5 Fundamentals
Fundamentalism arose from a statement conservative Christians issued at the Niagara Bible Conference of 1895. These leaders were concerned about trends in the major denominations of North America that they felt were departures from biblical Christianity. The five "fundamentals of the faith" that gave fundamentalism its name are these:
1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity and the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement (i.e., Christ died for our sins)
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. The personal return of Christ
- from T.J. McTavish's A Theological Miscellany: Odd, Merry, Essentially Inessential Facts, Figures, & Tidbits About Christianity
Taken in the spirit in which they are intended, I'm 0-for-5. If allowed to qualify terms like "deity," "bodily," and "personal," I could be 2.5-for-5. Interesting stuff, though. I wonder how "loving God, loving your neighbor, loving yourself" was left off / overlooked / avoided. That would be my "fundamental," though I'd never use that loaded word.
By-the-numbers:
1. I don't find anywhere in Jesus' story statements indicating that scripture (that loose collection of various holy writings and letters) should be considered "inerrant." Jesus himself took a serious, respectful, but never dogmatic approach to the Hebrew scriptures.
2. I would say "deity" signifies God's presence, but wouldn't take it in any kind of dualistic way (as it's likely intended). I put no weight on "virgin birth."
3. Ish. Substitutionary atonement rests on an image of an angry, judgmental father God whose wrath is only placated by the bloody death/murder of his son (which was the Plan all along). It doesn't jive with Jesus' story for me.
4. Yes. Whose bodies? Ours!
5. Yes. Whose person? Yours and mine! Begin! -h
5 Fundamentals posted by St. Peter's UCC at Tuesday, September 12, 2006
4 Comments:
I like what Michael Lee says about the scriptures in his post titled Why I am (still) an Evangelical.
Great link. And, the author uses WordPress! Fantastic.
I am beginning to understand the important difference between "literalism" and "infallibility."
Still, that's where I would differ from Michael Lee. I am a fallabilist; first thing, I admit that I may be wrong about anything and everything. I suppose a distinction could be drawn between my fallabilism and "God's infallible truth." That's starting to sound dualistic. If we're all trapped in our own bubbles of fallibility, I don't know what good an infallible truth that's OUT THERE could do us - I'm more interested in the commonalities among our bubbles, the truths we share with each other.
It's the existential dilemma, isn't it? Hiding under there. I understand why some folks answer it with "infallible truth" of one sort or another, and even how it works for them, but it's not my answer.
I have continued to ponder, Bob, your "pets" post and hope to reflect on that soon here.
-h
It occurs to me to ask the universe, interwebs, and all who are here; is there a difference between inerrancy and infallibility? -h
Here is how the dictionary describes inerrant: "free from error; infallible".
I'm okay to say that God is inerrant and infallible but come short of ascribing those descriptors to man or anything man has had influence on.
I'm with you Howie in your view on the "fundamentals" - how can anyone leave love out? It is THE fundamental.
Blessings, Bob
Post a Comment
<< Home