Featured Fundementalism and neo-evanglicalism

The "fundamentals" of the far left are the same as for the "far right" -- intolerance and condemnation of any and all beliefs different from theirs. That being the case, it renders specifics rather irrelevant.

 

I suggest that you know little to nothing about what fundamentalism is and it's history. There are fundamental doctrines that define fundamentalism to which all fundamentalists adhere. The far left have no similar set of doctrines. We fundamentalists define ourselves beginning with those doctrines. Your reply here brands you as completely ignorant of this history.

I thought maybe we could actually have a civil discussion here, wherein you tell me what you believe as a moderate and I interact with that. I honestly don't know where you're coming from. But no. Your tolerance only extends to those like you. You are completely intolerant of us fundamenalists! (What did I ever do to you to earn such intolerance?) You obviously want nothing whatever to do with me. Have a good one.

 

Sorry, somehow I missed this post.

I agree with you except where you say "Christ talked much more about how we should treat each other than in what we believe." He actually talked a great deal about what (who, actually) we are to believe in, Himself! That is the main theme of the Gospel of John, and in fact the entire NT. (Which is not to say that how we treat each other is not of vital importance.)

Now concerning that, a true fundamentalist will take his stand on that very thing, faith in Christ, based on 2 John 9-11--

This passage is clear that the doctrine of Christ, Christology if you will, is of fundamental, vital importance. And that is where fundamentalism originally came from, an effort to defend the doctrine of Christ: His virgin birth, deity, sinless life, sacrificial death, bodily resurrection and 2nd coming.

 

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

Historically speaking, you're correct. However, recent broader usages of the term "Fundamentalist" have come to mean those who are intolerant of any interpretation of scripture that differs from their own, and is now applied to anyone whose intolerance appears to be built around their own, very legalistic interpretation of any particular set of beliefs, such as "Fundamentalist Muslims," for example.

I have heard the term "fundamentalists of the left" applied to those in the SBC conflict who left after the conservatives regained control of the denomination and formed their own groups, like the Alliance of Baptists and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Within those groups are those who push for ordaining women to serve as pastors, and ordaining gays and lesbians, and are so insistent upon their position that they want to break fellowship and exclude those who don't want to go that route. I don't know if the term has been applied from within the Episcopal Church or not, but their governing body is forcing acceptance of gay ordination on the church, even at the expense of losing members in droves, and in some cases, entire congregations. I've heard a few refer to those individuals as "fundamentalists of the left," though I don't know that the term has common use inside the Episcopal Church.

The term "fundamentalist" is becoming equated with "intolerant," regardless of the belief system involved.

 

Salty, I ran across this pastor of some note while researching Hamilton Square Baptist Church guest preachers:

From Pastor Albert Ehrgott's daughter's book Family and Berkeley Memories, p. 260:

http://archive.org/details/familyberkelymem00fielrich

 

If one believes in the inspiration of Scripture, that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the words of Paul are the words of Jesus Christ. I believe Scripture tells us:

Jophn 1:1, 2
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.

 

John

I agree whole heartedly with you on the flag.

 

The above are essential to the Christian Faith. I believe a person who has been regenerated by God the Holy Spirit and confessed Faith in Jesus Christ as their only Savior will come to believe these essentials. I would add at least one more as defined in the Chalcedon Creed {below} and perhaps others.

I do not accept the Roman Catholic or Orthodox understanding of Mary as the Mother of God. She was the mother of the human nature of Jesus Christ. God has no Mother!

I would also add that Christians would do well to heed the words of Jesus Christ as given to the Apostle John and quoted above!

 

All too frequently people equate religious conservatives, those who hold to the fundamentals of the Faith, with those considered politically conservative. That is certainly not true in all cases though there are some on this Forum who are liberal politically and religiously.

I would note that Barry Goldwater was a political conservative but would be considered a religious liberal [Episcopalian] by many. I would also note that Pat Buchanan is considered a right wing nut by many but being Roman Catholic would be considered a religious liberal by many!

 

Lingistically speaking, the term has come to have a negative connotative meaning in addition to its historical denotative meaning. I consider this to be the fault of the leftist media, and am disappointed that good evangelical Christians have bought into it, as can often be seen on this forum.

I know Fundamentalist leaders who are aware of the negative connotations of the term but are not sure what to do about it. Our identity has been besmirched and stolen, and there is little we can do about it. However, that is true of Bible-believing Christians. We bear the "reproach of Christ" (Heb. 11:26) and are "outside the camp" with Him (Heb. 13:13).

This is one problem of the new evangelical approach. They want to be accepted by the world. They want new evangelical scholars to be respected by liberal scholars. It just doesn't happen!

Thanks for this information. I didn't know this.

This is due to Christians following the semantics of the secular press. Fortunately, in Japan the media uses a different term for "fundamentalism" for the Muslim radicals than do Christians over here.

 

Would that our pastors and churches would think about this issue more deeply. I think we're past the point in America where we can hold up our society as "Christian" like we used to. Therefore, do we still want to give the message in our churches that fundamental Christianity = patriotism? Such a view is anathema on most mission fields of the world. Only in America!

 

Wouldn't the actual term trefer to mainly though tot he fact of Christians who choose to stand firm in the Fundamentals of the faith when Liberal christianity viewoints the Bible, cross, jesus hit the church?

 

"Standing firm" is the key. It does not make one a fundamentalist simply to believe in the fundamentals, since the 1950s New Evangelicals believed exactly like the fundamentalists on the fundamentals of the faith. I would go so far as to say "stand against" liberalism (not liberals, but their heretical beliefs). Many fundamentalists say separatism is necessary to be a fundamentalist, and I lean towards that. At the very least, being a fundamentalist will make the liberals and moderates separate from you, as seen in the SBC in recent years!