Does being a fundamentalist Baptist mean that....

Discussion in 'Fundamental Baptist Forum' started by Craigbythesea, Feb 23, 2016.

  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Does being a fundamentalist Baptist mean that we have to relegate the life and earth sciences to the realm of Satan or spiritual ignorance? Can a fundamentalist Baptist believe in all the Baptist Distinctives, the virgin birth of Jesus and His Miracles and resurrection but still agree with the findings of contemporary research in the life and earth sciences so long they are not contrary to academically defensible Biblical truths? To put it another way, does being a fundamentalist Baptist mean that we have to relegate to “worldly human knowledge” academically defensible interpretations of the Bible?
     
  2. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,655
    Likes Received:
    312
    If your asking can one be a Fundamental Baptist and be an evolutionist, my opinion is no.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Evolution! Who said anything about evolution, and what does evolution have to do with academically defensible interpretations of the Bible?
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,655
    Likes Received:
    312
    My question was one for clarification. The operative word in my post is if. As for academically defensible interpretations of the Bible, I suppose it depends on the academics involved. The faculty of BJU Seminary would have a different take than the faculty at Harvard Divinity.
     
  5. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I don't see why not. Although, I wouldn't limit it to only academically defensible biblical truths. If contemporary findings are contrary to any biblical truth, I'll always go with the Word of God.
     
  6. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    Short answer, no.


    Longer answer:
    Often, during the early to mid 1900's the typically more "fundamental" preaching was against sciences such as explored the causes of a troubled mind were looked down upon, but usually that was a lack of educational understanding and the view that all matters can be resolved in Christ - even the troubled mind (psychotic, schizophrenic, attention deficit, depression, ...) which may have a valid chemical basis for occurrence.

    The sciences such as geology, archaeology, have had their share of detractors in the fundamental world, as well as the biology, and zoology in which the typical fundamentalist would make the leap of assumption that one who is interested or schooled in those fields automatically endorses the evolutionary thinking.

    The "earth" sciences such the study of the biosphere, geography, ecology, hydrology, glaciology, the soil sciences ... typically haven't been an issue in the fundamental circles that I recall. Most everyone can relate to someone who can tell them the plants need a certain nutrient, or how much to water the yards. :)

    There is a phenomena that occurs naturally in the humankind. What is new and not understood is taken as inferior, with suspicion, disliked, and more often in the fundamental realms, of the devil.

    I remember when it was evil to consult the psychiatric doctor, that is until people such as Dr. Clyde Narramore began to systematically show that every person needs understanding.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    when you used the phrase " the life and earth sciences" I also concluded the theory of Darwinian evolution, the big bang, etc were part of it.

    BTW Craig - the very FIRST passage in the Bible has to do with "academically defensible interpretations of the Bible" (IMO of course):

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    Not "evolved the heavens and earth".

    HankD
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Interesting! The earth and life sciences cover a vast away of subjects, Darwinian evolution being only one of them.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    Quite true Craig, however each field within the aforementioned sciences usually gets around to either the mention or support of evolution.

    Its all part of the secular humanist body of belief (IMO).

    HankD
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Yes, they do.

    It is true than many if not most humanists believe in Darwinian evolution to the degree that they understand it, but so do millions of evangelical Christians and even an ever increasing number of fundamentalist Christians. However, I did not start this thread to discuss evolution, and I do not care to discuss it any further.
     
  11. OnlyaSinner

    OnlyaSinner
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    11
    I've no doubt that many truly born-again evangelicals accept macro-evolution, what Ken Ham refers to as, "molecules to man." However, given that biblical inerrancy is one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, it seems contradictory that one claiming fundamentalism would at the same time accept a system that denies the accuracy of crucial portions of scripture. (And to me, thinking of the early chapters of Genesis as allegory, imagery, or mythology is denying biblical accuracy.)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    OK, thanks Craig, for giving examples of what you meant in the O/P by " the life and earth sciences" and “worldly human knowledge”.

    I started off my higher education pursuits in the sciences, (physics, modern physics, chemistry) and math (up to Vector Analysis). Later in life I finished off with biblical studies, theology, Greek and Hebrew

    Yes there are issues and conflicts - e.g. how did the light from the distant stars (millions of light years - supposedly) get here if one believes in the young earth proposition?

    When I arrive in the New Jerusalem the one who created all will give me answers (maybe by then I won't care).

    But I don't consign my studies in the sciences to satanic influences.
    In fact my "worldly" profession is software architect/engineer on mainframe computers.

    Just trying to be helpful with your questions in the opening post.

    HankD
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I am not acquainted with even one scholar specializing today on Genesis and publishing today his/her research on Genesis in peer-reviewed biblical journals who does not believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are a heavily redacted series of epic tales, myths, legends, or sagas—or that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is allegorical rather than literal. Some of these scholars are liberals who deny the inspiration of Scripture; others are evangelicals who tenaciously hold to the belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that we need to allow God some latitude in the manner in which He reveals to us the truth. I personally believe that the Bible is inerrant, but I can see for myself that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are written in a genre of literature that is found nowhere else in the Bible—and I do not believe that that is just a coincidence that should be overlooked in their interpretation.

    Moreover, the Christian fundamentalists with whom I am familiar pick and choose which parts of Genesis 1-11 are to be understood literally, and which ones are not. For example,

    Genesis 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NRSV)

    This is a strictly litteral translation of Gen. 1:6 that is perfectly harmonious with other parts of Genesis, especially chapters 6-8 in which we read of the flood. Notice especially 7:11,

    7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (KJV)

    7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. (NRSV)

    What were the flood gates of the sky if they were not gates (or windows, KJV) in the dome? This was the literal interpretation of Christian fundamentalists until nearly the middle of the last millennium. Indeed, these Christians dearly held to the ancient Jewish interpretation that the earth was flat and covered with a dome that separated the waters above the dome from the seas and oceans of the earth. This was seen as a biblical truth that Satan and his hosts were seeking to destroy by the liberal teaching that the earth was nearly a perfect sphere rather than a disk covered by a dome. After all, if the earth was spherical, it could not be covered with a dome and the biblical account of the flood could not be true. Today’s Christian fundamentalists argue that the NRSV was translated predominately by liberals—and so it was—but their translation of Genesis 1:6 is a very literal translation that is in perfect harmony with the understanding of the story of the flood by Christian fundamentalists until comparatively recent times.

    Therefore, I ask myself, “Is the story of the flood in Gen. 6-8 an accurate account of an historic event, or is it something else? Has God chosen to teach us fundamental truths about Himself and His creation, including man, using a series of epic tales, myths, legends, or sagas? In these latter times, is God making clear details regarding Genesis 1-11 that had not been clear in earlier times? Should not Genesis 1-11—and indeed all of Scripture—be approached in an attitude of prayer and a desire to learn from our heavenly Father through the ministry of the Holy Spirit the truths that He desires for us to know and understand?”
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Greetings, Hank!

    Thank you for this very courteous and helpful post .
     

Share This Page

Loading...