S/O -- Christian, but not a Fundy?

[Tracy in Ky]

This is what I personally think of when I think of a "fundamentalist Christian". Someone who takes a literal interpretation of every single word in the Bible, rather than saying that some passages may be true in an allegorical sense. .

 

Have you actually met a Christian who reads the Bible this way? I've never, ever known anyone to do this. Never.

 

I grew up in a very conservative religion, with many of the 'rules' mentioned above. My father was a pastor in this religion. I finished an MDiv at a Southern Baptist Seminary. I've been around Christians and church my entire life. And never have I heard of anyone who didn't understand that allegory is present in the Bible

 

Some of Jesus' parables make no sense whatsoever if one doesn't read them in an allegorical sense. Jesus himself even explained the allegory that He was using (ie. the parables of the seeds and the sower). I'm curious if you actually know for a fact that some people read the Bible this way, or if you were making a non-specific generalization. I don't see how anyone who has actually read the words in the Bible could possibly believe there is absolutely no allegory present.

 

 

I'm just amazed at your statement and wonder if you've truly met people like this.

[TXMary2]

I have been called a "fundamentalist" as an insult because:

 

I believe the Bible is true

I believe the unsaved go to hell

I am pro-life

I am pro-traditional marriage

 

As for the five fundamentals, I believe them. I have never been against dancing or the other things listed on the no-fun list. Maybe for a while I was anti-secular music, but I am over that. I don't like a lot of it because of vulgarness etc, but I don't ban any and all secular music like I did at one time.

[kmacnchs]

I don't consider myself a fundamentalist. But I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God in the original Greek. I don't use only the KJV because I believe that some other Greek manuscripts are closer to the original. I also believe that the Bible uses figures of speech, poetic language etc. so that the Bible needs to be interpreted in the context of which it was written (but many fundamentalists believe that too.)

 

:iagree:

 

There are many people who believe that the Bible isn't inerrant but is still good for teaching us lessons.

 

That sounds to me like those who believe there are many ways to God (not sure how they reconcile that w/being a Christian either). I remember hearing this a lot in college. People didn't want to reject their upbringing in the church but they wanted to sound "learned" and saying that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is "ignorant" according to our professors (this was a Methodist college, by the way). I never had heard such a thing and didn't understand how people could believe in some parts and not in others.

 

I personally don't believe that the Bible represents itself that way. But the way you asked your question would undoubtedly make many people who believe that way angry, because it seems to imply that they believe that way because they are stupid. And I don't believe that either.

 

I just don't get it - as I have said many times. It doesn't click in my head rationally. I don't think they are stupid. But, depending on the situation, they may just be believing what they want to believe, regardless...

 

eg. may help: a lady claimed to be a Christian (I have NO CLUE and don't claim to whether she was or not) but she couldn't reconcile God loving and saving some and sending others to Hell. I can totally understand where she is coming from but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible says that is the Truth. Man's most intelligent thought is more foolish than God's most simple thought (paraphrasing b/c don't know where that is the Bible right now)...

 

sorry to cut short...gotta g0;)

[Mejane]

From my personal experience, fundamentalist Christians are the ones who make me want to run. far. away. They are the ones who try to convert me by constant proselytizing, refuse to discuss any point as they "know the truth", and make me feel as though I am utterly ignorant and should go to hell asap. I'm sure there are some out there who are lovely people; I just haven't met them. :)

[Tracy in Ky]

In an effort to lighten things up I'll attempt a definition:

 

Regardless of what Wiki, or any other site may say, a fundamentalist is any Christian with whom you disagree because they are too strict in some way. (i.e. the "no" crowd, wherein "No" applies to something you allow.)

 

A non-fundamentalist Christian is you. And anyone who agrees with you on most things.

 

A Liberal Christian is anyone with whom you disagree because they are too loose on some vitally important issue.

 

Lest I be misunderstood, this is all said tongue-in-cheek.:D:D

 

1John 2:9-11

 

I think you have summed it up nicely. There are a lot of opinions floating around in this thread! :lol:

[Kathleen in VA]

From my personal experience, fundamentalist Christians are the ones who make me want to run. far. away. They are the ones who try to convert me by constant proselytizing, refuse to discuss any point as they "know the truth", and make me feel as though I am utterly ignorant and should go to hell asap. I'm sure there are some out there who are lovely people; I just haven't met them. :)

 

I know a lot of atheists who fit this description, although their idea of hell is much different than mine. Many of these are members of my family. I too want to run. far. away.

 

I believe in the five points on the list, but unlike some Christians I do not believe it is my responsibility to save anyone - I believe God is responsible for that. If anyone wants to know about my faith they are welcome to ask me. If someone brings up evolution or says they don't believe there is a God during an otherwise non-religious conversation they should be prepared to hear my side of the argument, but I avoid those topics when in the company of folks I know aren't of the same faith as myself. J. Hudson Taylor, famous missionary to China, said, "If you seek to change a man, do it through prayer." Faith is a heart issue, not a mind issue. I know I will never convince anyone to believe in God by reasoning with them - although Christianity is a reasonable faith - because until that person's heart is changed by God (not me!) they will refuse to hear me.

 

I have met many atheists, however, who know that I am a Christian and/or that I homeschool. Very often these folks feel it is there bounden duty to "set me straight" and behave much like religious evangelists, preaching their worldview to me and refusing to let up until I see things their way.

 

Just saying, it goes both ways. Just because someone says they don't believe in God does not mean they are not religious, zealous or fanatical.

[Mejane]

You're absolutely right, Kathleen. A fundamentalist anything (read zealot) is at best annoying, at worst dangerous. I was simply answering the OP's question. :)

[justamouse]

 

I'm just amazed at your statement and wonder if you've truly met people like this.

 

The YEC thread was a perfect example of what she is talking about.

 

To me, fundys hang their salvation on a lot of pegs that just don't matter to me. I'm not afraid of God, I'm not afraid of being wrong about my interpretation of the bible and so it's just not worth it to me to get all legalistic about.

[Tracy in Ky]

The YEC thread was a perfect example of what she is talking about.

 

 

 

How so? I'm not aware of anyone who denied the use of allegory in the Bible in that thread.

 

To read the Bible literally does not mean that one denies the use of allegory, metaphor, similie, and poetry. It means reading each section according to the type of literature that it is, and interpreting it accordingly. Just like we read every other piece of writing that we read.

 

It appears as though Crimson Wife is suggesting that there are people who read the Bible literally, but she appears to be defining that term in a way that Christians (at least none that I have every heard of) do not--meaning woodenly--not allowing for any allegory (and presumably no metaphor either).

 

My point is that I know of no Christian who does this. None. And if such a person exists, they are likely in some bizarre cult that most of us have never heard about. I certainly haven't. And they likely couldn't even be called a Christian, because without acknowledging allegory, metaphor, similie, and other literary devices, one cannot even get at the truth taught in the Bible (for example, one would have to believe that Jesus is actually a door, complete with hinges of some sort and be in the shape of a square, rectangle, etc. Jesus said, "I am the door," after all.)

 

For example, without allegory, one has to assume that Jesus' parable of the seeds and the sower is nothing but gardening advice. That idea is utterly absurd, and I know of no Christian who would agree with such a thing. Not even people in the ultra-conservative Christian circle that I was raised in.

 

In the YEC thread, I am not aware of anyone who denies the used of allegory. If it is there, please point it out to me because I missed it. I am very intersted in seeing such a post and talking with such a person. :bigear:

Edited March 13, 2010 by Tracy in Ky

[Diane in NH]

Not to throw a wrench in the works but legalism is not the belief that you should not do certain things (smoking, drinking, dancing, playing cards). Rather, it is the belief that by abstaining from these (or other) things (or by doing other "good" things) you can earn your salvation. Legalism generally means that you are trying to earn your salvation by keeping the law.

 

But then, by your definition, no Christian denomination is legalistic are they? I don't know any Christian denomination that thinks a person can merit heaven by just doing "good" things.

[TXMomof4]

Just tossing in my .02 here. I think the term fundamentalist has gained a lot of meaning in recent years. Someone made the point that being a fundamentalist is not the same as being legalisitic.

 

I'd venture that when someone thinks negatively of a fundamentalist Chrisitian what they actually dislike is their legalism. If everyone truly lived their choices and allowed others to live their own in the debatable matters then there wouldn't be any of these ugly stereotypes.

 

If we all believe in those 5 fundamentals, where is the difference in our faith? The differences come in when I am told I'm unfeminine and trying to usurp my husbands place in the family because I take care of all money matters in my house. The differences come in when I think (or express) disagreement about the idea that jeans at church might not be a salvation issue.

 

The long dress, long hair, no music, no whatever wouldn't bother me at all - I wouldn't think of them as 'out there' if it hadn't been the conversations with the mean, legalisitic, I'm going to hell to listening to praise and worship music kind of people - and yes, I have been very bad about letting those influences affect my opinion of all ultra conservative Christians.

 

That definition of fundamentalism has been largely the result of media exposure to only those extreme, legalistic groups and having them defined as a fundamental Christian group. For example, the group that protests at funerals - there's nothing Christian about them, but they are repeatedly defined as a fund. christian church. :001_huh:

 

The mean people are not restricted to certain denominations either - I've met them in all different churches, all different levels of society. All that's required is a super -high sense of their own righteousness.

[TXMomof4]

But then, by your definition, no Christian denomination is legalistic are they? I don't know any Christian denomination that thinks a person can merit heaven by just doing "good" things.

 

That may not be the published doctrine, but I assure you - there are all sorts of rules out there that *must* be followed to be a good Christian - according to some. This is a very hard thing to overcome too.

 

I agree that legalism in essence is about earning heaven, but the reality is that it becomes a set of standards the group owns as it's own code of conduct. It becomes less than trying to please God and more about controlling other's behaviors most of the time.

Edited March 13, 2010 by TXMomof4

[TravelingChris]

Actually I have met legalistic people who claimed that their rules made them holier or closer to God and implied that those who aren't following the rules are placing their salvation in jeopardy. Now this does not mean that everyone I have met who came from a stricter denomination from mine believed these things- not at all. I have had friends from a denomination that has no musical instruments and they haven't been judgemental at all. But I have met people who claimed that various rules (no use of psychotropic medications, only King James version, only YE, etc. are some sort of salvation issues or at least that they have a better chance of it that non followers of those rules who are endangering their chances). These encounters haven't been frequent and like I said, most people who are YE, or King James only or whatever other rules they have are perfectly gracious people who don't feel compelled to harangue others with differing beliefs just like I don't try to badger them into using the NASB or the ESV or any other version.

[Kathleen in VA]

But then, by your definition, no Christian denomination is legalistic are they? I don't know any Christian denomination that thinks a person can merit heaven by just doing "good" things.

 

You are right, I can't imagine a church presenting this as their official teaching, but their behavior and attitudes often betray such a belief nevertheless. This kind of thinking can slip into an individual or an entire church easily. I asked my grandmother, for instance, (who was raised Catholic and became a Methodist in her thirties) if she expected to go to heaven when she died. Her reply was, "I hope so." I then asked her why she wasn't sure of it and only hoped. She said that she had done bad things in her life and was hoping that the good she had done outweighed the bad. That is trusting in good works, not Christ's work of atonement, for salvation. I believe there are many professing Christians who think this way - I've met quite a few myself.

[justamouse]

How so? I'm not aware of anyone who denied the use of allegory in the Bible in that thread.

 

 

 

O_0 Were we reading the same thread? OK, then. I'm outa here.

[lionfamily1999]

This is what I personally think of when I think of a "fundamentalist Christian". Someone who takes a literal interpretation of every single word in the Bible, rather than saying that some passages may be true in an allegorical sense. Christian theologians have been debating for nearly 2 millennia how to read Scripture so there's no point into going into specifics here...

I don't take a literal interpretation of everything, I mean I believe that Christ's parables were parabels... I'm not sure that anyone takes the whole Bible literally, I mean there are some really obvious non-literal things. Of course, they're symbolic for literal things....

I know a lot of atheists who fit this description, although their idea of hell is much different than mine. Many of these are members of my family. I too want to run. far. away.

 

I believe in the five points on the list, but unlike some Christians I do not believe it is my responsibility to save anyone - I believe God is responsible for that. If anyone wants to know about my faith they are welcome to ask me. If someone brings up evolution or says they don't believe there is a God during an otherwise non-religious conversation they should be prepared to hear my side of the argument, but I avoid those topics when in the company of folks I know aren't of the same faith as myself. J. Hudson Taylor, famous missionary to China, said, "If you seek to change a man, do it through prayer." Faith is a heart issue, not a mind issue. I know I will never convince anyone to believe in God by reasoning with them - although Christianity is a reasonable faith - because until that person's heart is changed by God (not me!) they will refuse to hear me.

 

I have met many atheists, however, who know that I am a Christian and/or that I homeschool. Very often these folks feel it is there bounden duty to "set me straight" and behave much like religious evangelists, preaching their worldview to me and refusing to let up until I see things their way.

 

Just saying, it goes both ways. Just because someone says they don't believe in God does not mean they are not religious, zealous or fanatical.

Just for clarification. I don't think it's a responsibility to save anyone, but I do think we're responsible to share the gospel, iykwIm.

But then, by your definition, no Christian denomination is legalistic are they? I don't know any Christian denomination that thinks a person can merit heaven by just doing "good" things.

Not denominations, but I do know Christians that believe that.

Actually I have met legalistic people who claimed that their rules made them holier or closer to God and implied that those who aren't following the rules are placing their salvation in jeopardy. Now this does not mean that everyone I have met who came from a stricter denomination from mine believed these things- not at all. I have had friends from a denomination that has no musical instruments and they haven't been judgemental at all. But I have met people who claimed that various rules (no use of psychotropic medications, only King James version, only YE, etc. are some sort of salvation issues or at least that they have a better chance of it that non followers of those rules who are endangering their chances). These encounters haven't been frequent and like I said, most people who are YE, or King James only or whatever other rules they have are perfectly gracious people who don't feel compelled to harangue others with differing beliefs just like I don't try to badger them into using the NASB or the ESV or any other version.

I've known people to question the salvation of others if they didn't follow the rules, but they still believed salvation only came through Christ. IOW, I known both types ;)

[Kathleen in VA]

You're absolutely right, Kathleen. A fundamentalist anything (read zealot) is at best annoying, at worst dangerous. I was simply answering the OP's question. :)

 

I appreciate that you were trying to answer the OP's question, and she did specifically ask about Christian fundamentalism, but I think your reply was subjective - based on your own feelings (such as wanting to run away) and not objective standards. My point was that according to the definition using the five basic beliefs, I am a fundamentalist but I do not fit your definition at all.

[Kathleen in VA]

Just for clarification. I don't think it's a responsibility to save anyone, but I do think we're responsible to share the gospel, iykwIm.

 

 

Julie,

 

I agree that Christians should share the gospel, but I am very careful about when and to whom I share. Most everyone I know is aware of the fact that I am a Christian and I think they know that if they want to learn anything about Christianity from me they are welcome to ask. I believe I am to be a "living epistle" and that people should be able to see Christ in me through my actions and attitudes. Yes, there are times when a clear presentation of the gospel is appropriate and I do look for opportunities to share, but I do not think it is right to turn every conversation into a sermon. I pray for God to open hearts and minds and provide those opportunities, but since I depend on Him to do that I do not feel pressed or anxious about the condition of anyone's soul.

 

I used to go to churches (in college and when I was a young adult) that taught evangelism classes and had regular visitation to neighborhood people. I've heard of folks going to events such as state fairs and handing out tracts to folks passing by. I've seen folks on the National Mall in D.C. handing out tracts to folks entering and exiting the subway. Even as a believer, I find this kind of behavior annoying at best and sometimes downright scary.

 

God does call some to be evangelists, teachers, pastors, etc. But I think that for the average Christian we are simply called to live godly, loving, compassionate lives and by doing so we will draw others to Christ. Then, if anyone express an interest, I am more than happy to share my faith.

 

It is God who prepares hearts and minds and draws men to Him. If He uses me in some small way to do that, I am delighted. I just don't feel stressed or anxious that any person's salvation is dependent on my being able to convince someone that God exists or that evolution is wrong. I think many modern evangelistic methods stress reasoning, arguing, debating, etc. and do not rely on the work of the Holy Spirit to convict men of their need for a Savior. These are the kinds of methods that cause Christians to be overbearing and cause unbelievers to feel like running way. JMHO

[TXMary2]

I

I have met many atheists, however, who know that I am a Christian and/or that I homeschool. Very often these folks feel it is there bounden duty to "set me straight" and behave much like religious evangelists, preaching their worldview to me and refusing to let up until I see things their way.

 

Just saying, it goes both ways. Just because someone says they don't believe in God does not mean they are not religious, zealous or fanatical.

 

I have experienced this several times. Sometimes from my MIL and FIL and other times from acquaintances. It most certainly goes both ways.

[Mejane]

I appreciate that you were trying to answer the OP's question, and she did specifically ask about Christian fundamentalism, but I think your reply was subjective - based on your own feelings (such as wanting to run away) and not objective standards. My point was that according to the definition using the five basic beliefs, I am a fundamentalist but I do not fit your definition at all.

 

Then you must be one of the lovely people I mentioned whom I have yet to meet (IRL anyways :)).

[lionfamily1999]

Julie,

 

I agree that Christians should share the gospel, but I am very careful about when and to whom I share. Most everyone I know is aware of the fact that I am a Christian and I think they know that if they want to learn anything about Christianity from me they are welcome to ask. I believe I am to be a "living epistle" and that people should be able to see Christ in me through my actions and attitudes. Yes, there are times when a clear presentation of the gospel is appropriate and I do look for opportunities to share, but I do not think it is right to turn every conversation into a sermon. I pray for God to open hearts and minds and provide those opportunities, but since I depend on Him to do that I do not feel pressed or anxious about the condition of anyone's soul.

 

I used to go to churches (in college and when I was a young adult) that taught evangelism classes and had regular visitation to neighborhood people. I've heard of folks going to events such as state fairs and handing out tracts to folks passing by. I've seen folks on the National Mall in D.C. handing out tracts to folks entering and exiting the subway. Even as a believer, I find this kind of behavior annoying at best and sometimes downright scary.

 

God does call some to be evangelists, teachers, pastors, etc. But I think that for the average Christian we are simply called to live godly, loving, compassionate lives and by doing so we will draw others to Christ. Then, if anyone express an interest, I am more than happy to share my faith.

 

It is God who prepares hearts and minds and draws men to Him. If He uses me in some small way to do that, I am delighted. I just don't feel stressed or anxious that any person's salvation is dependent on my being able to convince someone that God exists or that evolution is wrong. I think many modern evangelistic methods stress reasoning, arguing, debating, etc. and do not rely on the work of the Holy Spirit to convict men of their need for a Savior. These are the kinds of methods that cause Christians to be overbearing and cause unbelievers to feel like running way. JMHO

I see what you mean. I had said, earlier in this thread, that I thought Christians were supposed to ... now I can't remember how I put it, but I thought your post, that I quoted, was in response to that. I just wanted to be clear, I do not believe we have to save people. I do believe that we are to share the gospel, that doesn't always mean talking about it, we share it by showing God's grace, love, mercy and care through our actions ;) Just like you wrote.

[Tracy in Ky]

O_0 Were we reading the same thread? OK, then. I'm outa here.

 

Yes, we were reading the same thread, and I'm not aware of anyone who denied the use of allegory in the Bible in that thread.

 

If it is there, please point it out to me because I missed it. I am very interested in seeing such a post. You said that the thread was a perfect example of this; I am just asking that you show me specifically where in the thread this perfect example exists. :)

[Tracy in Ky]

I'm not sure that anyone takes the whole Bible literally

 

:iagree:

[kmacnchs]

Where's the fireproof suit?

 

It's not that I think I am above God and am choosing which parts of His word fit my life. It's that I am not convinced that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

 

(And before anyone quotes scriptures that "prove" the Bible is the word of God and is inerrant, let me say that I don't find that very convincing. Those scriptures are only proof if I already believe the Bible is inerrant.)

 

The Bible rings truest for me when viewed as the record of people's encounters with God throughout time and their attempts to make sense of those experiences. I think sometimes they got it right. And sometimes they got it wrong.

 

And although I realize the above makes me non-Christian to most of you, I am a member of a Christian church and attend regularly. These are issues I continue to explore within a Christian tradition.

 

I'm not sure which part of this was throwing fire...I really don't understand and was just saying so...

 

If you are a in a Christian church and are seeking God, great! That doesn't make you a Christian. And if you are a Christian, great! You said you are still exploring, so I didn't know. I definitely am still learning. My views have changed SOOOO MUCH since I first became a Christian 14 yrs ago from studying God's Word and seeing what He has to say. My confusion stands - I don't get how a Christian can take some of the Bible and leave other parts.

 

And to the OP, no, I am not talking about interpretation. I understand when people speak of different interpretations and I understand the diff. parts of the language - I am talking about instances (there have been many irl for me) in which people who claim to be Christians decide that God didn't really mean that part but He means this part fully! What? How does that cement in one's mind?

[Melinda in VT]

I'm not sure which part of this was throwing fire...I really don't understand and was just saying so...

 

I was concerned that I would be torched for what I was about to say. Not necessarily by you, but by others on the board. Things get interesting around here sometimes.

 

My confusion stands - I don't get how a Christian can take some of the Bible and leave other parts.

 

And to the OP, no, I am not talking about interpretation. I understand when people speak of different interpretations and I understand the diff. parts of the language - I am talking about instances (there have been many irl for me) in which people who claim to be Christians decide that God didn't really mean that part but He means this part fully! What? How does that cement in one's mind?

 

Again, I don't think it's a matter of people deciding God didn't really mean what he said. It's a matter of people not thinking God said it at all.

[Spy Car]

My confusion stands - I don't get how a Christian can take some of the Bible and leave other parts.

 

 

But don't even "Fundamentalists" take some and leave some? The message of James 2 makes it absolutely clear that faith without works is "dead". In fact that it is not "faith" at all.

 

Yet it is common (from what I understand) for those who identify as Fundamentalists to argue for "justification by faith alone" when the New Testament in James clearly states that a person "is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

So there is "selective" literalism and fidelity to plain-text meanings of Scripture. Or am I wrong?

 

Bill

[lionfamily1999]

But don't even "Fundamentalists" take some and leave some? The message of James 2 makes it absolutely clear that faith without works is "dead". In fact that it is not "faith" at all.

 

Yet it is common (from what I understand) for those who identify as Fundamentalists to argue for "justification by faith alone" when the New Testament in James clearly states that a person "is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

So there is "selective" literalism and fidelity to plain-text meanings of Scripture. Or am I wrong?

 

Bill

The works are the fruit of salvation. If you have no works, then your salvation is in question. IOW, once you are saved you become a Christian. Reading God's word, praying &tc become a part of your life. Now, your new life in Christ will manifest itself by the Holy Spirit working through you. Thus, your salvation shows fruitation through works.

 

It's not the works that get you saved, it's Christ. Once you're saved then you will be moved to do works.

[Spy Car]

Thus, your salvation shows fruitation through works.

 

 

But that's what I'm saying. This "interpretation" flies in the face of a plain-text meaning of James which says there is no salvation without works, and not that works are the "fruition" of salvation.

 

So, to my mind, there is "selective" literalism.

 

Bill

[lionfamily1999]

But that's what I'm saying. This "interpretation" flies in the face of a plain-text meaning of James which says there is no salvation without works, and not that works are the "fruition" of salvation.

 

So, to my mind, there is "selective" literalism.

 

Bill

It's works through faith, works because of faith.

 

James 2:22

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

 

It's faith and then from that faith grows works. If you don't have faith, all the works are not going to get you faith. James' worker, so to speak, had faith and his faith was alive and well as shown by his works.

 

ETA, he's not saying you don't have salvation, he's questioning your faith. How can you say you have faith without works? The works are the fruit of salvation, if your salvation is a barren tree, then your faith is dead.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

But don't even "Fundamentalists" take some and leave some? The message of James 2 makes it absolutely clear that faith without works is "dead". In fact that it is not "faith" at all.

 

Yet it is common (from what I understand) for those who identify as Fundamentalists to argue for "justification by faith alone" when the New Testament in James clearly states that a person "is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

So there is "selective" literalism and fidelity to plain-text meanings of Scripture. Or am I wrong?

 

Bill

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Spy Car]

It's works through faith, works because of faith.

 

James 2:22

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

 

It's faith and then from that faith grows works. If you don't have faith, all the works are not going to get you faith. James' worker, so to speak, had faith and his faith was alive and well as shown by his works.

 

ETA, he's not saying you don't have salvation, he's questioning your faith. How can you say you have faith without works? The works are the fruit of salvation, if your salvation is a barren tree, then your faith is dead.

 

"Wrought with his works" means these things (faith and action) are inextricably bound and are working TOGETHER, and "works" are not flowing as an after-effect of salvation by faith alone.

 

And James certainly does say that you don't have salvation by faith alone. Salvation can't be a barren tree, or it is not "salvation" in the first place.

 

Bill

[Jean in Newcastle]

But don't even "Fundamentalists" take some and leave some? The message of James 2 makes it absolutely clear that faith without works is "dead". In fact that it is not "faith" at all.

 

Yet it is common (from what I understand) for those who identify as Fundamentalists to argue for "justification by faith alone" when the New Testament in James clearly states that a person "is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

So there is "selective" literalism and fidelity to plain-text meanings of Scripture. Or am I wrong?

 

Bill

 

Bill, it isn't selective literalism. It is reading James' use of the word "faith" in the context of his letter and other uses of the word "faith" in their context - not only of the individual books but of the entire Bible. It is a different interpretation than what you've given it though. And there are entire commentaries and books which disagree with you and entire commentaries and books which agree with you.

 

So how do you decide which commentary is correct? You look at the Greek. And you look at context. A conservative Christian (which includes but is not limited to fundamentalists in the current definition of what that means) has certain perspectives. One of those perspectives is that the entire Bible was authored by God as well as the individual human authors. That context has the premise that God is Truth and so that His word is absolute Truth. And so that there will be no contradictions. So they do look for a way to synthesize passages which seem to contradict. Obviously some people do think that is cheating or is selective. And it would be if we had to shoe-horn the concepts together. But in my opinion the end result is not artificially constructed but actually fits together in a natural and marvelous way.

 

So - what about "faith" in James? Here is the explanation that makes sense to me linguistically and hermeneutically. There is a kind of salvation faith that someone has when they believe that God provided salvation for them through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. The meaning of the word "justified" means that they have been declared righteous before God. A person who trust in Jesus' work on the cross has been declared righteous before God not because of anything they did, but because of what God did for them.

 

There is also a kind of faith that a Christian uses everyday in living the Christian life. This life is not lived in do's and don'ts. It is lived invisibly in your mind. When I am depending on God the Holy Spirit to do things then I have faith in His ability to work in me. That is the kind of faith that James is talking about. In that context, this faith will have a outward manifestation in my works (what I do). So this kind of faith without works is dead.

 

I would have to write a whole lot more to give you all the definitions, the links to other passages etc. to justify what I'm saying here. I can tell you that given enough time I could do that. I can also tell you that ultimately you would have to make some decisions as to if you are going to give equal weight to other books (like the Pauline epistles). And that ultimately you would have to make a decision as to if you are going to accept the Bible's own description of itself (in multiple OT and NT passages) about God, Truth and the Bible as applying to the 66 books of the Bible.

[kmacnchs]

But don't even "Fundamentalists" take some and leave some? The message of James 2 makes it absolutely clear that faith without works is "dead". In fact that it is not "faith" at all.

 

Yet it is common (from what I understand) for those who identify as Fundamentalists to argue for "justification by faith alone" when the New Testament in James clearly states that a person "is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

So there is "selective" literalism and fidelity to plain-text meanings of Scripture. Or am I wrong?

 

Bill

 

Maybe I would question their "fundamentalism"? From what was stated about fundamentalism, one being the inerrancy (?) of God's Word, how could you "leave some" and still be a fundamentalist?

 

Justification by faith comes from Romans (though it is stated elsewhere) so it's not like they made it up. James is not in conflict w/Paul, however. I am saved by believing in Christ as my Lord and Savior (not just believing IN Him) but how can I say I am saved if I do not help my brothers & sisters in Christ? Makes sense to me and is not in conflict, imo...

[lionfamily1999]

"Wrought with his works" means these things (faith and action) are inextricably bound and are working TOGETHER, and "works" are not flowing as an after-effect of salvation by faith alone.

 

And James certainly does say that you don't have salvation by faith alone. Salvation can't be a barren tree, or it is not "salvation" in the first place.

 

Bill

You have salvation through faith, faith is manifest by works, so yes the two are bound. James doesn't actually mention salvation at all. His letter was, I believe, meant for those that already had it. What he is concerned with is their ongoing faith.

[justamouse]

Yes, we were reading the same thread, and I'm not aware of anyone who denied the use of allegory in the Bible in that thread.

 

If it is there, please point it out to me because I missed it. I am very interested in seeing such a post. You said that the thread was a perfect example of this; I am just asking that you show me specifically where in the thread this perfect example exists. :)

 

You use it as allegory when it's useful, and literal when it backs up what you already believe with a caveat that it's allegorical, too. I'm not engaging you in debate. I watched how you worked on the other thread. Some would call it passive aggressive.

[Tracy in Ky]

You use it as allegory when it's useful, and literal when it backs up what you already believe with a caveat that it's allegorical, too. I'm not engaging you in debate. I watched how you worked on the other thread. Some would call it passive aggressive.

 

Justamouse, we are discussing your assertion that the YEC thread is perfect example of Christians reading the Bible in a literal sense, defined as denying the use of allegory therein.

 

I have simply and repeatedly asked you to show me in that thread the 'perfect example,' so that I can see it. I missed it if it is there. But what you have done is react with sarcasm (ie. "Were we reading the same thread?") and now have resorted to attacking my character.

 

Are you not interested in having a rational discussion regarding your claim?

[Crimson Wife]

The mods are likely to make this thread go "poof" if we all don't :chillpill: They've been pretty trigger-happy lately...

[justamouse]

Justamouse, we are discussing your assertion that the YEC thread is perfect example of Christians reading the Bible in a literal sense, defined as denying the use of allegory therein.

 

I have simply and repeatedly asked you to show me in that thread the 'perfect example,' so that I can see it. I missed it if it is there. But what you have done is react with sarcasm (ie. "Were we reading the same thread?") and now have resorted to attacking my character.

 

Are you not interested in having a rational discussion regarding your claim?

 

That was not sarcasm on my part. That was my incredulity and the realization that there is no point in talking about it. If you cannot see it, how blatant it is, then you cannot. And I won't argue it because you obviously aren't ready to see it or, you just don't want to. That's OK, I was there once, and I really do remember justifying myself exactly as you did. The passive aggressive part-when you want to engage in a debate because you believe that your belief system is more valid, then just debate it. The constant questions, then a few pages later going on into a point by point lesson of why you are right couched in smiles and questions and how you went to seminary? That to me smacks of passive aggressive behavior and I won't be lured into a debate that way.

[Tracy in Ky]

If you cannot see it, how blatant it is, then you cannot. And I won't argue it because you obviously aren't ready to see it or, you just don't want to.

 

Whatever the reason, I can't see in that thread what you are claiming is there: that somewhere in there is a perfect example of someone who believes the Bible in a literal way, defined as denying that there is any allegory in the Bible.

 

I am asking you to back up your claim and simply show me the post where this belief is obvious. I do not think it is there, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. All you have to do is show me, thereby putting substance under your claim. Otherwise, it is simply an arbitrary claim.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Tracy in Ky

[Parrothead]

But don't even "Fundamentalists" take some and leave some? The message of James 2 makes it absolutely clear that faith without works is "dead". In fact that it is not "faith" at all.

 

Yet it is common (from what I understand) for those who identify as Fundamentalists to argue for "justification by faith alone" when the New Testament in James clearly states that a person "is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

So there is "selective" literalism and fidelity to plain-text meanings of Scripture. Or am I wrong?

 

Bill

:iagree: The Catholics will agree with you about the literal meaning of James 2, and over 50 other references about man being judged by works in the 73 books of the (Catholic) Bible.

 

I asked someone about some of those contradictory verses. I don't remember which one was in question. But the answer I got was that one verse is the absolute truth, and the other one is simply ignored.

 

That happened years and years ago. The lady I was talking to wasn't what I'd call a fundamentalist Christian.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Parrothead

[Jean in Newcastle]

I just don't get it - as I have said many times. It doesn't click in my head rationally. I don't think they are stupid. But, depending on the situation, they may just be believing what they want to believe, regardless...

 

 

 

I actually agree with you. I would not believe in God at all if I did not believe that the Bible were absolutely true. I would not put my trust in something that was just moral stories or good truths. And I do put my trust in the Bible as God's truth. And Bill, this speaks to some of your questions too.

[Parrothead]

The only beef I have with the fundamentalist type Christians is when they teach their kids to tell my kid she is going to hell because we have a Crucifix up in the house. That is terrifying to a 7-year old.

 

One can believe what one wants, but one should teach one's children some manners.

[Erica in PA]

The mods are likely to make this thread go "poof" if we all don't :chillpill: They've been pretty trigger-happy lately...

 

Frankly I have no problem with the thread being deleted. Since very few Christians do identify themselves as "fundies," I think this entire thread has become a way for people to express what they don't like about conservative Christians, and to pat themselves on the back for not being one themselves. As someone else pointed out, fundamentalist is basically being defined as someone more conservative/literal/rigid/etc. than I am. Not that useful a term then, in my opinion.

[justamouse]

Whatever the reason, I can't see in that thread what you are claiming is there: that somewhere in there is a perfect example of someone who believes the Bible in a literal way, defined as denying that there is any allegory in the Bible.

 

I am asking you to back up your claim and simply show me the post where this belief is obvious. I do not think it is there, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. All you have to do is show me, thereby putting substance under your claim. Otherwise, it is simply an arbitrary claim.

 

I'm not going to. I've told you why. You don't have to give me the benefit of the doubt, it's ok, you can believe that I can't substantiate my claim. I'm fine with that. There is no point in my trying to, at all.

[StephanieZ]

I don't get how a Christian can take some of the Bible and leave other parts.

 

I really, really, don't mean to be snarky. . .

 

But, I just have to ask. . . have you read the entire Bible? (No offense, PLEASE, as I myself have NOT read every bit and am totally OK with anyone reading as little or as much as they wish. . . I think many of us tend to skip around and focus on the parts that speak to us. . . and surely skip all those begats pages. . .)

 

I mean, gosh, there are quite a few parts that I'd like to forget. You know, my 10 yo son was having a lot of trouble with the whole parting of the Red Sea scene last week. . . he was just disturbed and disgusted that God could be so vengeful and destructive. . . you know. . . the part how God set out to lure the bad guys into the sea so he could drown them. . . I had to take that same son to meet with our (Episcopal) priest when he was about 5 because he was so darn upset with God for having allowed Jesus to be crucified. . . it was just too horrible for him to accept. . . Father Jim was so thoughtful and reassuring. . . and my ds was still not particularly impressed with God at that point. He just was convinced that God was a cruel God and so he "didn't like Him". How could I argue? I couldn't. . . So, I enlisted a pro. . .

 

Not only are there many horrible passages in the Bible. . . but there are many, many, outright contradictions of fact, let alone contradictions in principle. I think it wouldn't take any of you long to google up a dozen seeming contradictions in the Bible. If you are to try to follow the teaching of the Bible, you would have to, in the case of inconsistencies within the Bible, presumably, choose ONE of these teachings and disregard the other, using your judgment and conscience to determine which was more truthful. So, in each case, every Christian is "taking some parts of the Bible and leaving other parts. . ." Right?

 

Anyhow, scripture is a mystery to me. . . to my kids. . . to our priests. . . to many, many, thoughtful Christians. Mystery is not a bad thing, IMHO. Fact does not equal Truth. Fact can obscure Truth. Truth can obscure Fact. Fact is immutable but Truth is subject to interpretation. . . So, personally, I believe that the Bible is indeed a source of Truth, but much of it may not be Fact. That is perfectly fine by me. I like complexity just fine.

 

HTH you understand how someone can "claim to be" a Christian but not agree with many of the Fundamentalist, Conservative, or Evangelical principles that are proposed by many who wear those labels as the defining characteristics for a "true Christian."

[Jean in Newcastle]

I really, really, don't mean to be snarky. . .

 

But, I just have to ask. . . have you read the entire Bible? (No offense, PLEASE, as I myself have NOT read every bit and am totally OK with anyone reading as little or as much as they wish. . . I think many of us tend to skip around and focus on the parts that speak to us. . . and surely skip all those begats pages. . .)

 

I mean, gosh, there are quite a few parts that I'd like to forget. You know, my 10 yo son was having a lot of trouble with the whole parting of the Red Sea scene last week. . . he was just disturbed and disgusted that God could be so vengeful and destructive. . . you know. . . the part how God set out to lure the bad guys into the sea so he could drown them. . . I had to take that same son to meet with our (Episcopal) priest when he was about 5 because he was so darn upset with God for having allowed Jesus to be crucified. . . it was just too horrible for him to accept. . . Father Jim was so thoughtful and reassuring. . . and my ds was still not particularly impressed with God at that point. He just was convinced that God was a cruel God and so he "didn't like Him". How could I argue? I couldn't. . . So, I enlisted a pro. . .

 

Not only are there many horrible passages in the Bible. . . but there are many, many, outright contradictions of fact, let alone contradictions in principle. I think it wouldn't take any of you long to google up a dozen seeming contradictions in the Bible. If you are to try to follow the teaching of the Bible, you would have to, in the case of inconsistencies within the Bible, presumably, choose ONE of these teachings and disregard the other, using your judgment and conscience to determine which was more truthful. So, in each case, every Christian is "taking some parts of the Bible and leaving other parts. . ." Right?

 

Anyhow, scripture is a mystery to me. . . to my kids. . . to our priests. . . to many, many, thoughtful Christians. Mystery is not a bad thing, IMHO. Fact does not equal Truth. Fact can obscure Truth. Truth can obscure Fact. Fact is immutable but Truth is subject to interpretation. . . So, personally, I believe that the Bible is indeed a source of Truth, but much of it may not be Fact. That is perfectly fine by me. I like complexity just fine.

 

HTH you understand how someone can "claim to be" a Christian but not agree with many of the Fundamentalist, Conservative, or Evangelical principles that are proposed by many who wear those labels as the defining characteristics for a "true Christian."

 

I appreciate your candor and your clarity in expressing your position. I know that there are many people who do have trouble with these things.

 

But while it may shock you, I do believe that God was perfectly righteous in drowning the Egyptian army, in the things described in the book of Judges etc. I do see the historical books of the Bible as fact. I do see them as telling us things about God's character and attributes. So why do I accept them and why do I accept the God that it reveals?

 

I'll take just one example (the drowning of the Egyptians at the Red Sea). I believe that God is sovereign. He is the creator of the universe. He has the right to determine who lives and dies in a way that no man has the right to do. The Egyptians did have an opportunity to accept God as presented to them by Moses. Everyone in Egypt was told how to avoid the angel of death by painting blood on their doorways etc. I do not know if any Egyptians joined the Hebrews in the Exodus. But I know that God gave them the opportunity in grace. And then later, He did execute judgment against those who did not respond to Him. I'm only giving one example of a difficult historical fact.

 

I know that by explaining how I think about this, I probably won't sway you to my way of thinking. But just as you were candid in your objections to the Bible as factual truth, I wanted to be candid as to why a person who is not blood-thirsty, who is kind to small children and tolerant of people with other views, can actually accept these stories in the Bible. (And yes, I've read the Bible through many times, including the 'begats').

[StephanieZ]

I appreciate your candor and your clarity in expressing your position. I know that there are many people who do have trouble with these things.

 

But while it may shock you, I do believe that God was perfectly righteous in drowning the Egyptian army, in the things described in the book of Judges etc. I do see the historical books of the Bible as fact. I do see them as telling us things about God's character and attributes. So why do I accept them and why do I accept the God that it reveals?

 

I'll take just one example (the drowning of the Egyptians at the Red Sea). I believe that God is sovereign. He is the creator of the universe. He has the right to determine who lives and dies in a way that no man has the right to do. The Egyptians did have an opportunity to accept God as presented to them by Moses. Everyone in Egypt was told how to avoid the angel of death by painting blood on their doorways etc. I do not know if any Egyptians joined the Hebrews in the Exodus. But I know that God gave them the opportunity in grace. And then later, He did execute judgment against those who did not respond to Him. I'm only giving one example of a difficult historical fact.

 

I know that by explaining how I think about this, I probably won't sway you to my way of thinking. But just as you were candid in your objections to the Bible as factual truth, I wanted to be candid as to why a person who is not blood-thirsty, who is kind to small children and tolerant of people with other views, can actually accept these stories in the Bible. (And yes, I've read the Bible through many times, including the 'begats').

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Actually, that passage isn't one that I have a hard time believing is based in historical fact. . . it is just teasing out the Truth from that story, and from the Facts. . . that is more complex for me. . . Just as it is natural for me to accept the historical reality of Jesus's crucifiction but very hard for me to accept, in my heart, why it had to be that way. Why not a kinder, gentler way from the omnipotent God? Why?

 

It is mysterious to me. . . reconciling the angry god with the compassionate Jesus. . .deciphering the great Truths revealed in the Bible. . . There are many mysteries there to me. Infinite mysteries, actually.

 

I appreciate the simplicity of Faith that many have, and in many ways I have always envied the ease that many find in their pure faiths.

 

It would be untruthful of me to proclaim such a simple pure faith. It is not to be. I will forever be a seeker, and I am OK with that path. I am in good company. :)

 

For me, it is easy to appreciate and respect faiths that differ from mine. Religion is inherently interesting to me. Mine, as well as other folks'.

[Crimson Wife]

Just as it is natural for me to accept the historical reality of Jesus's crucifiction but very hard for me to accept, in my heart, why it had to be that way. Why not a kinder, gentler way from the omnipotent God? Why?

 

God intended his creation to be perfect, the way Heaven is. God did not want to have to sacrifice His only Son. But He gave Adam & Eve free will and they chose to disobey. All the horrible things that happened can be traced back to Original Sin. If Adam & Eve had rejected temptation, there would have been no need for Christ to die on the Cross to redeem all of us.

 

Choices have consequences. It is tragic that Jesus had to die such a horrible death but we humans are to blame.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

God intended his creation to be perfect, the way Heaven is. God did not want to have to sacrifice His only Son. But He gave Adam & Eve free will and they chose to disobey. All the horrible things that happened can be traced back to Original Sin. If Adam & Eve had rejected temptation, there would have been no need for Christ to die on the Cross to redeem all of us.

 

Choices have consequences. It is tragic that Jesus had to die such a horrible death but we humans are to blame.

 

Yes but, "doth not God know what he hath created?" If you believe that God is all-knowing then God IMHO must have known that man would sin. For God to know that man would sin and then punish man eternally for the same, makes God into a wrathful and not a loving God IMHO. I see the story of the fall as the explanation for sin in the context that this was written 3,000 or more years ago.I would like to believe that God is a loving God and I obviously do not believe that God inspired every last word in the Bible. Marcus Borg can say it much better than I can;) I also see Jesus as coming to show us wisdom and love and how to live:) I guess I am definitely a heretic;)

[Ibbygirl]

Just as it is natural for me to accept the historical reality of Jesus's crucifiction but very hard for me to accept, in my heart, why it had to be that way. Why not a kinder, gentler way from the omnipotent God? Why?

 

I think the reasons that Jesus' crucifixion was so brutal (and I'm sure there are many more than I am stating) are because 1) That is the real price of our sin. That is why God's grace is so amazing because He was willing to pay that price so that we could be reconciled to Him. 2) because nobody would be able to look on at that and say that God didn't really love them, didn't really care etc. He gave up EVERYTHING for us.

 

Sin is no joke. The Bible says in Isaiah that our righteousness is like filthy rags, "literally like dirty menstrual cloths" that is what our best attempt at being good is!! Imagine the dirt of our sin and the deepest darkest places in our minds and hearts. All of us are capable of all kinds of evil and that is why the price for our sin was so great IMO.

 

God is omnipotent but being all powerful is not the same as being able to do anything. There are certain things that God cannot do because of the holiness of His nature. For example the Bible says that God cannot lie. Even though He has all power, there are things that go against His very nature that He cannot do. He is just and He is holy and in order for sinful man to be able to stand before a holy God our sin has to be dealt with. God cannot change His nature in order to accommodate our sin. There is a good example of this in the OT recorded in 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel, where the ark of the covenant is riding in an oxen cart (big no no, it had to be carried on poles by the priest only) and the oxen stumbled and the ark looked like it would fall out of the back of the cart so this man Uzzah reaches out to keep the ark from falling and he is struck down dead as soon as he touches it. God is holy and even our best intentions won't change that. That is why we needed so great a sacrifice for our sins so that we could stand before Him and dwell with Him again the way He originally intended with Adam and Eve.

 

One of my favorite verses in the Bible is Matthew 27:51 that says when Jesus died the veil of the temple that separated the Holy of Holies (which housed the ark of the convenant) from the Holy Place was torn in two from top to bottom. God was declaring that there was now no longer any separation between God and man because the sacrifice of Jesus was enough to completely remove our sins and restore us to righteousness. That is why Jesus can claim that He is the way the truth and the life and no man can get to the Father except through Him.

 

God indeed has a great love for us. :)