Has the term "Fundamentalist" been taken out of context?

Question

I noticed the term "Fundamentalist" is taken pejoratively. I think due to denominationalism and political changes. The "Fundamentals" of Christianity are:
Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The imminent return of Christ.

I believe the above and Sola Scriptura and thhe Trinitarian nature of God. Thus, I'm fundamentalist by nature of those beliefs. The denomination, however is extreme. I'm not trying to offend Fundamentalists, but there are some (usually small issues) that I don't agree with. Does that mean I'm unsaved? Actually, no. I don't think your denomination matters to Christ as long as they are Bible-believing. But if even "non-fundies" believe the above points, Hence, every true Christian could be Fundamentalist by nature of those beliefs.

Answer 1

I heard it said last nite referring to Jehovah's Witnesses'
So today I looked up the word @ dictionary.com.
And now, ur Q comes up.
diety of Christ. He is a god
but NOT the Almighty God.
NOT the Alpha and the Omega.
As for the rest, yes, we (Jehovah's Witnesses')
r a return to 1st century Christianty.
It is NOT a new sect, nor a new teaching of the Christ.

Are you obeying the commands of the Christ?
Are you identifiable by the personal name of God?
Do u have faith and works?
Other than that, I'd say I agree w/ u.
Unless there is something I missed.

Answer 2

As your question relates to today - He WAS taken out of context . He said the word Retard but he was quoting Emmanuel Rohm. I don't think he ever made the quote about the bone. Bloods and Crips was not a racial statement - I t was to the fact that so many NFL players ( black or white ) were commiting criminal acts and being arrested ( at the time this was true ). So yes he was taken out of context on that. That being said - He has also made some comments that I'm sure he wishes he could take back.

Answer 3

Many people interpret inerrancy of Bible(each word? from which codex?)or substitutionary atonement or imminent 2nd Coming( how imminent? a year/ a century/ a millenium?)so differently. Catholics,Eastern Orthodox,traditional Anglicans and Traditional protestants could all subscribe but interpret these Fundamentals differently

Answer 4

The term "Fundamentalist" was first given to conservative church leaders during the first part of the 20th century. The term was given to those pastors who adhered to the "Fundamentals" of the faith published in a series of articles entitled the "Fundamentals". These were based on the 1834 New Hampshire Confession of Faith. For nearly 80 years the term was used for conservative church leaders and theologians. Then, during the 70's, 80's and 90's the term was given to extremists of religious groups, thus not fitting of those who origianally bore the name. However, to the outside world, it has become generally accepted to refer to anyone who either is an extreme adherent to one's faith or holds to moral absolutes as "Fundamentalists".

As to Christianity in particular, the term "fundamentalist" now refers to a smaller group of people that really could be divided into two groups because they would not ally themselves together.
The first group are those who could identify with the original term and agree with your doctrinal statement. This group generally is trying to distance themselves from the term "fundamentalist" because of the current misuse of the term. Some call themselves Biblicists.
The second group within evangelical Christianity would fit the modern mold better. They also adhere to a similar doctrinal standard but in addition apply strict legalistic views to nondoctrinal issues. This group proudly wears the banner "Fundamentalists" believing they are carrying on the tradition of those early in the 20th century. However, like the Pharisees of Jesus' time, they have injected their own preferences, labled "convictions", into their doctrinal statement. Good examples of this are the strict adherence of the passage of scripture stating, "Women are to keep silent in the church," and consitutional by-laws that require their congregation use only the "King James Bible", believing all other versions or translations are "perversions."

Within the ranks of the second group are some extreme hardliners who, because of their hateful, seperatist style statments, do not reflect evidence of regeneration or exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. They believe they are the only members of Christ's kingdom and that all others, including fellow "Christians" are on a fast ride to hell. Their statements, doctrinal stands and actions cause them to fall into "cult" statis. They are dangerous for obvious reasons and additionally are damaging to the cause of Christ.

Bottom line, the tag doesn't really mean much. Tags always fall short in their job to describe. What matters is that you must be born-again--not to conform to some standard a small fringe group has demanded, but because God wants you to live free of the condemnation of sin. Jesus, in talking to the most religious and justifiably faithful member of the Sanhedrin-Nocodemus- told him that he must be born again. It's not about what you know, what you do, or how you do it--it's about WHO you know.

Leave the world to their tag system. Live your life for the Savior.

Answer 5

I totally agree with you. I'm also a fundamentalist, but don't agree with a lot of their issues, especially in terms of their viewpoint on Roe v Wade and allowing the government to help the least of these.

By the way, what is Sola Scriptura???

Answer 6

No, a fundamentalist believes that the entire bible is true, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Creation
Adam and Eve
The Exodus
The flood
The horror of homosexuality
etc...

There are many people who agree with the beliefs that u stated, but disagree on the items that I mentioned. THat's where fundamentalism comes in

Answer 7

I certainly fit in this group, but it's just a label. God teaches that we love those around us, and hold fast to Him. Judging others is where I think most non-Christians have problems with Christians, and we are told not judge. There are moral absolutes however, and talking about these can come across as offensive. In Acts, there is a group of believers from 'Berea', and they challenged everything Paul said. I want to be a 'Berean', never taking someones word for it concerning my faith. There is nothing wrong with questioning, and challenging those in the faith, and those in leadership. We are held to a high spiritual standard, and our hearts are measured by God, and by God alone. Its not by works, but by faith, but without works, faith is dead.

I am trying to tread lightly, while holding fast to the teachings in God's word, not wavering, but cautious in speech and action with non-believers. I am not fearful of questioning and challenging believers, if layman or leaders, it doesn't matter to me.

Y/A R&S has shown me to be a failure, as has life. But we are all failures. And there is a fix.

Answer 8

I know but so few Christians actually believe those things. I read a poll a couple weeks ago that said only 60% of Christians believe Christ is the only way to heaven.

Answer 9

This is my favorite definition of Fundamentalist. It is from Alvin Plantinga:

"But isn't this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism, that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like 'son of a *****', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch.' When the term is used in this way, no definition, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you fell obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of 'fundamentalist' (in this widely current use); it isn't simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch' simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like 'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine'" (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245).

Answer 10

Well said, I am a proud fundamentalist.

I think the number of non-fundies that embrace your list is very small, especially the diety of Jesus.

I think the term 'inerrancy of the Scriptures' covers the Bible being true in its entirety. What God says, God means.

grace2u