Confessions of a PC(USA) Fundamentalist, Part One. Why a fundamentalist?
The most important moment of my life was when I realized that Jesus Christ was my Savior. But second to that is when I realized that the Bible was true--compellingly and assuredly true in all that it teaches. It was a dazzling moment in my life. It happened five years ago and I will never forget the day that I saw God's Word for what it really is.
Now to some people who read this blog, it will sound strange for me to separate the two points of my conversion process. Many Christians think that a true conversion automatically brings one to the second part of my conversion story--to a singular honoring of the truth of God's Word. But it didn't happen that way with me.
I'm starting a new series this week. For my own process of reflection, introspection and cathartic self-analysis, it's time I wrote about why I believe what I believe and why I believe it. In this time of confusion and doubt in our denomination perhaps God will use something of my efforts here to comfort His saints and call some to a similar public affirmation of the faith once delivered.
In this first part of the series I must defend my choice to use what is a troubling term for some people. So, why use such a misunderstood and maligned word for myself like 'fundamentalist'? Aren't I putting myself into mainline purgatory for admitting it in public? (Like I'm not there already...)
First I will define the term as I understand it. Perhaps it will help people understand where I am coming from. By 'fundamentalist', I use this term to mean one who holds to the essentialness of certain affirmations for the Christian Faith. They are the sine qua non of what it means to be a Christian who holds to the apostolic faith that all Christians are called to affirm and teach, what Jude calls, "the faith once for all, delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) )For further reflections on this topic, go and read Will Spotts' blog here.)
Yes you read me right. I actually believe that the Christian faith has a content that is easily understood, that is clearly set out for us in Scripture and that all who claim the name of Christ must believe and publicly affirm in the presence of others.
In this sense, as I define it above, I am a fundamentalist. I further believe that all Christians are fundamentalists. There are certain bedrock affirmations about God, God's activity in the world and God's Son Jesus Christ that define Christianity. Without these foundational, fundamental ideas Christianity as a religion ceases to have any meaning.
It's not that hard to understand really. Everyone knows themselves to be fundamental on non-religious issues that we deal with in everyday life. An example--
You go to the bank and ask how much you have in your account. The teller informs you that you have about 300 dollars. You again ask the teller for the exact amount. The teller says that they do not know the exact amount, but that it is around 300 dollars. You are rightly upset and you move your money to another bank. Congratulations, you're a fundamentalist when it comes to your money!
Another example--
You are signing up your son for a little league soccer team. You ask the coach when practices start. The coach tells you that the kids show up for the first game in a week. You incredulously ask the coach how these young children will learn how to play, how to follow the rules and how to work as a team. The coach informs you that this is a new form of soccer that has no rules, no requirements and that allows each team to play as they see fit. You take your son over to the tee-ball league instead. Congratulations, you're a sports fundamentalist!
On some level, we all are fundamentalists. Rules, guidelines and doctrines make our common life together possible. Anarchy has yet to work in the human community.
So then, what I claim is that it is disingenuous to state that one can hold to fundamentals in the everyday world but then assert that one cannot do the same in Christianity. It's dishonest and untrue to make that claim.
You don't believe me? Then that means that somehow on some level this post has violated one of your own fundamentals of belief.
So now you all want to know: What are the fundamental beliefs that make one Christian? They are the beliefs that the church has affirmed in all times and in all ages that are given in Scripture:
1. The Bible is God's Word and is fully trustworthy.
2. Jesus Christ is divine as the Son of God and was born of the virgin Mary.
3. Jesus Christ actually performed the miracles ascribed to him in Scripture.
4. Jesus Christ died on the cross as our substitute, to atone for the sins of His people.
5. Jesus Christ was truly, bodily raised from the dead in His resurrection.
These teachings are not all that Christianity asserts, certainly. But notice how they can cross denominational lines as being essential. Roman Catholics can affirm them, as can Orthodox and Pentecostal Christians. Traditionally known as the Five Fundamentals, they lead us to the heart of our faith which is expressed in the great Creeds of Christendom, the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.
I would further argue that the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds formulate the essentials of the faith as well as any document ever written. The only further thing that needs to be said that they do not explicitly say is about the Bible. But certainly all of their doctrines are right out of Scripture and this affirms point one above.
There is not a single pastor, elder or deacon in the universal catholic Church of Jesus Christ who can deny these doctrines and the ecumenical creeds and who can still claim the name of Christian.
Here I stand. And I'm not alone. Two thousand years of a line of precious saints stand right beside me in these teachings. They were not invented, they were given by God in His Word.
I will wrap up this post with an inspiring quote from the Prince of Preachers himself:"It is a great thing to begin the Christian life by believing good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty different "gospels" in as many years; how many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end, it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples. When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines which the Lord has taught in His Word."
I may have come later than my youth to the sound gospel faith of the catholic church, but by grace I shall remain in the Truth until my life is ended and I see God face to face.
--Charles H. Spurgeon



50 remonstrances:
Outstanding post, Toby, and thank you.
I can't wait to read the howls and yowls and yelps from the peanut gallery.
1. The Bible is God's Word and is fully trustworthy.
2. Jesus Christ is divine as the Son of God and was born of the virgin Mary.
3. Jesus Christ actually performed the miracles ascribed to him in Scripture.
4. Jesus Christ died on the cross as our substitute, to atone for the sins of His people.
5. Jesus Christ was truly, bodily raised from the dead in His resurrection.
Wow I guess that I'm a fundamentalist. I have never defined myself as one but I do affirm these 5 statements.
I'll post my statement of faith on mt blog latter today.
Jim Barker
Welcome to the dark side, Toby ...
LOL.
Salvation and sanctification are two separate things. God lets filthy, undeserving, hateful sinners into heaven. But since sanctification - both moral and doctrinal - are evidence of the Spirit, we dare not ordain anyone without ample evidence of both.
God be praised that after conversion, there is always a little more light to be gleaned from the Scriptures.
Would Christianity without the virgin birth really be meaningless? Why?
I get your post. By your definition, I am a fundamentalist, too. I just think that I have less fundamentals.
Just for the record, I do affirm all five, but I have communion with those that don't.
and, depending on how we talk about substitution, I might have problems with #4.
Drew,
Get ready to be shocked here, but I DO think that some measure of flexibility can be allowed in our interpretations of some of the issues. Now, I do mean some. One cannot say that Mary and Joseph were fornicating and call yourself a Christian. It ain't happenin.
But in other matters we certainly have differing ideas about how they happen. The atonement certainly has variations in emphasis all within the bounds of the church.
Toby,
This is simply the best post you have ever written. I affirm all that you are saying. Thank you.
Toby - given the parameters you set, understandings of the atonement would have to biblical; but that is not the same thing as the understandings that have been fashionable at various times in the Church. (Specifically - one can't, for example, jettison Paul; but one can jettison some of our ideas about how that works. You mention an example of this in describing your own conversion process - it doesn't quite fit the pattern that many Christians have come to expect - yet I think Chris's take on sanctification is quite accurate.)
Of course, you do know you won't get invited to any of the cool kids' parties now ...
Way used to that Will!
I WAS in High School Orchestra....
Read 1 Corinthians 15 Drew. Yes Christianity would be meaningless unless Christ was born of a Virgin. If he was not then Jesus was a liar and a fake Messiah and I would convert to Ultra-Orthodox Judaism in a minute and work my butt off trying to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Toby,
Thomas Oden in his book, The Word of God, pulls all of the different understandings of atonement together and shows how they are all needed. He writes, "The satisfaction and Christus Victor themes come closer to being consensual approaches (In the tradition of the Irenaeus, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Anselm, and Calvin) then the others. All four need some corrective voices from the others to form adequate teaching. The spiritual and ecumenical teaching of atonement requires a good balance of moral nature of man, moral government of God, the substitution of Christ for us in our place, and the consequent victory of Christ over demonic powers."
For a non-Calvinist that's a pretty good statement.
Viola - thanks for that.
Toby - Orchestra? Yeah ... this shouldn't be much of an adjustment then. *grin* Next you'll tell me you were into science fiction.
Viola,
Oden is great!
You do know that all who belong to Christ will get to Heaven, but it will only be the Calvinists who will know WHY they got there!
;)
Great Toby,
I know it now.
By the 5 definitions, I'm a fundamentalist too.
It's the interpretation of #1 that is the problem. I'm not sure how anyone can say that the Bible is "fully trustworthy" and still allow divorce in most cases or women's ordination. I think that you have to either disagree with part of Scripture or explain it away through interpretation to allow those. And if you do that, what's to stop you from doing the same on other issues?
I just looked down at the Oden book I referred to and realized I gave the wrong title. It should be The Word of Life
"I WAS in High School Orchestra...."
Wow. I think that has to be worse than being a Band Geek.
Benjamin:
I read 1 cor 15 three times. It doesn't say anything about Christ being born of a virgin.
You also said that to claim otherwise (which again, I don't--just to be clear) would be to call Jesus a liar, but I am unaware of him ever making the claim about himself.
All in all, I have to say that your comment doesn't make much sense to me.
Toby, I like that we are finding more and more agreement.
This seems to be a productive conversation. I have believed for some time that if we could take a step back and start with what we agree on we would have something to build upon. So many times our conversations begin with what we disagree about that we just can't get past what we consider to be our line in the sand.
This list seems to be a nobrainer to me but I know that there are folks out there who take exception with any one of these. But for those of us who can agree on this much we have something to build upon.
Drew,
Doctrine divides. Don't break ranks, man.
As for Oden's (not Odin's) take on atonement: we have four Gospels. I think an interesting study would be how the atonement works itself out in each of them - so we can see the panoply of evocative (and factual) narrative that Peter, Paul, and John would distillate in the epistolary material.
Wait... this post is producing too much irenic fellowship. Is it still classically presbyterian if it isn't focused 90% of the time on property and bed room behavior?
Gang - read #1
if that is true then #2 must be taken at face value.
#3 is quite literal - once you start monkeying around with it please refer back to #1
and before you giddily refer to yourself as a Fundamentalist read #1 again.
(when did I become such a kill joy)
Toby great post - I'm heading down the road (sort of later this week).
Toby:
Amen Brother. I have been of teh name it and claim it school for a while.
Great post.
And justin the interests of brotherly solidarity,
would you believe band and orchestra!
eesh.
Wow!
I may be a fundamentalist too!
I'm in agreement with Mark though on #1. Fully trustworthy in what sense? Also, what definition should we use for "The Bible"? I prefer the definition presented in the Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, although I fully realize that definition itself to be the words of men and not the inspired Word of God.
Drew,
If Christ is not born of a Virgin then he is not without sin. See Romans 5.
His death is meaningless and he is not the Messiah.
I'm with Bill Crawford. When I hear someone say "I agree with all five but ( or except). . . .," I realize that there is no fundamental agreement. Either God's Word is His and therefore infallible or it is not. If it is infallible, and I happily confess that it is,then the other four fall easily into place.
It is the very absence of stated essentials that led the PC(USA) to its current problems. When folks can claim to be in accord with one another, except not really, when individuals are allowed to tamper with and dilute the common threads on which connection are based, the connection is at best frayed and at worst non-existent.
I guess I am asking, "If some are not willing to aver that the fundamentals are absolutely spot on--with no mental reservation or purpose of evasion--why do they insist that those who do so aver must, nonetheless, be coereced into a false relationship based on mutual fundamental disagreement?
Well said, Rev. Brown. We're getting down to basics, of which many in the PCUSA are in dire need.
Interesting to note that the prior comment from a 'non-fundamentalist' quotes the '67 confession - which caused the formation of the PLC.
Looking forward to future posts.
Wow!!! All five? Wh go to all the trouble of claiming to be His follower?
If one believes that the Bible is just a story book, if Jesus was just a really nice social actiovist who ran afoul of the establishment, if He was simply an amateur magician/charaltan, if His death on the cross was just an appropriate (for the time and place) execution of a properly imposed death penalty, if we are now left to our own total depravity with no hope of salvation, and if His bones are still buried out there somewhere, just waiting for the Discovery Channel to happen upon them, why would one want to be a Christian?
Well, I definitely am not thrilled about the expression, "fundamentalist." Too often I think this term is used in a wrongful, pejorative way to marginalize, and exclude folks from the mainstream.
I can't tell you the number of times I've been labeled fundamentalist, when in reality my views pretty much just reflect the historic witness of the Christian church, rather than something new, esoteric, or cultist.
"Literalist," is another expression that has fallen on hard times. Of course, there are concepts in Scripture, pretty much made clear by the context, that are not to be interpreted literally. Who can disagree?
But, I can't see that the virgin birth, or physical, bodily resurrection of the Lord falls into this category.
That being said though, I'm troubled by having a long laundry list of things someone must affirm to be a true Christian.
To me, this sounds too much like "works righteousness." I mean obviously, there has to be a realization of the incarnation, who Jesus is, how He has the capacity to save...We have to know that we are in some sense broken, and unable to fix ourselves, to come to faith (trust) in Him.
But, I can see how it might be entirely possible for someone to trust Christ as Savior, and Lord, and yet not have an orthodox view of Scripture. Do you see what I mean?
Are we justified through faith alone in Christ, or by our view of the Scripture?
I've even met folks, who have realized the reality of the incarnation, and work of the cross, who have come to trust Christ, but do not interpret the virgin birth literally.
I can't agree, but I'm not willing to judge that all of these people are not true Christian believers.
Are we saved, so to speak, by our intellectual view concerning the matter of Christ's birth, or by the work of the cross, justified by faith in Him alone?
Grace,
Having trouble thinking that the bodily resurrection is necessary for the label Christian is a-ok with many Presbyterian ministers.
Fortunately, the Christian faith isn't determined by what a handful of people in the last 50 years have been able/unable to accept. We didn't make the faith up - it's never been about us and our smarts, wit, or credulity. Rather, we've received a deposit. And the most simple, bare-bones statement of that deposit - used ALL OVER THE WORLD in the sacrament of baptism which ties together ALL WHO CLAIM NEW BIRTH IN CHRIST (in the present age, as well as the past and the future) - is not embarrassed to claim a belief in resurrection as the cornerstone of the gathered-around-Jesus community we call Church. It's the Apostles' Creed, which says:
"On the third day, he [Jesus] rose again (from the dead)" tertia die resurrexit a mortuis and underscores that victory by proclaiming belief in "the resurrection of the body" carnis resurrectionem.
That's the resurrection of our flesh - meat - the stuff that the neo-Gnostis despise, despite any "incarnational" moltmannic tripe they want to use. We've hit this gnostic brick wall before and watched it crumble under the weight of living in a sin-sick world. We'll watch it crumble again. The fundamentalists will be there to warn people and then to pull the survivors out from under the rubble and teach them.
Why? Because what we do in the flesh matters. It matters so much that the eternal Son of God humbled himself to take on that flesh. It matters because I mess up with this flesh I'm in - and I need it to some day be redeemed for real - not just in an intellectual sense. That's the heart of the gospel - injustices redressed and restoration of communion with God.
How dare any ecclesiastical body try and take that comfort away from the saints!
From W. Casey Jones:
3 problems with fundamentalism and two final problems with us all:
1. Miracles. I am always interested in the problem I see behind the problem of fundamentalism—cessationism. I grew up in the fifties and sixties in a PCUS church where the leadership (and I as a child) clearly believed the five fundamentals, but where it also seemed that most people believed that New Testament-style miracles had ceased. If one adopts that (cessationist) belief, then one of the five fundamentals becomes believing fervently that God used to do lots of miracles but no longer does. I remember that in seminary I felt that Bultmann’s treatment of miracles (at least finding some existential meaning in them) was better than holding to a fundamentalist gnosis which said that although Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, he no longer does miracles. Now I prefer to believe, based on scripture, that Jesus DID and DOES miracles, but to me cessationism was the non-controversial first step that made the denial of miracles in the twenties much easier.
2. Inerrancy. Clearly the scriptures do not err in what they intend to do. This does not mean they intend to be an inerrant science book. Moreover if one wants to be scriptural, why choose a term, like inerrancy, whose strong scriptural basis is less than evident.
“Infallible rule of faith and practice” comes closer to scripture. God-breathed/inspired and Word of God are scriptural. (2 Tim 3:15-17; Psalm 119:105)
3. The Special Commission of the 20’s said the five fundamentals could not be required by GA, unless the Constitution were amended. However this action did not an still does not prohibit PC(USA) officers from affirming the five fundamentals. Many denominational leaders fail to understand this. Under the logic of that Commission, for a denial of the five fundamentals to be “fundamental” again the Constitution would have to be amended! You can affirm the five fundamentals. You cannot demand that others do so.
Postlogue: 1. Just as the (largely) uncontested move to cessationism in my mind helped bring about the (later) denial of the fundamentals, so endless compromise over the last century by evangelicals on the issue of divorce laid the groundwork for the chickens coming home to roost on the issue of homosexual practice. Biblical condemnations of divorce and remarriage (except in the case of adultery or perhaps abandonment) were largely ignored by American Presbyterian conservatives and evangelicals just as we largely ignore statements by Jesus and James about riches and wealth. We have a tendency to insist on moral issues only when they are supported by conservative theology AND by conservative culture, so again chickens are coming home to roost.
2. It would be useful if evangelicals could repent of and confess our complicity in all of this, instead of ignoring our role. Also it is my impression that although the 218th
GA passed a call for “solemn assemblies” evangelicals are largely disinterested in desperate sustained prayer and fasting. We trust instead in our own cleverness and plans. So liberals, centrists, and evangelicals are much more influenced by American culture
(work hard/pull yourself up by your bootstraps) than by Jesus’s example of prayer or by Calvin’s statement in 110 pages in the Institutes that prayer is “the chief exercise of the Christian life.”’ Evangelicals and liberals both need to repent, but each is convinced only the other side must do so.
Maybe we could make repentance a sixth fundamental since it was the first of Luther’s 99 theses.
In Christ,
Winfield Casey Jones
Good post Toby. What a day it must have been to wake up and realize the scriptures were true!
My only problem with the "fundamentalist" term is that, in public conversation, it means something very far from its original meaning.
I agree with WCJones words on inerrency. I spent too much time at the feet of scripture-meister-sheisters who manipulated tiny bits of the Bible to say what it didn't and fell back on the logic claims of inerrency if anyone dared to ask a hard question. An infallable rule for faith and practice...that works for me.
Also, I love the recommendation to consider repentance as a sixth fundamental. When Jesus went on his first gospel preaching tour, that was his first instruction.
Keep writing
Jesse
Toby,
I think it is necessary and sufficient to trust that Jesus lives and to be faithful to him as my boss, my teacher, and yes the Guy who saves my sorry behind.
The rest of that stuff, meh... It's OK, don't get me wrong, but I've known numerous people who said they believed those 5 "essentials" who neither behave as if Jesus is alive, don't really >trust< him, and don't act as if he really is their boss and teacher.
And then there is all that confusion about authority vs inerrancy of Scripture.
Technically, Christian Fundamentalists sacrifice authority for inerrancy, and give up authority to people who interpret the Scriptures rather than to the Scriptures themselves. (You don't always fit that category.) Better to not even know the Scriptures but to yield to the authority of the living Jesus.
Personally I accept the authority of Scripture and its witness over all other authorities, I believe in the virgin birth, I believe Jesus did miracles and even raised Lazarus from the dead, and something about his death on a cross before he rose to life again links to my life in him. He is not a far off invulnerable god who cannot comprehend me. He bears my grief and carries my sorrows. There is no human pain or grief that he does not experience in person, with me and for me.
And so I trust Him with my life and my death.
But I'm not sure "substitutionary atonement" is correct. The lamb who takes away the sin of the world is not a sacrificial lamb. What we owe God is not like a financial debt that someone else can pay so long as it gets paid. The whole idea seems more like some kind of rationalization for explaining away those who betrayed and killed him and rationalizing why he didn't satisfy their fantasies of a knight in shiny armor who would kick Roman butt and re-establish the thrown of David.
Not my issue.
My bottom line is that Jesus lives. Take that away, and all you have is an average religion.
I didn't take us long to divide along the old lines, did it?
Toby laid out five fundamentals, apparently choosing his words carefully (and scripturally--i.e, "the Bible is God's word," not "inerrant," and when some of us agreed (myself included) we were told that we didn't REALLY agree, because those statements REALLY mean something else.
I guess we just like to fight.
"But second to that is when I realized that the Bible was true--compellingly and assuredly true in all that it teaches. It was a dazzling moment in my life. It happened five years ago and I will never forget the day that I saw God's Word for what it really is."
I always find statements like this interesting. For me, my experience was that the first time I sat down and read the whole Bible for the first time, I had the overwhelming realization that it could not possibly be inerrant and literally true. I was expecting what I'd been told the Bible was - God's instruction book interspersed with cool stories (I was about 11 or so at the time). What I got was a jumble of dozens of texts of every conceivable type, put in some semblance of order by ancient scribes, which contained things ranging from gloriously sublime to morally repugnant (rape, infanticide, genocide etc.).
I'm not really interested in arguing with you over what the Bible is, though, since I'm pretty sure we'll get nowhere and just aggravate each other. What I'm curious to hear is the story of when you realized the Bible was "true" as you define true. What happened? What sparked it? What did/do you mean by "true in all that it teaches" (i.e., do you eat shellfish; stance on slavery and women's ordination, etc.)
Obviously, feel free to ignore this if it doesn't interest you. I just thought that it might be a good embellishment of your cathartic self-analysis that would also help me (and perhaps filthy heretics like me) to understand what it is you, as a "fundamentalist", mean.
Doug,
Out of curiosity, what for you, if anything, would be essential for a person to believe to be identified as a Christian?
Does it involve belief at all?
Toby, your definition of a fundamentalist as "one who holds to the essentialness of certain affirmations for the Christian Faith" takes me back a few years… the early 80s to be exact. The World Council of Churches had just published "Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry," a blueprint for church union in worship and service.
The morning consisted of a series of presentations on how human opinions about sacraments and church organization and practices shouldn't keep us from visible unity in the important things of church life. Then we broke up into discussion groups.
Either the first or second question dealt with the applicability of the BEM framework to relations with people like Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists who didn't believe in ordaining women to ministry. It amazed me how quickly a group that was prepared (for the sake of visible unity) to compromise, fudge, soften, and let go of just about every theological commitment they had drew a firm line in the sand on this one. It would, they agreed, be very problematic to try to pursue unity if it meant compromise on the place of women in the church.
The minister of the church I was attending at the time commented, in the Presbyterian Church everyone is a fundamentalist. The only dispute is what's fundamental.
Adel:
My friend just said, in answer, "...Christ. Is it really that hard?"
Which made me smile.
I might address this on my blog sometime soon. I'm far from a short, pithy list right now.
And yes, it involves belief - sort of. Cognitive assent? Nope.
Toby,
Like you, I came to the understanding that the Bible was true after other beliefs. Here is the reasoning I used.
If you believe the essentials (2-5 in your list). Then you believe God acted in a dramatic way 2000 years ago. He was visible in this world and sacrificed his only son.
So, then if God acted in this manner, the Bible -- how we learn about His son -- would have been influenced by God. How could God let His message to the world be corrupted?
Therefore, the Bible must be accurate and trustworthy in all essential matters. Once faced with this logic, denying the Bible was the same as denying the other essential beliefs you mentioned.
In His Love,
Paul
John Stott taught me a number of years ago in some little booklet, that people usually come to Jesus before they get it all figured out about the Bible. (And probably many if not most other doctrinal truths.) He said after people knew Jesus and saw where they learned him from (the Bible) and saw what he thought about the Bible, then they could appropriately and usefully enter into the discussions about the nature and authority of the Bible. (I can't remember if he used the infallible or the innerrant word--but that differentiation many make escapes me anyway).
This sounds much like what Toby says he experienced. He was a Christian and 5 years ago he realized the Bible is true.
Many of us have similar stories, maybe not seperated by so many years. But I still remember several years after I became a Christian and after I started doing some 'ministry' that there were deep and hard conversations about what people believed. And the group I was with was all over the spectrum. Then we had a Bible church pastor talk to us and the most interesting event of the evening came afterwards. As I was telling a friend about it (who wasn't there), his comment was, "Dan, do you think it's true?"
And I got an entire new category.
Later I heard from Stott, "More people become convinced of the Bible because they believe in Jesus than come to faith in Jesus because they are first convinced that the Bible is true."
So going from many people's experience and John Stott's advice, would it be wiser to say that the fundamentals are the basics of what Christianity is all about, and that without them, it will be undeveloped and not fully appreciated. But maybe they aren't an acutal line that 'defines' becoming a Christian.
Now once a person enters into the discussion, it is time to get to it, and the fundamentals are basic (fundamental) truth about Christianity. If a person doesn't 'get' them, there is time for discussion, prayer and teaching and much work to do.
And since there are differing requirements for shepherds than sheep, it is (in my thinking) ludicrous that any shepherd would serve without these foundations (and much more besides!)
grace (not my name but my confidence)
Doug,
I can honestly say that I came to a conviction of Scripture as the word of God, after coming to faith in Christ, not before. And, it was an understanding, and conviction that grew overtime.
I remember going into church abit after coming to faith. Suddenly even the words of the liturgy (taken from Scripture) came alive, and had a new, and deeper meaning to me. Where before, I had just been reciting things from rote habit, and memory, now my heart started to sing!! :)
My priest was sharing the other Sun. how when she first stood to read the word of God in front of the congregation, her all body just began to shake, and tremble. She realized the awesomeness of reading, and sharing the Scripture.
Jodie,
I have to agree that not all Christians need to agree concerning the precise mechanics of the atonement. I think any analogy that we use to describe God's work in Christ is bound to fall short, and crude compared to the reality itself.
It's enough for me to know that Jesus Christ by His dying, and rising puts us right with God, and with each other. He is that "lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world."
I personally resonate very much with the view of the orthodox church relating to the work of the cross. I know this concept of the atonement is also very prevalent in Celtic Christianity.
God saves in Christ in the way a fireman rescues a child from a burning building. And, it's through sharing in the death, and resurrection of Jesus, that we are made a new creation, and enabled to share in the very life of God.
Glory to you, Lord Christ!!
John M,
I feel that your last comment merits a personal response from me.
While I still do believe that Christian faith must embrace these core affirmations, only you can determine whether or not you belong to Christ.
I do not pass judgment on your status as a Christian. I never would do that to another person.
I (or anyone else) can only discern whether or not a stated belief is in accord with Biblical teachings or not.
But I do hope you will ask yourself at some point what I once asked myself about my faith:
Is the Jesus I love the same Jesus that is revealed in Scripture? If not, then why is that?
Doug H,
Your questions of my are perfectly valid. Stay tuned...
By the way ....
This comment stream is possibly the most productive conversation between the "sides" that I've seen in the Presbyblogging community in 3 years.
Well done.
I also was only gradually convinced of the truth of the Bible over time. I concur that this belief is not necessary for a person to actually *be* a Christian. It is, however, a necessary (definitional) part of Christian teaching.
The funny thing about that (transformation of belief to orthodoxy over time) is that I have no illusions that my experience is any measure of 'objective' truth. [I *am* persuaded that the Bible is objectively true, but how I came to that belief is not necessarily normative - or the right way - or the way this would work for others). It does, however, amaze me how many people I've talked with who have had similar experiences.
On an only semi-related topic - again, just my observation, but among those I know who have made a profession of faith / conversion, the biggest predictor of whether or not they would self-identify as Christian after a few years was whether they actually got into reading and studying the Bible. (I'm talking here about conversion - a person who was not 'raised a Christian', but who one day did not consider himself/herself a Christian, and then suddenly did.) To a person (who fit this description), those who spent time reading and studying the Bible eventually became very orthodox; those who did not 'moved through' their Christian phase.
Toby,
Nicely done.
Jodie-Doug
I know I've mentioned this before but, Dr Greg Boyd and Dr Paul Eddy The Jesus Legend approaches this topic from much the same angle as you guys do, he just comes to a different conclusion. It's worth a read.
Toby,
I loved the post!
In His Love,
Paul
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 1 Co 13:11
Post a Comment