From: drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Keith Rice)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: The Five Points of Fundamentalism
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:05:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of North Texas

In <1992Aug20.203312.22510@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.183625.10565@engage.pko.dec.com>, eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco) writes:
>|> 
>|> From _Catholicism and Fundamentalism_ by Karl Keating (San Francisco:
>|> Ignatius, 1988) chapter one:
>|> 
>|> ....
>|> (1) The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture;
>|> (2) the deity of Christ, including his Virgin Birth;
>|> (3) the substitutionary [vicarious] atonement of his death;
>|> (4) his literal resurrection from the dead; and
>|> (5) his literal return in the Second Coming.
>|> ....
>|> 
>|> Of course, by these definitions, then any orthodox Catholic is a
>|> fundamentalist, because Catholicism firmly embraces each of those five
>|> points.  Naturally, though, definitions change as times go by, and this is
>|> certainly true of "fundamentalism".  Unfortunately there are so many
>|> different understandings of the term today, it is hard to know which one is
>|> accurate. 

>One thing that's missing from this list, which appears in the statements of
>faith of virtually every fundamentalist organization I've ever seen, is the
>belief in the "completeness" of Scripture, which goes along with the belief in
>the inspiration and inerrency of the original texts.  This is why fundamental-
>ists generally don't believe in modern apostles, popes, prophets, etc. who
>impart new direct revelation from God, at least not among people to whom the
>written Word of God is readily available.  Aside from the fact that most
>Catholics I have known don't believe in all five of the points above, I think
>that the biggest difference between Catholics and fundamentalists is the
>bounteous amount of extra-Scriptural belief and tradition that the Catholic
>Church has added to its faith.  Whereas some fundamentalists may be criticized
>for the number of "Thou shalt not's" they believe in, they at least back their
>beliefs with an interpretation (as literally as possible) of the words of
>Scripture rather than the edicts of the Church.

>I find it hard to believe that any discussion of Christian fundamentalism
>could proceed this far without even mentioning Bob Jones University, in
>Greenville, South Carolina, where even Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham are
>regarded as liberals.  PBS recently did a three-part documentary on
>fundamentalism in which they described fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism,
>and Islam.  Most of the segment on Christianity was centered around BJU.  Did
>anyone else see this series?

>--
>John Townsend                     Internet:   johnt@meaddata.com

My former pastor, Dr. Jimmy Draper (now chairman of the Southern Baptist
Sunday School Board) was quoted as saying that Fundamentalism is one of
the new heresies of modern-day Christianity.  (Note the capital 'F'.)
Fundamentalism (capital 'F') is very legalistic and is more concerned
with the letter of the law rather than the Spirit of the law.  On the
other hand, fundamentalism (lower case 'f') follows the above 5 
characteristics and is more tolerant of things such as long hair, women
wearing pants, etc. that the Fundamentalists (cap. 'F') look down upon
with disgust.  IMO, the Fundies are nothing but the modern-day version
of the Pharisees.

--
Keith
drice@ponder.csci.unt.edu