I'm curious about the relationship between those who adhere to young-earth creationism, and those who adhere to Rapture theology (as expressed in the *Left Behind* series, for example, and similar related belief systems most commonly associated with fundamentalism and dispensationalism). Are these, generally, the same people? Or is there a large divergence between these two groups? I know a good many Christians who believe in both. I know a few who reject both. I don't know specifically of anyone who accepts one view, but rejects the other, although they may exist and I just don't know because the discussion topic hasn't come up. And at least superficially, they both appear to have their roots in fundamentalism. But I wonder how substantial this similarity is. To be a bit more specific, 1. Are there any theological foundations on which both views are built? Or does one view depend in any way on the other? (Does Rapture theology depend on an literal Adam, for instance.) 2. What is the cultural relationship between the two theologies? If we were to, for example, draw a Venn diagram of these two theologies, what would it look like? Have any polls or studies been done on this topic?

I came across a blog author [Matthew Bryan](https://conciliarpost.com/author/matthew-bryan/) who self-identify as a "post-Protestant", a term that I encountered for the first time. When I Googled what "post-Protestant" means, I came across [this entry](https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Post-Protestant) from *religion.wikia.org*: > Post-Protestantism is the movement in 20th century and 21st Christianity to even further remove Christian faith from the influence and traditions of the Roman Catholic church and "her sister churches" (traditional, mainline, liturgical Protestant denominations dating back mostly to the 1600s and 1700s). > > Many of these "post-Protestant" churches refer to themselves simply as "Christian", or nondenominational, but also commonly use the terms "Church of", followed by such words as "God", "Christ", "Jesus", "The Bible", etc. The trend was the natural outgrowth of the evangelical and fundamentalist movements of the earlier 20th century (1900s), and partly includes, but is not limited to, Restorationists and the Community Church movement, who refer to themselves as being post-Protestant and postdenominational. > > These leaders of these often promote points of view which are anti-intellectual, or at least ahistorical, to the point that they totally deny or are even oblivious to the history of Christian denominations, and the meaning of the word Protestant (which essentially, is any Christian who is not a Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Christian). This often adds to the confusion and ignorance of people who mistakenly believe that only churches with the words "Christian", "Christ", or "Jesus" in the name are Christian, and that Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. are something else. I'm looking for a good article from either a religious studies scholar or a Christian / church that self-identify as "post-Protestant" that can do at least a few of the following: - explain why they don't simply use the term "non-denominational" or "evangelical" - describe specific hermeneutical principles that they use to interpret Bible, which distinguish them from evangelicals - describe their understanding of *sola scriptura* since they seem to reject mainstream Protestant (and even some evangelical!) use of the early church councils to narrow down certain interpretation of the Bible (for example, to reject non-Trinitarian interpretation) - describe several theological positions that unite them as a group (for example, their view of the Lord's supper, baptism, and gifts of the Holy Spirit) - speak for others who identify as "post-Protestant"

One thing that makes me doubt is contemporary biblical scholarship consensus and academic biblical teachings. Some of their teachings are irreconcilable with faith. Yes Im flirting with becoming an evangelical Fundie & I would love the bible to be literally perfect & infallible. But even if one is not a evangelical Fundie it should matter if the bible on the whole is correct. Because Jesus confirmed the Old Testament & by denying this the New Testament and Jesus gift of eternal life is invalid, too. I know there are also conservative scholars but those are not many and the scholarly consensus is eating them up alive. To dismiss biblical scholar consensus as theories without proof seems too easy and also unfair bc its a science in which loads of hard work was done and many people brooded over it a long time.

I would like to know how does Calvinism differ from Independent Fundamental Baptist teachings. If someone can point main differences in a form of points (f.e. 1st point, 2nd point and so on for Calvinism, and then the same for Baptists). I would also like to know their Definition of Faith and exegesis. I would very much appreciate if you could be specific and thorough in your answers. Thank you. I know that it could be found on internet, but it is very hard to find the right examples (maybe organizations is a better word; or churches), so I plead for your help.

Just to be clear, I'm only referring to activities that are victimless, or at least harm nobody except for those who willingly participate. If I understand Calvinist (TULIP) theology correctly, criminalizing something perceived to be a sin won't save anyone because refraining from that sin isn't enough to avoid hell. On the other hand, for someone who has already been born again, it is impossible to lose their salvation no matter what sin they commit. I don't mean to start a debate; I just want to gain some perspective.

From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen? In many denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian), there is a concept called a *catechumen*, who takes religious education course called a *catechumenate*, that is taught by a *catechist*. So, what is the equivalent of such a role in a Fundamentalist/Bible Church? How do Fundamentalist Christians deal with prospective Christians (i.e. teaching church history, official doctrine and practices, etc.)? For Fundamentalist Christians, does that include teaching prospective Christians about the Scopes trial?

Many denominations teach that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God." Detractors of Christianity, and even some denominations within Christianity, disagree with all or some of those three descriptions. Quite often, they counter with examples of errors in the Bible, or in various translations that show errors (such as the Wicked Bible's translation of Exodus 20:14 ). Various questions and answers on this site have touched on one or all of these three statements, but we've yet to have an answer that describes how all three of these Biblical statements relate to each other, and to the nature of Scriptures. Granted, there are different understandings, and per the site guidelines, I want to keep this scoped to the classic Fundamentalist understanding of the statement - namely that of the Churches and traditions that hold that the Bible *is* the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I want to have this in layman's terms, in order to address the straw-man arguments leveled against the statement.

Two of the intellectual fathers of Christian fundamentalism, and ultimately evangelicalism, were [James Orr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Orr_(theologian)) and [B. B. Warfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Warfield) . Both contributed to *[The Fundamentals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals)* , and are well known for opposing modernism and liberalism. But recently I learned that they differed from one another on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. John Woodbridge and Frank James, in [*Church History*, II, 21.II.D](https://books.google.com/books?id=Xg0vAu9M-WQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT589) , write: > [Orr] was unwilling to draw the circle so tightly even though he shared a deep commitment to the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, which as such requires our sincere obedience. He argued that strict inerrancy is "a most suicidal position" that had the potential for destroying the "whole edifice of belief in revealed religion." Interestingly, Wikipedia says that James Orr believed in the "[infallibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Orr_(theologian)&oldid=787446425) " of the Bible, which to me is normally, for practical purposes, a synonym of inerrancy. Thus it appears that I don't have a full understanding of the debate over inerrancy and infallibility in fundamentalism and early evangelicalism. To begin to understand this better, I'd like to know, from the actual writings of these two men, where they differed on this doctrine.

There's some controversy about differences between the original Scofield reference bible and the latest editions, which were edited by a committee after Dr Scofield's death. I'm wondering whether any of Scofield's original notes have been modified or deleted, and if so which ones and to what extent? Or is the new edition just an "amplification" of the original which adds more notes and maps and etc, but leaves the original text as it was?

Something that always bothers me which I witness to Catholics: the well-meaning ones tell me I am a Protestant and say that "we protested the Catholic Church". This isn't true, the Baptist Church was never a part of the "Protestant Reformation" movement, and we don't actively engage in protesting the Catholic Church because we have no roots in it. Although our theology might sometimes be labelled as "reformed" we call ourselves "fundamentalists" and not "reformers" because unlike Luther there was nothing for us to "reform". Our teaching does not come from any tradition and we teach solely what comes from the Bible. We take the Bible literally and base our theology off of that and not any tradition. For example, we don't have the **Nicene creed** a tradition which Lutherans have which can be traced back to Roman Catholicism . If you disagree please cite an accurate historical reference that says the Independent Baptist Fundamentalists were an active part of the "Protestant Reformation" and can thus be labelled Protestants or Protestant Reformers.

I read this article entitled "What do Christian fundamentalists have against set theory" and was shocked since I grew up (Grade 1 - 8) in several (what could be described as) fundamentalist/evangelical private schools, and I majored in Computer Science / Discrete Math in college and if the two concepts had some sort of conflict I'd be the person to know. However, I had never heard of a Christian objecting to set theory on religious grounds. To summarize the article he basically cites this by a christian textbook publisher: > "Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com Then he explains set theory and goes on a rant (which may or may not be derived) against fundamentalists who object to modernism and all things tainted my modernism. Then talks a little tiny bit about how they may be offended by any type of theory that can contain infinities. If this is actually a valid portrayal of fundamentalist belief, why would they object to set theory?

In my previous answer on this question, while discussing Biblical Inerrancy, I stated: > The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism. As noted > above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we > believe that God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the > writing of Scripture. Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure > of speech. Example, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.") is allowed. This is not necessarily a Fundamentalist belief. In an article at cathtruth.com (A Catholic site) we read: > Since at times our data are only what we find in the Bible, we lack > the necessary information to reconstruct a given incident with all its > details. Occasionally the Bible embodies hyperboles, allegories, > parables, etc. Detractors love to claim that you can't have it both ways – that you can't claim to take the Bible literally, and then decide that parts of it are allegorical. (I've made the same statement myself in a discussion on creation/evolution.) The charge leveled both *at* me and *by* me was the same: "**You can't just choose which parts of Scripture you want to believe and assume the other parts are allegorical. that opens it up to claim that *anything* you don't like in Scripture is allegorical.**" So, are there practical, accepted, time-honored guidelines for determining which parts of Scripture to take literally? Traditionally, **what are the hermeneutic rules applied to Biblical Literalism**, and **how does "Biblical Literalism" relate to Fundamentalist doctrine**?

[John Piper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Piper_(theologian)) provides a list of traits that he respects about fundamentalists, yet he does not consider himself one. In the context of Christianity (of course), what is a fundamentalist? And especially, how do they differ from mainstream evangelicals such as John Piper?

I've been reading *god is not Great* by Christopher Hitchens. I'm a Muslim and this book is my most extensive introduction to Christianity so far, as well as other religions including mine, to some extent. Here is the passage: > Some of these would still be in some danger if I were to name them, but I must admit my debt to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, who introduced me to Spinoza; to Salman Rushdie, who bravely witnessed for reason and humor and language in a very dark time; to Ibn Warraq and Irfan Khawaja, who also know something about the price of the ticket; and to Dr. Michael Shermer, the very model of the ***reformed and recovered Christian fundamentalist***. I'm now familiar with the basic denominations, sects etc. of Christianity to some extent but am really confused by the churches, traditions, movements and so on. There are so many of them and they may be a bit too confusing for a beginner. One of them is *reformed and recovered fundamentalist*. There is a universe of definitions and explanations on the Internet, I know. But believe me, the more I read them the more confused I get. Moreover, I read each one of them separately and think that I've got the idea but then again, whenever I try to combine and make sense of them, I fail. I would be more than grateful if anyone could explain me what a reformed and recovered fundamentalist is in simple terms for a non-native non-Christian dummy, so to speak. As a side note, I know it isn't within the scope of this site but now that I've asked one question about the above passage, I must admit that I don't understand either what is meant by ***know something about the price of the ticket*** here. I totally understand if you wouldn't like to answer this one since it's off-topic. Thank you so much.

Do self-identified Christian fundamentalists have their own geographical communities? Surely, it is known that the "Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints Church" has their own geographical communities, with the headquarters stationed in Utah. There are a couple of isolated Amish communities in the American Northeast (not saying they are fundamentalist!). Since Christian fundamentalists are known for their antagonistic isolation away from the mainstream culture, it becomes plausible that these people may have developed their own geographical communities somewhere.

How do biblical literalists defend that if a star is 10 million light years away and we can see the light from it, therefore the Earth would have to be at least 10 million years old? That is, because one of the laws that God set is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. All matter would have to have been created at the same time, when God spoke and all was created (secularly known as the Big Bang).

**What sources could one appeal to if trying to argue if a doctrine was or was not consistent with fundamentalism?** The question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7944/30 identifies the historical source and some of the main characteristics of fundamentalism. I am more interested in the current usage of the word an identifying when to label something as fundamentalist and when to use a different label. There seems to be a lot of overlap beftween the scope of fundamentalist and that of other labels. The media these days bandies the word around* in a way that is generally derogitory, but it isn't exactly clear why. Sometimes it seem to refer to a very specific group as if it were a denomination. Other times it seems to mean just a general theological bent. One minute it is used to pigeon hole far out groups like Westboro Baptist Church, other times it seems to encompass most of mainstream Christianity. Hoes does this wide ranging usage affect how Christians use the word for themselves? Particularly among those who take this label on themselves, do they refer to any authority or standard in order to do so? Is there an official authority on when one is a fundamentalist and not just somebody who holds most of the same beliefs? For example, in the Reformed tradition there are specific creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and identifying yourself as Reformed is commonly understood to that place you somewhere close to to these creeds. What sources would a fundamentalist turn to to show that their beliefs were or were not consistent with the way they label themselves? \* "Evangelical" and "conservative" are viable contenders in the race for meaningless labels.

On this site there is plenty of information about what the "official" doctrines of various denominations are, but I doubt that the majority of Christians follow all of these to the letter. Have there been any studies done to identify beliefs taught by a denomination, but which are widely ignored or not given much weight by its members? An example would be self-identifying Catholics who use contraception. To avoid the "no true scotsman" fallacy, consider a member of a denomination to be anyone who identifies themselves as such. I'm mostly interested in protestant views, but interesting examples from other groups are also welcome.