DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "FUNDAMENTALIST AND EVANGELICAL"

[michaelmonfre]

What Is The Difference Between The Word "fundamentalist" And The Word "evangelical". I Posted This In Another Area.

I Did Say According To The Survey That Inerrancy Of The Bible Is Considered Part Of Being A Fundamentalist And Also Being A Conservative Christian.

 

[JPPT1974]

I look at them both the same
Believing in the Bible whole-heartedly
Being conservertive
Also believing and putting your faith & trust in Jesus
Regardless of what happens in your days

 

[Joykins]

There's a great site on this:

http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html

I am a moderate-to-liberal evangelical but not a fundamentalist.

 

[HumbleMan]

To me, a fundie is one who holds to the fundamentals of Christianity. Innerancy, diety of Christ, etc.

An evangelical is a Christian who steps out on faith and follows Christ's commad to preach the Word.

You can be both.

 

[Crazy Liz]

An evangelical is a Christian who steps out on faith and follows Christ's commad to preach the Word.

That's an evangelist. The words have the same root (the Greek word for gospel), but they have different meanings.

 

[arunma]

Well, all I know is that I'm an evangelical, orthodox believer, but not a fundamentalist. To me, a fundamentalist is a person who adds additional rules to the Gospel ("don't drink," "don't dance," etc.) or a person who holds hateful views such as racism.

Let me note that there are many brothers here who call themselves fundamentalists, but who do not meet my definition of fundamentalism.

 

[Joykins]

Well, all I know is that I'm an evangelical, orthodox believer, but not a fundamentalist. To me, a fundamentalist is a person who adds additional rules to the Gospel ("don't drink," "don't dance," etc.) or a person who holds hateful views such as racism.

That's a legalist or a racist, not a fundamentalists.

A fundamentalist holds what are called "the fundamentals of the faith." There is other baggage, though, since the "fundamentals" are mostly Christian orthodoxy, and this baggage generally includes a literalist interpretation of scripture and dispensationalism.

 

[If Not For Grace]

all I know is that I'm .., but not a fundamentalist. To me, a fundamentalist is a person who adds additional rules to the Gospel ("don't drink," "don't dance," etc.) or a person who holds hateful views such as racism.

Dr Gene Scott used to call them FunKamentalists. The do-do this and the don't do that bunch.

By Faith/Grace are we saved--we should not add nor subtract from that in MHO

 

[arunma]

That's a legalist or a racist, not a fundamentalists.

A fundamentalist holds what are called "the fundamentals of the faith." There is other baggage, though, since the "fundamentals" are mostly Christian orthodoxy, and this baggage generally includes a literalist interpretation of scripture and dispensationalism.

Well, I think that a reasonably literal interpretation of Scripture is also orthodoxy. Dispensationalism most certainly is not (nor do I believe in dispensationalism)

 

[Joykins]

Well, I think that a reasonably literal interpretation of Scripture is also orthodoxy. Dispensationalism most certainly is not (nor do I believe in dispensationalism)

Once we define "reasonably literal" we're halfway to agreement

 

[If Not For Grace]

Inerrancy Of The Bible Is Considered Part Of Being A Fundamentalist

But reasonable would not fall under inerrant, that's where my problems w/Fundy's begins. I have jokingly reminded some that Moses did not have the King James to go By and they got fighting mad.

 

[Flynmonkie]

I have been raised in a fundamental atmosphere one quite strict and literal, another not so. Both Baptist. But I do believe evangelism is the belief in going out and spreading/sharing the gospel, as opposed to secluding yourself within a community? Fundamental is as Joykins states; adhering to the basics of the faith. Problem is, again, it depends on what church within the denomination it seems how "literal" or "strict" or not. But I am not very knowledgeable in the whole Organized Religion deal..the Bible alone keeps me busy enough - I am just speaking from experience here...

Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

Fundamentalism

Evangelicalism

 

[If Not For Grace]

Many Muslims protest the use of the term when referring to Islamist groups, because all Muslims believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Qur'an, and western writers only use the term to refer to extremist groups.

FLY: It seems from the link provided that most consider the term in a negative light, do you? (fundamentalist)

 

[danlutgen]

What Is The Difference Between The Word "fundamentalist" And The Word "evangelical". I Posted This In Another Area.

I Did Say According To The Survey That Inerrancy Of The Bible Is Considered Part Of Being A Fundamentalist And Also Being A Conservative Christian.

I was in the "Fundamentalist" group for 20 years. I believe an evagelical church can be fundamental. If a "Fundamentalist" defined these terms thy would say NO. One issue is the KJV issue. They are narrow minded and seek control by being critical of other versions and "evangelical" churches. They are "cultic" in nature.
They have no compassion and have high expectations of what a Christian is. True Christ likeness is the goal; a high goal; but they seek perfection immediately or term you as lost. Questioning them is viewed as unloyalty. They view women as spiritual who wear dresses or skirts; no pants. This is deemed as against scripture. One church I heard of had a conference with about 7000 people present. Any women in pants were asked to wear paper skirts made before hand. As I said before "cultic" in nature.
I am now in a fundamental evangelical church and the only regret I have is I wasn't for 20 years.

 

[Razorbuck]

FLY: It seems from the link provided that most consider the term in a negative light, do you? (fundamentalist)

The general tone of this thread seems to bear that out, but since I am a fundamentalist myself, I don't agree.

For some reason a large population of Christendom lets the kook fringe define the word "fundamentalist" rather than apply that label to those who simply believe, preach and faithfully live by the fundamentals of the faith that is in Christ Jesus. I am His, and therefore search His Word for ways to be of service to Him and to please Him. When I find them I do my dilegence to obey them. Why any believer would have a problem with that I've never been able to determine.

But it doesn't really matter. I seek to please the Living Word, not men. I have every cause to rejoice, and none to complain! All hail the Son of God!!

Respectfully,

Razorbuck

 

[Flynmonkie]

FLY: It seems from the link provided that most consider the term in a negative light, do you? (fundamentalist)

Nope! I don't like labels in the first place! They are confusing and most times not "regulated" such as this.

The thing I like about Wikipedia, is that you have the ability to write or edit explanations (but should document statements) so if you disagree with a "definition, or would like an expansion, with proof or citing sources you can add comments (your opinion). So most times you’re going to get a pretty accurate perspective here. Things just don’t slide for too long here. But I use many sources. I do not follow one – I move around to gain my own perspective. Just like lately you here a lot of media on the Catholics and Evangelical Christians last time I checked I do believe that Catholics also believe in sharing the gospel – so this “definition” seems to be elusive to me. If Evangelical means going out and sharing the gospel – why would they use that as a defining difference between Catholics and other Denominational Christians? Just strange to me.

My mother calls us Fundamental Southern Baptist then we moved to a more Independent Baptist but as she told me once when I asked that they are both Fundamental? So this suggests to me anyone can take on the "title" of fundamentalism whatever the denomination. And it means that they are fundamental in that particular slant on “religion” Who knows!

Being a literalist or legalistic bothers me (no spiritual discernment) but only because I believe this detracts from the true Gospel message.. but fundalists’ make no difference to me - unless it is again "outside" of the gospel.

 

[FreeinChrist]

The general tone of this thread seems to bear that out, but since I am a fundamentalist myself, I don't agree.

For some reason a large population of Christendom lets the kook fringe define the word "fundamentalist" rather than apply that label to those who simply believe, preach and faithfully live by the fundamentals of the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

So true!!
I was in a church that referred to itself as "fundamentalist" - and it wasn't as described in this thread. Alittle legalistic, but not rascists. Women could wear pants. And we were not KJV only.

Fundamentalist should imply that one sticks with the fundmental beliefs found in the Bible - which would not include the Immaculate Conception of Mary (mary born sinless), or Mary's ever-viginity, etc., etc. REaching others for Christ is iportant.

I now attend a church that refers to itself as Evangelical via association iwth other Evangelical churches. They can be a bit legalistic, are not rascist, women can wear pants, and they stick with the fundamental beliefs spelled out in the Bible. However, I find the church more involved in evangelism.

I found this article to be interesting:
http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2004/11/24/

The journalism Bible basically agrees. The Associated Press Stylebook notes that "evangelical" once served as an adjective. Today it is a noun, referring to a "category of doctrinally conservative Christians. They emphasize the need for a definite, adult commitment or conversion to faith in Christ. ? Evangelicals stress both doctrinal absolutes and vigorous efforts to win others to belief."

 

[Flynmonkie]

The general tone of this thread seems to bear that out, but since I am a fundamentalist myself, I don't agree.

For some reason a large population of Christendom lets the kook fringe define the word "fundamentalist" rather than apply that label to those who simply believe, preach and faithfully live by the fundamentals of the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

My apologies, are you implying that I allow the "Kook Fringe" to make my choices on definition, because I honestly do not know what that comment is directed at?

 

[Joykins]

My apologies, are you implying that I allow the "Kook Fringe" to make my choices on definition, because I honestly do not know what that comment is directed at?

I think he is saying that popular usage is re-defining "fundamentalism" as a term of derision for the "kook fringe" (of Christianity--and also other religions) and so the original meaning of "holding to the fundamentals of the faith" is becoming lost.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Ok, yes I seem to agree! One of the reasons labels mean very little to me as opposed to other things --action, words, thoughts etc.. compared to the Bible teaching (and the Holy Spirit working). I have met Catholic Christians that don't seem very "formal" Catholics, to Baptist's that seem Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist (without the baptism issues!). It seems definitions are very "allusive" anymore. Sometimes they are dead on - but again who knows! A Christian just might describe the “Fundamentals” of the Bible differently as another Christian. I take the logical route of – who cares? (i.e. some say yes to Baptism for regeneration others say no, some say OSAS others say no all within the same denomination) I personally just have not truly reached a point to pin this down. Some Christians I know, that are very far away from legalistic, consider themselves “Fundamental.” As I have said before, personal experience I have seen no true rhyme or reason to this definition. This would be nice – if someone could define what is truly the root of being Fundamental? And what would make other Christian faiths not qualify under this definition? To me it is compared to the difference of saying “I am a republican” (I am a Baptist Christian) to “I am a staunch republican” (I am a fundamental Baptist Christian) would this be a good comparison?

So if the earlier post is meant to imply that many are “oblivious” to what anyone means by “Fundamental” until they understand the denomination spoken of. Than I completely agree, for I have no idea nor am I worried about having someone to label themselves other than simply “I am a Christian” and even then – we are instructed wise as the serpent – harmless as doves. It is unbelievable how disarming this statement can make us, and we forget the “being wise” part. My posts are simply to help locate information to help with understanding if possible.