Fundamental Forum Guidelines

...an excellent subject to ponder, thanks.

 

Which category of truth do the "categories of truth" fall under?
Just kidding, it is an interesting concept and might better serve discussion than merely having fact vs opinion.

 

Thanks Keith.

As Co-moderator just wanted to add my words of support.

Roger

 

Some interesting thoughts.

 

I agree with the attempt, but I think I would suggest some different categories, ones that I learned from Walter Martin and adapted slightly:

Essential: These are things that if you deny, you're not Christian. These are things such as monotheism, diety of Christ, virgin birth, bodily ressurrection, etc. (roughly the "very clear" above).

Very Important: These might be called "aberrant" if they are denied, and would include things that if denied, would not necessarily qualify as a heresy, but would likely prevent us from keeping fellowship.

Peripheral: These are roughly equivalent to the "petty, personal preferences" above. Choir robes, etc.

The key, of course, is defining what fits into the middle category. One person's essential is another's aberrant and another's peripheral. But biblically, I think most of them would fall out fairly clearly. The example I always give of "very important" is the discussion of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and symbolic. Most would say that those who are wrong on this issue would still be Christian, but we would not necessarily fellowship with them.

On another subject, what is true is always true. Truth is true for everyone. There are no truths that are relative, i.e., true for one person and false for another person (in the same sense).

 

The idea is more than helpful; its essential. I would agree with humblesmith's last comment: truth is absolute. This thread caught my eye because I thought that it was advocating a kind of relativistic view of truth. (Should've known better.) I prefer the 4-part division over the 3-part division because it allows for a more nuanced approach to issues.
Ok, the challenge is what we sort where. But having such a scheme in mind is a huge step in the right direction. We can then discuss which "bin" we put the particular claim in instead of coming to a deadend with the all-or-nothing mentality to which we so often succumb.

 

I like the classifications. I heard a similar classification in a sermon called "Die, Fight, Fuss". There are some things we should die for, some we should fight about, and some that we might fuss about, but we certainly wouldn't die or fight for them.

 

I went to the link that Squire gave and I found it to be interesting especially the charts. They, for the most part (I don't agree with everything) are a very good break down of truth -vs- preference.

 

Regarding the OP, This seems like the essence of modern day fundamentalism. Creating a chart of issues, behaviors, preferences and then being more concerned our lives are lived in accordance with the list/chart than we are according tothe Bible. Nice try but just too distracting.

 

Looks like the address of the series What is a Fundamentalist? and the printed materials have moved. I think I found them and linked them. If these are the wrong ones, Brother Robertsson, please feel free to fix them. Thanks.