Years ago I described myself as a fundamentalist Christian.
But I don't believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or that there was a global flood between 2500 and 2000 BC.
I do however believe in historical Christian ethics (traditional marriage and love for all people) and core theological tenets (Christ as the manifest ideal, His death as the essential atonement, His resurrection in body from death and His ascention to the highest place of authority as "King of Kings." )
My question to you is:
Would you regard me as a fundamentalist?
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
11 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I mean, this is what I think.(not that it matters)
Either you believe every word of the Bible is true, or you don't. The dates and times are irrelevant, some stuff isn't meant for us to know the answer to. And when you over think it, doubt comes into play, and that's just Satan getting in your head. Just read the book, it reveals more every time, and that is what matters. Stay in the scriptures, this worldly crap is the devils playground.
Germanjennie
Level 2
Oct 26, 2019
0
If you mean walk together amicable and part ways with a handshake and good heart if you grow apart as traditional christian marriage as intended by jc.
Hell, traditional marriage in the bible is stuff like abraham marrying his sister and having a child that had 12 sons(12 tribes of isreal) daughters sleeping with there drunken fathers to hopefully have a son for the family. Leader of the faith not originally from the faith and being married to a woman not from the faith either. Wives betraying their husbands by selling his secrets and having him rot in prison. King sleeping with generals wife and then sending the general to a combat zone to be killed in battle so he wouldnt find out about the affair. Fathers manipulating kings by positiining their daughers to be a concubine in hopes that she may become s queen. Marrying off yoir sister to her rapist as long as he and hus family got circumcized and pledged their fidelity to your lord.
That is not the traditional marriage values that you are talking about? All of those stories are in there of you read the "old" section.
CuriousFury
Level 7
Mar 18, 2019
0
>"the earth is less than 10,000 years old" -- On a forum an atheist claimed that the Bible said that the earth was 6,000 years old. I replied, "Can't be, because in verse 9 it says that God separated the waters and dry land appeared. Which mean that they had to have already been there." He replied, "I never saw that before!" I suspect that the Creation account (there's only one), describes the creation of life in what became the Garden of Eden (chapter 3).
Daedulus96
Level 4
Mar 17, 2019
0
>"a global flood between 2500 and 2000 BC." -- For an alt view (seems reasonable to me), see [godandscience.org]
Daedulus96
Level 4
Mar 17, 2019
1
We Orthodox tend to take a less literal interpretation of scripture. Although there is no "official" stance on literalism in our Church, being 2000 years old has its benefits - tolerance for wider interpretations of scriptural accounts of creation are allowed. Particularly because we emphasize the importance of typological manifestations of the Spirit in the physical realm.
Few would, however, consider us anything but "fundamentalist" Christians.
TitoWarren
Level 4
Mar 17, 2019
1
No, not without a belief in a young earth and a literal global flood. However, I do believe in those two things, but do not consider myself a fundamentalist because the label has a negative connotation in modern usage and because I've grown more libertarian in my politics over the years.
SJJensen
Level 4
Mar 17, 2019
1
In your case, do you think it there be a benefit to use the term Fundamentalist as a self-description is order to share the burden of rejection with like-minded individuals?
@Ian_Newton, I don't know honestly. I don't have many associations anymore with folks who share the Fundamentalist mindset. Perhaps I'm being cowardly in not using that as a self-descriptor, but I also do not have much motivation to do so.
I would regard the Fundamentals as-creation ,the exodus,the flood etc. so if you don't accept these then I wouldn't regard you as a fundamentalist.
Cahancock
Level 1
Mar 17, 2019
0
I know this can sound obnoxious when it's said outloud but to be clear:
You mean Creation as in within six days and the Flood as a literal flood which
ocurred between 2000 and 3000 BC right?
@Ian_Newton, my two cents...I believe in a literal 6-day creation by God, a young Earth and a literal Noah's flood, though I don't recall having an opinion about the date of said flood.
I also don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, nor that any climate catastrophe is just around the corner.
I believe that lifelong marriage between one man and one woman is best for children.
I think Capitalism is the best hope for mankind's flourishing.
I also would like to see a moratorium on all immigration to the US for 5 years so that we can get this mess figured out and we need to build a wall to keep our country safe.
I also believe that Islam is committed to global conquest and all the terrors associated with that, and I'd be OK with deporting immigrants who can't swear to uphold the US Constitution. [I'd like to deport a bunch of politicians for the same reason.]
I believe abortion is awful, though I can't say that it should be 100% illegal if the literal, physical life of the is in danger.
So, aside from shying away from the Fundamentalist label, there are some other topics I don't talk about out loud in certain circles. 
Fundamentalism has somehow become equated with believing the OT word for word. The meaning of some descriptive words changes over time---and sometimes they are intentionally changed for sinister purposes. You are not a Fundamentalist by modern day usage, as I see it, but you believe in the fundamental basis of Christianity. "Fundamentalism" is really a word I shy away from, since it can be so easily misinterpreted.
MarPep
Level 7
Mar 17, 2019
0
The items you mention ... how long has the world existed ... the great deluge ... technically aren’t “Christian” at all.
“Christ” didn’t teach that stuff. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Christ didn’t refer at all to the “Bible”. So I am often puzzled when people ... Christians ... refer so often to the “Bible” and I am forced to clarify whether they mean the “New” or the “Old” Testament.
The Bible (Old Testament) is essentially a view of World History as seen and adapted by a tribe of people we have come to know as “the Jewish People”.
Much of that Bible is simply information (the history) carried forward from the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians and etc. but rewritten for the purposes or, glorification of, a particular subset of people in what we now call the “Middle East”.
I was brought up a Catholic but I do not ascribe to Catholicism or “Christianity”. They are both versions of a Philosophy which have their merits.
Your description of your beliefs fit well within the concept of “Fundamental Christianity” but there is much more that is required to be “Fundamentalist” but that would run to pages ...
Bay0Wulf
Level 8
Mar 17, 2019
0
Jesus may not have taught about the creation of the world or the flood, but He well could have in terms of reiterating them; such a reiterating wouldn't need to be re-copied into the Gospels.
It was accepted in Judea at the time of His ministry and His teachings and self-claims rest on them.
He certainly believed in the Old Testament and the Prophets as a Jew.
He qouted books such as Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, the Psalms, ect.
The more I familiarize myself with the Old Testament the more I realize how much of what Jesus taught in the Sermon of the Mount for example can be found in the Scriptures writen centuries earlier.
Without the Old Testament there are no prophecies and thus no promised Christ; it is essential therefore that the Scriptures which the Founder of Christianity believed in are closely held.
Without them you literally don't have the "Christ" of Christianity, or multiple theological or ethical teachings.
Jesus refers specifically to Genesis in Matthew 19 to argue against divorce:
"“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
So He relies on the Old Testament as authoritative truth for Theology and Ethics.
In fact, He also mentions the Great Deluge specifically in Matthew 24:36-40.
Most of the New Testament was written by ethnic Jews who had been taught the Old Testament and used them to guide their life.
Therefore,
I deny that these issues "technically aren’t 'Christian' at all."
@Ian_Newton the closing commentary by Jesus says don’t change anything in these scriptures. The scriptures should be taken at face value unless otherwise indicated. Context in Genesis indicates that creation was something out of nothing about 6000 years ago. Evolution is not supported by the scriptures. Empirical science does support a global flood and a 6000 year creation. I would refer people to Answers in Genesis & the Institute for Creation Research.
@Chamie7 Do you agree that the Scriptures should be understood in the context of the historical period in which they were written?
I’m really not sure how to define a fundamentalist but you sure do believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith. A good friend once divided the issues between those that were salvation issues in those that weren’t. It sounds like you adhere to the ones that are salvation issues and have questions about others that aren’t
Clammypollack
Level 7
Mar 17, 2019
1
In the early 1900's in the United States Christian Fundamentalism was defined as the belief
in (1) Biblical inspiration, (2) the virgin birth, (3) the Atonement, (4) the bodily resurrection and (5) that Christ's miracles were physical.
However, in America the understanding among Evangelicals is that "biblical inspiration" demands an acceptance of certain claims about geography and history: Namely that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that there was a global flood which occurred between 2000 and 3000 BC.
I'm a Canadian, but in that to the South country roughly half of Evangelicalism believe in creationism.
And as an Evangelical America is the homeland of my faith.
@Ian_Newton I believe as they did in the early 1900s. I’m not sure what to think about the age of the earth and I don’t think I have enough information to make that decision. The Bible does not clearly give us an age so for me, it’s not a salvation issue. I don’t think Jesus will scorn me for not being clear about the age of the earth.
@Ian_Newton in light of very specific Biblical genealogies, cited by Christ, and explicitly written out in the New Testament, that mathematically position the age of the Earth in terms of thousands of years, what has led you to stray from Evangelical doctrine and the plain truth of Jesus' words? (Of course, there is a divergence in the genealogies, but that can be reconciled. Same timeline.)
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Christians Against Reset Agenda
33 members
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.