Why fundamentalism will fail

Thoughts?

IN 1910, A COHORT of ultra-conservative American Protestants drew up a list of non-negotiable beliefs they insisted any genuine Christian must subscribe to. They published these “fundamentals” in a series of widely distributed pamphlets over the next five years. Their catalog featured doctrines such as the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, and his imminent second coming. The cornerstone, though, was a belief in the literal inerrancy of every syllable of the Bible, including in matters of geology, paleontology, and secular history. They called these beliefs fundamentals, and proudly styled themselves “fundamentalists” – true believers who feared that liberal movements like the social gospel and openness to other faiths were eroding the foundation of their religion.

via Why fundamentalism will fail – The Boston Globe.

I would interested in hearing your thoughts.

First, of course, is to address the matter of historical fundamentalism. Does Christianity have a history of fundamentalism? And what about inerrancy? Does it have historical Christian support? Separate Inerrancy as defined today and Inspiration -n- Sufficiency. Does Inerrancy have biblical support with the current understanding? We know that Augustine didn’t think so, nor did Calvin, at least not in the way which many define it today.

You Might Also Like

3 Replies to “Why fundamentalism will fail”

  1. It is not true Fundamentalism will failed. It has already failed.

    The historic creeds (Nicene, Apostles) do say that the Spirit spoke by the prophets. This means that, for one thing, Scripture is God-inspired. But, there is a Sacred Tradition around the texts of Scripture.

    One of those traditions is that without commentary, there is no text. This is another way to say that you cannot separate Scripture from whole of Sacred Tradition, or else the God-breathed Scripture ceases to exist.

    That doesn’t mean the interpretation of Scripture is limited to what is currently in Tradition. If that were the case, then there would be no reason for the Spirit in our lives to continue to lead us into all truth. It is a building and maturation process, not an process of ossification.

    So, if we are going to keep to the Tradition handed down to us as commanded in Scripture, we cannot try to assert that we do not need the Spirit and Tradition to learn from Scripture–or else you end up denying the ministry of the Spirit in our lives.

    It would be said to think that everything we would and could (1) learn about God and (2) how to relate to other people and the world God created was known by 1910. That would reflect poorly on God having an infinite nature.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.