What were they teaching me?

[vle045]

One of the Churches that I went to when I was a kid was called Grace Fellowship. http://gfc-erie.org/

Honestly, I have no idea what denomination they are or what they are teaching. They used to show us videos all the time about how secular music is evil, and a variety of other things were evil. I don't recall anything more specific.

I have been trying to piece together where I learned things and why I think what I do. Part of my learning was in Methodist, another part was at the Grace Fellowship Church.

I am always so confused about what to believe, and where I learned what i do believe so far.

[silentpoet]

Below is what I basically believe. I am not 100 percent with the beliefs of my denomination, but I believe most of the stuff.
www.nazarene.org

I would just concentrate on learning the bible, because that is what it boils down to. Don't worry what this group or that group says, instead focus on what the bible says and you will be on the right path.

[GraceSeeker]

Vicky, from what I read of them, they appear to be an independent church, fundamentalist in their theological leanings probably somewhat similar to that of Foursquare Gospel churches.

As with all of us, they are trying to be faithful to their understanding of God's direction in their lives and try to interpret that for others. Now I'm judging them without ever even being in actual conversation with them, so that is a bit unfair on my part, but my biggest concern from their writings is that they might say that if their own interpretation differed from another's interpretation I sense an insistance that they would be right and thus the other would be wrong. (But that may not be the case at all.)

[vle045]

Vicky, from what I read of them, they appear to be an independent church, fundamentalist in their theological leanings probably somewhat similar to that of Foursquare Gospel churches.

As with all of us, they are trying to be faithful to their understanding of God's direction in their lives and try to interpret that for others. Now I'm judging them without ever even being in actual conversation with them, so that is a bit unfair on my part, but my biggest concern from their writings is that they might say that if their own interpretation differed from another's interpretation I sense an insistance that they would be right and thus the other would be wrong. (But that may not be the case at all.)
I had forgotten about the term "foursquare gospel". It sounds familiar, yet I don't know why.

I have also heard the word "fundamentalist" tossed around often as an insult, so I am not even sure what to make of that. I don't really know what it means.

Am I the most confused person, or what?

[GraceSeeker]

I had forgotten about the term "foursquare gospel". It sounds familiar, yet I don't know why.

I have also heard the word "fundamentalist" tossed around often as an insult, so I am not even sure what to make of that. I don't really know what it means.

Am I the most confused person, or what?

Vicky,
The term "fundamentalist", like "evangelical", "conservative", or "liberal" means different things to different people. It is easy to get confused, because no two people mean the same thing by it. The origin of the term as it is applied to religious beliefs goes back to this event:
In 1909, there was heated debate in the New York Presbytery about whether or not to ordain three men who refused to assent to the doctrine of the virgin birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth) of Jesus Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ). (They did not deny the doctrine outright, just said that they were not prepared to affirm it.) The majority eventually ordained the men; the minority complained to the General Assembly and it was this complaint that would form the basis of the subsequent controversy.
Under the order of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, General Assembly was not authorized to accept or dismiss this complaint. It should have demitted the complaint to the presbytery, and could have done so with instructions that the presbytery hold a heresy trial. The result of this trial could then be appealed to the Synod of New York and from there to the General Assembly. However, the 1910 General Assembly, acting outside its scope of authority, dismissed the complaint against the three men and at the same time instructed its Committee on Bills and Overtures to prepare a statement for governing future ordinations. This was a major departure from standard procedure since under the presbyterian system, General Assembly is a court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court), not a legislative body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_body). Nevertheless, the committee reported, and the General Assembly passed the Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910. This Deliverance declared that five doctrines were "necessary and essential" to the Christian faith:

The inspiration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) of the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) by the Holy Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit) and the inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerrancy) of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus) of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was an atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement) for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Christ).
The historical reality of Christ's miracles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_attributed_to_Jesus).These five propositions would become known to history as the "Five Fundamentals" and by the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists."

Now, that source was wikipedia. The thing is until I looked that up, I was trying to remember if there were 7 or 9 "fundamentals". So, maybe even in the beginning of the movement, different folks were saying different things. The commonality however is the understanding that not only must one believe in Jesus, but believe certain fundaments about Jesus "in the prescribed way" or one is not saved. So different people will come up with different lists of essentials, but whenever a lithmus test is used to determine a person's salvation, then at least for that moment, the test-giver is acting like a fundamentalist.

Now think about that for a minute, and you will realize that from the most conservative of us to the most liberal, we all have a little bit of fundamentalist in us as we all have certain concepts that we consider key (i.e. fundamental) to being able to apply the name "Christian" to an individual or a congregation.

Another source says, the term "fundamentalism" came into existence at the Niagara Falls Bible Conference which was convened in an effort to define those things that were fundamental to belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals," a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. These two wealthy brothers were concerned with the moral and spiritual decline they believed was infecting Protestantism, and sought to restore the historic faith with a 12 volume call to arms that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five fundamentals of the faith:
(1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs (ftp://iclnet93.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt) (the originals of each scriptural book);
(2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ;
(3) the substitutionary view of the atonement;
(4) the bodily resurrection of Christ;
(5) The imminent return of Christ.

(Same list as above.)
These twelve volumes were sent to "every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, Sunday School Superintendent, YMCA and YWCA secretary." In all, some 3 million copies were mailed out. http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyone.html

[cristianna]

No, you're not the most confused person ever, I promise. :)