What is a Christian fundamentalist?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
BChristianK
New member
Duder said:
Duder, no apologies are necessary to me. The debt forgiven me is much greater than any debt that could be incurred. I would be a hypocrite to claim the cross and then hold a grudge. If you got harsh with me it was because I provoked that harshness with my own inappropriate behavior. So I ask your forgiveness as well.
I appreciate our dialog. And I am also thankful for your grace in appreciating my posts. I have a hunch you are more intelligent and eloquent than I so I appreciate your willingness to dialog.
Next you say:
Nor do I. I don’t think I have crossed the line either. I wouldn’t agree with my friends on making the Genesis account wholly figurative while embracing evolution, nor would I agree with those who hold to a literal 6 day creation. For the most part, I haven’t figured it out yet.
Personally I think a lot of frustrated is directed at fundamentalism because fundamentalists aren’t willing to admit when they are unsure..
For those who lean more toward conservatism it represents the remnant of the faithful who have not sold out Jesus to the philosophies of the world. The problem with this, and to an extent the problem with me, is that we have a tendency to start drawing lines around folks to label them as “in” or “out.”
I’ll use myself as an example. When we were discussing the war in Iraq, I reacted inappropriately to your posts. I wasn’t really talking to you, Duder, I was reacting to the stereotype that I have constructed of liberals. That was a huge problem, because you may or may not agree with everything that I assign into the “liberal” category. In the end, I did both you and I a disservice. Because I didn’t take the time to clearly understand you, and I also made anything I had to say after that point exempt from evaluation from you by virtue of the adversarial environment I had created.
The same applies to the term fundamentalist. Those who stamp that label on people, and assume that by virtue of that stamp they understand fully the attitudes and opinions of the other person, have done themselves and the other a disservice.
PureX and I will never be able to really understand each other as long as PureX defines all fundamentalists as holding a superiority complex and as long as I see PureX as an aggressor against the faith.
Grace and Peace
Duder, no apologies are necessary to me. The debt forgiven me is much greater than any debt that could be incurred. I would be a hypocrite to claim the cross and then hold a grudge. If you got harsh with me it was because I provoked that harshness with my own inappropriate behavior. So I ask your forgiveness as well.
I appreciate our dialog. And I am also thankful for your grace in appreciating my posts. I have a hunch you are more intelligent and eloquent than I so I appreciate your willingness to dialog.
Next you say:
Nor do I. I don’t think I have crossed the line either. I wouldn’t agree with my friends on making the Genesis account wholly figurative while embracing evolution, nor would I agree with those who hold to a literal 6 day creation. For the most part, I haven’t figured it out yet.
Personally I think a lot of frustrated is directed at fundamentalism because fundamentalists aren’t willing to admit when they are unsure..
Good points here. Though Clete and I probably wouldn’t consider Jehova’s Witnesses Christian fundamentalists, in the sense that they deny some core doctrines of the faith, I am sure they hold some attributes of fundamentalism. Perhaps the fundamental problem is that there really isn’t a list that is universally agreed upon. We all sort of employ the term fundamentalist to suite our own aims. Those who lean more to the liberal side of Christianity often employ the term derogatorily. For them it has become a synonym for narrow mindedness. This has been my beef with PureX. I am pretty sure that PureX is more intelligent than I am as well. But for all that intelligence I don’t think he sees that his definition of fundamentalism is self serving, biased and not open to critique. That sounds very much like the kind of behavior that PureX dislikes in fundamentalists, and the kind of sickness he describes when he defines fundamentalism.
For those who lean more toward conservatism it represents the remnant of the faithful who have not sold out Jesus to the philosophies of the world. The problem with this, and to an extent the problem with me, is that we have a tendency to start drawing lines around folks to label them as “in” or “out.”
I’ll use myself as an example. When we were discussing the war in Iraq, I reacted inappropriately to your posts. I wasn’t really talking to you, Duder, I was reacting to the stereotype that I have constructed of liberals. That was a huge problem, because you may or may not agree with everything that I assign into the “liberal” category. In the end, I did both you and I a disservice. Because I didn’t take the time to clearly understand you, and I also made anything I had to say after that point exempt from evaluation from you by virtue of the adversarial environment I had created.
The same applies to the term fundamentalist. Those who stamp that label on people, and assume that by virtue of that stamp they understand fully the attitudes and opinions of the other person, have done themselves and the other a disservice.
PureX and I will never be able to really understand each other as long as PureX defines all fundamentalists as holding a superiority complex and as long as I see PureX as an aggressor against the faith.
Grace and Peace
BChristianK
New member
Cyrus said:
You make it sound like fund’s baptize the truth they believe in as the final truth as apposed to coming to accept that there is uncontrovertibly truth that they have come to believe in. The first makes it sound like they are saying, “its true because I say so.” The second has them saying, “I say so because it is true.”
Surely you live your life based on some truths..? Even if that truth is that “nothing is incontrovertibly true.”
Grace and Peace
You make it sound like fund’s baptize the truth they believe in as the final truth as apposed to coming to accept that there is uncontrovertibly truth that they have come to believe in. The first makes it sound like they are saying, “its true because I say so.” The second has them saying, “I say so because it is true.”
Surely you live your life based on some truths..? Even if that truth is that “nothing is incontrovertibly true.”
Grace and Peace
BChristianK
New member
PureX said:
You said:
Nonetheless, Philosophizer has claimed that though in many cases complexity is illusory. And I would agree with him to an extent. I would agree with him in that complexity is often the excuse to ignore what we see clearly within the complex.
Complexity can’t exist without simple and recognizable elements. In fact, complex aggregates are build on simple and rudimentary parts. A complex equation is built on simple and recognizable equations.
So when we speak of the complexity of the world and the available knowledge in the world, we can certainly speak of it in terms of its complexity, but we would be foolish to speak of its complexity as being irrelevant from those simple and recognizable elements.
I’m not a math whiz, never will be. I’m not going to be able to solve any “good will hunting” math equations in my lifetime. But I can look at those equations, apprehend their complexity, and yet still recognize some simple, recognizable, simple elements within the equation. I know how to calculate a square root. Can I assume that whatever happens in the calculations of the equation that the result will be built upon that element of the equation and not contradictory of that part of the equation?
Absolutely…
That is all that Fundamentalists are claiming when they point to absolute truths. Not that we know everything about everything, nor that world isn’t complex, but that within that complexity there are some truths that we can observe and believe as true in the midst of that complexity.
Now you also said:
There’s no denying that fundamentalists often have disagreements over doctrinal issues. But if you put a professing non-fundamentalist and a fundamentalist in a room alone, they will also fight with each other about who is “right” and who is “wrong.” So if the litmus test behind being a fundamentalist is the willingness to quarrel over the rightness and wrongness of a position, then you and I both are fundamentalists... One need not read the interchanges between you and I for too long to realize that we both disagree on who is right and who is wrong.
It is a mistake to think that fundamentalists characteristically disagree amongst themselves and non-fundamentalists characteristically agree amongst themselves. Put two Atheists in a room together and you will eventually arrive at some disagreement on the principles of atheism.
As such, I think it is too hasty to divorce fundamentalism from the doctrine of the group you are describing. It is true that there are non-Christian fundamentalists. It is true that fundamentalism is not doctrinally defined, but it is a term that measures the dedication to those doctrines.
Grace and Peace
So what you are saying is that the complexity of the universe is merely beyond your ability to comprehend, not that you know it is infinitely complex.
You said:
It sounded to me like you were saying that you experienced reality as infinitely complex which is different than saying that it just looks that way to you, but you don’t have a way to verify your observation. But that’s fine. I’m really not out to build a straw man PureX despite your interpretation of my motives. If that is what you are saying, than that I what I will deal with.
Nonetheless, Philosophizer has claimed that though in many cases complexity is illusory. And I would agree with him to an extent. I would agree with him in that complexity is often the excuse to ignore what we see clearly within the complex.
Complexity can’t exist without simple and recognizable elements. In fact, complex aggregates are build on simple and rudimentary parts. A complex equation is built on simple and recognizable equations.
So when we speak of the complexity of the world and the available knowledge in the world, we can certainly speak of it in terms of its complexity, but we would be foolish to speak of its complexity as being irrelevant from those simple and recognizable elements.
I’m not a math whiz, never will be. I’m not going to be able to solve any “good will hunting” math equations in my lifetime. But I can look at those equations, apprehend their complexity, and yet still recognize some simple, recognizable, simple elements within the equation. I know how to calculate a square root. Can I assume that whatever happens in the calculations of the equation that the result will be built upon that element of the equation and not contradictory of that part of the equation?
Absolutely…
That is all that Fundamentalists are claiming when they point to absolute truths. Not that we know everything about everything, nor that world isn’t complex, but that within that complexity there are some truths that we can observe and believe as true in the midst of that complexity.
Now you also said:
There’s no denying that fundamentalists often have disagreements over doctrinal issues. But if you put a professing non-fundamentalist and a fundamentalist in a room alone, they will also fight with each other about who is “right” and who is “wrong.” So if the litmus test behind being a fundamentalist is the willingness to quarrel over the rightness and wrongness of a position, then you and I both are fundamentalists... One need not read the interchanges between you and I for too long to realize that we both disagree on who is right and who is wrong.
It is a mistake to think that fundamentalists characteristically disagree amongst themselves and non-fundamentalists characteristically agree amongst themselves. Put two Atheists in a room together and you will eventually arrive at some disagreement on the principles of atheism.
As such, I think it is too hasty to divorce fundamentalism from the doctrine of the group you are describing. It is true that there are non-Christian fundamentalists. It is true that fundamentalism is not doctrinally defined, but it is a term that measures the dedication to those doctrines.
Grace and Peace
BChristianK
New member
Clete Said:
Furthermore, It didn’t even show up on your short list in your first post, are you now saying there are 6 critical doctrines to fundamentalism?
Furthermore, when fundamentalism became a popular term in the late 1800’s dispensational theology with a pretribulation rapture was a fledgling hypothesis. Most of the folks who became members of the “Evangelical Alliance” weren’t dispensational at the time, it wasn’t until the 1920’s that Darbyism became a prominent theory among fundamentalists.
This isn’t even an issue of division in the North Presbyterian church (a prominent leading denomination in early fundamentalism). Their five essentials don’t mention eschatological frameworks.
You are getting awful close to making arguments that you can’t substantiate.
First of all, if it turn out you are right, then so be it. I don’t covet the term for myself. As Popey said,” I am what I am and that’s all that I am.”
But secondly, in your next reply, can you please substantiate for me where historically dispensational theology was an essential in the foundational stages of the fundamentalist movement? Because as far as my historical recollection informs me, the five points of the “Evangelical Alliance” formed in 1895 were:
1. The inerrancy of scripture
2. The Divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Christ death as substitution atonement for our sins
5. His immanent return (a principle that amillennialism is perfectly harmonious with)
So why did you see fit to add to number five, where did this come from?, because I also submit that you guys don't get to define the term for yourselves either…..
Grace and Peace
No argument here, the term means what it means regardless of who wants in the club.
Why? You might not be able to be a Darwinian evolutionist and be a fundamentalist but not all evolutionary models are strictly Darwinian. There are all sorts of permutations of that theory at present.
Furthermore, It didn’t even show up on your short list in your first post, are you now saying there are 6 critical doctrines to fundamentalism?
Furthermore, when fundamentalism became a popular term in the late 1800’s dispensational theology with a pretribulation rapture was a fledgling hypothesis. Most of the folks who became members of the “Evangelical Alliance” weren’t dispensational at the time, it wasn’t until the 1920’s that Darbyism became a prominent theory among fundamentalists.
This isn’t even an issue of division in the North Presbyterian church (a prominent leading denomination in early fundamentalism). Their five essentials don’t mention eschatological frameworks.
What fundamental plank, dispensationalism or a “literal” interpretation of the first two chapters in Genesis?
Who’s wanting to liberalize the term, make it more comfortable, make everyone feel good or allow people to follow the dictates of their own hearts.?
You are getting awful close to making arguments that you can’t substantiate.
First of all, if it turn out you are right, then so be it. I don’t covet the term for myself. As Popey said,” I am what I am and that’s all that I am.”
But secondly, in your next reply, can you please substantiate for me where historically dispensational theology was an essential in the foundational stages of the fundamentalist movement? Because as far as my historical recollection informs me, the five points of the “Evangelical Alliance” formed in 1895 were:
1. The inerrancy of scripture
2. The Divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Christ death as substitution atonement for our sins
5. His immanent return (a principle that amillennialism is perfectly harmonious with)
So why did you see fit to add to number five, where did this come from?, because I also submit that you guys don't get to define the term for yourselves either…..
Grace and Peace
Cyrus of Persia
New member
I don't know any fundy who claims "it's true because i say so". Most of them (or all of them) say: "I say so because it is true". As they are blind to see that there can be other truths out there, then it's the same claim of infallibility. So yes, both claims are marks of fundamentalist.
Yes, it's one of the "truths" i believe in. Because i'm not God to know for 100% certainity that my truth (or the truth that my Church helds) is "incontrovertible truth".
LightSon
New member
A well stated summary!
I'm so frustrated with PureX, I want to chew nails. He insists on manufacturing the most tortured definition of fundamentalists, and uses that as a club with which to beat me and those with which I am aligned. Our goal is not be be holier than thou, but to glorify our Creator in all we do.
BChristianK, your synopsis has framed my ineffable thoughts and given them voice. Thank you! :bow:
PureX
Well-known member
What I'm saying is that no matter how full my grasp of the universe is, the universe remains more complex then I am able to grasp. Therefor, the complexity of the universe appears to me to be infinite, as I experience it, though it may well not actually be infinite.
But how it looks to me is how I am experiencing it. How could we see something one way and experience it another way?
In this case the observation is that the universe is complex. We can verify this observation easily, by simply attempting to take the universe apart. The more parts we generate, the more parts there will be yet to be removed. Does this mean that the number of parts is infinite? It's impossible to say, of course, because we are not capable of dismanteling the whole universe to find out. But to us, it would appear (as we experience it) that the number of parts are infinite. Yet our experience of 'infinity' isn't actual infinity, and our assumption of infinity (if we so assume) isn't an established truth.
But what these fundamentalists keep ignoring, and even fighting tooth and nail against, is the basic fact that their "equasion" only adds up "absolutely" in their minds. And thus it is not an intrinsic part of the reality that the rest of us experience (unless we have accepted their intellectual "equasion" as our reality, too). They keep insisting that because 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth in their own minds, that it must be an absolute truth in my mind, in everyone else's minds, and in reality, too. But it's NOT. And the more other people try to tell them that it's not, the more angry, antagonistic, bulligerant, and even violent they become. And they behave this way because it's of the utmost importance to them that they maintain the belief that the "equasions" in their minds are "real". It's so important that over the years they have often committed murder, and torture, and all kinds of terrible crimes in their efforts at maintaining this proposition. And when I converse with them on line, here, I still find them using any and all means possible to dismiss and discredit any other concept of reality.
THIS is fundamentalism. This battle with truth, with reality, with science, with other religions, with anyone and anything that dares to contradict the blind insistance that the equasions that are "absolutely true" in the fundamentalist's minds ARE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
It doesn't matter what the equasion is that the fundamentalist has deemed the absolute truth. That varries from person to person. What matters to the fundamentalist is that it be maintained as the absolute truth at all cost: at the cost of rationality, at the cost of relationships, at the cost of honesty, even at the cost of life itself.
Actually, no. To fundamentalists it always looks this way, because they are at war with ALL other views of truth and reality. But for most people, being "right" is not nearly so much of a priority. What happens is that the fundi and the non-fundi begin a conversation, and as soon as the non-fundi says something that dares to contradict the fundi's concept of truth and reality, the fundi feels he is being "attacked", because to him there can only be one right view of anything. But the other fellow may be a relativist. To him there are lots of "right" views, even some that contradict. So he was simply expressing his own opinion in the conversation. He wasn't "attacking" the fundi at all.
Fundamentalists live in a perpetual state of "war". They think everyone is "attacking" them and their "absolute truth". And this is why they are such a problem and a danger among the society of human beings. They can't just "live and let live". They can't accept multiple or relative truths. They can't accept anything but their own absolute truth. Everything else is an "attack".
I understand that this is how life appears to you, but it's not true. We do disagree, but not about what's right or wrong so much as about my right to be right, too. That's what fundamentalists can't ever really accept.
What is at issue here is not the fact that people disagree. That's inevitable, inderstandable, and expected. What's really at issue is how we conceptualize the disagreement, and how we respond to it. I believe that fundamentalism is not defined by the ideology that fundamentalists hold so much as how they conceive of those ideologies (as being absolutely correct) and how they then react to other ideologies because of that conception, and to the people that express them.
Some ideologies do invite fundamentalism, while others tend to discourage it, I agree. Christianity and Islam both invite fundamentalism because both religious ideologies are essentially elitist, and elitism does invite and encourage fundamentalism.
Brother Jed and Sister Cindy should be on campus in a few weeks.
Their facts?
Dinosaur bones were manufactured and placed in the Earth as a hoax to disprove the Bible.
Noah had 3 sons, and they each had children, one yellow, one black, and one red. That's how the races came about.
Gainer with half twist. 6.0.
Their facts?
Dinosaur bones were manufactured and placed in the Earth as a hoax to disprove the Bible.
Noah had 3 sons, and they each had children, one yellow, one black, and one red. That's how the races came about.
Gainer with half twist. 6.0.
Aimiel
Well-known member
The fact is, Satan is at war with The Lord, and makes use of those who don't hold to The Truth against those who do; who are, for the most part, sitting ducks for him to pick off, most of them not being able to rightly divide The Word of Truth, and many of whom don't have any real relationship with The Lord. The main reason that you don't find anyone who walks in the Whole Council of The Lord is that He hasn't given it. It is still, partly, at least, a mystery. We do our part, and that, too often, rather poorly. When This Body of Christ grows up into Him in all things, as a Mature Man, then we will begin to grasp this more fully, and possibly make more friends than in the past.
Freak
New member
Re: What is a Christian fundamentalist?
The triune nature of God
The virgin birth, the sinless life, the miracles, the atoning death, the bodily resurrection, the ascension, and literal second coming of Jesus Christ
That justification is by faith alone in Christ
Holy Scripture is inspired by God
All of these I embrace and promote and would die for. :up:
A Christian fundamentalist is one who embraces...
The triune nature of God
The virgin birth, the sinless life, the miracles, the atoning death, the bodily resurrection, the ascension, and literal second coming of Jesus Christ
That justification is by faith alone in Christ
Holy Scripture is inspired by God
All of these I embrace and promote and would die for. :up:
PureX
Well-known member
Actually, "fundamentalism" is not the word I would have chosen to define the behavior that I have been describing. It seems that general usage has decided this for me. I personally would have referred to this behavior as "absolutism" rather than fundamentalism.
But it isn't really the labels that we give to this phenomenon that matters. What matters is that it's a real phenomenon, and it's on the increase, and it presents a danger to all of us. As far as I know, I have not referred to you as a fundamentalist, and I have never accused you of any of the behaviors that I define as fundamentalist. So I'm not sure why you're feeling as if you had been accused. Perhaps it's just because you have been used to referring to yourself as a "fundamentalist" and now I am using the term in a different and negative way.
But then shouldn't you have had this reaction long before I came along? After all, the news commonly refers to Islamic fundamentalists as exhibiting very bad behavior, why didn't you feel uncomfortable with their use of the term? When David Koresh and Jim Jones were referred to as religious fundamentalists, didn't that make you uncomfortable, too?
Personally, I think you SHOULD be uncomfortable. If you call yourself a religious fundamentalist, and you find yourself being lumped in with these lunatics and killers, I think you certainly should be feeling uncomfortable about it. I think you should be doing some soul-searching, too, to see where your religious fundamentalism might be in alignment with these other more heinous examples. This may be a 'wake-up call' for you.
I am not sorry that I use the term "fundamentalism" to illuminate the most grotesque and dangerous expressions of religious Christianity. I am not sorry that this makes you or other people uncomfortable. It certainly should make us all uncomfortable! This obsession with righteousness at all cost, that I am calling fundamentalism, is a dangerous phenomena that deserves very close scrutiny. Especially by those of you who are the most closely aligned with it.
Chew your nails and be frustrated all you want, but when you're done blaming me I hope you'll take some time to really consider how you may be aiding or participating in this toxic fundamentalism that you see me write about. It's greatest enablers are all you Christians who can't seem to find any fault in any way with any other supposed Christian. Seeing what's happening to Islam because of this fundamentalism should be a wake-up call to Christians, yet all I'm seeing from most other Christians are excuses and denial. Very few of you have realized that it's Christ's and your reputations that these people are destroying. And it you who are becoming their accomplices by your complacency.
Fundamentalists also believe in the substitutionary atonement accomplished by the crucifixion. Fundamentalism also deals with who you fellowship with. Some will fellowship with only people of the same beliefs and others, even if somebody else has the same beliefs, won't fellowship with those people because of who the other people fellowship with.
CRC_FChristian
New member
I'm independent fundamental bible believing Christian....
I have degree as computer scientist....
Going for degree in theology...
I dont believe that if you dont believe everything in bible you are going to hell...Salvation is a free gift in the Lord Jesus Christ his shedding of his precious blood nothing we can do can merit our own salvation...
And yes I believe that God meant what he wrote and he left us his preserved word in King James bible...If we cant trust that God is powerful enough to preserve his word then how can he possibly provide us a way for salvation...furthermore how could we trust anything he tells us if there are errors or he has lied to us in his word....
My question to all that are out there...say your pastor has niv, one has NSB, one has NKJV, one has american standard bible Which one is the authoritative bible to go by?
As for twisting of scriptures....well many are guilty of this today not just "fundementalists"....
As for close mind...well God has spelled out in his word how christians should conduct themselves...I believe II Chronicles 7:14 is still in effect today...This mean that at we are to be a pecuilar, holy and righteous people otherwise he wouldnt have spent so much time telling us how we should live as christians...
So if adehering to Gods word on how Christian should live then Im guilty as charged.
Several other questions for all out there...we have more church members than ever before in America...
Is America spiritually better off today than say 50 or more years ago ?
Is America still a spiritual beacon in todays world?
Is America closer to God today than ever before?
Does America have better moralistic values as whole than ever before?
Now you might ask question of what does spiritual/moral state of America have to do with anything? The answer is the Church has always set the precendence for the spiritual and moral climate of our country thus...
I think when you find answers to above questions you can find some truth as to whether or not a fundamentalist position is more on side of correct than ere...
Last edited:
CRC_FChristian
New member
well...actually this is not true...in a public setting i fellowship with numerous others that dont believe the way I do...
With that said, I dont go to other denominations churches...I dont try and accomplish Gods work by getting together with others in different denominations....
CRC_FChristian
New member
well...actually this is not true...in a public setting i fellowship with numerous others that dont believe the way I do...
With that said, I dont go to other denominations churches...I dont try and accomplish Gods work by getting together with others in different denominations....