Are non fundamentalists unsaved?

No I'm not saying that fundamentalists aren't saved. But, they won't be in heaven because they are fundamentalists. They will be there because they are Christian, no more and no less. :thumbs:

 

Here is how two prominent Fundamentalist scholars, Dr. Fred Moritz and Dr. Rolland McCune, define Fundamentalism: "The movement contains at least a doctrinal element ('the fundamentals') and a militant element ('do battle royal). Rolland D. McCune sees three major elements in Fundamentalism today, which he names 'crucial doctrine,' 'the distinctive of militancy,' and "the distinctive of ecclesiastical separation" (Contending for the Faith, by Fred Moritz, p. 10). Dr. Moritz further gives definitions by New Evangelical and liberal historians of the movement that back up his definition.

 

Well, I see where you are coming from. But please look back at your own OP. You mention fundamentalism as developing in the battle against the modernists. That willingness to fight for the faith is what originally defined fundamentalism in those days. And in those days there were many good Christians who did not believe in that, but thought we ought to cooperate with the modernists, even if they did not believe in the fundamentals.

That willingness continued throughout the 1950's, especially when Billy Graham and others invented what they called "cooperative evangelism," in which liberals were openly invited to be on the campaign commitees. I did a BB thread on this in 2005 and was vilified for it. Check out the carnage at: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4309

There are still lots of people right here on the BB who believe we ought to cosy up to the liberals. So it seems to me that the original meaning of fundamentalism, and the 1950's meaning, are still valid. Many people who I admit are good Christians (but in the fundamentalist view compromisers) still want nothing at all to do with fundamentalism, though they believe the fundamentals.

Gotta run. God bless.

 

I would say these are fundamentalist positions rather than doctrines--though there is a doctrine of ecclesiastical separation.

 

I have never seen the word "fundamentalist" in the Bible. Jesus said "You must be born again." He did NOT say "You must be a fundamentalist." I used to call myself a fundamentalist, but after the world started calling terrorists "fundamentalists", I gave up on that.

 

Edit........

 

I used to think I was a fundamentalist because I imagined "fundamentalist", in the Christian context, was American English for "conservative Christian". I thought the term originated at a conference in Niagara in 1895, where the fundamentals of Christianity were listed as: The verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the substitutionary nature of the atonement, and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ. In that sense I am a fundamentalist.

But since then I have found that fundamentalist, especially with a capital F, Fundamentalist, as used in America, sometimes includes far more than the fundamentals of the faith, such as a belief that the only correct translation of the bible into English was made in 1611, that going to a cinema is wrong, regardless of what film is being shown, and so on. If that is what a fundamentalist is, then I cannot lay claim to being one.

 

I know lots of Fundamentalists who are not KJVO and who do go to the movies--especially the young ones nowadays. Those two things do not define the historical Fundamentalist.

 

Then we are on the same side! :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

I appreciate your attitude!

The New Evangelical rationale for cooperating with the liberals was that then they could win them to Christ. My answer is, "What, shall we do evil that good may come?" Understand, I believe in witnessing to liberals, praying for them, being nice to them. But I don't believe in yoking up with them to do Christ's work. Someone who does not have the right doctrine of Christ is not qualified to work for Christ.

 

As a missionary are you not saying the same thing, "We may win them to Christ?

 

I did not mean that they did, just that the word, as sometimes used, includes far more than the fundamentals of the faith. Sorry for the misunderstanding - I should have been clearer.

 

But John of Japan was talking about the wrongness of doing evil that good may come in this context, that sinners should be won to Christ. Did you really mean that you think that JoJ (or anyone else on this Board) would "say the same thing" as that? Forgive me if I have misunderstood you.

 

Forgive me, but I don't think you quite understand. I have given my life to reach the Japanese for Christ. But the equivalent over here to what I was talking about would be for me to link up with a Buddhist or Shinto priest in a joint meeting in which he allowed me to preach the Gospel, but I in turn allowed the Buddhist to preach a sutra, or the Shintoist to discuss the myth of Amaterasu, the sun goddess. I could not trade my chance to preach the Gospel to a Buddhist for him to teach his false doctrine.

 

No problem. You are certainly right that unfortunately there are Fundamentalists who misunderstand the movement they claim to belong to so that they consider going to movies or using a MV to be liberal theology!

 

Ideas of what is proper and improper by fundamentalists change over time. When I was a child we had a neighbor whose church would not let him take communion. Why? Because he had a radio in the living room.

Others ideas I remember from childhood:

It is a sin to go to a movie on Sunday. [There was no TV.]
Only black cars are approved by God.
Hay rides are of the devil.
If you are not baptized in our church you cannot be saved.
Catholics are bad, but Northern Baptist are worse.
KJV is the only Bible to read and study.

Just a few examples.

To me there is a huge difference between the "fundamentals of the faith" and the way many who say they are fundamentalists behave and respond to others .... and yes, I've moved a long way from these positions since I was a kid.