Evangelical, Fundamental, or both?

Acts 11:25-26 (Riveduta 1927 (Italian))
Poi Barnaba se ne andò a Tarso, a cercar Saulo; e avendolo trovato, lo menò ad Antiochia. 26 E avvenne che per lo spazio d’un anno intero parteciparono alle raunanze della chiesa, ed ammaestrarono un gran popolo; e fu in Antiochia che per la prima volta i discepoli furon chiamati Cristiani.

Acts 11:25-26 (translated from above by Google Translate):
Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to seek Saul: and having found him, brought him to Antioch. It happened that for the space of a year attended the convocations of the church, and train a great nation, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

Now, I am a disciple of Jesus, the Messiah. Am I to be called a 'Cristiani' or a 'Christian'? Either one or both works for me.

Am I to be called 'fundamental' and 'evalgelical'? Either one or both works for me.

 

Historically, there was no distinction. The term Evangelical was essentially synomous to the recent term Fundamentalist. The term Fundamentalist rose out the reponse of Bible-believers to modernism.

Forgive me if I get my timelines wrong, but I don't have my recource work here. Either around the same time or a bit later, there arose a group that called themselves "New Evangelicals" and referred to the old evangelicals as fundamentalists. The term fundamentalists came, incidently, from a host of treatise written on the fundamentals of the Chrisitan faith and compiled into a multi-volume set called "The Fundamentals" You can get a copy from CBD.

I recommend
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/item_detail.php?4969

Book Title: Old Evangelicalism - Old Truths for a New Awakening
Author : Iain H. Murray
Price: $ 26.00
ISBN#: 9780851519012
Binding: Clothbound
Page Count : 226
Description: Sin, regeneration, justification by Christ's righteousness, the cross, and the love of God, assurance of salvation - these are the truths that once thrilled churches and changed nations. Yet, where evangelicalism continues to affirm these truths, without such results, it is often assumed that she must have needs that cannot be met without something new.

These addresses by Iain Murray challenge that mindset. While the Bible not history is the textbook in these pages, Murray draws on the best authors of the old evangelicalism to confirm what a glorious message the gospel is.

 

I'm guessing that some evangelicals are fundamentalists who have shed the name because of some negative connotations.

The following was funny to me and not meant to offend anybody:

A very liberal former college classmate and I were renewing acquaintances with another classmate whom we hadn't seen in many years. He said, "Tom's conservative but he's not fundamentalist because he's not mad at anybody."

That gave me sort of a hint as to the image that fundamentalists were trying to shed by calling themselves evangelicals.

 

I disagree that Evangelicals and fundamentalists are essentially the same. J. Greshem Machen rejected the idea of being a fundamentalist but he would have embraced an old evangelicalism to a degree. I reject modern evangelicalism and a slight portion of old Evangelicalism... I do not hold to Fundamentalism either for reasons I will describe below.

Piper remarked about the difference in Fundamentalism and Machen (and me) in one of his books when he said:

I would not speak of myself of a fundamentalist for that reason. I would not hold to Evangelicalism for reasons in that from the beginning it was too broadly defined in too many segments and lacked clarity. Even the NAE just holds to "innerancy of Scripture", which I believe is too broad to define any theological group, making it destined to fail.

 

I don't understand how a Christian can be a fundamentalist without being an evangelical.
All these separations and long winded detailing of every tiny word has led to the splintering of Christinity, turning the whole religion into an inefficient, discombobulated mess with no true power.
In our zeal to "get it right," we kinda killed ourselves. The "world" didn't change, the Christians did, and that gave evil the upper hand.
Of course we all knew evil would start winning out, because the Bible told us that. It's just that I used to think it would be because people would get more evil, not because Christians (nearly inadvertantly) made Christianity ineffective.

 

There is a differance in nuance of the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalist".

nuance: a subtle difference in meaning or opinion or attitude, a difference in shades of meaning.

To me
"Evangelical" carries the flavor of those who are "spreading" the Gospel.
"Fundamentalist" carries the nuance of those who are "defending" the Gospel.

To be sure, one can do both.

The modern problem is that the nuances of words can evolve and change in accord with the events of the passage of time.

"Fundamentalist" has absorbed the nuance of violence and bloodshed over the last two or three decades. Unfortunately people don't distinguish between the classes of fundamentalists (Islamic, Christian, etc) but view "fundamentalist" at a group level.

HankD

 

Fundamentalism "1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs"

Evangelicalism "1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2 : PROTESTANT
3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual"

Both from Merriam-Webster

Fundamentalism started with men of many faiths that held to the five fundamentals of the Gospel. Evangelicalism came along a tad later, in my mind to separate a little from the fiery fundamentalists. New Evangelicalism was a reaction to both the above. Fundamental/evangelical doctrine would probably be very similar but evangelicals getting away from the strictness of lifestyle.

New evangelicalism primarily similar doctrine but a lesser view of the Scriptures and acceptance of the charismatic influence of worship.

Today evangelical and new evangelical are one in the same except the new has a poor view of Scripture and the evangelical would hold to a high view of the Word.

The three still are not the same to me but many do use the terms interchangeably.

 

IMO, one has to "play it by ear".

I would say it depends on the listeners. In a mixed group, I avoid using the word "fundamentalist" anymore and use a euphamism like "contenders of the faith" instead of "fundamentalist".

HankD

 

Have you read Murray's book?

 

I have not read this book by Ian, but I have read many others including Evangelicalism Divided. I, however do not believe fundamentalism and evangelicalism are synonymous as Machen and others from Old Princeton were reluctant of Fundamentalism for the reasons I outlined from Piper's book.

If Evangelicalism is defined as Martin Lloyd Jones' book "What is an Evangelical", I would be more likely to be an evangelical. Even in Murray's book "Evangelicalism Divided" shows a strong and early division in Evangelicalism and strong disagreements with Fundamentalism.

I, too, would have a problem with the word "fundamentalist" for the same reasons Machen had problems. I think I would have had problems with the term Evangelical for the reasons I saw outlined in Evangelicalism Divided in the late 60's or early 70's.

So, I think early on there was not as much of an agreement among fundamentalism as some would like us to believe. By the teens and 20's there were people who saw problems and lines drawn that were not beneficial to the movement. Machen recognized they were dear brothers but would not have wanted to be called one. I, too, agree.

I will check out Ian's book when I get done with this Masters degree. I love reading his work and more often than not agree with him.

 

It's possible I may have misunderstood Murray, or just am uninformed about the changes that took place. I thought that essentially evangelicals were "fundamental" on essentially five areas modernism was challenging, and so got called fundamentalists, but were more commonly known as evangelicals.

Then there was a group of evangelicals that began to move away from some of the fundamentals, take on a more social Gospel, and reject separation. And these were called New Evangelicals which just came to be called Evangelicals.

Certainly the term fundamentalist carries a negative connotation today. So much so, that to self-describe oneself as one carries enough baggage with it that it may even be impoper to do so as it would not communicate what we wish.

Words are symbols and I am not sure the symbol "fundamentalist" really describes us as it may have in the past. Bible-believer seems more appropriate to me. But I have been labeled a fundie because of my view of Scripture or some other Bible doctrine.

Certainly interesting history though.

 

Not having read Ian's book, I cannot address exactly what he said. Yes, there are basically 5 fundamentals thus in a technical fashion, I would be a fundamentalist. However, fundamentalists held to more than just the 5 defining fundamentals and were known by more than those areas. That is why Machen and some at Old Princeton, while recognizing them as Godly men and friends, could not hold to their position.

 

fundamental should not be considered negative.
the historic reason why 'fundamental' seems to be negative... is because of the papal anti-christ. since their false church is non-fundamental (compared to the Bible)... they wanted to find words to make their Bible believing enemies look like crazies. for example the papal anti-christ even called Bible Christians, 'heretics'. how smart for satan to take adjectives that should positivity describe a Bible believer and label them 'fundamentals', 'heretics', etc... its actually a deception of satan. look at the definition of fundamental below.

fun·da·men·tal (fnd-mntl)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary:
b. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure;

if a person has a 'fundamental' golf swing, are they looney? a-Rod has a 'fundamental' baseball swing, does that make him looney? ok, forget that one... :smilewinkgrin:

you know what i am trying to say. fundamental baptists just believe the Bible... if they are looney, that has nothing to do with being fundamental....