Are non fundamentalists unsaved?

Amen. Brother David hit the nail on the head with respect to what I was trying to say in my previous post.

The five fundamentals of the faith are:

1. Inerrancy of the Scripture
2. Divinity of Christ
3. Virgin Birth
4. Substitutionary Nature of the Attonement
5. Physical Resurrection and bodily return of Christ

Now based on those fundamentals the question of the OP can be answered by asking which of these (some or all) must one believe in order to be saved?

I'd say that a full understanding of number one above is not required in order for someone to be saved. But I fully agree that it is necessary for the Christian life after salvation. I've been on the mission field in Africa where I shared the gospel and the people believed what I told them about Jesus being God in the flesh, His virgin birth, that He died for their sins, and His physical resurrection and coming bodily return. Those who believed that message were saved. However, I did not teach them, while sharing the gospel, about Biblical inerrancy. For that matter many of them could not even read.

Likewise, once in Nigeria I helped the missionaries there to teach local Baptist congregations how to tell the Creation to Christ story in 10 min. or less. This was to help local believers share the gospel in a short conversation in a hostile Muslim environment. They learned to tell the grand narrative of the Bible quickly before the local Imam could pick up on what was taking place in a conversation in the market place and come running in calling down jihad on those involved. With all that said we did teach the local Baptists to start the story by explaining that the Bible is God's Holy Word and as such it does not contain any error or untruth. However, that was an important point to make because the Muslims have been instructed that the Bible is full of errors and that only the Quran is free from error. Thus, we had to do a little apologetics up front just to get the Muslims to listen.

 

To theologians who understand the word fundamental and its history, I would say that a line must be drawn in the sand by refusing to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, or any group who espouses another gospel.

BUT! What about all of the uneducated in the scriptures and history of the church who only know that they are "spiritual" or "Christian" w/o having a definite understanding of the fundamental doctrines that binds all of Christs body together?

Most people have never heard of J. Gresham Machen. They wouldn't know Christian liberalism either by practice or by theory.

In fact, many of these list their religion as "nothing in particular."

Which leads me to ask, is this a phenomen true only in America? Or the world at large?

And, how to be a preacher of righteousness and of the gospel of the Grace of God, and to preach the fundamental doctrines of the faith, in a country where the best known preachers tell us we can have our best life now?

 

Who are "the liberals." If you mean by that so-called christians who don't accept the fundamentals of the faith like salvation through Christ's sacrifice on the cross or the need to repent of your sins and accept Him as your Lord and Savior, then I agree. If you mean disagreement in less important beliefs or political liberals then I disagree. Which one do you mean?

 

It is one thing to claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ and quite another to actually follow him.

Mt. 7:20-23, "So then, you will know them by their fruits. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven [will enter]. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

 

It is the place of the educated believer to rightly and accurately educate (read that disciple) the uneducated believers, within his circle of influence, regarding the fundamentals of the faith.

Their pastor at the very least ought to be able to understand and recognize liberalism and to rightly instruct them in the fundamentals of the faith (as outlined in my previous post) and teach them to avoid it like the plague.

Those who say something like that I would assume are really not born again Christians. If I engaged in a conversation with someone who made a statement like that I would begin with a few diagnostic questions and a very simple gospel presentation to be sure they were saved. Then I would proceed to disciple and educate them or make sure I put them in touch with someone I trusted to rightly disciple and educate them.

It is hard to say. We have cultural Christians all over the world. These are generally folks that rarely (if ever) attend church services, were baptized as infants, and think they are Christians because they have some family historical connection to Christianity.

You have to teach the truth in love regarding the false teachings that the people are hearing. The best way to do it is to preach exegetical sermons, letting the text of the Bible speak for itself, book by book and verse by verse using sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis to arrive at the proper interpretation of the biblical texts.

 

I mean the theological definition of liberal, which is someone who does not accept one or more of the fundamentals of the faith.

Here are some statements about liberalism from Millard Erickson, noted Southern Baptist theologian (and not a Fundamentalist by the way), from his systematic theology entitled Christian Theology:

(1) "Although liberalism is not naturalism, it has similar tendencies, tending to view God as working exclusively through natural processes rather than through radical discontinuities with nature (miracles). The liberal is happy to accept evolution as an example of God at work" (p. 331).

(2) "Liberals do not believe that humans' original nature has been corrupted; rather, they view human nature as intrinsically good and capable of developing further" (p. 332).

(3) "Liberalism, however, rejected the idea of the resurrection of the body" (p. 1181).

 

Exactly. Liberal "Christianity" has a different Christ (only a man), a different Gospel (the social gospel), a different Bible (one filled with historical and scientific errors) and a different humankind (one that is essentially good instead of depraved).

 

Then both of you would agree that if a presumed liberal on this board acknowledged the fundamentals of the faith as presented here they should not be called a liberal? How about the term moderate or simply Christian?

 

Okay well I am personally not a fundamentalist by any means but what is most important to me is my relationship with the Lord. For me thats the basis of my faith and I know for fundamentalists its all about black and white and I know for me there are alot of gray areas but to tell people because they arent fundamentalist they arent saved is very wrong. because you dont know their hearts heck you dont know my heart so we cannot judge others.

 

I never attach the liberal label without definitive proof that a person rejects a fundamental of the faith. In fact, on the BB I have never yet called a fellow poster a liberal.

 

wrong

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Jer 17:9 The human mind is more deceitful than anything else.
It is incurably bad. Who can understand it?

 

Thanks. I am not a preacher. But I appreciate your response.

 

fundamentalists

By the way it's no coincidence that "fund" are the first four letters. If you mess with their doctrine or their funds, you might get a riot going quicker over the funds!.....anyway, I just have a sneakin' feelin' as the saying goes, that a whole lot of what we term fundamentalists are going to be shocked to find the next mansion in heaven housed by some of our Catholic,Church of Christ etc, friends....my grandma used to say we(she was talking about our denomination)look down our nose easily at others because we've stuck it into so many places it shouldn't be,that it's grown an extra foot. :BangHead: as Opie once said, "it makes me kinda sad"

 

It is just such generalizations as this that contribute to the general misunderstanding of what Fundamentalism really is. By "fundamentalist" here, do you mean Bible Presbyterians, IFCA, BBF, FBF, SBF, GARB, WBF, HFPF (Hokkaido Fundamental Pastors Fellowship), those in the SBC who call themselves fundamentalist, or some other group?

Welcome to the BB anyway. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I see your point. I probibly didn't make my point clear enough. I do that often,sorry. My point was after reading some of the preceeding posts, the bad method being used to deliver the good content is doing damage.. more and more I hear too many stories of people running away from someone who call themselves a fundamentalist,and it has nothing to do with the definition of the word--its the attitudes of the deliverer.Let me give you a real life example of what turns people off, to people who call themselves "fundamentalists". My son graduated from a Catholic school(we're not Catholic),up until his last two years in school he was in a "Christian" school that make a big thing out of being fundamental. What they didnt promote in their brochure was that if they ever did anything that could be challanged with scriputre,in short, you'll lose and they'll win. I've since discovered from other parents this is an attitude that is not rare...Now my son is intelligent enough to know(working on his masters,and invited to present some of his work overseas this summer) that the fundamentals are still the fundalmentals, but dont even expect him to have as much respect for (your denomination here)fundamentalist as he does for the Catholic who exhibited much more Christ likeness in their attitudes in delivering and living by not only the fundamentals,but the terciary aspects of Christian life. People will accept a speeding ticket from a nice polite officer than from a judgmental ranting cop. many of us quit going to the l00% fundamental Sword conferences after wittnessing too many pompous attitudes on stage. As for the original point posting, Im not as concerned with whether non-fundamentalists are saved as much as I am the unsaved looking at the attitude of many fundamentalists and thinking "no thanks,if that's saved,i'll pass"

 

I see your point. I probibly didn't make my point clear enough. I do that often,sorry. My point was after reading some of the preceeding posts, the bad method being used to deliver the good content is doing damage.. more and more I hear too many stories of people running away from someone who call themselves a fundamentalist,and it has nothing to do with the definition of the word--its the attitudes of the deliverer.Let me give you a real life example of what turns people off, to people who call themselves "fundamentalists". My son graduated from a Catholic school(we're not Catholic),up until his last two years in school he was in a "Christian" school that make a big thing out of being fundamental. What they didnt promote in their brochure was that if they ever did anything that could be challanged with scriputre,in short, you'll lose and they'll win. I've since discovered from other parents this is an attitude that is not rare...Now my son is intelligent enough to know(working on his masters,and invited to present some of his work overseas this summer) that the fundamentals are still the fundamentals, but dont even expect him to have as much respect for (your denomination here)fundamentalist as he does for the Catholic who exhibited much more Christ likeness in their attitudes in delivering and living by not only the fundamentals,but the terciary aspects of Christian life. People will accept a speeding ticket from a nice polite officer than from a judgmental ranting cop. many of us quit going to Sword conferences after wittnessing too many pompous attitudes on stage. As for the original point posting, Im not as concerned with whether non-fundamentalists are saved as much as I am the unsaved looking at the attitude of many fundamentalists and thinking "no thanks,if that's saved,i'll pass"