How do I respond to a Fundamentalist who asserts Luke misrepresented Mary’s power and selfishly seeded false worship specifically among the pagan gentiles who created The Catholic Church?
That’s a new one for me.
Am I understanding this correctly? Is this Fundamentalist actually claiming part of Luke’s gospel is wrong?
That would indeed be surprising, are you sure they aren’t saying that the interpretation of the RCC is what they disagree with?
I do not think so. There are those who believe the Marian devotions were foistered by the Romans based on a Roman god…I forgot who.
Right, but it would be surprising to run into a Fundamentalist that thinks Luke himself wasn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he did in the Gospel of Luke. Rather, the argument would usually be that the RCC twisted what Luke wrote, or something similar.
Ask him for the evidence for his claim. Evidence, not speculation, theorizing, ideas, or “just-so” stories.
He won’t have any.
Also, it is very peculiar to have a fundamentalist belittle an author of Scripture, especially someone so closely associated with Paul, since there’s almost a certain Pauline Primacy in many fundamentalist circles. Is he involved with some kind of “prophetic” movement, claiming to correct the canon of the Bible? Only thing I could think of to explain that notion…
There are alot of tiny sects out there…and this could be one of those I would advice letting go…not unless you want to spend your time with them…
Actually, it doesn’t surprise me that someone would claim scripture got it wrong. Dismay me, but not surprise. I’ve seen it before.
I’ve seen claims that Matthew 16:18 was added by the Catholic Church at a later date, just to support the papacy.
I’ve also seen a claim that we can ignore Christ’s statement that to remarry after divorce is committing adultery. I once saw a post on another forum by a Protestant who said something to the effect of “Well, it’s true Jesus said that, but I’m sure God understands that in my case, I shouldn’t have to live without love.”
And I’ve also heard a Catholic who told me it was okay for Bill Clinton to lie under oath because the subject matter was sex and all men lie about that. (This may surprise you: It was a woman who told me that.)
I remember a sub-sect of fundamental Baptists who adhere only to Paul’s epistles. I’m thinking Landmark Baptists, but my memory is cloudy.
No great surprise there.
Wowzer, that’s a new one on me! Not surprising in general, but being “Baptist” and believing that is a bit of a “hunh?” I do know of one group that is the opposite; they believe everyone except Paul. :shrug:
I know they were KJV-only.
Here it is Kliska:
The Grace Movement (Hyper-dispensationalism, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, ultra-dispensationalism, or more rarely, “Bullingerism” to which ‘ultra-dispensationalism’ properly applies,) is a Protestant doctrine that basically views the teachings of the Apostle Paul both as unique from earlier apostles and as foundational for the church, a perspective sometimes characterized by proponents as the “Pauline Distinctive.”
I wouldn’t respond at all.
Thank you all for the input and had a prayerful meditation and a learning experience!
Thank you! I was searching, but gave up. lol Also looked up the Landmark Baptists, hadn’t heard of them either.
I think I’m wrong on their association with Landmarkers. I don’t think they are Baptists either.
First pray for them. You might also want to tell them they aren’t a fundamentalist unless they mean young earther when they say it. Then point them to resources that prove they are wrong. Invite them to a small group or service activity, and strap yourself in for a long ride. Ohh yeah pray some more!
I have never heard of Landmarkers.
Landmarkers are the “Trail of Blood” group, revisionist history. They believe the original Christians were Baptists and the Baptist church remained underground from the early church on.