Protestantism

» pink101 - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by pink101:

.
He overplayed the hand of Fundamentalism.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by pink101:

We're in agreement that "Fundamentalism" as a labeled movement began with the publication of "The Fundamentals" which were between 1910 and 1915, I believe. We are NOT in agreement, however, if you're contending that people PRIOR to the 1910s weren't committed to the fundamental tenets of Christianity.

» pink101 - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Oh, I think the ideas existed before the rise of Fundamentalism.
.
That they existed doesn't seem to be the point.
.
It's generally conceded by those who study the era that the Millenarian movements of the nineteenth century laid the ground work for Fundamentalism's birth into popular Protestantism. Now, Fundamentalism has come to be a part of other monotheism's as well.
.
In fact, this seems to be a good area to make the point that change comes about through systemic causation rather than from some single cause. Several running events converged in the early twentieth century that enabled the entrance of Fundamentalism into our vocabulary.
.
Many of the wild and failed predictions and prophecies about the return of Jesus throughout the nineteenth century led to questions about the validity of the Bible. There were heavy debates regarding it as a valid source of information. By the turn of the century, it was well established in most Protestant circles that the problem was not the Bible; but, it was those people who were interpreting it--their methods were scrutinized to bring new prophecy after repeated failures. The desire to predict lingers on in some circles. It lasts as an impending event in most Protestant circles. The Iron Horsemen of God were dying off and, to some degree, the unity of Protestant Christianity was in some disarray.
.
I think Fundamentalism came to the rescue. When it finally emerged from the theoretical to the practical in the 1930s, there was a great hue and cry that it was a new denomination that was actually threatening traditional churches in North America. I'm sure you are aware of the story.
.
By the time Carl McIntyre showed up on the scene, Fundamentalism had come to be the single strongest element in Protestant circles as a test to discover authenticity. The lessons learned regarding McIntyre's methods seem to be in need of learning again for the movement that has changed its name to Evangelicalism.
.
That's my short synopsis.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by pink101:

From Wikipedia.com

"The Fundamentalist Movement was a conservative Protestant response in the USA to liberal trends in their churches. It was a counter movement to preserve what they saw as being a minimum orthodoxy, a fundamental Christianity, over against the liberals' abandonment of basic features of traditional understanding of faith. These inclued inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the authenticity of His miracles, and the belief that His death on the cross takes away sins. This response, called Fundamentalism, was intended to identifying a minimum orthodoxy as found in the official statements of faith of the various Protestant denominations in which this movement arose."

"Fundamentalism originally referred to a movement in North American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism, stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record.

The term "fundamentalism" has since been expanded by analogy to refer to a variety of religious, political, and ideological positions. In its broadest usage in general terms, it denotes strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

---------------------------------------------------------------

The Apostle Paul states: Galatians 1:6-9

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

------------------------------------------------------------
Evangelical

"The term 'evangelical', in a lexical but less commonly used sense, refers to anything implied in the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. The word comes from the Greek word for 'Gospel' or 'good news': e?a??e???? evangelion, from eu- "good" and angelion "message". In that strictest sense, to be evangelical would mean to be merely Christian, that is, founded upon, motivated by, acting in agreement with, spreading the "good news" message of the New Testament.
----------------------------------------------------------

Acts 21:8
And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.

2Timothy
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

------------------------------------------------------------

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by _Boanerges_:

.
Like you have often told me, Wikipedia can not be trusted--completely.
.
But, it is a good source for information.
.
It makes one error that I noticed in the quote you gave according to my sources which are much better than Wikipedia.
.
Here is the erroneous statement, "It was a counter movement to preserve what they saw as being a minimum orthodoxy, a fundamental Christianity, over against the liberals' abandonment of basic features of traditional understanding of faith." (My emphasis)
.
At least you seem to accept the idea that Fundamentalism is a movement if you are posting that quotation as having some value. Up and until this post, you have adamantly demanded that there never was such a movement. You are getting better and you thought that every one over thirty was going down hill.
.
Modernism--not liberalism--was the problem for the people behind the Fundamentalist Movement. Harry Emerson Fosdick is a good name for you to Google or Yahoo on the 'Net and some good data will pop up with either search.
.
In its earlier stages, the movement was seen as a proselytizing effort by various Bible colleges and seminaries.
.
It's an entire episode of present day Christianity. Anyone who is interested in the present state of affairs would do well to spend some time in its study.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by pink101:

Here is the erroneous statement, "It was a counter movement to preserve what they saw as being a minimum orthodoxy, a fundamental Christianity, over against the liberals' abandonment of basic features of traditional understanding of faith." (My emphasis)

At least you seem to accept the idea that Fundamentalism is a movement if you are posting that quotation as having some value.

I've never disputed that fact. What I dispute is your instance that this movement was responsible for the doctrine of end times, etc, etc.. As I have told you before, and have quoted directly from the only source we have available, the Bible, that the End Times, Return of Christ, etc, etc, have ALWAYS been preached and taught, starting with the Apostles to today. You emphasis is that this is not the case - to which - I disagree.

Up and until this post, you have adamantly demanded that there never was such a movement.

No.. What I object to is explained above!

Modernism--not liberalism--was the problem for the people behind the Fundamentalist Movement. Harry Emerson Fosdick is a good name for you to Google or Yahoo on the 'Net and some good data will pop up with either search.

But.. as mentioned over and again, we are not concerned with what people claim. All this is important is - what does the Bible claim! As I have pointed out with Jesus' words, and Paul's, that the basic fundamentals have not changed in 2000 yrs, nor that which is revealed in the OT - totaling some 4000 yrs....

In its earlier stages, the movement was seen as a proselytizing effort by various Bible colleges and seminaries.

Again.. who cares what people claim. The Apostle Paul stated clearly to the Galatians that they had veered from the Gospel message, that was preached to them and already given to them (as quote in previous message). So, the point here is that when the Gospel was given, it was immediately becoming 'liberalized' by the Judaizers in that day, right off at the very beginning.

Anyone who is interested in the present state of affairs would do well to spend some time in its study.

No.. In fact, that is nothing more than a waste of time and a futile effort. Why? Because, it makes no difference what people claim, or not what they claim. What is important is - WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURE CLAIM for itself..... That is whats all important.

Otherwise, you (meaning anyone) will spend all your time arguing over pointless material which has no benefit to anyone, other than those who try to make some point about this or that.

So, bottom line - It can only be the 'liberalization' of the Gospel that can change the Gospel. And in that aspect, I would support the Fundamentalists Movement. Just as Paul dictated to the Galatians, and just as Jesus warned to all who listened, that this was inevitable to come.

Many will come in my name, Jesus said. .He added: believe them not.. Paul said it harsher.. If anyone preaches another Gospel to you, that has been given to you already, let them be accursed. Or, in todays language, that simple means, let them go to hell - based on [their own] efforts at corrupting the Gospel that was delivered to the saints, once and for all times!

James 1:3
....it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Go find yourself a rolling donut.
.
After about 1/2 of your responses where you denied what you have stated so clearly at other times the rest all turned to static. I'm not the least bit interested in your games.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by pink101:

After about 1/2 of your responses where you denied what you have stated so clearly at other times the rest all turned to static. I'm not the least bit interested in your games.

but.. who cares? no me certainly.. It is quite an easy task to show to you and all modernist liberals that what you preach and teach has nothing to do with the Bible, as hard as you try by claim this person did this, or that person said that, and a never ending mantra of rhetoric and propaganda...

Of course liberal Christianity is rejected outright and out of hand as being nothing more than what it is.. Someone else' Gospel..

We Fundamental Christians (in or out of a 'movement') simply call this a social gospel, meant for the consumption of intellectualism, philosophy and existentialism.... Which , really amounts to nothing.....

One of your favorite lines is that "dispensational (ism) was CREATED by Darby in the 1800's.. Only an uneducated fool would believe such nonsense. Especially given the fact that the very word DISPENSATION is given in the scriptures....

Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation (oijkonomiva) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Fundamentals

In response to Fundamentals posted by _Boanerges_:
.
One of your favorite lines is that "dispensational (ism) was CREATED by Darby in the 1800's..
.
Where did you get that bull roar?
.
You only prove with your distortions and misrepresentations that you are not a worthy person with whom to discuss any thing of substance.
.
I'm not trying to take pot shots at you. What the heck is your problem?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - The Grteat Leahy

In response to Fundamentals posted by pink101:
.
I might have referenced E.R.Sandeen's comments about Darby.
.
Sandeen has written a great book on the subject of Dispensationalism. I recommend it to you. It's title is, The Roots of Dispensationalism.
.
You might also check out this link for what some scholars have to say on the subject:
.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...
.
Of course, they are only scholars and none of them can hold a candle to the great Leahy.
.
Go for it, Big Guy.
.

-- posted by pink101