Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Fundamentalism, a Definition
Message-ID: <2614@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-May-84 12:06:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2614
Posted: Fri May 11 12:06:39 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 13-May-84 10:03:56 EDT
References: <1076@ihuxr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 52


[from Lew Mammel:]
>Bob Brown's definition of Fundamentalism squares pretty well with my
>understanding. The "bad name" that it bears stems, in my opinion, entirely
>from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which flies in the face of science,
>history, and common sense.

>By the way, a while back there was some discussion of Jesus's failed
>prophecy that he would return before "this generation passes away". This
>was answered by someone by saying that "generation" meant "race", or something.
>As strained as this is, it fails to answer the version in Mark, wherein
>Jesus states with almost legalistic specificity, "Truly, I say to you, there
>are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom
>of God come with power." (Mark 9:1)  Even conservative Christian scholars
>admit this is a failed prophecy.  Many see it as an insertion expressing the
>continued hopes at the time of writing for an imminent Second Coming.

>It is only the Fundamentalists who try to squirm out of this embarassment
>by the contorted interpretations which so typify their thinking, and
>which place them beyond the pale of reason.

I feel like Lew has his mind settled on the issue on biblical inerrancy,
but that is not done so easily as he does here.  I share Lew's disdain
for contorted interpretations of Scripture, but I don't think their
existence lays a good foundation from which to reject completely its
inspiration or inerrancy.

I don't think many Christian scholars who hold the inerrancy doctrine
interpret "generation" to mean "race".  The context of the saying is
in Matthew 24.  In speaking about the end of the world and his own
return Jesus indicates certain signs that will precede the event.  Among them
are fammines, wars, earthquakes, the darkening of the sun and moon and
the stars "falling from the sky" (so to speak) and the preaching of the 
gospel to all nations. Many think these events to be still in the future.
Some believe they are beginning to happen already.  Seen in that light,
when Jesus spoke of "this generation" he did so in the context of the
events described.  In other words, the generation that sees these signs
will be the last before the End.

To assume that Jesus is talking about the same event in Mark 9:1 is
taking an exegetical leap, in my opinion.  I see the Kingom of God as
having already come.  It came "with power" after the resurrection.  I
suppose its coming could be pinpointed on the events described in the
first two chapters of Acts.  I think it will be comsumated when the End
comes.

Thoughout the Gospels Jesus speaks of the "Kingdom of God" and the
"Kingdom of Heaven".  These two terms are not exactly interchangable.
Just what each implies is a subject requiring detailed study.
(A pretty good one is "Thy Kingdome Come" by C. Leslie Mitton [Eerdmans]). 

Paul Dubuc