What is a Christian fundamentalist?

Aimiel

Well-known member
I always think of what The Lord said, which was that if we believe in His Name we will be saved. He didn't say that we 'were' saved, by that faith, alone; but that by having faith in His Name we would be saved. It is His Grace that we need to enter a completely perfect Heaven, where a Perfect, Holy and Just God rules and reigns. That grace is availble to us, and all that we have to do is to respond to that grace, by faith in His Name. It takes faith to grasp the promises of The Lord, and it takes faith to see what to do next, and even more to do it.

The path that leads to life is narrow and it is straight. There are as many interpretations of what defines that path as there are false religions and false gods, but, IMHO, the two sides of that path are bordered by love on the one side and faith on the other. If we take a step which is not in love, we get off the road on one side, and if we take a step in doubt, we get off on the other. I want to stay in the middle of the road.
 

On Fire

New member
Originally posted by beanieboy

And God is only a little miffed when you have a cold, then?
Chicken Pox truly is God's punishment for children?

Are you asking me what I think or to agree or disagree with what other people think?
 

beanieboy

New member
I'm using your logic.
Please pay attention.
You think there may be a possibility of punishment with AIDS, but not a cold, and not chicken pox.

It's illogical.

They project a cure in 2015, which, following the punishment logic, God will no longer be punishing people after the cure is found.
 

On Fire

New member
Originally posted by beanieboy

I'm using your logic.
Please pay attention.
You think there may be a possibility of punishment with AIDS, but not a cold, and not chicken pox.

It's illogical.

They project a cure in 2015, which, following the punishment logic, God will no longer be punishing people after the cure is found.

YOU pay attention. I just got here. You have no idea what I think. Ask me.
 

On Fire

New member
Originally posted by beanieboy

Read the posts in order before you type then.

I'm sorry that isn't in the bible, but it's common sense.

Is that what you did before you chimed in? Notice the thread title, beanieboy.
 

beanieboy

New member
Yes. It's a good thread.
And I was talking about the mental gymnastics one must do to claim the bible is inerrant, and literal.
There are good posts.
Give it a look.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by philosophizer Hmm... And I think complexity and intellectualism is an ego-centric reaction to a fear of truth. Complexity is an illusion. It's a wire-frame replica of reality. Where complexity continually ads corners to a shape to create something progressively like a circle, truth in all its oneness is perfectly round.
And what would this "truth" be, I wonder....

Most people would agree that truth is "what is" (reality) and interestingly enough "what is" (reality) is infinitely complex (as we experience it, anyway) while it is not infinitely simple (on the scale of simplicity, reality can only be reduced to one single whole). I would like you to explain how recognizing the (apparently) infinite complexity of reality is avoiding the "truth" of reality, and how ignoring the complexity of reality would make it more "real" (true).
Originally posted by philosophizer I'm not going to "over-simplify", as you have,...
But I thought you just said that the more simplified our view of reality is, the more "true" it is. So why is it suddenly wrong for you to "over-simplify" as you claim I have done???
Originally posted by philosophizer ....and say that is wholly not true. I'm sure some people are as you describe.
Yes, and it is those people I am calling "fundamentalists", see? There are lots of Christians that don't behave as I described, but then I wasn't describing them as fundamentalists, so they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand.
Originally posted by philosophizer But which concept is more proper? That truth is simple or that truth is complex?
The truth is BOTH simple and complex. But this has nothing to do with the point I was making about fundamentalism.
Originally posted by philosophizer Sure, some do. But in doing so, they are not being true to their fundamentalism. The bible tells Christians to test everything. It's okay to examine other beliefs. It's a good thing to explore and not remain ignorant. Fundamentalists who oppose that are not really fundamentalists.
Well, it has been my observation, and I am sure the observation of many others here, that one of the overwhelmingly obvious characteristics of fundamentalists is their absolute refusal to question their own beliefs, or to accept even the possibility that their beliefs could be wrong. They don't explore or examine any other views of anything except with the dogged intent of discrediting them, and thus "proving" how right their own beliefs are.

In fact, these characteristices are so prominent that they are how I define "fundamentalism". The way some others are defining it here, ideologically, I wouldn't call it fundamentalism, I'd call that neo-conservative orthodoxy.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by beanieboy

btw, Knight, you still haven't weighed in.
How would you describe it?
Well.....

I am working on something in my head, so I am really more interested in reading what others say rather than weighing in myself (yet).

I am alreading getting affirmation as to what I had already thought, and that is....

I consider myself a fundamentalist, but I do not fit the description of a fundamentalist according to my opposition.

Therefore I want to acurately define (or re-define) fundamentalism according to how I (personally) think it should be defined.
 

beanieboy

New member
Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.
 

philosophizer

New member
Originally posted by beanieboy

Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.

I think Clete already did.
 

Swordsman

New member
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

4. Jesus died to redeem humankind - I would add that a fundamentalist Christian MUST also believe that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10).

Agreed.

I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.


Awww, now why did you have to go and put that in there? I don't really see this as fundamental belief at all. Its more of an extra ideology the Arminians have taken on really. Not fundamental.

We agree on what salvation does for us. We just disagree on how we got salvation. You like to add some works along with it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Originally posted by beanieboy

Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.

Philosophizer is right, read post #2
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
In response to this...
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.

Swordsman said this...
Originally posted by Swordsman
Awww, now why did you have to go and put that in there? I don't really see this as fundamental belief at all. Its more of an extra ideology the Armenians have taken on really. Not fundamental.

We agree on what salvation does for us. We just disagree on how we got salvation. You like to add some works along with it.

I would say that my statement is truer to the fundamentalist position in that I simply believe that the Bible means what is seems to say when it says...

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

However, I would not go so far as to say that Calvinists are not Fundamentalist. They do believe that God (Jesus) died in payment for sin. They just dispute whether or not His blood paid for it in part or in full.

And by the way, I am not an Armenian. Armenians are way to Calvinistic for my taste, thank you very much.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Cyrus of Persia

New member
Clete,

I probably found the webpage you took those 5 points. Or at least it's pretty good site for describing the phenomena:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/

I will use it to back up some of my claims.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is not what self-righteousness is. If you want to call it that go ahead, but don't be deceived, true Christianity pulls no punches. If you do not come to God through Jesus Christ you do not come to God at all. And since the alternative to God is Hell, then the choice is clear.

It's similar for conservatives and fundies i think. Lemme quote what is specific for fundies in this matter:

"3) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really "true Christians""

So for fundies it's not only the matter do we believe that Jesus is Saviour. For them it's important that we should believe it in "correct" way. I.e. as they understand the truth.

For example here, in Estonia, some Christians believe that most Lutherians are not Christians because they havent experienced "new birth" in certain moment of their life. What they miss is that being born again might be different experience for different people, i.e. some experience it after they pray "sinner prayer", some experience it in different way. But they both are Christians if they have dedicated their lives to Jesus.


God ordained the government to execute criminals (including Homo's) by due process of law. Criminal justice was God idea and Fundamentalist believe that God is smarter than they are and that He is better able to figure out what should be done with those who commit crimes.

Excellent example of fundamentalist thinking. They take whatever they can to justify their "sense of justice". In this example they ignore the fact that NT does't confirm the idea of excecuting homos, and rely on Mosaic Law what was relevant in certain time, certain place and for certain nation.

Generally: they are unable to differ culture and God's eternal truths.


There is a danger of favoring a particular interpretation of the Bible over clear extra-biblical evidence on certain issues, however, if the Bible makes an unambiguous claim about the nature of the universe which God created then science will not be able to disprove it, as hard as it might try.

The science cannot prove, nor disprove that God created the universe. So any christian can believe that God is the Creator and is not labelled as fundy by doing that. The fundy is the one who tries to read from the Bible more than is meant in it. The point of Creation story is to tell us that God created the Universe, and it describes it in form that was understandable for people to whom it was initially written. Today - i believe - the Creation story would be described bit differently, but the eternal truth (that God was behind of it all) would still remain. The Fundy takes over the exact description from the Story and ignores all facts that contradict to it, even if those facts are the realities.


Yes, everyone should do rightly. How could you have a problem with that?

The problem is that you cannot force to non- Christian the same values what Christians follow. At first they need to become Christians and then those values imply to them also.
 

Bernie22

New member
Beanieboy said, "I was talking about the mental gymnastics one must do to claim the bible is inerrant, and literal."

There's some leeway in the word "literal". I believe the Bible is both literally inerrant and spiritually infallible, and don't feel that mental gymnastics are necessary to defend this assertion.

Swedenborg pointed out something a few centuries ago that seems to be lost on most today, that because the Bible is a "book of correspondences", its literal meaning may be abused without affecting its interior (spiritual) meaning.

There are a number of senses that can be applied to the term "literal"--which is why the word may signify a number of meanings among different people. For instance, I recall an atheist some years ago mocking the gospel account of the resurrection because in two of the gospel accounts there was a slight difference in personnel of those who found the tomb empty. This fellow's assertion was that the resurrection was not true because the facts were contradictory...."false in one, false in all". In a positivistic mind bent on finding literally anything to argue about, this may seem a valid argument.

Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the reusurrection took place.

I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.
 
Top