Evangelicals and Fundamentalists

[angel_uk]

I was told (in a not very nice way) that I was a fundamentalist by a reader of my blog!

I didn't think that I was!

[nebula]

So what is the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals?

In my experience (and the experience of many others that I have spoken to), self-identified fundamentalists always go above and beyond this acceptance of "sola scriptura" and place their interpretations of Scripture as inerrant and infallible. Anyone who disagrees with their interpretations is an apostate and an enemy of the faith.

Evangelicals are not always like that.

Byron, you are just as stubborn about your interpretation of Scripture as anyone else.

Why else would you be defending your position tooth and nail?

[Byron A]

So what is the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals?

In my experience (and the experience of many others that I have spoken to), self-identified fundamentalists always go above and beyond this acceptance of "sola scriptura" and place their interpretations of Scripture as inerrant and infallible. Anyone who disagrees with their interpretations is an apostate and an enemy of the faith.

Evangelicals are not always like that.

Byron, you are just as stubborn about your interpretation of Scripture as anyone else.

Why else would you be defending your position tooth and nail?

The difference is, I recognize it for what it is. Its an interpretation and not inerrant. I am not calling the wrath of God down on those who disagree, nor am I saying they are the enemies of the faith.

[MorningGlory]

So what is the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals?

In my experience (and the experience of many others that I have spoken to), self-identified fundamentalists always go above and beyond this acceptance of "sola scriptura" and place their interpretations of Scripture as inerrant and infallible. Anyone who disagrees with their interpretations is an apostate and an enemy of the faith.

Evangelicals are not always like that.

Byron, you are just as stubborn about your interpretation of Scripture as anyone else.

Why else would you be defending your position tooth and nail?

The difference is, I recognize it for what it is. Its an interpretation and not inerrant. I am not calling the wrath of God down on those who disagree, nor am I saying they are the enemies of the faith.

Byron, you have only been on this site a few days and you have held forth almost exclusively on this subject or offshoots thereof. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make and, btw, I don't see anyone vilifying you as you have claimed in other threads. So....what's your agenda?

[Smalcald]

I am not these labels are always good?

I see more of a division between being theologically Liberal and theologically Conservative and those don't always match politics, but sometimes they do.

[Guest man]

The difference is, I recognize it for what it is. Its an interpretation and not inerrant. I am not calling the wrath of God down on those who disagree, nor am I saying they are the enemies of the faith.

Byron, you have only been on this site a few days and you have held forth almost exclusively on this subject or offshoots thereof. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make and, btw, I don't see anyone vilifying you as you have claimed in other threads. So....what's your agenda?

I think what's happening is, he's judging himself from what he sees in the scriptures that are posted concerning his misguided beliefs. Because poster (x) posted something from the Word that shows he is in error, he assumes poster (x) is judging him.

People don't like to admit they're wrong and when it comes to our belief's and scripture, sometimes we're hesitant to destroy those walls we've contructed.

[Ddavid from NC]

Definition of Liberal: anyone that doesn't agree with me!....

[nebula]

The difference is, I recognize it for what it is. Its an interpretation and not inerrant. I am not calling the wrath of God down on those who disagree, nor am I saying they are the enemies of the faith.

There's a couple of churches mentioned in Revelation that Jesus rebuked for running with whatever theological interpretation suited them.

Be careful!

[Byron A]

So what is the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals?

In my experience (and the experience of many others that I have spoken to), self-identified fundamentalists always go above and beyond this acceptance of "sola scriptura" and place their interpretations of Scripture as inerrant and infallible. Anyone who disagrees with their interpretations is an apostate and an enemy of the faith.

Evangelicals are not always like that.

Byron, you are just as stubborn about your interpretation of Scripture as anyone else.

Why else would you be defending your position tooth and nail?

The difference is, I recognize it for what it is. Its an interpretation and not inerrant. I am not calling the wrath of God down on those who disagree, nor am I saying they are the enemies of the faith.

Byron, you have only been on this site a few days and you have held forth almost exclusively on this subject or offshoots thereof. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make and, btw, I don't see anyone vilifying you as you have claimed in other threads. So....what's your agenda?

Go over to the Science vs Faith thread. Over there, they are claiming that I am not saved, they are ridiculing me, etc.

[Guest shiloh357]

Fundamentalism is more than a set of beliefs, its a worldview. Its the worldview that your interpretations of the Bible is the only possible plain sense meaning of Scripture, and so its the Gospel Truth. They have a hard time realizing that its only an interpretation. They tend to see those who disagree with you as apostates and heretics, or at least ignorant of the Bible.

Byron,

"Interpretation" is an objective acivity. There is no such thing as "my interpretation" or "your interpretation." Interpretation is an act of ascertaining the meaning the author intends to convey in a given text. The author may employ devices like metaphors, smilies, hyperbole, and so forth. The duty of the reader is to get at the literal meaning behind the literary devices employ.

Interpreation is ALWAYS literal, in that an author always has a literal intent. Literal is a term that refers to the purpose or intent of the author. To take a text "literally" means to understand the text in the light that the author has in view. Every text of the Bible or ANY piece of literature has only ONE meaning and it is the meaning the author intended to convey.

So it is not a case of those evil "fundies" trying to beat everyone else down with "their" interpretation of Scripture. Rather it is those who have better grasp of literary analysis than you, trying to explain to you that a text means what the author intends it to mean and you do not have the right to assign values to the text that are foreign to what the author is trying to convey.

Your responsibility as the reader is to ascertain what the author is saying, and then with a correct understanding of the author's intent, demonstrate why the author is right or wrong.