Steve I'm still confused

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Steve,

I have considered your answer's to a number of my questions and have some
more things for you to think about.

First, I'd like to give my sources on the definintion of fundamentalism
(non-capital intended.)  The latest 1998 edition of the Britanica has a
good article on the subject which emphisis the millinerian roots of the
group.  A useful book from the anti-fundamentalist camp is Robert Fuller's
Naming the Anti_Christ in which classifies fundamentalists in terms of
millinariansism, conservatism (belife in an infallible Bible) and
sepratism (seperation of Christians from the world.)  Another practicle
source is "the Fundamentalist-Modernist conterversy" by AH Sager, in
Preaching in American History edited by D Holland which characterizes
fundamentalists in terms of Biblical in errancy, belife in the virgin
birth and millinarianism. A further intersting source is Two Living
Traditions by Samer Samerson who is a reformed Jew and and Pauline scholar
who strongest impression of fundamentalism is its resistance to Biblical
scholarship. 


	Obviously, most of us are milliniarians, belive in an ifallible
book, belive in the virgin birth and most of us are skeptical and
resistant to Biblical scholarship.  So by these general definintions we
tend to be pretty fundamentalist, aside from the fact that likes of Jerry
Faldwell would like very much to say otherwise.

	First question, if we seem to have as much in common with
conservative Christians as they have in common with each other (remember
fundamentalist, Mormons, Catholics and Neo-Conservative Protestants are
all called conservative Christians) why not call ourselves conservative
Christians.  

	You seem to be a rare objector to millinarianism, if I read your
post correctly.  The question that I have for you is the Apostle when  
said, "If the dead are not raised then Christ is not raised.. If Christ is
not raised then ye are yet in your sin." does he not seem to be urging us
toke the rapture litterally? and doesn't the alternative to litteralism
sound pretty bad?  


	When I asked if you were suggesting Apostolics learn theology, you
responded by pointing out that theology has a great effect on me whether I
learn it or not.  So? how is that a reason to learn about it.  Being
influenced by defunct theologians does not take away the fact God saved my
life, God filled me with Holy Ghost, God healed me of a chronic sinus
infection, God forgave my sins when I was baptised in His Name, and most
of those dead theologians had none of that. The Holy Ghost is beyond
theology.

	Finally how can anyone be open to a diversity of opinions on
salvation issues?  The Catholic Sacramental view of salvation is based on
a traditon from the fourth (not first) century and current Protestant view
of salvation, as many Biblical scholars are aware, ignores all the
scriptures concerned with the need for baptism, the fact all who repent do
not recieve the Holy Ghost (see eigth chapter of Acts for example),and  
all the scriptures giving your life to Christ. As a historicly minded
person you must be aware that all sorts of meanings have been asigned to
John 3:16 by various readers over the ages.  Why be foolish enough to
trust the latest guess work on the subject when you can read the clear
message in Acts 2:38?  Why trust the inventions of the fourth century as
if they were scripture?  Do you belive that God's salvation forms from the
diversity of human opion?  


			Love in True and Perfect Name of Jesus

				brother Yeaton