Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you consider every pro-life Christian to be an "evil fundamentalist"? (My church does not teach it is sinful if the mother's life is in danger.) We pray on this subject. Together we also provide support to young unwed mothers and their children. Are we evil in your mind for sharing the gospel while also helping with their physical needs? We are supposed to remain publicly silent on abortion? You would prefer no free speech on this subject?
I personally oppose abortion--for my family (and I am no longer an evil fundamentalist--I've reformed). I do speak to others about considering their decision carefully. I am 100% opposed to passing laws outlawing or making abortion difficult. Roughly half or more of the people in the nation do not have the same feeling you and I do about abortion. Shoving it down their throats is not Christlike nor winning hearts and minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_Idea
It doesn't seem like it when we daily confess our sins in prayer & ask for forgiveness. One popular hymn we sing is "Chief of Sinners though I Be".
Fundamentalists choose to make themselves superior when they consider only they have the answer to life's questions. Since they've been proven wrong so many times in the past, they should only be engaging in introspection, not informing the world about how sinful it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_Idea
Somewhat true.
The formula of Jesus death equals a ticket to heaven for believing as opposed to doing is completely a Pauline doctrine. Spend some time reading only the synoptic gospels and find where faith equals salvation. Virtually every parable Jesus tells is with regard to people DOING or returning from NOT doing. When asked about how to follow one of the Great Commandments (love your neighbor), Jesus didn't say a word about having faith in Him. He told a story about a sinful man helping an injured man and not expecting anything in return. He equated the "sinner" (Samaritan) to DOING God's will. And He told the lawyer questioning Him that he needed to see things the same way and act accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_Idea
False
You apparently were never very involved with the Billy Graham Crusades. The one time profession is ALL that occurred. A couple of years ago Billy made a statement that he felt 95% of the professions at his crusades were not genuine. I think that's because he hadn't seen much mercy, love, and justice coming from his converts. And I think Billy is one of the less innocuous of fundamentalist preachers.
My own Baptists (I'm a "former" Baptist now), left the "experiential salvation" that looks for a changed life to the "easy believer" religion now thrown about by almost all evangelicals.
Quote:
Nowadays in most Baptist churches, the salvation experience has been reduced to a simple ritual. Today, many Baptist churches consider a salvation experience to be repeating the sinner's prayer, making a decision to accept Christ, shaking the preacher's hand, or signing a commitment card. Baptists of today do not require that a person testify of an experience of true conversion. Most only require a "profession of faith" with the lips.
Historically, Baptists have aggressively believed in a experiential salvation. However, over the past fifty years, Baptist churches have replaced heart-felt conversion with meaningless ritual. How did this fundamental change in doctrine and practice take place? Although many individuals and factors have contributed to this drastic change, there are two men who have done more than anyone else to bring in this "new-style" conversion. They are Billy Graham and his predecessor, Mordecai F. Ham, Jr. Although Graham and Ham cannot be held completely responsible for the change of the Baptist denomination, they are the two greatest factors that have contributed to it. Simply put, the Baptist denomination has left its belief in experiential salvation.
* prayer - Luke 11:13 B
* diligent investigation into Scripture - Acts 17:11
* association with like-minded Christians - Hebrews 10:24,25
* practicing Jesus' new commandment found at John 13:34,35
* following Jesus commission at Matthew 24:13,14
Those are good practices - nice. I just wonder how other Bible believers and Christians are standing so its good to see.
The formula of Jesus death equals a ticket to heaven for believing as opposed to doing is completely a Pauline doctrine. Spend some time reading only the synoptic gospels and find where faith equals salvation. Virtually every parable Jesus tells is with regard to people DOING or returning from NOT doing. When asked about how to follow one of the Great Commandments (love your neighbor), Jesus didn't say a word about having faith in Him. He told a story about a sinful man helping an injured man and not expecting anything in return. He equated the "sinner" (Samaritan) to DOING God's will. And He told the lawyer questioning Him that he needed to see things the same way and act accordingly.
That's just it. We have a fundamental contradiction in the New Testament, don't we? Is salvation by "faith" or is salvation by "works"? Paul says faith, Jesus and James say works.
The debate continued between Pelagius and Augustine 400 years later. The debate came to the forefront again during the Reformation and led to the bewildering number of denominations in existence today.
Indeed this game of Theological Smackdown has raged throughout the entire history of Christianity. It continues to this day. The "salvation by faith alone" camp will even accuse the "salvation by works" camp of being "not real Christians" and visa versa.
This fight will probably never end because the New Testament contradicts itself on the issue. Both camps can simply cherry-pick the parts of the New Testament that support their respective theological position, and down-play or "interpret away" the parts that do not.
That's just it. We have a fundamental contradiction in the New Testament, don't we? Is salvation by "faith" or is salvation by "works"? Paul says faith, Jesus and James say works.
The debate continued between Pelagius and Augustine 400 years later. The debate came to the forefront again during the Reformation and led to the bewildering number of denominations in existence today.
Indeed this game of Theological Smackdown has raged throughout the entire history of Christianity. It continues to this day. The "salvation by faith alone" camp will even accuse the "salvation by works" camp of being "not real Christians" and visa versa.
This fight will probably never end because the New Testament contradicts itself on the issue. Both camps can simply cherry-pick the parts of the New Testament that support their respective theological position, and down-play or "interpret away" the parts that do not.
I'm more in the camp of "salvation is by faith which is PROVED by works," group. And there are quite a few of us. It's called experiential salvation---an actual change comes about in how the "saved" person views and treats other people, thereby proving one has been "born again." It's not about talking and not walking (which some posters in the Christian threads seem to think is possible as a "carnal Christian," a phrase that is contrary to Jesus' teachings. It's about walking AND talking, because the walk itself (by being inspired by God to do good toward others) IS the witness.
But I agree, the battle will not end. And the "get your ticket to heaven" crowd was certainly popularized by Billy Graham, and comes solely out of the teachings of Paul. It's very hard to independently read the synoptic gospels aside from "Pauline" interpretation to see anything but "doing" by Jesus in parable after parable.
As a black fundamentalist you are truly representative of people who do not learn from history. Pat Robertson, who slams homosexuals in virtually every broadcast he makes, uses the same language used by his father, Senator Absalom Willis Robertson regarding black people.
It's also worth pointing out that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the 19th century (because the Bible talks many times about treatment of slaves but never condemns the institution) and to view blacks as inferior well into the 20th century (people have argued that black skin was part of the curse Noah placed on Canaan; the mark of Cain has also been interpreted as black skin).
The heresy of inerrancy is the major problem that "bible believers" (almost always referring to fundamentalists) insist on from anyone who is to be a "true" believer.
But inerrancy is not simply a claim about the nature of the Bible, but also a claim about our access to it — our ability to read the inerrant Bible inerrantly. The fundamentalist knows he/she has arrived at that point. The rest of us strive daily to come closer to the truth--in our actions as well as in our speech.
I take one day at a time, try to think of others. Start each morning on my knees praying to Jesus to make it through the day. Thank God for all his many blessings to me and my family. I don't care to argue among believers.
The heresy of inerrancy is the major problem that "bible believers" (almost always referring to fundamentalists) insist on from anyone who is to be a "true" believer.
But inerrancy is not simply a claim about the nature of the Bible, but also a claim about our access to it — our ability to read the inerrant Bible inerrantly. The fundamentalist knows he/she has arrived at that point. The rest of us strive daily to come closer to the truth--in our actions as well as in our speech.
The heresy of inerrancy is the major problem that "bible believers" (almost always referring to fundamentalists) insist on from anyone who is to be a "true" believer.
But inerrancy is not simply a claim about the nature of the Bible, but also a claim about our access to it — our ability to read the inerrant Bible inerrantly.
No one can read it inerrantly. That is why we find so many scriptures telling us to pray for wisdom, ask others and listen and accept that knowledge comes over time and as God wants it revealed not as we do. Daniel had to be told that. The problem comes in when people reject the Scriptures because they disagree with some interpretations. Following ones own beliefs in isolation or from any claimed leading of the holy Spirit is nullified by any rejection of the book that tells us about Jesus and receiving the holy Spirit. Such positions are an acceptance of Satan's first lie.
No one can read it inerrantly. That is why we find so many scriptures telling us to pray for wisdom, ask others and listen and accept that knowledge comes over time and as God wants it revealed not as we do. Daniel had to be told that. The problem comes in when people reject the Scriptures because they disagree with some interpretations. Following ones own beliefs in isolation or from any claimed leading of the holy Spirit is nullified by any rejection of the book that tells us about Jesus and receiving the holy Spirit. Such positions are an acceptance of Satan's first lie.
I've copied this from my post #157 on the "Christians who can't think for themselves" thread, but it is equally important here:
It is impossible to argue that the Bible is a unified whole, inerrant in all its parts, inspired by God in every way. It can't be that. There are too many divergences, discrepancies, contradictions; too many alternative ways of looking at the same issue, alternatives that often are at odds with one another (just read the multitude of posts on any subject on these threads). The bible is NOT a unity, it is a massive plurality. God did not "write" the Bible, people did.
Were they inspired? Of course, in the same way some pastors are inspired in their pulpits or singers rendering a beautiful gospel song. They wrote works that can inspire us to think great and important thoughts and to do great and important deeds, to look introspectively at how we might become more of what God wants us to be.
But they were not inspired in the sense that God somehow whispered in their ear to write what they wrote. Even claiming that is so makes God look foolish. Instead I see the foolish as those who have such thoughts.
There is no view in the Bible that can be lifted from its original context, plopped down into a different concept, like 21st century America, and be expected to communicate inerrant revelation. But because there are so many different messages from the Bible--some from the exact same verses of scripture-- a student of scripture can evaluate the appropriateness of each message and see what relevance it may have for life in the present. Some messages will be more appropriate for certain contexts than others. And readers of the Bible should not be afraid to proclaim one message instead of another.
Case in point: Jesus taught us as relates to children: "Suffer the little children to come unto me," and that provides a more useful spiritual guide than Psalm 137, "Blessed is he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks." I'm not sure ANY fundamentalist who SWEARS ON HIS LIFE that the Bible is inerrant and infallible stands up and recommends that we smash the children of unbelievers against the rocks. Or are there? But if you do not recommend that, then we aren't talking about following ALL the Bible, just those that provide a more useful spiritual guide.
Everything written in the Bible was written in a different world and a different context. The very idea that "Jesus is coming back" is built on the idea that above us, over the clouds, is a space where God lives, and that Jesus has gone up there to live with God. And that one day Jesus will ascend from those clouds--artists have depicted that ancient view on more than one occasion.
But we don't see that as a place for "heaven" now. Above the clouds is more atmosphere and beyond that is space, and further still are billions of stars---in our galaxy alone. The idea of Jesus coming back "down" assumes there is an "up!" We need a modern idiom to reflect what the return of Jesus might mean. I'm not suggesting one, I'm simply pointing out that a 2000 year old idiom doesn't really serve us well today.
Some people claim it is dangerous to "pick and choose" from the Bible. But we already do that as proved by the case in point of "suffer the little children to come unto me." Everything we see and hear, and certainly read, we need to evaluate in light of an experiential experience with the Son of God, not in light of what something says, someone says, or even that our eyes see---that includes the Bible, Shakespeare, Ghandi, Desmond Tutu, or the Dali Lama.
Is the Bible important? Of course!! It is the most important book in Western civilization. It is
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
