Fundamentalist Christianity

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excelsis Deo, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Excelsis Deo

It has been said that when it comes to religion "All paths lead to the same place." Which is to say they are essentially the same. I would agree with this statement to a point.

Yes, to a point. There are many here who could argue the finer subtleties.

In other words I EARN my way to God by my accomplishments and piety. In this way all religions seem to agree..............except Biblical Christianity... The Scriptures make it clear that we cannot attain or earn our way to God.

I guess a great deal hinges on interpretation, or semantics.
Salvation, that is, access to heaven, in the Christian tradition is through Christ, yes. However, according to James, traditionally the "half"-brother of Jesus raised in the same household, works are the clothing one wears in heaven (so to speak). In other words, "belief" alone gets you into heaven, but you'll run around naked as a jay-bird.
The righteous "man" is the working "man." "Show me your faith without your works, and I'll show you my faith by my works." Also, "Faith without works is dead." -both from James

I had some Mormons come to my door one day and I asked them this question," If I do the things you say and follow your rules and practices can you GUARANTEE I will go to heaven when I die?" They said No we cannot. But for the Christian who puts their hope in God and the promise of Scripture he has a guarantee written by a man named John who had seen and touched Jesus after His resurrection. So John declares in 1John 5:13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in order that you may know you have eternal life."

I appreciate your sincerity, and I appreciate your steadfastness. However, were not the Mormons you mentioned perhaps only being honest. After all, can anyone truly claim a "guarantee?" When all is said and done, all that any of us can truly have is hope. Unfortunately, hope alone is no guarantee. Because John makes a declaration is no guarantee, at least not in the generally accepted definition of the word. And surely your personal experiences are not those of John. What John had is faith and hope, derived from experience, and bolstered with works. Which is all any of us can truly hope to have and achieve.

[juantoo3]

Kind regards again!

Originally Posted by Excelsis Deo

It is good that you mentioned Codex Sinaiticus because it was discovered by Tischendorf who revolutionized Textual Criticism as we know it by developing an apparatus that notes variations within the text. Now what is interesting is that the Critical text which is the basis for the NIV and NAS comes from his methodology and Westcott and Hort who followed after him. In contrast the KJV was based upon the Received Text (Textus Receptus) which was created by a different approach to compiling manuscrpits called the Majority Text method. The Received Text is considered inferior to the Critical Text that is used today (the example which is the UBS Greek New Testament 26th ed.). But still with their different methodologies and codexes the NIV and NAS are remarkable similar to the KJ. For further info consult "Introduction to New Testament Criticism" by J. Harold Greenlee.

Concerning dates Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century and contains the entire NT and some OT books.

Didn't Tischendorf have a rival scholar? It has been quite a while since I looked into any of this, and I may have the two men confused. But it seems to me that one of the texts (whether or not Sinaiticus I do not recall) was found languishing in the scriptorium of a monastery (in the Middle East I believe). The dating as I recall was questionable, and Tischendorf and his rival did their work during the mid-eighteen hundreds. The two men claimed supremacy for their works by various means, neither of which being clearly ruled superior or inferior. Both texts were later used for translations.

I am not sure if the "Textus Receptus" mentioned is indeed the complete manuscripts in the British Museum used for the King James version. I am not aware of "majority text" method. Please correct me if I am not right, but I do not think there are further copies of the various books contained in that particular collection, the sum of which dates to around 400 AD.

I realize the KJV is not the "be all and end all" when it comes to Biblical scholarship. Even so, I do hold to it for reasons of ease of reference. Newer translations concern me, as I have seen instances of individual interpretation included. At least with the King James version, that personal interpretation was subjected to committee. Even after that, the personal interpretations that were included have, after almost 400 years, been made known to scholarship. Perhaps the clearest and most accurate translation I have seen (even then not perfect) is the Interlinear, which is direct literal translation from the Greek and Hebrew.

Are you at all familiar with a Biblical scholar named Ginsberg?

[juantoo3]

I apologize for responding to myself, but I took a look at some material today concerning the Textus Receptus. It is much more involved than I had previously understood. Thank you, Excelsus Deo, for bringing this interesting info to my attention.

[wethirst]

First of all, I must confess that at this point I have not read this entire thread, but was intriguied by the opening posts and thus am mostly commenting in reference to that.

I would not consider myself a fundamentalist. At least what most readers here would consider fundamentalist. I hold many opinions that would likely be labeled conservative-but I hate using any terms. I simply believe what I believe, and don't like to hide behind a political term.

Someone mentioned at the beginning of this thread that 'being open minded is the only way to be'. I agree to a point. I believe that when considering one's beliefs one must be as totally honest and open as possible-but there also comes a point of remaining steadfast despite doubts (of course, your doubts may be justified, or they may be simply passing. If we were to always sway to them, we may in fact be weak. Conversely if we never consider them-be are obstinate and ignorant). Yet wouldn't you say that a creed of 'open-mindedness' is itself a closed-minded view? It is paradoxical at best, but I do believe that one can be so pluralistic as to believe in nothing but the doctrine of always changing beliefs.

changing the subject a moment, going back to something else from the beginning of the thread. Though I do not agree with the fundamentalist 'young-earth because of Biblical geneology', I would argue with the point that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible. First of all, much of the specifics of the Bible are up for debate considering the differences between Hebrew or Greek and English. But in Job, a creature called the Leviathan is mentioned which is believed to be a sort of plesiosauras (excuse the spelling). As well, Abraham (I believe it was) described a large mammal with a powerful tail... and so on. There are little items like this that do appear in Scripture. I personally agree with what's known as an 'old-earth' view of creation. I believe the geneologies in Scripture to be incomplete, particularly as the word for 'son of' in Hebrew used in those geneologies can also be translated 'grandson or great-grandson of'.

So to another earlier point of this thread... why do I believe in God? What 'evidence' do I have? At the moment, I am regrettably unprepared in my defense. I am at a point where I believe by faith-but faith was not the only original catalyst. An interesting book to read on the subject would be perhaps 'Surprised by Joy' by C.S. Lewis. Where he recounts his change from strict secularist atheism, to one of the most prolific and honored Christian thinkers of the modern era. Some 'evidence' pointing to God include the Intelligent Deseign theory (though I see it as a very small reason, for if God-specifically the God of the BIble is real-evidence of him would be something a little greater than just scientific). I also believe because of the obviousness (to me) of the existence of a moral law, and other such 'doctrines or apologies'. Yet, though it sounds extremely petty, I mostly believe...because I somehow just do. I have eyes wide open to something more than biological processes going on inside of me, of a change in my life and the way I observe everything. More thoughts to come I suppose.

[lunamoth]

Hi wethirst, welcome to CR. Nice first post!

lunamoth

[Dondi]

Welcome to CR, wethirst!

I didn't know this thread existed until now. It's been buried for two years until resureected by wethirst. But I do want to put my thoughts into the matter.

I grew up in a fundamental Baptist church. I was taught the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. Sin is evil, hell is hot, and Jesus is the only way to God. Basically, if God said it, then it's settled. So I was "saved" at the age of 13 way back in 1976.

But since I've been around the block a few times, I've modified my views a bit. I still attend a fundy Baptist church, though. I still believe that i was saved back in 1976, however, my thinking about just what that really means has broadened greatly over the years.

I believe God's light shines through the filter of the Bible. I recognize that it is not a perfect document. it was written by men who believed in God and were inspired by God. So mistakes will be made. I don't meddle with little inconsistancies such as whose geneology is in Luke and Matthew or what king reigned when and how long. I chalk these up to scribal mistakes of men who were trying to perserve something sacred, but were still fallable. God's light shines in the scriptures opaquely. We see through the glass darkly.

I'm a bit less fundamental now, and a little more tolerant to other faiths. I see salvation beyond the act of getting saved and toward the goal that God really wants for His children, to be conformed to His image. While I believe salvation is important, i think there is somewhat too much emphasis on salvation and not on the point of salvation. The point of salvation is not to save someone out of hell and into heaven. The point of salvation is to bring people back into a loving relationship with God and our neighbor.

I have a different view of sin. Because sin is directly related to those relationship. I explained this in another forum in a discussion about divine healing:


In the beginning, God made Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib. Before the fall, they were perfect and enjoyed perfect communion with God. When they sinned, they fell from that perfect communion with God.
As a result, sickness and death entered into man. Was this caused by sin? Well, in a way, yes.

See, the problem is not in the sin itself, but what that sin has done to our relationship with God. Since God is the giver of Life, the sin has enter to keep that Life from sustaining man.

What sin does is disrupt our communion with God. We cannot approach the holy of holies, because our sin will destroy us, because God operates in the perfect.

All sin really does is make love imperfect. It clouds our sense of rightness toward the Lord. Therefore we cannot receive God's love and sustaining power properly. Nor can we love God and our neighbor properly.

That is precisely why God sent His Son, Jesus. To restore God's Life back into. By taking away our sins, we can receive the Holy Spirit which will regenerate out spirit and souls and, eventually, resurrect our bodies on the last day.

Our soul and spirit are reborn, but our bodies are not redeemed yet. Why? Because all of creation is still under the curse. There is still sin in the world and as long as sin lingers, so will sickness and death. When God makes the New Heaven and New Earth and we are raised to life at the Resurrection, the perfect physical state will be restored. The corruptable will become incorruptable. Until that time, we have to live in a fallen state. Thus sickness and death reigns.

This doesn't prevent us from enjoying God's Life now, in our spirit and soul. We can commune with the Father through the sinless Son who lives in us. On occasion, God's healing power may be manifest, but any healing we experience here is still only temporary.

So now my focus in bringing others to Christ is not to necessarily to instill the fear of hell and the hope of heaven in someone. Because this is all for nought if they aren't willing to have a relationship with God:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3

Instead, I would see people open up to a relationship with the Source of Life, for heaven without God is not heaven.

[Quahom1]

I'm curious. What is a "fundementalist"? Since Catholicism is one of the first forms of faith in Christianity...would that be considered fundementalist? (Roman/Orthodox). What is called "Protestant" can't be "fundementalist" since by its very nature "protests" the original faith, which was the basic beginning. Think about it folks. Christianity is not based on the Bible. The Bible didn't exist, at the time of fundementals being established in Christianity. The Bible is a guide that followed the new faith, for future believers and posterity.

It is also an "History" that was finally committed to written word. Just imagine what Christianity my look like today, without the written word (hell, look at it today with the written word).

Luther, the founder of Protestantism did not protest the Latin Vulgate, nor the Christian faith of the times. He protested the "politics" of the Vatican. So called "Fundementalists" didn't appear until after the 16th century. How can a realitively new sect be Fundemental in faith? They can't.

In reality, your "fundementalists" are the Coptics, the Synods, the Etheopians, the Roman and Orthodox and Egyptian Catholics, even the "Gnostics". Why? They are the FIRST Churches. They are the base structure of the Church of Christ. Christianity was FOUNDED upon these churches.

There are your fundementalists. They are from the "beginning".

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'm curious. What is a "fundementalist"? Since Catholicism is one of the first forms of faith in Christianity...would that be considered fundementalist? (Roman/Orthodox). What is called "Protestant" can't be "fundementalist" since by its very nature "protests" the original faith, which was the basic beginning. Think about it folks. Christianity is not based on the Bible. The Bible didn't exist, at the time of fundementals being established in Christianity. The Bible is a guide that followed the new faith, for future believers and posterity.

I suppose you could define it that way. Protestants (Anglicans excluded), of course, take the position that the "faith" wandered away from its origins with the Catholic Church by the time of the Reformation and sought to purge those doctrines and particularly those practices the protesters found to be inconsistent with what they believe the faith originally was and should be. Importantly, both sides lay claim to more accurately represent the original tradition of Christianity.

While the historical record reveals precious little about the first century of the church, we do have evidence (from the letters of Paul) that there were significant divisions from quite early on. We also have solid evidence that, by the mid-second century, the early "church" was not unified. There were Ebionites, Nazarenes, Marcionites, Valentinians, Docests, Montanists and probably many others, with "Gnostics" scattered throughout many of them. Of course, there was no discreet identifiable group of early Christians who called themselves "Gnostics." That is a modern term and, depending on who is using it, often is not limited to Christianity.

Of course, had any of these other Christianities prevailed over the others in the early days of the "Christianizing" of the Roman Empire, we'd refer to that version as "Catholic," which literally just means "general" or "universal." Instead, one group (rather late to table based on the historical evidence it seems) began to emerge in the second half of the second century with the idea that there could properly be only one set of approved dogmas that were allowed to be considered "Christian." Many of the books that became the foundation of the New Testament make their first appearance in the historical record during this time, including the four "canonical" gospels and the Book of Acts. The champions of this "proto-orthodoxy" were Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons whose works are primarily from the 180s and early 190s C.E., and Tertullian, a Carthaginian definer of "heresies," and perhaps the first to use the word "Trinity" (trinitas) as part of the Christian lexicon. The latter, ironically, switched to Montanism later in life and was condmned as a heretic by the Church ("Live by the sword . . ." and all that I guess).

The heart of their strategy in creating this Catholic church was to emphasize "apostolic succession" as the defining measure of the objective truth of one's personal beliefs. They effectively institutionalized the "argument by appeal to authority" as the central device of Christian discourse. And it's been one fight after another for what is "catholic" ever since. I don't think you could call it a "war," but one of the great battles within the emerging Catholic Church in the early Christianizing of Rome was between "Trinitarians" and "Arians" over the specific issue of whether the Church ought to believe in the Trinity as an objectively true human statement about the nature of God. And at one point, the Arians had significant political control within the Roman church through their influence on the Imperial family. The famous early Christian propogandist Eusebius was very close to Constantine and his sister, but was temporarily banished along with Arius after the Council of Nicea voted to denounce Arianism as a heresy in 325.

To me, the similarity in almost all these sects is the method by which they define themselves and their faith. I see very little practical difference between a political group that insists God is a "Trinity" and a political group that insists Jesus was a "creature." They both claim to use the force of tradition as an basis for their authority to assert their power over the ideas of people (as do the Protestants). They all believe in the literal, objective unquestionable truth of the meanings they impart to their words and dogmas. They all believe that these dogmas are the creation of God itself and cannot be doubted.

In that sense, they are all "fundamentalist" in more modern sense of the word. While it's true that "fundamentalism" as a modern term was originally associated with certain Protestant revivalists in the early 20th Century, it has taken on a broader meaning in our day as a reference to a particular form of political methodology that uses religious authority as its base. That's why we can speak of "Islamic fundamentalism" and nobody seems to get confused about why Muslims would want to trace their origins back to early Christianity or a 1920's Protestant movement. The common modern meaning is a reference to the political method of defining common identity by right-thinking, and excluding dissenters as heretics, infidels or the "unsaved" (depending on which fundamentalism you are talking about). In its modern sense, fundamentalism has some common characteristics:

(1) belief in the inerrancy of the sect's scriptures
(2) belief in the inerrancy of the sect's tradition (including traditions about how the sect's scriptures were chosen and/or formulated)
(3) an "us v. them" approach to others - a sort of besieged alienation where followers define themselves by their strict adherence to the sect's dogmas, and marginalize dissent by distinguishing its truth based on deviations (sometimes major and sometimes minor) from the "truth" of the sect's approved scriptures and tradition.

I would contend that a fair understanding of "fundamentalism" as a method requires us to also look beyond those ideologically driven sects that overtly use the language of recognized religion, and that we should consider as fundamentalism those offspring of nationalism and modernity that use the same method, including German and Italian fascism, Eugenics, and many regional manifestations of Communism. Perhaps we should include even modern "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" in the sense hard-line idealogues are using these terms to define identity today.

[Quahom1]

Hmmm, Fundimental Liberalism...

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Hmmm, Fundimental Liberalism...

Yeah . . . it's weird huh? Is there some evidence that political movements calling themselves "liberal" have started using the methods of fundamentalism?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Yeah . . . it's weird huh? Is there some evidence that political movements calling themselves "liberal" have started using the methods of fundamentalism?

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "damn frightening to even consider"...

[lunamoth]

The problem, as I see it, is that in this life we are inescapably mired in dualism. Can't be helped: is part and parcel of beings that think in binary. This or that. We perhaps sense that things are off, that we are working too hard, that something better is there just outside our ... reach (oh no! I sound like Taj! ). We see through the glass darkly, in glimpses and glimmers; we know it when we see it (Love) but can't grasp it and write it down because that kills it. Fundamentalism arises, in my simple opinion, when we try to hold so tightly onto that truth, and as we insist that our truth is the Only Truth, we put everything else outside. We cling (out of fear) when really what we need to do is let go (because love drives out fear), at least loosen up a bit. We need to go easy on one another.

It's a delicate balance between finding things to share, building relationships and sharing the experience, but then not letting those commonalities become lines in the sand, that which can't be crossed without creating 'other.' This seems so obvious I'm beginner to wonder why I am typing at all.

My personal answer to all this, how to bridge the divide, is to focus on relationship first, and all of these other questions (things that are purely theological doctrine, and things that amount to 'practical religion,' ) all need to follow 'am I caring for my neighbor?' aka the commandment to Love. The question, to me, is not what happened in the early days of Christianity, but what are we doing right now.

sorry for the rambling,
luna

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

The problem, as I see it, is that in this life we are inescapably mired in dualism. Can't be helped: is part and parcel of beings that think in binary. This or that. We perhaps sense that things are off, that we are working too hard, that something better is there just outside our ... reach (oh no! I sound like Taj! ). We see through the glass darkly, in glimpses and glimmers; we know it when we see it (Love) but can't grasp it and write it down because that kills it. Fundamentalism arises, in my simple opinion, when we try to hold so tightly onto that truth, and as we insist that our truth is the Only Truth, we put everything else outside. We cling (out of fear) when really what we need to do is let go (because love drives out fear), at least loosen up a bit. We need to go easy on one another.

It's a delicate balance between finding things to share, building relationships and sharing the experience, but then not letting those commonalities become lines in the sand, that which can't be crossed without creating 'other.' This seems so obvious I'm beginner to wonder why I am typing at all.

My personal answer to all this, how to bridge the divide, is to focus on relationship first, and all of these other questions (things that are purely theological doctrine, and things that amount to 'practical religion,' ) all need to follow 'am I caring for my neighbor?' aka the commandment to Love. The question, to me, is not what happened in the early days of Christianity, but what are we doing right now.

sorry for the rambling,
luna

What you are stating, is what has been asked of mankind since the beginning. Unfortunately the select few of mankind with power hasn't answered in the positive, and the rest are too busy surviving to really sit and consider it. So, we hide in our little holes without digging deeper.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What you are stating, is what has been asked of mankind since the beginning. Unfortunately the select few of mankind with power hasn't answered in the positive, and the rest are too busy surviving to really sit and consider it. So, we hide in our little holes without digging deeper.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

Hi Q, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We do struggle and struggle to survive, it seems, and I admit it's a luxury that I can sit here and even contmeplate such things as my survival is more or less 'secure.' You know the story about the feasts in heaven and hell? In hell all sit before a feast and all seems normal except that everyone has long long arms and no elbows. They look a the food all day long but starve constantly because they can't get the food to their mouths. In heaven the feast is the same. The long arms and no elbows, also the same. But everyone is feasting and happy--because they feed each other.

OK, perhaps it's a simple platitude. I'm sure I come off as quite naive, and I probably am. The world's problems are not simple and easy; it's all grey rather than black and white. I can't do anything about the war in the middle east. I can make good choices about the things that come into my small sphere of influence. That alone is hard enough at times.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Q, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We do struggle and struggle to survive, it seems, and I admit it's a luxury that I can sit here and even contmeplate such things as my survival is more or less 'secure.' You know the story about the feasts in heaven and hell? In hell all sit before a feast and all seems normal except that everyone has long long arms and no elbows. They look a the food all day long but starve constantly because they can't get the food to their mouths. In heaven the feast is the same. The long arms and no elbows, also the same. But everyone is feasting and happy--because they feed each other.

OK, perhaps it's a simple platitude. I'm sure I come off as quite naive, and I probably am. The world's problems are not simple and easy; it's all grey rather than black and white. I can't do anything about the war in the middle east. I can make good choices about the things that come into my small sphere of influence. That alone is hard enough at times.

No, actually that was quite astute of you. The difference between heaven and hell, is attitude, and thinking of others verses self...

And the difference between fundamentalism and the truth, is the same...

v/r

Q