Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Fundamentalism

In response to Fundamentalism posted by pink101:

Pink, once again, I have a BIG problem w/ the way you frame things - and I'm not going to let your anti-evangelical propaganda go uncontested.

Fundamentalism is an easy boogeyman to attack now, because of all the baggage associated with the term. When people hear "fundamentalist" (in the Christian realm), they think Fred Phelps, abortion clinic bombers, gay-haters, etc, etc., etc. So, it's easy for you and others to criticize fundamentalism, because no one wants to defend fundamentalism and get lumped in with the easy targets.

I'm not going to cower on this one, though. I am passionately opposed to the ultra-legalistic literalists who are filled with self-righteous judgmentalism and narrow-minded thinking. But that does NOT describe Christian fundamentalists in the CLASSIC, TRADITIONAL sense. Maybe it describes some, but far from all. Not even most.

Classic Christian fundamentalists stood up for the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. I am in agreement with all those points. And I resent you and anyone else getting on some self-righteous, libelous high horse slandering me and other evangelicals (or classic fundamentalists) who agree with those issues.

As to the "Social Gospel," I believe that we are called to love and to serve our fellow men and women. That means churches should be involved in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, and helping people out of poverty. Sligo Baptist Church has helped in these areas - to the extent a church of our small size can.

My problem with most the "Social Gospel" folks is that they often neglect the Gospel message - the real Gospel message. You see, the "Gospel" is "Good News" - and the "Good News" is that Jesus is risen! And because Jesus atoned for your sins and for mine, we now have an opportunity for eternity with God in heaven. And no church should cease from spreading that message!

» redback - Fundamentalism

I don't want to flog a point here but isn't Matthew 5 an overall exhortation to be impossibly perfect (verse 28) to gain reward for good deeds BUT only so long as you don't beat your own drum. I note again that Brian states rewards* on Earth are not promised...despite many claims of rewards actually being received. (Lotteries don't promise rewards similarly?? ) *I'm using 'reward' and 'promise' generically.

But Chapters 5/6 seems to support Brian far more than not...as I try to understand Brian. How effective is prayer in a social or church setting going to be anyway when 6:7 warns about the risks of group repetition?
--------
Reading a tad further on it seems to be clear that we keep our own suffering silent otherwise our whinge is our reward. So, loud vocal group prayer for the ill is doomed to fail? we suffer if another suffers so the non-ill gains greater understanding?

God knows we "have need of all these things on Earth but we first need to seek the Kingdom of Heaven before (possibly) getting what we need on Earth.

So, Pink...do we all get different things from this Book, too?
-----------
There is a social gospel movement within politics which may interpret Chapter 5 differently? Our wannabe Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, claims such membership so perhaps tis a wait & see?

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - How Do We

In response to Fundamentalism posted by redback:
.
There is a danger that Brian's approach here might take us off track as a defense against persons that are attacking Evangelicals. It's the other way around.
.
Red asks, So, Pink...do we all get different things from this Book, too?
.
In the nineteenth century there was a great deal of controversy over the ideas promoted by many high powered religionists regarding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. These prophets of the end of time were gathering their flocks on the sides of mountains to meet Jesus at sun rise from time to time. Of course, their predictions always failed. One group--The Jehovah's Witnesses--or was it--The Seventh Day Adventists--believed Jesus was on his way to Earth; but, was up there above the clouds circling and waiting for the best time as something must have been interfering with his timing. They--naturally--got to be the brunt of humor by news journalists and other persons of renown; Mark Twain, etc.
.
It was AT THAT TIME that the idea of the veracity of the Bible was brought into question as many of the prophets claimed they got their details out of the Book of Daniel and other such sources from biblical text. An idea surfaced that it wasn't the fault of the Bible; but, it was the fault of poor understandings of the Bible. And, out of that came the idea that the Bible could NOT be wrong as it was the Word of God equal to any scientific book ever written or to an idea of science itself.
.
And, here we are watching the Evangelicals want to make the argument one of their defending God Himself. Gimmee--A--Break!!
.
The idea that Jesus brought God to the people without the mediation of a priesthood sets the foundation of his Social Gospel. Here is a link of interest: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Off track?

In response to How Do We posted by pink101:

Pink, if you want to talk about the "Social Gospel" today, then talk about that. But YOU are the one that took shots at fundamentalism and at evangelicals. YOU did that - and you've done that all along. So, don't accuse me of taking these off track when I stand up and defend fundamentalists and evangelicals. If you want to address the "Social Gospel" and ONLY the "Social Gospel," then you need to set those paramaters AND stick to them yourself.

» pink101 - Off track?

In response to Off track? posted by BrianTubbs:

.
My point to you in response to your defensive statement was that it was the other way around.
.
The Social Gospel has been under constant attack from Fundamentalism. The attack is preached from the pulpits. Social Gospel teachings are what are known as liberal thinking.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - How Do We

In response to How Do We posted by pink101:
.
Fascinating link, Pink. A flashback to the past which is very applicable to today. I especially appreciate Fosdick's "If they [Fundamentalists] had their way, within the church, they would set up in Protestantism a doctrinal tribunal more rigid than the pope's." I got a kick out of that.
.
But this quote REALLY strikes home: "Can you imagine any man who is worthwhile turning from that call [science] to the church if the church seems to him to say, "Come, and we will feed you opinions from a spoon. No thinking is allowed here except such as brings you to certain specified, predetermined conclusions. These prescribed opinions we will give you in advance of your thinking; now think, but only so as to reach these results."" Amen Brother Fosdick!

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Off track?

In response to Off track? posted by pink101:

Not always, Pink. YOU are drawing a distinctive line, saying that evangelicals or fundamentalists are on one side and those committed to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, helping the poor, etc. are on the other side. I'm telling you that is NOT the case. Our church is very conservative and yet we do many of these things. We are, for example, a regular and LONG-time supporter of our local homeless shelter. So, I reject your dividing line and the whole way you are framing this discussion.

» Brian Tubbs - Once again...

In response to How Do We posted by Migisi:

An underlying assumption is made here that truly intelligent thinking will lead people AWAY from the evangelical fundamentals of Christianity. That only closed-minded, results-oriented "thinking" can support the claims of the Bible.

That is the assumption underlying your arguments here, Migisi and Pink. And it's extremely flawed, to say the least.

» Brian Tubbs - Oh....

There are no tribunals in our church. This is a red-herring from Fosdick. A red meat accusation that plays well with critics and skeptics of Christianity.

» Migisi - Once again...

In response to Once again... posted by BrianTubbs:

.
That is the assumption underlying your arguments here, Migisi...
.
I presented no 'arguments', Bri. I was commenting on Rev. Fosdick's sermon.

-- posted by Migisi