# What's the difference between a Fundamentalist, a conservative & a reformed believer?



## Jon 316

I know.. its sounds like the begining of a joke... but its not.

I was speaking to a retired Baptist Union minister about the independant baptists we have in our area. He termed them as 'fundamentalist'. (I think they actually refer to themselves as this. 

Anyway in the age of 'jelloterms' i.e there seems to be no concrete terms for anything anymore! 

What are actually the differences between Reformed Christians, Conservatives and Fundamentalists?

And just out of curiousity... which one of these terms, conservative or fundamentalist, would be most suited to teh Plymouth brethren?

Alternatively, see if you can come up with a good punchline for this potential joke!


----------



## Oecolampadius

Hmm.. I'm not sure whether *conservatives* should have their own category. In my humble opinion, most *fundamentalists* would consider themselves as conservatives. And, there might also be *Reformed Christians* who would be considered as conservatives.


----------



## steven-nemes

Fundamentalists, to me, always seem like the type of people who don't watch Rated PG movies and don't allow their kids to read Harry Potter and live in small towns in the midwest.


----------



## larryjf

I would consider fundamentalists to be more reductionist than the Reformed would be.
So while the Reformed would have no problem submitting to Confessions, many fundamentalists would because it's not the Scripture.

It's a difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

The Reformed are orthodox, the rest are not.


----------



## DMcFadden

Greatly overlapping semantic fields make precision impossible, especially since everyone seems to have their own definitional boundaries.

In the U.S., fundamentalism began as a transdenominational movement committed to the essentials ("fundamentals") of the faith and included a goodly number of Baptists and Presbyterians (e.g., Machen). Within a short time the tenor of the group strayed into legalisms and negative attitudes to such an extent that the word "fundamentalist" became associated with several negative sociological characteristics (anti-education, culture denying, legalistic, etc.) more than with the doctrinal points of agreed upon unity.

"Reformed" in the PB sense would be "conservative" but not particuarly fundamentalist. However, even here the elasticity of usage has made the term less than ideal for describing anything. Depending upon your definitions, "EP all male eldership," OP, PCA, and "pro ordination of women, pro gay, Karl Barth is my hero, PCUSA" congregations are all examples of "Reformed."

In fact, one of my profs in seminary (Jack Rogers) has written several books on what it means to be Reformed and confessional AND his most recent one is a defense of a revisionist view of homosexuality. 

He is certainly qualified to call himself a Presbyterian:



> Jack Rogers is Professor of Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and Moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). He also served as vice-president of San Francisco Theological Seminary and founded their Southern California campus. Earlier, he was Professor of Philosophical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary for 17 years.



Having taught for nearly two decades at Fuller, he probably has to call himself an "evangelical" too. In a recent piece, he praises _The Queer Bible Commentary_, suggesting that it "brings together the work of several scholars and pastors known for their interest in the areas of gender, sexuality and biblical studies." He also opines that "It is designed to jar us awake from traditional understandings to new possibilities" and that the $63 list price might seem steep, "but for the pastor preparing a sermon, the professor working on a class, or the lay reader who really wants to understand these texts on a deeper level it's really an essential resource."

Rogers would NOT call himself a fundamentalist. However, he evidently sees himself as a "Reformed evangelical." See what I mean about the problems of definition and overlapping semantic fields?


----------



## Oecolampadius

DMcFadden said:


> See what I mean about the problems of definition and overlapping semantic fields?



When I read the phrases "problems of definition" and "overlapping semantic fields," I had this eerie feeling that a postmodernist would suddenly jump out and say, "See, we were right all along!"

And, then I suddenly remembered that I'm in a reformed forum.


----------



## DMcFadden

A fundamentalist is someone who got saved after listening to Tim LaHaye scare the "h" out of him in a "the clock is ticking and the antichrist is on the scene" sermon. Now he reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't smoke, drink, dance, watch anything beyond a PG movie, or go with girls that do.

A conservative is a fundamentalist who graduated from a Christian liberal arts college and discovered (much as Origen did with his self administered inguinal orchiectomy), radical legalistic "solutions" to the problem of sin don't always lead to permanently satisfying outcomes. The conservative reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't recognize fellow Baptists in a liquor store, and watches his movies on DirecTV. He reads _Left Behind_ books but is a little embarrassed to admit it.

A Reformed person comes in two flavors: "mainline" and "micro denomination." 
* A mainline "Reformed" person doesn't know what a Tim LaHaye is, has never heard of _Left Behind_ books, has a Bible, goes to church (when in or near Grand Rapids), smokes like a chimney, prefers cocktails and hard liquor, and may even make hard R rated movies about the p*** industry (e.g., Paul Schrader's _Hardcore_ . . . "Oh my, that's my daughter.") 
* A micro denomination "Reformed" person knows about Tim LaHaye from a Gentry or DeMar DVD, reads the Bible (but only in the KJV, Geneva, or ESV versions), goes to church 2x on the Sabbath, enjoys beer and liquor in moderation, smokes cigars, and only goes to a movie when not homsechooling his 8 children or posting on the Puritan Board about the dangers of the Federal Vision, theonomy, or female deaconesses.


----------



## Rich Koster

DMcFadden said:


> A fundamentalist is someone who got saved after listening to Tim LaHaye scare the h*** out of him in a "the clock is ticking and the antichrist is on the scene" sermon. Now he reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't smoke, drink, dance, watch anything beyond a PG movie, or go with girls that do.
> 
> A conservative is a fundamentalist who graduated from a Christian liberal arts college and discovered (much as Origen did with his self administered inguinal orchiectomy), radical legalistic "solutions" to the problem of sin don't always lead to permanently satisfying outcomes. The conservative reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't recognize fellow Baptists in a liquor store, and watches his movies on DirecTV. He reads _Left Behind_ books but is a little embarrassed to admit it.
> 
> A Reformed person comes in two flavors: "mainline" and "micro denomination."
> * A mainline "Reformed" person doesn't know what a Tim LaHaye is, has never heard of _Left Behind_ books, has a Bible, goes to church (when in or near Grand Rapids), smokes like a chimney, prefers cocktails and hard liquor, and may even make hard R rated movies about the p*** industry (e.g., Paul Schrader's _Hardcore_ . . . "Oh my, that's my daughter.")
> * A micro "Reformed" person knows about Tim LaHaye from a Gentry or DeMar DVD, reads the Bible (but only in the KJV, Geneva, or ESV versions), goes to church 2x on the Sabbath, enjoys beer and liquor in moderation, smokes cigars, and only goes to a movie when not homsechooling his 8 children or posting on the Puritan Board.



Now I know why I don't fit in anywhere


----------



## DMcFadden

Chippy said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about the problems of definition and overlapping semantic fields?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I read the phrases "problems of definition" and "overlapping semantic fields," I had this eerie feeling that a postmodernist would suddenly jump out and say, "See, we were right all along!"
> 
> And, then I suddenly remembered that I'm in a reformed forum.
Click to expand...


Not a postmodern bone in my fundamental, conservative, mostly-Reformed baptist body!


----------



## MrMerlin777

A Fundamentalist and a Reformed dude walk into a pub. The Funda....er ah... um... Never mind.


----------



## Oecolampadius

DMcFadden said:


> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean about the problems of definition and overlapping semantic fields?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I read the phrases "problems of definition" and "overlapping semantic fields," I had this eerie feeling that a postmodernist would suddenly jump out and say, "See, we were right all along!"
> 
> And, then I suddenly remembered that I'm in a reformed forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a postmodern bone in my fundamental, conservative, mostly-Reformed baptist body!
Click to expand...


Oh, I wasn't referring to you. I'm just being paranoid that maybe some postmodernist would use what you said against us. I think I'm being paranoid because I've been reading too much about the Emergent church.

Have you ever visited the Ooze? It's scary!


----------



## Ivan

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> The Reformed are orthodox, the rest are not.



Elaborate, please.


----------



## YXU

The old path (reformed) and a strange path (fundamentalism). The reason I call it strange is because I find it pretty much the same in its core to Romanism, I am speaking this as I come from a five generation catholic family. The religious experience of fundamentalists are very similar to my own religious experience and affections back in my childhood according to my observation. 

We used to have many do;s that will make you ready to go and have merit, although, it will be refuted by the fundamentalists, however, they have the very same principle, an oral acception or confession of faith, evangelism to the neighborhood, modesty in appearance always, refrain themselves from any wine consumption, pursuading someone at work to make confession, various of weekend lay ministries and etc., These things are in principle very much their sacraments. As long as you do these, you are always ready to go. They are lack of the understanding about the evil and wickedness of ourselves and God's absolute holiness. 

All the things they do all the reformed Christians will also do, they are our reasonable service to God and we know we are far from what we ought to do.


----------



## Confessor

From what I have seen, "fundamentalist" usually refers to Arminian dispensationalists. I try to distance myself from the label. "Reformed" sounds cooler anyway.


----------



## Oecolampadius

Confessor said:


> From what I have seen, "fundamentalist" usually refers to Arminian dispensationalists.



I used to belong to a Fundamental Baptist church when I was still in the Philippines and I also spent 3 years at a fundamentalist bible institute where I met lots of other fundamentalists. The number of Arminian Dispensational's that I met were very few and, in fact, they were regarded as abberations.

According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect." 

That's actually the reason why, ever since I joined the OPC, I have always maintained that Calvinism should not be viewed as simply being the TULIP.


----------



## CharlieJ

*Fundamentalism*

I think it's reasonable to allow people who identify themselves as Fundamentalists to define themselves, as long as their definitions are consistent with reality. Also, when creating a definition, one should look for essential rather than accidental characteristics.

Thus, a present-day Christian Fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamentals of the faith and is militantly committed positively to proclaiming them and negatively to separating from those who do not believe them or actively fellowship with those who do not believe them.

There are several books written by Fundamentalist scholars on the Fundamentalist/Evangelical controversy. The most definitive (though obviously biased) work is _In Pursuit of Purity_ by David Beale. Another work, focusing more on the new-evangelicalism from a fundamentalist perspective, is _Promise Unfulfilled_ by Roland McCune. Also in that vein is _The Tragedy of Compromise_ by Ernest Pickering.

One problem with fundamentalist historiography is its lack of a category for confessionalists, or anyone else whose roots extend back before the revivalism of the 19th century. If Warfield were to come back from the dead, he certainly would not fit quite in the mold of "fundamentalist" but would certainly not fit in the category of "new-evangelical" or "liberal." If the confessional churches continue to grow, Fundamentalism will have to adjust its definitions and rethink its stance toward groups such as the PCA, since Fundamentalists tend to call everyone who does not identify themselves as a Fundamentalist a "neo-evangelical."


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

Ivan said:


> TheocraticMonarchist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Reformed are orthodox, the rest are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elaborate, please.
Click to expand...



No problem 

I was listening to the local fundamentalist Baptist radio station earlier today. One fellow read Isaiah 3:4, which is about God judging Israel by having children rule over the nation, and applied it to America claiming that Obama was a child sent by God to judge this nation. These guys are very conservative, politically and religiously, but I don’t know if we can consider them to be orthodox.


----------



## ChristianHedonist

Chippy said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have seen, "fundamentalist" usually refers to Arminian dispensationalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to belong to a Fundamental Baptist church when I was still in the Philippines and I also spent 3 years at a fundamentalist bible institute where I met lots of other fundamentalists. The number of Arminian Dispensational's that I met were very few and, in fact, they were regarded as abberations.
> 
> According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). *They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."*
> 
> That's actually the reason why, ever since I joined the OPC, I have always maintained that Calvinism should not be viewed as simply being the TULIP.
Click to expand...


FYI, the formula "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect" is actually a classic reformed understanding of limited atonement (see the Synods of Dordt).


----------



## Oecolampadius

ChristianHedonist said:


> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have seen, "fundamentalist" usually refers to Arminian dispensationalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to belong to a Fundamental Baptist church when I was still in the Philippines and I also spent 3 years at a fundamentalist bible institute where I met lots of other fundamentalists. The number of Arminian Dispensational's that I met were very few and, in fact, they were regarded as abberations.
> 
> According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). *They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."*
> 
> That's actually the reason why, ever since I joined the OPC, I have always maintained that Calvinism should not be viewed as simply being the TULIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI, the formula "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect" is actually a classic reformed understanding of limited atonement (see the Synods of Dordt).
Click to expand...


Forgive my ignorance, but does the Synods of Dordt actually say that _Christ died for all men but that the benefits of Christ's atonement apply only to the elect_ or something to that effect? Because that is what they actually meant by that formulation in that fundamentalist denomination.


----------



## ChristianHedonist

Chippy said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but does the Synods of Dordt actually say that _Christ died for all men but that the benefits of Christ's atonement apply only to the elect_ or something to that effect? Because that is what they actually meant by that formulation in that fundamentalist denomination.



Not exactly, They don't say that he died for all men with an intent of atoning for their sins. Here is the wording:

"This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, _more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world_."

"This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved."

"However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief _is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient_, but because they themselves are at fault."


----------



## Jen

DMcFadden said:


> In the U.S., fundamentalism began as a transdenominational movement committed to the essentials ("fundamentals") of the faith and included a goodly number of Baptists and Presbyterians (e.g., Machen).



Machen actually clashed with the fundamentalists a good bit -- particularly because he didn't support them on prohibition.

From D.G. Hart:

_Machen stood for practically everything that fundamentalism did not. Where fundamentalists were anti-creedal and anti-clerical, Machen's instincts were confessional and churchly; where fundamentalists had the reputation of being rural and anti-intellectual, Machen thrived in urban and academic settings. What is more, he regarded fundamentalist eschatology (i.e., dispensationalism) as bizarre and extreme, avoided altogether the crusade against evolution even though invited to testify at the Scopes trial, and viewed United States' politics in ways remarkably different from fundamentalists - Machen opposed prayer and Bible reading in public schools and the churches' support for Prohibition because he did not believe America was a Christian nation._

Link.


----------



## Oecolampadius

Thanks Dan a.k.a ChristianHedonist. (I've been trying to figure out what button should I click on to express my thanks for your very useful post but since I couldn't find it, I decided to reply to you instead.)


----------



## YXU

> According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."



Negative. To the best of my knowledge, except the Free Presbyterian fundamentalists, others reject the saying that Christ's atonement is efficient only for the elect. This is the scripture teaching adopted by the reformers, which the fundamentalists reject. The so called "reformed" fundamentalists are some Amyraldian at most.


----------



## Rangerus

DMcFadden said:


> A fundamentalist is someone who got saved after listening to Tim LaHaye scare the "h" out of him in a "the clock is ticking and the antichrist is on the scene" sermon. Now he reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't smoke, drink, dance, watch anything beyond a PG movie, or go with girls that do.
> 
> A conservative is a fundamentalist who graduated from a Christian liberal arts college and discovered (much as Origen did with his self administered inguinal orchiectomy), radical legalistic "solutions" to the problem of sin don't always lead to permanently satisfying outcomes. The conservative reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't recognize fellow Baptists in a liquor store, and watches his movies on DirecTV. He reads _Left Behind_ books but is a little embarrassed to admit it.
> 
> A Reformed person comes in two flavors: "mainline" and "micro denomination."
> * A mainline "Reformed" person doesn't know what a Tim LaHaye is, has never heard of _Left Behind_ books, has a Bible, goes to church (when in or near Grand Rapids), smokes like a chimney, prefers cocktails and hard liquor, and may even make hard R rated movies about the p*** industry (e.g., Paul Schrader's _Hardcore_ . . . "Oh my, that's my daughter.")
> * A micro "Reformed" person knows about Tim LaHaye from a Gentry or DeMar DVD, reads the Bible (but only in the KJV, Geneva, or ESV versions), goes to church 2x on the Sabbath, enjoys beer and liquor in moderation, smokes cigars, and only goes to a movie when not homsechooling his 8 children or posting on the Puritan Board about the dangers of the Federal Vision, theonomy, or female deaconesses.



 Well played my man, well played!


----------



## Oecolampadius

YXU said:


> According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative. To the best of my knowledge, except the Free Presbyterian fundamentalists, others reject the saying that Christ's atonement is efficient only for the elect. This is the scripture teaching adopted by the reformers, which the fundamentalists reject. The so called "reformed" fundamentalists are some Amyraldian at most.
Click to expand...


 Uhmm.. I'm actually referring to fundamentalists in my own country (Philippines). That's why I described my experience as "limited." I'm sorry if you misunderstood me but I never meant those statements to apply to fundamentalists outside the Philippines (although, fundamentalism in my country was brought there by American missionaries).


----------



## YXU

Chippy said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative. To the best of my knowledge, except the Free Presbyterian fundamentalists, others reject the saying that Christ's atonement is efficient only for the elect. This is the scripture teaching adopted by the reformers, which the fundamentalists reject. The so called "reformed" fundamentalists are some Amyraldian at most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhmm.. I'm actually referring to fundamentalists in my own country (Philippines). That's why I described my experience as "limited." I'm sorry if you misunderstood me but I never meant those statements to apply to fundamentalists outside the Philippines (although, fundamentalism in my country was brought there by American missionaries).
Click to expand...


Sorry about that, I have not noticed it is in Philippines. If they agree with the doctrine of grace, then it is pretty good, isn't it. However, I tend to think the reason why they would claim themselves to be a fundamentalist is based on some misunderstandings of how the word is used right now.


----------



## Kiffin

CharlieJ said:


> I think it's reasonable to allow people who identify themselves as Fundamentalists to define themselves, as long as their definitions are consistent with reality. Also, when creating a definition, one should look for essential rather than accidental characteristics.
> 
> Thus, a present-day Christian Fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamentals of the faith and is militantly committed positively to proclaiming them and negatively to separating from those who do not believe them or actively fellowship with those who do not believe them.
> 
> There are several books written by Fundamentalist scholars on the Fundamentalist/Evangelical controversy. The most definitive (though obviously biased) work is _In Pursuit of Purity_ by David Beale. Another work, focusing more on the new-evangelicalism from a fundamentalist perspective, is _Promise Unfulfilled_ by Roland McCune. Also in that vein is _The Tragedy of Compromise_ by Ernest Pickering.
> 
> One problem with fundamentalist historiography is its lack of a category for confessionalists, or anyone else whose roots extend back before the revivalism of the 19th century. If Warfield were to come back from the dead, he certainly would not fit quite in the mold of "fundamentalist" but would certainly not fit in the category of "new-evangelical" or "liberal." If the confessional churches continue to grow, Fundamentalism will have to adjust its definitions and rethink its stance toward groups such as the PCA, since Fundamentalists tend to call everyone who does not identify themselves as a Fundamentalist a "neo-evangelical."





YXU said:


> The so called "reformed" fundamentalists are some Amyraldian at most.



These are good assessments. In the near future, conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists will realize that they are saying the same thing.

I graduated from Maranatha BBC and the Amyraldian view seemed to be the most "reformed" the faculty would go (save one professor).

-----Added 4/28/2009 at 11:49:33 EST-----



Chippy said:


> Uhmm.. I'm actually referring to fundamentalists in my own country (Philippines). That's why I described my experience as "limited." I'm sorry if you misunderstood me but I never meant those statements to apply to fundamentalists outside the Philippines (although, fundamentalism in my country was brought there by American missionaries).



Hoy! Musta?

My assessment of the fundamentalism in the Philippines is that it is a cultural fundamentalism rather than a theological one; no pants on women, KJVO, no drinking, "Christ had a comb-over" types. The Hyles boys screwed things up in my opinion....


----------



## JOwen

DMcFadden said:


> * A micro "Reformed" person knows about Tim LaHaye from a Gentry or DeMar DVD, reads the Bible (but only in the KJV, Geneva, or ESV versions), goes to church 2x on the Sabbath, enjoys beer and liquor in moderation, smokes cigars, and only goes to a movie when not homsechooling his 8 children or posting on the Puritan Board about the dangers of the Federal Vision, theonomy, or female deaconesses.



KJV-check
2 x on Sabbath- check
liquor in moderation- check
homeschools 8 children- check

posting on the Puritan Board about:

Dangers of FV- check
Dangers of Theonomy- Check
Dangers of female deaconesses- no check!

Whew! I'm not a micro


----------



## Oecolampadius

Kiffin said:


> Hoy! Musta?
> 
> My assessment of the fundamentalism in the Philippines is that it is a cultural fundamentalism rather than a theological one; no pants on women, KJVO, no drinking, "Christ had a comb-over" types. The Hyles boys screwed things up in my opinion....



I agree with your assessment. It was indeed mainly a reaction to the culture which is why Fundamentalism in the Philippines is a mixed bag (Calvinistic, Arminian, etc.).

However, American Fundamentalism also had an aspect of being a reaction to culture (i.e. modern culture). The following statements are quoted from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology on the topic of Fundamentalism:



> They came to connect a separatist practice with the maintenance of the fundamentals of the faith. They also identified themselves with what they believed was pure in personal morality and American culture.



By the way, it's nice to meet a fellow Filipino(?) or someone who can speak Tagalog in PB. I'll send you a PM later.


----------



## DMcFadden

Jen,

I don't disagree with anything you cited by Hart. Machen was not a "good fit" for fundamentalism. However, when the movement started, it was a transdenominational movement that included both Baptists AND Presbyterians such as Machen. 

You quote my first sentence: _In the U.S., fundamentalism began as a transdenominational movement committed to the essentials ("fundamentals") of the faith and included a goodly number of Baptists and Presbyterians (e.g., Machen). _

Then you include a quote that looks like it is disagreeing with my statement. However, you ignored the next sentence that makes essentially the same point as your source, except in a more general way: _Within a short time the tenor of the group strayed into legalisms and negative attitudes to such an extent that the word "fundamentalist" became associated with several negative sociological characteristics (anti-education, culture denying, legalistic, etc.) more than with the doctrinal points of agreed upon unity._


----------



## Kiffin

Chippy said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoy! Musta?
> 
> My assessment of the fundamentalism in the Philippines is that it is a cultural fundamentalism rather than a theological one; no pants on women, KJVO, no drinking, "Christ had a comb-over" types. The Hyles boys screwed things up in my opinion....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your assessment. It was indeed mainly a reaction to the culture which is why Fundamentalism in the Philippines is a mixed bag (Calvinistic, Arminian, etc.).
> 
> However, American Fundamentalism also had an aspect of being a reaction to culture (i.e. modern culture). The following statements are quoted from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology on the topic of Fundamentalism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They came to connect a separatist practice with the maintenance of the fundamentals of the faith. They also identified themselves with what they believed was pure in personal morality and American culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, it's nice to meet a fellow Filipino(?) or someone who can speak Tagalog in PB. I'll send you a PM later.
Click to expand...


I agree with you. American Fundamentalism, in its current form, is a cultural fundamentalism; and this is the form that they brought to the PI. It's sad.

Yep. 50% Tagalog and 50% Ilocano. I don't speak a word of Tagalog but I do understand most of it.


----------



## Jen

DMcFadden said:


> Jen,
> 
> I don't disagree with anything you cited by Hart. Machen was not a "good fit" for fundamentalism. However, when the movement started, it was a transdenominational movement that included both Baptists AND Presbyterians such as Machen.
> 
> You quote my first sentence: _In the U.S., fundamentalism began as a transdenominational movement committed to the essentials ("fundamentals") of the faith and included a goodly number of Baptists and Presbyterians (e.g., Machen). _
> 
> Then you include a quote that looks like it is disagreeing with my statement. However, you ignored the next sentence that makes essentially the same point as your source, except in a more general way: _Within a short time the tenor of the group strayed into legalisms and negative attitudes to such an extent that the word "fundamentalist" became associated with several negative sociological characteristics (anti-education, culture denying, legalistic, etc.) more than with the doctrinal points of agreed upon unity._



Ah... I see what you were getting at now. I thought you were continuing to keep Machen in the group. Sorry -- Tuesdays are my long days, as they begin with a Hebrew quiz and end with a Greek quiz, something which obviously hampers my English comprehension skills.


----------



## DMcFadden

No problem, Jen! 

BTW, if you check out the original "fundamentalist" documents, the "The Fundamentals" from 1917, you may be surprised at how many of the chapters are written by Warfield or Orr. They certainly don't fit the later connotations of "fundamentalists" either.


----------



## sgtdabney

After being converted out of Catholicism, I spent about the first 5 years of my Christian walk with the Plymouth Brethren before moving into the Reformed camp. One problem with the word 'fundamentalist' is that it has lost it's historic roots, as referred to and explained in earlier posts. It is now a pejorative used to describe someone who zealously/blindly holds to a set of beliefs and cannot be dissuaded from them through any rational discourse. As mentioned before, they tend to focus on cultural distinctives rather than a set creed (which distinguishes them from the historic use of the term), and often eschew creeds altogether. I don't think it is a terribly helpful term because it has been hijacked by our culture.

I believe a conservative Evangelical is one who holds to the inspiration of Scripture in some form and would affirm the essentials of the Christian faith such the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith and other doctrines that could be affirmed by Calvinists and Arminians alike (these days, that would usually be an OSAS Arminian).

A Reformed Christian would be one who holds to a creedal expression of the Christian faith such as embodied in the WCF or Heidelberg Catechism. I don't believe mere 5-point calvinists are really reformed, because they have a reductionistic view of the Reformed faith. They have a Reformed soteriology, but not necessarily anything else. that is a personal distinction, and might not be helpful to anyone else.

Now, as to the PBs. Having spent much time in the PB, I would say that it depends on the congregation. Certainly those assemblies which closely follow the more traditional PB worship and cultural distinctives (like the Gospel Halls) would tend to lean more toward fundamentalism. Though I know many that I would say are merely conservative Christians. I even know of some 5-point Calvinist conservatives in the PB as well as 4-pointers, though the vast majority I have mingled with tend to be Arminian. I don't believe PBs could ever be classified as Reformed due to their aversion to any creeds and their ecclesiology (which was one of the binding principles in early brethrenism). That is why I left the PB for the PCA many years ago. I had slowly come under Reformed convictions and knew I couldn't in good conscience stay where I was.

Don't know if this helps, but hope it does.


----------



## Scott1

A reformed believer, at a minimum holds "reformed theology," which at a minimum is:

doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession

Although the other titles you mention may have other important things in common with reformed, and many certainly are brothers in the Lord, they would tend to be:

Arminian influenced + dispensational + no confession


----------



## YXU

Scott1 said:


> A reformed believer, at a minimum holds "reformed theology," which at a minimum is:
> 
> doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession
> 
> Although the other titles you mention may have other important things in common with reformed, and many certainly are brothers in the Lord, they would tend to be:
> 
> Arminian influenced + dispensational + no confession



Dispensationalism has become a hallmark of fundamentalism. Just go out and find some fundamental churches website, 9 out of 10 will confess clearly they hold to dispensationalism (pre-tribulational rapture, dispensational pre-millenial) and the church is composed of believers from the Pentacost to the rapture.


----------

