Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian From: fibercom!lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Am I a "fundie"? Message-ID: Date: 15 Jul 89 09:25:53 GMT Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Organization: FiberCom, Inc., Roanoke, VA Lines: 49 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: > Now for my major comment on Dave's response. My primary problem with > it is that it follows the classic fundamentalist method of reading ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > things into the text. Note by the way that I have seldom complained ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > about "literal interpretation". My primary problem with Personally, I don't like the way we "classify" Christians. But I always thought that most people would classify me as a fundamentalist. However, I don't think that I fit the description above. So I have a couple of questions: 1. What is a fundamentalist? 2. Does being a Biblical fundamentalist necessarily imply that you are a political fundamentalist. (i. e. Conservative Republican, flag waving, pro school prayer, pro school creationism, pro SDI, pro Contra aid, etc.)??? > I think this is the real difference between me and those we call > themselves believers in inerrancy. I can live with unresolved issues > in Scripture. I am very wary of manufacturing an easy consistency by > clever interpretation. I also thought that I believed in inerrancy. But what I thought inerrancy meant was that God's word is right. Not necessarily that I've got it all figured out. The bible has the answers, but I don't (not ALL of them anyway). God bless you all. -- Lance Beckner | INTERNET: lab@fibercom.com | UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!lab ---------------------------- 2 Timothy 2:15 ----------------------------- "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." [You are right of course. There are many fine pieces of scholarship by people who believe in inerrancy. Nevertheless there are characteristic vices of each position. The characteristic vice of the "liberals" is to attribute anything they don't like to modifications of Jesus' message by the later church. The characteristic vice of those who believe in inerrancy is to become overly eager in producing consistency where it is not immediately visible. Ideally both sides manage to avoid these vices much of the time ... --clh]