Fundamentalism

[NiceFundamental]

manualman:

Think more about evil. For me, the biggest turn-off of fundamentalism was that very attitude that the world, the culture, the society was EVIL. That creates a very fortress mentality that isn’t healthy. The world is NOT basically evil, in spite of how things sometimes appear. It is GOOD, but fallen.

John 7:7: “The World cannot [be expected to hate] you, but it does hate me because I denounce it for its wicked works and reveal that its doings are evil.” Amplified

Abortion legalised. Masturbation taught as “natural”, “healthy” - from a secular point of view -. Albeit, I do get your point. However, I think the “world” is more evil than we realize.

1 John 2:15-16: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world.” NIV

James 4:4: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God”. KJV

I realize you are all familiar with those scripture verses and that the interpritation and understanding of “world” is debateable; of which I not want to debate. Just reiterating my belief - not everyone’s - that the world is possible more evil than we realize.

manualman:

That is a crucial difference! Even music that contains evil lyrics can also contain beautiful melody, even drama that contains an evil theme can also contain moments of human emotion and need that tell us something about God and humanity. Thus, when you paint the whole shebang as ‘evil’ you unknowingly place a barrier to the gospel among those who recognize fleeting glimpses of the Divine presence in our world when you (a known christian) label that thing ‘evil’ by christian standards. That person suddenly believes (usually unconciously) that to embrace christianity requires rejecting as evil that which they saw as good in the music, drama, etc. Don’t go handcuffing Jesus like that.

2 Cor. 6:14: “…for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness”? KJV

 

[NiceFundamental]

“They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are parishing in their disputes.It would be better for them to have love so they might rise again. It is right to shun such men, and not even to speak about them- neither in public or private.”
St. Igantius of Antioch A.D. 110 disciple of St. John. (**how could have St. John, the author of revalations, tought St. Ignatius wrong? **)

(bold emphasis mine)

This reasoning might appear logical and even acceptable, however it does not necessarily mean the statement is correct.

Acts 20:29-30: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them”.

Am I saying St. Ignatius was a “grievous wolf”, no not at all. I am simply illustrating from scripture that it could be possible. A further example. Would it be safe to say that anything the Apostle Peter said, did or believed was correct and of God? Absolutely not. Why? He is mortal. So even though he may have demonstrated knowledge from God, he still could erroneous speak or demonstrate his faulty human reasoning.

Matthew 16:15-18: “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter Answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven”

Here it demonstrates Peter spoke from knowledge received from God the Father.

However, just a few verses later, Matthew 16: 22-23: "Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” NIV

So earlier it was demonstrated that Peter spoke with knowledge from God the Father. Yet still, that fact did not prevent him from later using his own faulty mortal heart/reasoning. If we ponder on this for a moment. If Peter was to have had “his way”, or convinced the others of “the correctness of his way”, and to not allow Jesus to go (we all realize this was not possible but if Peter did have his way), we would have not had the sacrifice at Calvary. Our Atonement.

Galatians 2: 11-14: “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. … When I say that they were not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all,…” NIV

If Peter demonstrated error, so could St. Ignatius.

Even Peter told us the Scriptures were hard to understand. 2 Peter 3: 16-18: “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, …”

Now everyone, do not get upset. Am I calling St. Ignatius “untaught”, “unstable” and “unprincipled”. No. Do I realize these scriptures could be turned around to reflect me. Yes. I am just mearly pointing out that the scripture teaches man can error and thus because St. Ignatius said something, does not automatically mean it is correct. We all recall in elementary school we would say a sentence to one of our school mates and they would inturn repeat it to another, and so on and so on. What started out as, “the sky is blue” ends up as “fundamentals are wrong”…(humour).

Peter is the prime example of that. An Apostle to Jesus himself. St. Ignatius was once removed. Just some points to ponder.

I do also acknowledge that if one accepts the position that Jesus did found his church on Peter, it would be easier to accept the statement from St. Ignatius.

Again I am not stating this as fact. Just a possible position.

God Bless you all.

 

[manualman]

Welcome, Nice!

Your scriptures create some rather unsettling questions for you as well. If the apostles themselves are not infallible teachers of the faith, then how do we know which of their writings are infallible sacred scripture and which were examples of their human failings? (Since you quote the NIV, I’ll assume that you aren’t one to assume that the King James Bible in English was transported down from the clouds in a beam of sunshine.)

Catholics trust scripture because we trust in Jesus’ promise to his apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. And that Catholic Church carefully discerned which writings were authentically inspired by God and compiled them into the bible (under the watchful eye of the Holy Spirit).

The logical extension of the argument you just made is that every christian ought to assemble for himself copies of every ancient document that claims to be the work of an apostle (warning, there are a lot of them!) and decide for himself which ones are truly inspired scripture. Of course you’d have the help of the Holy Spirit (if you choose to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as articulated by the catholic church. Don’t answer too quickly, an awful lot of sincere early christians disagreed about what EXACTLY all those scriptures about Father, Son and Holy Ghost really meant. Maybe you’d better second guess all THOSE unreliable disciples too.)

My point is that you already rely on the early fathers of the church for much of what you take for granted about christian teachings. If you truly DID come across a bible in a total vacuum of historical knowledge of christianity, you would very likely develop an understanding of God totally different than any form of today’s brands of christianity.

St. Paul did indeed stress the need for christians to understand themselves as different from the rest of the world. We are! This was a new and novel concept that had to be hammered home with force in order for the new christians to initially remove themselves from temptations to live the way they once did (pagans). THAT is the context of Paul’s exhortations. The passages you quote are absolutely true in that new converts to christianity MUST understand the reality of evil, the necessity of disciplining themselves, the continued reality of our tendency to sin. But those passages must be understood in HARMONY with the fact that Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, tax collectors, heretics, basically the scum of the earth. How exactly do you suppose he got invitations to mingle with these people if he avoided every contact with them and their culture? Answer: he didn’t, he waded right in and his very presence illuminated what was fruit and what was sewage.

 

[seabird3579]

jim1130:

Not going to Mass for 3 years was not punishing God, it was punishing me. I listened to the other denominations, even accompanied neighbors to their non-denominational Bible-only church, and there was nothing there…

Jim, I had a very similar experience during my time away from the Church.

It was a sense that there was just nothing there. And that made me even more frustrated, because I wanted these protestant churches to be the answer to my prayers.

I kept longing to experience the spiritual depth I had had as a Catholic, but it eluded me, I thought.

Finally, I realized it was the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist that I was starving for.

I began to see that I had left the Church because human beings being “human” annoyed me. I wanted them all to be saintly, I wanted the “Kingdom come” NOW on earth, and I was tired of waiting.

As I matured spiritually, the Lord impressed upon me that I must go back to the True Church and become a servant.

I must serve in a way that brings about the changes I wish to experience in others.

That meant starting ministries that didn’t exist, but should.

That meant raising my children to follow what the Church teaches such as total respect and reverance for the Holy Eucharist and devotion to the Rosary – *Even IF * – they and we were a sign of contradiction in the “modern” American Catholic church.

It was difficult, but it Finally brought me the Peace I was longing for. Trials for sure, but with that ‘Peace that Passes Understanding.’

jim1130:

I attended a neighbor’s funeral and the Baptist preacher, in his double-breasted suit and well-coifed hair, said nothing in his ramblings…

Not only was this true for me also, but I found a deep compassion and pity for them in my soul and wanted to pray a *Novena *

The Lord was showing me, I needed to come “Home.”

 

[NiceFundamental]

manualman:

Your scriptures create some rather unsettling questions for you as well. If the apostles themselves are not infallible teachers of the faith, then how do we know which of their writings are infallible sacred scripture and which were examples of their human failings?

Hi manualman. I would say your above quote is yet more unsettling. Are you inferring that the Apostles were infallible? And this position is one the Catholic Church adheres too?

Followers of God recognized what was scripture, what God has inspired. You see the Roman Catholic Church did not give all of Christianity its bible. Proof? How did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Old Testatment? The answer is they didn’t. Followers of God did. They again knew and recognized what God had inspired.

manualman:

Catholics trust scripture because we trust in Jesus’ promise to his apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. And that Catholic Church carefully discerned which writings were authentically inspired by God and compiled them into the bible (under the watchful eye of the Holy Spirit).

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,” 2 Peter 1:20-2. Christians trust scripture because the Holy Ghost inspired those documents. That is their authenticity. It did not need proclamations of men to validate them as inspired.

Just my thoughts

 

[jim1130]

seabird3579:

Jim, I had a very similar experience during my time away from the Church.

It was a sense that there was just nothing there. And that made me even more frustrated, because I wanted these protestant churches to be the answer to my prayers.

I kept longing to experience the spiritual depth I had had as a Catholic, but it eluded me, I thought.

Finally, I realized it was the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist that I was starving for.

I began to see that I had left the Church because human beings being “human” annoyed me. I wanted them all to be saintly, I wanted the “Kingdom come” NOW on earth, and I was tired of waiting.

As I matured spiritually, the Lord impressed upon me that I must go back to the True Church and become a servant.

I must serve in a way that brings about the changes I wish to experience in others.

That meant starting ministries that didn’t exist, but should.

That meant raising my children to follow what the Church teaches such as total respect and reverance for the Holy Eucharist and devotion to the Rosary – *Even IF * – they and we were a sign of contradiction in the “modern” American Catholic church.

It was difficult, but it Finally brought me the Peace I was longing for. Trials for sure, but with that ‘Peace that Passes Understanding.’

Not only was this true for me also, but I found a deep compassion and pity for them in my soul and wanted to pray a *Novena *

The Lord was showing me, I needed to come “Home.”

Thank you for the nice words. I am working on my salvation with fear and trembling, but am not doing a very good job (hopefully, I will be the wheat and not the weed). I visit this site as often as possible and learn so much about the Church that helps me get closer to God. My downside, I lack the initiative to do something about that which I complain. I am glad I am back in the Church and am trying to educate my 9-year old on the Church. Some people will misinterpret what I wrote that I am worshipping the church and putting more faith in the Church, but what is missed is that through the Church I learn the fullness of God and that the Church connects me with God. Again, thank you for sharing. Jim

 

[St.Eric]

NiceFundamental:

Hi manualman. I would say your above quote is yet more unsettling. Are you inferring that the Apostles were infallible? And this position is one the Catholic Church adheres too?

Just my thoughts

I am not sure if the Church holds as dogma that the apostles were infallible. But, I would have to think that once the risen Christ breathed on them, at that point they were made infallible with the H.S. Remeber, infallible IS NOT impeccable. It simply means, in a nutshell, that the H.S. will protect them from teaching error. It doesn’t mean they won’t sin…

 

[NiceFundamental]

manualman:

Welcome, Nice!

Your scriptures create some rather unsettling questions for you as well. If the apostles themselves are not infallible teachers of the faith, then how do we know which of their writings are infallible sacred scripture and which were examples of their human failings? (Since you quote the NIV, I’ll assume that you aren’t one to assume that the King James Bible in English was transported down from the clouds in a beam of sunshine.)

Catholics trust scripture because we trust in Jesus’ promise to his apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. And that Catholic Church carefully discerned which writings were authentically inspired by God and compiled them into the bible (under the watchful eye of the Holy Spirit).

The logical extension of the argument you just made is that every christian ought to assemble for himself copies of every ancient document that claims to be the work of an apostle (warning, there are a lot of them!) and decide for himself which ones are truly inspired scripture. Of course you’d have the help of the Holy Spirit (if you choose to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as articulated by the catholic church. Don’t answer too quickly, an awful lot of sincere early christians disagreed about what EXACTLY all those scriptures about Father, Son and Holy Ghost really meant. Maybe you’d better second guess all THOSE unreliable disciples too.)

My point is that you already rely on the early fathers of the church for much of what you take for granted about christian teachings. If you truly DID come across a bible in a total vacuum of historical knowledge of christianity, you would very likely develop an understanding of God totally different than any form of today’s brands of christianity.

Link where this issue is being addressed:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=92304

 

[manualman]

Infallible is not the same as impeccable. An infallible teacher of the faith can be a murder, adulterer, thief, whathaveyou. He just can’t formally teach erroneous concepts.

A gaping hole still in the protestant idea of the bible is that if there were a specific time when the teaching of the apostles STOPPED being authoritative and all authority then transferred to the bible, why doesn’t the bible specifically say so? That’s a rather important point, no?

Instead the bible portrays a church that has a specific authority structure (consensus of the apostles, lead by Peter) that acts to ensure the integrity of the faith. That same reliable authority structure (preserved by Grace, not human worthiness) is the same one that tossed out the Gospel of Thomas and other ancient works that SOME considered authoritative teachings of the apostles and compiled the rest of the NT and gave it the formal status as scripture. The old testament was much easier. The church merely conceded that Judaism was faithful to its convenant with the God of Abraham (in regards to its scriptures, anyways) and used theirs. After all, christianity is merely the completed version of Judaism.

 

[shockerfan]

SolaChristo:

Malachi,
You are not going to get comfort or support here. In seperating yourself to God you have also seperated yourself from the RCC.
I hear your pain and am glad you have found something that is real, not something that someone else tells you is right. Praise God that He placed in your heart a search for truth, not eveyone has the desire for truth.

Ahh, the search for truth. How does one determine the truth? A fundamentalist will say the Bible is the truth. My question would be “Given the Bible is True (which I believe it is), why are there over 33,000 different Christian denominations? Isn’t truth singular?”

The answer is that it is singular. What is not singular is the multitude of incorrect interpretations. (Note that since the Truth is singular, then over 29,999 denomination must be incorrect)

So now you have to figure out which denomination has the truth. You can go with the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, giving Peter authority as well as “keys to the kingdom” (thereby conferring apostolic succession):

*“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’” (Matt. 16:18-19). *

Or you can go on your own or with one of the other 33,000+ other denominations, who seem to claim their own authority to interpret. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that Christ would have provided a way to discern the truth other than “every man for himself”. I believe He did, and thats why I’m Catholic.

God Bless.