ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

What Is A Fundamentalist

Some come here and call Christians 'fundamentalist.' What does that mean? Is it an insult?

Moderator - Term from about 100 years ago that means those that believe the fundamentals of the Bible. Non-Christians may try to use it as an insult as they don't believe the Bible.

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Watching_It_All on 8/15/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (17)

Post a New Blog



Samuel: Please explain the precise difference between innerant and infallable.
---jerry6593

Inerrent means that the exact words were given to the Inspired writers of the Bible. That there are no mistakes.

Infallabile means the men were inspired and used their words to get across the mind of GOD. That they could make mistakes like put a wrong number or mispell a word.

Main example are the two demoniacs of Geneseris or one. In reality it does not matter. One thought that one was important the other writer mentioned two. What was important is they demons had to obey JESUS.
---Samuel on 10/1/08


"If this thread morphs into another SDA thread, such as was done before... the mods will shut it down... For that is justifiable"?? Thanks Observer. I was trying to figure out what was going on. Yet our mods seem more fair than that. They post my (and others') contributions even when they are opposing views.
---Geoff on 10/1/08


Want to be identified as a Christian? Then do what our Lord asked of you.

Matthew 25:33-36 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.


But Lordie, they did not observe your holy Sabbath, the most important of all commandments - the Sabbatherians.
---Lee1538 on 8/27/08


JERRY AND OTHER SDAs

If this thread morphs into another SDA thread, such as was done before, where false charges were hurled as before, and has happened here recently, the mods will shut it down-- just as they did before. For that is justifiable.

Only the SDAS can change that. They, oh never mind.
---Observer on 8/8/08


Samuel: Please explain the precise difference between innerant and infallable.
---jerry6593 on 8/7/08




Why do so many of my posts get "lost"? very frustrating.

Samuel, thanks for your candor. Yes, you are correct about the SDAs not being historical fundamentalists. Why is that so hard for others to admit?

What i also observed is that contrary to your assertion, ZERO of the SDAs here or elsewhere want to say "Sister Ellen was wrong". That is because admitting that automatically makes her less of a prophet. But all this is a diversion.

Let's get back to the OP, shall we?
---Observer on 8/7/08


Samuel - *Our doctrines are based on the Bible as the final authority and was worked out in many Bible conferences and meetings. A doctrine to be true must be based in Scripure. Sola Scriptora.

The problem with your argument here is that many other denominations make the same claim, but clearly we differ on many issues.

I think the problem lies not in Scripture alone, but in interpretation of Scripture. In the SDA Ellen White has become the official interpretor of Scripture whereas in other denominations, interpretation is not so solidified but open to debate.
---Lee1538 on 8/6/08


First this blog is about being a fundamentalist. By the definitions given We SDA are not fundamentalists since we do not believe in the inerrency of the Scripture. We teach the infallability of Scripture as the final authority on all matters. We however agree with the Funadamentalists on most points.

The charge was made we believe in the inerrency of the writings of E.G.White. That is false. While writing on many topics she did speak her own beliefs at times. She did correct herself when shown she had been mistaken.

Our doctrines are based on the Bible as the final authority and was worked out in many Bible conferences and meetings. A doctrine to be true must be based in Scripure. Sola Scriptora.
---Samuel on 8/6/08


Lee,

In a lost-in-cyberspace post I made here, I made that argument.

I tried to differentiate between the five historic fundamentals, and the 28 SDA Fundamentals. They are different, and mutually exclusive. Likewise is their genesis.

I do not know the purpose of the SDA fundamentals, but the original, historic five fundamentals were created to counter creeping liberalism in the church.
---Observer on 8/5/08


Jerry,Observer - do all fundamentalists believe in the same things?

SDA foundamentalists believe in the fundamentals of their religion, the 28 SDA fundamental articles of which Ellen White is the infallible interpretor of Scripture.

Biblical Christians on the other side, believe in the fundamentals as found in the Bible leaving interpretation to the teachers the Lord has given His church over the centuries.
---Lee1538 on 8/4/08




Jerry,

Why do you fault my observations of interactions with SDA pastors? I spoke the truth about them.

You wrongly assume that I characterized the entire denomination via my observation of a few SDA pastors on the Internet.

And the statement is germane to the issue of being a historic fundamentalist, for one of the historic five is an inerrant autographa. Therefore, I was keeping with the OP, contrary to your opinion.

Have you asked your pastor if he believes in an inerrant autographa?

Please come back and tell us what he says, OK?
---Observer on 8/4/08


Observer: "Jerry, since when is TRUTH a slam?" When it is not the truth! Your opinion about some SDA pastors does not determine whether or not a denomination of 12 million people believe in the Fundamental truths of the Bible. We do, and to insinuate otherwise is a deliberate deception that I find offensive. Furthermore, it is not at all germane to the topic of "What is a fundamentalist?"

Why can't you be more observant of your own shortcomings, apologize, and get back on topic?
---jerry6593 on 8/4/08


Jerry, since when is TRUTH a slam?

You take offense where none was given, or intended.

It is a true statement that NONE of the SDA pastors I encountered here and elsewhere on the Internet can believe simultaneously in an inerrant autographa and an inerrant Ellen.

How does that hurt you directly? Your response baffles me. I only made it so that you could think in the same terms as your SDA pastors, or choose not to.
---Observer on 8/1/08


Observer: It's a pity that you are unable to observe your own words. I chided you simply for the hypocrisy of admonishing us to stick to the current topic (Fundamentalism), while in the same post injecting a slam against SDAs by name. Why can't you be more observant of your own shortcomings, apologize, and get back on topic?
---jerry6593 on 8/1/08


gina - *Your post from 07/04/08 stated Jesus did not mention the 10 commandments in your quote from Matthew and I just responded to that stating that He did by summing up the 10 commandments into the 2 great themes of Love to God and neighbor.

Again your knowledge of the Scripture is very limited by your mentors.

Gal. 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

If you were truly a New Covenant Christian you would not demand we follow OT laws that are strictly Jewish like Jesus did - circumcision, temple tithing, dietary laws,and the Sabbath...
---Lee1538 on 7/30/08


Gina:

Here is the answer to your question.

Jerry stated that he was a fundamentalist.

I replied and said that while he may be, the SDA pastors I saw here and on CARM etc. did not subscribe to that. They know it is impossible to believe inerrancy of both the original autographa and the inerrancy of Ellen simultaneously.

Jerry then took that, and retorted something about the Sabbath. Several of us here told him that SDA Sabbath belief was irrelevant to the OP.

Then you took off with the topic, and wrongfully believed that this thread was anti-SDAs, getting upset.

Both of you escalated the discussion for no good reason. That is the bottom line answer.
---Observer on 7/30/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Samuel - and what precisely in your post did you want me to respond to?

While Gina is still pitching the obsolete & optional OT Sabbath, I would rather not continue on that subject largely because I keep answering the same questions as apparently she ignores my posts.

If she wants to continue on that topic, she may do better by using the forum handles as the subject of this tread if different.
---Lee1538 on 7/30/08


Dear Gina

We are guests here and should abide by the rules.

---Samuel on 7/29/08

Show me the rule that states SDA's cannot defend their faith from the Bible on these boards, because that is what is being implied by stating if you post SDA responses the moderators will remove the topic. I have been posting since 2006 with no problem, and now suddenly no more freedom of speech? I see Morman boards still going strong, and some of them are very heated, so if the SDA is being prohibited, then that is nothing less than SDA being singled out and discriminated against.
---Gina7 on 7/30/08


samuel - agree that the SDA worked out its fundamentalist doctrines in various conferences including making some changes to beliefs they could not defend such as their closed door belief -that if you did not make it into their religion prior to such a date, you were lost forever.

And of course, they had their prophetless doing her thing on healthful living. I like the one where she believed butter, eggs & meat acted like aphrodiastics on children (they avoid these kinds of things as much of it is totally ridiculous). And of course, there was that prophecy about going to war with England that never panned out.
---Lee1538 on 7/29/08


Dear Gina

We are guests here and should abide by the rules.

Lee you did not answer my post from the 26th.

So sad but true many try to turn the term fundamentalist into a term of Judgmentalist. This is done I believe because by denigrating your opponet you can ignore them.
---Samuel on 7/29/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


*The blood of Christ,in the NC, shows the holiness of the 10 commandments, because Christ's blood was spilled to satisfy its claims.

True, 'For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God'. 2Co 5:21

And we can rejoice for 'There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. .... For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.' Romans 8:1-4
---Lee1538 on 7/28/08


gina - While you are a fundamentalist, you are of the Old Cov type, not of the New Covenant.
- Lee 07/28/08

I do believe in the New Covenant that was ratified by Christ's blood on the cross. I believe that nothing could be added to or taken away from that covenant after that date (Calvary). The original old testatment covenant was ratified by the blood of animals, new covenent by the blood of Christ. Why blood? The wages of sin (breaking the 10 commandments) requires death, the spilling of blood. The blood of Christ,in the NC, shows the holiness of the 10 commandments, because Christ's blood was spilled to satisfy its claims.

So I am a fundamentalist who does believe in the NC which is an agreement revolving around 10 CC
---Gina7 on 7/28/08


The topic of this tread is 'fundamentalism'. If you wish to discuss the topic of why Christians need not observe the OT Sabbath, please direct your discussion to my handle, otherwise we can expect the moderators to freeze this thread as well.
---Lee1538 on 7/28/08

Your post from 07/04/08 stated Jesus did not mention the 10 commandments in your quote from Matthew and I just responded to that stating that He did by summing up the 10 commandments into the 2 great themes of Love to God and neighbor. I can only suggest you remember the topic of this thread as well.

By the way, whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why did the moderators get rid of SDA threads after so many years?
---Gina7 on 7/28/08


Jerry,

Please stop trying to spin this into a SDA blog.

You seem not to remember that the mods removed all SDA blogs due to the heat being generated there?

Your gambit on the Sabbath is irrelevant, and unwelcome because it has nothing to do with the OP.

If you wish to discuss Sabbath stuff, I suggest you go to other forums on the Net.
---Observer on 7/28/08


Shop For Church Chairs


gina -

While you are a fundamentalist, you are of the Old Covenant type, not of the New Covenant.

It is obvious that you do not recognize what a covenant is. It is a legally binding agreement between 2 parties and whatever is not in the covenant is not binding.

The Old (Sinatic) Covenant was given to Israel alone (Dt. 5:3) and declared to be obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13).

And yes, contrary to what you want to believe, the law has changed from the Old to the New Covenant (Heb.7:12) and we certainly do not see the dietary laws, Sabbath observance(s) etc. in the New Covenant, nor does God require physical circumcision of believers. (Acts 15)
---Lee1538 on 7/28/08


gina - *If one loves the Lord, he will keep 1st 4 commandments.

The topic of this tread is 'fundamentalism'. If you wish to discuss the topic of why Christians need not observe the OT Sabbath, please direct your discussion to my handle, otherwise we can expect the moderators to freeze this thread as well.
---Lee1538 on 7/28/08


It shouldn't be an insult. It means basic, foundation,essential, deep rooted, a good, good, insult. Come on!
---catherine on 7/27/08


Howdy Lee1538

(Read if you are permitted to D.M. Canright's works - he was very close to the Whites & defended Adventism to those Methodists & other groups you speak of in numerous debates. However, the Lord being gracious to those who seek to obey Him in truth, set him free from that bondage.)

I have a number of books in my Library that I have read on how the SDA movement is a cult and I have read much of Canright. You did not say that I did not speak the truth. Instead you switched points. The doctrine of the SDA church was worked out by it's members and Leader in Bible conferences.

JESUS set me free from the bondage of sin in the truth of His Word.
---Samuel on 7/26/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


I think that some people misunderstand the meaning of FUNDALEMENTALISM. Somehow over time it has taken on the meaning of JUDGEMENTALIST. I often hear slurs re "those Holier than thou fundamentalists". Interestingly, the very people who say this are Bible believing Christians.
---jody on 7/26/08


laws such as the Sabbath observance... were NOT observed by Gentiles, nor were such mandated to His church.
--Lee1538 7/15/08

So God has a different standard for His followers in our day than He did for His followers in Moses day? I disagree. Jesus died to meet the claims of unchanging law of God (the wages of sin, the breaking of that law, being death Rom 6:23) so no part of law could be changed. The same standard applies in all generations for God to be fair and just. If not, Jesus need not have died, and, those who were killed (and lost due to it) in Moses time for not observing the Sabbath would have a reason to say they were treated unfairly if the "Holy" Sabbath was done away with later, no longer to be observed
---Gina7 on 7/26/08


1) Divinely inspired scriptures which were inerrant in the original writing,
---Observer 7/16/08

So is 4th commandment, in its original writing, divinely inspired? Is it inerrant? Do the original words say "Remember the Sabbath day,to keep it holy?" or "The 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God?"
Is it a part of the words of unchanging law of God, who Himself is Holy, Divine, unchanging? "Jesus Christ,the same yesterday,and today and forever" Heb 13:8

Inerrent: Freedom from error or untruths

Question: Was God in error when He inspired to be written "Remember the Sabbath day"? The only answer is yes, if you believe the day can now be forgotten, God erred when He said Remember
---Gina7 on 7/26/08


When they asked Jesus what was the great commandment in the law He did not even mention any of the 10 commandments but replied-

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.

And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. Mt. 22:36f
--Lee1538 7/4/08

If one loves the Lord, he will keep 1st 4 commandments.

If one loves his neighbor, He will keep last 6 because they are the ones that deal with our actions to them(steal, lie, kill, etc)

What Jesus did was sum up the 10 commandments into 2 great principles, love of God and neighbor!
---Gina7 on 7/26/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Samuel - *If you look at the history of the foundaition of our church you will find Methodists and Baptists getting together and discussing and speaking on our basic beliefs through a number of Bible conferences.

I am highly familiar with SDA history and its fundamental beliefs. In fact my library looks like a cult workshop.

Read if you are permitted to D.M. Canright's works - he was very close to the Whites & defended Adventism to those Methodists & other groups you speak of in numerous debates. However, the Lord being gracious to those who seek to obey Him in truth, set him free from that bondage.

There is significant difference between Adventist fundamentalism & biblical fundamentalism.
---Lee1538 on 7/25/08


The Moderator nail the nutshell of Fundamentalist:
1910 The Niagra Confrance of the Presbytarian Church - North established 5 fundamentals
#1 inerrancy of scripture
#2 Virgin Birth of Chirst
#3 The Trinity
#4 The literalness of Biblical miracles
#5 literal physical death & resurection of Christ.
1926 - a liberal coined the term in NYC "...shall the Fundamentalists win?!"
---Gilbert on 7/25/08


Jerry

FYI Observer has now tried three times to reply civilly to your post, none were posted. (sigh)

He regrets that you believe he ranted, when in fact, he merely posted an observation about several SDA pastors he encountered. That is not a swipe.

Being a historical fundamentalists means adhering to the 5 fundamentals, one of which is an inerrant autographa.

The pastors know that maintaining some of their unique beliefs is incompatible with an inerrant autographa, a historic fundamental.
---Observer on 7/25/08


You wrote (The Bible is interpreted by the former in accordance to its founder rather than by the teachers the Lord has given to His church over the centuries. Lee1538)

If you look at the history of the foundaition of our church you will find Methodists and Baptists getting together and discussing and speaking on our basic beliefs through a number of Bible conferences. Where Sister White often kept quiet so that our church could have a solid biblical foundation. Our Weslayan, Lutherian foundation is very apparent to those who study them. Calvin's influence is also seen in our understanding of the Old Testament.
---Samuel on 7/25/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Howdy Lee

(There have been both good & bad popes. We should not oppose them on issues in which they were correct.)

Agreed.

(While we find much agreement with Martin Luther, do we agree with his anti-semiticism or with those unique Roman Catholic beliefs he retained (perpetual virginity of Mary, intercessory prayer of saints, etc.)? I think not. )

Again I agree with your point here. I find some agreements with John Calvin but not completly.
---Samuel on 7/24/08


Samuel - *SDA fundamentalist believe that the Bible is the foundational truth by which all teachings must be tested.

That is much the same claim made by many other denominations, however, the criteria by which the Bible is interpreted is much different with the SDA than with other Biblical oriented denominations.

The Bible is interpreted by the former in accordance to its founder rather than by the teachers the Lord has given to His church over the centuries.
---Lee1538 on 7/24/08


Jerry - *You could not be more wrong about SDAs - or the New Covenant, for that matter. Stick to the topic, or the Observer will get you!

I would say that one true mark of a fundamentalist is that they have an inherent inability to be teachable. They alway teach that the facts are not really the facts if they do not support their unique beliefs.

Observer is not often wrong but is a student that reads and studies the issues indepth. Obviously your positions have been proven to be untenable.
---Lee1538 on 7/24/08


*Well the people who claim the greatist leaders of the Church thru the ages are the RCC and their popes. Are you saying Lee we should follow the Popes?

There have been both good & bad popes. We should not oppose them on issues in which they were correct.

Some of the positions taken by some of the last few popes agree with our positions. However, must we agree with non-catholic pastors & theologian (egada! look at the beliefs & theology of the founder of one of our sabbaterians denomination!)

While we find much agreement with Martin Luther, do we agree with his anti-semiticism or with those unique Roman Catholic beliefs he retained (perpetual virginity of Mary, intercessory prayer of saints, etc.)? I think not.
---Lee1538 on 7/23/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Lee: You could not be more wrong about SDAs - or the New Covenant, for that matter. Stick to the topic, or the Observer will get you!
---jerry6593 on 7/23/08


Well the people who claim the greatist leaders of the Church through the ages are the RCC and their popes. Are you saying Lee we should follow the Popes?

SDA fundamentalist believe that the Bible is the foundational truth by which all teachings must be tested. We believe as Martin Luther taught Sola Scriptora, Sola Grace. We believe as John Wesley taught that the Ten Commandments are moral laws all Christians should follow.
---Samuel on 7/23/08


jerry - *You then go into a highly uninformed tirade against SDAs (way off topic). Do you see the inconsistency of such a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude?

While what you say may indeed be true, you need admit that what he stated about the SDA is entirely true however, SDA fundamentalism is much different than Christian fundamentalism in that the SDA follow the teachings of their founder instead of that of the teachers the Lord has given to His church over the centuries.
---Lee1538 on 7/23/08


Jerry - while we Christians believe the entirety of the Bible, those that can read understand that God made the Sinaitic covenant with the nation of Israel alone, not with the rest of the world.

You fail miserably to understand that the church is under the New Covenant and not the Old Sinaitic covenant. And whatever is not in the New Covenant(a legally binding agreement) has to be either optional or obsolete.

Thus what your belief system is a custom designed based upon both the New Covenant & cherry picked tenets from the Old (and a few others from your founder).
---Lee1538 on 7/23/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Observer: You don't seem to be very observant when it comes to your own remarks. You said:

"Here the topic is fundamentalism. Please confine your discussion using the original, denotative meaning of the word, and not the more recent connotative meaning(s)....Please discuss that elsewhere, not here, OK?"

You then go into a highly uninformed tirade against SDAs (way off topic). Do you see the inconsistency of such a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude?
---jerry6593 on 7/23/08


Lee: I think that was a YES to my question. That means that you believe some people are required to keep a different set of commandments than others. The Jews are then forced into the Ten Commandments, while Christians appear to be free to "cherry-pick" the ones they want to obey.

What do you do with scriptures like:

Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Act 10:34 ... God is no respecter of persons:?

Do you only believe PART of the Bible?
---jerry6593 on 7/23/08


Jerry, God wants obedience from all people no matter what religion. So for many the only way to obey will be to get out of their religion. Didn't Jesus say that we had to put him before our fathers and mothers, or we are not worthy of Him. It takes a certain amount of maturity, and independence and courage to separate yourself from the herd especially the family herd. People will accuse us of going astray. But God sees what is motivating us. He knows it is not sin we follow but Him. Those who die before reaching a certain age of maturity, will be judged accordingly. God will be merciful.
---frances008 on 7/22/08


Besides doctrinal positions,what other things characterizes a fundamentalist?

Do they have eyes that can see thru a keyhole with both open?

Do they always vote republican? Do they drink beer, whiskey or only water?

Do they read only one version of the Bible?

Are they standoffish and refuse to have anything to do with other people?

What denomination(s) make up fundamentalists? Are they all Roman catholic, adventists or Baptists?

What is the general sterotype that identifies the fundamentalists?
---Lee1538 on 7/22/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Hey, guys!

Here the topic is fundamentalism.

Please confine your discussion using the original, denotative meaning of the word, and not the more recent connotative meaning(s)

Here they are:
1) Divinely inspired scriptures which were inerrant in the original writing,
2) Christ's virgin birth and deity,
3) Christ's substitutionary atonement,
4) Christ's resurrection, and
5) Christ's personal pre-millennial and imminent second coming.

To be sure, some SDA pastors will have difficulty with #1 because when push comes to shove, Ellen wins over the Bible although her interpretations are contrary to the original words. That's a fact, not a dig.

Please discuss that elsewhere, not here, OK?
---Observer on 7/16/08


Jerry *I realize that you consider that an answer to my question, but I would like a confirming yes or no only to this question please. Do you think that God writes a different "law" on various hearts?

Yes, God wrote moral laws onto the hearts of all mankind so that they know what is right from wrong and are held responsible.

No, He did not write Mosaic civil laws, or ceremonial laws that are strictly Jewish onto the hearts of people.

That much should be obvious to any nominal student of human societies.

And to your implied specific question, NO,GOD DID NOT WRITE ANY DIETARY OR SABBATICAL LAWS ONTO THE HEARTS OF PEOPLE INCLUDING BELIEVERS.
---Lee1538 on 7/16/08


Lee: I realize that you consider that an answer to my question, but I would like a confirming yes or no only to this question please.

Do you think that God writes a different "law" on various hearts?
---jerry6593 on 7/16/08


Jerry - Unless one is totally blind you would have to conclude that it was basically moral law written on the hearts of mankind, as clearly laws that were strictly Jewish in nature were NOT written on the hearts of all mankind.

Strictly Jewish laws such as the Sabbath observance, dietary laws as well as civil laws given thru Moses were NOT observed by Gentiles, nor were such mandated to His church.
---Lee1538 on 7/15/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Lee: Do you think that God writes a different "law" on various hearts? Is it your opinion that He wants you and me to obey different sets of laws? How about the Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc. - does He want a different sort of obedience from each? This is not that hard a question (s), so try to answer.
---jerry6593 on 7/15/08


Samuel - agree however Romans 2:14 states that if the Gentiles followed their nature, they did observe the moral law which is the intent of all the law given through Moses.

God gave them a conscience reflecting His laws so that they could determine right from wrong (2:15).

Howbeit, the statement that He wrote the 10 commandment laws (including the Sabbath commandment) on the heart of Gentiles is totally false as they clearly did not observe any particular day let alone the OT sabbath.

This argument should suffice to indicate that the 4th commandment is NOT a moral law(unless you want to change the definition or make it a special exception).
---Lee1538 on 7/14/08


You are correct Lee that gentiles did not observe the Jewish laws. Why should they since they were not in covenant with the one true GOD. Before observing the law of GOD a person needs to be in covenant with GOD. They need to love GOD with all their heart soul and might. Just doing works does not earn salvation.

We are saved by Grace when through the blood of JESUS CHRIST when we come into covenant with Him. Those gentiles who joined into covenant with GOD kept his laws.
---Samuel on 7/14/08


jerry - *Tell me, when Paul wrote "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts," do you think that God writes a different "law" on various hearts?

Unless you are totally blind you would have to conclude that it was basically moral law written on the hearts of mankind, as clearly laws that were strictly Jewish in nature were NOT written on the hearts of all mankind.

Strictly Jewish laws such as the Sabbath observance, dietary laws as well as civil laws given thru Moses were NOT observed by Gentiles.
---Lee1538 on 7/14/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Lee: You responded, but failed to answer. Again:

Tell me, when Paul wrote "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts," do you think that God writes a different "law" on various hearts?
---jerry6593 on 7/14/08


todd1 - *You are twisting scriptures again, Lee. Romans 2:14 does not say "...EVEN if they did not have the law

What you are trying to do is to change the meaning of the verse to fit what you want to believe or you are trying of change the topic - often a tactic in debating to obfuscate the subject under discussion.

I used the ESV but if you check the other versions you will find much the same meaning or wording.

NIV - Indeed when Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,they are a law for themselves EVEN though they do not have the law...

Greek Interlinear - For whenever nations not the law having by nature the things of the law do, these laws not having to themselves are a law,
---Lee1538 on 7/11/08


todd1 - *It says specifically "For when the Gentiles, WHICH HAVE NOT THE LAW, do by nature the things contained in the law..."

The 2d phrase 'do by nature the things contained in the law'. If they did, how then did they keep the OT Sabbath? They did not keep the OT sabbath, so that totally demolishes your belief that God wrote the 10 commandment laws onto the hearts of all peoples.

As to the law, I honor it greatly as it has taught me what sin is, but recognize the fact that the Christian is not under the law howbeit, only the law of Christ (1 Cor.9:21, Gal. 6:2) and is to led by the Spirit (Gal. 3,23,4:4,5:18).

And what do I truly lack if I abide in Christ in Whom there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1)? nothing!
---Lee1538 on 7/11/08


Todd1 - As to your fallacious charge that I twist the scripture to serve my sin (and you have yet to point any specific sin I am guilty of from the NT), most of the scripture I have used to support my beliefs comes from those that the Holy Spirit has penned thru the Apostle Paul.

And in viewing your argument, I can only agree with that other Apostle Peter when he stated -

2Pe 3:16 ... There are some things in them (i.e. Paul's letters) that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

And neither you nor Jerry really has a grasp for anything Pauline.
---Lee1538 on 7/11/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Lee1538 wrote "This scripture states that Gentiles, even if they did not have the law 'do by nature the things contained in the law' as it is written on their hearts to do so."

You are twisting scriptures again, Lee. Romans 2:14 does not say "...EVEN if they did not have the law..."

It says specifically "For when the Gentiles, WHICH HAVE NOT THE LAW, do by nature the things contained in the law..."

So you see, this IS talking ONLY about those people who have not heard Christ's Gospel and don't know His laws. This does not apply to you, who know the law. For you: If you continue to sin willfully after you've received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for your sins.
---Todd1 on 7/10/08


Todd1 - Romans 2:14f makes reference to Gentiles - non Jewish people, not specifically 'to those people in remote corners of the world who have never been privileged enough to learn God's precious truths'.

This scripture states that Gentiles, even if they did not have the law 'do by nature the things contained in the law' as it is written on their hearts to do so.

The verse refers only to moral law not ceremonial law, and as the Gentiles did not observe the 4th commandment such a tenet must be learned and thus cannot be a moral law.

This should logically demolish the belief that 'Gods holy ten commandment law is written on the hearts of man' as clearly the 4th commandment was and is not.
---Lee1538 on 7/10/08


*Sounds like a description of you! You (along with atheist) invent your own morality, and (together with your commentator spirit guides) are the final arbitor of which laws are obsolete and which are still in force - ...a consuming desire to sin.

These kinds of comments are typical of cultist who truly hate other Christians and refuse to listen to the teachers the Lord has given to His church for our benefit.

As to spirit guides, was not your 'prophetless' founder always making references to her guiding angel? And was she not kicked out of the church for refusing to submit to the authority of Scripture preferring to heed her visions instead?

If the blind follow the blind will not both fall into a ditch? Mt. 15:14
---Lee1538 on 7/10/08


Jerry - *Tell me, when Paul wrote "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts," do you think that God writes a different "law" on various hearts?

Again this reflects your inability to conceive of the fact that God made a NEW covenant with His people, not just a rehash or addendum to the Old (which btw was declared to be obsolete in Hebrews 8:13 and if obsolete, can no longer be binding)..

Why dont you simply accept the truth of these matters? Is it not hard "for thee to kick against the pricks"? Acts 9:5
---Lee1538 on 7/10/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Lee: "The god they glorified was not the god of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob but one of their own vain imaginations." Sounds like a description of you! You (along with atheist) invent your own morality, and (together with your commentator spirit guides) are the final arbitor of which laws are obsolete and which are still in force - using no reasoning but your own feelings and a consuming desire to sin.

Tell me, when Paul wrote "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts," do you think that God writes a different "law" on various hearts?
---jerry6593 on 7/9/08


What we often hear is the stereotype definition of what a fundamentalist is, however, we should stick tothe dictionary definition and be done with it.

A fundamentalist(fundie) is one with a -

1. movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles
2. support for literal explanation: the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted
---Lee1538 on 7/9/08


Romans 2:14-16 is written about those who have not heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These verses apply to those people in remote corners of the world who have never been privileged enough to learn God's precious truths.

This verse proves even further that God's holy ten commandment law (an expression of His character) is written on the hearts of man. His Holy Spirit works on these people so that they know right from wrong, having never read the commandments. So, they will be judged by their conscience.
---Todd1 on 7/8/08


Jerry - & *Rom 1:21,22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools!

That does not mean they were without excuse since the other verses (2:14-16) depict the fact that they knew what constitutes moral law as such was an inherent attribute.

You really need to study Romans from one that has been called into the ministry of teaching the Word, otherwise you comments will continue to reflect those of a fool.
---Lee1538 on 7/8/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Jerry -*Rom 1:21,22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools!

That does not mean they were without excuse since the other verses (2:14-16) depict the fact that they knew what constitutes moral law as such was an inherent attribute.

You really need to study Romans from one that has been called into the ministry of teaching the Word, otherwise you comments will continue to reflect those of a fool.
---Lee1538 on 7/8/08


A fundamentalist is a belief that's held by a movement in American Protest. It talks about the history of the bible, the resurrection, and faith. No it's not an insult.
---antoa7855 on 7/8/08


Rom 1:21,22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools!

That really sounds like some of the cult founders, particularily those who based much of what they believed on visions, like that 'prophetess' who founded a Sabbaterian group back in the 1800's or that guy who claims he found some golden plates.

The god they glorified was not the god of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob but one of their own vain imaginations.
---Lee1538 on 7/8/08


Jerry - again your comments depict the fact you do not understand Romans.

Romans 2:14-16 For Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Instead of listing to the voice of Satan and judging others as evil for not obeying obsolete laws, it would be more advantageous for you to learn what I state from Scripture otherwise you will remain unfruitful & in spiritual darkness.
---Lee1538 on 7/8/08


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Lee: "Moral law does spring from within oneself as that is what the Bible says in Romans 1:20,2:14,15 (he needs to read these verses) - moral law is an inherent attribute as man was created in God's image,otherwise how could man be held responsible?"

Rom 1:20 does not say that moral law springs from the heart! In fact, if you would read a bit further....

Rom 1:21,22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools!

Is this what has happened to you?
---jerry6593 on 7/8/08


A conviction is simply "a firmly held belief" and "firmness of belief".

It is my conviction Jer. 31:32 really speaks of the New Covenant - a covenant 'not like' the one God made with Israel when they came out of Egypt, one not according to (or like) the Old Sinatic or ten commandment covenant -

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which my covenant they brake, ..."

I am sure neither Todd or Geoff noted the words 'not according to (or like) the covenant I made with their fathers' but want to believe cherry picked Old Covenant laws simply were replaced to the believers heart.
---Lee1538 on 7/7/08


Todd1 - As to Jer. 31:31-34, you fail to understand the term new covenant but have chosen to believe the new covenant to be a simply rehash of the old covenant with the same applicable laws. Thus you try to force laws not in the New Covenant onto the Christian.

As to the commandment regarding taking the Lords name in vain, you will find it expressed in Mt. 5:33, James 5:12 and the commandment regarding coveting is expressed in Mt.7:21-23, Lk. 12:15,33-34, Rom.1:29, 12:9,1Cor.5:11,6:10 & Eph. 5:3 But you will not find any commandment in the NT to observe the OT Sabbath. Why? Because it was the sign of that old Sinaitic covenant God made with Israel alone (Exodus 31:17).
---Lee1538 on 7/7/08


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.