I too use this term. It comes down to having, what our calvinist friends say “do you have a high view of scripture?” In evangelical circles is you the liberals, where the Bible has good suggestions and notions for life. On the other spectrum you have the ones that go extra biblical. They like to add extra steps to ones walk that are not found in the Bible.
@@JohnMac3837 It has everything to do with all religions. Almost all religious wars are between factions/sects of the same religion rather than between different religions.
This conversation should include Princeton Theological Seminary and Gresham Machen leaving Princeton in 1917 and creating: Westminster Theo.Seminary, and Orthodox Presby.Church.confessiinal reformed tradiition seperatong itself from Modernism.
I once read a book on President Woodrow Wilson. What I found frustrating was that the author totally skipped the issue of whether Wilson was a conservative or a liberal. I know that he was a Presbyterian but I do not know where he stood on the fundamentals of the faith.
I don't really feel that this defined terms other than to say that all fundamentalists are evangelicals, but often not the other way around. My question is: what are the beliefs that, if you disagree, you aren't just incorrect, but you are denying the gospel? There are certainly beliefs that are core and that we must agree on to have fellowship, but every belief shouldn't be that. Are people who believe women can be pastors denying the gospel, or just incorrect? Same for theistic evolutionists, home church folks, etc.
"You cannot claim to be a Christian if you deny the Gospel!" What Dr. Bauder insists is the "irreducible truth" of the Gospel, to be wholly accepted without reservation, are various doctrines of the Catholic Church developed over the first four centuries or so, which is a reality reflected in the increasing complexity of the creeds. As the Church grew in size, authority, power and wealth, and became inextricably linked to the Roman Empire, very quickly any who dared to question the so called "irreducible truth" decided upon by the Church was subject to punishment and eventually handed over to the very willing secular authorities for imprisonment, torture or even death if courage & principle were enough to maintain a prisoner's convictions. Nothing in the Bible defines the human/divine nature of Jesus or the nature of the relationship between The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit nor the exact manner in which the death and resurrection of Jesus allow a reconciliation between God and man in the way the Church did in the creeds. Arius became so widely accepted because there were verses which supported his position, including the entire Tanach which declares, "Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God is one!", notwithstanding all the theologians compelled to find the Trinity in the visitors to Abraham. The much-vaunted inerrancy and inspiration doctrines are creations of a Church which presents its own infallibility in these matters as proof, a doctrine I assume Dr. Bauder, along with Protestantism in general rejects yet only unreserved acceptance of the doctrines they developed and created is the definition of holding to the Gospel Therefore, insisting that anyone who dare question or even wonder about these doctrines when acknowledging the liberties taken by NT authors with OT passages or when seeking to find evidence for Paul's insistence that mankind is irrevocably separated from God barring belief in Christ is, in reality, denying the Gospel. Certainly, there are lines, and any organization can, and does, draw them, but this all or nothing over indemonstrable dogmas is nothing more than a game of, to slightly paraphrase Dr. Seuss, "Star bellied Sneetches having stars upon thars". I wish these two gentlemen had done more than simply nodded and had gotten some clarification from Dr. Bauder on the nature and source of what he considers irreducible truth.
@@srich7503 Thanks for asking. It has no intrinsic authority and thus none beyond what people grant it. In regard to it being inerrant, inspired and/or infallible, those were designations assigned by the growing and increasingly powerful and influential church over time. Not necessarily insincerely, but they're nothing more than decisions made by people no smarter than most of us but undoubtedly influenced by the factors I mentioned along with, to presumably various degrees, the highly influential element of belief.
@@blueglassdave Hmmmm, and by what authority do you claim this? Is it infallible or just another “belief” If so by what authority? If not then who cares?
@@srich7503 I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "authority". I possess no elected authority to govern over others or to make decisions for them nor any familial authority to make decisions for my children nor any which results from being hired to a position over others. In short, I don't see that I have any authority other than over myself, to some degree, plus whatever authority others may grant me at any given moment. Responding to your second question, are you asking if I am convinced that my reasoning processes are infallible? If so, the answer is "Absolutely not", nor have I seen any evidence that an infallible human authority exists. I myself wouldn't treat belief so lightly. There are both well informed and completely uninformed beliefs. Beliefs formed through indoctrination as well as through research and reasoned examination, most, or all, of which are influenced in varying degrees by our beliefs. For both good and ill, at times we embrace that influence, and the resulting confirmation bias, more than others. The "authority", by which I accept the premise of my original statement is that of every person on Earth, i.e.., my own fallible reason. The reasoning by which I deny the claim of infallibility as the basis for decisions made by early Bishops regarding the Biblical documents is the complete lack of evidence to support the reality of an infallible human authority as well as, in this particular case, a considerable amount of time spent examining the Bible as well as consideration of the claims made about it by the self-described, infallible authority which gathered it together. As far as your last question, I trust you have more confidence in your own reasoning prowess than to reject the conclusions you eventually draw with a dismissive, "Who cares" simply because you didn't hear them from someone considered to be an authority. Finally, I'm not sure what the "Hmmmm" is supposed to signify but via this attempt at the Socratic method, my impression is that you have an opinion to express. Feel free to do so.
@@blueglassdave You state the Bible, “has no intrinsic authority and thus none beyond what people grant it.” Which you have every right to this opinion. Then you state of yourself “I possess no elected authority to govern over others or to make decisions for them…” So my “Hmmmmmm” is my wonderment of how one can state both of these seeming contradictory statements in an “authoritative” manner and at the same time dismiss their own authority. 🤷🏽♂
I thoroughly enjoy your podcast. Of the several dozen that I'm subscribed to, yours is at the top of my of list of favorites.
I have always considered myself and called myself a "fundamental evangelical Christian".
I too use this term. It comes down to having, what our calvinist friends say “do you have a high view of scripture?”
In evangelical circles is you the liberals, where the Bible has good suggestions and notions for life. On the other spectrum you have the ones that go extra biblical. They like to add extra steps to ones walk that are not found in the Bible.
I wonder if they have similar conversations about the various factions within the Taliban?
Like that has anything to do with Christianity.
@@JohnMac3837 It has everything to do with all religions. Almost all religious wars are between factions/sects of the same religion rather than between different religions.
@@neill392 The Jews and Muslims would disagree.
This conversation should include Princeton Theological Seminary and Gresham Machen leaving Princeton in 1917 and creating: Westminster Theo.Seminary, and Orthodox Presby.Church.confessiinal reformed tradiition seperatong itself from Modernism.
I once read a book on President Woodrow Wilson. What I found frustrating was that the author totally skipped the issue of whether Wilson was a conservative or a liberal. I know that he was a Presbyterian but I do not know where he stood on the fundamentals of the faith.
I don't really feel that this defined terms other than to say that all fundamentalists are evangelicals, but often not the other way around.
My question is: what are the beliefs that, if you disagree, you aren't just incorrect, but you are denying the gospel? There are certainly beliefs that are core and that we must agree on to have fellowship, but every belief shouldn't be that. Are people who believe women can be pastors denying the gospel, or just incorrect? Same for theistic evolutionists, home church folks, etc.
"You cannot claim to be a Christian if you deny the Gospel!" What Dr. Bauder insists is the "irreducible truth" of the Gospel, to be wholly accepted without reservation, are various doctrines of the Catholic Church developed over the first four centuries or so, which is a reality reflected in the increasing complexity of the creeds. As the Church grew in size, authority, power and wealth, and became inextricably linked to the Roman Empire, very quickly any who dared to question the so called "irreducible truth" decided upon by the Church was subject to punishment and eventually handed over to the very willing secular authorities for imprisonment, torture or even death if courage & principle were enough to maintain a prisoner's convictions.
Nothing in the Bible defines the human/divine nature of Jesus or the nature of the relationship between The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit nor the exact manner in which the death and resurrection of Jesus allow a reconciliation between God and man in the way the Church did in the creeds. Arius became so widely accepted because there were verses which supported his position, including the entire Tanach which declares, "Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God is one!", notwithstanding all the theologians compelled to find the Trinity in the visitors to Abraham. The much-vaunted inerrancy and inspiration doctrines are creations of a Church which presents its own infallibility in these matters as proof, a doctrine I assume Dr. Bauder, along with Protestantism in general rejects yet only unreserved acceptance of the doctrines they developed and created is the definition of holding to the Gospel Therefore, insisting that anyone who dare question or even wonder about these doctrines when acknowledging the liberties taken by NT authors with OT passages or when seeking to find evidence for Paul's insistence that mankind is irrevocably separated from God barring belief in Christ is, in reality, denying the Gospel. Certainly, there are lines, and any organization can, and does, draw them, but this all or nothing over indemonstrable dogmas is nothing more than a game of, to slightly paraphrase Dr. Seuss, "Star bellied Sneetches having stars upon thars".
I wish these two gentlemen had done more than simply nodded and had gotten some clarification from Dr. Bauder on the nature and source of what he considers irreducible truth.
So what is your position of the Bible and its authority itself? Do you believe it is the inerrant Word of God? If so why?
@@srich7503 Thanks for asking. It has no intrinsic authority and thus none beyond what people grant it. In regard to it being inerrant, inspired and/or infallible, those were designations assigned by the growing and increasingly powerful and influential church over time. Not necessarily insincerely, but they're nothing more than decisions made by people no smarter than most of us but undoubtedly influenced by the factors I mentioned along with, to presumably various degrees, the highly influential element of belief.
@@blueglassdave Hmmmm, and by what authority do you claim this? Is it infallible or just another “belief” If so by what authority? If not then who cares?
@@srich7503 I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "authority". I possess no elected authority to govern over others or to make decisions for them nor any familial authority to make decisions for my children nor any which results from being hired to a position over others. In short, I don't see that I have any authority other than over myself, to some degree, plus whatever authority others may grant me at any given moment.
Responding to your second question, are you asking if I am convinced that my reasoning processes are infallible? If so, the answer is "Absolutely not", nor have I seen any evidence that an infallible human authority exists.
I myself wouldn't treat belief so lightly. There are both well informed and completely uninformed beliefs. Beliefs formed through indoctrination as well as through research and reasoned examination, most, or all, of which are influenced in varying degrees by our beliefs. For both good and ill, at times we embrace that influence, and the resulting confirmation bias, more than others. The "authority", by which I accept the premise of my original statement is that of every person on Earth, i.e.., my own fallible reason. The reasoning by which I deny the claim of infallibility as the basis for decisions made by early Bishops regarding the Biblical documents is the complete lack of evidence to support the reality of an infallible human authority as well as, in this particular case, a considerable amount of time spent examining the Bible as well as consideration of the claims made about it by the self-described, infallible authority which gathered it together.
As far as your last question, I trust you have more confidence in your own reasoning prowess than to reject the conclusions you eventually draw with a dismissive, "Who cares" simply because you didn't hear them from someone considered to be an authority.
Finally, I'm not sure what the "Hmmmm" is supposed to signify but via this attempt at the Socratic method, my impression is that you have an opinion to express. Feel free to do so.
@@blueglassdave You state the Bible, “has no intrinsic authority and thus none beyond what people grant it.” Which you have every right to this opinion. Then you state of yourself “I possess no elected authority to govern over others or to make decisions for them…” So my “Hmmmmmm” is my wonderment of how one can state both of these seeming contradictory statements in an “authoritative” manner and at the same time dismiss their own authority. 🤷🏽♂
Does your weird mustache have anything to do with your fundamentalism?
Rude 😢
Very unnecessary question!