Why Equate Protestantism with "Born Again" Fundamentalism?

[ralphinal]

Who doesn’t believe in the fundamentals of their faith? What people don’t believe in are the fundamentals of some other group’s version of the faith!

Edwin

I hate to say it, but a good number of Catholics don’t believe in the fundamentals of their faith. That is another story…

 

[Contarini]

I hate to say it, but a good number of Catholics don’t believe in the fundamentals of their faith.

But they *think *they do. Or to be really subjective, they believe in the fundamentals of *their *faith as *they *understand it. It’s like saying that everyone who believes in protecting human life is “prolife,” so why restrict it to abortion? The point is that the term denotes a particular debate about when human life begins. Obviously everyone is “prolife” as they define life (or nearly everyone–there are some very disturbing pro-abortion folks who admit that abortion kills a human being but support the right to abortion anyway, but that’s another issue). Similarly, by emeraldisle’s definition everyone is a fundamentalist!

Edwin

 

[Pixie_Dust]

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?

I think that some of us used to be that kind of “OSAS, Catholics are pagan idolaters for whom the hottest fires of Hell are waiting, anyone who disagrees with my interpretation of Scripture probably isn’t really saved” Christian. On my journey to “Rome” I actually spent a great deal of time learning about as many different non-Catholic denominations as I could. (So maybe the “anti-intellectual” label didn’t fit me well, I’m a Lifelong Learner) I was in a real crisis of faith and wanted to figure out where the Truth was. I know quite a bit about every one of the major non-Catholic denominations as a result of my research.

I truly wish that some of the non-Catholic posters would be more specific in their profiles where the majority just say, “Protestant” which could mean just about any non-Catholic Christian denomination. This makes it difficult to know exactly where they’re coming from and what “language” to use to aid in their understanding if, indeed, they are here at CAF to understand rather than throw about wild accusations that do absolutely nothing to make me want to leave the Catholic Church and join them in their place of worship.

As a former I/F, KJV-only Baptist, that’s what I know best and I can usually pick them out based simply on the accusations and misconceptions they mention about the Catholic faith because they sound so very familiar to what I was taught. So, it is easy to project our own experiences onto the non-Catholic posters here and assume that they are what some of us once were, but it may not always be true. Being more specific in their profiles, or even adding it to their signature lines as Contarini/Edwin and Mozart-250 do (and a few others), helps communication immensely.

 

[ralphinal]

But they *think *they do. Or to be really subjective, they believe in the fundamentals of *their *faith as *they *understand it. It’s like saying that everyone who believes in protecting human life is “prolife,” so why restrict it to abortion? The point is that the term denotes a particular debate about when human life begins. Obviously everyone is “prolife” as they define life (or nearly everyone–there are some very disturbing pro-abortion folks who admit that abortion kills a human being but support the right to abortion anyway, but that’s another issue). Similarly, by emeraldisle’s definition everyone is a fundamentalist!

Edwin

Ok, you went in a different direction. That type I agree with. I was talking about those who, for example, do not beleive in the Real Presence or in the need for confession. No rationalization, they just do not accept it. Lots of that kind of Catholic out there, too.

 

[mercygate]

But they *think *they do. Or to be really subjective, they believe in the fundamentals of *their *faith as *they *understand it. It’s like saying that everyone who believes in protecting human life is “prolife,” so why restrict it to abortion? The point is that the term denotes a particular debate about when human life begins. Obviously everyone is “prolife” as they define life (or nearly everyone–there are some very disturbing pro-abortion folks who admit that abortion kills a human being but support the right to abortion anyway, but that’s another issue). Similarly, by emeraldisle’s definition everyone is a fundamentalist!

Edwin

Maybe Emerald should come to my sixth grade CCD class, where I walk my kids through the steps to show them the difference between “my” faith and “the” faith; the difference between “my” subjective, personal experience of Christ and “the” objective content of our doctrine, and how the two fit together.

I also walk them through the principle of non-contradiction (LOL). They kind of “get” it! I do this in connection with the widespread idea that relativism is workable.

 

[ralphinal]

Maybe Emerald should come to my sixth grade CCD class, where I walk my kids through the steps to show them the difference between “my” faith and “the” faith; the difference between “my” subjective, personal experience of Christ and “the” objective content of our doctrine, and how the two fit together.

I also walk them through the principle of non-contradiction (LOL). They kind of “get” it! I do this in connection with the widespread idea that relativism is workable.

And I teach my 10th grade, which is confirmation in my parrish, that they have a moral obligation to conform their will to the teachings of the Church. There is no I in Church, no me in faith, no my in Catholic.

Sometimes it takes, sometimes, it doesn’t. All year I had one boy who refused to accept the Church’s teaching on Abortion. “His” faith allows it.

 

[mercygate]

And I teach my 10th grade, which is confirmation in my parrish, that they have a moral obligation to conform their will to the teachings of the Church. There is no I in Church, no me in faith, no my in Catholic.

Sometimes it takes, sometimes, it doesn’t. All year I had one boy who refused to accept the Church’s teaching on Abortion. “His” faith allows it.

You GO, Bro! (or sister?). Hey: we should start a thread for Confirmation prep teachers and how to teach kids how to question Church teaching responsibly and how to handle persistent dissidence.

Now back to you regularly scheduled topic.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

To quote Contarini earlier in the thread,It has come to be associated with a doctrine of “secondary separation” in which there can be no cooperation with people with whom you disagree theologically, and with a highly anti-intellectual stance based on a radical doctrine of sola scriptura.

.

SS is NOT a doctrine it’s a praxis, furthermore I laugh at high church view that fundamentalism is ANTI-intellectual.
Simple understanding does not mean lack of intellect.

 

[Contarini]

Ok, you went in a different direction. That type I agree with. I was talking about those who, for example, do not beleive in the Real Presence or in the need for confession. No rationalization, they just do not accept it. Lots of that kind of Catholic out there, too.

I guess that’s true. I haven’t run into a lot of them, but that may be because I hang out largely with academic types. Most of the “dissenting” Catholics I know are convinced that their position can be justified in terms of the Catholic Faith and regard people like the folks on this board as fundamentalist throwbacks
Some of these people seem to me to be quite obviously in disagreement with basic teachings of your Church (or for that matter of historic Christianity generally). Others are thoroughly orthodox by my “mere Christianity” standards and also adhere to the teachings of the Councils, the Immaculate Conception, etc., that such things as the ordination of women do not in fact come under the category of authoritative Church teaching.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

SS is NOT a doctrine it’s a praxis, furthermore I laugh at high church view that fundamentalism is ANTI-intellectual.
Simple understanding does not mean lack of intellect.

Have you read Mark Noll’s *The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind? *I think he does an excellent job of explaining and substantiating the “anti-intellectual” charge. See in particular the chapter called “The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism”!

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

I guess that’s true. I haven’t run into a lot of them, but that may be because I hang out largely with academic types. Most of the “dissenting” Catholics I know are convinced that their position can be justified in terms of the Catholic Faith and regard people like the folks on this board as fundamentalist throwbacks
Some of these people seem to me to be quite obviously in disagreement with basic teachings of your Church (or for that matter of historic Christianity generally). Others are thoroughly orthodox by my “mere Christianity” standards and also adhere to the teachings of the Councils, the Immaculate Conception, etc., that such things as the ordination of women do not in fact come under the category of authoritative Church teaching.

Edwin

In the end, the problem is the same thing that built this country. It is the mentallity from the age of Enlightenment that says that I can decide for myself and I can do it myself and I don’t need anyone else.

That is not Christianity

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Have you read Mark Noll’s *The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind? *I think he does an excellent job of explaining and substantiating the “anti-intellectual” charge. See in particular the chapter called “The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism”!

Edwin

Thanks Edwin I found it online. I’ve had time to read the first 10 pages or so. I’ll get back on here after I’ve had the chance to peruse the whole section.

 

[emeraldisle]

I’m sorry you are puzzled. Words can have more than one meaning, and all languages evolve and change over the years. In this case, there is the literal meaning, and then there is the meaning which describes a certain type of Protestant Christian. To quote Contarini earlier in the thread,It has come to be associated with a doctrine of “secondary separation” in which there can be no cooperation with people with whom you disagree theologically, and with a highly anti-intellectual stance based on a radical doctrine of sola scriptura.

While I personally do not believe that these things are part of the fundamentals of Christianity, I believe the association with this specific type of Protestant Christianity has become the more common understanding. Again, I am sorry you are puzzled about it. That’s just a darned shame.

Imo you are missing the point, the fact is that a person who believes in the fundamentals of their faith is a fundamentalist.

The issue is not about the fundamentals of the faith they believe in but the fact that the person believes in the fundamentals of their faith.

Again I say that a fundamentalist is a person who believes in the fundamentals of their faith.

.

 

[emeraldisle]

But the word “fundamentalist” originally was coined to express a very particular set of fundamentals. You are the one giving it a new meaning. Giving words a new meaning is not always bad, if the old meanings aren’t useful. But it’s odd to claim that people using the more standard meaning are the ones “misusing words.”

Your meaning would make the word useless. Everyone thinks they believe in the fundamentals of their faith. The word is only useful if it refers to things that some people think are fundamentals and others don’t.

Edwin

Real issue is one of hypocrisy, I mean why do people who believe in the fundamentals of their faith and so are fundamentalists criticize other people for believing in the fundamentals of their faith and so likewise are fundamentalists.

This hypocrisy stinks!

.

 

[Contarini]

Real issue is one of hypocrisy, I mean why do people who believe in the fundamentals of their faith and so are fundamentalists criticize other people for believing in the fundamentals of their faith and so likewise are fundamentalists.

This hypocrisy stinks!

.

At some point you need to stop ranting and actually defend your definition. We have pointed out to you why it is wrong. If you don’t even try to discuss our arguments, then we have no reason for continuing to talk to you. You clearly are not interested in a serious conversation.

Edwin

 

[ibkc]

Real issue is one of hypocrisy, I mean why do people who believe in the fundamentals of their faith and so are fundamentalists criticize other people for believing in the fundamentals of their faith and so likewise are fundamentalists.

This hypocrisy stinks!

Hmmm, well since we’re getting all into semantics here: what you describe above is not hypocrisy. Here are some definitions of “hypocrisy”:

1. 
   *]The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
   *]An act or instance of such falseness.
   And
   1. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
   2. insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have
      Hypocrisy would be if we were claiming to be fundamentalists, but were not actually living our lives as fundamentalists. I see no one here doing that.

 

[emeraldisle]

We have pointed out to you why it is wrong.
Edwin

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

If you don’t even try to discuss our arguments, then we have no reason for continuing to talk to you. You clearly are not interested in a serious conversation.

A persons belief in the fundamentals of their faith = fundamentalism

Just plain common sense!

.

 

[emeraldisle]

Hmmm, well since we’re getting all into semantics here: what you describe above is not hypocrisy. Here are some definitions of “hypocrisy”:

1. 
   *]The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
   *]An act or instance of such falseness.
   And
   1. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
   2. insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have
      Hypocrisy would be if we were claiming to be fundamentalists, but were not actually living our lives as fundamentalists. I see no one here doing that.

1. 
   The hypocrisy is the fact that some fundamentalists criticize other fundamentalists for being what they are “fundamentalists”.
   
   .

 

[deb1]

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?

 

[ALotLessThumb]

The hypocrisy is the fact that some fundamentalists criticize other fundamentalists for being what they are “fundamentalists”.

.

Your argument seems to be ignoring the issue at hand. No one is denying the meaning of fundamental as a ‘word’ in the dictionary. The argument is over a movement that has adopted the moniker. Yes, all people who consider themselves orthodox in their faith would be expected to believe/practice the fundamentals of that faith; but this has little to do with the Fundamentalist movment in Christianity which is appox. 100 years old.

To look at it a few different ways here:

C.S. Lewis wrote Mere Christianity, and one could postulate from it a definition (not above argument perhaps; but a definition) of the fundamental and common ground of all Christians. This fundamentalism is not the same as the movement that was born out of the Great Awakening. Another way to look at it is that several churches refer to themselves as catholic. Would would deny that several of these churches are actually catholic, or found throughout the world (universally.) How many of these put forth the same ideology of The Catholic Church?

We are dealing with something similiar to a problem between common and proper names for these organizations/ideologies. The Fundamentalist (proper name) are a movement who believe they worship in a fundamental manner (common name) either like or unlike others who purport to teach and perpetuate fundamental Christian values (Methodists/Catholics/Orthodox/Lutherans/Anglicans.) That’s the difference.