September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Censorship | Main | Why Is Ovulation Never Mentioned in Plan B Discussions? »

August 22, 2006


"fundamentalist," i.e., someone to watch out for because they think Christianity is true. Oh my!"

I believe Christianity is true (Jesus died for my sins, and I am forgiven in Him), but I do not believe in a literal six-day creation, or a global flood, and I am not a dispensationalist (I am a preterist). I believe all the aforementioned are associated with "fundamentalist," so I would never peg myself with that term. Increasingly, I am loathe to use the term "evangelical" because I realize I myself am not clear on its meaning, and it's too associated with "fundamentalist."

Jesus himself referenced the flood, (Luke 17:26–27).

I personally don't understand Christians who believe God can create the universe, become a man and die in our place, and think that parts of the bible are wrong. Its a slippery slope.

Since God can do anything let's trust that he did. If you decide not to, please start to inform us what parts of the bible are from God, and what parts are not. We should all be fundamentalists.

I'm not saying that "parts of the Bible are wrong." Because the Bible contains different types of literature, we have to use hermaneutics to discern how to properly interpret it. Martin Luther used a literal approach to Joshua to "prove" that Copernican heliocentrism was wrong, because the Bible said the Sun "stopped in its tracks," therefore, the Sun revolved around the Earth. Good example of wrong-headed fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism, or hyper-literalness, is uninformed and unnecessary. It's "head-in-the-sand" theology.

Perry, your certain to win people over with your slick reasoning that fundamentalists such as myself have their heads in the sand and are hyper-literals.

I have taken several courses in hermeneutics and can assure you that the flood and creation accounts are written in the historical narrative. This is evident by the wording in the O.T. and how Jesus and the apostles addressed these things in the N.T.

By the way I should post what a fundamental is. This is the list of items a fundamental typcially follows. A interesting side note is that Rick Warren compares people that follow this list to extremist Muslims.

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). 1


Those are the fundamentals of the faith, but "Fundamentalism" is a movement which began in the early 20th Century and has more than just those things you listed as characteristics. Often times it incorporated a certain approach to society (an attitude that secular society was to be shunned) and making certain non-essentials essential (like how one dresses for church, or certain bible translations). Moody would have been an evangelical, but not a Fundamentalist, even though he may have been a fundamentalist.

It is important to distinguish between the fundamentals of the faith and Fundamentalism as a sociological/ theological movement.

And Perry, don't confuse a bad application with Fundamentalism.


"Perry, [you're] certain to win people over with your slick reasoning that fundamentalists such as myself have their heads in the sand and are hyper-literals."

Please forgive me...I am not trying to insult you or anyone personally. This is one of the problems of these boards; more time and space is needed to fully explain.

One quick example: Genesis is not adequate to explain the paleontological place of dinosaurs and how they could possibly fit into a young-earth timeline. IMO, it is simplistic to believe dinosaurs co-existed with Man and that Adam named T-Rex and Velociraptor as they strolled by chewing grass. We know a lot less than we think we do about the world and its complexity, and I hold that Genesis is not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on the particulars of those complexities.

The Bible is ambiguous or silent about many such things, and I believe we have to be comfortable with those ambiguities. I guess that's where science can fill the gaps. That is not to say the Bible is wrong. My Luther example previously was meant to show that literalism taken too far can lead to a wrong conclusion.

Thankfully, the Bible does not state the Earth is flat, though people during the times the books were written may have thought that and hints of that cosmology creep into the language now and then, even up to today.

And, by the way, I agree with those five points. I think we have to be really clear about "inerrancy," however, as that term describes the original documents, which we do not possess, not any translation thereafter. I have seen some Statements of Faith that reference "inerrant in the original autographs" which I think is a better definition.

In what way does this board not give you enough time and space to fully explain?


"In what way does this board not give you enough time and space to fully explain?"

In trying to keep things succint, some details and info are often left out. People can be misunderstood as a result. It seems that the Comments section is not meant to be a place for dissertations, which some subjects seem to require. Greg does a great job of "disserting" on subjects in his STR Newsletters.

Disserting - I like that word.

Robert, your getting legalism mixed up with fundamentalism. What I quoted is from 1910 and is the listed doctrine for fundamentalists. I also have the large group of writings from the start of the fundamental movement. Fundamentalism has nothing to do with KJV onlyism or women having to wear dresses. I go to a fundamentalist church which has a fundamentalist seminary. I also join in with other fundamentalists on various dicussions via the internet just so you know that I'm qualified on this subject.

Perry, thank you for the kindly written reply. I'll give you a few links but you may have already heard about them. I know some of the people involved with these groups and they are honest scientists that know their stuff and have a love for God and a love for truth. All I can say is approach it with an open mind which I know is hard to do on this topic.

Qualified fundamentalist? as opposed to......

Since others have mentioned ICR (a bastion of my youthful education), I'll mention Reasons to Believe,, quite possibly the best technical/scientific Christian apologetics broadcast/podcast available (STR itself is more strategicly oriented). I wish ICR would produce a podcast; AiG's current podcast is purely superficial, quite seriously a model of shallowness in comparison.

It's old-earth, contrary to my education, but the solid intellectual matter presented is very powerful. If they could only overcome my objections on the Biblical clarity of intent regarding the flood I'd be old-earth myself... I suppose I'm already mostly convinced.

The comments to this entry are closed.