What's the difference between a fundamentalist and a Calvinist?

[salamacum]

Why aren't you posting all together with the fundamentalists?


Is it a hermeneutical method or respect for the original reformers or what?

Also, why don't calvinists subscribe to the God Channel / Israel / End Times / Rapture schema? Why is it flawed?

 

[hedrick]

The term "fundamentalist" has come to have a meaning that's not quite the same as the original Fundamentals. It now refers to people who adopt a certain style of interpretation of Scripture. Not all people who do this are Calvinists, nor are all Calvinists fundamentalist. Calvinism (actually the preferred term is probably the Reformed faith) has the same range of conservative to liberal as most other branches of Christianity.

 

[salamacum]

It must be very difficult to find an acceptance amongst Calvinists if you're very liberal surely.
Anyway, can you give an example of where a fundamentalist approach would yield a different exposition than a reformed one.?
What about creation/6-days/end-times/Israel etc?

 

[A New Dawn]

Also, why don't calvinists subscribe to the God Channel / Israel / End Times / Rapture schema? Why is it flawed?

Some of us do. Calvinism speaks more to the way God selects and preserves the elect, and as such, does not necessarily demand a specific eschatology be observed. I believe in a rapture with a millenium and that God's covenant with Israel is still in force, as do some other posters here.

 

[heymikey80]

Why aren't you posting all together with the fundamentalists?

The fundamentalists refers to a group of people who hold to specific propositions as fundamental to the Christian faith, and who consider those outside the propositions as nonChristian.

Many of us also hold to certain fundamentals. Indeed, the EPC has a list of essentials, some of which are held in common with fundamentalists. But there's a lot more to Calvinism than those fundamentals. And there's a lot more to Christianity than those fundamentals (as many fundamentalists will also agree).

Calvinism holds to certain other answers beyond and aside from the fundamentals. We don't hold that the fundamentals define Christian from nonChristian, either.

Also, why don't calvinists subscribe to the God Channel / Israel / End Times / Rapture schema? Why is it flawed?

Two thoughts

• It's too specific. Scripture isn't nearly as definite about these things.
• It's based on a dispensational hermeneutic that overinterprets things. When seen in Biblical historical context, the answers are very likely different. For instance, what'd be the "First Resurrection" to a First Century believer?

 

[desmalia]

What's the difference between a fundamentalist and a Calvinist?

Sometimes nothing, sometimes lots.

Why aren't you posting all together with the fundamentalists?


Is it a hermeneutical method or respect for the original reformers or what?

I do post in both sections.

Also, why don't calvinists subscribe to the God Channel / Israel / End Times / Rapture schema? Why is it flawed?

That question could probably be the subject of its own thread as I'm sure you'll get a lot of lively responses to it. For me, I'm still studying eschatology, so won't get into it here. I don't watch the God Channel because we don't get that one in my country. And even if we did, I've not heard too many good things about it from people whose theology I respect. Couldn't say for sure until I saw what's on there regularly though.

 

[hedrick]

It must be very difficult to find an acceptance amongst Calvinists if you're very liberal surely.
Anyway, can you give an example of where a fundamentalist approach would yield a different exposition than a reformed one.?
What about creation/6-days/end-times/Israel etc?

As far as I can tell, not all fundamentalists are Calvinists, nor are all Calvinists fundamentalists. Describing Calvinism isn't easy, because Calvin said lots of things, and different groups emphasize different ones. A lot of people think of the 5 points. But predestination was not such a high priority with Calvin that I think he would want to be known primarily for it. Most of what he taught was held in common with other reformers. But one specific approach (which I think is shared with Lutherans) is the relationship between Scripture and tradition. Protestants correctly emphasize the importance of Scripture. But for the magisterial Reformers, Scripture is not interpreted by isolated individuals. It is the Church that interprets it. But the Church must always been willing to listen to individuals that believe it has gotten off track and needs to be corrected by Scripture. This view often doesn't appear on peoples' lists of Reformed distinctives because I'm not sure it's specifically argued by anyone. It's just the way the tradition actually works.

Similarly, the approach to leadership is distinctive. Reformed churches are known for developing leadership among its members. The focus of the church is not the pastor, but the Session. The Session is elected, but elders are also ordained. This means that once elected, they are responsible to God more than to the people who elected them. Elders have been a continuing inconvenience in ecumenical discussions. Other denominations can accept our pastors, because there are equivalent offices in all traditions. But there really isn't an equivalence for Reformed elders in most other traditions.

There's also distinctive Reformed positions on the sacraments. It's actually not far from Lutheran: there are two sacraments, they are more than just memorials. In communion we actually touch Christ's body, though we think that the Holy Spirit is involved in making this happen. (During the Reformation era, the difference between our explanation and the Lutherans' was overemphasized. I think this was for institutional reasons: Lutherans and Reformed felt they had to justify their existence as distinct traditions. They they glommed onto the few subtle differences and overplayed their importance. Fortunately the PC(USA) and ELCA today are in full communion.)

Of course the thing you normally think of as Reformed are predestination and covenant theology. I do believe in predestination. I also think the covenant is key to understanding what Jesus was doing, though the specifics of, say, Westminster are post-Calvin and I don't buy all of it. (Also, Calvin only taught 4 of the 5 points, and I'm inclined to follow him.) I'm just not sure that these things are really keys to being Reformed.

This more complex vision of what it means to be Reformed isn't often found on web sites, which tend to be from conservatives and tend to focus on flashy things like predestination. But it's there. For more details see reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/WhatIsRT.html, and the wonderful article by Garrish that they point to: reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/GerrishArticle.html (Sorry that the links are mangled, but the system won't let me post real links.)

This vision isn't the same as fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is about defending some key doctrines against modernism. There's nothing wrong with defending the truth, but the doctrines chosen as key represent only a small part of the Reformed tradition, and in some cases I think the formulations chosen was too narrow. E.g. Calvin and the Reformed tradition in general never took as narrow a view of what it means for Scripture to be true as the fundamentalists.

Please remember that fundamentalists are vocal, but in the minority in the Reformed churches in the US. The original Reformed Churches in the US were the PC(USA), RCA, and United Church of Christ. The fundamentalist Reformed bodies are small offshoots that believe the main bodies have rejected true Reformed faith. I don't know the UCC as well as I should, so I don't know how much they still emphasize the Reformed tradition. They are known as the liberal end of the tradition, and may be to the left even of me. The PC(USA) maintains a distinctive Reformed flavor, and I believe the RCA does as well. However my preference is to emphasize what is in common among the original Reformers, and thus look at a Reformation tradition that includes the Lutherans, and takes advantage of their good ideas as well as Calvin's.

 

[hedrick]

It must be very difficult to find an acceptance amongst Calvinists if you're very liberal surely.
Anyway, can you give an example of where a fundamentalist approach would yield a different exposition than a reformed one.?
What about creation/6-days/end-times/Israel etc?

I realized that I didn't actually answer your questions.

1. The original fundamentals are consistent with conservative Calvinism, so answers wouldn't necessarily contradict. However they also aren't specific to Calvinism, so you can be a fundamentalist Arminian. Also, more liberal Calvinists may not agree with all the fundamentals.

In particular, I don't believe in inerrancy in the sense that they meant it, nor do I think Calvin did. The major Reformed groups in the US today don't either. Many of us -- about about half in the PC(USA) -- accept the scientific account of creation and evolution.

Reformed certainly believe in the substitutionary atonement in some sense. But some fundamentalists present in it ways that we wouldn't all agree with. Calvin has a strong sense of union with Christ. Some Protestant thought sees the atonement as being almost an accounting matter. However Calvin believes that through our union with Christ, his obedience, including his obedience to death, is applied to us, and he suffers the consequence of our sin and overcomes it. The consequences include condemnation by men (religious leaders and Pilate representing the State), alienation from God, and hell. Through fellowship with him, our old man is killed and we are renewed. The concept of fellowship with Christ is very important to him.

2. Calvin didn't do a commentary on Revelation, and I don't see any particular eschatological scheme in the Institutes. The Reformed tradition in general hasn't emphasized eschatological speculation, nor is dispensationalism part of the Reformed tradition. Calvin tended to minimize the distinction between different "dispensations." He saw two covenants, with Abraham and the New Covenant. But he saw them as much the same thing, both being covenants of grace. They differed primarily in how they were administered. Interestingly, Calvin denied that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. He believed we inherit the consequences, which include corruption of our nature. Note however that later Calvinism developed a more elaborate scheme of covenants. Modern Reformed don't necessary accept that.

 

[desmalia]

1. The original fundamentals are consistent with conservative Calvinism, so answers wouldn't necessarily contradict. However they also aren't specific to Calvinism, so you can be a fundamentalist Arminian. Also, more liberal Calvinists may not agree with all the fundamentals.

This is a very good summary.

There have been several polls and discussions on Calvinism vs. Arminianism in the Fundamentalist section, and generally the majority there do tend to be Calvinists. (There can be a new group of regulars there every few months, so it does vary at times). But there are always a few who are not, and some who get very angry with the whole idea of "labels" and don't really want to get into the details of the doctrines.

What's interesting (and unfortunate, IMHO) is that the Fundie and Semper sections are among the quietest on CF now. They used to both be much more active prior to 7/7/7.

 

[salamacum]

< < What's interesting (and unfortunate, IMHO) is that the Fundie and Semper sections are among the quietest on CF now. They used to both be much more active prior to 7/7/7. > >

One reason why they may be quiet is that they do most of the talking to themselves.

From personal experience, I know that the welcome is not always friendly and the reception is suspicious. It's often along the lines of "Do you really want to know or are you here just to flame and cause trouble"?

Ironic, really, that the 2 boards that major on rationality and exposition rather than sentimentality should report posters so readily (it's the only place where I've had posts reported) and insist on their rules of engagement.

 

[desmalia]

Well you probably don't understand much about the history of the Fundie forum then. We have been flamed, trolled, and attacked quite a bit, and I think that has much to do with the poor definition of Fundamentalist that so many have bought into. We're a target for anyone with a bone to pick. It used to be a great place to come and discuss all sorts of things, and not just for Fundies, but for many people.

Also, after 7/7/7 many Fundies and Reformers left CF in droves and have not returned. They took a stand. And I respect them for doing so.

 

[A New Dawn]

< < What's interesting (and unfortunate, IMHO) is that the Fundie and Semper sections are among the quietest on CF now. They used to both be much more active prior to 7/7/7. > >

One reason why they may be quiet is that they do most of the talking to themselves.

From personal experience, I know that the welcome is not always friendly and the reception is suspicious. It's often along the lines of "Do you really want to know or are you here just to flame and cause trouble"?

Ironic, really, that the 2 boards that major on rationality and exposition rather than sentimentality should report posters so readily (it's the only place where I've had posts reported) and insist on their rules of engagement.

Did you have another name prior to June, 2008? Because I don't see any history with you in either the SR-R or the Fundamental forum.

 

[heymikey80]

Ironic, really, that the 2 boards that major on rationality and exposition rather than sentimentality should report posters so readily (it's the only place where I've had posts reported) and insist on their rules of engagement.

Not ironic. Rationality must enforce the reasonability of the argument, else it drowns in human emotion. Other forums really have no rules, because they're not well-reasoned. And so there's considerable latitude to deal with the wide range of emotions.

These things can be handled in a reasonable and consistent theology as well. But they have to be recognized as such. Otherwise they're discovered to be emotional attacks. And so they're reasonably excluded by the rules of discussion.

We have both the benefit of understanding why rules exist, and the realization that rules are there for a reason. I've been in enough online riots to know rules aren't meant to be broken.