Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

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
Folks, not long after the last Apostle of Christ died, a man named Irenaeus was born. He was a big proponent of the scriptures saying:

"If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"

-Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, 28, 2

Irenaeus said and believed the scriptures were "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"

Very early on, he also called the scriptures "the ground and pillar of our faith".

He says:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

-Against Heresies, Book 3, 1

What are the 4 Pillars of the Catholic Faith?

Q. 1. What are the 4 Pillars of the Catholic Faith?

A. 1. As outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they are:

(1) The Apostles Creed

(2) The Seven Sacraments (Celebration of the Christian Mystery)

(3) The Ten Commandments (Christian Morality)

(4) The Lord's Prayer (Christian Prayer)

Source

And I wonder what Catholics today would say when Irenaeus said:

"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."

Against Heresies, Book 3, 2, 1

Isn't that the exact same thing being leveled against Protestants today? That we are ignorant of "traditions"?

A little over a few decades after the Nicene Council, a certain Bishop in Gaul (modern day France) wrote a treatise "On the Trinity" in which he himself points to the scriptures. He says:

"Ignorance of prophetic diction and unskilfulness in interpreting Scripture has led them into a perversion of the point and meaning of the passage, The Lord created Me for a beginning of His ways for His works."

-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35.

Here he clearly charges the Arians as not only being ignorant, but also of being "unskilled in interpreting Scripture". Notice he did not accuse them of being ignorant or unskilled in "tradition"!

In another place he says:

"In order to solve as easily as possible this most difficult problem, we must first master the knowledge which the Divine Scriptures give of Father and of Son, that so we may speak with more precision, as dealing with familiar and accustomed matters."

-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 3, 2

Again, Hillary points to the Divinity of the Scriptures. Not Tradition.

And in yet another place, he says:

"Yet it is well for us to know all that has been revealed upon the subject, for though we are not responsible for the words of Scripture, yet we shall have to render an account for the sense we have assigned to them."

-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 19

No matter how you read this, he puts the Scriptures in a very high place.

He says yet in another place:

"And now, although we have found the sense of Scripture, as we understand it, in harmony with the conclusions of ordinary reason, the two agreeing that equality is incompatible either with diversity or with isolation, yet we must seek a fresh support for our contention from actual words of our Lord. For only so can we check that licence of arbitrary interpretation whereby these bold traducers of the faith would even venture to cavil at the Lord's solemn self-revelation."

-Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16

Notice well, what he said for it bears repeating: "from actual words of our Lord".

Not from the words of tradition, nor from the words of those who came after the Apostles, but from the words "of our Lord"!

In another place he tells us of how clear the scriptures, not tradition are:

"Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture."

-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 16

And:

"There is no room for deception; the words of Scripture are clear:"

-Hilary of pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 32

Clearly, the scriptures are clear enough to be understood. Hilary again states that the Bible is understandable! He dismisses the heretics, not because they can't understand the Bible, but because their doctrines are contrary to the "clear sense of Scripture". The Bible is clear! Its easy to understand! Hilary wonders why the Arians cannot see it?

And yet, another ECF, in an argument with the Arians, teaches on the scriptures saying:

"Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said."

-Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56

Athanasius was a bishop just three years after the Nicene Council met and argues to the Arians to appeal to "the text of the scriptures" not tradition.

I know its going to come, "None of these men use the phrase sola scriptura"! That is true. But in each and every instance they resort to scripture alone and not once to "holy, sacred tradition". They make their appeal to scripture, not tradition. There was one and only one council in the early, rather Primative church, and none of the men appeal to that council. They only appeal to scripture(s). Hence, "by scripture alone".

“It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”

Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:

[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”

It is obvious that Bob completely missed the point of the citations that I enlisted in my post. They affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer. That is Sola Scriptura. It will be evidenced further on in this comment that Bob does not know the correct definition of Sola Scriptura.

Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:

From the citations that follow we will find out two things:

1. That Bob does not understand the correct definition of Sola Scriptura
2. That Bob believes that a support of tradition is “a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition.”

Definitions are half of the battle when it comes to this debate. We affirm Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. That is, we affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer, not that Scripture is the only means that truth can be learned. Tradition is absolutely important, and no protestant with a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura denies this. However, tradition is to be subjected and compared to the infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures."

Source

Folks, it is also true that to counter the Reformation, the Council of Trent denied sola scriptura.

"The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient."

Source

It really is funny, that in the 1500's, when the cry of "sola scriptura" was being heard, in the 1600's came the cry that "sola scriptura" is incorrect.

We can be accused of sola scriptura as:

unbiblical. Sola Scriptura is nowhere in the Bible.

And that is was a fairly new idea. But by the same token, the cry against it comes at about the same time.

I can, and have shown that at least three ECF's (and there are more prior to the Nicene Council) that appealed to "sola scriptura" rather than "sacred tradition" within a few decades of the Nicene Council.

And even funnier is the Nicene Creed as we know it, is not the Nicene Creed! Rather, it is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381.

The original Nicene Creed read:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost."

-First Council of Nicaea (325)

What we have today:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

-Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, AD 381

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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 Council of Trent met between 1545 and 1563. They had 25 sessions over 18 years. But the most prominent as far as Protestants are concerned came from Session 4.

It is here that we read:

"DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

...keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;"

Source

Also noteworthy:

"(Note: The declarations and anathemas of the Council of Trent have never been revoked. The decrees of the Council of Trent are confirmed by both the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the official “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (1992).)"

Source

"...it has been described as the embodiment of the Counter-Reformation.

As well as decrees, the Council issued condemnations of what it defined to be heresies committed by Protestantism and, in response to them, key statements and clarifications of the Church's doctrine and teachings. These addressed a wide range of subjects, including scripture, the Biblical canon, sacred tradition, original sin, justification, salvation, the sacraments, the Mass and the veneration of saints."

Source

"In the area of religious doctrine, the council refused any concessions to the Protestants and, in the process, crystallized and codified Catholic dogma far more than ever before. It directly opposed Protestantism by reaffirming the existence of seven sacraments, transubstantiation, purgatory, the necessity of the priesthood, and justification by works as well as by faith. Clerical celibacy and monasticism were maintained, and decrees were issued in favor of the efficacy of relics, indulgences, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints. Tradition was declared coequal to Scripture as a source of spiritual knowledge, and the sole right of the Church to interpret the Bible was asserted."

Source

Just a little FYI folks.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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 Council of Trent met between 1545 and 1563. They had 25 sessions over 18 years. But the most prominent as far as Protestants are concerned came from Session 4.

It is here that we read:

"DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

...keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;"

Source

Also noteworthy:

"(Note: The declarations and anathemas of the Council of Trent have never been revoked. The decrees of the Council of Trent are confirmed by both the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the official “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (1992).)"

Source

"...it has been described as the embodiment of the Counter-Reformation.

As well as decrees, the Council issued condemnations of what it defined to be heresies committed by Protestantism and, in response to them, key statements and clarifications of the Church's doctrine and teachings. These addressed a wide range of subjects, including scripture, the Biblical canon, sacred tradition, original sin, justification, salvation, the sacraments, the Mass and the veneration of saints."

Source

"In the area of religious doctrine, the council refused any concessions to the Protestants and, in the process, crystallized and codified Catholic dogma far more than ever before. It directly opposed Protestantism by reaffirming the existence of seven sacraments, transubstantiation, purgatory, the necessity of the priesthood, and justification by works as well as by faith. Clerical celibacy and monasticism were maintained, and decrees were issued in favor of the efficacy of relics, indulgences, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints. Tradition was declared coequal to Scripture as a source of spiritual knowledge, and the sole right of the Church to interpret the Bible was asserted."

Source

Just a little FYI folks.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Since you do not agree with the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", that is a tenant of Fundamentalism, you sir, should not be debating here.
I am not debating Sola Scriptura. Far from it. I'm saying that your definition of it is different from ours. In fact, I did a thread as to what Sola Scriptura is, and couldn't get two Protestants agreeing on what it means. I came here because you were treating a fundamentalist with dishonor.
Since Catholicism does not agree on sola scriptura, since its:



A tenant of Catholicism is "Mary Dispenser of Grace" is just as unbiblical.

As a matter of fact, please show me in scripture where the word "trinity" is used.

Yet that is a tenant of Christianity.

Just because something is not mentioned by name, i.e.: sola scriptura, does not mean it isn't taught in scripture, i.e.: trinity.
The tenants of the Trinity are throughout Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture. Likewise, Sola Scriptura has no tenents in Scripture.
Funny, you haven't offered one single commentary.
I offered many.
I have proven your points wrong.

Your argument here has been defeated.



Link

The link above clearly states that a "Fundamentalist" comes from a number of "Protestant" groups. Catholicism is not a Protestant group.

It also states that you must be member of this Faith group in order to debate here.

Until you agree with "sola scriptura", a tenant of Fundamentalism, I must ask nicely, for you to cease and desist debating here.

Your faith icon clearly shows your Catholic, not Fundamentalist!

God Bless

Till all are one.
Once again, to say that Catholics cannot be fundamentalist is laughable. Catholics are the original fundamentalists. Protestants often try to come back to the fundamental faith, but even when they get close, they don't get close enough.
Christian fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.
While it is true that Fundamentalism is an American thing, people who think that Catholics cannot be fundamentalists have a bunker mentality.

Catholicism is the original fundamentalist religion.

All that said, I'm done with you. I recall several pages ago when you said the same thing, yet you couldn't resist comign back...
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Folks, not long after the last Apostle of Christ died, a man named Irenaeus was born. He was a big proponent of the scriptures saying:

"If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"

-Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, 28, 2

Irenaeus said and believed the scriptures were "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"

Very early on, he also called the scriptures "the ground and pillar of our faith".

He says:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

-Against Heresies, Book 3, 1

What are the 4 Pillars of the Catholic Faith?



Source

And I wonder what Catholics today would say when Irenaeus said:

"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."

Against Heresies, Book 3, 2, 1

Isn't that the exact same thing being leveled against Protestants today? That we are ignorant of "traditions"?

A little over a few decades after the Nicene Council, a certain Bishop in Gaul (modern day France) wrote a treatise "On the Trinity" in which he himself points to the scriptures. He says:

"Ignorance of prophetic diction and unskilfulness in interpreting Scripture has led them into a perversion of the point and meaning of the passage, The Lord created Me for a beginning of His ways for His works."

-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35.

Here he clearly charges the Arians as not only being ignorant, but also of being "unskilled in interpreting Scripture". Notice he did not accuse them of being ignorant or unskilled in "tradition"!

In another place he says:

"In order to solve as easily as possible this most difficult problem, we must first master the knowledge which the Divine Scriptures give of Father and of Son, that so we may speak with more precision, as dealing with familiar and accustomed matters."

-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 3, 2

Again, Hillary points to the Divinity of the Scriptures. Not Tradition.

And in yet another place, he says:

"Yet it is well for us to know all that has been revealed upon the subject, for though we are not responsible for the words of Scripture, yet we shall have to render an account for the sense we have assigned to them."

-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 19

No matter how you read this, he puts the Scriptures in a very high place.

He says yet in another place:

"And now, although we have found the sense of Scripture, as we understand it, in harmony with the conclusions of ordinary reason, the two agreeing that equality is incompatible either with diversity or with isolation, yet we must seek a fresh support for our contention from actual words of our Lord. For only so can we check that licence of arbitrary interpretation whereby these bold traducers of the faith would even venture to cavil at the Lord's solemn self-revelation."

-Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16

Notice well, what he said for it bears repeating: "from actual words of our Lord".

Not from the words of tradition, nor from the words of those who came after the Apostles, but from the words "of our Lord"!

In another place he tells us of how clear the scriptures, not tradition are:

"Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture."

-Hilary of Pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 16

And:

"There is no room for deception; the words of Scripture are clear:"

-Hilary of pointers, On the Trinity, Book 4, 32

Clearly, the scriptures are clear enough to be understood. Hilary again states that the Bible is understandable! He dismisses the heretics, not because they can't understand the Bible, but because their doctrines are contrary to the "clear sense of Scripture". The Bible is clear! Its easy to understand! Hilary wonders why the Arians cannot see it?

And yet, another ECF, in an argument with the Arians, teaches on the scriptures saying:

"Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said."

-Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56

Athanasius was a bishop just three years after the Nicene Council met and argues to the Arians to appeal to "the text of the scriptures" not tradition.

I know its going to come, "None of these men use the phrase sola scriptura"! That is true. But in each and every instance they resort to scripture alone and not once to "holy, sacred tradition". They make their appeal to scripture, not tradition. There was one and only one council in the early, rather Primative church, and none of the men appeal to that council. They only appeal to scripture(s). Hence, "by scripture alone".

“It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”

Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:

[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

It’s funny to say the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. None of those quotes say “scripture alone.” Rather, they say “scripture is important.” In other places in their writing, they also affirmed “tradition is important.” I mean, just because I write to my son, “Obey your father,” doesn’t mean I want to say “Obey ONLY your father.”

It is obvious that Bob completely missed the point of the citations that I enlisted in my post. They affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer. That is Sola Scriptura. It will be evidenced further on in this comment that Bob does not know the correct definition of Sola Scriptura.

Augustine, for instance, had a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition, as well as scripture:

From the citations that follow we will find out two things:

1. That Bob does not understand the correct definition of Sola Scriptura
2. That Bob believes that a support of tradition is “a robust view of the infallible authority of tradition.”

Definitions are half of the battle when it comes to this debate. We affirm Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. That is, we affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer, not that Scripture is the only means that truth can be learned. Tradition is absolutely important, and no protestant with a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura denies this. However, tradition is to be subjected and compared to the infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures."

Source

Folks, it is also true that to counter the Reformation, the Council of Trent denied sola scriptura.

"The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient."

Source

It really is funny, that in the 1500's, when the cry of "sola scriptura" was being heard, in the 1600's came the cry that "sola scriptura" is incorrect.

We can be accused of sola scriptura as:



And that is was a fairly new idea. But by the same token, the cry against it comes at about the same time.

I can, and have shown that at least three ECF's (and there are more prior to the Nicene Council) that appealed to "sola scriptura" rather than "sacred tradition" within a few decades of the Nicene Council.

And even funnier is the Nicene Creed as we know it, is not the Nicene Creed! Rather, it is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381.

The original Nicene Creed read:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost."

-First Council of Nicaea (325)

What we have today:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

-Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, AD 381

God Bless

Till all are one.
The Creed and Iranaeus' works are called Tradition, to Catholics.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
It seems like fundamentalist Christians are more hated than other types of Christians, when talking with certain unbelievers I get this impression. Is there a reason for this?

Because they revel in their dogma and ignorance and think everyone should be just like them.
 
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
Because they revel in their dogma and ignorance and think everyone should be just like them.

That is funny.

Have you even read the history behind Fundamentalists?

Basically, Darwinism gave birth to it.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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 am not debating Sola Scriptura. Far from it. I'm saying that your definition of it is different from ours. In fact, I did a thread as to what Sola Scriptura is, and couldn't get two Protestants agreeing on what it means. I came here because you were treating a fundamentalist with dishonor.

That's funny.

I stand according to what Fundamentalists said way back in 1878.

The tenants of the Trinity are throughout Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture. Likewise, Sola Scriptura has no tenents in Scripture.

That's debatable.
There are many quotes from OT scripture about by scripture alone.
Even Jesus' own words scream Sola Scriptura.

I offered many.

I don't recall any.

Once again, to say that Catholics cannot be fundamentalist is laughable.

Not according to the Statement of Purpose for this area.

Sacred tradition alone disqualifies you.

Catholics are the original fundamentalists. Protestants often try to come back to the fundamental faith, but even when they get close, they don't get close enough.

According to Catholicism, yes.

Not according to scripture.

Christian fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.

That is quite correct. The Fundamentalist movement came into being for several reasons, but one of the most significant was Darwinism.

This is proven true by the actions of one Crawford H. Toy.

While it is true that Fundamentalism is an American thing, people who think that Catholics cannot be fundamentalists have a bunker mentality.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Catholicism is the original fundamentalist religion.

While you may hold to "fundamental" Catholic beliefs, you and/or Catholicism can in no way ever be considered "Fundamentalist.

All that said, I'm done with you. I recall several pages ago when you said the same thing, yet you couldn't resist comign back...

Only because you keep insisting your a "Fundamentalist".

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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 Creed and Iranaeus' works are called Tradition, to Catholics.

But as Irenaeus said, tradition must yield to scripture.

And Irenaeus appealed to scripture rather than "tradition".

Quoted from above:

"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."

Against Heresies, Book 3, 2, 1

Dr. Jimmy Draper once said:

A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,
but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.
Ernest Reisinger wrote:

DANGERS OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS
One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.

Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.

The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).

Your own words betray you as not being a Fundamentalist.

The Creed and Iranaeus' works are called Tradition,

40 plus years in the Baptist faith, not once have we recited the Nicene Creed. Not once have we heeded to "tradition".

In every religion in the world there can exist "Fundamentalism".

There are fundamental Catholics, there are fundamental Baptists, there are fundamental Muslims, there are fundamental Buddhists, etc.

You may hold to the fundamentals of Catholicism, but you in no way hold to the beliefs of Fundamentals that were expressed in the Niagara Creed of 1878.

As far as this forum is concerned, as far as this area is concerned, you are not a Fundamentalist.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
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
I came here because you were treating a fundamentalist with dishonor.

While emmacat considers herself a "Funamentalist", according to the modern definition in this area, she may be. But according to her post that I replied to, I corrected something she said:

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

I offered many.

Lets see here, hum...

You started to debate me beginning on page 5 of this thread.

In the above quote, you say "I offered many."

Here are the posts from page 5 on by you.

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

Here they are, for the world to see.

Show me any commentary.

I documented mine, sources, links, etc. But absolutely nothing in yours.

So I'm gonna call you on that.

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

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
At least my point is proven that we are hated. I suggest looking up the references in the OP.

The hatred you perceive is nothing compared to the hatred of Catholics and other Pre-Reformation Churches
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I just found this post and haven't read the entire thread, so if this has been asked and answered, I apologize...

Can you be a fundamentalist and an evangelical at the same time? What is the difference? I've never figured that out - labels confuse me.
 
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 just found this post and haven't read the entire thread, so if this has been asked and answered, I apologize...

Can you be a fundamentalist and an evangelical at the same time? What is the difference? I've never figured that out - labels confuse me.

Evangelical as in evangelist, John the Baptist would be one example of yes.

However, if your referring to "modern day" evangelicals, that is the new name Fundamentalists prefer.

On the other hand, if Evengelical refers to one such group as in AME, then no.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Evangelical as in evangelist, John the Baptist would be one example of yes.

However, if your referring to "modern day" evangelicals, that is the new name Fundamentalists prefer.

On the other hand, if Evengelical refers to one such group as in AME, then no.

God Bless

Till all are one.

A long time ago I heard the definition of a Christian fanatic is a Christian who loves Jesus more than the one calling them a fanatic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToBeLoved
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

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
A long time ago I heard the definition of a Christian fanatic is a Christian who loves Jesus more than the one calling them a fanatic!

Another interesting definition is "A good Christian is one who does the right thing in spite of the condemnation of other Christians."
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
A long time ago I heard the definition of a Christian fanatic is a Christian who loves Jesus more than the one calling them a fanatic!
churchill+on+fanatics.jpg
 
Upvote 0

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,671
4,354
Scotland
✟242,556.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It seems like fundamentalist Christians are more hated than other types of Christians, when talking with certain unbelievers I get this impression. Is there a reason for this?

Many people hate fundamentalists because they are distinctive, standing for a lot of Godly principles and issues other Christian groups have let slide.

However we should always give an answer respectfully, as the bible says:

But respect Christ as the holy Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to answer everyone who asks you to explain about the hope you have, but answer in a gentle way and with respect. Keep a clear conscience so that those who speak evil of your good life in Christ will be made ashamed.

There are a minority of fundamentalist Christians whose manner of giving an answer gives a bad reputation. God Bless. :)
 
Upvote 0

quidam65

Active Member
Mar 19, 2018
42
25
58
DFW
✟11,761.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you ask them it's because they'll tell you all other groups (and even a bunch of other fundamentalists) are all apostate, and they believe that since Jesus told them the world would hate you, they take all criticism as proof.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
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

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
We need to recognize that fundamentalism is not a Protestant monopoly. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches exhibit many of the basic traits of the fundamentalist mind, along with other sectarian groups such as the LDS and the SDA. Of course, fundamentalism is not a Christian monopoly either. Judaism and Islam have their share of the breed. Even non-believers can have a fundamentalist mindset. We must also remember that "fundamentalist" is a term American Protestant fundamentalists chose for themselves a century ago.

I've even encountered "fundamentalist" Buddhists. People can find all sorts of ways to be inhuman in the name of religion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0