Are non fundamentalists unsaved?

I find this reasoning a bit specious.

I, respectfully, disagree here too. We aren't called to knowledge but faith. There is a cogent difference between faith and intellectual assent. The thief on the cross didn't need to recite a catechism to get into Heaven.

 

You seem to have completely missed what was said in the op.

 

That's an inadequate definition of fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is not just someone who holds to the fundamentals, but also someone who, in the words of Curtis Lee Laws, does "battle royal" for them.

The idea of fundamentals is that they are the load-bearing doctrines, without which Christianity ceases to exist, so this is probably correct. We should however draw a distinction between repudiation of a doctrine, and simple ignorance of it. Not knowing the virgin birth, or not knowing the ramifications of it is not the same as repudiating it. A true believer might do the former in ignorance. A true believer cannot do the latter.

 

Before answering the question I think we had better be specific about what you mean when you say "fundamentalist" and/or "the fundamentals of the faith." Different people define those terms in vastly different ways. For example some would say that the fundamentals of the faith include things like: no long hair on men, no short hair on women, women not allowed to wear slacks, KJVO, and other stuff. Others would say the fundamentals of the faith are limited to about five things (the virgin birth of Christ, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the miracles of Christ, the return of Christ, and the deity of Christ).

 

Faith requires knowledge. There must be something to be believed.

 

While I believe in the fundamentals of the faith I would not call myself a fundamentalist. There will be no fundamentalists in heaven. There will only be Christians.

 

Are you intending to suggest that fundamentalists aren't saved?

 

A liberal friend of mine once described me as conservative, but not fundamentalist, because, he said, "Tom's not mad at anybody."

 

That is funny.

 

It's also an unfortunate misrepresentation. I know a lot of fundamentalists and none of them are made at anyone.

 

Who are fundamentalists then if everyone can define what that means? Are fundamentalists those who define themselves to be fundamentalists? Actually, I think that's true.

 

Many years ago, I was what I consider to be fundamentalist. Over the years, I have seen the error of my earlier way of thinking. So, if I can't be a Christian without being a fundamentalist, does that negate the salvation I received in those early years? And is a fundamentalist always a biblical literalist? I have my belief on these things, but they are points to ponder, are they not?

 

Don't know why this double posted. Edited to remove duplicate post.

 

Remember this is a comment by a liberal about a fundamentalist. Is this a surprise? He's making fun of them. He has no use for conservatives either, but because we're friends he's taking the sting out of it for me.

I took it as a joke, anyway.

 

I told you on another thread that Fundamentalism is not just believing the Fundamentals. Historically it also means standing and fighting for them. I gave as an example the fact that Billy Graham and Francis Schaeffer deliberately rejected the term Fundamentalist. You ignored me then. (That's fine, I can take it.)

However, now you have started a thread saying that many misuse the term. I say that you here are misusing the term. Are you at all familiar with the development of New Evangelicalism in the 1950's, kicked off by the news release of Harold John Ockenga? The controversy concerning the 1957 New York Billy Graham Crusade? If not, you don't know anything about the history of the movement. So for you to try to define the term is useless.