OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 01:22:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Was/Is Jesus a *fundamentalist*?  (Read 3812 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« on: March 08, 2009, 08:44:47 PM »

I wasn't sure where to put this question, so would the moderator please move if necessary. And I'm not sure if it's been asked before - so forgive me if it has. But... anyway... Why is it that Christian bible-only fundamentalists make the claim that Jesus was a bible-only fundamentalist, too? It seems obvious that Jesus' religious practice included the kind of rituals and traditions that the modern fundamentalist abhors. Any thoughts?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2009, 08:45:46 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2009, 09:40:02 PM »

I've often wondered the same thing, Riddikulus. However, fundamentalists simply won't listen if you try to speak reasonably with them about the reality of Jesus and the religious culture of the time. Many will tell you that Jesus was a radical-just like themselves!!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2009, 09:43:05 PM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,959



« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2009, 10:08:20 PM »

^and they will insist that had Jesus lived today in our modern era, he would have done exactly the same as they are doing.  If that were true, what's to prevent them from declaring themselves to be Christ?
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,580



« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2009, 10:50:09 PM »

I guess it depends on how you define fundamentalist. Some of his thoughts and ideas were pretty extreme, like the idea that lust can be equated with adultery. That's just one example, but it sounds like an overstatement that would be right at home in fundy camps.
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2009, 11:14:55 PM »

I wasn't sure where to put this question, so would the moderator please move if necessary. And I'm not sure if it's been asked before - so forgive me if it has. But... anyway... Why is it that Christian bible-only fundamentalists make the claim that Jesus was a bible-only fundamentalist, too? It seems obvious that Jesus' religious practice included the kind of rituals and traditions that the modern fundamentalist abhors. Any thoughts?

No.  Jesus participated in the synagogue services, but alas! there is no scriptural warrent for it in the OT.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2009, 08:56:25 AM »

It strikes me that Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away from the Law. Now jots and tittles are Greek writing, not Hebrew, so it would seem that Jesus was verifying the Septuagint, a rather loose, non-Fundamentalist-style version of the Old Testament.

It would also be instructive - though I have neither the time nor the inclination to do it - to see how accurately he quoted the Old Testament, at times when he quoted its text, and to see which version he used, or whether he used an approximation which came to mind at the time.

Also, he often preached from nature and other contemporary illustrations, rather than from the text of scripture.

One should remember that he was - nay, is - the Word of God.

These at least are some initial ideas that cross my mind on the matter.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 08:57:35 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2009, 09:16:14 AM »

It strikes me that Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away from the Law. Now jots and tittles are Greek writing, not Hebrew, so it would seem that Jesus was verifying the Septuagint, a rather loose, non-Fundamentalist-style version of the Old Testament.

It would also be instructive - though I have neither the time nor the inclination to do it - to see how accurately he quoted the Old Testament, at times when he quoted its text, and to see which version he used, or whether he used an approximation which came to mind at the time.
More knowledgeable minds than I may be able to confirm this, but I believe that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, and therefore in English Bibles which translate the Old Testament from Hebrew, the quotation is not worded exactly like the original.

Jesus' validation of the LXX is exactly why we still use it today in our Greek-speaking parishes, and in all others we use a translation of it if available.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,889


« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2009, 09:22:49 AM »

One will always hear of salvation by grace, faith, & being born again. Where is the fundamentalist emphasis on the basics of living a Christian life by following the 10 commandments, the golden rule (Matthew 7:12), the two great commands (Matthew 22:37-40), prayer, fasting , alms giving (Matthew 6:1-18), the Beatitudes, the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Mind you I am not inferring that most fundamentalists do not do much of this but where are these basics focused on? One often hears wild speculative notions of prophecies, raptures, Darwinism, & hopeless condemnation of the "unsaved."
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2009, 10:55:11 AM »

Interestingly, this seems to be yet another example of a later name being given to people who did not necessarily express those ideas: it is said that Calvinism as we know it was developed by Beza, that Nestorius was not a Nestorian, and so on. I have never read them, but I have read that "The Fundamentals", published in the 1920s, which gave rise to the term "Fundamentalism", did not deal with the question of a Fundamentalist view of scripture.

I believe Fundamentalism grew up at about the same time as the RCs were formalising their own claim to inerrancy embodied in their pope, and that it was a reaction against the advancing Liberal Theology, Higher Criticism and so one, largely emanating from Germany, which - of this there is no doubt - was enfeebling and harrowing the churches. I sometimes give talks on church history, and - though I haven't got my notes here to hand to give precise figures - the massive collapse in membership in Baptist churches from about 1890 onwards to the 1970s is inextricably linked with the spread of unbelief in the pulpit then the pew. The same sort of thing, sadly, could be said of Methodism.

In looking at Fundamentalism as we see it today, we need I think to be merciful in bearing in mind what drove them to take up their position so tenaciously. These people are our Christian brothers and sisters, and even if we do not assent to some of their views, they deserve to be understood by their brothers and sisters outside their own camp - just as Orthodox Christians do (and even evangelical Baptists like me!). They may not return that grace, or then again they may: but that must not lessen our grace towards them.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 10:57:43 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
EofK
Mrs. Y
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 3,976


lolcat addict


« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2009, 02:10:48 PM »

It strikes me that Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away from the Law. Now jots and tittles are Greek writing, not Hebrew, so it would seem that Jesus was verifying the Septuagint, a rather loose, non-Fundamentalist-style version of the Old Testament.

It would also be instructive - though I have neither the time nor the inclination to do it - to see how accurately he quoted the Old Testament, at times when he quoted its text, and to see which version he used, or whether he used an approximation which came to mind at the time.

Also, he often preached from nature and other contemporary illustrations, rather than from the text of scripture.

One should remember that he was - nay, is - the Word of God.

These at least are some initial ideas that cross my mind on the matter.


I was under the impression that "jot" came from the Hebrew letter yod, similar to the Greek iota and "tittle" was some diacritical mark in Hebrew (can't remember now, it's been too long since I've studied either). 
Logged

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2009, 02:46:10 PM »

"jot" came from the Hebrew letter yod, similar to the Greek iota and "tittle" was some diacritical mark in Hebrew

Humble pie for me! You are right. I knew that the jot could be iota or yodh; I thought the tittle was part of Greek script, but apparently it can denote a small part of Hebrew or Greek script. The word is keraia. So to see whether our Lord used the LXX or the Hebrew, we'd need to consider his quotations from the OT.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
zoarthegleaner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 398



« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2009, 07:40:26 PM »

I suggest that He believed in the literal Virginal Conception, that could qualify a person as a fundamentalist.

He believed that marriage was ordained by God to be One Man to One Woman, that could qualify a person as a fundamentalist.

He believed that you must be willing to die for Him, that could qualify a person as a fundamentalist.

He believed that He was the Son of God and that could qualify a person as a fundamentalist.

He believed for a person to become perfect he must sell all he possesses and give to the poor and come follow Him, that could qualify a person as a fundamentalist.

He believed in the literal resurrection of the body from the dead, and that could qualify a person as a fundamentalist.

He believed that He was the Way, the Truth and the Light and that no man could come to the Father except through Him, and that could qualify a person as a fundamentalist.

He believed the Sabbaoth was made for Him, and that could make a person a fundamentalist.

I vote YES.


Logged

Courteous is my name,
and I have always aimed to live up to it.
Grace is also my name,
but when things go wrong
its Courteous whom I blame;
but its Grace who sees me through it.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2009, 08:36:19 PM »

I guess it depends on how you define fundamentalist. Some of his thoughts and ideas were pretty extreme, like the idea that lust can be equated with adultery. That's just one example, but it sounds like an overstatement that would be right at home in fundy camps.

I had never thought of that, but I would see that as Christ's way of getting to the heart of the matter, rather than merely conformity to externals; pious in public, but a mind like a sewer, if you know what I mean. Dwelling mentally on lust and outwardly *pure*, is no more righteous than actually committing the sin. Just my thoughts.

I suppose defining fundamentalism is the difficult part and no doubt, it has been variously described by different people. To me, the defining process boils down to a simple test. When the fundamentalist is confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring as opposed to conformity to doctrine, the fundamentalist will almost invariably choose the latter. They will do this regardless of the effect it has on fellow believers and the society in which they live. It seems to me that a fundamentalist is a person who follows a creed that basically denies them the ability to think beyond legalistic terms; sometimes those they have merely decided for themselves. I can see no correllation between the modern fundamentalist's claim that Jesus was/is a fundamentalist and the modern fundamentalist.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 08:36:59 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2009, 04:19:22 AM »

He believed in ...

Apart from having to sell all one's possessions, like the early Franciscans, and the question of the sabbath (which some Fundamentalists believe applies to Gentiles, and others believe was a national Jewish ordinance, given by God to mark them out as His people, and does not apply to Gentile Christians) all Evangelicals, and doubtless all Orthodox and all Catholics, believe all the things you list.

I think the post which follows yours, which centres on attitudes which attend the Fundamentalist mindset, gets nearer to differentiating them from other Christians.

I also suspect that, despite their non-Christian beliefs, Jehovah's Witnesses approach the Bible in a similar way to Christian Fundamentalists - which is perhaps why they seldom get anywhere when they argue with each other.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2009, 11:45:59 AM »

I wasn't sure where to put this question, so would the moderator please move if necessary. And I'm not sure if it's been asked before - so forgive me if it has. But... anyway... Why is it that Christian bible-only fundamentalists make the claim that Jesus was a bible-only fundamentalist, too? It seems obvious that Jesus' religious practice included the kind of rituals and traditions that the modern fundamentalist abhors. Any thoughts?
(emphasis mine)

Because He is the Incarnate Bible of God  Tongue Roll Eyes Wink
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 11:46:32 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2009, 08:07:32 PM »

^^^ Oh, good point!!  Tongue  Grin
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2009, 08:29:31 PM »

"jot" came from the Hebrew letter yod, similar to the Greek iota and "tittle" was some diacritical mark in Hebrew

Humble pie for me! You are right. I knew that the jot could be iota or yodh; I thought the tittle was part of Greek script, but apparently it can denote a small part of Hebrew or Greek script. The word is keraia. So to see whether our Lord used the LXX or the Hebrew, we'd need to consider his quotations from the OT.

Eli, Eli lama sabakhthani (Psalm 21/22:1) is Aramaic.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 08:31:34 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
zoarthegleaner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 398



« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2009, 12:33:44 PM »

"It seems to me that a fundamentalist is a person who follows a creed that basically denies them the ability to think beyond legalistic terms; sometimes those they have merely decided for themselves. I can see no correllation between the modern fundamentalist's claim that Jesus was/is a fundamentalist and the modern fundamentalist."    Riddikulus

As I have experienced the usage of these terms to  follow usage of the term "fundamentalist" with "legalistic" only makes the question more befuddling. 

I would rephrase in this manner: "a fundamentalist is a person whose vision of a creed is one dimensional, lacking perspective and without a wide range of peripheral vision, narrow minded."

However, that being said; it does not mean that the fundamentalist is in error of what is seen.  For example; when hunting deer one must keep a broad perspective until one takes aim for the kill.  If this analogy is adequate, it would seem that the question is to identify the object to which the focus of the fundamentalist is fixed and determine whether that object is being correctly identified.

Why then does Bible-fundamentalism exist?  Is it not a defensive posture against a perceived enemy?   Identify the nature of the enemy and its purpose (as seen by the fundamentalist) and you have begun to answer the primary question: "Why is it that Christian bible-only fundamentalists make the claim that Jesus was a bible-only fundamentalist, too?"

Since the term "bible-only fundamentalists" as David Young has suggested can be applied to Jehovah Witnessess and Evangelicals (who generally do not identify themselves as such) these questions would have to be continually being asked with each sect and member thereof being engaged. 

I believe a "fundamentalist" attitude has a proper time, place and perspective; but its usage is most often a defensive posture and the risks are that you can shoot even those who might actually be on your side.
Logged

Courteous is my name,
and I have always aimed to live up to it.
Grace is also my name,
but when things go wrong
its Courteous whom I blame;
but its Grace who sees me through it.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2009, 06:09:34 PM »

the term "bible-only fundamentalists" as David Young has suggested can be applied to Jehovah Witnessess and Evangelicals ...

I believe a "fundamentalist" attitude ... is most often a defensive posture

I did not mean by any means that all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists; but Fundamentalism is one strand of Evangelicalism. You are certainly right (I think) in saying it is "most often a defensive posture": it is a reaction against the perceived enemy, in the case of Evangelical Fundamentalism the Liberal theology which gained such force from about the 1880s and led to a weakening and loss of central Evangelical beliefs like the need for conversion and the new birth, the reality of judgement, Christ as the only way to God, the Virgin birth of Christ, his miracles, the bodily resurrection of Christ and ultimately of believers, God as Creator... and so on and so forth. Many or most of these are common to all Christians of course, not just Evangelicals. Orthodoxy having been less affected by Liberal Theology presumably did not develop a fundamentalist sector, but the RCs shored up their authority by defining papal infallibility, and many Protestants turned to a literalist and inerrantist view of Scripture. The enemy was - and still is - a real enemy; the churches were being undermined and were collapsing; many still are.

One must ask a RC why they turned to papal infallibility. I ask, why did Evangelicals develop such an extended view of scripture? I suggest the following is part of the explanation. Ask the question, Why do we believe the Bible? Surely it is because the community of believers has recognised in it the voice, or the inspiration, of God? And how did they recognise that? Answer: by the Holy Spirit indwelling his people. Putting it another way, people believe the Bible because they know the Author. Now it is my theory that the Fundamentalist mindset is such that, knowing the Author - which I am sure they do, that is, they are genuine Christian believers; knowing the Author and finding his voice and mind so strongly and so inwardly in the pages of scripture, they to a significant extent transfer their relationship with the Author to their relationship with His Book. This surely is why so many lose their faith if their view of inspiration and the nature of scripture changes; or, to put it another way, why they cannot bear to examine the possibility of other views of scripture in case they lose their faith. To a significant extent their faith depends on the Book, and indeed on its being written under a certain kind of inspiration, and not directly on the Lord.

Now this is not to be despised. Many of them are simple, untaught believers who genuinely love both the Lord and the Bible. If they fear or fail to disentangle them, their love for both is nonetheless genuine and their faith is orthodox (with a small o-!). Also, as I wrote a few lines above, the enemy they engage is a real, pernicious, death-bearing enemy which has ruined many souls: hell is richer because of the work of 19th and 20th century Liberal theology, and these were (and are) fighting that trend.

As for extraneous sects like the JWs, my point is only that - as far as I know, which is rather little for it is not something I have studied - JWs have a similar belief about the inerrancy and infallibility of their text (which is a mangled Bible) to the belief held by Fundamentalists about the real Bible (often the King James Authorised Version, of course).

I should add that a lot of my fellow Evangelicals in the churches I have worshipped at as I have moved round the country are undoubtedly Fundamentalist in their belief, but a lot of them are not intolerant, hard-hearted bigots but are humble, loving, caring and gracious Christians. There are of course the intolerant sort, sadly: but let us not tar all with that brush because some are like it. These latter have developed a ghetto mentality.

Finally on legalism, you are right in observing that a religion with set rules of man's invention limiting it is often characteristic of Fundamentalism: use of Sunday, alcohol, tobacco, clothing, customs of courtship etc etc etc guide their day-to-day lives in ways not set out in scripture. Their self-discipline is not a problem to others nor perhaps wrong in itself: many Christians - not least Orthodox at Lent! - practise voluntary forms of self-discipline not specifically described in scripture. What makes someone a Legalist is when he requires others to follow his own man-made regulations, and this does, sadly, stain a lot of the Fundamentalist camp. This (I suggest) is why so many who hold a Fundamentalist or similar view of scripture never dub themselves Fundamentalist, but prefer to profess a belief in inerrancy, and call themselves Conservative Evangelical (as mentioned on another thread). Their view of the infallibility of scripture may be the same, but they wish to dissociate themselves from the rigid and legalist mindset of Fundamentalism.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2009, 06:14:09 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2009, 08:10:20 PM »


Now this is not to be despised. Many of them are simple, untaught believers who genuinely love both the Lord and the Bible. If they fear or fail to disentangle them, their love for both is nonetheless genuine and their faith is orthodox (with a small o-!). Also, as I wrote a few lines above, the enemy they engage is a real, pernicious, death-bearing enemy which has ruined many souls: hell is richer because of the work of 19th and 20th century Liberal theology, and these were (and are) fighting that trend.

I'm not completely conversant with Liberal theology, but it does seem to have been the impetus for much good; abolishment of slavery, child labour, the rights of women and the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
zoarthegleaner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 398



« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2009, 08:46:07 PM »

Liberalism has produced its own variety of fundamentalist/ism.
Logged

Courteous is my name,
and I have always aimed to live up to it.
Grace is also my name,
but when things go wrong
its Courteous whom I blame;
but its Grace who sees me through it.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2009, 04:21:31 AM »

Liberal theology... does seem to have been the impetus for much good; abolishment of slavery, child labour,

Christians were campaigning for the abolition of slavery long before Liberal Theology had been thought of. In Britain one of the main driving forces was the prominent Evangelical, William Wilberforce, who lived 1759-1833. The same is probably true of child labour, but details would have to be found from history books or articles. In fact, as far back as Bishop Wulfstan (now Saint Wulfstan) of Worcester, whose ministry straddled the Norman Conquest of 1066, one finds him campaigning against the slave trade. (In those days slaves were sold in Bristol and shipped to Ireland.)
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2009, 04:29:14 AM »

Liberalism has produced its own variety of fundamentalist/ism.

If fundamentalism = a slavish or unthinking submission to a chosen external authority, then I suspect you are right. The chosen external authority is human reason, presumably as a result of the so-called Enlightenment penetrating religion. This is what led to the denial of the supernatural, miraculous and spiritual in Christianity and its replacement by Liberal rationalism. But as the scripture says, men by reason knew not God.

It is commonly said that Liberalism infected western Christianity and failed to penetrate Orthodoxy, so maybe cradle Orthodox on the forum are less aware first-hand of the devastation it has wrought in the churches.

I think it is only now, and recently, that we have begun to see a turning back to older truths in the mainstream denominations (Baptist, Anglican, to a less extent Methodist) over here in Britain. If time - and memory! - permit, I may look up some statistics over the weekend and post them here to illustrate what I am saying.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,580



« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2009, 04:35:03 AM »

Quote
It is commonly said that Liberalism infected western Christianity and failed to penetrate Orthodoxy

Or it liberated western Christianity to some extent, yet failed to positively influence Orthodoxy... guess it depends on your view Smiley
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 04:35:24 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2009, 06:00:32 AM »

Quote
It is commonly said that Liberalism infected western Christianity and failed to penetrate Orthodoxy

Or it liberated western Christianity ...

Yes - but surely in the spirit of Psalm 2:

Why do the people imagine a vain thing, saying, "Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us"?

There are many in this sadly fallen world who long to be free from the call to submit to their Maker. Think of the slogan on the sides of London buses, saying something like, "There probably isn't a god, so go ahead and enjoy your life!" Fallen man is always basically in rebellion against his Maker, and it takes grace to bring us to the feet of the Saviour. Liberal Theology set up human reason and wisdom against God's revelation, setting that revelation aside, and in doing so removed belief in final judgement, repentance, dependence on grace, the deity of Christ, and much much else.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2009, 12:37:40 PM »

If time - and memory! - permit, I may look up some statistics over the weekend and post them here to illustrate what I am saying.

I shall write mainly about my own denomination, which is Baptist. There was remarkable growth from the beginnings in the first half of the 17th century till the late 19th century. Then by 1907 membership stood at about 441,000 in the Unions of England and Wales - a continued increase of over 150,000 in the previous 16 years or so. Then Liberal Theology really began gripping many churches and denominational leaders, colleges and publications. There was then steady decline, to about 141,000 members a hundred years later.

I spoke recently with a retired Methodist minister, and asked how things are in Methodism. (I am always interested and concerned, as that was where I was brought to faith.) He invited me to imagine a sink full of water from which the plug has been taken out. He said the water swirls round and round for a while, and you notice little difference in the amount. Then suddenly it all gurgles out the bottom and the sink is left empty. That, he said, is what is happening to British Methodism.

I regret that, due to their connexional system of central control, the Methodists were even more thoroughly and ubiquitously infected with Liberal Theology than the Baptists with our autonomous local churches.

Liberal Theology produced a religion with no power to convert the soul: if there is no resurrection, no judgement, no hell; if sin is a relative psychological quirk and not than an affront to our Maker and disobedience to his laws; if Christ is not God; if God has only kindness and no wrath - what point is there in becoming a Christian or continuing to attend church? And so people left in droves. Thousands of churches are now closed, and turned into houses, shops, Sikh temples and a multitude of other uses: or have simply been demolished.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 12:39:22 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,580



« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2009, 02:22:41 PM »

Quote
if there is no resurrection, no judgement, no hell; if sin is a relative psychological quirk and not than an affront to our Maker and disobedience to his laws; if Christ is not God; if God has only kindness and no wrath - what point is there in becoming a Christian or continuing to attend church?

That I can certainly agree with...
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
zoarthegleaner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 398



« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2009, 04:19:25 PM »

I shall write mainly about my own denomination, which is Baptist. There was remarkable growth from the beginnings in the first half of the 17th century till the late 19th century. Then by 1907 membership stood at about 441,000 in the Unions of England and Wales - a continued increase of over 150,000 in the previous 16 years or so. Then Liberal Theology really began gripping many churches and denominational leaders, colleges and publications. There was then steady decline, to about 141,000 members a hundred years later.

From what group of Baptist do you hail from?  If you can take this tongue in cheek, I thought there were at least an increase of 150,000 different 'Baptist" denominations during that same above mentioned time period.

Fixed the quotation so as to ensure it is read as a quotation. Nothing else was changed.--YtterbiumAnalyst

« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 09:20:14 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

Courteous is my name,
and I have always aimed to live up to it.
Grace is also my name,
but when things go wrong
its Courteous whom I blame;
but its Grace who sees me through it.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2009, 05:35:28 PM »

From what group of Baptist do you hail from? 

The church I belong to is a plant from an earlier church in the town: we were planted in a new housing area towards the end of the 19th century. I don't really know the history of the mother church, but I think it was founded some time in the 1600s. It is a member of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, but our church seceded from that Union some 35 years ago when a leading national figure famously said he did not believe in the deity of Christ. Many churches seceded around that time, for that and similar reasons. We ourselves are a Baptist church, but are in membership of a broader association of churches known as the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, many of which are in fact Baptist. This FIEC is a nationwide association of autonomous local churches, at a guess with ca 425 churches in association, making a membership of about 30,000 souls. All the churches are Evangelical, but the Fellowship is not committed to one 'brand' of Evangelicalism - it probably has some churches which practise infant baptism; some Calvinist, some Arminian; some cessationist, some Charismatic; some traditional in style, some contemporary; etc. I think maybe a quarter of Baptist churches in England belong to it; more are in the Baptist Union; a lot of Calvinist ones (making about 10,000 members) are in the "Grace Baptist" group; quite a few are unaffiliated; there is a small Hyper-Calvinist group called "Gospel Standard" Baptists who keep themselves to themselves and are probably nearly as convinced as the Orthodox that they are the only true church. Quite a few churches have American pastors, who have either taken a church in one of the indigenous associations, or have started churches of American type, such as "Bible Baptist", who seem to fit fairly closely the descriptions I read on these threads of your perception of what Baptists are: King James Bible, premillennial, once-saved-always-saved (even after a simple prayer), teetotal, non-Charismatic, Fundamentalist. Many find it hard to settle in and soon return to the States; some stay for many years.

But your question is "From what group of Baptist do you hail?" Really I hail from Methodism, but as you know from earlier posts I became convinced that baptism is for believers, not infants, and got baptised simply as a Christian believer, not to change denominations, when I was 19. I left Methodism, with lasting sadness, for similar reasons to those mentioned above - theological decline - and ended up among the Baptists some while later. When we moved to Wrexham in 1977 we wanted a church which practises believers' baptism, of which there were a range (Baptist, Brethren, Pentecostal, independent). We were drawn to this church because of its warm, outward-looking spirit and Evangelical ethos and theology. Thirty-two years later, it is still the church I would choose if we moved here again - not because it is Baptist (though I do hold Baptist views) but because of its fellowship, spirit, ministry, and loyalty to the scriptures. But I still look back fondly to my Methodist roots, and it is always a real joy when I am invited (as last Sunday) to preach in a Methodist church. I have often quoted Sangster's words, "Who would not love the church that nurtured him in holy things?"


« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 05:49:00 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2009, 05:24:39 AM »

your perception of what Baptists are: King James Bible, premillennial, once-saved-always-saved (even after a simple prayer)...

I hasten to add that we all believe in 'once saved always saved even after a simple prayer' if that prayer is genuine and is followed by lasting and growing discipleship to Christ. Think of the woman with the alabaster box of ointment, a 'woman of the city... a sinner', to whom our Lord in Luke 7 said, "Your sins are forgiven... Your faith has saved you; go in peace." She knew very little - had no doctrine of Christ's death and resurrection, nor the Trinity, had not had Christian baptism, at that stage - but she had a real belief in him and a real love for him. Such faith saved her, and still saves today: but if genuine, will be followed by growth in grace, in Christian character, in transformation to the image of Christ. "Faith" which is not so followed up is not real Christian faith in the first place. I think that may be where the American Baptists you good people portray in these threads differ from many of us over here - but I do not think you are portraying the whole spectrum of even American Baptists, for I feel sure there are many who look for ongoing discipleship if faith is to be deemed genuine.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 05:25:24 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2009, 09:25:16 AM »

your perception of what Baptists are: King James Bible, premillennial, once-saved-always-saved (even after a simple prayer)...
I hasten to add that we all believe in 'once saved always saved even after a simple prayer' if that prayer is genuine and is followed by lasting and growing discipleship to Christ.
True, if by "we all" you mean all Baptists. This is certainly not true of all Christians.

Quote
I do not think you are portraying the whole spectrum of even American Baptists, for I feel sure there are many who look for ongoing discipleship if faith is to be deemed genuine.
I think that's just the problem--that those people are looking to deem faith as genuine or not. We Orthodox do not have to know who is saved, or even who is being saved. All we concern ourselves with is our own salvation. We have a saying here: "Save yourself, and save ten thousand." By the process of tending to our own salvation, we show Christ to others, and they may see us becoming more like Him and desire the same. By judging others, we become less like Christ, and so defeat us both.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2009, 10:54:11 AM »

True, if by "we all" you mean all Baptists.

I probably did, but I think it is applicable to all Evangelicals.

Quote
We Orthodox do not have to know who is saved, ...By judging others, we become less like Christ

At certain levels of church life, of course, what you say in the pre-dots bit is true. But if a man wishes to become a preacher, pastor (priest), elder, Sunday School teacher, missionary, or even simply to be baptised, that is a different matter. Indeed, even if he is simply attending church, surely you would wish to ascertain that he had a personal faith which united him to Christ, and was not merely trying to please his Orthodox girlfriend or his grandparents. Does not your system of catechesis aim to ensure that the catechumen or illuminand really understands and believes? It would be irresponsible to baptise someone who was not a true Christian, for to do so would likely lull him into thinking he was. The way to hell is paved with such delusion, as the Sermon on the Mount tells us plainly.

Seventy years ago, Catholics in Albania were paying Orthodox an ongoing 1½ napoleons a month to convert to Catholicism. You can still join a church for the wrong reasons, without sincere faith. Neither you nor we would want people to join us for wrong reasons. I am aware of course that people come at first for all sorts of reasons - even just to sit at the back and make a nuisance of themselves, or to make fun of the preacher - and come to believe the message they hear. I am not saying we should turn people away, but we should seek to bring them into the Faith. I am not of course saying that any pastor, priest or other Christian will always make infallible assessments, but we should caringly do our best.

As regards your bits after the dots, in the pejorative sense of 'judge' it is always wrong and indeed forbidden to do it. But there is a place for caring assessment of a person's state of grace, with a view to bringing him on further. We use the word 'saved' to mean someone has begun the Christian life: you use it to mean he has completed it. (The Bible uses it both ways.) So when we wish to ascertain whether a person is saved, we mean no more than that he has genuinely taken the first step. It is not wrong to do that: indeed, we must do it, if we are to help those who have yet to take that step.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 10:58:33 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2009, 11:50:39 AM »

True, if by "we all" you mean all Baptists.

I probably did, but I think it is applicable to all Evangelicals.
I disagree. I was for a few years a part of a Pentecostal church which viewed salvation as uncertain, as something striven for rather than something obtained. This group would strongly disagree with your idea of eternal security, even when qualified by evidence of faith. They would contend that such a person can lose salvation even after exhibiting qualities of having been saved. So I do not believe your statement is believed by all evangelicals. All Baptists, certainly.

Quote
We Orthodox do not have to know who is saved, ...By judging others, we become less like Christ

At certain levels of church life, of course, what you say in the pre-dots bit is true. But if a man wishes to become a preacher, pastor (priest), elder, Sunday School teacher, missionary, or even simply to be baptised, that is a different matter. Indeed, even if he is simply attending church, surely you would wish to ascertain that he had a personal faith which united him to Christ, and was not merely trying to please his Orthodox girlfriend or his grandparents. Does not your system of catechesis aim to ensure that the catechumen or illuminand really understands and believes? It would be irresponsible to baptise someone who was not a true Christian, for to do so would likely lull him into thinking he was. The way to hell is paved with such delusion, as the Sermon on the Mount tells us plainly.
Now wait a minute. Before you said that many Baptists look for genuine faith in others; you said nothing to limit that statement to Baptist leadership. Absolutely our priests, bishops, missionaries, etc. should be looking for genuine faith in their flock--but the laity absolutely should not. We who do not preach should look only for faith in ourselves and not in others, for when we do, we inevitably compare ourselves to others, which is not helpful for salvation.

As regards your bits after the dots, in the pejorative sense of 'judge' it is always wrong and indeed forbidden to do it. But there is a place for caring assessment of a person's state of grace, with a view to bringing him on further. We use the word 'saved' to mean someone has begun the Christian life: you use it to mean he has completed it. (The Bible uses it both ways.) So when we wish to ascertain whether a person is saved, we mean no more than that he has genuinely taken the first step. It is not wrong to do that: indeed, we must do it, if we are to help those who have yet to take that step.
There is indeed a place for the Church to assess one's spiritual state, but it is not for everyone. Imagine that you are sick, and in need of a doctor. Would you knock on your neighbour's door and ask him to treat you? Of course not! You choose the doctor carefully, relying on her to make a correct diagnosis and prescribe a correct course of action to heal you. So it is with spiritual sickness. You should not rely on the spiritual advice of just anyone, but of a spiritual father or another trusted person. Only then is it permissible for that person to judge your spiritual state, and with that permission comes the responsibility to do so accurately and appropriately.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,097


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2009, 12:23:09 PM »

I heard that Pentecostals are considered Charismatics though, not Evangelical?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2009, 12:32:30 PM »

We are getting off the theme of this thread, but I'm quite happy to continue either here or on a different thread. Let it be here for the moment...

your idea of eternal security, even when qualified by evidence of faith. ... a person can lose salvation even after exhibiting qualities of having been saved.

Sorry - my ambiguous way of writing, though not entirely unintentional, as to some extent hiding which side of the fence I am on, or whether I am still sitting on it. I wasn't writing to advance eternal security, that is, the teaching that real salvation cannot be lost. Neither am I now writing to say it can be lost! If you recall from my many outpourings on these threads over the months, I said that one thing that I find attractive about Orthodoxy is its room for mystery and its associated refusal to be bound by aristotelian logic, as western Christianity is to such an extent. The firm certitude with which Calvinists say you cannot lose real salvation, and the equally firm certitude with which Arminians (Methodist, Pentecostal) say you can, when there seem to be plain passages in Holy Writ which say one and other passages which plainly say the other, is a major example of the need I perceive for caution, for avoiding too inflexible a conviction on either whilst leaving no room for the other. (Ironically, of course, this very area, where I felt the need for mystery, is one on which Orthodoxy pronounces clearly! Heigh ho!)

Arminians, whether your Pentecostals or others, will nonetheless agree with me that the salvation, even if losable, is real now and will be retained if discipleship is persisted in till death, so that one dies in the Faith. That is all I meant.

Quote
So I do not believe your statement is believed by all evangelicals. All Baptists, certainly.

Not all Baptists hold eternal security. The General Baptists, who began slightly earlier than the Particular Baptists, are Arminian; the Particular Baptists are Calvinist. Both persist to this day - certainly in Britain, and certainly both vigorously. There has been a marked resurgence of Calvinism in England and Wales since the mid-20th century; prior to that Armianianism held the field almost universally, largely through the influence of Methodism.

Quote
Now wait a minute. ...you said nothing to limit that statement to Baptist leadership. Absolutely our priests, bishops, missionaries, etc. should be looking for genuine faith in their flock--but the laity absolutely should not. We who do not preach should look only for faith in ourselves and not in others, for when we do, we inevitably compare ourselves to others, which is not helpful for salvation.

Here I think we amicably part company. There is a brotherly duty laid upon all Christians to be concerned for each other's welfare, spiritual or material. It is not left to leaders only - though God forbid that one should push it to the extent of becoming a prying busybody. And of course God sets leaders in his church.

You are right of course when you say we have no business comparing ourselves with others - except after the apostolic injunction to consider others better than ourselves, and no doubt (looking at our own hearts) to consider ourselves, like Paul, as the chief of sinners.

Quote
Imagine that you are sick, and in need of a doctor. Would you knock on your neighbour's door and ask him to treat you? Of course not! You choose the doctor carefully,

Your analogy falls down. I might well discreetly ask the advice or help of a friend or neighbour, at least as a first tentative step, if I suspected I had the same medical problem that he had passed through, and that he had found the answer to. That doesn't mean I wouldn't go on afterwards, or concurrently, to seek trained professional treatment as well. If my problem were not medical but spiritual, namely sin and the need to find forgiveness and peace with God, why not go as part of my search to someone I felt had found it? That doesn't preclude going also to a trained and experienced pastor.

Quote
You should not rely on the spiritual advice of just anyone, but of a spiritual father or another trusted person. Only then is it permissible for that person to judge your spiritual state, and with that permission comes the responsibility to do so accurately and appropriately.

A staretz, perhaps. The Lord grant us more such advisers!
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2009, 12:46:46 PM »

I heard that Pentecostals are considered Charismatics though, not Evangelical?

Pentecostals started in a Holiness mission in Azusa Street (Los Angeles, I think - my church history books are not with me) in or about 1906. They were Bible-believing Evangelicals of the second-blessing type (like the Holiness people, that is with a strongly Wesleyan theology). Charismatics got started in about the 1960s (Dennis Bennet and others, if I recall the names aright, in the USA, Michael Harper and others here in Britain: Harper is now an Orthodox priest, of course). Once again, they started off largely as Evangelical believers who added the teaching of a 'baptism in the Spirit' and the gifts of the Spirit (hence the name Charismatic). Since the 1960s the two streams have to a large extent diverged. I cannot speak for the USA or other countries, but here in Britain it is hard to find a classic Pentecostal church any more, something which many people regret, both Pentecostal and Evangelical. Meanwhile the Charismatic Movement has widened so much that a good number even of Roman Catholics have joined, and as a movement it is certainly not Evangelical any more. They all believe in spontaneity of worship, sustained experience of the Holy Spirit, gifts of the Spirit, but whilst some are still firmly Evangelical, others are sacramental, others are rather loose on doctrine, and others give a clear impression of having imported novel ideas and practices from the New Age movement. It has become a very diverse phenomenon indeed.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 12:47:29 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2009, 04:44:39 PM »

Arminians, whether your Pentecostals or others, will nonetheless agree with me that the salvation, even if losable, is real now and will be retained if discipleship is persisted in till death, so that one dies in the Faith. That is all I meant.
Okay, I can agree with that statement.

Quote
So I do not believe your statement is believed by all evangelicals. All Baptists, certainly.
Not all Baptists hold eternal security. The General Baptists, who began slightly earlier than the Particular Baptists, are Arminian; the Particular Baptists are Calvinist. Both persist to this day - certainly in Britain, and certainly both vigorously. There has been a marked resurgence of Calvinism in England and Wales since the mid-20th century; prior to that Armianianism held the field almost universally, largely through the influence of Methodism.
Hmm. I have never heard of these Particular Baptists. Around here, we have a couple of General Baptist churches, but nearly all are Southern Baptist.

Quote
Now wait a minute. ...you said nothing to limit that statement to Baptist leadership. Absolutely our priests, bishops, missionaries, etc. should be looking for genuine faith in their flock--but the laity absolutely should not. We who do not preach should look only for faith in ourselves and not in others, for when we do, we inevitably compare ourselves to others, which is not helpful for salvation.

Here I think we amicably part company. There is a brotherly duty laid upon all Christians to be concerned for each other's welfare, spiritual or material. It is not left to leaders only - though God forbid that one should push it to the extent of becoming a prying busybody. And of course God sets leaders in his church.
Yes, I think we disagree.

You are right of course when you say we have no business comparing ourselves with others - except after the apostolic injunction to consider others better than ourselves, and no doubt (looking at our own hearts) to consider ourselves, like Paul, as the chief of sinners.
Yes, the apostles are clear on this.

Quote
Imagine that you are sick, and in need of a doctor. Would you knock on your neighbour's door and ask him to treat you? Of course not! You choose the doctor carefully,

Your analogy falls down. I might well discreetly ask the advice or help of a friend or neighbour, at least as a first tentative step, if I suspected I had the same medical problem that he had passed through, and that he had found the answer to.
You may, but you certainly would not ask him to treat you. He does not have the training to do so. His treatment might very well kill you.

Quote
You should not rely on the spiritual advice of just anyone, but of a spiritual father or another trusted person. Only then is it permissible for that person to judge your spiritual state, and with that permission comes the responsibility to do so accurately and appropriately.

A staretz, perhaps. The Lord grant us more such advisers!

Amen.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2009, 06:40:28 PM »

Hmm. I have never heard of these Particular Baptists.

Not surprisingly they tend to use a more modern title, as they think the word "Particular" might be interpreted by the uninitiated to describe a rather fastidious mindset. I well remember strolling with a Catholic friend in Canterbury and observing her bewilderment when we passed a chapel with the bold notice-board "Zoar Strict and Particular Baptist Chapel". In reality of course, Particular is a theological term referring to "particular redemption", the Calvinist (and presumably Augustinian?) teaching that Christ died not for all men generally but only for particular persons, namely the elect. Someone told me they are called "Regular Baptists" in the USA, though I have no idea whether that is true; here they often choose the title "Reformed Baptist" which (to me) seems ill-chosen, being an oxymoron, for the Reformers believed in infant baptism and a state church.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Tags: fundamentalism 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.144 seconds with 65 queries.