Fundamentalist Thread
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
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.
T
The term "Fundamentalism" started in the early 20th Century. I'm not sure if it was "coined" per se, but most scholars point to its beginning with a multi-volume work (chapters written by various different theologians of the day) that was published around 1920ish (I may not be 100% correct on that date).
The five "fundamentals" are named as follows:
1) The inerrancy of the Bible
2) The literal nature of specific Biblical accounts
3) The Virgin Birth of Christ
4) The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
5) The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
If theologians felt it necessary to write a multi-volume book supporting those five doctrines, there must have been some voices who were arguing against each of those five doctrines. As I have said, I know and have linked to examples of the first two being questioned thousands of years ago. I have not seen any evidence of #3-#5 being challenged as "Christian" so long ago, but as I said, if a publisher shelled out the bucks to publish it (and that was big bucks back then) there had to be a reason. Obviously, someone, or several someones, were trying to make the point that one could deny #3-5 and still be a Christian, in addition to #1 and 2.
Y'all know where I stand on #2
I accept #1, 3 and 4 without reservation. #5 is tricky ... I accept "atonement" in general, but there are some parts of the traditional "substitutionary" theory that do not mesh with the Biblical account of who God is, so I reject those aspects because they contradict the Jesus that Scripture reveals. I'm happy to go into more detail if anyone is curious, or to leave it at that if everyone would just as soon leave it at that.
I also know some people who consider themselves Christians who don't agree with #3 or 4. I disagree with them, but like I've said before, it's not up to me to decide whether they are saved or not. My job is to spread the Gospel, the Good News of Christ's life, death, and glorious resurrection. That is the whole of my job description. That's all I signed up for. Jesus gets the salvation part of the job, and I am perfectly happy with that division of labor. I have no desire to encroach upon his territory.
The five "fundamentals" are named as follows:
1) The inerrancy of the Bible
2) The literal nature of specific Biblical accounts
3) The Virgin Birth of Christ
4) The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
5) The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
If theologians felt it necessary to write a multi-volume book supporting those five doctrines, there must have been some voices who were arguing against each of those five doctrines. As I have said, I know and have linked to examples of the first two being questioned thousands of years ago. I have not seen any evidence of #3-#5 being challenged as "Christian" so long ago, but as I said, if a publisher shelled out the bucks to publish it (and that was big bucks back then) there had to be a reason. Obviously, someone, or several someones, were trying to make the point that one could deny #3-5 and still be a Christian, in addition to #1 and 2.
Y'all know where I stand on #2
I accept #1, 3 and 4 without reservation. #5 is tricky ... I accept "atonement" in general, but there are some parts of the traditional "substitutionary" theory that do not mesh with the Biblical account of who God is, so I reject those aspects because they contradict the Jesus that Scripture reveals. I'm happy to go into more detail if anyone is curious, or to leave it at that if everyone would just as soon leave it at that.
I also know some people who consider themselves Christians who don't agree with #3 or 4. I disagree with them, but like I've said before, it's not up to me to decide whether they are saved or not. My job is to spread the Gospel, the Good News of Christ's life, death, and glorious resurrection. That is the whole of my job description. That's all I signed up for. Jesus gets the salvation part of the job, and I am perfectly happy with that division of labor. I have no desire to encroach upon his territory.
If you reject #5 then you have to reject the gospel in its entirety. If Christ did not die in our place, as sin and for sin, and pay for our sin through His blood and His own death, then we have no sacrifice and no atonement for sin. Either He sacrificed His life as us and for us once and for all, not imputing sin unto us and making reconciliation available for all men, or His sacrifice counts for no one with no possibility for redemption through the blood. Christ died as a man, for man and in the place of sinful man. The moment our sin's were transferred and imputed to His body on the cross, Jesus, as the Son of man, took our place and became sin, our substitute, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.
A
false gospels are like a vaccine... attenuated gospel to harden the heart and build up the strongholds.. allows people to retain and feel comfortable in their natural state of stoney hearts and build up a resistance against the chastening of the Holy Spirit win they sin (law) or an inability to receive the refreshing waters of His Forgiveness and love (gospel) by giving them just enough of the Bible to make them think they understand without actually drinking the milk or repenting and being cleansed by the blood or learning to walk with the Holy Spirit and having that personal relationship with God.
Instead the false gospels shows them pictures and tells them its as good as the real thing, if it doesn't feel real to them. they need to WORK harder at pleasing God. beaten them down, enslave them with the law. allow them to worship a DIFFERENT Jesus and learn a DIFFERENT Gospel that makes them slaves to manmade doctrines and not free and beloved child, but a slave constantly learning but never coming to the realization of God's TRUTh. God LOVE through Jesus Christ and what has ALREADY been done on the cross:
Colossians 2:13-15
New King James Version (NKJV)
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
Praise God and thank Him for showing me the blessing that comes from learning the FUNDAMENTALS of Faith revealed in His Holy Word! Thank YOU JESUS!
Instead the false gospels shows them pictures and tells them its as good as the real thing, if it doesn't feel real to them. they need to WORK harder at pleasing God. beaten them down, enslave them with the law. allow them to worship a DIFFERENT Jesus and learn a DIFFERENT Gospel that makes them slaves to manmade doctrines and not free and beloved child, but a slave constantly learning but never coming to the realization of God's TRUTh. God LOVE through Jesus Christ and what has ALREADY been done on the cross:
Colossians 2:13-15
New King James Version (NKJV)
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
Praise God and thank Him for showing me the blessing that comes from learning the FUNDAMENTALS of Faith revealed in His Holy Word! Thank YOU JESUS!
Last edited by a moderator:
Geeeee,
# 6 and # 8 confuse me. I never recall the word telling man to pray to Christ, Only His Father
# 1 isn't in the bible as you wrote it.
# 10 is anti Women, submission is for learning Gods word, treat the woman as you want to be treated.
# 3 tells a Million people crossed? they left that part out of mine or are you just GUESSING?
# 2 Tells Everyone was able to enter the Ark, and Noah took 7 of the clean animals and only 2 of the dirty....Just a little help
I sure hope im not one of those (what you call it?) Bible-believing fundamentalists.
All I want to do is walk in the truth, do I get a different name?
# 6 and # 8 confuse me. I never recall the word telling man to pray to Christ, Only His Father
# 1 isn't in the bible as you wrote it.
# 10 is anti Women, submission is for learning Gods word, treat the woman as you want to be treated.
# 3 tells a Million people crossed? they left that part out of mine or are you just GUESSING?
# 2 Tells Everyone was able to enter the Ark, and Noah took 7 of the clean animals and only 2 of the dirty....Just a little help
I sure hope im not one of those (what you call it?) Bible-believing fundamentalists.
All I want to do is walk in the truth, do I get a different name?
S
Well not necessarily. There are actually four models under the umbrella of Substitutionary Atonement Christus Victor, Ransom, Penal, and Satisfaction. Your particular view is Penal substitution, while the Catholic view point is Satisfaction, and in the East Christus Victor and Ransom are usually taught.
Here's a quick overview of them.
Christus Victor: The term Christus Victor refers to a Christian understanding of the atonement which views Christ's death as the means by which the powers of evil, which held humankind under their dominion, were defeated.
Ransom: Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that grace pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.
Penal: Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.
Satisfaction: Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God's honor by his infinite merit.
Here's a quick overview of them.
Christus Victor: The term Christus Victor refers to a Christian understanding of the atonement which views Christ's death as the means by which the powers of evil, which held humankind under their dominion, were defeated.
Ransom: Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that grace pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.
Penal: Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.
Satisfaction: Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God's honor by his infinite merit.
T
How about "Christian." Does that work for you?
I am also a devout Christian, and not a fundamentalist. You and I probably disagree on a few points of theology and doctrine as well, but I don't think that matters to Jesus.
Some people complain about labels. They say "why are you trying to label what "kind" of Christian you are?" Well, I like labels, when they are descriptive enough to tell you what's inside. Imagine going to the grocery store and having no labels. How do you know what you're getting?
I am also a devout Christian, and not a fundamentalist. You and I probably disagree on a few points of theology and doctrine as well, but I don't think that matters to Jesus.
Some people complain about labels. They say "why are you trying to label what "kind" of Christian you are?" Well, I like labels, when they are descriptive enough to tell you what's inside. Imagine going to the grocery store and having no labels. How do you know what you're getting?
E
I'm so glad there's another "theology nerd" around here 
I accept Christus Victor, and reject the other 3, especially Penal, as being problematic and un-Biblical.
I accept Christus Victor, and reject the other 3, especially Penal, as being problematic and un-Biblical.
It's certainly not unBiblical. It's the center of the Gospel.
Hebrews 2:17
Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
1 John 2:2
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
2434 hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party.(hilasmós) is only used twice (1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) – both times of Christ's atoning blood that appeases God's wrath, on all confessed sin.
By the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ provided the ultimate hilasmós ("propitiation").
Isaiah 53:5
But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
T
There is a difference between "propitiation" -- appeasement, if you will -- and penalty.
When I go over to a friend's house for dinner, and I bring over a bottle of wine, that is a very different action than when I write a check in payment for a speeding ticket.
Christ's offering was one of love, not of anger or blood. This is what our God demands. Our God is not like the pagan gods, who thirst for the blood of virgins or hunger for the taste of flesh. Implying that God needed to be paid in blood for some outstanding debt makes God out to be no better than the pagan Gods.
That image may have worked as an analogy, as a picture for the early Hebrews, because that was what they understood. But Jesus came to end that kind of thinking. Long before Jesus came, in fact, the Prophets told us God does not want our burnt offerings, but he wants our hearts and souls. They didn't listen to the Prophets, so God had to send his only son. Even then, so few listened.
But Christ defeated death, and by his death, we have eternal life. Ain't-a that GOOD NEWS!
(can I get a witness?)
When I go over to a friend's house for dinner, and I bring over a bottle of wine, that is a very different action than when I write a check in payment for a speeding ticket.
Christ's offering was one of love, not of anger or blood. This is what our God demands. Our God is not like the pagan gods, who thirst for the blood of virgins or hunger for the taste of flesh. Implying that God needed to be paid in blood for some outstanding debt makes God out to be no better than the pagan Gods.
That image may have worked as an analogy, as a picture for the early Hebrews, because that was what they understood. But Jesus came to end that kind of thinking. Long before Jesus came, in fact, the Prophets told us God does not want our burnt offerings, but he wants our hearts and souls. They didn't listen to the Prophets, so God had to send his only son. Even then, so few listened.
But Christ defeated death, and by his death, we have eternal life. Ain't-a that GOOD NEWS!
(can I get a witness?
)
There is a difference between "propitiation" -- appeasement, if you will -- and penalty.
When I go over to a friend's house for dinner, and I bring over a bottle of wine, that is a very different action than when I write a check in payment for a speeding ticket.
Christ's offering was one of love, not of anger or blood. This is what our God demands. Our God is not like the pagan gods, who thirst for the blood of virgins or hunger for the taste of flesh. Implying that God needed to be paid in blood for some outstanding debt makes God out to be no better than the pagan Gods.
That image may have worked as an analogy, as a picture for the early Hebrews, because that was what they understood. But Jesus came to end that kind of thinking. Long before Jesus came, in fact, the Prophets told us God does not want our burnt offerings, but he wants our hearts and souls. They didn't listen to the Prophets, so God had to send his only son. Even then, so few listened.
But Christ defeated death, and by his death, we have eternal life. Ain't-a that GOOD NEWS!
(can I get a witness?)
When I go over to a friend's house for dinner, and I bring over a bottle of wine, that is a very different action than when I write a check in payment for a speeding ticket.
Christ's offering was one of love, not of anger or blood. This is what our God demands. Our God is not like the pagan gods, who thirst for the blood of virgins or hunger for the taste of flesh. Implying that God needed to be paid in blood for some outstanding debt makes God out to be no better than the pagan Gods.
That image may have worked as an analogy, as a picture for the early Hebrews, because that was what they understood. But Jesus came to end that kind of thinking. Long before Jesus came, in fact, the Prophets told us God does not want our burnt offerings, but he wants our hearts and souls. They didn't listen to the Prophets, so God had to send his only son. Even then, so few listened.
But Christ defeated death, and by his death, we have eternal life. Ain't-a that GOOD NEWS!
(can I get a witness?
)
T
It's not the idea of God's wrath being appeased I don't like. It's the idea of God getting that upset in the first place, that his wrath would need appeasement at all, as if God were some bratty child that threw a temper tantrum if he didn't get his way. That is NOT the God whom Jesus came to preach about.
The God in whom I believe and put my trust is not some stubborn ass whose hands are tied by a strict and ancient code of retribution. Our God is moved by love and devotion, by acts of selfless sacrifice. It is not that God said, "Son, I'm going to send everyone to hell, unless you go and let yourself be tortured and killed." How evil-sounding is that? No, Jesus IS God, and Jesus said, "I love you all so much, I give myself up for you. And this is what I want for each of you, that you may all have everlasting life."
I just don't see how those two views can be any more contradictory. And I don't understand why anyone would want to hold on to the first image.
The God in whom I believe and put my trust is not some stubborn ass whose hands are tied by a strict and ancient code of retribution. Our God is moved by love and devotion, by acts of selfless sacrifice. It is not that God said, "Son, I'm going to send everyone to hell, unless you go and let yourself be tortured and killed." How evil-sounding is that? No, Jesus IS God, and Jesus said, "I love you all so much, I give myself up for you. And this is what I want for each of you, that you may all have everlasting life."
I just don't see how those two views can be any more contradictory. And I don't understand why anyone would want to hold on to the first image.
I can't really agree with this. I believe however that you do wrestle with the fact that God, indeed, has wrath and that His wrath is also turned against people. Not only sin/s - but people.
That said I can understand your perspective up to a point. God does not "need" anything from man. But - He has ordained - chosen, from before the foundation of the world, that blood sacrifices should atone for sin (Heb.9:22).
Modern day judaism will often object to this fact, saying that God does not need any sacrifices to forgive sins. Not only going against their so hated St Paul, but also Moses and the ancient israelites (which is not necessarily the same people as jews of today btw) who clearly understood and practiced this principle.
Penal substitution is not a philosophical solution to a theological problem (why does God ask man to shed blood to atone for sins and redeem souls) it is an inevitable conclusion and thus interpretation of the propitiation that Christ made for all those He represented.
Indeed the gospel rests on the foundation that our sin was imputed to Christ and Christ's righteousness was imputed to us. Take this away and you will have another gospel and another christ, unable to save you from the holy and just wrath of God the Father.
That said I can understand your perspective up to a point. God does not "need" anything from man. But - He has ordained - chosen, from before the foundation of the world, that blood sacrifices should atone for sin (Heb.9:22).
Modern day judaism will often object to this fact, saying that God does not need any sacrifices to forgive sins. Not only going against their so hated St Paul, but also Moses and the ancient israelites (which is not necessarily the same people as jews of today btw) who clearly understood and practiced this principle.
Penal substitution is not a philosophical solution to a theological problem (why does God ask man to shed blood to atone for sins and redeem souls) it is an inevitable conclusion and thus interpretation of the propitiation that Christ made for all those He represented.
Indeed the gospel rests on the foundation that our sin was imputed to Christ and Christ's righteousness was imputed to us. Take this away and you will have another gospel and another christ, unable to save you from the holy and just wrath of God the Father.
Last edited:
E
There is a difference between "propitiation" -- appeasement, if you will -- and penalty.
When I go over to a friend's house for dinner, and I bring over a bottle of wine, that is a very different action than when I write a check in payment for a speeding ticket.
Christ's offering was one of love, not of anger or blood. This is what our God demands. Our God is not like the pagan gods, who thirst for the blood of virgins or hunger for the taste of flesh. Implying that God needed to be paid in blood for some outstanding debt makes God out to be no better than the pagan Gods.
That image may have worked as an analogy, as a picture for the early Hebrews, because that was what they understood. But Jesus came to end that kind of thinking. Long before Jesus came, in fact, the Prophets told us God does not want our burnt offerings, but he wants our hearts and souls. They didn't listen to the Prophets, so God had to send his only son. Even then, so few listened.
But Christ defeated death, and by his death, we have eternal life. Ain't-a that GOOD NEWS!
(can I get a witness?)
When I go over to a friend's house for dinner, and I bring over a bottle of wine, that is a very different action than when I write a check in payment for a speeding ticket.
Christ's offering was one of love, not of anger or blood. This is what our God demands. Our God is not like the pagan gods, who thirst for the blood of virgins or hunger for the taste of flesh. Implying that God needed to be paid in blood for some outstanding debt makes God out to be no better than the pagan Gods.
That image may have worked as an analogy, as a picture for the early Hebrews, because that was what they understood. But Jesus came to end that kind of thinking. Long before Jesus came, in fact, the Prophets told us God does not want our burnt offerings, but he wants our hearts and souls. They didn't listen to the Prophets, so God had to send his only son. Even then, so few listened.
But Christ defeated death, and by his death, we have eternal life. Ain't-a that GOOD NEWS!
(can I get a witness?
)
And yes that's certainly something different than pulling out your checkbook to pay the penalty for breaking the law.
And?
Neither a bottle of wine (a love offering) or monetary restitution (you paying your own debt) will help you concerning God, and your sin and judgment.
Right.
If you despise the Blood part I have no idea what you are placing your hope in.
Christ would be of no effect for you.
No Blood, no remission of sins.
Even your own blood shed won't pay the debt you owe so you have a problem.
What was Jesus doing hanging on a Cross?
And what does this mean?
Acts 2
"this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."
Why would the God of your imagination predetermine and plan to deliver Jesus over to death on a Cross?
Despising the once for all sacrifice, the shedding of His innocent Blood under torture and agony blithely scorned and compared to paganism is horrifying.
You might want to beg His forgiveness for not only thinking such a thing, but uttering it publicly.
I know it made my hair stand on end.
So Christ's agony and death on a Cross was simply acted out for the purposes of teaching an analogy to Hebrews?
This is awful.
He certainly put an end to sacrifice in His Own Body once for all - all who love and know they need the Blood.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
(can I get a witness? )
)