Search This Blog

Friday, October 9, 2009

Why Do I Call Myself “FormerFundy”?

Some may wonder why I chose this nickname. Well, its because I was a Fundamentalist Christian for about 20 years. I was "saved" and baptized in an independent, Fundamental Baptist church, Galilean Baptist Church, in Norcross, GA. Later, I became a member of Forrest Hills Baptist Church in Decatur, GA, which was started by Curtis Hutson, a former editor of the Sword of the Lord magazine. The Sword was founded by John R. Rice, one of the leading fundamentalists of the 20th century.

I graduated from Baptist University of America in Decatur, GA in 1981. BUA was associated with the Baptist Bible Fellowship, which was started by followers of J. Frank Norris, a major fundamentalist leader in the early part of the 20th century. Then I went on to Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC, perhaps, the most well known fundamentalist Christian college in the world.

After earning an M.A. (1982) and a Ph.D. (1986) in Theology at BJU, I went to teach at International Baptist College in Tempe, AZ which was founded by James Singleton (also the Pastor of Tri-City Baptist Church). Singleton was a board member and active speaker in the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, a group that originally came out of the Northern Baptist Convention in the early 20th century. The term “Fundamentalist,” while a pejorative term for many people, was held as a badge of honor by the people with whom I associated.

Fundamentalists, like me and those I was connected with, considered themselves to be the heirs of true Biblical Christianity. The term “fundamentalist” was coined by Curtis Lee Laws, editor of the Northern Baptist paper The Watchman-Examiner, in 1920. He coined the word to describe those “who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal” against theological liberalism. His article appeared in the context of the conflict between theological liberals and theological conservatives in the Northern Baptist Convention.

The term also gained popularity as a result of the publication of The Fundamentals, a series of 90 essays in 12 volumes published from 1910 to 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA). The essays were originally financed by Lyman Stewart in 1909 to set out what they believed to be the fundamentals of Christian faith. These were to be sent free to ministers, missionaries, Sunday School superintendents and others active in Christian ministry.The volumes defended orthodox Protestant beliefs and attacked higher criticism, liberal theology, Catholicism (also called by them Romanism), socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Millennial Dawn (an early term for a particular Christian movement which later mostly became the "Jehovah's Witnesses" denomination), Spiritualism, and evolutionism. . The authors included conservative theologians from many different Protestant denominations. They differed on a number of “minor doctrines” but were unified in their agreement on the “fundamental (essential) doctrines” of Christianity.

The fundamentalist movement has gone through some significant evolution from the 1920’s to the present day, but in the early part of the 20th century, virtually all theological conservatives were basically considered to be fundamentalists--at least by the popular culture. When I came into the movement in the late 1970’s, a number of divisions had taken place. Fundamentalists at that time were known for their insistence on separation from theological liberalism and “worldliness.” All of the churches that I attended at that time were pastored by men who had separated from the Southern Baptist Convention. Liberalism had infiltrated the SBC through the seminaries and most of the faculty in the convention schools no longer accepted the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. This caused “a battle for the Bible” to take place within the convention (see Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence). Some stayed in and fought, e.g., W.A. Criswell, Paige Patterson, and Charles Stanley, while others left the convention, citing 2 Corinthians 6:17: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate," saith the Lord, "and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you.”

This new breed of fundamentalists believed it was compromise and actually sinful for people to remain in a liberal denomination and thereby support their liberalism. So, these fundamentalists (of which I was a part), not only condemned the liberals in the SBC but also condemned the conservatives who refused to leave the SBC. Those who refused to separate were considered “New Evangelicals” (a term of derision in my movement). One of the main focuses came to be who is REALLY a Fundamentalist? As if that term itself was somehow equivalent to all that was good and holy. Bob Jones University and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, especially, became obsessed by identifying who was a real Fundamentalist and who was not. This obsession continues today among many in the group (for example, see postings on SharperIron).

When I use the term FormerFundy to describe myself, all I mean is that, at one time, I held certain doctrines to be fundamental or essential to the Christian faith. These fundamentals included: 1) The Bible is verbally and plenarily inspired by God; 2) Jesus Christ was the virgin born, sinless, Son of God who made a perfect, vicarious atonement on the cross to redeem man and was literally raised from the dead on the 3rd day; and 3) Man is saved by faith alone in the finished work of Christ. Anything short of these essentials was not true Christianity in my view.

I realize that in today’s world, the term “fundamentalist” has a host of other connotations, virtually all bad. It is used to refer to any type of religious extremist or obscurantist. I obviously am not using the name in that sense but in the more historical sense as I have described above.


  1. Thanks for writing this blog. I really enjoy the intelligence you share. I'd love to hear your "de-conversion testimony" someday. What motivated your change and move to be a "former fundy". Thanks.

  2. Chuck,

    Thanks for the kind words. The reason I started this blog was to outline the problems and doubts that ultimately resulted in my losing my faith.

    PST is only one of them. It will take me a long time at one post a day to outline them all.


  3. Excellent. I look forward to getting to know you. I enjoy your perspective. I find it intelligent, mature and ethical. Thanks for blogging.

  4. As I suspected, your concerns were bigger than PST. Your argument against PST was very shallow so I suspected this. I look forward to your future blogs!

  5. ZDenny, his argument against PST is perfect and absolutely true. How is it shallow? God did not kill Jesus, God died with Jesus. At least, that's what Paul taught. Remember, death is not non-existence which is the unspoken fear of nearly every human. I'm not an "Evangelical" or "evangelical" although I was raised in the little "e" world. I would consider myself to be a disciple of Jesus, most strongly leaning toward the teachings of early Quakerism with influences from John Wesley to Eastern Orthodox theologians. People as close as my own father have accused me of Gnosticism. I'm still learning from Jesus how to respond with blessing when silly attacks are thrown my way....I've got a ways to go.

  6. Sam: Jesus was the Son of God in which the fullness of God resided based on Colossians 2.

    "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."

    (Note: Christ participates in the nature of God due to a shared nature and we can participate in the nature of Christ due to our shared humanity. - This is the bridge).

    The text also says...

    "God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

    Jesus in His humanity died physically; however, God raised Him from the dead because God was in Christ. In other words, Christ is his humanity had perfectly participated in the holy nature of God. Christ was sinless so God had to raise Him from the dead. Christ was sinless because He was the Son of God.

    I just think you don't understand the New Testament Sam! This is pretty common.

    It should also be noted that forgiveness means cancelling in this verse. Our eternal life without the love of God which was our certain future was cancelled due to the blood of Christ which covered our sin. This is the Biblical definition of forgiveness. God can't say, "I forgive you" as this is a logical contradiction; however, our punishment has been canceled due to a debt being paid. This is Biblical forgiveness because we did not pay our own debt. Our debt was paid by another so you stand effectively forgiven.

    Ken's PST problem is an imaginary one...

  7. ZDENNY,

    You wrote, "Ken's PST problem is an imaginary one..."

    Yet I read your defense of your position and it has about as much to do with a workable ethic as light-sabers. Your whole world-view seems to be an imaginary one whose efficacy is in your unsupportable claims to authority and ensurance that you will not die.

    I don't see that as moral. I see that as narcissistic self-preservation rooted in fear of authoritcy predicated on unprovable invulnerability.

  8. Chuck:

    When you get married, it is for love or simply out of a selfish desire to get married.

    I know when I got married, it was because I decided to love my wife.

    You need to understand that God first loved us and that is why we were created. God had nothing to gain from this as God is love. God wanted to share His love with You.

    The fact that God is offering you love for eternity is not an act of "narcissistic self-preservation." On the contrary, in order to love God, you have to stop loving yourself.

    Your statement is really as ignorant as they come.

    The fact is that in order to accept the love of God, you have to first decide to love God by turning from your sin.

    The fact that you are resisting the love of God informs me that you are really the selfish one who does not want to love God.

    This your right; however, it is the rejection of love for eternity!

  9. ZDENNY,

    You said, "The fact that God is offering you love for eternity is not an act of "narcissistic self-preservation." On the contrary, in order to love God, you have to stop loving yourself."

    I'm sorry I wasn't clear. God isn't the narcissist in my description, you are.

    Also you said, "The fact that you are resisting the love of God informs me that you are really the selfish one who does not want to love God."

    I am not resisting anything. I am disagreeing with your "truth". I see it as self-serving and primitive. History has shown that your world-view brings a lot of violence and blood-shed. I reject your arrogance. My understanding of god is mine and is not predicated on a book of primitive myths.

  10. Chuck: Once again, God had nothing to gain by loving you. God is love who is wanting to share His love with you.

    By definition, God cannot be a :) Wow, so irrational.

    Violence is a part of our human nature. People who desire power generally will go on killing sprees. Christians at least have the ability to say that it is wrong; however, survival of the fitess is built into non-Christian viewpoints.

    Non-Christian are much more dangerous as a result because they lack an absolute standard by which another person acts can be considered absolutely wrong.

    Perhaps you have never heard of Stalin as just one example...

    Christianity is not affected by the acts of fallen humanity. It remains the model that men continue having a hard time living up to..


  11. Thanks for reminding me of the SBC being "liberal" when I was a kid! Having grown up in a SBC family and town, I remember the schisms that were forming, dissolving, and separating from the convention. I think my old church did finally break away to be more "liberal"!

  12. Z,

    You said, "By definition, God cannot be a :) Wow, so irrational."

    I never said god was a narcissist. I think you are.

    You also said, "Perhaps you have never heard of Stalin as just one example..."

    I have heard of Stalin and I am also aware of the millions of rubles he gave to the Russian Orthodox Church during his rule.

  13. You you think that me responding to the love of God is narcisism. When you decide to get married, just tell her that you don't love her, tell her you just want to use her. See how see responds. I think the response of God is pretty much the same. You don't come to God to get, you come to God in order to love.

    If you want to experience love for eternity, you have to participate in the nature of God. God's command is "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind...."

    I love God because he first love me! Love is the heart of Christianity. It is a land flowing with eternal desire and joy. Paradise lost on earth will become paradise regained; however, it only belongs to those who have decided to follow Christ and put to death the desires of the flesh in order to be resurrected to new life in Christ Jesus our Lord!

  14. Z,

    "You you think that me responding to the love of God is narcisism. When you decide to get married, just tell her that you don't love her, tell her you just want to use her. See how see responds. I think the response of God is pretty much the same. You don't come to God to get, you come to God in order to love."

    I am married and I don't understand your illustration. I can see and feel and experience my wife. She is real and she is wonderful. I tell her that everyday. You, however have a relationship you feel is real and you think it is wonderful. You think it is so wonderful that you feel it allows you the right to dictate morality for all others relative to this imagined relationship. That my friend is narcissism. You love your idea of god which is yours alone and you obnoxiously thrust that on everyone else using an arrogant tone. That is narcissism. You are in love with yourself who you imagine is specially loved by god due to your subserviant obedience. Anyone who chooses not to entertain your theology of self-hatred is therefore selfish. That is narcissism.

    Do you understand how someone who doesn't share your theology views you and your theology now?

    Now, go tell me how selfish I am and how I need Christ. I hope you see how I estimate your wisdom.

  15. Chuck:

    In order to sacrifice selfish desires, you have to participate in the love of God. In fact, the love of God is the only way to being able to really love people. The way to overcome hate is with love. The way to overcome a impulses is with love.

    Christianity is not narcissistic nor can it be. Christianity calls for the death of selfish desires in order to live within the love of God.

    Atheism by definition is narcissistic because it cannot escape the bubble of selfishness that it is entrapped by.

    The love of God transforms you into a person who truly loves other people and this is my experience.

    Christianity is based on the empirically verified fact that Christ rose from the dead. You still haven’t provided any reason to reject this evidence.

    In addition, you believe that Nature created and designed itself which is irrational. Nature cannot exist prior to its own existence. In addition, Nature cannot simply be; rather, Nature has to have a reason for the design that exists in nature.

    All the evidence is for Christianity. You are simply claiming ignorance which is not a belief and certainly not rational especially in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  16. Z,

    You love your god because you believe doing so will allow you to live forever.

    I don't need that eternal gurantee to love other people.

    The fact that you do makes you narcissistic.

    Sorry bud, but your continual defense of this claim is evidence to the fact that you need a pay-out to perform compassion, selflessness, mercy and compassion. I don't. If I am worm-food I will still practice service and kindness towards those around me. Unlike Christians who do these things to coerce others that they are right.

    There is nothing intrinsic to what you believe. Everything you stand for serves a selfish ulterior motive for you to "store treasure up in Heaven."

    Now, who is selfish again?

  17. A,

    Also, please stop with the rational and evidence statements. I've already dismissed all of your evidence to my own satisfaction.

    Your desire to keep saying that shows you may have OCD and it is just plain strange.

    Your evidence is not valuable nor trust-worthy and just because you keep saying that doesn't make it so.

  18. Chuck said, "Everything you stand for serves a selfish ulterior motive for you to "store treasure up in Heaven."

    This is the definition of Atheism. The reason you say this is this is who you are. It is very revealing look into your heart.

    I am certain that you don't love your wife either because you live in an Atheistic bubble. You simply use people. You can't love people because love is merely a feeling that changes with each passing context.

    If you want to really love someone, you have to know the eternal love of God that is unchanging. Christians know that love never fails; however, your feelings change with each passing situation so I am certain that you don't know love.

    Lastly, Christians have much more evidence that you do. In fact, you don't have any evidence at all. You haven't even tried to refute my arguments and for good reason. There is not a rational refutation.

    My only hope is for you to see that Christianity is the only rational system.

    I discounted atheism long ago because they can't prove any of their claims. There whole system hinges on a contradiction of nature creating itself which is impossible and a logical contradiction.

    God Bless and may you start being rational!!

  19. ZDENNY, Do everyone a favor and keep your nose stuck firmly in your donkey talking,animal sacrificing,virgin impregnating,silly excuse for a holy book. Your comments on this post are so ingorant that you're coming close to making Kirk Cameron look intelligent.

  20. I would suggest that we ignore the rantings of people like ZDenny. There will always be people like him who show up here. Its best to ignore them. Let them claim victory or that they have refuted us or whatever they desire to say.

    I would prefer to keep the discussion at a higher level.

  21. Ken:
    Thanks for this concise account of the history of American fundamentalism. I knew the outlines but not some of the details you included. Good post, as always.

  22. Ken Pulliam, Mr. Ph.D -- Your suggestion is to allow your friend here to make a case against "fundamentalism" and not have anyone argue it. The fact is nobody here (in defense of your argument) has grasped the Bible in it's entirety seeing as how your arguments are contrary to what we (fundamentalists) learn. We dedicate study and devotion to God's Word and our own understanding (along with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit) shows us that our "fundamental" belief's are true.

    Jesus Himself was a fundamentalists and we expect that much like Him, we too will be looked at as a spectacle to modern day liberal societies. We uphold what we learn via the Bible and are held as fundamental's because of our disregard for sexual immorality, heretic teachings, and blatant disregard for the nature of a Holy God.

    Your suggestion that Zdenny was ranting doesn't counter his argument, instead none of you have presented a good argument against his.

  23. Daniel, I believe you'll find people here who do grasp the Bible and understand it much better than you do. That's because they can see it for what it obviously is -- a fallible ancient book that sometimes expresses a unity with itself and sometimes doesn't.

    We don't have to put the Bible in a straight jacket. We can simply say, "This portion contradicts that portion," when such appears to be the case. In other words, we read it critically without imposing tortured, unnatural interpretations upon it at every turn.

    Fundamentalists, on the other hand, can't let the Bible say what it says. So many times I've heard this line of reasoning: "Paul appears to be saying XYZ, but that can't be what he means because it would contradict clear teaching elsewhere in Scripture." So we get a twisted, convoluted explanation ... world-class baloney. All this, just to vouchsafe a doctrine that the preponderance of evidence stands against squarely and powerfully.

    Your belief that the Bible is God's Word is a religious assumption that millions make, almost out of thin air. It has no more validity than the Catholic assumption that the Church of Rome speaks for God. (In fact, their arguments are actually more compelling than yours.)

    Furthermore, fundamentalists don't even agree among themselves on some major doctrines of the faith, even though they all claim to derive them from Scripture and Scripture alone.

  24. Steve, the assumption that the Bible is God's Word is based on the empirically confirmed fact of the resurrection of Christ.

    As I stated, Christians have much more evidence than the atheist. In fact, atheist don't have any evidence and when you start nailing their beliefs down, they go ignorant on you and for good reason.

    There is no reason to be an Atheist by definition. It is simply rebellion against God.

    Everyone is a Theist including all Atheist. Atheist simply believe in a logical contradiction being that nature created itself. They replace the word God with Nature and end in contradiction.

  25. ZDENNY, I never claimed to be an atheist. You jump to conclusions much too often here. Yes, I reject wholeheartedly your belief that the Bible is God's Word. And I think it's a really, REALLY dumb belief, too. But that's not the same thing as denying the existence or possibility of a Supreme Being.

  26. Is the Bible God's Word or not? Jesus was courageous when He confronted the religious elite of His day when He challenged the divinity of Moses and the Torah - He said that the law for divorce were the influence of hardened people, not God. Jesus also inferred that while we divorce and mistreat one another, God does not divorce us. In addition to this, God's word is made flesh, not a literary work. So the question, "Is the Bible God's Word" is not right - one must be able to recognize the difference between infected human influence and divine influence - that cannot be achieved solely through written words.

  27. No, I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. I believe it is a compilation of highly edited writings from many, many years ago that record different views and concepts that people had about God and their spiritual experiences.

    Thanks for asking.

  28. Ken Pulliam, you are a brave man in coming out, so to speak. I appreciate what you have done in starting this blog. Not being a bible "expert", I need people such as you who DO qualify as a bible expert to refute the absolute insanity of people like ZDenny. I visited a site called Theology Web Campus, one filled with bible breathing chrsitians. Like Denny, they are the most arrogant, close minded know it all people I have ever encountered. They argue from scripture, as if this document is really the word of god. When you suggest to them it isn't, they trot out this absolutely ridiculous, moronic notion that people witnessed Jesus's resurrection, and/or some of the bible contains historical facts. When I remind them that hundreds swear they saw Elvis after he died, they pretend to laugh, but this is an actual fact in modern times. People swore within weeks after he died that they saw him. This only proves that people see what they want to see...particulary a man they idolized, or was very popular in his day. Tests have been conducted with people pointing to the sky at nothing and saying they see a big red baloon (insert object). Many people that looked swore on the bible they saw exactly what the man said was there. This matters not to a fundy. It is all dismissed because they dismiss everything that interfers with their story.
    I'm glad you came out. I need someone with extensive bible knowledge as ammunition against fundies like Denny who wield their bible knowledge like a Crusaders sword to kill off all non believers. As I posted in The Theology Web, I really don't need to know the finite details of dog crap to know that it smells, that it would taste horrible, and I don't want to get it on my shoes. I know enough about the bible to know that it is a farce. But, apologists such as Denny are masters at debate, and can recite the bible backwards, and continually bring up inane arguments that make others think they have a point, when they don't.
    Happy to see a man who has THOROUGHLY studied the bible come to the same conclusions I did when I was an altar boy 50 years ago.

  29. Ken, I came across your blog from a link on James McGrath's Exploring Our Matrix. I am intrigued by the title of the blog and by your journey, but disappointed by the comments thus far. Of course, you have no control over that if comments are open.

    I started reading the posts and comments in chronological order. I made it this far, can anyone tell me if the comments keep going on like this, or do they get better in future posts? If so, I won't bother with the comments.

    The comments have been far too strident. I would appreciate honest dialogue motivated by a common search for truth, rather than shallow debate which seeks only to "win." Much of what has been said only represents extreme viewpoints with little rational support (fundamentalism vs. "the bible is a farce.") Reality is rarely so tidy.

    Finally, I am intrigued by your intellectual journey, Dr. Ken. I have read and heard many former fundamentalists who have come to reject Christianity altogether. I don't know, but I sense that you haven't gone that far. I imagine that all those years studying and ministering in the hotbed of fundamentalism would make it exceedingly difficult for you to disentangle fundamentalism and Christianity. To you, they were equivalent for many years.

    I have no answers myself. I believe I am in the process of deconverting from evangelicalism. Not from Christianity, I don't think.

    I studied theology in college and a couple of years in seminary, all in a Wesleyan tradition. The disconnect for me experientially was going from the official positions of the church to the fundamentalism in the pews. For example, in every theology class I took we discounted penal substitution as a legitimate biblical or moral mechanism of atonement. But in the churches I have attended since, this is the one and only truth of Jesus' death and how he "purchased" our salvation. People don't even seem to know there are other options.

  30. Ken forgive me for not being more clear in conveying my intention in my last comment - what I was trying to say is that asking "is the Bible the inspired word of God or not" is different than querying if one can tell the difference between what is divinely inspired and that which comes from hardened human heartedness in the writings of the Torah. (However, until the promise of spiritual salvation in Jesus is made manifest, it is a cruel expectation to command "love your enemy"). The query of whether or not one can discern the divine within the Torah is the challenge Jesus posed to the Pharisees when He spoke about the issue of divorce in the Torah.

  31. It seems that there is a great danger in one running off to become a Biblical scholar or a pastor instead of just being a Christian, meaning one who actually puts Jesus' teachings into practice. Only those who have embarked on this path know the rewards and the struggles of true Christianity. Anyone who thinks Jesus was/is a myth is ignorant of ancient history. Anyone who thinks the Bible has been altered is also ignorant of ancient history.

    Mr.Pulliam-it sounds like maybe you started out right but got sideswiped spiritually. You may have to do what I did-follow the advice in Revelation 2:2-5:
    "I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen. Repent and do those things you did at the first." It's not easy but with God's help, it is possible.

    One more thing-I would challenge you to step outside of your denominational learning in light of the Holy Spirit:
    There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all." What was your experience with receiving the Holy Spirit?

  32. Ken, I look forward to reading the specifics of your deconversion (an endeavour I will begin momentarily). In the interim, however, I would like to ask you if you now regret attaining your higher education in the area of theology, and would, in retrospect, have rather studied something different?


  33. Magx01,

    Good question. I suppose a lot of people when they reach 50 as I did this year look back at their lives and wish they had done some things differently. Yes, knowing what I know now, I would have chosen a different field of study.

  34. Then Kens gonna burn.
    There are no unbelievers in Hell!!!!!

    Ken can't understand so turns to human reasoning like all vain empty-headed fools.
    Ken thinks he's smarter than God.

  35. Way to show the Christian love, there, atom79.

  36. It will be well... As an ambassador of Christ, I can only continue to pray for a divine encounter for as many that still hold contrary belief to the love of God made manifest in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ - the ONLY mediator between God and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5).

    That, “the eyes of your understanding may be enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints” (Eph. 1:18). No amount of academic achievements can enlighten the spiritual understanding of man!

    It is very clear from the Scripture that human and earthly wisdom, attained on the plane of intellectual pursuit of whatever coloration, cannot connect spiritually to the eternal agenda of God in Christ Jesus. This is a great spiritual misery and jeopardy for the undiscerning person! It takes the Holy Spirit to empower and enlighten a man.

    “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor.1:18)

    No matter how stupid, foolish and unconnected we might tend to view somethings in the Bible, they remain yet infallible and true! And must be treated with reverence: though, contrary posture do NOT in any way undermine the supremacy, the awesomeness and the greatness of God.

    “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor.1:21)

    May the good Lord heal every unbelieving mind, in His mercy, and save all in Jesus Christ mighty name, Amen!

  37. This is the problem within fundamentalism, a black and white type of thinking where there is no room for grey areas. PSA is not a problem if one recognizes that to some degree it is a mystery. A rationalistic explanation for how Jesus became sin even though he was innocent only leads away from the faith. We know that Christ died for sinners for God has revealed this thru the prophets, for this is the foolishness of the cross, and can only be received by faith. Certainly trying to understand this doctrine intellectually to better understand why Scripture teaches it, is something that should be fostered, but to try to rationally explain everything that God has done or who God is, is just not possible to the finite mind.

  38. Hey, just listened to your testimony... sad stuff. Jesus had a parable about that: it's called the parable of the three soils. I think that the problem a lot of people who come from an Armenian perspective have is that they believe that "we" make Christians; "we" choose Christians. But Scripture is clear, God makes Christians.... and not out of everybody. This is a bummer for a lot of people.