From: jmc@freedom.opus (John M Cho)
Subject: Re: TANGENT: Re: The Five Points of Fundamentalism
Organization: /freedom3/jmc/.organization
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:34:45 GMT

In article <BtB3FE.LI@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ralthoff@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Rob Althoff) writes:

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

>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.


*   Um...yeah.  I'm just writing to mention that, with absolutely no malice
*   intended toward anyone, we need to be a little careful when we start
*   getting on topics that concern defining aspects of faith and
*   denomination.

*   We should keep in mind that we don't really need to start a
*   denominational flame war if we can avoid it, and I think we can avoid
*   it in this case.

*   I realize that there might be folks out there that don't agree with one
*   particular denomination or another, but can we try to keep it off of
*   r.m.c.?  I mean most denominations have their quirks.  We all know that,
*   so there's really no reason to discuss it here.

*   Absolutely no flame intended, just a casual reminder that discussions
*   that deal with topics such as this one can easily turn in such a way as
*   to offend.  That's all.  Thanks!

*   Rob
*   --
*   Rob Althoff
*   Neuroscience Program and College of Medicine
*   University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*   email to : ralthoff@s.psych.uiuc.edu

Thanks much Rob for the very considerate post... No one likes to be
labeled a Pharisee...especially a number of folks who have just 
indicated that they might possibly be fundementalists (like myself).
It took me a while to get myself to post that on this group knowing
I might be getting some real negative vibes... So I didn't take it
too hard when John Townsend posted that... It did disturb me however that 
the misconception of fundementalists seems to be very deeply
engraved in many Christians' minds... Then again, it is obvious that
there seems to be at least 2 views of what fundementalists are...
I have made a real personal effort to instruct at least my Sunday
school class to step away from the legalism and emphasize more on
a personal relationship with God... I feel if anything, legalism
is but a minor supplement (if it has a place at all in Christianity)
to a good relationship with God... I think however legalism can be
found just about anywhere in today's Church... I am certainly not
your perfect Christian in any case...and its even more clear to me
now how much more we need to make an effort to understand our fellow
Christian brothers and sisters who may have some minor doctrinal 
differences... God Bless. :)

						JCHO@nmsu.edu
						JMC@freedom.nmsu.edu