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

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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.