Accuracy and the Five (or Six) Fundamentals

In much conservative Christianity there are 5 Fundamentals of the Christian Faith:

1) The Inerrancy of Scripture

2) The Virgin Birth of Christ

3) The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

4) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ

5) The Physical Second Coming of Christ

I myself hold to all 5 of these “fundamentals”, though if the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ is understood as being limited to only that of the penal substitutionary variety, then I might have drop number 4. I would be 4.5 Fundamentalist. Or would I?

One thing I do not know concerning Fundamentalism is this:

In the truest sense of the movement, is a Fundamentalist one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are true or is a Fundamentalist one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are fundamental? Or Both?

If both, then must we add another Fundamental?

6) The 5 Fundamentals are fundamental

Of course, then we would have 6 Fundamentals and so it should be stated that “The 6 Fundamentals are fundamental.”

Again, I hold all 5 classic Fundamentals to be true. However, I am absolutely positive that the first 2 Fundamentals are not fundamental. The latter 3 I am not sure are Fundamental.

But let us assume that a Fundamentalist is one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are true and that these same 5 “Fundamentals” are fundamental.

It is probably not unreasonable to assume that most Fundamentalists believe that it is essential that these 5 “Fundamentals” are correctly understood by the individual Fundamentalist. One must not only believe that these 5 “Fundamentals” are true; one must also have an accurate understanding of their meaning.

Another thing I do not know concerning Fundamentalism is this:

To what degree of accuracy must the individual Fundamentalist have concerning the meaning of these 5 “Fundamentals”?

1) The Inerrancy of Scripture

There are numerous definitions and understandings of Biblical inerrancy, mine being one of the broader models. Indeed, so many definitions of Biblical inerrancy exist that a few Evangelical Christians got together in Chicago in 1978 to draw up a “definitive” declaration of what Biblical inerrancy is. This Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy then became the extrabiblical standard for all evangelical Christians. But what about those evangelical Christians who lived prior to 1978? How accurate must they have been in order to still be considered inerrantist and Fundamentalistic?

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Inerrancy of Scripture?

2) The Virgin Birth of Christ

The Isaiah prophecy that Matthew references with concern to the “virgin” birth is derived from the Greek Septuagint Scriptures. However, the original Hebrew version, of which the Septuagint is a translation, doesn’t designate the mother as specifically a “virgin” but as a “young woman”. It’s almost as if Matthew (or someone) based their theological understanding of the Scriptural prophecies of Isaiah on a bad, errant Greek translation of the original, inerrant Hebrew. Now can a person still be said to believe in the “virgin” birth if they do not take the New Testament accounts as “literal” but as a literary device derived their understanding of the episode from the meaning of the original Hebrew prophecy and not the Greek mistranslation?

Again, I myself believe in the classical, traditional and “literal” view of the Virgin Birth that Mary did not have any sexual relations with a man prior to the conception and birth of Jesus.

But how accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Virgin Birth?

3) The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

There have been numerous views about the Atonement in the history of Christianity. The currently popular view among Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) has only been around for six or seven hundred years. What about the prior 1200 years of the Ransom Theory of the Atonement’s dominance? Are all the Christians who lived in the first 1200 years of Christendom apostate and non-Fundamentalists?

I myself hold to the view that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is absolutely and completely wrong. I believe that this view is not only not taught in Scripture but that it is actually condemned. Nevertheless, as stated above, the currently popular view among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is that of Penal Substitution.

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Atonement?

4) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ

[This one was far too complicated to reconstruct and explain for the simple purposes of this post. I think that I make my argument known well enough by the other 4 Fundamentals to justify my choice of not needlessly laboring over a point not necessary to the building of my argument. Though in summation, let me state that the argument made would be more Socratic questions about individual details of the event of Christ’s resurrection. “Mr. Harris, what did you wrought?”]

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ?


5) The Physical Second Coming of Christ

We all know that there are myriads of End Time models. The current popular view held by the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is that of Pre-tribulation Rapture, Pre-millennial Classical Dispensationism. This particular model first emerged in the beginning of the 19th Century. What about those Christians who lived for 1800 years prior to the emergence of Pre-tribulation Rapture, Pre-millennial Classical Dispensationism? Were they all apostate and non-Fundamentalists?

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Physical Second Coming of Christ?

In essence my primary question to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is this:

How accurate must a Christian be in his or her understanding of Christian theology and the Christian Faith in order to achieve his or her own salvation?

“The Hokey Pokey”

At church on Wednesday night I participated in the weekly youth group meeting. The youth have been doing a summer series on the Christian Basics: prayer, worship, service, Scripture reading, etc.

This week’s Christian Basic was about worship and how one should worship God. Two of the verses we used were Romans 12:1 and 6:13. One of the great lessons taught was how Christians must worship with their whole body and not just parts. To stress this point to the youth, Andy, the junior high youth pastor, had all the students rise for a rendition of “The Hokey Pokey”.

Occasionally in life we are confronted with moments of sublimity that usually goes unnoticed by most if not all others. One has to be aware of these moments – aware that they can exist – in order to enjoy them. Of course, you may be the only one but do not let that keep you from the experience.

What was this moment of sublimity?

“The Hokey Pokey” is a game-song whose name derives from the word hocus-pocus. Hocus-pocus commonly references a “magical incantation”. The word itself derives from the Latin phrase hoc est corpus. This phrase comes from the Roman Catholic Mass where the priest holds up the sacrament of Christ’s body and says, hoc est corpus, “this is the body”. The idea that the Roman Catholic priest was changing the substance of the bread into the body of Christ resembled magic to many, thus hoc est corpus became hocus-pocus.

So when the youth were doing “The Hokey Pokey” as an object lesson of using your whole body as a living sacrifice to God, they were unknowingly referencing the body of Christ which became a pleasing sacrifice to God (in an obviously non-penal substitutionary atoning manner, I might add). And of course, just as putting your whole self into “The Hokey Pokey”, we can say the same about the corporate nature of Christ: “that’s what it’s all about.”

But the sublimity did not end there. At the start of the evening, we received a telephone call over the loud speakers from the group of youth and trainers who had gone on a mission trip. Where were they? You guessed it: Corpus Christi, TX.

It’s his sort of thing that makes my own life so much more enjoyable.

Proof for the Existence of God

If God does exist, then the very fact that humans know of his existence means that some form of proof has been offered and accepted.

If God does exist, then enough proof has been given to convince 95% of the world’s population at any time in history.

Those who do not believe in God claim the need for proof; those who do believe in the existence of God already have the proof they need.

Reassessing the Pre-Fallen World: Distinguishing Between What We like and What God Likes

Let us ask tough questions about what the world would look like if Man had not fallen into sin. As believers of God in Christ we should not fear difficult questions; we should relish the opportunity to expand our knowledge of God’s creation. Therefore:

- Would animals kill other animals? I’ve asked this question before with reference to the fact that God created most animals with the ability to hunt and kill and created most animals with the ability to hide from hunters.

- Would mosquitoes and bees exist? Would insects fly around sucking the blood of particular animals? Would bees have stingers? Would flies swarm around wallowing pigs?

- Would people get sunburns?

- Would calluses form on the bottom of people’s feet from continued walking?

- Would people get wrinkles? How about wrinkles under the eyes from laughing?

- Would the earth have strong winds, thunder storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc?

- Would meteorites fall from the sky?

- Our bodies were created by God with natural defenses against various foreign anomalies. If what these bodily defenses are resisting are solely outcomes of the fallen world, then God created our bodies in anticipation for this fall. If man had thus not fallen, our bodies would contain purposeless functions. Indeed, we would have body functions that could only find their fullness in a fallen world.

I ask these questions not necessarily to spur controversy or shake people’s theological conception in so much as I wish to incite thought on the part of the Christian.

We as Christians are like every other person created by God in that we will often see something that we personally do not like. In a fallen world this goes without saying. However, as Christian believers, we often see something we do not like and then assume that the Bible must have something condemnatory to say about whatever it is we personally dislike. In many cases the Bible is silent on an issue but we as orthodox believers will nevertheless misread into the text that which we wish to condemn. Certainly it’s easier to publicly condemn something if we have the Bible backing us up.

Unfortunately, we may often condemn that which we may personally dislike even when the Bible gives its approval. Relevant examples include: alcohol consumption, private prayer language, stringed instruments in worship, female pastors, women working outside the home, pacifism, etc.

Coming from a conservative background, there were many theological and Scriptural truths that rubbed against my grain (female pastors, women working outside the home, alcohol consumption). However, in order to be consistent with the Word of God I had to overcome this problem. In truth, the problem I had with women in ministry was my problem and not the problem of the women who minister. I had to pray for strength and understanding so that I could accept what God accepts, indeed what God commands.

I learned that I could not allow my personal, subjective tastes to govern my theology and inform me of what God likes and doesn’t like. To this day, there are many things in the Church which I dislike but which I can find no Scriptural basis to condemn. What do I do? I keep my mouth shut and try to get over it.

Therefore, I submit to you that there are many things in our world which we as humans and Christians dislike and think to be wrong but which God has absolutely no problem. “Animals eating other animals” appears to be one of them. Apparently God has no problem with pythons swallowing pigs. Indeed, God created pythons for that purpose.

Did God intend animals to never die? Where do the Scriptures make this assertion? Where does God state that he will give animals not made “in the image of God” eternal life with an incorruptible body? Nowhere that I can find. In fact, not only does God not seem to mind animals killing other animals, he does not mind humans killing other animals. Did not Christ prepare some fish for his disciples to eat (John 21:9)?

We may not like the idea of “animals eating other animals”, but let us not base our theology on our likes and dislikes.

Also, God apparently has no problem with a world where human beings have some modicum of pain or unpleasantness. My evidence?

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

Notice that the Lord does not say I will give the woman pain in childbirth. Instead, the Lord states that he will multiply her pains, implying that even in an unfallen world a woman would have had childbirth pains.
We may not like the idea that “women have pain in childbirth”, but let us not base our theology on our likes and dislikes.

And let us not recreate paradise in our own minds based upon our personal likes, dislikes, annoyances, tastes, frustrations and human conception of what makes life good or bad. Such conceptions may not be God’s.

It is in this regard that I urge evangelical Christians to reassess some of the traditional conceptions of what the pre-Fallen world was like.

Such a reassessment must be based upon the witness of Scriptures, but our interpretation of the Scriptures must be tempered by historic traditions, human reason and human experience. Reason and experience (along with tradition) will help us interpret what the Scriptures teach but they will also help us in areas where the Scriptures are silent.

Factors of major consideration should include:

- The non-literal nature of both creation stories in Genesis 1-3.

- Jesus Christ as full revelation of both Man and God.

- God’s own direct statements about creation; the figurative poems of the prophetic books; the wisdom literature

- Various scientific evidence, formulations, theories and models

- Similarities and differences between Greek and Hebrew conceptions of creation

- Hard questions like the ones I asked above

I believe that if evangelical theology is going to have any relevancy or contribution for Christian cosmology, we need to base our theological conceptions upon an accurate reading of what Scripture says and what it does not say. Otherwise, we will continue to tinker with our own favorite, self-made toys.