) God's Word, they would not do it, just put them in storage.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, the scribes were meticulous in their handling of Scripture to the point where if a copy did not exactly match the master page (and they used some kind of a mathematical process to do it, including a page that had certain points on the page which would show the accuracy) that if there was even the slightest change they would dispose of the whole page and start over.

That is behind the Siniaticus/Vaticanus issue. Tischendorf visited St. Catherine's monastery where he saw all these pages of the Bible and he took them, not realizing (or realizing and not caring) that these were from the discard pile. Those pages were full of errors, but they are now regarding as the "older and the better manuscripts."

Too bad the monks at the monastery didn't just burn the pages, but because they were (or contained) God's Word, they would not do it, just put them in storage.
John Mark wrote one of the earliest books, it should be noted that he was a Levite, so probably well acquainted with how you scribe a scroll. typically at the end of a scroll there is a word count so you could double check for errors. The Jews spread all over the Mediterranean world, invariably a Jewish community would establis a synagogue. Then of course the scrolls of the Torah and I assume as many of the other 39 books of the OT. Just to give you an idea, Paul reaches Cyprus in early spring, traveling the southrn coast speaking in the synagogues as he moved west. He didn't reach the western end till late summer. That's a lot if synagogues and a lot of scrolls. Early Christians were Jews, the Gentiles would be included later, so they knew a lot about how sacred text was preserved.

The codex Siniacus and Vaticanus were different, they were leather bond and much more durible which is exactly why we have them and not the older scrolls, the papyrus scrools have long since disintegrated.

What should be remembered is the Apostolic doctrine was and is foundational. The churxh would meticulously preserve and regularly read them to the church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
“J” means a writer who wrote “Jehovah.”
“P” means a writer who wrote about the Priesthood.
“E” means a writer who used “Elohim.”
“E” and “D” wrote of Mt. Horeb instead of Mt. Sinai.
A phantom “H” was added to account for and explain the genealogies in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. That makes five aliens from nowhere.

I can tell you have not done any study whatsoever in regards to "textual criticism".

To be precise:

"the following sections will deal with the Law from the perspective of the “J, E, D, and P” theory, or as it has became known, the “Documentary Hypothesis” theory.

The documentary hypothesis proposes that the first five books of the O.T. represent a combination of documents from originally independent sources. According to the version formulated by Julius Wellhousen (1844-1918), there were four main sources:
  • The “J”, or Jahwist, (Yahweh) written around 950 BC in the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
  • The “E”, or Elohist, written around 850 BC in the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
  • The “D”, or Deuteronomist, written around 621 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
  • The “P”, or Priestly, written around 450 BC by Aaronic Priests."
The Christian and the Law, A 21st Century Look at the Law, By: me, Section 1: The Meaning of the term Law,Sub-Section B: The Understanding of the Law in the older Historical Books.

If you want, it can be found here.

Also, if you believe God, the Maker of all things, who is described as "omnipotent", perhaps you would care to explain to me why it took as long as "24" hours to make the earth?

The omnipotent God I serve, could have created the earth in a nano-second. As soon as He spoke it, it could have come into being.

Also, if you want to take for granted that "day" means a literal 24 hour period, that can't be right because we also know on one certain day, it was longer than 24 hours. (cf. Jos. 10:12-14)

The importance of the creation account is not how long it took, rather who did it to begin with!

Here again, if:

2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

There is no hope for remission of sins or even indwelling by the Holy Spirit unless you submit to baptism. (cf Acts 2:38)

In fact, you can't even be saved without it! (cf. Mk. 16:16)

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is no hope for remission of sins or even indwelling by the Holy Spirit unless you submit to baptism. (cf Acts 2:38)

In fact, you can't even be saved without it! (cf. Mk. 16:16)
I must have completely misunderstood your intent here, are you saying that you cannot be saved apart from water baptism?

I realize there is a qualifying 'if', just wanting clarification here.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I must have completely misunderstood your intent here, are you saying that you cannot be saved apart from water baptism?

I realize there is a qualifying 'if', just wanting clarification here.

If:

Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

We are to take this for what it means, then:

"be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (cf. Acts 2:38)

You cannot have "remission for sins" or even be indwelt by the Holy Spirit unless you are baptized. That is, according to Acts 2:38.

Lets go one step further.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" (cf. Mk. 16:16)

You can't even be saved unless you are baptized!

If baptism was so important, why did Paul only baptize two individuals during his ministry?

Just because it says it, don't make it necessarily true. The last 9 verses of Mark 16 are controversial. They were added after Marl originally wrote his Gospel.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If:



We are to take this for what it means, then:

"be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (cf. Acts 2:38)

You cannot have "remission for sins" or even be indwelt by the Holy Spirit unless you are baptized. That is, according to Acts 2:38.

Lets go one step further.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" (cf. Mk. 16:16)

You can't even be saved unless you are baptized!

If baptism was so important, why did Paul only baptize two individuals during his ministry?

Just because it says it, don't make it necessarily true. The last 9 verses of Mark 16 are controversial. They were added after Marl originally wrote his Gospel.

God Bless

Till all are one.
I fail to see how that is the same as the days in Genesis are 24 hour days. What created on each of the successive days, didn't take all day to do it. There is never the less 'evening and morning' and the ordinal numbering of days indicating a normal 24 hour day. The context of the two examples are different.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I fail to see how that is the same as the days in Genesis are 24 hour days. What created on each of the successive days, didn't take all day to do it. There is never the less 'evening and morning' and the ordinal numbering of days indicating a normal 24 hour day. The context of the two examples are different.

Is God "omnipotent"? (all-powerful)

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Is God "omnipotent"? (all-powerful)

God Bless

Till all are one.
The question is rhetorical, of course he is. St. Thomas Aquinas even said creation wasn't in a day, it was in an instant. Why are you asking me rhetorical questions because this is really a semantical issue.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The question is rhetorical, of course he is. St. Thomas Aquinas even said creation wasn't in a day, it was in an instant. Why are you asking me rhetorical questions because this is really a semantical issue.

Because you come off as saying that God took 1 day (24 hours) to create the earth. If it took that long, then God is mighty weak.

Remember, I said:

The omnipotent God I serve, could have created the earth in a nano-second. As soon as He spoke it, it could have come into being.

And you snapped back at me saying:

There is never the less 'evening and morning' and the ordinal numbering of days indicating a normal 24 hour day.

Which brings us right back here:

Why are you asking me rhetorical questions because this is really a semantical issue.

The OP comes in here saying:

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

Well, yes and no.

Do you actually believe the creation account took a "literal" 6/24 hour period?

If you answer "Yes", then you have no choice than to say in and every reference to "day" it means a "literal 24 hour" time frame. And I can prove that in at least one section of scripture, that is not true.

Furthermore, if we as Fundamentalists take this to be "standard":

"Believes whatever the Bible says is so;"

Salvation is by believing AND baptism, according to Mk. 16:16. Also, Jesus shed blood cannot offer to us "remission of sins and indwelling by the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:38.

Mark 16:16 adds a condition to salvation. i.e.: baptism

According to Acts 2:38, the only way to have "remission for sin" is to be baptized. That contradicts Heb. 9:22.

Here is another:

If we take "Believes whatever the Bible says is so;", then I can be cleaned by hyssop!

"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." -Psa. 51:7 (KJV)

Are we to believe that sprinkling us with hyssop is able to "purge" us to the point of being clean, whiter then snow?

Here is one more.

If "Believes whatever the Bible says is so' is the "standard, we have no other alternative than to believe "unicorns" do, or did, at one time exist.

"God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." -Num. 23:22 (KJV)

Do you realize that there are some nine references in the scriptures to "unicorns"?

Now to one extent, I do "Believe whatever the Bible says is so" within reason.

I do not accept the "YEC" (Young Earth Creation: 6-24 hour "days") theory neither do I accept the "OEC" (Old Earth Creation: 6-1000 year "days") theory.

If we, as Christians really and truly believe God is omnipotent/all-powerful, that alone blows both theories out of the water!

Not only that, but I could also go even deeper.

Just because the creation account uses the word "day" does not necessarily mean a "literal 24 hour" time period.

And here again, if we accept "Believes whatever the Bible says is so" as the "standard" for Fundamentalism, then we, as a whole, absolutely must abandon our beliefs and join Catholicism because Catholicism teaches salvation and remission of sins in "baptism".

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" -Mk. 16:16 (KJV)

Mark 16:16 adds a condition to salvation: baptism!

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." -Acts 2:38 (KJV)

Baptism for the remission of sins and indwelling of the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:38. In other words, baptism is the only way to receive "remission of sins".

Even the Fundamentalist handbook of Theology disagrees with that!

"Faith is a vital principle. "If it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17,18). Two things are required of the believer, immediately upon his profession of faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, namely, verbal confession and water baptism. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10. See also Psalm 107:2; Matthew 10:32,33; Romans 10:9; 1 John 4:15, etc.) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). The believer is not saved because he is baptized; but, baptized because he is saved. We are saved through faith alone, but not the faith that is alone, because "Faith without works is dead, being alone." Water baptism is a divinely ordained ordinance whereby the believer witnesses to the world that he died with Christ, and is risen together with Him," an habitation of God through the Spirit. (See Matthew 28:19,20; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,13,16,36,38; 9:18; 10:47,48; 16:15,33; 19:5; 22:15,16; Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 John 2:3; 3:22).”"

The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, Book III, Theology, Chapter 12, The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism, By Evangelist L.W. Munhall, M.A., D.D

So here again, if this is the standard to go by: "Believes whatever the Bible says is so;". Everything I said previously is incorrect. The handbook of theology for Fundamentalist (1920) is incorrect.

Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" directly contradicts what Luke wrote several verses earlier in Acts 2:21:

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Mark 16:16 directly contradicts what Paul taught:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." -Rom. 10:9-10 (KJV)

So in this one instance, who has the correct theology, Mark: believe + baptism = salvation; or: Paul and Luke: confession + belief = salvation?

Like I said, I do believe whatever the bible says is so, within reason. (The most obvious would the 24 hr "day" theory in regards to the creation and the apparent contradiction between Mark and Paul)

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Newtheran
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Because you come off as saying that God took 1 day (24 hours) to create the earth. If it took that long, then God is mighty weak.

I remember the exchange, let's get to your core point here. I never said it took all day, I said the days described in Genesis 1 were literal 24 hour days, not that God took all day to do the work of creation that day. I further said the term is qualified by 'evening and morning' the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day etc, further reinforcing the fact that these were normal 24 hour days. Now this is readily available from even the most cursory exegetical study, of even just a careful reading of the text. Nothing suppositional required.

Do you actually believe the creation account took a "literal" 6/24 hour period?

No, I think it happened on a literal day, the first, second, third days respectively because that's exactly how the historical narrative reads.

If you answer "Yes", then you have no choice than to say in and every reference to "day" it means a "literal 24 hour" time frame. And I can prove that in at least one section of scripture, that is not true.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, day means a literal 24 hour day in Genesis 1. I didn't pull that out of then air, I've done extensive studies on the subject and guess what, day means day in Genesis 1.

Furthermore, if we as Fundamentalists take this to be "standard":

I think it's safe to say that we as fundamentalists take the canon of Scripture as the standard by which all sound doctrine is measured against.

"Believes whatever the Bible says is so;"

Sure, it's a careless way to express it but not objectionable on it's face.

Salvation is by believing AND baptism, according to Mk. 16:16. Also, Jesus shed blood cannot offer to us "remission of sins and indwelling by the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:38.

Well let's take a giant leap from one passage to another without considering the Lexicon definitions and the context of the passage we are considering. Then we can do the same thing with an unrelated text, that sounds like a sound hermeneutical approach to essential doctrine.

Mark 16:16 adds a condition to salvation. i.e.: baptism

According to Acts 2:38, the only way to have "remission for sin" is to be baptized. That contradicts Heb. 9:22.

I feel like a cat at a ping pong tournament, let's try a little exposition here, ok:

Here's what our brother John Mark has to tell us:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:6)
Funny he would fail to mention that failure to be baptized results in condemnation, that's not very nice. Or maybe, he wanted us to be baptized because we believe it's a profession of faith, and wants to put the heart of the emphasis on that crucial point of doctrine. A text without a context is a pretext, it's kind of rare to the the context of the proof text ignored so deliberately but perhaps you have a larger point to consider.

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:38-41)
So it's almost like Peter is saying you should be baptized because you received the message of the gospel. I wasn't exactly a straight A student in Bible college but I do try hard to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. Let me see if I got this one straight. You believe the gospel, receive the Holy Spirit of promise and then you get dunked in water as an expression of faith in Christ. Did I miss anything? I'm kind of puzzled, how do you think this contradicts Hebrews 9:22 again?

Here is another:

If we take "Believes whatever the Bible says is so;", then I can be cleaned by hyssop!

"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." -Psa. 51:7 (KJV)

Are we to believe that sprinkling us with hyssop is able to "purge" us to the point of being clean, whiter then snow?

I don't really get the point but I've always liked the literary features of the ancient Hebrew. If God washes me, I will be whiter then snow, that doesn't mean he makes me snow. I will be clean the way clothes are clean when washed in hyssop, notice the metaphor is qualified, as is true of all figurative language in the Old and New Testaments.

Here is one more.

If "Believes whatever the Bible says is so' is the "standard, we have no other alternative than to believe "unicorns" do, or did, at one time exist.

"God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." -Num. 23:22 (KJV)

Do you realize that there are some nine references in the scriptures to "unicorns"?

Yes, and they are not mythical unicorns and I know you realize that. You do realize that the exact meaning of unicorn in those passages is unknown right, what exact animal it refers to is a mute question because it's not talking about a mythical unicorn, the suggestion is laughable to say the least.

Now to one extent, I do "Believe whatever the Bible says is so" within reason.

Well I would never try to discourage someone from being reasonable about such things.

I do not accept the "YEC" (Young Earth Creation: 6-24 hour "days") theory neither do I accept the "OEC" (Old Earth Creation: 6-1000 year "days") theory.

Your not left with a lot of options now, you have just rejected to two alternatives, but let's see where you go with this.

If we, as Christians really and truly believe God is omnipotent/all-powerful, that alone blows both theories out of the water!

You went from the semantics of Genesis 1, to some unrelated texts in the New Testament, to the omnipotence of God, to a victory dance of some nebulous origins theology theories being 'blown out of the water'. What was your major in college? I dare say it wasn't exegetical studies because you are all over the road here.

Not only that, but I could also go even deeper.

Now that would be refreshing.

Just because the creation account uses the word "day" does not necessarily mean a "literal 24 hour" time period.

Thank you, much appreciated, let's see what our beloved Bible scholars have for us on the subject shall we:

Day (24 hour period)
Wow it's almost like day means day, let's take a closer look:

KJV Translation Count — Total: 2,287x. The KJV translates Strong's H3117 in the following manner: day (2,008x), time (64x), chronicles (with H1697) (37x), daily (44x), ever (18x), year (14x), continually (10x), when (10x), as (10x), while (8x), full (8x), always (4x), whole (4x), alway (4x), miscellaneous (44x).
2,008x out of 2,287 times day means day, including the passage in Genesis 1. So apparently day means day, wow, I wasn't even a straight A student and I can see that one.

And here again, if we accept "Believes whatever the Bible says is so" as the "standard" for Fundamentalism, then we, as a whole, absolutely must abandon our beliefs and join Catholicism because Catholicism teaches salvation and remission of sins in "baptism".

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" -Mk. 16:16 (KJV)

Mark 16:16 adds a condition to salvation: baptism!

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." -Acts 2:38 (KJV)

Baptism for the remission of sins and indwelling of the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:38. In other words, baptism is the only way to receive "remission of sins".

Or maybe just brush up on our exegetical studies a bit. Not really ready to rush out and get converted to Catholicism because a verse taken out of it's natural context. I'm a little stubborn about that sort of thing and not a big fan of leaps of logic like this.

Even the Fundamentalist handbook of Theology disagrees with that!

"Faith is a vital principle. "If it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17,18). Two things are required of the believer, immediately upon his profession of faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, namely, verbal confession and water baptism. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10. See also Psalm 107:2; Matthew 10:32,33; Romans 10:9; 1 John 4:15, etc.) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). The believer is not saved because he is baptized; but, baptized because he is saved. We are saved through faith alone, but not the faith that is alone, because "Faith without works is dead, being alone." Water baptism is a divinely ordained ordinance whereby the believer witnesses to the world that he died with Christ, and is risen together with Him," an habitation of God through the Spirit. (See Matthew 28:19,20; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,13,16,36,38; 9:18; 10:47,48; 16:15,33; 19:5; 22:15,16; Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 John 2:3; 3:22).

The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, Book III, Theology, Chapter 12, The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism, By Evangelist L.W. Munhall, M.A., D.D

Wow, I didn't realize the Fundamentalist Handbook actually supports justification by grace through faith, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I would just love to know what their exposition of Genesis 1 is but I'm going way out on a limb here and suggesting they probably think day means day in the Genesis 1 account, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

So here again, if this is the standard to go by: "Believes whatever the Bible says is so;". Everything I said previously is incorrect. The handbook of theology for Fundamentalist (1920) is incorrect.

Your a victim of leaps of logic resulting in a regretful equivocation fallacy, nothing more. We all fail in our logic at one time or the other, it's a common mistake. I think you really need to work on your expositions a little bit, because this one was subpar. Just saying...

Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" directly contradicts what Luke wrote several verses earlier in Acts 2:21:

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Mark 16:16 directly contradicts what Paul taught:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." -Rom. 10:9-10 (KJV)

So in this one instance, who has the correct theology, Mark: believe + baptism = salvation; or: Paul and Luke: confession + belief = salvation?

Like I said, I do believe whatever the bible says is so, within reason. (The most obvious would the 24 hr "day" theory in regards to the creation and the apparent contradiction between Mark and Paul)

God Bless

Till all are one.

I think you have done a fine job of refuting water salvation, my compliments on a genuine insight there. Relating it to Genesis 1 on the other hand was a whole lot more sketchy to say the very least. For a fundamentalist, which I assume you still maintain, you have some issues with regards to hermetical expositions.

Bear in mind my brother, I've spent a great deal of time on Origins Theology, especially with regards to expositions of the Genesis account of creation. I could dump a truck, but I'm going to spare you that. Day means day in Genesis 1 and at the heart of the emphasis in the Genesis account of creation, do take care and kindly consider this, my meager insight into the passage if it's not too much trouble.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)
If you want to relate Genesis 1 to New Testament theology let's consider that God created life. That is infinitely more important in New Testament theology since if we are to believe God has promised to grant us eternal life, doesn't it make since that we should believe God created life in the first place. Specifically, our first parents Adam and Eve. The eight times Adam is mentioned in the New Testament he is spoken of as our first parent, he even appears in the genealogy of Luke as 'son of God', indicating he had no earth parents, obviously, since he was created.

By the way, Genesis 1:27 is a parallelism, it's repeated three times for the sake of emphasis that Adam was created along with Eve for a very important reason. God created life.

Thanks a million, that was fun, it's always a pleasure getting down to the basics with my fundamentalist brethren.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0