Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism and Liberalism explanation/constrasts

[nebula]

The author was actually contrasting Evangelicalism to Fundamentalism, but he also talks about Theological Liberalism. 

Thoughts?

(You need to read the post to make sense of the snips I'm pasting below.)

~~~~

https://www.facebook.com/cmichaelpatton/posts/10155305496828888

The Difference Between an Evangelical and a Fundamentalist

<snip>

The Fundamentalist movement began in the late nineteenth early twentieth centuries in reaction to theological Liberalism (to be distinguished from political liberal). ...

<snip>

But in the 1930s, following the blistering defeat of popular fundamentalism in the court of public appeal at the Scopes Monkey Trial, Fundamentalism gradually shifted in its focus. It took on a more extravagant separationist mentality. ...

<snip>

The doctrinal statement of these Fundamentalists became long and burdensome, allowing for very little freedom in beliefs or practice, even among the issues that others believed were debatable and unclear.
For this reason, the Evangelical movement began. ...

[markdohle]

These topics are very difficult since we will start from different perspectives and that will take us to different conclusions.  I think the worst of fundamentalism can be found in 'Westboro Baptist church' which thinks itself biblical and can back it's hateful stances up with scripture, of course.  Yet I doubt they are speaking for the majority of those Christian who use that designation for themselves.   I am not a fundamentalist and try hard not to fall into stereotypical thinking.   It is of the flesh.  Seeking to look down on those from another camp.  Atheist do it to believers all the time, and vis versa as well.  I am not a liberal, but some of my stances on social issues, which I believe are based on the Gospel would be considered liberal by some.   Good luck with this topic.  I will lurk ;-).

 

Peace
mark

[Guest Teditis]

I liked the post/article... well written and should give us much to think about.

[Ezra]

3 hours ago, nebula said:

"The doctrinal statement of these Fundamentalists became long and burdensome, allowing for very little freedom in beliefs or practice, even among the issues that others believed were debatable and unclear. For this reason, the Evangelical movement began. ..." (quoted by Nebula)

If Fundamentalism is essentially Bible Christianity (which it is) there are NO debatable and unclear issues.  Please note (Ephesians 4:4-6):

There is one body,

and one Spirit,

even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord,

one faith,

one baptism,

One God and Father of all,

who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

So Evangelicalism was really an attempt to compromise Bible truth with the ideas of the world.  It became Neo-Evangelicalism, and now it has degenerated into the Emergent Church Movement (which is essentially theological Liberalism).  What we are looking at is Apostasy.

Satan has been undermining Bible Christianity ever since the first church was established.  The apostles had to deal with heresies constantly, and false Christianity came into existence very shortly after the apostles departed the scene.

Even during and after the Reformation, Satan ensured that there would be divisions among Christians, hence we see denominations.  But the Bible teaches the unity of the faith.  It is up to every Christian to determine what is the true Gospel from the Bible itself, and then determine all other doctrines from the Bible (not the traditions of men).

[Guest Teditis]

3 hours ago, markdohle said:

These topics are very difficult since we will start from different perspectives and that will take us to different conclusions.  I think the worst of fundamentalism can be found in 'Westboro Baptist church' which thinks itself biblical and can back it's hateful stances up with scripture, of course.  Yet I doubt they are speaking for the majority of those Christian who use that designation for themselves.   I am not a fundamentalist and try hard not to fall into stereotypical thinking.   It is of the flesh.  Seeking to look down on those from another camp.  Atheist do it to believers all the time, and vis versa as well.  I am not a liberal, but some of my stances on social issues, which I believe are based on the Gospel would be considered liberal by some.   Good luck with this topic.  I will lurk ;-).

 

Peace
mark

Yeah, I think that I'm with you Mark... I'll sit back a watch and see who's who, lol.

[nebula]

19 hours ago, Yowm said:

Fundamentalism of the early 20th century had to deal with the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith which was being eroded by theological liberalism. The Fundamentals a 12 volume set covered the essentials such as the Virgin Birth, The inspiration of Scripture, the Incarnation etc. 

It sounds like it had its start that way, but the "Fundamentalism" I grew up it also swamped you with "do not taste, do not touch, do not handle" obsessions.

 

Quote

The Evangelical Church today, through the eroding influence of the emergent church (the hip theological liberals of today), has found itself once again in need to firm itself in the fundamentals of the faith.

True, but we don't need to fall back into what Fundamentalism has become.

 

18 hours ago, Ezra said:

If Fundamentalism is essentially Bible Christianity (which it is) there are NO debatable and unclear issues.  Please note (Ephesians 4:4-6):

There is one body,

and one Spirit,

even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord,

one faith,

one baptism,

One God and Father of all,

who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Unfortunately, as has been noted, Fundamentalism has added to that list a whole lot of "don'ts" that were considered "righteous living" - but it didn't emphasize the do's too well. 

I have yet to meet a Fundamentalist who is not also a legalist.

 

Quote

So Evangelicalism was really an attempt to compromise Bible truth with the ideas of the world.

Not originally. 

 

Quote

It became Neo-Evangelicalism, and now it has degenerated into the Emergent Church Movement (which is essentially theological Liberalism).  What we are looking at is Apostasy.

Not all of it.

 

Quote

 

Satan has been undermining Bible Christianity ever since the first church was established.  The apostles had to deal with heresies constantly, and false Christianity came into existence very shortly after the apostles departed the scene.

Even during and after the Reformation, Satan ensured that there would be divisions among Christians, hence we see denominations.  But the Bible teaches the unity of the faith.  It is up to every Christian to determine what is the true Gospel from the Bible itself, and then determine all other doctrines from the Bible (not the traditions of men).

 

Sadly, yes. And every time there is a fresh move of God that gets believers back to the center, either divisions or dogmatism infiltrate the ranks and that move becomes yet another wayward denomination, or dissipated.

[Heavenunlimited]

Its almost so one is safest not going to any church other than most necessary. And then follow the word to the dot. Without ending the wrong way.

[Ezra]

2 hours ago, nebula said:

I have yet to meet a Fundamentalist who is not also a legalist

This is bearing false witness. Evidently you do not know what legalism consists of, and this kind of accusation is generally thrown out by compromisers. For a proper understanding of legalism, kindly study Galatians.

[nebula]

7 hours ago, Yowm said:

Sounds like your brand had slipped into legalism. Even antinomian churches can get legalistic, i.e. they throw out God's laws only to replace them with man made laws .

Please show me a Fundamentalist who isn't a "do not taste, do not touch, do not handle" legalist?

[nebula]

6 hours ago, Ezra said:

This is bearing false witness.

No, it is not. "I  have yet to meet" is telling it like it is. If there is a Fundamentalist out there who is also not obsessed with right talk, right attire, right action (as in the "don'ts"), I would like to know!

 

Quote

Evidently you do not know what legalism consists of, and this kind of accusation is generally thrown out by compromisers. For a proper understanding of legalism, kindly study Galatians.

Jimmy Swaggart, Bill Gothard, ....