|!||This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.|
I attempted to merge the two articles that were present here. The result is ok, but it still needs help by someone more fluent in the history of American Christianity than I. Also, a great deal of the statements that I merged were unsourced, and any help in that department would be appreciated. JANorton 23:03, 14 January 2009 (EST)
I created this article as a stub, because it was in the wanted page list. However, I wonder, do we have an article describing the beliefs of modern evangelical Christians? I would think such an article should be a centerpiece.-MexMax 11:52, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Superb entry, MexMax!!!! I learned from your work. Yes, we should have an entry on evangelical Christians. I'll look first, and then start one if not already here somewhere.--Aschlafly 12:04, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Not to complain, but why was my edit reverted? I was simply making the article more informative. CodyH 2238 7 January 2008 (BST)
- I misjudged it, sorry. I reverted it back to your edit. DanH 15:14, 7 January 2008 (EST)
And now I know what Fundamentalism is.. that would earn another 2 points on the American Gov't final. -^_^- Fuzzy 21:48, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Okay, a bit of history of this and a related article.
- An article named Fundamentalism was created on 15th March, 2007.
- An article named Fundamentalist was created on 25th March, 2007.
- On 28th September, 2007, merge tags were put on both articles, suggesting that Fundamentalist be merged into Fundamentalism.
- On 6th January 2008, the content of Fundamentalism was pasted into Fundamentalist, and Fundamentalism was deleted to "make way for move". Presumably the intention was that the now-merged Fundamentalist article would be moved to Fundamentalism. However, this did not happen, and on 7th January (about 12 hours after the deletion), a new version of Fundamentalism was created.
The 6th January paste was just that: a simple copy-and-paste job, with no attempt to actually merge. I'm going to do the same thing in a moment, copying and pasting the content of Fundamentalist into this article (Fundamentalism). I might then attempt a rough merge, but I will make Fundamentalist a redirect to this article. I will also restore the history of this article.
I hope that's all clear. It took a bit for me just to figure all that out!
Philip J. Rayment 07:37, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Definitions of Christian fundamentalism
I came across this page when editing another and wondered if could link to this topic. As Googling "fundamental Christian defined" will show, it is often mostly parodied, and is often bandied about in the MSM with little distinction between types, and is equated with militant Islam by militant atheists, and denigrated by many in evangelical Christianity and Catholicism, so i hoped for a fair explanation here. This page provides the history of Christian fundamentalism as a movement, which helps to distinguish it from simply being a fundamentalist, and provides some of the essentials of fundamentalism, but i added a new section to give more of an explanation. But i yet find it wanting. My definition of a fundamental Christian is one who hold to the evangelical fundamentals, but who is manifestly committed to them. Jesus and the apostles certain fit that description, including taking the Bible literally when that that was the type of genre at subject, and includes in Christ's body every real believer, but contended against serious errors within the camp of the elect.
However, adherence to fundamentals and commitment to them may include a wide variety of people, who can be vastly different in spirit, from Fred Phelps to David Wilkerson (good). It also can describe cultic groups who claim to hold to most or all of these essentials, but are critically aberrant in one or more issues not specifically listed as fundamentals, with white supremacists coming to mind. In this, one can be a committed fundamentalist and be opposed to one whom the media assigns that name. Daniel1212 15:04, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
- The Bible does not say that Jesus was a fundamentalist. If it did we would probably not have 300 different denominations in this country, all of them claiming to understard Christ's true beliefs. RJJensen 16:30, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
- No, it does not say that. Or that He even was a conservative (by today's standards) nor does it call Him a Trinitarian or a mono-Theist or Paul a Pentecostal or a Messianic Jew. But if it did that would not have reduced the number of sects claiming such, any more than calling the first believers Christian (Actc 11:26) did. Such terms describe people based upon certain characteristics, and are often popular due to the well-meaning desire and necessity to spiritually separate themselves from those who profess but manifestly do not possess. (2Cor. 13:5) But the problem is when they go beyond basic doctrines and commitment to peripheral issues as to who constitutes a regenerated believer, such as excluding "fundamental" Pentecostals. But of course, that type of tendency, which is the downside of a good thing (doctrinal purity) is what has made fundamenalism negative notable.
- My careful statement was that Jesus and the apostles certain fit the description of Christians who hold to the evangelical fundamentals, and are manifestly committed to them. If this suffices as defining a fundamentalist then it should be able to be used for them. Certainly Jesus believed in the virgin birth, and the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, His blood atonement and resurrection, and salvation by grace, and took such stories as Jonah and the fish as literally true, and was committed to heart and doctrinal purity. Whether He intended musical instruments for the church i know not, and am certain the time of the rapture is not an essential. But i do believe He upheld and appealed to the reality of eternal torment, and upheld the moral laws of the O.T, except to intensify them even more. But His spirit was not that which Fred Phelps so often has displayed, much less than men like the liberal Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak, who disallows fundamentalists from being Christians, due to their opposition to homosexuality. Daniel1212 20:14, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
- belief #1 of Fundamentalists = Bible = literally true & inerrant. Jesus never said that. Indeed, the Bible never says that. Jesus did not say anything about the Virgin Birth either. Nor did Jesus mention the material in Revelation. Lots of Christian theology emerged after his death (from Paul, for example) RJJensen 23:35, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
- A worthy subject, and one i am still thinking through. As i stated, Jesus and Paul did not say a lot of things outright, but which their words and actions reveals they believed. But first, does fundamentalism incontestably or predominantly mean that holding the Bible as "literally true" requires ignoring ignoring different literary forms, so that hyperbole is taken literally (Acts 7:54)? And does holding to plenary Divine inspiration mean that texts such as Eccl. 2:24 are moral directives, rather than (contextually) being revealed truth as to philosophical conclusions of the natural mind? I think literalism is not so restricted by most of them, and i think self-professed fundamentalists such as J. Vernon McGeee (whom i do not always agree with) would concur with me. But whether fundamentalism allows inerrancy to only apply to the original mss (and perhaps early copies) is another question).
- Did Jesus believe the Jewish Scriptures were literally true and inerrant is manifest by His frequent appeal (directly or indirectly) to them. Unlike liberals and even the commentators of the New American Bible, O.T. accounts such as Cain and Able (Gn. 4:16; cf. Heb. 1:4; 1Jn. 3:12; Jude. 1:11) the flood of Noah (Gn. 6-8; cf. Heb. 11:7; 1Pt. 3:20; 2Pt. 2:5) the tower of Babel (Gn. 11); the story of Balaam and his donkey (Numbers 22 cf. 1Pet. 2:16; Jude 1:11; Rev. 2:14) etc., which consider such to be allegorical "folk tales to teach a lesson", and events such as Exo. 19 (cf. Heb. 12:18,19) to be figures of speech, they treated these as literal events. Jesus also quoted the Scriptures as God's authoritative word to the devil, the disciples, and the Pharisees and unbelieving Jews alike. The apostles did much the same, though Paul used natural revelation in witnessing to pagans who were Scripturally ignorant. (Acts 14; 17) "The fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2,309 allusions and verbal parallels. The books most used are Psalms (79 quotations, 333 allusions), and Isaiah (66 quotations, 348 allusions). In the Book of Revelation, there are no formal quotations at all, but no fewer than 620 allusions." Furthermore, "the OT is quoted or alluded to in every NT writing except Philemon and 2 and 3 John." (http://www.theopedia.com/New_Testament_use_of_the_Old_Testament also http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible2.html)
- As it was Jesus' Spirit who inspired Paul (whose words Peter attests are Scripture: 2Pet. 3:16)) to confirm that "all Scripture is inspired by God" (2Tim. 3:16) then how can we cast doubt on whether it was inerrant? The questions are, does "all" mean fully inclusive, and does plenary inspiration translate into inerrancy? Did the proposed copyist errors of today exist in the 1st century? Can all that we call Scripture today refer to it overall as a body, yet allow for doctrinally inconsequential copyist errors? I do not think God inspired errors, and so "all" means all, and the Scripture referenced to were all accurate. Today, while truly problematic texts constitute a minute percentage*, those would not qualify as Scripture according to the strictest sense of the word, yet by way of duplicate accounts (where most appear, primarily with numbers) God may be seen as revealing such, and which do not seriously impugn the reliability of the Bible, as such apparent discrepancies do not alter doctrine, except the doctrine of inerrancy as some hold it as applying to surviving mss today.
- What is problematic here is that Jesus and the apostles sometimes quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), a more interpretive work than the Masoretic, and which (the LXX) fell out of favor with Jerome and others, partly due to and variations of it. If that is not fully trustworthy, then we can say that at least the portions the N.T. writers quoted from were inerrant. In addition, often the O.T. quotes in the N.T. are somewhat different than what O.T. texts precisely say, but that is answered by allowing the Holy Spirit can recast some of what He inspired without true contradiction (cf. Is. 6:9,10; cf. Mat. 13:15; Jn. 12:20). Another issue is that it is doubtful that not all the words which Jesus or others spoke were their exact verbatim words, rather than descriptive, as is seen in duplicate accounts. (Mat 26:63,64a; Mk. 14:61,62a; Lk. 22:69,70). But the same Holy Spirit by which Jesus spoke is the same which expanded or condensed, without contradiction, what the original speakers stated, in order to provide a more comprehensive as well as fitting revelation to the hearers of it. To God be the glory.
- But as to whether Jesus and the apostles referred to Scripture as true and inerrant, i believe the evidence is that they did. And that explicit declarations are not needed for doctrines for which abundant evidence is provided for their derivation.
- While it is true that God can preserve His word inerrant, it can well be that God, having supernaturally provided a perfect product, as in creation, placed man in stewardship of it, and God's overall superintendence does not mean He will override all our negligence, but He also enables making such evident. As it is, the mss evidence for the Bible far surpasses that of all other volumes of like antiquity, and i think its comprehensive and often redundant nature is also rather unique among such, and which would be conducive to producing far more problematic texts than exist.
- [Geisler and Nix said that seven out of eight variants between manuscripts of the New Testament are simply variations in spelling or other mechanical matters. Only one variant in sixty is of any significance. "Mathematically this would compute to a text that is 98.33 percent pure" (A General Introduction to the Bible [Chicago: Moody, 1968], p. 365). Sir Fredric Kenyon, another New Testament textual scholar, adds that not one disputed reading affects an essential doctrine of the Christian faith (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941], p. 23) Good day.Daniel1212 11:47, 16 July 2009 (EDT)