-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, I think... I grew up as a fundamentalist, tho we didn't call ourselves that... 
... I've since become more... I guess liberal would be a possible word... now, an odd situation... was Jesus a fundamentalist? because as I person who wants to be 'like Christ' and live as He did, I run into the challenge of wanting to not be rigid in thinking, yet running into Gospel passages where Jesus makes strong (abusive, possibly, by Carter's definition) statements... I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this...
... I've since become more... I guess liberal would be a possible word... now, an odd situation... was Jesus a fundamentalist? because as I person who wants to be 'like Christ' and live as He did, I run into the challenge of wanting to not be rigid in thinking, yet running into Gospel passages where Jesus makes strong (abusive, possibly, by Carter's definition) statements... I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this... I'm interested in how this might work in everyday practice... every chruch I've ever visited from the most rigid to the most liberal, will let anybody come in and sit in a pew... but churches, like any social group, I think, want a lot more control over who gets the microphone, that is, who gets to speak to the group... and who has a key to the building, that is, who gets to start up a new group or program... so, how does acceptance work when it comes to who gets a mic or a key to the building... ?
********
funny story (maybe) : I was talking with a guy who is a Unitarian-Universalist church (probably one of the most liberal possible religious groups), and he said one time a guy wanted to come to a UU service, but he was asked to leave... they wouldn't let him in 'sit in a pew'... because he was wearing a sidearm.
********
funny story (maybe) : I was talking with a guy who is a Unitarian-Universalist church (probably one of the most liberal possible religious groups), and he said one time a guy wanted to come to a UU service, but he was asked to leave... they wouldn't let him in 'sit in a pew'... because he was wearing a sidearm.
Be a Man for God. Stand up and defend the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints. If you reject the fundamentals of the bible you are compromising the word of God.
There are mean people on both sides of the issue. God never tells us to soften the gospel message but to declare it to all men. We are to be weeping for the souls of the lost but never embracing their sin.
Some do not like fundamentalists because they do not want to strive for purity and holiness. They desire to serve the flesh and not the Spirit of God. If you think that fundamentalists are hard try being in eternal condemnation. We do not make a commitment to faith we surrender our all to Christ. Forsake all your sin and come to Christ not just the sin you can do without.
Man up and endure hardness as a good soldier of Christ. If some one challenges your Christianity then give them the reason for your hope. 1 Peter 3:15
For the cause of Christ
Roger
There are mean people on both sides of the issue. God never tells us to soften the gospel message but to declare it to all men. We are to be weeping for the souls of the lost but never embracing their sin.
Some do not like fundamentalists because they do not want to strive for purity and holiness. They desire to serve the flesh and not the Spirit of God. If you think that fundamentalists are hard try being in eternal condemnation. We do not make a commitment to faith we surrender our all to Christ. Forsake all your sin and come to Christ not just the sin you can do without.
Man up and endure hardness as a good soldier of Christ. If some one challenges your Christianity then give them the reason for your hope. 1 Peter 3:15
For the cause of Christ
Roger
fundamentalism at its foundation in the early twentieth century was a protestant response to darwinian and freudian influence on society. One removing God from nature, the other removing God from the human mind.
Liberal theologians at this time began questioning the validity of scripture, and seminaries began teaching that the scripture was not to be taken literally but was full of superstition and fallacy, the belief that modern man was wiser than the writers of antiquity and began explaining the bible in light of their greater wisdom. Conservative christians had a problem with this as they do to this day and rightfully so in my opinion.
While I disagree with the position of fundamentalists today and their interpretation of scripture to the exclusion of all other interpretations, I do believe in their concepts of the literal and inerrant sacred scripture, in the virgin birth, in the holy conception of Jesus Christ, In his crucifixion, death and resurrection, in his being the only means of salvation.
Just a thought.
Liberal theologians at this time began questioning the validity of scripture, and seminaries began teaching that the scripture was not to be taken literally but was full of superstition and fallacy, the belief that modern man was wiser than the writers of antiquity and began explaining the bible in light of their greater wisdom. Conservative christians had a problem with this as they do to this day and rightfully so in my opinion.
While I disagree with the position of fundamentalists today and their interpretation of scripture to the exclusion of all other interpretations, I do believe in their concepts of the literal and inerrant sacred scripture, in the virgin birth, in the holy conception of Jesus Christ, In his crucifixion, death and resurrection, in his being the only means of salvation.
Just a thought.
Sorry Roger,
But fundamedalism ADDS things to salvation that the Bible DOES not require. If all you had was the Gospel of John (Remember in those days everything was written by hand so you may only have a single gospel) would you find any mention of Jesus birth? Remember John is also an apostle,yet he never puts that believing in the Virgin birth as a requirement for salvation. It's not there. John doesn't even bring up His birth. Yet many fundamentalists do make that a requirement for salvation.
But fundamedalism ADDS things to salvation that the Bible DOES not require. If all you had was the Gospel of John (Remember in those days everything was written by hand so you may only have a single gospel) would you find any mention of Jesus birth? Remember John is also an apostle,yet he never puts that believing in the Virgin birth as a requirement for salvation. It's not there. John doesn't even bring up His birth. Yet many fundamentalists do make that a requirement for salvation.
There is no shortage of heresy in the church today. We have baptismal regeneration, conditional salvation and a host of others. Biblical fundamentalists take the bible as the inspired word of God. Does one need to believe in the virgin birth to know Who Christ is? Perhaps one can argue that it is not essential before one receives Christ as Savior but it certainly is an item that one should receive with joy under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
One does not need even the gospel of John to preach the gospel. The apostles had the OT from which to declare Christ.
Each one must decide what works for them but if I'm going to have a surgeon operate on me I would rather it be one who believes in the fundamentals as opposed to some new age way of understanding medicine.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
One does not need even the gospel of John to preach the gospel. The apostles had the OT from which to declare Christ.
Each one must decide what works for them but if I'm going to have a surgeon operate on me I would rather it be one who believes in the fundamentals as opposed to some new age way of understanding medicine.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
OK But many that believe something different about baptism and eternal security also believe the Holy Spirit confirms the truth of the Word of God. But they disagree with you do which one is right. Often both can use proof texts to prove their point. So again how do you KNOW for sure that you are correct and they are the ones in error and that YOU ARE NOT IN ERROR?
Then build your case from the bible.
And while you're at it, be sure to define your terms.
Fundamentalism has many different definitions used by many different people... it by no means has one clear definition.
In fact, it's really nothing more than a vague term loaded with different meanings by different political factions... and as a term, it has no biblical significance at all.
Since fundamentalism is a term primarily used in politics, and it really has no clear definition at all, why don't you just stick to the bible, and make a case using biblical terms, for and against whatever things you believe in.
If you don't like pride, talk about pride.
If you don't like hypocrisy, talk about hypocrisy.
It's absurd to attack a modern term that is completely amorphous and really has no clear definition.
And while you're at it, be sure to define your terms.
Fundamentalism has many different definitions used by many different people... it by no means has one clear definition.
In fact, it's really nothing more than a vague term loaded with different meanings by different political factions... and as a term, it has no biblical significance at all.
Since fundamentalism is a term primarily used in politics, and it really has no clear definition at all, why don't you just stick to the bible, and make a case using biblical terms, for and against whatever things you believe in.
If you don't like pride, talk about pride.
If you don't like hypocrisy, talk about hypocrisy.
It's absurd to attack a modern term that is completely amorphous and really has no clear definition.
Furthermore...
the "person of Jimmy Carter" is NOT beside the point. You started with a statement from him, to make an "appeal to authority", to try to impress and persuade your readers. And the fact is, Jimmy Carter doesn't impress anyone, and it shows you aren't very familiar how the general populous thinks in this country.
And regarding your debate on fundamentalism...
The ONLY reason to come on here and make a fuss about a POLITICAL term is if your agenda is political.
The term fundamentalism is not biblical, it is a purely political term, with no clear definitions.
If your agenda is biblical, then you need to discuss biblical topics with biblical terms, which have clear definitions.
Discussing a political term, with amorphous definitions, which can never even be agreed upon or defined, can only lead us to believe your agenda is purely political.
If your agenda is political, then just say so.
If' your agenda is biblical, then try using biblical topics and terms which have clear definitions,
because the word "fundamentalism" means SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS, that when all is said and done, IT REALLY MEANS NOTHING AT ALL.
the "person of Jimmy Carter" is NOT beside the point. You started with a statement from him, to make an "appeal to authority", to try to impress and persuade your readers. And the fact is, Jimmy Carter doesn't impress anyone, and it shows you aren't very familiar how the general populous thinks in this country.
And regarding your debate on fundamentalism...
The ONLY reason to come on here and make a fuss about a POLITICAL term is if your agenda is political.
The term fundamentalism is not biblical, it is a purely political term, with no clear definitions.
If your agenda is biblical, then you need to discuss biblical topics with biblical terms, which have clear definitions.
Discussing a political term, with amorphous definitions, which can never even be agreed upon or defined, can only lead us to believe your agenda is purely political.
If your agenda is political, then just say so.
If' your agenda is biblical, then try using biblical topics and terms which have clear definitions,
because the word "fundamentalism" means SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS, that when all is said and done, IT REALLY MEANS NOTHING AT ALL.
There is certainly truth in some of his description, certainly of some "fundamentalists" that I have come across!
1) "convinced that they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil"
2) "Fundamentalists are militant in fighting against any challenge to their beliefs."
3) "They are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda."
Maybe the "fundamentalists" that I have come into contact with have been very "extreme"!
1) "convinced that they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil"
2) "Fundamentalists are militant in fighting against any challenge to their beliefs."
3) "They are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda."
Maybe the "fundamentalists" that I have come into contact with have been very "extreme"!
Aye USA Industrial Manfufacturing has taken a nose dive in my lifetime and before. However there's not too much any President could have done about that. The American economy, and much of the world economy is very much dependant on globalization and global trade. Plus even though the US government has lots of power in the business realm, gotta remember the majority control of the American Economy rests on the Merchant Class and America has a strong tradition of Entreprenuerial Freedom. In a sense all the corporations and busineses are like little empires within empires. If you don't swim you sink in the realm of commerce. As much as I would love America to have its mighty industrial engine like it did in the early days of the 20th Century Ancients, fact is that industrialism is obsolete in my time and today global trade is responsible for the widespread variety of goods, significant price reduction, and tremendous global growth of wealth across the planet. Furthermore the economic policy of globalization is in fact the main driving force of the America economy. Ironically if we went back to old protectionist industrialism our economy would collapse severely and put millions into dire poverty across America and the world.
America still is a pretty big maker of things though by the way, its just most our manufacturing revolves around making equipment and other capital goods for other businesses domestic and abroad and also we have a big focus on financial services. From last stats I saw we were still #2 Exporter which indicates America is still a pretty mighty maker of quality goods. However we are #1 Importer because since the 1980s (one might give Reagan credit for this rather than Carter) we now buy a tremendous amount of goods across Earth, mostly from East Asia and North America ever since Deng Xiaoping opened up China to global trade, specifically with America (a good move for his people too as since then China has grown rapidly into a first class empire economically, politically, culturally, and militarily.) The other big event being the expansion of NAFTA. This carries its own pros and cons. On the Pro side this means we are #1 buyer in the world and thus as such get to dictate many economic agreements and hold soft power over many lands. On the Cons side our trade defecit has been a major loss of revenue for the past decade thus restricting our own domestic power.
So I'd say economics is quite interesting thing to study, especially in today's world with Globalization (I like to pet name it Marco Polo-nomics). It is true there are many challenges for America and many other countries, but at the same time I feel like we've made great progress as a civilization on this specific realm.
To return to fundamentals and fundamentalism the business realm is a good example of where strong Christian ethics are required. Shoddy ethics and fundamentals = bad business = economic catastrophe. Good strong ethics and fundamentals = good business = economic growth. It's just that simple, and by good Christian ethics I'm not talking about prosperity gospel bullcrap. What I mean is simply, in business realm much comes down moreso to your word than to your wallet. If you treat your employees well, keep your agreements, and have a lil savvy you will almost always succeed in your enterprise even if you aren't turning multi-million dollar profits. If you are greedy stealing from your own business or care only about the money to the point you neglect your business, treat your employees and customers terribly, etc. then it only stands to reason your business will fail eventually or be out-competed.
Just some thoughts on world economics in relation to history, politics, the current age, and ethics/fundamentals. I do agree with you that the reputation for famous American Quality has been sullied in the past few decades (I moreso fault the love-of-money business culture rather than the Government), but I also think there's still some good players out there and also this is an issue that can actually be tackled and fixed in my lifetime. Either way good topic for ponderance indeed, so I am glad to see your opinion and respond with my own and it is a good topic you bring forward.
America still is a pretty big maker of things though by the way, its just most our manufacturing revolves around making equipment and other capital goods for other businesses domestic and abroad and also we have a big focus on financial services. From last stats I saw we were still #2 Exporter which indicates America is still a pretty mighty maker of quality goods. However we are #1 Importer because since the 1980s (one might give Reagan credit for this rather than Carter) we now buy a tremendous amount of goods across Earth, mostly from East Asia and North America ever since Deng Xiaoping opened up China to global trade, specifically with America (a good move for his people too as since then China has grown rapidly into a first class empire economically, politically, culturally, and militarily.) The other big event being the expansion of NAFTA. This carries its own pros and cons. On the Pro side this means we are #1 buyer in the world and thus as such get to dictate many economic agreements and hold soft power over many lands. On the Cons side our trade defecit has been a major loss of revenue for the past decade thus restricting our own domestic power.
So I'd say economics is quite interesting thing to study, especially in today's world with Globalization (I like to pet name it Marco Polo-nomics). It is true there are many challenges for America and many other countries, but at the same time I feel like we've made great progress as a civilization on this specific realm.
To return to fundamentals and fundamentalism the business realm is a good example of where strong Christian ethics are required. Shoddy ethics and fundamentals = bad business = economic catastrophe. Good strong ethics and fundamentals = good business = economic growth. It's just that simple, and by good Christian ethics I'm not talking about prosperity gospel bullcrap. What I mean is simply, in business realm much comes down moreso to your word than to your wallet. If you treat your employees well, keep your agreements, and have a lil savvy you will almost always succeed in your enterprise even if you aren't turning multi-million dollar profits. If you are greedy stealing from your own business or care only about the money to the point you neglect your business, treat your employees and customers terribly, etc. then it only stands to reason your business will fail eventually or be out-competed.
Just some thoughts on world economics in relation to history, politics, the current age, and ethics/fundamentals. I do agree with you that the reputation for famous American Quality has been sullied in the past few decades (I moreso fault the love-of-money business culture rather than the Government), but I also think there's still some good players out there and also this is an issue that can actually be tackled and fixed in my lifetime. Either way good topic for ponderance indeed, so I am glad to see your opinion and respond with my own and it is a good topic you bring forward.
Fair question. Can someone be saved and have an incorrect view of water baptism? Yes. Poor discipleship will create such individuals every time. Can one have an incorrect view of eternal security and be saved? Yes again. I would think in both cases when presented with the truth from Gods word they must consider their position to be doubtful.
I believe from the scriptures and personal experience that one can be saved without having a great deal of theological knowledge. Scripture tells us the God convicts of sin because we are all sinners, of righteousness because only Christ is righteous, and judgment because we all deserve eternal condemnation. The complications arise after one gets saved although there are some who prevent others by forcing their views of what it means to be saved on unsuspecting sinners. Lordship salvation and a host of other such things.
I cannot say that any of the ism's are without fault. It is the fundamental doctrines of the faith aka cardinal doctrines that leave no room for compromise. The sufficiency of the blood of Christ. Grace through faith apart from works. Salvation as a gift again not of works.
I advocate for certain doctrines but I allow for others to have different views. I do draw the line when we get to the blood of Christ and any who would reject the blood are not part of the body.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I believe from the scriptures and personal experience that one can be saved without having a great deal of theological knowledge. Scripture tells us the God convicts of sin because we are all sinners, of righteousness because only Christ is righteous, and judgment because we all deserve eternal condemnation. The complications arise after one gets saved although there are some who prevent others by forcing their views of what it means to be saved on unsuspecting sinners. Lordship salvation and a host of other such things.
I cannot say that any of the ism's are without fault. It is the fundamental doctrines of the faith aka cardinal doctrines that leave no room for compromise. The sufficiency of the blood of Christ. Grace through faith apart from works. Salvation as a gift again not of works.
I advocate for certain doctrines but I allow for others to have different views. I do draw the line when we get to the blood of Christ and any who would reject the blood are not part of the body.
For the cause of Christ
Roger