Discourse on Fundamentalism:

[iris89]

Discourse on Fundamentalism:



Fundamentalism is not limited to misguided so called Christian groups that run about asking have you been born again and/or have you been saved. These groups clearly do not recognize the Bible as the Standard as the Bible clearly says at Matthew 10:22, "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." (American Standard Version; ASV); and this is affirmed at Matthew 24:13, "But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." (ASV). And clearly these so called Christian fundamentalist overlook Mark 13:13, "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." (ASV).



They miss the mark in that they believe once saved always saved which is clearly not the case as was testified to at Luke 8:12, "And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved." (ASV); therefore, it is easy to see as Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, and Mark 13:13 all testify to the fact that only he who endures to the end will be saved as clearly shown in the ultimate standard, the Bible which is the word of God (YHWH).



the Bible, it is a unique standard set by the highest sovereign power in the universe. God (YHWH) as a rule or measure by which all things are to be judged. Since he created all things, it is his absolute right to set the standard as he is responsible for the existence of all things in the universe.



Now let's look at fundamentalist in a none-Christian setting. This by I Won, "--"I've even met Buddhists who were fundamentalists, which struck me as odd at first. But fundamentalism is an emotional disease, and that disease can affect anyone, even if their arguments are correct. The tendency in group schisms is to project all evil onto

the other group, and pagans or atheists who could easily spot the irrational component of a Christian fundamentalist's argument may have blind spots of their own. The Christian's fundamentalism transfers like a virus to the nonchristian, even as the beliefs themselves are regarded as fairy tales. If the same anger can be held by people with very different

beliefs, it's the anger itself that is the problem, not necessarily the beliefs. This is another reason why it's so hard to win religious debates. You have to win them nonverbally, rather than assuming logic alone will have an impact. Fundamentalists are so good at

bringing up frustration and anger in others that they can then use that anger as a sign that "atheists aren't happy" or "pagans are hostile people". Once you've fallen into that trap, the fundamentalist has won." [source - comments by I Won].



Likewise the Muslims also have their misguided fundamentalist, but there is no need to discuss those as all know of how misguided and unloving they are. The name Osama bin Ladin in fact tells the entire store of these evil misguided ones as all have read of what he was behind on 9/11 in New York.



Fundamentalism and radicalism is to be avoided as they are always in the wrong and hateful of others; whereas, the Bible clearly shows at 1 John 4:8, "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (ASV). However, the fundamentalist do not preach love nor the true word of God (YHWH) clearly showing they are not of God (YHWH). This fact is amplified at 1 John 4:10, "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins." (ASV); and at 1 John 4:12, "No man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us:" (ASV); and at 1 John 4:16, "And we know and have believed the love which God hath in us. God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him." (ASV); and at 1 John 4:20, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen." (ASV); and at 1 John 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (ASV). Notice, the last quoted scripture emphasis the need to keep his commandments if we love him and we can only know an do this if we accept the Bible as the Standard as it is his written word for our guidance.



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[anders]

To comment on your views, it would have been helpful if you had defined what you mean by "fundamentalism". In order to answer, I take it as "returning to the views of the oldest stage of a religion or philosophy".

In that case, Christian fundamentalism would mean an obligation to kill disobedient children etc etc. Few would agree to that. For the Bible as well as for the Qur'an, real fundamentalism would require an undestanding of the times when the scriptures in question were written, who wrote it (you still haven't told us who the 40 persons who wote the Bible were) and what the intention at that time was.

There are for example verses in the Qur'an that have been intrepreted by Christans as meaning that all non-Muslims should be beheaded, but they only describe practical methods of warfare against attacking neighbours at that time.

Mentioning Mr. bin Ladin in a discussion of religion is absurd. If he exists, and isn't just a thing made up by the CIA to serve as an excuse for their actions and opinions, he is a politician, not a religious man, and to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing to prove who was behind the plane crashes.

The notion of Buddhist fundamentalism gave me the laugh of the day. The Buddha taught that all dogma should be evaluated critically, even his own teachings, and everybody should take care to see if teachings correspond to reality and are working in real life. Would that people of all faiths were to see it that way!

 

[Sunstone]

I agree that fundamentalism is an emotional disease.

 

[brotherjim]

Greetings, Iris, in the Name of the Lord Christ Jesus.

(Btw, I myself would've added 1 John 2:3-5 to the list of verses stating Love as being a requirement for eternal salvation, and I usually put it at the top of the list.)

I must admit, I'm often ignorant when it comes to knowing what certain denominations believe, and how one compares to the other, so if you would kindly answer a queation that your post raised in my mind.

Are you implying--or is "inferring" better?-- that when a certain denomination/faction of Evangelical/charismatic Christianity defines themselves as fundamentalist, this automatically indicates that they believe OSAS? (I'm not being Socratic or anything; I really do not know: I had always assumed that Christian fundamentalism just meant a belief in the written Word as being infallible--again, is inerrant the better word here?--and that it's to be taken literal in most cases/were possible.)

Also, I noticed in your mention of the Seed Sower parable, you only mentioned those you did, and not those who received the Word but who later shrank back because of persecutions and/or their love of the world. In what category do you put these? (In other words, do you have in your thinking THREE categories: those who endure; those who you mention had the Word stolen; and, thirdly, those who later shrink back?--or do you lump all who do not endure to the end, i.e., the other 3 seed sower categories, together, and just abbreviated it in your orig. thread starter?)

Also, I'm going to bump up a thread I started, for your consideration. Pease tell me what you think. Thanks.

Curious, bj

 

[Scott1]

Fundamentalism and radicalism is to be avoided

Hmmm... I thought you were a Christian fundamentalist....????..... No?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm a rabid fundamentalist in that I believe in going BACK to the fundamentals of Christianity (namely LOVE).

I really don't care how others may define it. I like my definition just fine!

 

[brotherjim]

I'm a rabid fundamentalist in that I believe in going BACK to the fundamentals of Christianity (namely LOVE). I really don't care how others may define it. I like my definition just fine!

Cool, Doc. I also like your definition.

(My need is to know how Christendom defines it, however, just for the sake of effective communication in life, in general. Is Iris throwing me a whamee?? Does ANYONE know: do all fundamentalists believe OSAS?)

So, Doc, how would you "suggest" what you believe in, be accomplished?

bro. jim

 

[t3gah]

Since the parable about the soil types state that 1/4 of those that hear the word actually do something about it, I'm confused at the rest of content of your post, iris89.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That's easy BrotherJim!

Matthew 20:25 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- 28. just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

 

[iris89]

Hi brotherjim and everyone else



Your statement,

Are you implying--or is "inferring" better?-- that when a certain denomination/faction of Evangelical/charismatic Christianity defines themselves as fundamentalist, this automatically indicates that they believe OSAS? (I'm not being Socratic or anything; I really do not know: I had always assumed that Christian fundamentalism just meant a belief in the written Word as being infallible--again, is inerrant the better word here?--and that it's to be taken literal in most cases/were possible.)

I believe that the word of God (YHWH) is infallible, but NOT translations thereof. I believe in the Bible as the Standard that God (YHWH) has given to mankind to learn from and to live by, but in no way am I a fundamentalist as can readily be seen by my article on fundamentalism.



Fundamentalism has various definitions, here are some of them:

What is a fundamentalist Christian?

In recent times, the term "fundamentalist" has become commonly used by the news media to refer to any religious group whom they consider to hold radical views. We may recall frequent references to the mid-east Islamic fundamentalists who have been viewed as fanatics, and often responsible for acts of terrorism.

Similarly, liberal society uses the term fundamentalist to identify any Christian whom they consider to be an extremist. Generally, they classify a Christian as a radical fundamentalist if they merely believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, if they hold views against sexual permissiveness, homosexuality, abortion on demand, or any views which are politically incorrect.

From the Christian perspective, fundamentalist has traditionally referred to any follower of Christ who believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and who believes in its literal interpretation and fundamental teachings. The fundamental Christian believes in the experience of the "new birth" which occurs when faith is placed in Christ as Savior and Lord. To the world this may be viewed as radical, but is very basic to the Christian faith.

The idea of Christian Fundamentalism first emerged as a movement in the 19th century within various Protestant bodies, who reacted against the rising tide of evolutionary theories and modernist Biblical criticism. From a Bible conference of Conservative Protestants meeting in Niagara in 1895, a statement was issued containing what came to be known as the five points of fundamentalism: The verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, a substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ.¹ In the first half of the 20th century, most Protestant churches in the U.S. were divided into either Fundamentalist or Modernist groups. The term has generally been applied to all those who adhere to strict, conservative (Protestant) orthodoxy in the matter of Biblical inspiration.

In the broad sense, fundamentalism may be used to describe Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum — exactly how every believer should live. But because of recent, increased activism by those identified as fundamentalists, who have promoted unethical actions such as bringing violence against abortion clinics, doctors etc., some academic circles believe that fundamentalism has been redefined by our society. They believe that the philosophy of fundamentalism (at least in the world's eyes) has evolved into a legitimate form of extremism, with views too radical for the balanced, evangelical Christian. For this reason, fundamentalism may no longer be a term which accurately conveys what orthodox Christians really believe.[source - “What People Ask About The Church,” by Dale A. Robbins]

And,

1.

Name: Fundamentalism

2. Founder: No one person can be credited with founding Fundamentalism. Nor does any single group comprise the history of the movement. The label `Fundamentalist' is used as both anadjective and a noun. Accordingly, trying to understand the phenomena requires more than knowing a few names and dates. Curtis Lee Laws, editor of a conservative publication entitled Watchman-Examiner is credited with coining the term "fundamentalism."

3. Origin of the Concept: The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals." [source - http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html]

However, what is important with respect to what we call Fundamentalism is that fundamentalist groups of all flavors, Christian, Muslim, etc. all tend to over time become radical and part greatly from the teachings in the Bible, Quran, etc., and commit violent acts against those whom they consider infidels.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Scuba Pete]

This is like the word "Charismatic". We can let OTHERS define it for us and in their way. I would never choose to be associated with most churches who claim to be charismatic. But when you realise that it truly means "Graceful" or "Full of Grace", then I am less inclined to call them by this word.

Consequently, I will be as charismatic AND fundamental as possible. But not in the way OTHERS define it.

 

[iris89]

Hi NetDoc

You can not accept the meaning others give to words? Are you a writer of dictionaries?

The regular dictionary says of charismatic:

The word Charisma (from the Greek word charis) or gift, is often used in this form to describe an ability to charm or influence people. Charisma has been credited with helping some politicians, especially those with vague platforms and populist ambitions, to achieve electoral success.The word is also used by certain Christian denominations and movements to indicate that they... [source - Wikipedia Encyclopedia}

and,

1. Of, relating to, or characterized by charisma: “the warmth of a naturally charismatic leader” (Joyce Carol Oates). 2. Of, relating to, or being a type of Christianity that emphasizes personal religious experience and divinely inspired powers, as of healing, prophecy, and the gift of tongues. [source - The American Heritage[size=-1]®[/size] Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. [size=-1]2000.}[/size]
Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Scuba Pete]

My dear Iris...

Do you always get this confused and so easily?

Charismatic might be a derivitive of Charisma, but I was OBVIOUSLY referring to the Charismatic Movement, or more prosaically, the "Holy Rollers". My point was that I feel that I am Charismatic (though I am sure you would disagree vehemently) though I bear little resemblance to "Holy Rollers" in either practice or beliefs.

I also feel that the word "Fundamentalist" has been degenerated into meaning something that is NOT fundamental, but in your face judgemental. I have returned to the fundamentals of Christianity, leaving the trappings of Phariseeical Christianity.

 

[iris89]

Hi NetDoc

I am not confused. I stated fro authorative sources the meaning of a word.

Now a question for you who likes to throw out questions to me even though you have failed to answer as yet my other five to you.

John 5:26, “For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:” (American Standard Version; ASV)



John 6:57, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.



By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[lilithu]

From 1910 to 1915 a series of pamphlets were published in reaction to modernism and a liberalizing trend in christianity. The pamphlets, claiming to be trying to return christianity to the "fundamentals of faith," outlined five things that (in the writers' opinion) every good christian should believe. I don't remember what all five of them were but the most controversial one remains a belief in the absolute, literal inerrancy of the bible. Those christians who followed the five fundamentals of faith came to be known as "fundamentalists." (All christian fundamentalists are evangelicals but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.)

In the ensuing years, the word "fundamentalist" has taken on a more general meaning, refering to conservative christianity as a whole. For others, the word simply connotes religious fanaticism. To be honest, I have used the word in the last meaning myself but it is inaccurate. The safest way to define it is probably that fundamentalism, in which ever religion it is applied to, is a reaction against modernity. It is imo a religion based on fear of change and of the unknown. (whereas liberal religion is based on hope in the face of change/the unknown.)

 

[Scuba Pete]

Iris...

Didn't I answer this elsewhere for you? Are you going to keep asking the SAME questions over and over and act like I never answered them? Seems a bit disengenuous to me.

Lilithu...

It is imo a religion based on fear of change and of the unknown.

Again, I think that they have missed the real concept of "fundamentalism". When Rocky was going to fight Mr T... what did Apollo make him do? Get BACK to the fundamentals of his sport. This applies to MANY sports, both individual and team. You have to get the BASICS of the religion (or sport) down before you move on the "less fundamental" teachings.

Unfortunately, amny who CLAIM to be Christian, show an undue level of INTOLERANCE, HATE, SPITE, PRIDE and the like. This is especially true of those that get referred to as "Fundamentalists". But the point is... they have MISSED the fundamentals of Chritianity ENTIRELY and are presenting a religion that bears little resemblence to the first Disciples.

Galations 5:22. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

And...

II Peter 1:4. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

Now I would contend that THOSE are the TRUE fundamentals of Christianity.

 

[brotherjim]

Hey, you two, Iris and Doc, please stop it. Talk to others and ignore each other's posts, please, as it's obvious to all that the two of you cannot communicate in a Christ-like manner. Please, I'm begging you even, on behalf of Christ, myself and others who cannot bear to witness such a display. Thank you, and the Lord bless you both for your cooperation. (Think how this stuff appears to, and potentially influences, others who may pass this way.)

Iris 89,

Thanks for taking the time to post the info. defining "fundamentalism" and thereby explaining yourself and your thread starter.

Whew!!!!!!! I'm not nuts or failing to get out enough, after all. The discourse you posted was my understanding nearly verbatim, and in regards to both trad. and contemp. definitions.

If I may kindly make a suggestion. Rather than address your "complaints" against fundamentalists, since many have not contemporized and do not picket abortion slaughter houses or blow up hindu temples, why not just write/speak the correct Gospel. Is it necessary to curse the darkness? Do not assume Luther went about things the correct way? (God may well have brought about the Reformation DESPITE Luther's confrontational methodologies, not as a direct result.)

But even if you must continue by your method, please consider not addressing those you "critique" as fundamentalists, per se, but come up with some other term. My guess is that the majority who would call themselves fundamentalist, are middle-aged and seniors who don't have a bone of terrorism in their bodies, and who are old school and who still define fundamentalism by its "1910-1915" definition, and who your thread starter would greatly offend and be divisive for, causing them to stumble in sin in their feelings towards you. We ARE our brother's keeper.

I, too, a fundamentalist of the old school, have had to refrain from including such a term in my doctrinal description because of the way the last decade and Islam and Christian fanatics have perverted the Word. But not all are like you and me, Iris. It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks (and I'm just a step away myself), i.e., new terms. I find the best word to describe the intended-by-God Christian walk, to be a "channelling" of God's Love, but cannot ever use that term because of how Hollywood and Satanists have forever perverted it.

Let us all use those terms which best convey our intention while still avoiding any
unnecessary destruction of innocents, amen?

Thank you, sincerely, for your "listening" and hoped-by-me consideration, blessings, jim

 

[iris89]

Hi brotherjim

Your comment,

I, too, a fundamentalist of the old school, have had to refrain from
including such a term in my doctrinal description because of the way
the last decade and Islam and Christian fanatics have perverted the
Word. But not all are like you and me, Iris. It's hard to teach old
dogs new tricks (and I'm just a step away myself), i.e., new terms. I
find the best word to describe the intended-by-God Christian walk, to
be a "channelling" of God's Love, but cannot ever use that term
because of how Hollywood and Satanists have forever perverted it.

I can well understand. Fundmentally, in the last 25 years, the word fundamentalist has taken on a meaning quite different than its original meaning. The reason I wrote my article is that various individuals have been sending me emails to write an article on the modern fundamentalist movements, i.e., Christian, Muslim, and other. In fact, one of them sent me the piece on Hindus that I included in my article and I believe this gentlemen to be a Hindu that is 'fed up' with what he refers to as fundmentalist Hindus. I get upset myself with so called fundmentalist Christians that commit radical acts.

Actually, that is the first and last article I plan on doing on fundmentalism - MODERN - unless I get a lot of request to do a second. It is definately NOT my favorite subject or one which I consider of paramount importance.

Actually some of the NetDoc's un-comprehending post along with those of others has given me inspiration with respect to writing an important article,

Discourse on Sound Doctrine Really Does Matter

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=85153#post85153

What I do not understand is why so many do not understand 2 Timothy 4:2, "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." (New King James Bible; NKJB). I try to reason with individuals from the Bible, but no matter what the cling to their 'pet myths or doctrines' and utterly fail to see Bible truths. Strange!

Nice to hear from you. If you wish ever to send me an email, my email address is [email protected].

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[keevelish]

Iris89 I agree with your definition of a charismatic christian. Net Doc I do not believe that charismatics are fundamentalists. I am a fundamentalist in that I take the Bible, the inerrant word of God as it is and do not twist it or distort it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Neither do I keevlish. They major in the minors but so do most sects. But in reality all fundamentalists should be Charismatic (Full of Grace), but not like the group that bears the name (the holy rollers).

As for Iris, I find her tantamount to a Christian Pharisee, and have put her on ignore. I don't see what she says about me or others and neither do I care to.