Fundamentalism

[NewPerspective]

I dont really understand how the premise of fundamentalism is something opposed by the cc. Im not talking about the movement but being a fundamental Christian in essence. God and His Word are unchanging, unwavering, and absolutely authoritative. Fundamental Christianity entails holding to the fundamentals of what God has said and the standards He set. Changing with the times is unacceptable. As we know, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Fundamentalism is the only ism worth any thing in any faith especially the one true faith, that which is in Jesus Christ. Simple really. So why try to combat fundamentalists? I dont follow the logic whatsoever. Someone please enlighten me.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I dont really understand how the premise of fundamentalism is something opposed by the cc.

I** dont think the Catholic Church is opposed to fundamentalism of Christianity. The non-catholic fundamentalism is a seperate ideology of Christianity than Catholicism. There are many non-catholic Christians who fall under that title fundamentalism, They take the only scripture and or only faith can save you Christian theology, and many interpret sacred scriptures literally and interpret Christ’s teachings outside the orthodox of Christianity. For example they dont believe in the Sacraments, Apostolicity, Priesthood and religious orders etc.**

Im not talking about the movement but being a fundamental Christian in essence. God and His Word are unchanging, unwavering, and absolutely authoritative. Fundamental Christianity entails holding to the fundamentals of what God has said and the standards He set.

**The Catholic Church has fundamentalism and evangelicals. Take the many priesthoods for example. Many Catholic Priests are extreme fundamentalists because they take a vow of Chastity, Poverty and Obedience, and live a life of Charity. Our Priests hold literally to what St. Paul and Jesus taught about some men who give themselves to be eunuchs, and if a man choses he does not have to give himself in marriage for the Kingdom of God. Personally I would rather learn my Christianity from a Priest who has no personal cares of money, wife, or of the world. Just to live a life for Jesus and his flock, the body of Christ on earth. **

Since the first Apostles Church there was no other Christianity other than Catholic belief until 1500 yrs later enter Protestantism, Fundamentalism, Evangelicals, non catholic denominations, These have their own Fundamental Christianity views that entails holding to the fundamentals of what Their founders believed to be the fundamentals and standards that God has set. In any case they differ fundamentally in their different beliefs of Christianity. Some are new, and some are only 100 yrs old. Where as Protestants can date back only to the late 15th century.

I hope this gives you a little perspective of what your looking for Perspective
Peace be with you

 

[NewPerspective]

I understand what your saying. Heres the thing. Now im not attacking Im just merely stating my what I believe. I believe that God, after cutting a new covenant with us, one of a dispensation of grace rather than the law, He didnt intend that we mix the two. The law and tradition of men are things pertaining to self-righteousness as opposed to the righteousness of God which is in Christ Jesus. Our faith in what Christ did and confession of His Lordship over our life is the makeup of our salvation. Now Im not saying that those things are bad (sacraments and OT tradition) but I do know that alot of them are sacrificial and ultimately vain as a result of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice that fulfilled the law. My only thing is I think that the more we get focused on what we need to do or what we have done, the more we stray from the righteousness of God and begin to dabble in a different covenant altogether. There is nothing we can do to earn salvation, lest we should boast in our own accomplishments as Scripture states. Its all Jesus and what He did. Good works are a byproduct not a prerequisite. And as far as things like priesthood and religious orders, all who are children of God (have faith in Christ alone and have the Spirit of God indwelling them) are a royal priesthood. We are all given a measure of the Spirit and have equal power in Christ. Which causes me to question the infallibility of the pope. Men are not infallible. Even the apostles werent infallible. Paul was quoted by himself “a chief sinner.” Paul rebuked Peter of his actions showing clearly that there was some fallibility somewhere, so if Peter was the first pope, which i dont believe, where did infallibility come into play? And Peter had a wife. Thought Id throw that in there. Love ya man. God Bless

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I understand what your saying. Heres the thing. Now im not attacking Im just merely stating my what I believe. I believe that God, after cutting a new covenant with us, one of a dispensation of grace rather than the law, He didnt intend that we mix the two. The law and tradition of men are things pertaining to self-righteousness as opposed to the righteousness of God which is in Christ Jesus. Our faith in what Christ did and confession of His Lordship over our life is the makeup of our salvation. Now Im not saying that those things are bad (sacraments and OT tradition) but I do know that alot of them are sacrificial and ultimately vain as a result of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice that fulfilled the law. My only thing is I think that the more we get focused on what we need to do or what we have done, the more we stray from the righteousness of God and begin to dabble in a different covenant altogether. There is nothing we can do to earn salvation, lest we should boast in our own accomplishments as Scripture states. Its all Jesus and what He did. Good works are a byproduct not a prerequisite. And as far as things like priesthood and religious orders, all who are children of God (have faith in Christ alone and have the Spirit of God indwelling them) are a royal priesthood. We are all given a measure of the Spirit and have equal power in Christ. Which causes me to question the infallibility of the pope. Men are not infallible. Even the apostles werent infallible. Paul was quoted by himself “a chief sinner.” Paul rebuked Peter of his actions showing clearly that there was some fallibility somewhere, so if Peter was the first pope, which i dont believe, where did infallibility come into play? And Peter had a wife. Thought Id throw that in there. Love ya man. God Bless

You talk about many things in your post so it is hard to respond to all. But I have to comment on your false impression of infallibility. First of all, the Pope is a sinner, just like everyone else. So your comment about Paul saying he was a chief sinner has absolutely no bearing on infallibility. Infallibility doesn’t mean that a Pope can’t be wrong about something, I’m sure a great many Popes have been wrong about a great many things. However, infallibility (as Catholics use the term) does mean that the Pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from committing any error in teaching the faith and morals of the Church. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, he cannot proclaim a false doctrine.

As far as when it came into play, it came into play at Pentecost, when the Spirit descended and the Church’s mission began. It is the Spirit that gives infallibility, so you are right, no man is infallible (on his own) but the Spirit can make anyone infallible. Do you not agree? As far as Peter and his successors receiving the charism of infallibility that was up to the Lord. He is the one who made Peter the steward (visible head of the visible Church) by giving him the Keys.

Oh… and how does it matter that Peter was married? There have been several married Popes. I have not seen any evidence that any of them were married, however, after becoming Pope. Be that as it may, the whole celibacy thing is a discipline of the latin rite that was not solidified until the first millenium; it could be changed at any time. However, I doubt it will be changed nor do I see the need for it… especially in light of what Paul said on the matter and the example of Jesus, of course.

Oh, one last response, please don’t think that Catholics believe there is any “earning their way into heaven.”. That is utterly absurd. It is by grace through faith we are saved and not of works. It is God’s grace that saves, not our works. That is Catholic teaching. HOWEVER, faith without works is dead. God’s grace will not be coming to us through dead faith. Please let me know the scripture that says that “good works are a by product of faith”. I’d like to research further, thanks.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I understand what your saying. Heres the thing. Now im not attacking Im just merely stating my what I believe. I believe that God, after cutting a new covenant with us, one of a dispensation of grace rather than the law, He didnt intend that we mix the two. The law and tradition of men are things pertaining to self-righteousness as opposed to the righteousness of God which is in Christ Jesus. Our faith in what Christ did and confession of His Lordship over our life is the makeup of our salvation. Now Im not saying that those things are bad (sacraments and OT tradition) but I do know that alot of them are sacrificial and ultimately vain as a result of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice that fulfilled the law. My only thing is I think that the more we get focused on what we need to do or what we have done, the more we stray from the righteousness of God and begin to dabble in a different covenant altogether. There is nothing we can do to earn salvation, lest we should boast in our own accomplishments as Scripture states. Its all Jesus and what He did. Good works are a byproduct not a prerequisite. And as far as things like priesthood and religious orders, all who are children of God (have faith in Christ alone and have the Spirit of God indwelling them) are a royal priesthood. We are all given a measure of the Spirit and have equal power in Christ. Which causes me to question the infallibility of the pope. Men are not infallible. Even the apostles werent infallible. Paul was quoted by himself “a chief sinner.” Paul rebuked Peter of his actions showing clearly that there was some fallibility somewhere, so if Peter was the first pope, which i dont believe, where did infallibility come into play? And Peter had a wife. Thought Id throw that in there. Love ya man. God Bless

Jesus told the apostles to teach and baptize. Teaching brought the hearers to faith and the confession of Christ’s lordship. Baptism brought them into a new covenant relationship with God as members of the church. Paul spoke of the church as Christ’s body. People who were baptized but then left the church were considered apostates or heretics, someone who rejected Christ or His teachings.

When we talk of the infallibility of Peter, we mean only that the Holy Spirit protects the pope from teaching error. Of course the pope can fall into sin, he’s only human. When Peter was rebuked, it was because of his actions. He wasn’t living up to what he was teaching. But what he taught was not wrong. Because the Holy Spirit was leading the church into all truth.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I understand what your saying. Heres the thing. Now im not attacking Im just merely stating my what I believe.

You dont know how much that statement pleases me, I respect that tremendously.

I believe that God, after cutting a new covenant with us, one of a dispensation of grace rather than the law, He didnt intend that we mix the two.

**Never in 2000 years of Catholic Christianity ever taught mixing the law and the prophets with the divine Grace that saves us. As you know Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets not to abolish them. **

The law and tradition of men are things pertaining to self-righteousness as opposed to the righteousness of God which is in Christ Jesus.

**Catholicism follows sacred Tradition, for example Catholics follows the commands of Jesus to eat his body and drink his blood (John 6…, luke 22:19-20). This is sacred Tradition because this is what Paul and the Apostles handed down to the Church. 1 Corinthians 11:23 For I recieved from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and , after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

All the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic faith cannot be explained without Sacred Scripture. You cant have one without the other. Please dont confuse Sacred Tradition with cultural traditions.Cultural traditions come from the many different peoples and tongues that have been Baptized into the Catholic faith, that wear their own style of clothing, language, and colors to worship God. Yet we all confess the same belief around the world not to mention, we all hear the same Gospel readings every Sunday throughout the world. I wont preach to you, so I will leave with this scripture that the Catholic Church abides by. 2 Thesolonians 2:15 Therefore brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the TRADITIONS** that you were taught, either by an Oral statement or by a letter of ours. See also 1Corinthians 11:2
Law? please clarify so as to answer you correctly.

Our faith in what Christ did and confession of His Lordship over our life is the makeup of our salvation. Now Im not saying that those things are bad (sacraments and OT tradition) but I do know that alot of them are sacrificial and ultimately vain as a result of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice that fulfilled the law.

If you could please be more specific to your claims of sacraficial and OT traditions so I can clarify the Catholic position better for you of what I believe. Now Sacraments we can take those one at a time if you like on why we practice the Sacraments that Jesus Christ instituted., through the Sacred Scriptures.

My only thing is I think that the more we get focused on what we need to do or what we have done, the more we stray from the righteousness of God and begin to dabble in a different covenant altogether.

need more clarafication?

There is nothing we can do to earn salvation, lest we should boast in our own accomplishments as Scripture states. Its all Jesus and what He did.

You got no quarrel here with that statement.

Good works are a byproduct not a prerequisite.

You might be mistaken applying works of the law compared to faith in Christ. These works that scripture talks about are Mosaic laws like circumcision. The Catholic Church does not teach you have to earn your way to heaven.

And as far as things like priesthood and religious orders, all who are children of God (have faith in Christ alone and have the Spirit of God indwelling them) are a royal priesthood. We are all given a measure of the Spirit and have equal power in Christ.

In the body of Christ many are called to be teachers and prophets etc.but not all are teachers or prophets. As far as Priests are concerned The Catholic church cant change what Jesus Christ instituted and ordained to do as Jesus himself commanded them to do.

Which causes me to question the infallibility of the pope. Men are not infallible.

Amen to that men are not infallible.
Although Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit whom the Father sends is Infallible. Allow me to clarify for you infallability of the Pope. The Pope is only infallable when he teaches on faith and morals. These teachings never conflict with Jesus teachings, its as if Jesus was in persona Pope teaching his own teachings. The Pope himself is never infallible, thats a common misconception many have about his office in the Chair of Peter.

Even the apostles werent infallible.

Peter was the first Pope, his unbroken succession is (public record) recorded from him to the present Pope, besides he is the only Pope to walk on water according to scripture.

Paul was quoted by himself “a chief sinner.” Paul rebuked Peter of his actions showing clearly that there was some fallibility somewhere,

Theres no denying that, Peter denied Jesus Christ 3 times

so if Peter was the first pope, which i dont believe, where did infallibility come into play? And Peter had a wife.

Of course Peter had a wife, and then became Celebate.

Thought Id throw that in there. Love ya man. God Bless

New Perspective you sure got alot taking on here, hoping I can clarify some of these points for you.

Peace and love in Jesus Christ

 

[NewPerspective]

Oh yeah definitely. The observation of the communion table is something that should be practiced by all christians. Im not contending with the such. But to add such an observation to the requirements of salvation and remission of sin i think is nonscriptural and ultimately discredits the magnitude of what Christ FINISHED at the cross. I think its an extremely neat premise that Jesus has us partake of His body broken for us and His blood shed for us until He comes but I just dont believe that every time we do so that Jesus dies all over again. I believe and think scripture reveals that it is more symbolic than anything. To get back on track. I dont think tradition and sacraments are bad I just dont believe, according to scripture of course, that they could possible included into the salvation formula. By grace through faith, not by grace through faith and sacraments. Just a thought. God bless you. Take care.

 

[AquinasT]

To bring this back to the original topic, might I suggest that Catholics and “fundamentalist” Christians have different ideas as to what the FUNDAMENTALS are.
Fundamentalists claim “Bible Alone” “Faith Alone” Grace Alone" etc. are the “fundamental” tenets of Christianity. Catholics disagree. These are false teachings which leave out things like Sacred Tradition, the role of Works, the free will of the believer and the possibility of loosing salvation, and the list goes on. In other words, “fundamentalists” do not believe ALL of the fundamentals as Catholics understand them.They have rejected portions of the True Faith as handed down from the Apostles.
There is nothing wrong with being a “fundamentalist” in the Catholic Church as long as you do not leave out any of the TRUE fundamentals. The Sacraments, for instance would be fundamental to our understanding of true doctrine. As would the role of the ordained priesthood.
(Of course, we as Catholics do not generally use the term “fundamentalist” when referring to ourselves, because it has taken on its own meaning, given the existence of Bible-only Churches that describe themselves as such.)
Any discussion of these issues would require multiple threads of course. But the main problem is, as I already stated, we simply have two different understandings of what the fundamentals are.
Thomas

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Oh yeah definitely. The observation of the communion table is something that should be practiced by all christians. Im not contending with the such. But to add such an observation to the requirements of salvation and remission of sin i think is nonscriptural and ultimately discredits the magnitude of what Christ FINISHED at the cross. I think its an extremely neat premise that Jesus has us partake of His body broken for us and His blood shed for us until He comes but I just dont believe that every time we do so that Jesus dies all over again. I believe and think scripture reveals that it is more symbolic than anything. To get back on track. I dont think tradition and sacraments are bad I just dont believe, according to scripture of course, that they could possible included into the salvation formula. By grace through faith, not by grace through faith and sacraments. Just a thought. God bless you. Take care.

Glad to hear you don’t believe that He dies all over again… we don’t either. Whoever told you this is not to be trusted; they have born false witness against the Catholic Church. Anyway, His death is finished, but He is God, so His SACRIFICE is eternal. When Catholics receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, we participate in the** original **Sacrifice. He is not being re-Sacrificed over and over. Rather, His Sacrifice is mystically made present to us. This is a fundamental truth, but “fundamentalists” do not see it.

Faith is not merely believing in Jesus as the Savior. It is the assent to the **whole truth **that God has revealed. The answer to your question in the beginning of the thread lies here: Catholics do not agree with fundamentalism (as delineated by AquinasT) because it does not subscribe to the whole truth. Because “fundamentalists” do not have the Church to guide them, they take personal authority over the interpretation of scripture and come to grievous error.

By the way, you capitalized “finished” with regard to Christ’s work on the Cross. What do you think He meant when He said it is finished? There may be more to “it” than you think.

 

[East_Anglican]

The problem is definition.

If a fundamentalist is someone who adheres to the fundamental tenets of Christianity set forth in the creeds etc., then I am a fundamentalist.

If fundamentalism involves adhering to some of the exotic extra biblical doctrines that some ‘evangelicals’ adhere to, then I most certainly am not.

If evangelicalism is about evangelism then I am evangelical.

But if evangelicalism involves adhering to some of the exotic extra biblical doctrines that some ‘fundamentalists’ adhere to, then I most certainly am not.

I am naturaly against doctrines and theologies that are contary to The Bible and 2000 years of Church history.

 

[FightingFat]

Fundamentalism divorces faith from reason.

 

[NewPerspective]

I guess its somewhat vain to argue with those who dont believe in the authority of the Word of God. Not to offend but perhaps we are addressing the wrong topics. God’s Word (The Bible) the only divinely authored means of basing doctrine is the final authority as it relates to doctrine. And from recent admission the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. So…:I dont think we can really go anywhere from there. God Bless you guys

 

[Orionthehunter]

I guess its somewhat vain to argue with those who dont believe in the authority of the Word of God. Not to offend but perhaps we are addressing the wrong topics. God’s Word (The Bible) the only divinely authored means of basing doctrine is the final authority as it relates to doctrine. And from recent admission the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. So…:I dont think we can really go anywhere from there. God Bless you guys

What part of the Bible does the Catholic Church teach is not true?

From the Catechism:

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

By the way, what is your source for asserting infallibly what I bolded above? Please provide backup.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I guess its somewhat vain to argue with those who dont believe in the authority of the Word of God. Not to offend but perhaps we are addressing the wrong topics. God’s Word (The Bible) the only divinely authored means of basing doctrine is the final authority as it relates to doctrine. And from recent admission the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. So…:I dont think we can really go anywhere from there. God Bless you guys

I understand that you have been mislead about Scripture so I am not offended when you mistakenly believe that God’s written Word is the only Divinely authored means of basing doctrine. Even though it is flatly contradictory to the Scripture you claim to revere. But I do get offended when you give unsubstantiated claims that hierarchy in the Church instructs the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not true. You need to cite this source if you want to make this sort of accusation. Somehow I suspect that someone’s comment has been taken out of context, sort of like what happens when a fundamentalist reads scripture.

Every thing in the Bible is true; that has always been the teaching of the Church. Not everything in the Bible is literal. God speaks in spiritual truths as is clearly demonstrated by the parables of Jesus. Jesus says the mustard seed is the least of all seeds but it isn’t. Does that make Jesus a liar?? No!! He was conveying spiritual truth. Do you think that parables were just a new thing to the unchanging God? Think about it.

Of course, the absurdity of modern day fundalmentalism is the refusal to take Jesus’ words regarding the Bread being His Body literally. Everything in the Bible is literally true but those words.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I dont really understand how the premise of fundamentalism is something opposed by the cc. Im not talking about the movement but being a fundamental Christian in essence. God and His Word are unchanging, unwavering, and absolutely authoritative. Fundamental Christianity entails holding to the fundamentals of what God has said and the standards He set. Changing with the times is unacceptable. As we know, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Fundamentalism is the only ism worth any thing in any faith especially the one true faith, that which is in Jesus Christ. Simple really. So why try to combat fundamentalists? I dont follow the logic whatsoever. Someone please enlighten me.

Hello NP

Could you tell me what the fundamentals are? What does it mean to hold to the, “fundamentals of what God has said and the standards that he has set”? Are these fundamentals listed somewhere in the Bible? Since I assume you are a Bible only Christian, could you show me where in the Bible it lays out for us Christians what the, 'Fundamentals" and, “standards” are so we could be fundamentalist and follow fundamentalism?

God bless

 

[drafdog]

While God does not change, humanity does. How humans understand and talk about their experience of God also must change. Thus a set of stories set down thousands of years ago by a people who did not understand science and mathematics and chemistry and physics could not possibly have spoken about the world as we do today because they did not have the words, the understanding to do so.
Fundamentalism seems to want to pretend that humanity’s understanding of the world can be negated by writings that were not about the world so much as about how God relates to the world and humanity.
We don’t want to change what God said. We want to understand what God made.

Matthew

 

[NewPerspective]

Someone made a comment i sense thinking that i am saying that all of scripture is literal and it contains no allegorical or metaphoric context. I never said that. Whoever it was that made that comment wasted his or her time. The Bible does say in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine. I think if there was other scripture inspired by God that it would have been made mention of dont ya think? I know that 2 John 10 tells me to not even bid God speed to those that dont bring that doctrine that they taught. The formula for salvation under the new covenant God made with us is clearly revealed throughout the New Testament. I do KNOW that the receiving of salvation comes by grace through faith alone. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO. It has everything to do with what Jesus did. Looking in the library here you can see a salvation formula contrary to that of scripture thus making your doctrine different from that which the apostles spread abroad. Having said that Im not sure if I should be even bidding you all God speed according to scripture. I need to be careful.

 

[erbo]

NP,

Do you believe that a person is saved by God’s Grace, through faith alone? Do you believe that once you confess Jesus as Lord, that you are assured of your salvation, and there is nothing you can do to lose it?

I’m not trying to attack your beliefs, I’m just trying to get an idea of what type of background you are coming from. It’s very tempting to get back to so-called “fundamentals” of Christian Truth. It is dangerous to cut down too much, because you may accidentally get “too” fundamental, and throw out some important truths.

God bless!

-erbo

 

[NewPerspective]

Its made somewhat unclear in Scripture whether or not someone can “lose their salvation” but I would have reason to believe that the only way something of the like could happen is by removing your faith in Christ and putting it into another. Matthew 7 clearly shows that not everyone who professes Christ as Lord will inherit the promises made my God. You’ll know them by their fruits scripture says. It says in Galations 5:4 that those who are justified by the law have fallen from grace. I would, as it relates to works, have to lean more towards a once TRULY saved always saved. Not giving those who inherit everlasting life the license to live the way they want, because true conversion is followed up by good works and the fruit of the Spirit of God that is given freely to those who are truly children of God. So to summarize, yes, I think there is assurance of salvation. The possible loss of salvation implies that you earned it in the first place which is not true. If you cant earn it im not sure than you can technically lose it. You can willingly misplace your faith and fall from grace, but thats a whole different story.Its not about us and what we do, yes our works are important and will be tried by fire at the Judgment Seat of Christ but not that we be condemned for what we did wrong but rather rewarded for the good works we did having had faith in Christ and His work at the cross. Thats just what I believe. Thanks for asking a polite question and not attacking me. Im not really the Catholic Answers Forum “peoples champ.” Theyre not big fans of mine.

 

[Orionthehunter]

New perspective: Would you be so kind as to address my question in post #13. You made a rather serious charge that I’d like to have you document.