Fundamentalists and Literalists

marty1985

I was just wondering about the origin of fundamentalism. I believe it started in American Protestantism.

I'm open to correction, but I believe the 5 fundamentals laid out were
- total inerrancy of the Bible
- the virgin birth
- Christ atoned for our sins on the cross
- resurrection
- the imminent second coming.

I'm just wondering if any people here consider themselves fundamentalists. Also, my main question is regarding the inerrancy of the Bible.

My view is the Bible was not always taken literally. I think someone posted a link before to show that some scholar writing in 300ad made reference to how it would be unwise to take it all literally. Is literal interpretations of the Bible a recent development in Christianity, with the rise of fundamentalism?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

homer911

I always laugh when I hear the media refer to "Christian Fundamentalists" as people who take the Bible literally - which couldnt be further from the truth. If this was the case, then all Roman Catholics would be Christian Fundamentalists due to their views on communion and the blood/body of Christ

marty1985

I think though that's not really the same. Pope Benedict has warned against taking the Bible literally. What the Catholic Church do is interpret it according to their traditions or faith as they see it.

A literal reading of the Bible seems to be the foundation of the fundamentalist movement, as they refer to themselves as "Bible-believing Christians", as opposed to the likes of Catholics, who do not take it literally.

PDN

I would be a fundamentalist as the term was originally used - ie I believe in the 5 fundamentals marty quoted. But I would never use the term as, over time. 'fundamentalist' has acquired a completely diffetent, and unsavoury, meaning.

Inerrancy does not mean taking everything in the Bible literally. It means taking literally what was intended to be taken literally, and also treating poetry as poetry, parables as parables, and metaphors as metaphors.

I've never met anyone who took everything in the Bible literally, and I doubt if such a person exists.

marty1985 wrote: »

I was just wondering about the origin of fundamentalism. I believe it started in American Protestantism.

I'm open to correction, but I believe the 5 fundamentals laid out were
- total inerrancy of the Bible
- the virgin birth
- Christ atoned for our sins on the cross
- resurrection
- the imminent second coming.

I'm just wondering if any people here consider themselves fundamentalists. Also, my main question is regarding the inerrancy of the Bible.

My view is the Bible was not always taken literally. I think someone posted a link before to show that some scholar writing in 300ad made reference to how it would be unwise to take it all literally. Is literal interpretations of the Bible a recent development in Christianity, with the rise of fundamentalism?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Fanny Cradock

I'm not aware that fundamentalism as it is used today has any defined goals.

I'm always confused by the accusation - and that's usually what is it - that people take the Bible "literally". Unfortunately, the word "literally" is never defined so it makes discussion very difficult. I think what people mean is by literal is that people have conservative (that isn't a bad word, btw) and liberal interpretations of the Bible. Orthodox Christianity would see the actual death and bodily resurrection of Jesus as being non-negotiable. Extreme liberal interpretation may look upon the death and resurrection of a Jesus who may or may not have existed as an allegory.

Take for example the following passage from the book of Judges -

8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, ‘Be our king.’

9 “But the olive tree answered, ‘Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and humans are honored, to hold sway over the trees?’

10 “Next, the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come and be our king.’

11 “But the fig tree replied, ‘Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?’

12 “Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come and be our king.’

13 “But the vine answered, ‘Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and humans, to hold sway over the trees?’

14 “Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, ‘Come and be our king.’

15 “The thornbush said to the trees, ‘If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!’

How are we to understand this? Did the author intend his audience to believe that the trees held council to decided who would rule over them? That would be a "literal" understanding, no?

There is an idea floating around that the authors of the Bible - simple-minded sheep herders that they were - lacked the sophistication to use anything but the most direct and prosaic language.

The truth is that nobody understands the Bible literally. Even the most obtuse Christian recognises that the Bible is composed of multiple genres - some of which aren't intended to be understood as actual accounts of historical events. Disagreements arise over what we think the authors intended the audience to understand. So, for example, the explosion in YEC in the 1960's arose out of the belief that Genesis was intended to be understood as an accurate historical account of creation. Other people, like myself, see this text as a type of elevated-prose not intended to be taken as a detailed history.

BTW, I think you are referring to Augustine of Hippo.

homer911

No doubt thats where Tolkien got some of his inspiration from!

homer911

I think Catholics associate the Christian Fundamentalist term with Born Again Christians. We associate Islamic Fundamentalism with terrorists (but I understand Islam as its most fundamental is a peaceful faith - although I could be wrong)

Yes, the term has a bad rap for many reasons and is best avoided

These days even us Born Again Christians tend to use the terms "Evangelical Christian" or "Committed Christian"

santing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Take for example the following passage from the book of Judges -

How are we to understand this? Did the author intend his audience to believe that the trees held council to decided who would rule over them? That would be a "literal" understanding, no?

No, the literal understanding is that Jotham said these words.

Judg 9:7 Jotham was ... he climbed up on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, "Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you.

santing

homer911 wrote: »

We associate Islamic Fundamentalism with terrorists (but I understand Islam as its most fundamental is a peaceful faith - although I could be wrong)

Very true. With "peaceful" meaning subject to the one true religion by whatever means is necessary. That's the only peace Islam knows.

santing

PDN wrote: »

I would be a fundamentalist as the term was originally used - ie I believe in the 5 fundamentals marty quoted. But I would never use the term as, over time. 'fundamentalist' has acquired a completely diffetent, and unsavoury, meaning.

Inerrancy does not mean taking everything in the Bible literally. It means taking literally what was intended to be taken literally, and also treating poetry as poetry, parables as parables, and metaphors as metaphors.

I've never met anyone who took everything in the Bible literally, and I doubt if such a person exists.

I would say that I take the Bible literal, but with that meaning the same as you do with inerrancy. I believe the Bible is completely true, and yet I know there are lies in the Bible, e.g.

Gen 3:4,5 You will not surely die, the serpent said to the woman. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

These verses are true - I believe they are a true historic event, and yet they are a lie because the words are from the father of lies.

TravelJunkie

Doesn't anyone want to stand up and say The Bilble is God's Word and should be an authority over a Christian's life?

We inevitably will never live up to God's word, but it's there, in black and white.

I agree with Fanny, the word literal doesn't apply to the bible. You'd have to be psychotic to take metaphors literally.

But, just because Solomon sings about trees and flowers, doesn't mean you discount God's word and authority. Think about it this way, the bible is really the only insight we have into what God is like.

If we go to God, and his word, our lives are better.

Fundamentalists (do you mean people that use the bible as an excuse for violence?) probably take things out of context. Every christian should read the bible in context. You can't isolate one verse to justify a feeling or action, you have to look at each verse in the context of the chapter and book.

Anyone can pick verses here and there and make up stuff. Just as you could pick sentences out of any other philosophy book.

People who preach from the pulpit, when referring to scripture, should use context and also, cross reference to other parts of the bible with the same message.

marty1985

I guess fundamentalist has become a dirty word for a lot of people, and that's not how I intended my original post.

I'm interested in this since we hear it so often on the news. When we hear the term Christian Fundamentalists in the US, we think of the very conservative right wing and the Bible belt etc. But they seem to be the ones who invented the term, and I guess some wear it as a badge of honor.

PDN I believe is a Pentecostal, and I wouldn't equate Pentecostals with fundamentalists, as I believe Pentecostalism, of which I don't know much, is much freer in expression and more spirit oriented, and I think fundamentalists are more text oriented, with obligatory belief systems.

I'm not sure myself about how to define literalists.

Fanny said

I'm always confused by the accusation - and that's usually what is it - that people take the Bible "literally". Unfortunately, the word "literally" is never defined so it makes discussion very difficult. I think what people mean is by literal is that people have conservative (that isn't a bad word, btw) and liberal interpretations of the Bible. Orthodox Christianity would see the actual death and bodily resurrection of Jesus as being non-negotiable. Extreme liberal interpretation may look upon the death and resurrection of a Jesus who may or may not have existed as an allegory.

and I think that is true.

TravelJunkie said

Fundamentalists (do you mean people that use the bible as an excuse for violence?)

and my answer would be no, it's not really what I mean. I guess I'm thinking of the American Protestants who penned the 5 non-negotiable fundamentals 100 years ago, or whenever it was. Are they really argumentative and unwilling to engage in interfaith dialogue?

Perhaps in many cases the symbols become the "facts" for many people, and it can be hard to separate the two. Most Christians I know don't believe in a 6 day creation, but I know some do. My own perspective would be that religious texts and stories try to wring meaning from the mystery, but are not themselves the mystery, rather they are the vehicle through which we symbolize the meaning. But it does become intellectually confusing for a lot of people. And in conversation or debates I notice a lot of people are confronted with comments like "so you believe God created the world in 6 days" and they stumble, because they probably haven't thought about it a lot, probably because they get on with their lives and don't dwell on it that much, but it's used to weaken the foundation of their faith. I'm agnostic myself, but I feel sorry for people who are attacked on account of their bible, because it is so intellectually confusing for people to defend it, and it becomes an obstacle to faith.

Perhaps I shouldn't dwell on this myself, and instead learn how to multi-quote.

wolfsbane

marty1985 wrote: »

I was just wondering about the origin of fundamentalism. I believe it started in American Protestantism.

I'm open to correction, but I believe the 5 fundamentals laid out were
- total inerrancy of the Bible
- the virgin birth
- Christ atoned for our sins on the cross
- resurrection
- the imminent second coming.

I'm just wondering if any people here consider themselves fundamentalists. Also, my main question is regarding the inerrancy of the Bible.

My view is the Bible was not always taken literally. I think someone posted a link before to show that some scholar writing in 300ad made reference to how it would be unwise to take it all literally. Is literal interpretations of the Bible a recent development in Christianity, with the rise of fundamentalism?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

The origin of the term 'Fundamentalist' in the Evangelical Protestant context is well documented. A series of essays in pamphlet form - I have several originals - were sent out free to great numbers of Christian pastors, missionaries, Sunday School leaders, etc. with the aim of exposing the theological liberalism that had corrupted many denominations:
The Fundamentals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals#Contents_of_The_Fundamentals_.28and_authors.29

They represent the theology of historic Evangelicalism on points which had been challenged by liberalism/modernism. In that sense Reformed Evangelicals like myself are happy to call ourselves Fundamentalists. But the movement developed, and the term came to represent an arrogant, ignorant, narrower theology - chiefly Dispensational.

And on the other end, many Evangelicals became neo-liberal, denying Biblical inerrancy, for example. Historic Evangelicalism, which includes Reformed Evangelicals, reject both as departures from Biblical doctrine and practice.

BTW, inerrancy means the Bible is true in all it asserts. When it reports someone telling a lie, the report is true, but the lie is not. No Christian I know of says all the Bible is to be taken literally.

Indeed, it specifically says it includes non-literal elements - parables. Metaphor, simile, narrative - the literary devices common to man - are how God communicates to us. It is an error to take what is meant figuratively as literal; but as much an error to take what is meant literally as figurative.

We are not allowed to twist the Scripture to suit our presuppositions. We are to receive it all as God's inerrant word, and adjust our ideas to it.

********************************************************************
John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

JimiTime

'Fundamentalist' in these modern times, is just a lazy minded word so that lazy minded people can compartmentalise large swathes of people they don't understand.

Manach

By analogy this type of debate, if a text should be interpreted as is it was initially written or else re-interpreted in light of current social norms is very common in consitutional analysis. It is especially fiercely debated in light of the US constitution.

PDN

Manach wrote: »

By analogy this type of debate, if a text should be interpreted as is it was initially written or else re-interpreted in light of current social norms is very common in consitutional analysis. It is especially fiercely debated in light of the US constitution.

But I don't think that is the debate. The debate is more over discerning the intent of how the text was originally written.

For example, those who interpret Genesis Chapters 1 to 3 as an extended parable would argue that it was always intended to be understood as such.

TravelJunkie

marty1985 wrote: »

I guess fundamentalist has become a dirty word for a lot of people, and that's not how I intended my original post.

I'm interested in this since we hear it so often on the news. When we hear the term Christian Fundamentalists in the US, we think of the very conservative right wing and the Bible belt etc. But they seem to be the ones who invented the term, and I guess some wear it as a badge of honor.

PDN I believe is a Pentecostal, and I wouldn't equate Pentecostals with fundamentalists, as I believe Pentecostalism, of which I don't know much, is much freer in expression and more spirit oriented, and I think fundamentalists are more text oriented, with obligatory belief systems.

I'm not sure myself about how to define literalists.

Fanny said

and I think that is true.

TravelJunkie said

and my answer would be no, it's not really what I mean. I guess I'm thinking of the American Protestants who penned the 5 non-negotiable fundamentals 100 years ago, or whenever it was. Are they really argumentative and unwilling to engage in interfaith dialogue?

Perhaps in many cases the symbols become the "facts" for many people, and it can be hard to separate the two. Most Christians I know don't believe in a 6 day creation, but I know some do. My own perspective would be that religious texts and stories try to wring meaning from the mystery, but are not themselves the mystery, rather they are the vehicle through which we symbolize the meaning. But it does become intellectually confusing for a lot of people. And in conversation or debates I notice a lot of people are confronted with comments like "so you believe God created the world in 6 days" and they stumble, because they probably haven't thought about it a lot, probably because they get on with their lives and don't dwell on it that much, but it's used to weaken the foundation of their faith. I'm agnostic myself, but I feel sorry for people who are attacked on account of their bible, because it is so intellectually confusing for people to defend it, and it becomes an obstacle to faith.

Perhaps I shouldn't dwell on this myself, and instead learn how to multi-quote.

Multi-quoting or reading multiple passages on the same topic doesn't stop you from thinking for yourself. It just eliminates the room for error in interpretation, when it comes to the bible. Spending time in Gods word is something only Christians would want to do though.

marty1985

I meant multi-quoting on Boards, as in being able to quote you and Fanny properly in the one message, like a professional.


I definitely do think for myself on this. I guess the problem here is that my OP wasn't clear, as I'm not really sure what the focus of my own topic is, I just have found myself interested in the topic of fundamentalism recently.

TravelJunkie

Gosh Marty. Probably nothing professional about Boards.

Don't let the multi-quoters and link givers intimidate you. Some probably have back-ups of old threads and standard replies. Sort of a hobby!