Christian fundamentalists

[paulo75]

This is a question for everyone, both Christians and atheists alike.

Is it possible for Christian fundamentalists to see both sides of an argument, or are they blinded by their faith?

As a Christian, I tend to think the latter. I've been called "liberal" by some Christians, but I don't think that I am. I think that some call me that because I may interpret some verses differently than the fundamental Christian does. Unfortunately, when I do that, I tend to get accused of "not seeing the truth". But, in reality, is it the Christian who is so blind by their faith, that they cannot see both sides of an argument? The only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. You need to try to understand why anybody thinks differently than you, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.

Now, 2 Peter 1:20 says: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of one's own interpretation." But my findings have shown me that misinterpretations occur when Biblical writings are taken out of historical context.

Why is it that the fundamental Christian can say that they have interpreted a certain verse correctly, but when someone disagrees, they are "wrong", and considered "un-Christian?"

I think the answer to that is that Christians who condemn others (even other Christians) because of their beliefs are fanatics. It's not because they are too Christian , it's because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving or understanding - as Christ was. Because they think of Christianity as a "self-improvement program", they emulate the Jesus of the whips in the temple, but not the Jesus who said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7). What strikes us as overly fanatical is actually a failure to be fully committed to Christ and his gospel.

 

[Paidion]

Is it possible for Christian fundamentalists to see both sides of an argument, or are they blinded by their faith?

In my days as a former fundamentalist, I was able to see both sides of an argument, but I was quite certain that my side was the correct one. But don't we find this attitude in non-fundamentalists as well?

Why is it that the fundamental Christian can say that they have interpreted a certain verse correctly, but when someone disagrees, they are "wrong", and considered "un-Christian?"

It's because they are so sure they are right. When I talked to one fundamentalist about being open to other points of view, he said, "Once you know that 2+2=4, no one can convince you that it equals 5."

 

[Drew]

One of the problems with believing in God and believing that the Spirit of God is "in" you is that it endorses the belief that one's positions are beyond error. So, for example, if the Scriptures are the infallible word of God, and if I have "the mind of Christ", my take on what the Scriptures mean is beyond error.

This is, frankly, absurd, and we have seen in this very forum how such arrogance and certainty plays itself out. I am thinking of a *edited by staff* departed member who routinely argued this way - simply asserting that his view was the correct one since he had "the mind of Christ". He did not feel that he needed to do the hard work of critically examining his own beliefs in light of the interpretations of those he disagreed with.

I am, of course, not suggesting that we should not advocate for what we believe to be true - I do this all the time, no doubt to the annoyance of some. But we need to debate with the understanding that while the Scriptures are indeed authoritative, we still need to figure out what they mean. And while we do have the Spirit, we know all too well that we are still in a state where can err and go astray. Things change with the giving of Spirit. But the ultimate change still lies in the future - we are a work in progress and still make mistakes.

 

[mondar]

This is a question for everyone, both Christians and atheists alike.

Is it possible for Christian fundamentalists to see both sides of an argument, or are they blinded by their faith?

As a Christian, I tend to think the latter. I've been called "liberal" by some Christians, but I don't think that I am. I think that some call me that because I may interpret some verses differently than the fundamental Christian does. Unfortunately, when I do that, I tend to get accused of "not seeing the truth". But, in reality, is it the Christian who is so blind by their faith, that they cannot see both sides of an argument? The only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. You need to try to understand why anybody thinks differently than you, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.

A FEW INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
Excuse me for the long post I am about to make.

Terms can be confusing and obscure. Terms are sometimes mere flags that people rally around and the terms have long since lost their meaning. It seems to me the term "Christian Fundamentalist" is one of those terms.

I think a thread might even be needed to simply define the concept of Christian Fundamentalism. Of course such a thread would be merely a place for people to air their voices and would accomplish litte. If anything such a thread would merely show the confusion of the term Fundamentalist.

HISTORY OF FUNDAMENTALISM
To the extent of my knowledge the term "Fundamentalist" was not a part of Christian vocabulary in the 1800s. Then Darwinianism arose and the world view of Darwinianism began to influence the Church. The older and higher view of the authority of the scriptures was challenged and theological liberalism arose. The more darwinian liberal view of scriptures spread accross denominal barriers.

It was about the 1920s that a reactions began to be finalized in two great events. First was the well known "Scopes Monkey trial." While the darwinian teacher was fined, and the law upheld, the Fundamentalists lost in the newspapers. This event showed the Fundamentalists as those opposed to any evolutionary world views. The second event was more related to Churches. A set of papers were written that became a sort of manifesto for the Fundamentalists. The papers were simply called "The Fundamentals of the Faith." The were written soon after the turn of the century in the 1900s. This tracts were widely circulated, and became a doctrinal rallying point for Fundamentalism. Soon in response to these tracts there were deonominational splits occuring in rapid succession. Many of the denominations fractured into varieties of smaller groups. The new groups were often thought of as "Fundamental" or "Fundamentalists." I think groups like the Independant Fundamental Churches of America, The General Association of Regular Baptists, Orthodox Presbuterian Church, and many other groups left the mainline denominations and formed their own associations.

MODERN TIMES
In our present day, the term Fundamentalist has taken new and different twists then what it was when first being developed. The Fundamentalists denominations have been formed and have been functioning for over a half century. Today, many who call themselves Fundamentalists are of a more narrow theological spectrum then the original Fundamentalists. Those who claim to be Fundamentalists today are often (not always) very Arminian in their theology. They have continued more of a pietistic, or holiness lifestyle. I wonder, can we call John McArther, John Piper and people like them Fundamentalists? How about Jerry Falwell? Now Jerry Falwell would say that John McArther and John Piper are just heretics, not fundamentalists. How about those of a more charismatic persuasion such as Jimmy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart? Often times Fundamentalism is seen as having a slightly charismatic influence.

While Fundamentalism has a history, can we say that we really all agree on who these "Fundamentalists" are today?

I myself feel confused about the use of the term today. Who are the Fundamentalists? Everyone has an opinion and will point and say this person or that person is a fundamentalist. Yet should we not include an etymological and historical discussion of the term, and maybe a little more scientific approach then pointing fingers and saying "Fundamentalist."

Now, 2 Peter 1:20 says: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of one's own interpretation." But my findings have shown me that misinterpretations occur when Biblical writings are taken out of historical context.

Why is it that the fundamental Christian can say that they have interpreted a certain verse correctly, but when someone disagrees, they are "wrong", and considered "un-Christian?"

I think the answer to that is that Christians who condemn others (even other Christians) because of their beliefs are fanatics. It's not because they are too Christian , it's because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving or understanding - as Christ was. Because they think of Christianity as a "self-improvement program", they emulate the Jesus of the whips in the temple, but not the Jesus who said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7). What strikes us as overly fanatical is actually a failure to be fully committed to Christ and his gospel.

I dont wish to bother with the finger pointing that you are doing here. My interest is now exegetical.

18 and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts:
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

I dont think Peter intended for us to think of the reader as the one who does "private interpretation." Peter was claiming that his own writings are the "private interpretation." This might be a little hard to see at first glance, but look at the context. The context is always the key to understanding the words.

Notice what I have bolded in verse 21. The will of man is not the source of prophecy. Neither is private interpretation of future events the source of Peters prophecies. Notice back in verse 18 Peter the subject of the paragraph Peter is writing. He talks about a "word of prophecy made more sure." Peter is talking about the certainty of the words of scripture.

If you look at verse 20, it is talking about the source of prophecy. It is talking about the source of scripture. The writers of prophetic scriptures are not the fountain spring for the writing of the scriptures in their own minds and souls, but in the mind and movement of the HS. This is why Peter further clarifies in verse 21 that scripture does not come by the exercise of human will. It comes by the will of the HS.

Hope this clarifies this often misused verse.

 

[Paidion]

I have been using "Christian fundamentalism" in its historic sense. A "Christian fundamentalist" is one who adheres to the 14-Point Niagara Creed set out at the Believers' Meeting for Bible Study in 1878, and supported by the Niagara Bible Conferenece in the early 20th century.

You can examine this 14-Point Creed by clicking on the link below:

The 14-Point Niagara Creed

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Why would anyone submit to a 200 year old creed but reject the almost 2000 year old creed: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism ... .htm#credo

 

[lovely]

I think I would be defined as a Fundamentalist by most people. :o I suppose I am blinded some of the time, and have been guilty of some of those things the OP mentioned at various times. I guess, like all believers, my sins will be brought to the light somehow so that God can show me how to turn away from them...perhaps this is how the self-righteousness of Fundamentalism is exposed to God's Light of Truth...the Truth we love so much is the very thing that exposes us. : And so, I repent and go forward as Paul did, with the hope that my next exchange will be characterized by love, and absent of carnality, legalism, and pride. I don't think that Fundamentalism is the problem in itself, but that Fundamentalists are fallen sinners, who are saved by God's grace, and in need of grace from others.

I can't speak for every Fundamentalist, but for me I think it's difficult to discern how I can strictly adhere to God's Truth, but also live that Truth in a way that causes God's love to abound from my life and radiate to others. My beliefs, and life, are sometimes just offensive to some...they don't even have to really know me, they just get offended because certain aspects of my life cause me to fit into this man-made category of 'Fundamentalist'. :-? I am not saying that I haven't been guilty of putting my methods before God's own workings in someone's heart, especially my own heart (!), but I have had to humbly go and tear those idols right down too. : I think legalism can work both ways. We yoke people with traditions of men above God's Word, and we have to be discerning about offering what God has shown us, but not condemning others...Jesus was so good at this. We also have to convey that God expects us to turn from sin to Him. It takes discernment, and we can really miss the target if we don't put the Truth in the hands of Christ to aim on our behalf.

I try to remember that the worst Christian I know is me, and that's why I need Jesus. I don't know the hearts of others, but I know that I am constantly having to pray like David, "Create in me a clean heart...". I don't let that keep me from seeking to please Him, though. I consider myself to be a daughter of the King, and a representative of God, and so my love for Him, and others, is primary...It's the most fundamental Truth in me. The best way I can show it is to live out that love by walking in obedience to what I have been shown, sharing His love freely, and upholding Truth with holy fear before God, and others. I appear narrow minded because of this, I guess. This is my motivation under all of that, though, even when I may not always have the ability to discern the best way to go about it...as I said, I am in need of grace from my brothers and sisters.

Also, there is a lot of deception floating around, and it's subtle. As a woman, I feel the need to guard against deception in a real way, and the way for me to do that is to adhere to the Truth I have learned, and to my husband's direction. I do not view Truth as relative, but as absolute, and this is the world view God has given me. So, if I disagree with someone, unless their response to me can be shown to me in with the whole counsel of the Word, and unless they have Godly fruit in their life, then I will probably not be convinced...it's not because I think I have arrived, but just the opposite really...I need God to show me, and convince me in my own mind, before I depart from what I know. I need to test the spirits, because I do not trust my own judgment.

He can use others to teach me, especially those of a more liberal mindset, and He does, because generally their the ones I am in disagreement with...the one's who will likely sharpen me and cause me to dig in the Word. Just because I am a more of a fundamental mindset, does not mean that I am beyond being changed by the Lord. When He changes me, I am not ashamed of it, I desire it if it's Him doing the changing. As I said, I just want it to be a real transformation brought about by me seeking His face and His glory, along with a greater portion of the Holy Spirit's Wisdom in my spirit, and a mind that has come to think more like Christ...I want a real change that can be sustained, because it is founded in a Truth that I can adhere to, and live out with conviction.

I do not want to blow with every wind of doctrine in the name of tolerance so that I appear fair minded, and more fit to live in a pluralistic society...this is not who I am, and it will be false and deceitful of me to pretend, or deny the Truth that is in me. I don't think God desires this at all, and so it is up to me to know how to conduct myself, to balance love and Truth, and to know when God truly desires me to change on something. My sin, though is all me, and I take full responsibility for that...too bad it may reflect on all 'Fundamentalists'...or maybe even all Christians. It really makes me think about how important every word is, and how important it is to Live on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Anyway, as I said, I can not speak for all who fall into this category, but this is how I see things from this end of the spectrum. :wink: The Lord bless you.

 

[Paidion]

Why would anyone submit to a 200 year old creed but reject the almost 2000 year old creed:

How about accepting Christ's teaching and the teaching of the apostles? This predated both creeds.

When I was a Fundamentalist, I didn't reject the fourth-century creeds (I presume those are the ones to which you refer).

Do you think most Fundamentalists do reject these early creeds? Why do you think so? And which ones do they reject? And why?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Why would anyone submit to a 200 year old creed but reject the almost 2000 year old creed:

How about accepting Christ's teaching and the teaching of the apostles?

I AM talking about the Apostle's Creed, which IS Christ's teaching and the teaching of the apostles:

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the
power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge
the living and the dead
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

The apostles didn't wait 1800 for their creed to be written, and they taught more than what is in that so-called Niagara Creed

 

[Paidion]

The apostles didn't wait 1800 for their creed to be written, and they taught more than what is in that so-called Niagara Creed

The original apostles didn't write that creed at all! Indeed:

The earliest known concrete historical evidence of the creed's existence as it is currently titled (Symbolum Apostolicum) is a letter of the Council of Milan (390) to Pope Siricius (here in English):

"If you credit not the teachings of the priests . . . let credit at least be given to the Symbol of the Apostles which the Roman Church always preserves and maintains inviolate."

The earliest appearance of the present Latin text was in the De singulis libris canonicis scarapsus ("Excerpt from Individual Canonical Books") of St. Priminius (Migne, Patrologia Latina 89, 1029 ff.), written between 710-724 (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Longmans, Green & Co, 1972, pp. 398-434). ----- from Wikpedia's article on "The Apostles' Creed"

When I asked, "How about accepting Christ's teaching and the teaching of the apostles?", I was referring to what Christ and His apostles taught as recorded in the New Testament.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...The earliest known concrete historical evidence of the creed's existence as it is currently titled (Symbolum Apostolicum) is a letter of the Council of Milan (390).....

The NICENE Creed came AFTER the Apostles Creed, and the Nicene Creed stems from the council of Nicea held in 325 AD !!! The Apostles Creed came before THAT. And while it may not have been written by an actual apostle, it was written by men who KNEW tha apostles and is the encapsulation of their teaching.

We have a whole Gospel written by a Greek who wasn't an apostle either: LUKE !!

So what

And there's one thing for sure: No apostle wrote your creed from the 1800's.

 

[Paidion]

[quote:2faf2]...The earliest known concrete historical evidence of the creed's existence as it is currently titled (Symbolum Apostolicum) is a letter of the Council of Milan (390).....

The NICENE Creed came AFTER the Apostles Creed, and the Nicene Creed stems from the council of Nicea held in 325 AD !!! [/quote:2faf2]

Did I negate anything you wrote in the preceding paragraph? Why don't you reread what you quoted from me, if you didn't get it the first time?

The Apostles Creed came before THAT. And while it may not have been written by an actual apostle, it was written by men who KNEW tha apostles and is the encapsulation of their teaching.

And what is your evidence that it was written by men who knew the apostles? Demonstrate by quotes from the apostles that the Creed encasulates their teaching.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

And what is your evidence that it was written by men who knew the apostles? Demonstrate by quotes from the apostles that the Creed encasulates their teaching.

First of all, its all Biblical, which is more than enough evidence that the Creed encapsulates the apostles' teaching . But to add to that:

.....There are very suggestive traces in the New Testament of the recognition of a certain "form of doctrine" (typos didaches, Romans 6:17) which moulded, as it were, the faith of new converts to Christ's law, and which involved not only the word of faith believed in the heart, but "with the mouth confession made unto salvation" (Romans 10:8-10). In close connection with this we must recall the profession of faith in Jesus Christ exacted of the eunuch (Acts 8:37) as a preliminary to baptism (Augustine, "De Fide et Operibus", cap. ix; Migne, P.L., LVII, 205) and the formula of baptism itself in the name of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity (Matthew 28:19; and cf. the Didache 7:2, and 9:5). Moreover, as soon as we begin to obtain any sort of detailed description of the ceremonial of baptism we find that, as a preliminary to the actual immersion, a profession of faith was exacted of the convert, which exhibits from the earliest times a clearly divided and separate confession of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, corresponding to the Divine Persons invoked in the formula of baptism. As we do not find in any earlier document the full form of the profession of faith, we cannot be sure that it is identical with our Creed, but, on the other hand, it is certain that nothing has yet been discovered which is inconsistent with such a supposition. See, for example, the "Canons of Hippolytus" (c. 220) or the "Didascalia" (c. 250) in Hahn's "Bibliothek der Symbole" (8, 14, 35); together with the slighter allusions in Justin Martyr and Cyprian.....

Source: "The Catholic Encyclopedia"

 

[Paidion]

First of all, its all Biblical, which is more than enough evidence that the Creed encapsulates the apostles' teaching .

So... you admit that you have no such evidence.

That's all right. I have no problems with any of the statements of the so-called "Apostles' Creed" anyway.

Notwithstanding, it is a far cry from the doctrine of Christ and apostolic doctrine as set out in the New Testament writings. These doctrines are not theological statements, but instructions in living:

Matthew 5, 6, and 7; Romans 12,13, and 14

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Every book in your bible was vetted by the same church that proclaims the creed, so are you cherrypicking? Remember, there is a pit in every cherry you pick.

 

[Rick W]

Back to the topic please. :-?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

This is a question for everyone, both Christians and atheists alike.

Is it possible for Christian fundamentalists to see both sides of an argument, or are they blinded by their faith?

As a Christian, I tend to think the latter. I've been called "liberal" by some Christians, but I don't think that I am. I think that some call me that because I may interpret some verses differently than the fundamental Christian does. Unfortunately, when I do that, I tend to get accused of "not seeing the truth"......

Any extremeist view is usually wrong. Fundamentalism is extreme in how it reduces the richness of Christian truth to a handful of so-called "Fundamentals": An extreme minimalization of Christian teaching.

Overly Libereal views can also often be extreme, since some Liberal Christians go so far as to say that most of Christ's miracles are merely "'literary devices" used by the authors, and in fact never really happened. Many of them can also be pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, etc...

The truth is: Jesus and the apostles taught what they taught, and one must have the courage to wipe their slates clean and seek Christ's Truth in humility, which can mean giving up your right to be "right".

 

[Bick]

If you don't believe in the 'fundamentals' of Salvation and Christianity, what do you believe in?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

If you don't believe in the 'fundamentals' of Salvation and Christianity, what do you believe in?

I didn't say I don't believe in them. I said that they are only a small part of Christ's teaching, and that reducing the richness of Christian truth to a handful of so-called "Fundamentals" is an extreme minimalization of the faith