The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

In recent posts I've read that Rob Bell has a problem with fundamentalists and the that one of my B.org buddies here also chimed in saying, "I too have a problem with most Evangelicals - especially "Fundamentalist Evangelicals" (most of whom are neither fundamental nor evangelical)..."

I've often wondered where I fit in under either of these terms. I was raised Catholic; I've been a Christian since 1972. I spent five years on staff with a para-church organization and have at various times attended Lutheran, non-denominational and Baptist churches. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I believe in the five Solas of the Reformation and all five petals of the TULIP (which I might add, were not positions that any of the churches I've attended fully subscribed to).

I've never read The Fundamentals, from whence the term "fundamentalism" is derived, but I'm pretty sure I would agree with most of their points. So, am I a "Fundamentalist" or not? And if I am why should I be afraid to identify myself as such? If not, who are these people who I should run from if I ever meet them?

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

labels can be used to quickly gauge a person or trap 1 w/ stereotypes that may not fit -- i'm a Christian -- the rest is irrelevant

sure, i'm not liberal, Pentecostal, nor Catholic but hey

there's not 1 person in here i've agreed w/ 100% tho a few come close -- agreement is fine on the ancillary stuff

****Could a mod fix the title typo. thanks.**** (Done)

Some stray thoughts.

Fundamentalist Evangelical I mostly hear in religious circles or read in the media being used of people who neither focus on the fundamentals or are evangelical.

The statement of belief here says
The connotation of fundamentalist most commonly used these days is one of intolerance, whether it is Christian or Muslim fundamentalist. (And Richard Dawkins is an example of an atheist fundamentalist evangelist.)
Evangelist ought to have the connotation of bringing good news, but the news a lot bring is really bad news, so I call them kakangelists.

The intolerance is betrayed by those who call themselves things like 'bible believing Christians' as they cast themselves against other Christians who they must think do not believe the bible. They also like to use terms such as 'real Christians' and 'truly Christian' in the same way to demarcate people who think like them against the others they think of as heretics or apostate.
They are the ones that love to dominate using rules and let the love of God take a back seat.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

I think the term "Fundamentalist" has shifted (at least regarding Church usage) since its early beginnings. For those original coiners it referred to those who held to belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, virgin birth, sin-atoning death, bodily resurrection and historical reality of the miracles of Christ. These were a rallying call against the "liberals" of the early 20th century who questioned or opposed such beliefs. It did not take long though before many others claimed the term "fundamentalist" with regard to specific eschatologies, creation-evolution beliefs, clothing, translational choices, worship music choices, etc. This seems to have been somewhat related to the rise of "Evangelicalism" in the mid-1900s...which held to those original "fundamentals" but rejected the extraneous additions others calling themselves "fundamentalists" held to. The term is really quite pejorative in our current context as it lost its truly "fundamental" nature and simply became any pet doctrine someone thought was important enough to divide over instead of something genuinely (i.e., historically and even creedally) "fundamental" to the Christian Faith.

So I guess it would be WONDERFUL from my perspective, Jim, if you wished to use it in its historical sense, but not nearly so much in its modern sense.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

In Passing.
Using the name The Fundamentals for a 6 Volume Work sounds a misnomer.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

Fundamentalists are absolutists.

I recommend you read this article. Keep your ears open, read between the lines and especially, I repeat, especially, think on what he remarks about "Scottish common sense realism".

Quote
Inductive vs. Deductive Approaches to Inerrancy

My response to the above question is twofold. First, before the New Testament was written, how did people come to faith in Christ? To assume that having a complete Bible is necessary before we can know anything about Christ is both anachronistic and counterproductive. Our epistemology has to wrestle with the spread of the gospel before the Gospels were penned. The very fact that it spread so fast—even though the apostles were not always regarded highly—is strong testimony both to the work of the Spirit and to the historical evidence that the eyewitnesses affirmed.

http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy

Blessings!

_________________
Sam

All Scripture references from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.

If I am not mistaken, did not legalism birth/transform out of fundamentalism after the standoff with liberalism during the midpoint of the last century? I know my Grandmother’s church was very legalistic 30-40 years ago. It was a very defined inner circle of church believers with a set of codes, does that sound about right?

_________________
Kola,

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Not if I understand Galatians correctly.

I absolutely believe there is a God therefore I'm a Fundamentalist?????
I absolutely believe Jesus is God the Son therefore, I'm a Fundamentalist????

That is what started this designation in the beginning. That work was a foundation for the conversation which Antipater refers briefly to. BTW the 6 Volume work is well worth the read!

I'm not fond of the label because of the current cultural connotations. Mostly I seem to agree here with Antipater but I truly am a "Fundamentalist" in the origional/historical sense of the term.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

I'm also a "Fundamentalist" because I believed that the Scripture is God breathed words.

But a fundamentalist maybe wrong if he read and understand the Bible literally and not spiritually as manifested in
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also made us able minister of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (NKJV)

_________________
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Isaiah 52:7

Great point, Verbatim. Love your choice of scripture! Sometimes I would call myself a conservative; other times a liberal Christian. What's in a name?

_________________
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,"
behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION" --
The apostle Paul, NASB

It's been around since the Medes and the Persians, and probably forever.
In Daniel 6 a legalistic approach is used to trap Daniel, but praise be that God rescued him from the law which brings death..

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

Hey, don't be such an absolutist about my typing!

Thanks for all the responses.
Well, the origin of the word is a perjorative hurled at those who believed the bible in the early 20th century and stood strongly against liberalism which was taking over the mainline protestant denomoniations. Just as the word Puritan is also used perjoratively, I would proudly stand with many Puritans who were solid Christians and the "fundamentalists" of their day. It is a shame that many who profess to follow Christ stand shoulder to shoulder with those who don't follow Christ in "labeling" fellow believers, lest they be thought of as like those "fundamentalists" over there. Intolerance runs both ways, does it not?

Labels are words and words are what distinguish man from the animal kingdom. They reveal thoughts and describe actions and enable us to communicate more efficiently. Labels sometimes need fleshing out, but, you tell me an animal is a dog and it gives me a pretty good idea what it is, having heard only one word to describe it. You tell me an animal has four legs, two eyes, two ears, hair all over its body, a long tail, claws on its feet, a wet nose and I still cannot distinguish betwee a dog, a cat, a rat and who knows how many other creatures that have those features. (I do, however, know that it is a mammal, since the label "mammal" has been applied to those creatures of the animal kingdom that have hair.)

I guess my conclusion is, I am still a fundamentalist in the true sense of the word, even though I try to follow the guidelines of Romans 14, being careful not to judge a brother in gray areas (though I certainly fail in this area more than I care to admit). I absolutely believe I have the freedom in Christ to have a beer or a glass of wine, without drinking to excess or drunkenness, and I absolutely believe that any of you is free to remain as a tea-totaler. I absolutely believe the Bible to be inerrant, but I absolutely believe some are reborn who do not have that same belief. I absolutely believe that sinners are going to hell without the grace of God. I absolutely believe that grace is found only in Jesus Christ. I absolutely believe there is only one God, Who exists in the form of three Persons of the Trinity. I absolutely believe that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is one distinguishing mark of the true Christian. I absolutely believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and is God, the second Person of the Trinity. I believe that anyone who does not believe that does not have a saving faith. If that makes me an absolutist, so be it. I can live with that.

The point of The Fundamentals was that a group of Christians, (but certainly not a worldwide "ecuminical" council) was attempting to set out those issues which separated true believers from false professors. We all do that today, despite not all agreeing on the dividing line.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

I did not know this post or that you were expanding beyond the recent/present ethos of American religiosity to a past that cannot possibly share any semblance to this OP. I suppose an inference could be made but weakly at that, times have changed and the last reasonable remark that made any sense, is
” the church is two steps behind the culture” How you correlate Daniel 6 with that is a bit iffy, you think

_________________
Kola,

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

I'm pedantic that way. And my posts are peppered with typos and missed words I find too late to correct.



Christian was originally a pejoratives for those "atheists" whose had no Gods in their temples.

Liberal is also used as a pejorative. It is a shame that many who profess to follow Christ don't stand shoulder to shoulder with their fellow Christians but label them as not being real or true or Bible-believing Christians. So many intolerant labels. It certainly does run both ways. Is solid another demarcation label? I would stand with any Christian who acts out of the Love of God for their neighbour or their enemy, regardless of denomination or other nomination.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

1 can label a view as "liberal" w/o accusing the owner of being unsaved -- these are 2 very separate things