Category Archives: Fundamentalism

Slouching Toward Heresy: Early Confessions

Posted on by

The Christian church makes use of two types of confession of faith.

  1. The symbol set up once for all, and drawn up in the language of the new testament. This is ascribed to the apostles as an authentic summary of scripture. [Cullmann, p 10]

    Cullmann points out an example of this first type is the so called Apostle’s Creed. An example of the next one, below, is the Nicene Creed. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol represents a mixed type, on the one hand containing the anti-Arian formula, but on the other often regarded as apostolic. [Cullmann, referring to Caspari]

  2. The symbol conditioned by circumstances, which transcribes the Biblical Gospel into the language and concepts of a certain period. On the basis of the New Testament, this symbol takes up position over against new problems and heresies unknown in the apostolic age. [Cullmann, p 10]

I would like to point out the New Testament in the 27 book form we see today was compiled by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD, 32 years after the Council of Nicea. So for over 300 years the New Testament did not exist as a bible. It consisted of scattered manuscripts and letters copied and sent around the world from region to region as separate writing. Not all books were accepted. Jude, James, 2 Peter are examples of rejected books in many parts of the world.

So when someone says “I go only by the New Testament” what they are referring to is that which was compiled in 367 AD, translated into Latin, translated into English 1100 years after the fact. [Duvall and Hays, p 499].

And was accepted by the Bishops of the catholic church after 367. Protestantism was far off in the future.

What Cullman is really talking about, and Habermas is evaluating, is having rules of faith and formulas which trace back to the apostles. The purpose was (and is) to dethrone every future tradition in the name of apostolic tradition. Not to set ecclesiastical tradition above scripture. [Cullmann, p. 13], [Habermas, p 143-170]

Is fundamentalism now a new ecclesiastical tradition? Is it slouching towards heresy? Hard to say. But when one gets criticized for affirming the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed because “it is not Baptist belief, Baptists don’t have creeds” one begins to seriously wonder.

So, a reasonable course of action is to study the teachings of the apostles and how these were written down, and how these writings were spread across the world, ending with the compilation of the New Testament in 367 AD.

In decades of attending Baptist churches I have never heard of this. It seems to have been buried and is the best kept secret of the 21st century, as if it is some sort of rotten fruit.

REFERENCES:



Oscar Cullman, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 64 pp., published 1949 and 2018.

Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 304 pp, published 1997.

Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 592 pp., published 2020.




Cant Be A Christian Without YEC?

Posted on by

A letter from an anonymous person raised an issue over her kids. Here is her letter and some responses.

Hi All,

I am looking for resources to share with my kids (oldest is 12 but they all can handle middle-grade type stuff – my oldest loves to read pretty advanced tech books, has read the Jurassic Park novel, etc.).

Long story short – I am divorced and since the divorce the ex has taken a very deep dive into AiG, among other troubling things, and is doing his best to indoctrinate the kids. He subscribes to AiG TV (or whatever it is) and the kids have tablets at his house with all the media on it. He “homeschools” them on the weekends (they go and have always gone to public school) with AiG materials.

One of my bigger concerns is that he’s planning on taking the kids to the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter next Summer. From what I have gleaned about it from YouTube videos, etc., it just sounds traumatizing for my more sensitive (and ND) kids.

So I think I have this school year to try to inoculate the kids as best I can in preparation of that trip, and of course long term I want my kids to not be afraid to ask questions, to feel free to think for themselves and make their own decisions. A big concern is that the kids are being taught that anyone who doesn’t embrace YEC isn’t a Christian (and really is evil) – and I don’t want them to be worried about my salvation if/when I speak openly to them about my own concerns with AiG, or their own salvation as they grow and hopefully start to ask their own questions.

So I’m looking for media of all types that can gently and gradually influence/open their minds to know it’s ok to have doubts, to want to think twice, or even to learn more about evolution (right now they can recite all the reasons why evolution, and those who think it is correct, is stupid and wrong – in their words). I will support them whatever they belive – but I want them to decide for themselves, and I’m not ok with the extremist take of YEC (us vs. them, and that the denial of YEC is the root of all evils in the world) that AiG promotes!

They will outright reject anything that blatantly states anything but the YEC viewpoint (and, for that matter, any children’s bible that has a “bathtub”ark in it…) so it really does have to be a subtle, gentle approach.

Books are great, podcasts are even better, and videos, too, although we don’t have tons of time to sit and watch but we do do a lot of driving so listening is great!

And if this isn’t the best group to post this question in, I appreciate references to other groups that would be helpful, too!

Thank you in advance!!!

One person answered:
You’re in a difficult spot. I’d probably advise letting them know that you don’t agree on everything they’re being told and many fine Christians have a different viewpoint.

Another answer:
Know that your children probably see YEC as the bedrock on which their entire faith is grounded. Attacking YEC head on will be seen as an attack on Christianity itself. This tends to be based on the following arguments: 1. If the earth wasn’t created in 6 days, then God is lying; 2. Jesus can’t be the second Adam if there was no first Adam, 3. Life comes through Jesus as death came through Adam, 4. There was no death before sin. I’m sure you’re aware that those are all straw man arguments and don’t hold up, so I won’t go into detail unless you ask. So what I would recommend is teaching them about other interpretations outside of a YEC context. Show them the importance of context. Let them know that we can disagree charitably with other viewpoints and calling people names for disagreeing is not christ-like.

As for exposing them to real science, try to avoid (for now) making it “science vs YEC”. If they ask why they should learn about “wrong things”, explain that we should always try to understand ideas we disagree with and make sure we’re disagreeing with things others are actually claiming and that even those with the best intentions have trouble presenting strong versions of other viewpoints. Maybe show them videos of people non-charitably presenting YEC or Christian positions to illustrate the point.

Resources:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/120YkDporc_xK8o655_dT6ENmN2Aemjs1lWsgkMRjHZU/edit#heading=h.780c1iaa3j9v

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15R4uQpASz-UL-d2Jd46nlBm5PUQq9nIyB7qBndLUTFQ/edit#heading=h.xfu9qm91oycp

My response:
I go to a Baptist church that does not have a worldwide global flood as part of it’s statement of faith. It also does not hold to any particular doctrine of origins. So this AiG/YEC idea stands outside church doctrine and is something that is added on as an extra. My church is not fundamentalist either. The church is, as far as I know, in line with the Fundamentals. But as Stackhouse points out, fundamentalism took the name but only the name and did not take the principles of the Fundamentals, and is just a cultural movement.
So a church can endorse the principles of the Fundamentals but not be fundamentalist.

This idea of adding onto scripture bothers me. I see Answer in Genesis as non-Christian. Just like Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. The doctrine is different. The ontology is different. The epistemology is different. It has a different concept of knowledge than Christianity. And a different concept of science. And many of the AiG followers destroy the work of the blood of Christ by requiring belief in things which have nothing to do with Christ as a condition of salvation. So to me it is like voodoo. Or the Mormons. Or the Moonies. It is a religion based on the bible. It is a Christian-like religion. But it is different than Christianity. It has a lot of philosophical and logical mistakes involved in it. And it distorts the bible. I would not call it a heresy but it would be fair if the catholic church were to declare it a heresy.

The pharisees were a non-Christian religion, but they were based on the bible. What about the Arians? The Donatists? Both bible-based heresies. Most heresies are bible based.

AiG is a big faith killer for millions of people. Perhaps it is a cult?

Look at Mark Chapter 7. Verse 6. What is the foundation of faith? Is it a crowd of people? Is it a teaching? Is it a status? A way of life? Is it a doctrine or an understanding of Genesis? Why are people so vested in one particular interpretation of Genesis to the exclusion of all others?


Mark 7:

Posted on by

My thoughts on Mark 7, based on a sermon by Deven MacDonald.

Mark 7:

1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.

7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]

Hypocrisy.

Why is it hypocrisy? Because it focuses on what people can see, not what God sees.

When Christians focus on the externally visible sin of another but ignore the inner transforming work of God they are being hypocrites.

Check all the boxes!!!!! Then you are a proper Christian.


Handwashing is an external human behavior. The pharisees criticized Jesus over this external behavior. Jesus focused on the heart as seen by God.

The trap of self righteousness.

1a. Self righteous people are quick to attack. Why?

The trap is building identity on an exterior outwardly visible stuff. Their identity is fragile. They will lash out at anything or any one who challenges that fragile identity.

The self righteous also criticize the sinner who has come to experience God and forgiveness. And anybody who celebrates a sinner coming to God is also criticized. Why? Because the latter person isn’t likewise criticizing the sinner.

Happened to me just tonight.

1b. Repeating, Self righteous people are quick to attack. Why?

Because in large part they don’t understand grace.

2. Self Righteous people are quick to make up rules that aren’t actually found in the bible. (verse 5 was a ritual about hand washing).

3. Self righteous people are quick to focus on outward habits and practices as the foundation for their standing with God.

4. Self righteous people are quick to justify their actions.

WHAT DEFILES A PERSON?

Continuing in Mark 7:

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.

So, What comes out of the HEART is what defiles. Not the external.

WHAT SAVES US?
Titus 3:5

5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Not because of the criticism of instruction of the self righteous Christian.

1 John 1:9
New International Version

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Remember point 4 (above) about the self righteousness? 4. Self righteous people are quick to justify their actions. In other words, their criticism of sinners.

Christ will forgive your sins, even if Christians won’t.

My Sin of the Day (and why I wrote this now).

My sin of the day was I celebrated a lesbian who came to Christ and was transformed. Then I did the horrible: I said I wish I could bring my other lesbian friend to church to hear the gospel. But the people at church would only condemn.

Then I was attacked by the self righteous Christians (who want to condemn and attack lesbians instead of bring them to Christ.).

I kept repeating it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin, not me. And not them.

The critics kept ignoring this. It is clear they want to criticize sins of others. Even if it means those folks don’t get saved.



Evangelical Free Church of America Statement On Christian Living

Posted on by

We believe that God’s justifying grace must not be separated from His sanctifying power and purpose. God commands us to love Him supremely and others sacrificially, and to live out our faith with care for one another, compassion toward the poor and justice for the oppressed. With God’s Word, the Spirit’s power, and fervent prayer in Christ’s name, we are to combat the spiritual forces of evil. In obedience to Christ’s commission, we are to make disciples among all people, always bearing witness to the gospel in word and deed.

Source: https://www.efca.org/sof

My comments.

Why point this out? The doctrinal statement about caring for others is sometimes misunderstood. Some people think it means “be a busy body”. And they go too far. Why? They think God has ordered them to do that! My question is, “Does the EFCA actually endorse this mistake?” I do not think so. And neither does any Baptist church. Try telling that to the Baptists!

On the statement:
“others sacrificially, and to live out our faith with care for one another, compassion toward the poor and justice for the oppressed.”

Justice for the oppressed precludes allowing continued abuse by abusers just because one has compassion for the abuser. There is no requirement on a Christian to allow himself to continue to be abused in any fashion.

A person in 12 step recovery has no moral obligation to allow himself to continue to be abused. There is no teaching in the bible that says he does. This may mean moving across country in order to stop abuse. It may mean putting up walls and barriers. And it may mean complaining to civil authorities for protection.

It means watching one’s own bobber, not somebody else’s, especially not the abuser’s. It means not getting involved in the drama of other parties.

I suspect that a lot of people believe when they comment upon another’s confession they are “caring for one another” when in fact they are sabotaging the other’s 12-step recovery. This is especially true for ACA’s (Adult Children of Alcoholics). The Big Red Book has at least three sections dedicated to explaining why cross-talk (commenting on another’s story confessed in a meeting) is forbidden. (More on this in a separate post).

The caring thing to do is to keep opinions to one’s self until such time as a confessor indicates he welcomes feedback. That is normal practice in an ACA group. Apparently it is normal practice to violate it in a Baptist Church. The EFCA really needs to clarify this. And so do all Baptist churches.

To me this is a matter of lack of grace. Not focusing on grace but instead focusing on rules. Rules that people make up for other people. A biblical example: condemning someone for eating meat offered to idols. I.E., not allowing Christians moral freedom as believers. As I recall it is called a ‘principle of deference’. Not putting rules on people. And this would include not putting non-doctrinal personal beliefs on others.

I now have decades of experience with Baptist style churches that think they are doing therapy because it is a ministry. They want to “fix you” rather than let God fix you or let you experience God at your own pace. Instead of telling you their own story they tell you how your story should be. How you should be, because you are not good enough. Sometimes they hunt sin, your sin, and become sin hunters. They will tell you that you need to repent of something.


The result on the community:

I have met dozens, if not hundreds, of people who call themselves “recovering fundamentalists.” I am now one of them. I may even have to change churches because I cannot hear the voice of God when people are handing me a whole bunch of rules and beliefs to follow when it is merely their personal opinion.

Why I study Doctrine.

This is why I study doctrine. I want to know what a church’s doctrine is. Because when people go nuts on me I would like to know if it is just them and not the church.

Stackhouse On Fundamentalism

Posted on by

In looking at fundamentalism it may be helpful to refer to John Stackhouse. He wrote an article in christianscholars.com about how the Fundamentals aren’t fundamentalist.



Everyone knows that American Protestantism generally divided into fundamentalist and liberal camps in the 1920s. And many people know that fundamentalism derives from The Fundamentals, early-twentieth-century tracts that reduced the rich doctrinal heritage of Christianity down to five points of do-or-die orthodoxy. Neither of these putative facts, however, is true. This paper shows that The Fundamentals were not fundamentalistic in either respect and that they instead represent the broad mainstream of Anglo-American evangelicalism that continues to this day: not merely conservative, not fundamentalist, and certainly not liberal. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., holds the Samuel J. Mikolaski Chair of Religious Studies at Crandall University, Moncton, Canada. The author wishes to thank the extraordinarily assiduous and sapient reviewers marshalled by the editor to assist him in the revision of this article.

Arguably among the most famous American religious works of the twentieth century, The Fundamentals (1910-1915) gave its name to the movement whose implications are with us to this day. Paradoxically, however, The Fundamentals gave only its name to that movement. This series of small books does not, in fact, reflect the outlook nor the doctrine that would soon be characteristic of American fundamentalism. It does not, in fact, set out the famous Five Points with which it is often credited, including by the tribune of the contemporary vox populi, Wikipedia.1 Instead, The Fundamentals represents the broad mainstream of Anglo-American evangelicalism flowing out of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. This mainstream might have appeared to submerge beneath the currents of fundamentalism, but it surfaced again into public attention a generation later as, indeed, evangelicalism: as authentic, vital, and missional Protestantism—not merely a kinder, gentler form of fundamentalis.2

John’s Footnotes:

1. The article “Christian fundamentalism” perpetuates the idea that The Fundamentals prompted fundamentalism and taught the elusive “five points”: “Christian Fundamental- ism,” Wikimedia Foundation, accessed October 5, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Christian_fundamentalism.

2. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Evangelicalism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2022).

Not Fundamentalist, not Conservative, and not Liberal: The Fundamentals and the Mainstream of American Evangelicalism

This clears up a lot for me.



I look at Christian Fundamentalism as being a Christian Doctrine and a Christian Doctrinal Statement. Essentially a Statement of Faith.

When people rage against fundamentalism they are raging against Christianity and Christian religion and against all Christians who hold to that statement of faith. Some people write entire books about how horrible fundamentalists are. The word is used as a pejorative like the N word, or ‘white supremacy” or “christian nationalist”. When scholars do this I often ask them to define their terms. The reaction is mixed.

Stackhouse explains that The Fundamentals are the beliefs of evangelicalism, which is different from fundamentalistic-ism. The people raging against fundamentalism really mean fundamentalistic-ism, not evangelicalism. If they mean the latter then they are anti-Christian.

Keep in mind the irreligious can be fundamentalistic. If you are attacking anyone fundamentalistic then you may want to look in the mirror just to be sure you yourself are not being fundamentalistic.

But fundamentalistic-ism in the context of Christian belief is associated with evangelicalism because people who become evangelicals can go further and go off track and become militant over the wrong concepts. This is because of social movements and culture. It is a subset of evangelicalism and is a deviation from evangelicalism. Those attacking fundamentalistic-ism often conflate the two groups based on some arbitrary factor such as militantism. This is what George Marsden sounds like, at least at first. In 2024 I watched no less than four people blame fundamentalists using George Marsden as their excuse. This is why I started reading Marsden. To find out what he really says. He does a lot of analysis on CULTURE. But he calls himself a fundamentalist. How confusing! Stackhouse helps bring clarity.

Now, if I could just get my militant brother-in-law to just stop being militant about football and baseball I might get to go to heaven.