What does Christian Fundamentalism do best/worst?

[rsc2a]

It's been a bit slow so I figured I would try to come up with some topics to spur conversation. Topic 2:

What is most broken in Christian Fundamentalism?

What area does Christian Fundamentalism excel in?

 

[Recovering IFB]

Hands down what they do best.... Potluck dinners!

 

[Castor Muscular]

I like the fundamentalist principle that everything in scripture is to be taken literally unless the context or style indicates it is deliberately symbolic.  I would need to add that some scripture is both literal and symbolic.  For example, I believe Moses literally struck a rock.  I also believe that the act was symbolic of striking/crucifying Christ, even if Moses wasn't aware of it. 

I think that's all basic fundamentalism, anyway, and it's good.

Legalism and lack of mercy/empathy is the biggest flaw in fundamentalism, although that probably has more to do with people rather than fundamentalism itself. 

 

[Fresh Air]

What is most broken in Christian Fundamentalism?

Pride, pragmatism, and prayerlessness.


What area does Christian Fundamentalism excel in?

Doctrinal purity and evangelistic emphasis.

 

[kaba]

What is broken?  Realizing God is also a loving God!


Excel in? Legalistic works

 

[Izdaari]

What they excel in:

They got the Five Fundamentals right... but that's just orthodox Christianity, so they're hardly alone in that.

What's broken:

Just about everything else.

 

[prophet]

What is most broken in Christian Fundamentalism?

Pride, pragmatism, and prayerlessness.


What area does Christian Fundamentalism excel in?

Doctrinal purity and evangelistic emphasis.

Evangelistic Emphasis...A,  Doctrinal Purity...C-

Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[prophet]

What is most broken in Christian Fundamentalism?
Final Authority, Holy Spirit fullness,
Faith.


What area does Christian Fundamentalism excel in?

Amen to Pastor Brennan's point...Evangelical Outreach is its strong suit.

Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rsc2a]

What area does Christian Fundamentalism excel in?

They hold the Scriptures in high esteem.

What is most broken in Christian Fundamentalism?

They tend to think that their personal interpretation of Scripture = Scripture.

Because of this, they generally think anyone who doesn't come to exactly the same (often questionable) conclusions (on anything, particularly Scripture) do not also hold said Scripture (or virtue or God or...) in high esteem, and they measure one's godliness by how closely one aligns with their own conclusions / expectations.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]What area does Christian Fundamentalism excel in?

Doctrinal purity[/quote]

Which IFB doctrine would you call pure? I've heard IFB guys say mutually contradictory things and call it doctrine?

 

[Fresh Air]

Which IFB doctrine would you call pure? I've heard IFB guys say mutually contradictory things and call it doctrine?

The question didn't say IFB. It said fundamentalist. I answered it from that perspective. The classic historical reasons for the emergence of fundamentalism were an embrace of sound doctrine and a rejection of, separation from, and fighting with those who espoused liberal theology. That heritage they handed us still shows up in fundamentalism. There is a point of emphasis on adhering to correct doctrine, and I think that is a wonderful thing. I think it shows up not only when set in contradistinction to the emerging movement, but also to the contemporary and charismatic movements.

 

[prophet]

I wish I could concur, Tom.  The Fundamentalist Movement watered down the Separatist Baptists' doctrine, while allowing mainstream Protestantism to appear not so far away from them.
Of course, they went out from among us, because they were not of us, but we were left with a mixed multitude of mess.

Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rsc2a]

Which IFB doctrine would you call pure? I've heard IFB guys say mutually contradictory things and call it doctrine?

The question didn't say IFB. It said fundamentalist. I answered it from that perspective. The classic historical reasons for the emergence of fundamentalism were an embrace of sound doctrine and a rejection of, separation from, and fighting with those who espoused liberal theology. That heritage they handed us still shows up in fundamentalism. There is a point of emphasis on adhering to correct doctrine, and I think that is a wonderful thing. I think it shows up not only when set in contradistinction to the emerging movement, but also to the contemporary and charismatic movements.

Fair enough. So you would limit this to the five fundamentals?

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

 

[Fresh Air]

Fair enough. So you would limit this to the five fundamentals?

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Basically, although I would add salvation by grace through faith, the reality of the Second Coming. I also believe that fundamentalism includes the implicit in it a fighting against doctrinal error and an ecclesiastical separation from such error. Fundamentalism was born out of a struggle for doctrinal purity and against doctrinal error so these are part and parcel of it. Otherwise you are just a conservative evangelical. 

 

[rsc2a]

Fair enough. So you would limit this to the five fundamentals?

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Basically, although I would add salvation by grace through faith, the reality of the Second Coming. I also believe that fundamentalism includes the implicit in it a fighting against doctrinal error and an ecclesiastical separation from such error. Fundamentalism was born out of a struggle for doctrinal purity and against doctrinal error so these are part and parcel of it. Otherwise you are just a conservative evangelical. 

I can accept most of this.

One question - At what point regarding doctrinal error does one practice ecclesiastical separation? You generally come across as reasonable so I don't think you are one of those who says one must separate for every little theological difference, so how do you judge when a difference becomes great enough to be a cause for separation? For example, you specifically cited emerging, contemporary, and charismatic movements as something to be separated from. At least two of those movements would readily accept the five fundamentals (plus the additions you just included), so it appears that you would set your "purity test" to a higher level than what you have spelled out.

As one author put it so well, "Atheists do a better job than we do at seeing all Christians equally."

 

[Fresh Air]

I can accept most of this.

One question - At what point regarding doctrinal error does one practice ecclesiastical separation? You generally come across as reasonable so I don't think you are one of those who says one must separate for every little theological difference, so how do you judge when a difference becomes great enough to be a cause for separation? For example, you specifically cited emerging, contemporary, and charismatic movements as something to be separated from. At least two of those movements would readily accept the five fundamentals (plus the additions you just included), so it appears that you would set your "purity test" to a higher level than what you have spelled out.

As one author put it so well, "Atheists do a better job than we do at seeing all Christians equally."

It isn't a question of separation. It is a question of levels of separation and levels of relationship. I will have a more distant, yet respectful, relationship with brethren in Christ who agree with me on the fundamentals but differ with me on things I believe are important but not vital to salvation. To the extent that we share the same doctrine we will share fellowship. To the extent we differ our fellowship will be limited. But the only ones I will out and out attack by name are those who reject something fundamental about orthodox doctrine i.e. Catholics, JW's, liberal Methodists/Presbys, etc.

 

[ALAYMAN]

What is most broken in Christian Fundamentalism?

A little too much isolationism (which is an offshoot of some of the thoughts that go into the answer below), followed closely by an anti-intellectualism.

What area does Christian Fundamentalism excel in?

Not allowing the current atmosphere of political correctness to conform our beliefs and practices to the worlds expectations.

 

[rsc2a]

I can accept most of this.

One question - At what point regarding doctrinal error does one practice ecclesiastical separation? You generally come across as reasonable so I don't think you are one of those who says one must separate for every little theological difference, so how do you judge when a difference becomes great enough to be a cause for separation? For example, you specifically cited emerging, contemporary, and charismatic movements as something to be separated from. At least two of those movements would readily accept the five fundamentals (plus the additions you just included), so it appears that you would set your "purity test" to a higher level than what you have spelled out.

As one author put it so well, "Atheists do a better job than we do at seeing all Christians equally."

It isn't a question of separation. It is a question of levels of separation and levels of relationship. I will have a more distant, yet respectful, relationship with brethren in Christ who agree with me on the fundamentals but differ with me on things I believe are important but not vital to salvation. To the extent that we share the same doctrine we will share fellowship. To the extent we differ our fellowship will be limited.

I wasn't aware that God made this distinction. Actually, scratch that...I'm acutely aware of the fact that Jesus intentionally and consistently actively refused to make this distinction.

[quote author=Tom Brennan]Just the only ones I will out and out attack by name are those who reject something fundamental about orthodox doctrine i.e. Catholics, JW's, liberal Methodists/Presbys, etc.[/quote]

One of those is not like the others...

More specifically, can you tell me what orthodox doctrine the aforementioned groups reject?

 

[Recovering IFB]

What is most broken in Christian Fundamentalism?

A little too much isolationism (which is an offshoot of some of the thoughts that go into the answer below), followed closely by an anti-intellectualism.

A little? I would say alot. It's practically an "us against the world" mentality.

 

[ALAYMAN]

A little? I would say alot. It's practically an "us against the world" mentality.

There's a ditch on both sides of the road, and neither is one I want to veer into.