Without going into a detailed reading of this article and the articles linked (VERY nice find, by the way. Should have included it in the reading room), I think the position that best reflects what I've been saying would be "empirical cessationist." That is, I'm not dismissing SIT on principle; I just see no evidence of it. I put myself in that category with some reservation -- you may find an aspect of that position that I totally disagree with, and I don't want to align myself with it completely without having thoroughly reviewed it.
I don't believe God's gifts have ceased and am willing to believe the reports of people SIT in tongues understood by a select few present. Or people being healed. Or words of prophecy being given to help.
However, I personally can attest to none with 100% verifiable proof.
1 Cor 12 "As he wills".. I believe refers to God.. And thus, is at his discretion..
But then, I'm not a dispensationalist.. Not the classical, adaptive, or the progressive dispen. viewpoint.
So when it comes to scripture, I take a Progressive Covenant theological view towards it. Meaning all scripture is relevant and progressive. While we are not part of Israel as a nation which by it's nature means we are not under that nation's laws (we do have to obey the laws of the country we abide in), scriptural revelation builds and progresses so that what is said before may not be understand until it happens and thus hindsight becomes 20/20.. As an example, Christ quoted a portion of the OT, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.." but did not continue "and the day of vengeance of our God".. Prior to hindsight, it happened in one full swoop. We now know it spoke of two different times.. Progressive understanding.. Scripture didn't change. But the understanding of a verse may..
The Wikipedia articles introduce the argument between Cessationist and Continuationist. They claim that of those claiming those beliefs, the concept of "Sola Scriptura" for the article's purpose has to be in play. This concept is more of the "Martin Luther" reform type of stance, where everything within the church and related to God has to be subject to scripture.
Of interest to note among the Cessationist/Continuationist argument, that there are many who do NOT hold to Sola Scriptura - where scripture is only one thing among many that governs belief.
Those of the Sola Scriptura persuasion are largely described to be Reformists, which originated most of the mainstream denominations in existence today, like Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. Many times this group is also termed to be "Fundamentalist".
Christian fundamentalism was a movement to reject the radical influences of philosophical humanism, as this was affecting the Christian religion.
Note that to me this is important in that Fundamentalism / Sola Scriptura is totally based upon scripture, and human experience is not of value.
TWI is pretty much in that category, as are offshoots. Most ex-TWI members also would be of the Fundamentalist / Sola Scriptura persuasion.
Those of the Sola Scriptura persuasion are largely described to be Reformists, which originated most of the mainstream denominations in existence today, like Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. Many times this group is also termed to be "Fundamentalist".
Lutherans are fundamentalists? When did this happen?
I must be dense. The context seems to suggest that "Fundamentalist" is a blanket term for a group that encompasses Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. What am I missing?
Waysider, I think chockfull can clear up your misreading (if I'm right) by explaining what he means by "this group." i think he meant TODAY's Sola Scriptura proponents, not Lutherans.
Waysider, I think chockfull can clear up your misreading (if I'm right) by explaining what he means by "this group." i think he meant TODAY's Sola Scriptura proponents, not Lutherans.
Sounds like a plan. I'm not trying to dispute anything. I'm just trying to understand the essence of what's being said. (I think my reading skills "ain't what they used to be.")
Lutherans are fundamentalists? When did this happen?
I'm just summarizing Wikipedia articles as I'm reading them in case it might lead others to read the same links. In modern Christianity there are a TON of labels. I don't really know if I'm getting them all correct and keeping them all straight. This may be a "similarities" and "differences" conversation. I'd say if you lump in Lutherans with all other Protestants, compared to Catholics they would be considered fundamentalist. I don't know if the strict label applies at all.
And Raf, I'm not sure where all of this is leading currently. I'm just reading, investigating, and writing down some notes. And trusting God it will lead somewhere but I don't know where currently.
vpw always talked a good game, but The Word of vpw always trumped The Word of God when they conflicted.
No matter his PUBLIC protestations against that, it's what he demanded in private among his
trained leadership-and that's what got out in practice.
Yes this is absolutely the way TWI functions. For example, the motto of the Way Corps was "It Is Written". This produced some real heart-felt Bible-thumping sermons. Yet in reality the way TWI functions is "It Is Position". It matters little what scripture says, but matters greatly the rank of the person saying it.
Among the lowly peons, however, many got the Sola Scriptura idea and ran with that.
So, after leaving twi, some held to that as fundamental, as foundational.
(Others became atheists, agnostics, wiccans, etc.)
I don't know "MOST" ex-twi would be Sola Scriptura. I think many would be.
I am, but there's still some who are Sola VPW- where what vpw said, that's
The Will of God. Even if Scripture says otherwise.
That's why we get people decades later whose entire vocabulary seems to be
mostly twi buzzwords and vpw slang.
Yes, again the labels thing - not sure if I'm applying them correctly. Stereotypically TWI and ex TWI members are fundamentalist and republican because that's the slant of the thinking, but you're right - plenty others do diverse things.
So what are thoughts on Sola Scriptura vs. Fundamentalism? Are they the same? Different? What's the perception?
I tend to stay away from any argument of Sola Scriptura since it leaves no room for progressive revelation. If it had it's place, the grafting in of the Gentiles to the body, or the "secret" revealed unto Peter, would never have been tolerated. Prima Scriptura at least allows for revelation, etc...
Fundamentalism.. In my view, and even according to the Wikipedia article, while has ties to the foundations, those foundations are set and untouchable.. Think TWI and it's belief in believing, tithing, etc. They don't change. And they, being the cornerstone or foundations of the belief system/doctrine, are therefore without question within the different groups. The problem is, sometimes, those foundations really aren't healthy!
Both, I tend to keep as much distance from.. On the surface, they sound great, and maybe have great benefits, but so did the law and it was of God. The law was made for man, not the other way around. Scripture was made for man, and it's foundations and teachings likewise. But just as the law, they can very easily condemn to death the righteous.
I gravitate more towards Prima Scriptura, but even then, within tolerance. And foundations.. Sure, we all have them. But I am willing to listen and prove other views out. Prove me now says the Lord. Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.
Recommended Posts
Raf
Without going into a detailed reading of this article and the articles linked (VERY nice find, by the way. Should have included it in the reading room), I think the position that best reflects what I've been saying would be "empirical cessationist." That is, I'm not dismissing SIT on principle; I just see no evidence of it. I put myself in that category with some reservation -- you may find an aspect of that position that I totally disagree with, and I don't want to align myself with it completely without having thoroughly reviewed it.
Very nice find. Looks fair to both sides.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Interesting..
I don't believe God's gifts have ceased and am willing to believe the reports of people SIT in tongues understood by a select few present. Or people being healed. Or words of prophecy being given to help.
However, I personally can attest to none with 100% verifiable proof.
1 Cor 12 "As he wills".. I believe refers to God.. And thus, is at his discretion..
But then, I'm not a dispensationalist.. Not the classical, adaptive, or the progressive dispen. viewpoint.
So when it comes to scripture, I take a Progressive Covenant theological view towards it. Meaning all scripture is relevant and progressive. While we are not part of Israel as a nation which by it's nature means we are not under that nation's laws (we do have to obey the laws of the country we abide in), scriptural revelation builds and progresses so that what is said before may not be understand until it happens and thus hindsight becomes 20/20.. As an example, Christ quoted a portion of the OT, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.." but did not continue "and the day of vengeance of our God".. Prior to hindsight, it happened in one full swoop. We now know it spoke of two different times.. Progressive understanding.. Scripture didn't change. But the understanding of a verse may..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The Wikipedia articles introduce the argument between Cessationist and Continuationist. They claim that of those claiming those beliefs, the concept of "Sola Scriptura" for the article's purpose has to be in play. This concept is more of the "Martin Luther" reform type of stance, where everything within the church and related to God has to be subject to scripture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
Of interest to note among the Cessationist/Continuationist argument, that there are many who do NOT hold to Sola Scriptura - where scripture is only one thing among many that governs belief.
Those of the Sola Scriptura persuasion are largely described to be Reformists, which originated most of the mainstream denominations in existence today, like Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. Many times this group is also termed to be "Fundamentalist".
Note that to me this is important in that Fundamentalism / Sola Scriptura is totally based upon scripture, and human experience is not of value.
TWI is pretty much in that category, as are offshoots. Most ex-TWI members also would be of the Fundamentalist / Sola Scriptura persuasion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Is this leading you somewhere, Chockfull? Or are you just making observations?
TWI was never truly sola scriptura, though they would have wanted us to believe they were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Lutherans are fundamentalists? When did this happen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Read carefully. That's not what he's saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I must be dense. The context seems to suggest that "Fundamentalist" is a blanket term for a group that encompasses Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. What am I missing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He said that name is applied. He didn't say whether he thought it was sensible to apply it or not.
The phrasing might be taken to suggest it isn't- or it might not. He'll have to answer as to what
he meant either way. If either of you care. It's getting us off-topic, I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
On the one hand,
twi PROFESSED Sola Scriptura but was not.
vpw always talked a good game, but The Word of vpw always trumped The Word of God when they conflicted.
No matter his PUBLIC protestations against that, it's what he demanded in private among his
trained leadership-and that's what got out in practice.
Among the lowly peons, however, many got the Sola Scriptura idea and ran with that.
So, after leaving twi, some held to that as fundamental, as foundational.
(Others became atheists, agnostics, wiccans, etc.)
I don't know "MOST" ex-twi would be Sola Scriptura. I think many would be.
I am, but there's still some who are Sola VPW- where what vpw said, that's
The Will of God. Even if Scripture says otherwise.
That's why we get people decades later whose entire vocabulary seems to be
mostly twi buzzwords and vpw slang.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Waysider, I think chockfull can clear up your misreading (if I'm right) by explaining what he means by "this group." i think he meant TODAY's Sola Scriptura proponents, not Lutherans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sounds like a plan. I'm not trying to dispute anything. I'm just trying to understand the essence of what's being said. (I think my reading skills "ain't what they used to be.")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I'm just summarizing Wikipedia articles as I'm reading them in case it might lead others to read the same links. In modern Christianity there are a TON of labels. I don't really know if I'm getting them all correct and keeping them all straight. This may be a "similarities" and "differences" conversation. I'd say if you lump in Lutherans with all other Protestants, compared to Catholics they would be considered fundamentalist. I don't know if the strict label applies at all.
And Raf, I'm not sure where all of this is leading currently. I'm just reading, investigating, and writing down some notes. And trusting God it will lead somewhere but I don't know where currently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes this is absolutely the way TWI functions. For example, the motto of the Way Corps was "It Is Written". This produced some real heart-felt Bible-thumping sermons. Yet in reality the way TWI functions is "It Is Position". It matters little what scripture says, but matters greatly the rank of the person saying it.
Yes, again the labels thing - not sure if I'm applying them correctly. Stereotypically TWI and ex TWI members are fundamentalist and republican because that's the slant of the thinking, but you're right - plenty others do diverse things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So what are thoughts on Sola Scriptura vs. Fundamentalism? Are they the same? Different? What's the perception?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think the idea is that, generally, Sola Scriptura is a subset of Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism might be seen as "Gimme that old time religion."
It's considered the antithesis, often, of modern movements, and is a matter of getting back to basics.
However, getting back to basics and "old time religion" are not the same as ditching everything
that isn't Sola Scriptura. There's Fundamentalists who consider other things as Fundamental.
On the other hand, Sola Scriptura doesn't NECESSARILY mean "discard anything that isn't in a verse."
Anything that isn't in a verse is completely optional and is devoid of authority. If a verse suggests
it, it has that much, but no more. (So, a Sola Scriptura person is not required to discard using a
computer, for example.)
So, they're not the same thing, but there's an overlap, and some people may consider them the same.
When you have someone who takes the Bible "literally", as in, historically accurate and so on,
they're called "Fundamentalist."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I tend to stay away from any argument of Sola Scriptura since it leaves no room for progressive revelation. If it had it's place, the grafting in of the Gentiles to the body, or the "secret" revealed unto Peter, would never have been tolerated. Prima Scriptura at least allows for revelation, etc...
Fundamentalism.. In my view, and even according to the Wikipedia article, while has ties to the foundations, those foundations are set and untouchable.. Think TWI and it's belief in believing, tithing, etc. They don't change. And they, being the cornerstone or foundations of the belief system/doctrine, are therefore without question within the different groups. The problem is, sometimes, those foundations really aren't healthy!
Both, I tend to keep as much distance from.. On the surface, they sound great, and maybe have great benefits, but so did the law and it was of God. The law was made for man, not the other way around. Scripture was made for man, and it's foundations and teachings likewise. But just as the law, they can very easily condemn to death the righteous.
I gravitate more towards Prima Scriptura, but even then, within tolerance. And foundations.. Sure, we all have them. But I am willing to listen and prove other views out. Prove me now says the Lord. Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.