Why Equate Protestantism with "Born Again" Fundamentalism?

[mozart-250]

Everyone (should) believe the fundamentals of their faith.

However, only a small subset of Christians refer to themselves as fundamentalists. I have never heard of a Catholic or Methodist fundamentalist.

I would think it would be grossly unfair to use a word that has negative connotations (as this word does in our culture) to Christians who do not use the word to describe themselves.

 

[emeraldisle]

I am still curious as to what emeraldisle would call the type of Protestant that we are discussing? Should we simply call them all extremist or should we invent a new term?

I don’t have any problem with calling a person who believes in the fundamentals of their faith a fundamentalist.

What I don’t like is people who mockingly call people fundamentalists when they believe in the fundamentals of their faith and so are fundamentalists too.

.

 

[emeraldisle]

I would think it would be grossly unfair to use a word that has negative connotations (as this word does in our culture) to Christians who do not use the word to describe themselves.

Yes thats some peoples problem the “negative connotations” and not the fact that a fundamentalist believes in the fundamentals of their faith.

.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Yes thats some peoples problem the “negative connotations” and not the fact that a fundamentalist believes in the fundamentals of their faith.

.

But a capital “F” Fundamentalist is the name for those who hold to specific beliefs as THE fundamentals of their Christian faith. Yes, we’re all fundamentalists, but we’re not all Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists we are referring to in this thread would not, for instance, attend any type of ecumenical prayer gathering because they might have to pray next to someone who believes in infant baptism or someone who starts praying in tongues. The Fundamentalists have their own interpretation of Scripture and anyone who doesn’t agree with their interpretation might not even be saved.

 

[Huguenot]

Hi, Huguenot! Haven’t seen you around in a while.

Yup. Billy Graham and JP-2 got on very well. And DID Billy EVER take heat for THAT!

I haven’t got a lot of time right now …
I already was “here” about two years ago, and I mentioned the fact that I “landed” on a very anti-Catholic site ( I don’t remember the address ) and that I “contacted” them ( there wasn’t a forum but a “contact us” button … ) ; well, they didn’t attack only Catholics, but also Billy Graham …
They are the “the Pope is the Antichrist” type of people, and if I remember well, there was a photo of Pope John Paul II and of Billy Graham shaking hands, with a caption like “Billy Graham shaking hands with the Antichrist” or something of that kind … which isn’t friendly for both of them …

 

[someotherguy]

Hi,

I dunno if this has been pointed out before but it seems most of us Catholics equate the whole of Protestantism with the “born-again” fundamentalism. I see threads claiming “protestants think catholics are going to hell”, “protestants are wrong with OSAS”, etc. Many protestant denominations (as far as I know) don’t believe Catholics would go to hell (well, Luther certainly did, but still, I think many modern protestants think catholicism lead to hell). And OSAS certainly is not a belief of most protestants.

My point is I think we Catholics should me more particular in referring to Fundamentalist beliefs than projecting them all to Protestantism as a whole.

Your thoughts?

All of us are deserving of Hell because of our sins (that’s the sins that we, personally, are responsible for, not the Unbiblical idea of “original sin”). It is only by being born again through the Biblical model of repentance and faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross (not baptism, adherance to religious rituals, or membership in any religious organization) that we are forgiven for our sins, reconciled to God, and made children of His.

So, if a Roman Catholic becomes born again, then there’s no reason why he would go to Hell.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

All of us are deserving of Hell because of our sins (that’s the sins that we, personally, are responsible for, not the Unbiblical idea of “original sin”). It is only by being born again through the Biblical model of repentance and faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross (not baptism, adherance to religious rituals, or membership in any religious organization) that we are forgiven for our sins, reconciled to God, and made children of His.

So, if a Roman Catholic becomes born again, then there’s no reason why he would go to Hell.

Actually, the Biblical model for being born again is baptism (John 3:5). Repentance and putting one’s faith in Christ is conversion (turning to God/away from sin) which is also necessary for salvation. Baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16), but that’s only the beginning of a life-long race to the finish line in Heaven. It’s not a matter of looking back and remembering a day/time that you asked Jesus to be your personal Lord and Savior, Scripture mentions no such thing. It’s a matter of taking up our cross daily to follow Christ (Matthew 16:24), doing the good works that He has prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:13) so that others may see Christ in us, the “hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). Anyone who says differently is preaching another gospel.

 

[someotherguy]

Actually, the Biblical model for being born again is baptism (John 3:5).

No, baptism is always a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

It’s a matter of taking up our cross daily to follow Christ

That’s right. Those of us who are born again are called to take up our cross daily. However, that does not make us any less born again.

doing the good works that He has prepared for us

Again, good works are a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

Anyone who says differently is preaching another gospel.

Anyone who says that we’re saved by anything other than repentance and faith in Christ and His atonement on the cross on our behalf is preaching another Gospel.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

No, baptism is always a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

That’s not what the Bible says.

That’s right. Those of us who are born again are called to take up our cross daily. However, that does not make us any less born again.

Can someone be a disciple of Christ who doesn’t follow Him daily?

Again, good works are a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

Right - faith and works are two sides of the same coin. If we have true faith, we’ll do the works He asks of us.

Anyone who says that we’re saved by anything other than repentance and faith in Christ and His atonement on the cross on our behalf is preaching another Gospel.

Concerning salvation, eternal life, new birth, and justification Sacred Scripture details the following means:

By Believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By the work of the Spirit (John 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Luke 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By Works (Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:21, 24-25)

By Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

Can we cut any one of these out of the list and proclaim it alone as the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? without God’s grace? without repentance? without baptism? without the Spirit? These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another.

 

[Contarini]

Why you think it’s wrong, you aren’t infallible.

Of course not. Refute my arguments. But saying “it’s plain common sense” is not an argument. It’s an admission that you have no argument and can’t be bothered to produce one.

You have not explained who these people are who do not believe in the fundamentals of their faith, for one thing. If everyone is a fundamentalist, doesn’t the term lose all meaning?

Edwin

 

[someotherguy]

That’s not what the Bible says.

That’s exactly what the Bible says.

Can someone be a disciple of Christ who doesn’t follow Him daily?

No. Rememeber I said that we’re called to follow Him daily?

Right - faith and works are two sides of the same coin. If we have true faith, we’ll do the works He asks of us.

That’s right. However, that’s a far cry from saying that we’re saved by works.

Concerning salvation, eternal life, new birth, and justification Sacred Scripture details the following means:

By Believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

Faith in Christ, just like I said.

By Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

Repentance, just like I said.

By Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

Baptism is a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

By the work of the Spirit (John 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

Right. That’s a work of the Spirit, not a requirement on our part.

By declaring with our mouths (Luke 12:8; Rom 10:9)

Faith, just like I said.

By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

Faith, just like I said.

By Works (Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:21, 24-25)

No, neither of these say that we’re saved by works.

By Grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

All acts of God, not requirements on our part.

Can we cut any one of these out of the list and proclaim it alone as the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? without God’s grace? without repentance? without baptism? without the Spirit? These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another.

Yes, we can be saved without baptism.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

That’s exactly what the Bible says.

My Bible says that Baptism washes away our sins and gives us the Holy Spirit and we are born again. Sounds like it’s kinda important!

However, that’s a far cry from saying that we’re saved by works.

I don’t believe, and the Church does not teach, that we’re saved by works alone, nor by faith alone, but by “faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:6)

Faith in Christ, just like I said. Repentance, just like I said.

So it’s not really faith “alone” is it?

Baptism is a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says otherwise in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21; Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says otherwise in his letter to Titus; as he was told by Ananias otherwise in Acts 22:16. I’m taking God at His Word rather than a vain tradition of men that disposes of baptism as unnecessary.

Right. That’s a work of the Spirit, not a requirement on our part.

So again, it’s not “faith alone” that saves us, is it?

No, neither of these say that we’re saved by works.

They do say that we will be judged and justified by those works, though.

Yes, we can be saved without baptism.

We can be saved without having our sins washed away, and without the Holy Spirit indwelling us? Amazing. Where does the Bible say that?

 

[rtconstant]

No, baptism is always a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

No, baptism is the initiation of the Christian it is the first step in salvation as that is the point of regeneration. Faith is also necessary to be sure, along with following the commands and teachings of Our Lord.

That’s right. Those of us who are born again are called to take up our cross daily. However, that does not make us any less born again.

So our actions have no consequences and Jesus was just speaking to hear Himself speak when He was telling us all that was required for us to see the Kingdom of Heaven? Gotcha.

Again, good works are a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

Good works are part of salvation without them Faith is dead.

Anyone who says that we’re saved by anything other than repentance and faith in Christ and His atonement on the cross on our behalf is preaching another Gospel.

Faith is the key no doubt but baptism, works, repentance, confession, and following the commands of Christ are also part of it. To teach otherwise is to teach only a fraction of the Gospel.

 

[someotherguy]

My Bible says that Baptism washes away our sins and gives us the Holy Spirit and we are born again. Sounds like it’s kinda important!

The Christian Bible doesn’t say that.

So it’s not really faith “alone” is it?

Yep. Still faith alone.

Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says otherwise in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21; Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says otherwise in his letter to Titus; as he was told by Ananias otherwise in Acts 22:16. I’m taking God at His Word rather than a vain tradition of men that disposes of baptism as unnecessary.

No, neither Paul nor Peter nor any of God’s word says otherwise.

So again, it’s not “faith alone” that saves us, is it?

Yes, it’s still faith alone.

They do say that we will be judged and justified by those works, though.

In regard to Romans 2:6, you need to read the whole passage. It’s talking about a distinction between the saved and the unsaved, not telling us that we will be saved by good works.

Second, in regard to James 2, again, you need to read the whole passage. It’s refering to the pre-Christ, Old Covenant believer, specifically, Abraham, not believers under the New Covenant.

We can be saved without having our sins washed away, and without the Holy Spirit indwelling us? Amazing. Where does the Bible say that?

Where does the Bible say that baptism saves us or imparts the Holy Spirit?

 

[someotherguy]

No, baptism is the initiation of the Christian it is the first step in salvation as that is the point of regeneration. Faith is also necessary to be sure, along with following the commands and teachings of Our Lord.

Again, baptism is a response to salvation, not a means of salvation.

So our actions have no consequences and Jesus was just speaking to hear Himself speak when He was telling us all that was required for us to see the Kingdom of Heaven? Gotcha.

I don’t think you’ve got anything.

Good works are part of salvation without them Faith is dead.

Good works are a response to salvation, not a means to salvation.

Faith is the key no doubt but baptism, works, repentance, confession, and following the commands of Christ are also part of it. To teach otherwise is to teach only a fraction of the Gospel.

There is nothing in the Gospel about baptism.

 

[Contarini]

No, neither Paul nor Peter nor any of God’s word says otherwise.

You’re going to have to do better than that. When Ananias says “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins”: when Peter responds to a request to share the way of salvation with the injunction “repent and be baptized,” when Paul says that baptism buries us with Christ, when Peter again says that baptism saves us (though of course it is not the physical removal of dirt that is salvific, something no one claims), just why do you think that these passages should not be taken at face value as Christians have done consistently since the time they were written?

In regard to Romans 2:6, you need to read the whole passage. It’s talking about a distinction between the saved and the unsaved, not telling us that we will be saved by good works.

No one said that we are saved by good works. What Romans 2 says is that people’s works will be evidence on the basis of which they will be condemned or declared righteous.

Second, in regard to James 2, again, you need to read the whole passage. It’s refering to the pre-Christ, Old Covenant believer, specifically, Abraham, not believers under the New Covenant.

So Abraham was saved by works but we are saved by faith? Doesn’t this make complete nonsense of Paul’s argument in Romans 4, which turns on the claim that Abraham is the “father of all believers” and was justified by faith just as we are?

It’s telling that you haven’t even tried to mount a shred of a Biblical case. Your position is pure tradition of men with no Scripture to support it.

Edwin

 

[someotherguy]

You’re going to have to do better than that.

I’m sorry, but the word of God is the best I can do.

When Ananias says “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins”: when Peter responds to a request to share the way of salvation with the injunction “repent and be baptized,” when Paul says that baptism buries us with Christ, when Peter again says that baptism saves us (though of course it is not the physical removal of dirt that is salvific, something no one claims), just why do you think that these passages should not be taken at face value as Christians have done consistently since the time they were written?

I think that the whole passage should be taken at face value in light of the analogy of scripture.

No one said that we are saved by good works.

Actually, a couple of the Roman Catholics in this thread did.

So Abraham was saved by works but we are saved by faith? Doesn’t this make complete nonsense of Paul’s argument in Romans 4, which turns on the claim that Abraham is the “father of all believers” and was justified by faith just as we are?

I’m curious: do you know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

It’s telling that you haven’t even tried to mount a shred of a Biblical case. Your position is pure tradition of men with no Scripture to support it.

Tradition? Great! Since I’m on a Roman Catholic board, tradition is all I need.

 

[Contarini]

I’m sorry, but the word of God is the best I can do.

Then how come you have yet to appeal to the Word of God?

I think that the whole passage should be taken at face value in light of the analogy of scripture.

Easy to say. At what point do you plan to provide a substantive argument? Or are you going to string us along with empty claims until Jesus returns and tells us who is right?

Actually, a couple of the Roman Catholics in this thread did.

Perhaps. That is not what the thread to which you are responding said. The point being made by the appeal to Romans 2 is that both condemnation and justification (presumably in the context of the final judgment) is ascribed to good works. That does not mean that our salvation as a whole is to be ascribed to our works.

I’m curious: do you know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

For what it’s worth, I devoted a chapter of my doctoral dissertation to the subject! However, since I was talking about the Reformation and earlier views, I did not discuss the dispensationalist theology that you appear to be defending (though you have been remarkably coy about actually arguing for your position, let alone citing Scripture to support it), which is a later (and most unfortunate) innovation in Christianity.

I repeat: how can you defend your claim in the light of what Paul says in Romans 4? Does not Paul say plainly there that Abraham was justified by faith and is the father of all those who are justified by faith?

Tradition? Great! Since I’m on a Roman Catholic board, tradition is all I need.

Obviously Roman Catholics do not think that their “Sacred Tradition” is a mere human tradition. I have yet to hear a Baptist make such a claim for Baptist tradition. But there is always a first. However, I am not a Roman Catholic but an Anglican. I believe in the final authority of Scripture. So stop playing word games and start defending your position. Or else go back to Scripture, ask God for guidance, and take seriously the possibility that you are wrong.

Edwin

 

[someotherguy]

Then how come you have yet to appeal to the Word of God?

I’ve appealed to the word of God several times.

Easy to say. At what point do you plan to provide a substantive argument? Or are you going to string us along with empty claims until Jesus returns and tells us who is right?

If you believed the Bible, you’d know who’s right.

Perhaps. That is not what the thread to which you are responding said. The point being made by the appeal to Romans 2 is that both condemnation and justification (presumably in the context of the final judgment) is ascribed to good works. That does not mean that our salvation as a whole is to be ascribed to our works.

Then you’ll have to take that up with the poster who said it.

I repeat: how can you defend your claim in the light of what Paul says in Romans 4? Does not Paul say plainly there that Abraham was justified by faith and is the father of all those who are justified by faith?

Do you know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

I have yet to hear a Baptist make such a claim for Baptist tradition.

OK. Please feel free to tell me what Baptist “traidtions” we have that are not based on scripture.

But there is always a first. However, I am not a Roman Catholic but an Anglican.

From what I’ve been reading about the Anglican church, it’s about as big a mess.

 

[mozart-250]

There is nothing in the Gospel about baptism.

Oh really…

I would suggest that you take another look at the book of Acts. You will see that baptism is very important to the apostles.

Since the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ is what the apostles taught and preached in the book of Acts, what grounds do you have to remove baptism from the Gospel.

I think you are grossly overstating your case.

Now if you want discuss the relationship of baptism to other parts of the gospel, go ahead. Interesting topic. But to divorce it from the good news of Jesus Christ…huh. If baptism was an integral part of the message of Christ that the apostles preached in the book of Acts, then baptism should be an integral part of the message of Christ (gospel) today.

Besides, I think Edwin raises a good point. When baptism is mentioned in the Bible (as Edwin cited), why shouldn’t I read it plainly as…well…baptism. It would seem to me that the burden of proof would rest upon you if you are asserting that the plain reading should not be used in this case.

Your say so is not proof…