Evangelical, Fundamental, or both?

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....

 

Good Post Ruiz! Ive had these same clashes & arguments on just these points with my brother (a Fundamentalist Minister). Thanks

 

Great insight Gina.....you can even see the hostilities in posts @ BB all leading to hardheartedness (& coming from supposed Christians). Is there any wonder the world turns a deaf ear to Christianity?

 

Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we had a pastor who was doctrinally sound, an outstanding pulpiteer and one who was a self-described fundamentalist. We are SBC, by the way.

This was at a time when some SBC churches were leaving the convention because of liberalism by the leadership, and in our seminaries. Although there was never any move in our church to do the same, we tended to hold in high regard the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist leaders, such as John R. Rice, Jack Hyles and the like. Dr. Rice's Sword of the Lord was on our reading list.

And, like many Baptist churches of that era, we descended into legalism, the kind identified with IFB churches at that time. With the rise of the Conservative Resurgence in 1979, arrival of a younger pastor with different ideas, we gradually moved away from the legalism. The young pastor was quite conservative, but did not identify with the fundamentalists. He called himself an evangelical. And because of his influence, so did most of the rest of us.

We didn't change our doctrines or our conservative orientation. We simply changed the way we described ourselves.

What's my label today? Not sure. So, for the time being, I am a "right-wing, redneck, deep water Baptist." But I'm still not mad at anybody.

 

...
By contrast, I Am a Christian, Protestant, Fundamental, Evangelical, Proggressive, Dispensationalsit, Classical Armininan, Pre-Millinial, Pre-trib, Flee Will baptist of the Southern Baptist group.

Flee Will = opposite of Free Will -- When I believed in my heart that God had raised Jesus from the dead and and confessed Jesus as my Lord -- I had FLED my WILL and Jesus became both my Lord & Savior.

 

I believe it is somewhat a matter of semantics. One group of Christians might hold to ten things they believe to be a fundamental. Another group, believing the first group doesn't go far enough, holds to twelve things.

 

Maybe not as a general rule these days. But 30-40 years ago, the definition would have fit perfectly. Even in the Southern Baptist culture I grew up in, the 40s and 50s , we were defined by what we shouldnt' do as by what we believed. We didn't define ourselves as fundamentalists. We were just Baptists who didn't smoke, drink or chew or go with girls that do. We also didn't dance, go to movies on Sunday (or do anything else on Sunday, for that matter); we could play Rook but most anything else was suspect. Also suspect were short skirts and long hair. It wasn't legalist, it was just Baptist.

The fundamentalist label came later after we discovered that the SBC seminaries were infested with liberals, the whole mess, and we didn't want to be linked with them. By the time the Conservative Resurgence picked up steam, we were already moving away from the term, mainly because the liberals used it as an epithet, with emphasis on the second syllable. And we were also moving away from the legalism, after recoiling from an extremism some IFB churches embraced. Many IFBs have also moved away from extreme legalism, but for a long while, IFB and legalism were synonymous.

These are mainly observations out of my experience, so maybe they don't apply universally.

 

One Word....Yuk!

 

Tom, I was brought up in a very Calvinistic Presbyterian home, it looks like we were about like your Baptist except we didn't go out to eat on Sunday or shop but the shopping was due to the blue law of the day and we didn't go to the movie house or dance. I do know the women of our church use to give the Baptist women a little rass because the Baptist women didn't die their hair.

I've long ago left the Calvinistic and Presbyterians teachings but I still don't go out to eat on Sunday or shop or dance or go to the movies, just not my cup of tea. Oh yes I'm like those Baptist women back in the 40's and 50's I don't die my hair, I'm just glad I have hair who cares if it is gray or what ever.

 

It would help me if you'd flesh out your comment. In hindsight I can see how legalism is perilously close to salvation by works. But while we were in the middle of it, most of us were quite comfortable with it. These were not bad people putting on an act. These were devoted believers who desired righteous living, and believed strongly that long hair sent a message of rebellion, and that Sunday fun was not keeping the Sabbath day holy.

Please do not judge these folks too harshly. They were motivated by a desire to please God and wanted the entire church to be examples of holy living. Where we got into legalism was linking our behavior to our salvation, or as a measure of our spirituality.

It's akin to our pointing out how humble we are, and how proud we are of our humility.

Legalism is less about the do's and don'ts than the attitude that can result.

By the way, there are still some things we as believers should avoid and abstain from. You get your list up and I'll get mine and we'll compare them.

 

I don't like labels per se, except I am not ashamed to call myself Baptist...leave all other labels off the name baptist.

Those of us who grew up in the midst of battles against liberal modernism understand the stand for the King James Versions, our main Bible in that battle against the RSV, the standard Bible of the modernists. We understand the term fundamentalist, again in that context; fundamentalism versus liberalism. We were evangelical because we actively preached the gospel and witnessed to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

In more modern times these terms have taken on new meanings. These came about with the ultra-fundamentalism that came in; the neo-orthodoxy of Barthianism, and the general acceptance of modernity.

To my liberal friends, I am a fundamentalist, whilst to many of my fundamentalist friends I am a liberal. Sobeit, I know in Whom I have believed, and try to live that life, regardless of what others may think of me.

This is what I think Christianity is all about, and not a bunch of meaningless labels.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I just joined this board and in my intro I addressed this issue about why I'm not a "typical" fundamentalist. I'm dogmatic on the Bible, Heaven & Hell but NOT women wearing pants.

Here's my answer to your questions. John R. Rice= fundamentalist Rick Warren= evangelical

I don't consider evangelicals better educated (I place no confidence in any seminary) but definitely less dogmatic.