Are You a Fundamentalist?

[Obadiah]

No, this forum is not only for "literalists" by any means. And actually, I know many who identify with being "fundamentalists" who also are not literlaists the way you describe them here. I shy away from giving my own ideas and opinions in threads where I moderate, but I know of no requirements of this site that members must be literalists as you have defined it. Only that we do not allow the promotion of ideas such as scripture (original autographs or any part thereof) not being directly inspired by God and therefore being nothing more than imperfect literature. That doesn't mean every word is literal (such as parables, etc) or that any translation or copy of those original autographs is error free. But it does mean that the original was error free. None of the translations or copies since have ever claimed to be directly inspired by God. Since we don't have access to the original autographs and don't have God's perfect understanding yet, there will always be disagreements on interpretation and translation. This is our human limitation, not an indication that God was wrong or that those who He inspired to write out His word to us made mistakes while writing under the influence of that inspiration.

 

[KevinK]

Well that really makes things clear. Thank you kindly.

 

[Jim Parker]

Are most of the members here fundamentalists, i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Or are there some more like myself, believing the Bible certainly does contain the word of God, but is not in all cases literal truth, being subject to various deviations: to name but a few, parables meant to convey an abstruse subject in simple terms; translational errors; agenda-driven editing or even omissions.

To clarify and don't-get-me-wrong, I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but like just about anything else, the truth must be worked for. It's somewere in-between total religionist fabrication and Supreme Being-guided transmission of Holy Word. It's much closer to the latter, imo, but you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm just wondering if believers like me are in the minority here.

Here's the definition of "fundamentalism" from Wikipedia.

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[12]

• Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Because people accept the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, they often conclude that they must also hold to a literal interpretation. That creates an impossible situation. (Which may be somewhat humorous to a disinterested observer.) The Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, (a language no longer spoken anywhere) Aramaic, and ancient Koine Greek. (Another language which is no longer spoken anywhere. All those languages are from ancient, middle-eastern, pre-scientific cultures but the most popular Bible among fundamentalists is the King James Version. The KJV is a translation from those ancient eastern languages into 17th century, Jacobean English, a language that no English-speaking person currently speaks. What the readers do when reading the 17th century English of the KJV is to unconsciously translate it into the modern, western, scientific English of 21st century America, England, Canada, Australia, etc.

There is no possible way that literal inerrancy could survive that transition. It is a veritable Petrie dish for growing absurd conclusions.

With reference to your comment: "you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff."

Without, not a "little work" but, a lot of advanced study and a lot more prayer, people are not qualified to do that separation. (If, indeed, there actually are both wheat and chaff to be separated.) Those who attempt to do that separation end up picking and choosing based on factors that may be subconscious, irrational, and cultural rather than scholarship and the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

 

[KevinK]

Thank you for your repsonse, Jim. What would you say is your overall counsel, restated perhaps? Surely salvation is not only for Biblical scholars, then so how does an average Christian approach Scripture?

 

[evenifigoalone]

The KJV is a translation from those ancient eastern languages into 17th century, Jacobean English, a language that no English-speaking person currently speaks. What the readers do when reading the 17th century English of the KJV is to unconsciously translate it into the modern, western, scientific English of 21st century America, England, Canada, Australia, etc.

As a former King James onlyist, I can confirm this. There are words that had different meanings and uses back then, and that can change the meaning entirely when it we try to understand it in today's English.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Here's the definition of "fundamentalism" from Wikipedia.

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[12]

• Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

Because people accept the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, they often conclude that they must also hold to a literal interpretation. That creates an impossible situation. (Which may be somewhat humorous to a disinterested observer.) The Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, (a language no longer spoken anywhere) Aramaic, and ancient Koine Greek. (Another language which is no longer spoken anywhere. All those languages are from ancient, middle-eastern, pre-scientific cultures but the most popular Bible among fundamentalists is the King James Version. The KJV is a translation from those ancient eastern languages into 17th century, Jacobean English, a language that no English-speaking person currently speaks. What the readers do when reading the 17th century English of the KJV is to unconsciously translate it into the modern, western, scientific English of 21st century America, England, Canada, Australia, etc.

There is no possible way that literal inerrancy could survive that transition. It is a veritable Petrie dish for growing absurd conclusions.

With reference to your comment: "you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff."

Without, not a "little work" but, a lot of advanced study and a lot more prayer, people are not qualified to do that separation. (If, indeed, there actually are both wheat and chaff to be separated.) Those who attempt to do that separation end up picking and choosing based on factors that may be subconscious, irrational, and cultural rather than scholarship and the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

my 2 kopecks
iakov the fool

Very good post Jim, but I too am looking for your conclusion of the matter.

 

[Kidron]

Here is something to think about.
In Christianity there has to be a final authority.
So, you have 3 choices.

1. Your Opinion, is your final authority.
2. What your "Church" teaches, is your final authority.
3. The Bible is your final authority, and you recognize it as the word of God and you esteem it as Truth.

If you are a non-fundamentalist then you are #1 or #2. and you dont view the Bible as your final authority, tho you may pretend that you do.

 

[smaller]

Thank you for your repsonse, Jim. What would you say is your overall counsel, restated perhaps? Surely salvation is not only for Biblical scholars, then so how does an average Christian approach Scripture?

Fundamentalism aside, God's Word is simple enough for anyone to understand. God is for and in behalf of good and simultaneously against evil. Any "child" can understand this simplicity.

Adults can as well, that is, until they have to confront that evil exists as a reality within themselves. Then things seem to turn ugly fast.

If scripture deals with these two internal matters, it might seem that literalism is a poor tool, as it tends to externalize most matters and never get to the heart of it.

 

[Jim Parker]

Here is something to think about.
In Christianity there has to be a final authority.
So, you have 3 choices.

1. Your Opinion, is your final authority.
2. What your "Church" teaches, is your final authority.
3. The Bible is your final authority, and you recognize it as the word of God and you esteem it as Truth.

If you are a non-fundamentalist then you are #1 or #2. and you dont view the Bible as your final authority, tho you may pretend that you do.

If you're #3 then you have convinced yourself that your personal opinion is the final authority. (A deluded #1)

What does the scripture say say?

1Ti 3:15 ..., I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

and consider:

Eph 4:11-14 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,

But those "winds of doctrine," from TULIP to the Rapture and Dispensationalism to the "prosperity Gospel" to gay marriage, are exactly what we see in the multitude of denominations.

(Edited, ToS 2.2: "Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only." Obadiah.)

People who use "Sola Scriptura" as their guiding star have managed to divide the Body of Christ into some 50,000 denominations, sects, and other schismatic organizations including Christianesque cults, in less than 500 years. (To the great delight of the Devil)

The Devil has very successfully applied Jesus' teaching that “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation,.." (Mat 12:25) by convincing proud and arrogant people that they knew what the scriptures meant better than the apostles and the church which Jesus founded. Others have seen the opportunity for great financial gain that teaching a skewed Gospel of health, wealth and material prosperity can provide a charismatic orator. And they all claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. An outside observer might conclude that this "Holy Spirit" must be schizophrenic or at least very confused.

The arrogant and rebellious attitude of "Me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit" is the Devil's formula for dividing the church which he has used so successfully in growing post-Christian societies in Europe and the Americas.

And that's where you have cast your vote.

But that's just my opinion.

iakov the fool

 

[Kidron]

(Post removed. Response to a deleted portion of a post. Obadiah)

 

[smaller]

But those "winds of doctrine," from TULIP to the Rapture and Dispensationalism to the "prosperity Gospel" to gay marriage, are exactly what we see in the multitude of denominations.

(Edited, ToS 2.2: "Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only." Obadiah.)

Most, if not all believers understand the basics pretty well, or well enough.

That means nothing about the authority of any personages who made the observations, apart from the initial Apostles, from who's writings the understandings were derived anyway.

People who use "Sola Scriptura" as their guiding star have managed to divide the Body of Christ into some 50,000 denominations, sects, and other schismatic organizations including Christianesque cults, in less than 500 years. (To the great delight of the Devil)

Protestants might say that to follow faulted men, no matter what their claims, apart from scripture is a faulty premise to begin with.

The Devil has very successfully applied Jesus' teaching that “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation,.." (Mat 12:25) by convincing proud and arrogant people that they knew what the scriptures meant better than the apostles and the church which Jesus founded. Others have seen the opportunity for great financial gain that teaching a skewed Gospel of health, wealth and material prosperity can provide a charismatic orator. And they all claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. An outside observer might conclude that this "Holy Spirit" must be schizophrenic or at least very confused.

The assumption made is that some group of guys, by reading the scriptures and making some determinations, seemingly made their entire constructs the perfect and only. Which of course never happened to start with.

The arrogant and rebellious attitude of "Me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit" is the Devil's formula for dividing the church which he has used so successfully in growing post-Christian societies in Europe and the Americas.

Uh, no, it's not. Jesus didn't request anyone to bow to some "sect of imperfect men and their systems."
(Edited, response to a deleted portion of a post. Obadiah.)

 

[Jim Parker]

(Post removed, ToS 2.2: "Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only." Obadiah.)

 

[Kidron]

(Post removed. Response to a deleted post. Obadiah.)

 

[Jim Parker]

Protestants might say that to follow faulted men, no matter what their claims, apart from scripture is a faulty premise to begin with.

It is a simple task to misrepresent scripture by the invention of novel interpretations; the "winds of doctrine" to which Paul referred.

The assumption made is that some group of guys, by reading the scriptures and making some determinations, seemingly made their entire constructs the perfect and only. Which of course never happened to start with.

I'm not sure I understand your point as your wording is imprecise. But assuming I have the gist of what you mean, I disagree. For example, to my understanding, if one attends Dallas Theological Seminary, the "perfect and only" method of Biblical interpretation is the 19th century Dispensational innovation of John Darby.

Uh, no, it's not. Jesus didn't request anyone to bow to some "sect of imperfect men and their systems."

I said the Devil, not Jesus.

Fortunately it's only an opinion. I wouldn't follow the pope or the bishop of Constantinople across the street for an ice cream cone and consider the systems dishonest to the scriptures, generally speaking.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness and sarcasm, personal attack, and failure to follow staff's admonition in post #139. Obadiah.)


iakov the fool

 

[smaller]

It is a simple task to misrepresent scripture by the invention of novel interpretations; the "winds of doctrine" to which Paul referred.

There is plenty of wind in every sect. Let's just be honest. I think it's quite easy to come to terms with basic understandings, and that should be sufficient grounds for every believer to "get along" from there. But, that is just not enough for any sect, unfortunately. And therein lies the "man" imposition factors. The notion that only "my sect" is right, and everyone else, wrong.

How about all being wrong to some degree or another being "more honest?"

I'm not sure I understand your point as your wording is imprecise. But assuming I have the gist of what you mean, I disagree. For example, to my understanding, if one attends Dallas Theological Seminary, the "perfect and only" method of Biblical interpretation is the 19th century Dispensational innovation of John Darby.

I happen to be a fanboi of many sights of the DTS, primarily in the lines of Grace as it pertains to 'eternal security' and knowing that salvation is secure, which isn't held up in a lot of sects. Let's face another honest fact, that older orthodoxy, generally speaking, has a membership that abides in "iffy" salvation territory. Some have better sights in line with scriptures in these matters. If you think it a flaw to be secure in one's faith, then I'd suggest that "iffy" territory suits your personal tastes.

That doesn't mean that I would or have to agree with other postures of the DTS, in dispensationalism for example.

I said the Devil, not Jesus.

Everybody blames the devil if another sect disagrees with theirs. That's pretty well old hat stuff that no one buys anymore. I don't anyway.

(Edited, response to a deleted portion of a post. Obadiah.)

 

[WIP]

Please remember to consider the forum guidelines when posting.

 

[Jim Parker]

(Post removed. Response to deleted post. Obadiah.)

 

[smaller]

(Post removed. Response to deleted post. Obadiah.)

 

[Jim Parker]

(Post removed. Response to deleted post. Obadiah.)

 

[smaller]

(Post removed. Response to deleted post. Obadiah.)