A “fundamentalist spirit / attitude”

What is wrong with a “fundamentalist spirit/attitude” that cannot discern nuances in disagreements on secondary and tertiary issues in other Christians?

Dr. White discusses an upcoming possible debate (sometime in 2020) with Sam Shamoun over 2 issues: 1. Limited Atonement and 2. TR Onlyism (that only the Textus Receptus, TR = “Textus Receptus” Greek text platform is the only proper Greek text and the claim that this is the ONLY preserved perfect “Word of God” for all of history for the church) .

Dr. White also points out that Sam Shamoun is continuing to exude bad character in apologetics by calling Muslims names like “the slime of Islam”.  How will Muslims listen to you when you call them names at the beginning of your attempts to reason and win them?  I have confronted Sam many times on this issue, and yet,  he refuses to listen.

There is a difference between the doctrinal understanding of a Fundamentalist = one who holds to the fundamentals / foundational doctrines of the Christian faith (which is a  good thing); vs. “a fundamentalist spirit” = one who cannot tolerate anyone else who does not agree with them on every minor point of doctrine or practice.  We Christians who believe the Bible are all “fundamentalists” to Muslims and atheists and skeptics and the secular world.  (all Christians who believe the Bible is God’s word, ie, the doctrine of inerrancy, and that Jesus gave His life in a real effective atonement that truly forgives sin, that Jesus rose from the dead, that He was born of the virgin Mary, that homosexuality is sin, etc.)

The Pulpit and Pen folks are hard to understand in their harshness and anger (same for Shamoun) – for both Shamoun and Pulpit and Pen have some good material.  But they destroy credibility by that “fundamentalist spirit”, although Shamoun’s is different, since he also has no problem, it seems, promoting (on his Facebook page) other issues from the nutty hate-filled KJV-Only-ist Steven Anderson and open-theist Greg Boyd, and others who are also either KJV-Only or TR only types that have no tolerance for the eclectic method of using all of the Greek NT manuscripts available for forming a Greek Text platform, etc.  I still think that Dr. White’s method in dealing with textual variants is the best that gives us apologetic credibility with those liberals and scholars who bring up the textual variants and history of the transmission of the text, like Bart Ehrman, and Muslims who use them to try and act like they are the intellectual ones, like the way Paul Williams, the British convert to Islam, uses liberal scholarship in his Da’awa methods for Islam.

Listen to the whole program – most of it, after the first 15 minutes or so, is really valuable in showing why the attitude behind TR-onlyism is wrong.

The “fundamentalist spirit / attitude” is the same basic attitude that several conservative Christians had when they reacted against Dr. White’s apologetic dialogues with the Muslim, Yasir Qadhi.  (See many of my past posts on that issue and attitude – see three of them under “Related” at the bottom of this article.)


About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in "fundamentalist spirit / attitude", Apologetics, Christian Attitudes toward others, History, Sam Shamoun, Textual Variants. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to A “fundamentalist spirit / attitude”

  1. Burhanuddin1 says:

    Don’t you think you show a fundamentalist spirit / attitude yourself?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Did you listened to Dr. White’s DL video and read my article?

      I sincerely try not to have that spirit / attitude; as there are Christians who are true Christians who have different views on secondary and tertiary issues.
      (But I may not always succeed in that; for any short-comings, which I have many, I seek God’s forgiveness through Christ. Christ is our only hope.)

      How are you doing?
      Are you still a Muslim?
      The other Muslims over at blogging theology are wondering.

      • Burhanuddin1 says:

        I would say to discard reasonable arguments a priori because they supposedly undermine your faith is that fundamentalist spirit / attitude. You know you have that attitude. Just like fundamentalists of all kinds including Muslim ones.

  2. Ken Temple says:

    The contradictions of the Qur’an itself, to itself, and to history and the NT, while at the same time affirming the previous Monotheist Scriptures (OT and NT = Torah, Zabur, Injeel), etc. is proof of the truth of Christianity and falsehood of Islam. It is not a priori discarding reasonable arguments, since the Qur’an itself is not making a reasonable argument, and neither do Muslims, because the Qur’an affirms previous revelations / Scriptures and tells the people of the book to follow them what they have at that time, (see just one example, Surah 5:68), therefore, Islamic Da’awa does not have a reasonable argument. It is actually contradictory to reason.

    Jonathan Mclatchie makes an excellent case:


    • Burhanuddin1 says:

      There are reasonable arguments against the fundamentalist/literalist worldview, you know that. You just want to ignore them believe something else.

Comments are closed.