Christian Foundations
Conservative,
But, Not Necessarily Radical

Classical (Historical) (Orthodox) Fundamentalism

The five fundamentals --the historical basis of Christian fundamentals for the believer-- (after an outcry that these were under attack they were put in the Presbyterian declaration of faith officially adopted in 1910) are:

  1. The Miracles of Jesus Christ
  2. The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ
  3. The Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ
  4. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ
  5. The Inspiration of Scripture
The earlier 19th century forerunners with similar beliefs are known as 'revivalists.'

 

The Fundamentals

Two brothers, Lyman and Milton Stewart in 1909 felt the Spirit stir them strongly to fight the incursion of liberalism in the Church, so they proposed to finance a publication project to thwart these dark storm clouds. Gathered was a group of international Christian Scholars, edited by renown theologians R.A. Torrey and A.C. Dixon, who contributed twelve volumes entitled The Fundamentals. It was revealingly sub-titled, A Testimony to the Truth and it was definitely a counter to the modernist trend that developed out of "Higher Criticism." As a matter of fact the first article in the 1958 select version contains "The History of the Higher Criticism." This details how Higher Criticism was originally a definition of detailed Biblical Scholarship. However, as Dutch, French, German, British and United States theologians, each in turn, added writings explicated with much conjecture in their work, that questioned various Biblical books and their authorship, and finally mythologized the supernatural elements within --which gave it a new meaning.

The eighty-three writings in The Fundamentals went further than merely the five points mentioned above. They did coincidentally cover five themes:

  1. Declare and make apologetics for the key Christian doctrines of--

    1. The Nature of God
    2. Revelation
    3. The Incarnation

      Gnosticism is fought only with the fact that indeed Jesus had a real human body.

    4. The Atonement

      Grace bestowed upon us, making us saints, with the vicarious death of His Son, while we were yet sinners, who deserve only death. Atone --we are made At -One with God.

    5. The Resurrection

      As Paul states, "If there is no resurrection, then we of all men, are most miserable."

    6. The Holy Spirit

      It is not a 'force', it is the third Person of the God-Head, Who seals and indwells the believer for the Day of Redemption, Who only gives glory to the Son, Who is One with the Father.

    7. Inspiration

      Important note: This does not mean believing the Bible literally. Fundamentalist scholars understood metaphor and other figurative speech. In their exegesis and hermeneutics that understanding the who, when, where, what and why a book was written related to its meaning. The belief is that God did infallibly write the original autographs through human means, with Divine guidance. The essence of such God-breathed validity remains in spite of possible, and statistically acceptable copy and translation errors.


  2. Take Issue with Higher Criticism

    Eichhorn further developed the documentary theoretical ideas of Frenchman Jean Astruc who in the mid eighteenth century denied Divine authorship, and complained about repetitions and alleged discrepancies. Eichhorn published in 1780, and was followed by Vater then Hartmann, and basically called the Old Testament a compilation of fragments jammed together by some 'editor.' Others following in similar suit were De Wette in 1806, then Vatke, Bleek, Ewald, Hupfeld, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen. Moses became a pseudonom.


  3. Make the case against cultic, anti- and non-Christian thought such as--

    1. Romanism

      T.W. Medhurst (of Scotland) starts his piece, Is Romanism Christianity? with:
      I am aware that, if I undertake to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called "bigoted, harsh, uncharitable." Nevertheless, I am not daunted, for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions.
    2. Eddyism

      This is a refutation of Christian Science

    3. Mormonism

      The Latter Day Saints pose problems with 'extra biblical' written revelations.

    4. Rationalism

      The Enlightenment left scars.

    5. Darwinism

      Evolution, still a big controversy.

    6. Socialism

      In hindsight, the problems of the State being above any theology proved correct.

  4. Emphasize Evangelism and Missionary Work
  5. Personal Testimonies of Christ's Personal Work in People's Lives
If one looks at some of the essays one can garner what was trying to be accomplished:
  • The Authorship of the Pentateuch
  • The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations
  • The Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures
  • Fulfilled Prophecy, a Potent Argument for the Bible
  • Christianity No Fable
  • The Biblical Conception of Sin
  • What Christ Teaches Concerning Future Retribution
  • The Nature of Regeneration
  • Preach the Word
  • The Coming of Christ

Three million copies were published eventually containing this testament to conservative Christian philosophy. The authors, whose number out of various denominations included knights, doctors, lawyers, professors and reverends, with some gaining notoriety even unto this day, like Spurgeon, Torrey, Scofield, Warfield and Erdmans included:

 

 

Fundamentalism as a Movement

There were four 'waves' of this particular tide, as delineated by George Marsden. A slightly altered breakdown of these moves follows.

I. Sound the Alarm -- The Turn of the Century Until the Early Twenties

This early group was vehemently trying to expunge the leaven out of the bread as liberals started started to spoil the loaves. Mostly the battleground was in the North, at first amongst Presbyterians, then Baptists and others followed. Princeton University was the first to take a stand with zealous educated men. After all one's foundation is supposed to be built on solid rock, not shifting sands of relativism. As well as when The Fundamentals was brought to life, there were also the dispensationalist, revivalist, and Holiness, and, or Pentecostal movements rising, as well. The latter today are as conservative as one can get, (but also they usually have more open arms to others outside their group). They take that outpouring of the Holy Spirit as something as real today as it was 2000 years ago in the Upper Room. But, fundamentalists had a contingent amongst themselves that diametrically opposed this 'latter rain' of the Holy Spirit with tongues and healing. Especially among the Calvinist-leaning, they believed that when the canon was determined, (the Council settled on the 66 books of the Bible) those 'signs' needed for first century testimony were finished. The written Word was sufficient. Pentecostals, which are predominantly Arminian, however, are the fastest growing Christian phenomenon on the globe, as they believe in the Power of the Spirit moves with the Word. The point being, though Pentecostals believe in the fundamentals, and can be considered fundamentalists, with their very lively services compared to Baptists and Presbyterians, ecetera, they generally are not labeled, 'fundamentalists.' The Holiness movement stresses demure dress and a tee-totaling lifestyle for its members.

The World's Christian Fundamentals Association, an outgrowth of Bible Prophecy conferences since 1878, was founded in 1919 --helped by William B. Riley. The General Assembly of the northern Presbyterian Church had reaffirmed those five fundamentals in 1916 and again in 1923, now becoming the mainstay cornerstone of this view.

 

Just as the term Higher Criticism was now aligned with Satan's siege, ironically, fundamentalism and its militant, combative call to arms became associated in a negative connotation. Though their call was to separate only doctrinally, not socially, they became at odds with those more inclined to diplomacy in Christian Academia, and, of course with theological liberals. Later the discussion of Neo-fundamentalism, from closer to our time -- those who separate even socially from other Christians --is mentioned, again.

II. Cast Out the Nicolaitans -- the Twenties

In 1920 the term "fundamentalist" was first used by Baptist Watchman-Examiner editor Curtis Lee Laws as a definition of someone clinging to the traditional doctrines that were abandoned by modernists. A line in the sand was made over inspiration of Scriptures, the reality of miracles, and the deity of Jesus. Conservatives in denominations like the Baptists and Presbyterians as well as others were going to weed out the apostasy.

Another newspaper was published in the twenties by Baptist John Roach Straton proudly entitled, The Fundamentalist. Not only Baptists were clamoring over these issues, but the Methodists and Presbyterians were dividing. Most famous of the latter was J. Gresham Machen who published in 1923 Christianity and Liberalism actually used the term for himself with reservation, as he feared it sounding like a new religion, and maybe not a return to basics. However the term for naturalistic religion he decried creeping into the teaching was first called liberalism, then was more popularly known as modernism. Those professing Christians on the left side of the stockyard like Harry Emerson Fosdick would have their salvation questioned.

Though 'fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan beat 'Darwinist' Clarence Darrow in the courtroom in that famous Scopes Trial of 1925, the cause of evolution, with was not over --they only won a battle, not the war.

III. Taking the Ball and Going Home --The Thirties

Even though Karl Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy challenged liberalism in some places, he retained some questions on the inerrancy of Scripture. Meanwhile, fundamentalists in denominations began to leave and form new ones such as the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, and The Presbyterian Church of America and others. They had to separate from what they perceived as not being true Christianity, they became known as those orthodox Christians outside of the mainline churches.

IV. That Is Not Me -- The Forties Through the Seventies

A division was widening, this time with the people who, if they delineated themselves as 'fundamentalists' would be grouped with ignorant and callous. These latter breakaways brought back the social programs to help others, but, unlike the liberals more concerned with a 'social gospel,' still considered themselves true to basic Biblical principles. Some who mellowed their feistiness, were exampled by Carl F. Henry, and, at first labeling themselves Neo-evangelists, they eventually called themselves Evangelicals and their big group is the National Association of Evangelicals. The American Council of Christian Churches and some independent groups were considered 'fundamentalists. Moody Bible Institute, Bob Jones University and various evangelists traveling and radio preachers are still in that number. Some of these in that other half of these post-World War II fundamentalists had the International Council of Christian Churches for a global umbrella group, yet they would not be in the dreaded 'apostate' World Council of Churches. When Jimmy Carter ran for president in 1976, much was made of the year of the evangelical, and he made it known that he was a Southern Baptist, who have had their battles to stay fundamentalists. To avoid 'scaring' the voters he told of his humanity in Playboy magazine. He was not a fundamentalist, however, but they probably helped get him elected.

V. Giving Them a Bad Name? -- The Eighties Until Now

By 1980, the fundamentalists became more politically motivated, with the independent Baptist Jerry Falwell creating the Moral Majority to counter moral decay, especially after the previous decade slipped heavy with a humiliation in Vietnam, Watergate, and Roe Versus Wade, giving the Highest Courts approval of infanticide. The causes were evident, the media, and the schools. There was a trend in earlier years after their rebuff in the 20's to not get involved in politics, as that was the 'world's problem, but, of course that inactivity changed. Secular humanism was a religion and a non-religion in a dichotomous victory in the society. (They claim it is not a religion, but in Torcaso vs. the State the plaintiff argued that it was.) The sixties became the the decadence turned into the decade of greed. Ronald Reagan, who is not a fundamentalist, (as perhaps Nancy would not have consulted horoscopes), was elected due to this 'revolution.' Certain members of the Church warned that these Republicans would use these Christians, and then later "throw them out like used dirty rags." (One must remember that Evangelicals, many of which are relatively conservative, helped in this political arena, as well.) Later the Christian Coalition was founded when the MM was disbanded, and now an evangelical Methodist is in the White House due to the efforts of continuing conservative values made clear from those more on the 'right.' If they have their way, the Partial Birth Abortion will --on Three's the Charm-- be banned.

Today, the official term for fundamentalists 'secondly separated' (social, and business avoidance included with doctrine-- moving from basically ideas --was the original distinguishing criteria) from even other Christians who are considered 'in bed with the enemy' are called Neo-Fundamentalists, also called Hyper-fundamentalists. Those in this camp would shun Billy Graham and Christianity Today and other schools that included speakers not approved. Many of these have become even more aggressive pre-tribulation, pre-millennialist dispensationalists, they are see the restoration of Israel in 1948 as the fulfillment of prophecy, that they (primarily starting with England's Plymouth Brethren) espoused since the mid-19th century. Though dispensationalist C.I. Scofield was a The Fundamentals contributor, one essay was on the "Grace of God", his eschatology mostly later gradually infused churches. They think that the signs of decadence and earthquakes means that any day now, the Antichrist will set up shop in that newly built Temple in Jerusalem, and they'll be whisked away, leaving all those apostates, as well as the non-believers "Left Behind." That happens only to be the most popular dispensation teaching, however. By the way, most are not consistent when it comes to their 'literalistic' transposition, as they will, for example, substitute helicopters for huge flying stinging insects. There are other variations --especially the ones that warn we will all go through the Great Tribulation -(but that's another writeup.) Continuing today are those who are willing to accept the shame with the fame, and are still fighting for the truths set forth a hundred years ago, based on two millennia of the Way of the Nazarene. Even in some of the Seminaries founded by the dissidents, new battles take place over such doctrines as infallibility of Scripture. It is imperative to state, too, that Christians this conservative are well aware that though they may hate the sin, no matter how heinous, they are to love the sinner, just as their Master did for them, even laying His precious life down.


Sources:
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Walter A. Elwell; Baker, 1990.
Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology; Moody, 1989.
The Fundamentals ed. R.A. Torrey (updated Charles L. Feinberg, 1958); Kregel, 1990.
New Dictionary of Theology eds. S.B. Ferguson, D.F. Wright, J.I. Packer; InterVarsity, 1988.
Loraine Boettner, The Millennium, Presybterian and Reformed Publishing, 1957.
Personal Knowledge.



Personal Note:

To clarify where I stand in all this furor, I consider myself more an Evangelical ---because being a 'fundamentalist' has taken a confrontational meaning. Holding on to the basic conservative ideology outline in much of "The Fundamentals" does not mean one has to get in a 'we' versus 'them' mode. Some did do that, and of course that changed the opinions of many regarding the term 'fundamentalist,' and not even using the term 'neo-fundamentalist' spared that association. Actually, they were not anti-intellectual, per se, but only when ones' learning and intelligence was used to tear down the 'faith handed down by the saints.' It should be noted that some of the more tolerant evangelicals, when push comes to shove would be seen as intolerant seeing their views on theological concepts that include mutually exclusive points. Because they might appear at Harvard Divinity School, (which is 180 degrees from its Puritan founding) does not mean they might not disagree with those that question different items mentioned in the fundamentals above. One side or the other can perceive the other as a threat to their denomination, and the adding to the ugly fuel of insults to the fire does not help build the much needed Kingdom of Peace. Perhaps it is only the perception of being adamant that gives the bad association. In that case the rant against conservatives comes across similarly.

I am an independent, I believe the Scriptures. I accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour. I question Scofield's Pretribulation Pre-millenialism (I like Marv Rosenthal's Pre-Wrath rapture, better {see Christian Eschatology}). I feel that the sin of hypocrisy is as bad if not worse than various sexual sins. I am a Charismatic, who has heard Roman Catholics preach on the Holy Spirit, as well as Messianic Jews. I am also amazed by the pooh-poohing the idea of angels, even fallen angels, including Satan (which means adversary, who comes on like Light {Lucifer}). With people inspired to do some of the most wicked things any sane person shudders at, that seems like the joke, not the other way around. But, remember, I understand the skeptics, I once was a card-carrying agnostic Unitarian. I'm as leery of big corporate entities as similarly as some are on the left, but I think the idea of personal responsibility is important when also tempered by society's caring for each other. A Christian has to work and live in a secular setting, and they should be setting better examples of cooperation and tolerance, than the other way. However, once one understands some of the warnings in the Scriptures, one has to speak what they feel must be heard --in the light of media highlighting murder, corporate greed, and vulgarity. This inevitably will lead to differences, but contrary to what is the common view of conservative Christians, they know you can not legislate morality, and must work in harmony and coalition with other majority, minority interests.

I adhere to the general principles (as outlined on Everything 2's christians user group statement of faith.) I will fellowship with ANY who confess (and even profess) Jesus as their savior and Lord. I would have social contact with ALL who believe any thing else at all.

Remember, those who felt they were progressive, etc., disagreed with the fundamentalists, too. It take two to tango. Nobody agrees with anybody else a hundred percent!

Kind of ironic that Christian critics of fundamentalism would quote the Scriptures their heroes worked so hard to undermine, all in the name of questioning. As God told Job, "I will question you!" And even mild mannered Jesus stated: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins; for if you believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sin." So if one has a problem with that fundamental fact, then one probably does not really want to be a Christian. But, if one is a revisionist, then that might be another matter.

I would like to put the summarizing paragraph in the paperback edition of The Fundamentals"Forward" by Warren W. Wiersbe as it speaks the contemporary mind on this topic:

In this day of fragmented fellowships and diluted doctrines, the church must discover again the broad base which the "Fundamentalist Fathers" built and from which they ministered. Our modern pluralistic society makes it easy for us to become so tolerant that we almost cease to have convictions, or so intolerant that we think of our special group is the sole custodian of truth. It is good to have The Fundamentals back in print again, and I trust that the new generation of Bible students will get acquainted with this galaxy of great leaders and learn from them the essentials of doctrine and practice.

Post Script Rebut:

Professor Erdmans --not some rube-- but of Princeton University, who contributed to The Fundamentals was not a Scofield dispensationalist, but an Amillennialist! Just like the term liberal lost its original meaning, so did fundamentalism. Also another later Princeton scholar, Loraine Boettner had this balanced critique of dispensationalism

Premillennialism tends to make the Bible a textbook of ready reference, rather than a source book from which statements are to be collected, compared, placed in their logical relations, and so worked up into a Systematic Theology. It professes to "take God at His word," and to "accept the plain statement of truth as God has revealed it." Such reasoning has its place when directed against the Modernists who reject the doctrine of the full inspiration of the Scriptures. But it is out of place when directed against those who while accepting the full inspiration of Scripture nevertheless acknowledge that much truth is conveyed through figurative expressions. The fact ot the matter is that God's revelation as found in the Bible contains many deep mysteries and secrets which always have and probably always will challenge the intellects of even the wisest of men. Superficial statements about taking God at His word are illusory and ought to be their own refutations. Rejecting such easy solutions, we are deeply grateful for the rich heritage that the scholars and theologians have handed down to us. The deeper understanding of the Scriptures and the correlation of these doctrines is not something that can be completed in a day, or even a lifetime, but it is a task for the Church throughout the centuries.

 

I tried to put it back in some proper perspecive, which in my humble, but well-read in this area, opinion was done a disservice by the following writeup. There are plenty of denominations out there for you to pick and choose the one where you can go where they will not make you feel bad, if that is important to you. If one has a church that has gone too far to the left or too far the other way, then leave it, or stay and fight, but why whine about it? Disinformation and calumny will not help the cause of the truth. Since when was it a horrible thing to make money, like the Stewart brothers did? They did what Bill Gates and others today do, invest in what philanthropy that they believed in.

I hope my dear plaintiff, above and others 'hurt' by proponents of fundamental Chrisitanity can forgive some of the miscreants of the above mentioned movement, like he must have 'forgiven' his spiritual predecessor, a giant among Christian men, to whom we are extremely indebted, Martin Luther. However, this same Luther, in his more established later years, wrote, Against the Murdering Horde of Peasants. It was almost as if he had forgotten that while one of the early dissenters, he had pleaded --with this poem attached to their thesis-- to the Church they challenged, and fitting for everyone today:

In essentials, unity.
In uncertainties, freedom.
In all things, love.

Americans are incorrigibly, radically religious, and there has never been a time when power hungry men have not tried to subvert these spiritual yearnings for their own nefarious purposes. One of the most successful con jobs in the history of religion has been the Fundamentalist movement.

Very few founding fundamentalists had a background in religion, but instead were hustlers and con artists. Take, for example, Cyrus Scofield, the author of the "Scofield Bible" (a Bible containing a lot of footnotes spouting the nonsense of dispensationalism). This "doctor" of theology had in fact never darkened the doors of any institution of higher learning. He was a former self-proclaimed "lawyer" who had only taken up religion as a second career after getting disbarred and jailed for extortion. From the Scofields of the past to today's Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, fundamentalism has always been a fertile field for fraud, and the shearing of the sheep.

Christianity, of course, is a religion of love, forgiveness and liberation. You would never know this, however, from the Fundamentalists. Christian Fundamentalism is, in fact, a heresy. Rather than emphasize Christ's all-encompassing saving and redeeming power, the Fundamentalist insists that Jesus diverted the wrath of a malevolent, unforgiving Father onto himself. Jesus, however, is either half-hearted about salvation or not really all-powerful; his "substitionary atonement" doesn't free everyone from sin, but only applies to a few people: the Saints, the Elect. The rest of us are going straight to hell. This semi-miraculous, semi-divine Jesus and unloving, wrathful Yahweh seem indistinguishable from ancient Gnosticism, the only difference being that Fundamentalists perversely insist that Jesus had a "real" body.

Fundamentalism asserts as "fundamental" obscure doctrines of dubious significance, like the virgin birth of Jesus. These doctrines are to be accepted without question or even much reflection. Fundamentalists don't ask, "What does this mean?" They ask: "Do you believe this?" Using this question, they divide people into two groups: the "saved" and the "unsaved", without inquiring as to what the nature of this Salvation might be and what duties it might entail (like loving your neighbor).

In reality, though, religious doctrine means little to Fundamentalists except as a means of distinguishing "Us" from "Them". It is less a religious movement than a social or political tendency. The history of Fundamentalism is rife with politicians of various sorts, from William Jennings Bryan down to Ronald Reagan. Fundamentalism also attracts wealthy businessmen who, behind the scenes, fund pamphleteering or, in more recent years, broadcasting. Indeed, the movement gets its name from "the Fundamentals", a tract published by Lyman and Milton Stewart. Lyman Stewart had made a fortune in the oil business, and was one of the founders of the Union Oil Company of California ("Unocal"). In 1908, Lyman Stewart found the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now "Biola University"). In 1909, the Stewart brothers underwrote a series of twelve volumes on what were termed "The Fundamentals", contributing $300,000, enough to ensure that millions of copies were printed and distributed.

Inside churches and schools, fundamentalism acts like a malignant tumor. It generally has to be cut out if the institution is to stay healthy. As a result, Fundamentalists are frequently expelled and have to found their own schools, and often their own churches. Fundamentalism has therefore been rejected or expelled from most big, established Protestant sects, except the Southern Baptists. In all other cases, fundamentialist have to form their own sub-denominations (for example, "Missouri Synod" Lutherans) and start their own schools -- at which point their founders are declared "reverend," "bishop" or "doctor" or whatever title they prefer. They then declare themselves the "true" believers of the denomination, and castigate the mainline church as "liberal".

Anti-intellectualism and anti-Catholic bigotry are the staples of the movement, along with stamping out some aspect of secular society. Which aspect is singled out for disfavor seems to change every few years or so. In the early 20th Century it was "Demon Rum". In the mid-20th century it was Rock and Roll. Today's preferred target of life-negation seems to be homosexuality. Oddly, anti-Semitism doesn't seem to be a big part of their agenda, due to an early link with Jewish Zionism and the belief that restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem will trigger the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ.

I don't take that "lake of fire" stuff literally, but if I did, I'd be sure the Fundies have many rooms reserved in Hell. Jesus warned:

Then he said unto the disciples: it is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him through whom they come! It would be better for him that a millstone were hung around his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Luke 17:1-2.


Postscript:

Like my spiritual ancestor, Martin Luther, I refuse to retract a single word, but for those of you who are not as perceptive or knowledgeable as my opponent, Mssr. drownzsurf, a few words of caution. First, the bitter tone comes from my personal experience in my own church (Lutheran). As a church council member I once had to have a Fundamentalist council president removed because he was making the pastor's life miserable. I know whereof I speak, but I have a definite bias. Second, don't be fooled by the logical fallacy in my argument (guilt by association). For all the charlatans and troublemakers, Fundamentalists do include some respectable Ivy League theology professors (identified by drownzsurf) in his writeup). As for the rest of them, well, I'm a lawyer by trade. It takes one to know one. Third, Troll for the Ages!

Finally, regarding dispensationalism. Pending a more comprehensive node, let this suffice: Dispensationalists believe there are (at least) three "dispensations" or rules of life, revealed in the Scriptures, viz.: the dispensation of the Mosaic law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. (Some catalog up to seven (7) different dispensations). This serves to ameliorate certain internal contradictions in the Bible, particularly when read literally. In particular, its resolves the tensions between the Old and New Testaments, and between the present Gospel of universal love and salvation, and a hoped for future "Millennium" in which non-believers are tossed into a "lake of fire" to suffer eternal torment.

To understand the terms used by the Dispensationalists you have to have some familiarity with the prophecies of the book of Revelation and Daniel, and how these differ from Old Testament prohecies. Reduced to a crude formula, however: Dispensationalists have to agree that everyone is "saved" --the Bible says so-- but they think some people are more "saved" than others. Dispensationalists like to think that they have a special table reserved in Heaven where they get to sit with Jesus and judge other people --including Old Testament saints, Catholics, and other famous "good" people --just like they do now. More orthodox Christianity insists upon a universal grace of God, without distinctions among the righteous.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.