mwc Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Point taken, mwc. Thanks a lot. Can we have the link where you found this? I'm very curious who wrote it and in what context? BTW, it's an interesting read and I'm glad you found it. Christ, Constantine, Sol Invictus: the Unconquerable Sun mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oddmanout Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 check out the Ancient Christian Commentary series by InterVarsity Press. As I remember reading the volume regarding Gen 1-11, most of the Early Church Fathers regarding the stories as allegory or whatever, just not literal. I showed this to a Fundie Pentacostal, and his only reply was, "So why are their views relevant?", yet he would hang on every word of Copeland and Hagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 Thanks for the links, mwc and Grandpa Harley. I'll have to bookmark this thread. Lots of really good reference info here. Gramps, thanks for the succinct summarization of history from the exC perspective. Probably couldn't bully a prof, Christian or otherwise, to say that. The nonChristians of this generation fear for their skins and the Christians--we needn't comment. Tom Harpur stands in a class of his own. He's Christian AND "of this generation." 1oddmanout said: check out the Ancient Christian Commentary series by InterVarsity Press. As I remember reading the volume regarding Gen 1-11, most of the Early Church Fathers regarding the stories as allegory or whatever, just not literal. I showed this to a Fundie Pentacostal, and his only reply was, "So why are their views relevant?", yet he would hang on every word of Copeland and Hagan. Okay, that would be up till Abraham. Sounds like something I should look at. But wow! So the liberal Christians really ARE closer to the orthodox tradition than the fundamentalists. My OT teacher kept saying things like, "But it's just myth!" as though "why would anyone even ask history questions about it?" Another prof keeps telling me the fundamentalists aren't really considered as Christians by some denominations--that they're a heresy, a new development. Another said they could not have existed earlier because they draw on a mentality that did not exist before the enlightenment. Possibly none of this makes sense to people who used to be fundamentalists. It sure didn't make sense to me. But when you look at it long enough and study the psychology behind it deeply enough, you begin to see a mindset, a mental pattern, a way of thinking. And that is what they are talking about. My thesis supervisor was born and raised Missouri Synod Lutheran. He left because too many people were getting hurt and his parents think he will go to hell so I think he knows quite a bit about the fundamentalist mindset. Obviously, there are many different expressions of fundamentalism. It differs from denomination to denomination. It is different in Canada from the United States. (I would guess it's different in Ontario from Alberta.) It is different in North America from the Europe. I would guess Australia is yet another story. I have yet to find two scholars who agree on definition. Today I thought my one committee member (who is an evangelical) agreed with me and I was delighted. Then he told me, "But you realize there is far more to fundamentalism than this. This is just one aspect of it." That brought me back to earth. The things I learn on these, and similar, forums correspond exactly with the history, sociology and theology texts, and with what the profs and my fellow students say. Because of my strong feeling of obligation to credit the people who are generous enough to share their thoughts and ideas with me most of them know about exC--at least the ones with whom I feel safe to share this about myself. And you know about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 check out the Ancient Christian Commentary series by InterVarsity Press. As I remember reading the volume regarding Gen 1-11, most of the Early Church Fathers regarding the stories as allegory or whatever, just not literal. I showed this to a Fundie Pentacostal, and his only reply was, "So why are their views relevant?", yet he would hang on every word of Copeland and Hagan. I had been going to comment to some more aspects of this post. I'm trying to understand what it is this fundie believed is relevant or important. I thought fundies wanted to build on the NT church. Don't they consider the early church after the NT as just as important? I don't know Copeland and Hagan but did a google search. I get the impression they are strong believers in miracles by manipulating energy, and that they are in the same tradition as Benny Hinn and other Pentecostals. I understand Pentecostals build on the story in Acts where tongues of fire lighted on everybody and they spoke in tongues, and also on other passages that seem to support glossalalia. Do miracles and slain in the spirit and charismatic movement in general belong to the same tradition? If so, then it would seem that Pentecostals pick out only those things that support the charismatic movement, but disregard everything else in the history of the church's teachings. I'm not sure why people who are so strong on praise and miracles (which seem so positive) are also so strong on teachings of hellfire and brimstone and conversion but it seems they are. Do they see the speaking in tongues and miracles as a sign (like snake-handling and drinking poison) that they have been accepted by God and saved from hellfire? And is the praise simply a way of placating God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Ruby, it gets very complicated because various types of Christianity overlap. In the UK we are less likely to use the term 'fundamentalist' and more likely to use 'literalists'. Literalists like to use the term 'bible believing' for themselves but so do some slightly more liberal Christians who place great significance on the Bible but read some passages as metaphorical but maintain a belief in a literal resurrection and virgin birth. Of bible believing churches you get some that are charismatic and some that are non charismatic. You also get some liberal churches that are charismatic and some that are not. Of the charismatic churches you get some that regard themselves as part of the Pentecostalist tradition and some that don't. And then there is a further sub division as to whether 'being born again' is a one or two stage process with a separate 'spirit baptism' that may or may not always be accompanied by tongues. I like to think of it as similar to ordering coffee in the states. You could get a bible believing literalist - no spirit baptism and definitiely no tongues, or a non literal charismatic with additional spirit baptism, easy on the historicity of the OT or a liberal charismatic - easy on the literal interpretations but extra tongues and regular spirit baptisms The combinations are endless - and they make up specials for Christmas .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share Posted December 19, 2007 I like to think of it as similar to ordering coffee in the states. You could get a bible believing literalist - no spirit baptism and definitiely no tongues, or a non literal charismatic with additional spirit baptism, easy on the historicity of the OT or a liberal charismatic - easy on the literal interpretations but extra tongues and regular spirit baptisms The combinations are endless - and they make up specials for Christmas .... Alice you make me laugh. That's a compliment, BTW. I don't live in the States and I don't drink coffee but I've heard people in Canada order coffee. It's confusing and it's one reason I don't drink coffee. I'd hate paying for a brew I can't drink just because I didn't know what the terms tasted like. In my readings on fundamentalism in Britain I keep coming across a term Keswick (sp?). Is that something you ever hear about? Double blessing is another term. Is that what you mean by "whether 'being born again' is a one or two stage process with a separate 'spirit baptism'"? So people in the UK call themselves Bible believers? I thought that was in the hard-core fundy Bible-Belt American South. See, I learn something new every day. James Barr was writing back in about 1970, but (if I remember correctly) he preferred the term conservative because the term fundamentalist had so many negative connotations. Maybe Bible believer developed since then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts