What do you consider is "Fundamentalism"

[Madad21]

[sharedmedia=gallery:images:468]​

Revelation 3:15-16​

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."​

​

What is lukewarm Christianity? How hot is hot and how cold is cold? Has time changed the criteria?​

Where would you fit in and why?​

 

[RANDOR]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....if ya were cured of leprosy.....how would you act?............
If you were forgiven of all your sins...past, present and future....how would you act?
If you had a new eye ball grow in.......how would you act?
If you had and angel, Jesus or God speak audibly to you.....how would you act?


HOT ON FIRE HERE!!!!!!...stayin in the mouth...no spitttin goin on here.

Jesus is Lord.........................Jesus is alive..................and He wants to be treated that way.....

PASSION.....................JAMES 4:8

God said it and I believe it...God said it....wether I believe it or not

 

[Madad21]

You know it seems to me that it is better for a person to be cold than lukewarm.

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

This to me describes a "lukewarm" Christian, and I think many of us can get on board with that.

But at the same time when does "hot" turn in to "extreme fundamentalist" as I see some Christians accusing others of being.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Jesus is Lord.........................Jesus is alive..................and He wants to be treated that way.....

Amen. Boy could we use to learn this brother. Spot on!

 

[Dan57]

Fundamentalism is the literal interpretation of the bible.

 

[Madad21]

Fundamentalism is the literal interpretation of the bible.

What makes you say that?

 

[laid renard]

That's right. Never take the Goldilocks approach.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

To me a fundamental christian is not a measure of whether they are luke warm or hot

It is more about having solid beliefs , taking the bible literally , not bending to fads and trends

An example would be the gay agenda .... the fundies say no .... abortion , the fundies say no ... evolution , the fundies say no

I would probably label myself as a fundamentalist , even thought it has become a derogatory word in the modern press.

I am sometimes a fat and lazy and lukewarm christian too , it saves a lot of wasted energy

 

[Madad21]

I think that scripture is pretty bang on with the identity of a fundamentalist.

I mean if "Hot" doesnt mean all out for Christ, then what does "Hot" mean, because anything less then that would be lukewarm.

Would we consider Paul or the disciples to be fundamentalists, because Im pretty sure they certainly were.

Lukewarm denotes a spiritual blindness and self sufficiency as mentioned in scripture, and there would be plenty of so called Christians in the churches today who would give patronage to this description easily.

Now there is the sin of religion, where it can take the place of Christ, but I can see this only being true by those who enforce legalisms.

A fundamentalist is described as a "Religious Fanatic" and likely by the secular world.

But if a literal interpretation of the bible is a mark of a fundamentalist then doesn't that make most of us including myself a fundamentalist?

fun·da·men·tal·ism [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uh

m] Show IPA

noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century
in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals
but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world,
the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.

3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.




This is us isn't it?
This is "Hot"

 

[rockytopva]

Fun-damentalism... Someone who is fun???

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

To me being lukewarm is having a bit of understanding (christian wise) and thinking .... yeah well , so what , who cares

A HOT christian has salvation and his future (heaven) as the most important thing in this life ... it is in the back of his mind always

And just because someone makes a lot of christian noise does not make them a "HOT" christian ... it is religious showmanship , that's all

 

[shturt678]

I think that scripture is pretty bang on with the identity of a fundamentalist.

I mean if "Hot" doesnt mean all out for Christ, then what does "Hot" mean, because anything less then that would be lukewarm.

Would we consider Paul or the disciples to be fundamentalists, because Im pretty sure they certainly were.

Lukewarm denotes a spiritual blindness and self sufficiency as mentioned in scripture, and there would be plenty of so called Christians in the churches today who would give patronage to this description easily.

Now there is the sin of religion, where it can take the place of Christ, but I can see this only being true by those who enforce legalisms.

A fundamentalist is described as a "Religious Fanatic" and likely by the secular world.

But if a literal interpretation of the bible is a mark of a fundamentalist then doesn't that make most of us including myself a fundamentalist?

fun·da·men·tal·ism [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uh

m] Show IPA

noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century
in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals
but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world,
the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.

3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.




This is us isn't it?
This is "Hot"

Thank you for caring again!

Old disagreeable Jack pretty much interprets Scripture literally/figuratively as the context and aspect governs. Now have to understand what I just said - while I'm doing this, agape Rev.3:15, etc. - great! My personal opinion is we as a Church are more in line with Sardis, along with Laodicea.

Temperture wise, agreeing to agree with you - good job!

Old Jack

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I don't know why so many posts have centered on fundamentalism as being a barometer of one's passion for Christ. One can be on fire for the Lord and not be a fundamentalist. One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

One post here got it right. Fundamentalism in every religion is a strict application of the holy writings and religious law, and applied more specifically to Christianity, it's a literalist interpretation of the Bible and seeing all of the Bible as authoritative upon Christians living today. The most zealous forms of fundamentalism broach on what we call legalism, the belief that all Old Testaments laws are as binding upon us today as they were back then. But it's more than just the belief of how instructive the Bible is in our conduct. It's also a literalist understanding of the Bible that doesn't take into account linguistic style or parabolic impartation. Fundamentalists are often young earth creationists, believing in contravention of scientific discovery, that the earth is only about 10,000 years old or less, that it was created in a literal 7 day period, and that it happened according to a strict prescription, holding rigidly to the wording of Genesis.

I like Hank Hanegraaff's viewpoint on this, that the book of science is just as much a form of divine revelation as the Bible and that one must not exclude the other. To ignore ice core samples that indicate strongly we live on an ancient planet because "well that's not what the Bible says" is more than just foolish, it's arrogant. Fundamentalists have made an enemy out of science because the findings of science contradicts what they THINK the Bible says and they're in this regard not dissimilar to those who dogmatically asserted the earth was flat and savaged all inquiry that contradicts.

So is this thread going to discuss the actual topic of fundamentalism, or are we going to continue to discuss Christian verve? Because that's a worthy topic that deserves it's own thread.

 

[shturt678]

I don't know why so many posts have centered on fundamentalism as being a barometer of one's passion for Christ. One can be on fire for the Lord and not be a fundamentalist. One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

One post here got it right. Fundamentalism in every religion is a strict application of the holy writings and religious law, and applied more specifically to Christianity, it's a literalist interpretation of the Bible and seeing all of the Bible as authoritative upon Christians living today. The most zealous forms of fundamentalism broach on what we call legalism, the belief that all Old Testaments laws are as binding upon us today as they were back then. But it's more than just the belief of how instructive the Bible is in our conduct. It's also a literalist understanding of the Bible that doesn't take into account linguistic style or parabolic impartation. Fundamentalists are often young earth creationists, believing in contravention of scientific discovery, that the earth is only about 10,000 years old or less, that it was created in a literal 7 day period, and that it happened according to a strict prescription, holding rigidly to the wording of Genesis.

I like Hank Hanegraaff's viewpoint on this, that the book of science is just as much a form of divine revelation as the Bible and that one must not exclude the other. To ignore ice core samples that indicate strongly we live on an ancient planet because "well that's not what the Bible says" is more than just foolish, it's arrogant. Fundamentalists have made an enemy out of science because the findings of science contradicts what they THINK the Bible says and they're in this regard not dissimilar to those who dogmatically asserted the earth was flat and savaged all inquiry that contradicts.

So is this thread going to discuss the actual topic of fundamentalism, or are we going to continue to discuss Christian verve? Because that's a worthy topic that deserves it's own thread.

Thank you for caring!

So are you interpreting Rev.3:15-16 literally, symbolically, or bothly?

Old curious Jack

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Thank you for caring!

So are you interpreting Rev.3:15-16 literally, symbolically, or bothly?

Old curious Jack

Did you not understand that fundamentalism has nothing to do with the cold/hot/lukewarm thing? Two completely different subjects. Start a thread on it if it interests you.

 

[shturt678]

Did you not understand that fundamentalism has nothing to do with the cold/hot/lukewarm thing? Two completely different subjects. Start a thread on it if it interests you.

Thank you for the head's up!

Old Jack

 

[River Jordan]

I always liked the definition given by H.L. Mencken. "Fundamentalism is the pervasive fear that someone, somewhere is having fun". :lol:

 

[aspen]

I think of fundamentalism is the sacrifice of complexity for the illusion of safety. it has little to do with conservativism or liberalism. some of the worst fundamentalist are colloge professors - and i agree with Chesterton that crazy people and academics do have one thing in common: an extremely narrow view of the world, which they will defend to the death. unfortunately, fundamentalism is so reductionistic it trades love for love of doctrine and often the entire essence of the belief system.
i am not a fundamentalist because i am not afraid to be wrong and i trust that God Is the guardian of truth. i am simply called to love others

 

[Madad21]

Did you not understand that fundamentalism has nothing to do with the cold/hot/lukewarm thing? Two completely different subjects. Start a thread on it if it interests you.

Does being a bully usually work for you?

I apologize that my choice of scripture does not impress you.

However my friend and Christian Brother Jack understands a lot more then you realise .

I started this thread merely asking a question and the scripture I chose relates to fundamentalism in the way I wanted to approach it, which is by no means a stretch.
I supplied in one of my posts the direct dictionary (Clinical) understanding of the word here it is again

fun·da·men·tal·ism [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uh

m] Show IPA

noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century
in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals
but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world,
the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.

3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

My use of the scripture was not hap hazard, those who would argue that fundamentalism is "Hot" are the same who would argue the infallibility of scripture, faith and morals and are unmoved on all fronts.

Where as those with a more modernistic style of theology tend to make the literal interpretation and the morals encased with in it, subjective to modern trends in science and culture.Which also includes ease of living and popular secular trends.

Now there is nothing wrong with a modernist theology (in fact its necessary) as long as it takes a back seat to infallibility every-time, those who would sit on the fence and say I have no stand because I have no proof either way, show lack of conviction and a (2 Tim 4:3) nature, these people are obviously lukewarm.

The scripture itself is not exclusive to this interpretation but in all things Spiritual in supplication to the Lord, the desirable state would be warm rather then cold as long as you are on your way to Hot which will be your calling.

Maybe if you have better scriptures to illustrate the point then by all means be my guest I have no problem with that.

Peace .









.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Does being a bully usually work for you?

I have my moments.

I apologize that my choice of scripture does not impress you.

I'm sorry you see Revelation 3:15,16 as referring to fundamentalism

However my friend and Christian Brother Jack understands a lot more then you realise .

I started this thread merely asking a question and the scripture I chose relates to fundamentalism in the way I wanted to approach it, which is by no means a stretch.
I supplied in one of my posts the direct dictionary (Clinical) understanding of the word here it is again

fun·da·men·tal·ism [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uh

m] Show IPA

noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century
in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals
but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world,
the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.

3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

My use of the scripture was not hap hazard, those who would argue that fundamentalism is "Hot" are the same who would argue the infallibility of scripture, faith and morals and are unmoved on all fronts.

Apparently you're not reading your own definition because it affirmed what I said about fundamentalism being a view of the Bible as a strict, literal record of events that omits no details and must be interpreted precisely as written. At no point did your pasted definition refer to the measure of zeal one has for Christianity and following Jesus. So thank you for setting the record straight that I was right all along.

Where as those with a more modernistic style of theology tend to make the literal interpretation and the morals there in subjective to modern trends in science and culture.Which also includes ease of living and popular secular trends.

Now there is nothing wrong with a modernist theology (in fact its necessary) as long as it takes a back seat to infallibility every-time, those who would sit on the fence and say I have no stand because I have no proof either way, show lack of conviction and a (2 Tim 4:3) nature, these people are obviously lukewarm.

The scripture itself is not exclusive to this interpretation but in all things Spiritual in supplication to the Lord, the desirable state would be warm rather then cold as long as you are on your way to Hot which will be your calling.

The cold/hot/lukewarm/spew-out-of-mouth discussion is entirely separate. I said before and it can't be refuted that one does not need to be a fundamentalist to be filled with the Holy Spirit and enthusiastic in following Jesus. Regarding popular trends in science, I believe science is abused when a predetermined assumption that God doesn't exist or that man descended from crap flinging apes directs one's vector of scientific inquiry. Science is a tool by which we come to know our Creator better by understanding how he made all of this. To make science an enemy of faith is to pervert its true intention.

Then in regard to infallibility, it means different things to different people. Catholics and many other Christians believe that it's the inspiration of God upon the authors of the various books that's infallible, not the details which were written in the context of the author's time, culture, and the limits of his understanding. In fact, I view it as a weak faith that demands that everything in the Bible be a literal, historical fact. What if it isn't? What shifting sands we build our faith upon when we put our faith in the details rather than the divine inspiration that gave us such a great book.