Hal Lindsey and Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter b_ulmen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

b_ulmen

Guest
reading LIndsey’s “Liberation fo Planet Earth”, and was curious if there is a catholic assessment on his statement (or a smart Catholic who has read his non-endtime stuff) that we’ve nothing to worry about re:sin ,that no matter what we do as long as we believ ein Chirst, then all is well. I admit I’m not done with it, but wanted to get this thought outta my head while it was fresh.
 
reading LIndsey’s “Liberation fo Planet Earth”, and was curious if there is a catholic assessment on his statement (or a smart Catholic who has read his non-endtime stuff) that we’ve nothing to worry about re:sin ,that no matter what we do as long as we believ ein Chirst, then all is well. I admit I’m not done with it, but wanted to get this thought outta my head while it was fresh.
Lindsey’s statement is standard Fundamentalist fare. Here are two articles which present the Catholic teaching:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9802chap.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9509fea2.asp
 
I love how Catholics throw around the word “Fundamentalist” as if it were an insult or something dismissive. When one considers the origins of the word it’s really something good.

"Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian academics and theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the first decade of the Twentieth Century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations during and immediately following the First World War.The movement’s purpose was to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and zealously defend it against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other “-isms” which it regarded as harmful to Christianity.

The term “fundamentalism” has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to belief. The term was also used to describe “The Fundamentals”, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart This series of essays came to be representative of the “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy” which appeared late in the 19th century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the “five fundamentals”:

The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ’s miracles.
By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as “fundamentalists.”

Since then, the focus of the movement, the meaning of the term Fundamentalism, and the ranks of those who willingly use it to identify themselves, have gone through several phases of re-definition, though maintaining the central commitment to its orthodoxy." - Wikipedia.

So wouldn’t Catholics agree with the “five fundamentals”? If so, you’re technically a fundamentalist yourself. 😛
 
I love how Catholics throw around the word “Fundamentalist” as if it were an insult or something dismissive. When one considers the origins of the word it’s really something good…

…So wouldn’t Catholics agree with the “five fundamentals”? If so, you’re technically a fundamentalist yourself. 😛
When used in the context of contemporary Christian Theology, “fundamental” has a very different connotation than its Webster’s entry. The term has evolved from its origins, to be sure, and it may continue to evolve, but, at present, it succinctly identifies a strand of Protestant Theology. Of course, any label applied to Protestant Theologies is inapt, since they very essence of Protestantism denies the existence of any authority to define a set of doctrines.

Catholics, Mormons, and Double Predestination Calvinists would all agree on the fundamentals enumerated at Niagara. But the Niagara group would not have have adopted the term for itself if it did not identify a marked distinction from these other groups.
 
I love how Catholics throw around the word “Fundamentalist” as if it were an insult or something dismissive. When one considers the origins of the word it’s really something good.
I was not using the word as an insult but to more adequately identify those who hold to a position of “eternal security”, a theological position which isn’t held by all of Protestantism.
 
I was not using the word as an insult but to more adequately identify those who hold to a position of “eternal security”, a theological position which isn’t held by all of Protestantism.
Ah, I see. Indeed, as one coming from a Wesleyen-Arminian theological background I am a Protestant who cannot believe in Eternal Security based on the study of Scripture. So we’re agreed on that issue I believe.
 
Ah, I see. Indeed, as one coming from a Wesleyen-Arminian theological background I am a Protestant who cannot believe in Eternal Security based on the study of Scripture. So we’re agreed on that issue I believe.
Maybe we should back up a minute and look at the semantics - the meaning.

Fundamentalism in the sense you (Crimson Serpah) have described was used to distinguish the adherents to the Niagara Conference from those fellow non-Catholic Christians who upheld the documentary hypothesis rather than a literal view of Scripture. Those who constituted the original Niagara Fundamentalism have since diverged into groups that support a dispensational theology (promulgated by Scofield and that focuses on eschatology) as well as groups that support a more evangelical theology that shares more with a Calvinist soteriology.

What FCEGM described as Fundamentalist is more of what Catholics commonly encounter - a once-saved-always-saved, sola fide economy of salvation that does not appear in the Niagara Fundamentals. This is the more common meaning for us.

We can also talk about Catholic Fundamentals - and these would be articulated in the Nicene Creed, which you and probably 99% of Christians would agree with up to the phrase “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic church” depending on your definition of Catholic.

Lastly, there is a fundamentalism as a type of general ideological movement that seeks to interpret contemporary events solely through the lens of a document or an idea. What is difficult in dealing with fundamentalism (again, small “f”) is not the reliance upon the source document but rather upon one’s interpretation of the source document. If I tell an evangelical co-worker I disagree that Rom 10:13 supports a once-saved-always-saved soteriology, I’d be accused of disagreeing with Scripture and that makes it nigh impossible to budge him from his position (though I could point to Matt 7:21 as a contradictory verse), even though I’m disagreeing with his understanding of Scripture.

So that’s where we’re coming from, and while I think the Catholic Church would support the five fundamentals of Niagara as they are stated, the five fundamentals do not adequately describe the theology promulgated in our experience of American Christian Fundamentalism today.
 
I wouldn’t worry about Hal Lindsey’s view. They are detrimental to Catholic teaching. TBN in general is not high on my list
 
I wouldn’t worry about Hal Lindsey’s view. They are detrimental to Catholic teaching. TBN in general is not high on my list
Not to mention contrived. Hal’s formula:
“Today we saw A happen.
The Bible mentions A and says B will happen soon.
B is a clear sign of the imminent Rapture,
So send me money.”
 
I think Mr. Lindsy has some very interesting views on things. I, however, think that it’s best to not try to predict when the Lord comes back, but just to be ready for his coming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top