Featured Fundamentalists - the general definition

The Pharisees were no more Fundamentalists than the reprobates running the PCUSA denomination. They didn't believe Moses and the prophets. They followed their own rules, not the law of Moses.

#3 is invalid in this situation. It's not what people mean when they speak of a Christian fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist:

1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts, especially within American Protestantism and Islam.

1. (Christianity) (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true

 

I agree.

Unfortunately, this is the definition many in the media use, but I agree with you that it is invalid. If this definition were true then all evangelicals would be fundamentalists, and the majority of evangelicals reject the label.

Again, this is more of a definition used by the media and thus by the average man in the street. It is not a definition that Christian fundamentalists use, nor is it based on the historical origin and usage of the term.

This is the definition used by liberal British academics such as James Barr in his 1981 book, Fundamentalism (2nd ed.). For example, he writes, "By what term would 'fundamentalists' prefer to be called? The term favoured at present, at least in Great Britain, is 'conservative evangelical'" (p. 2)0. This exhibits a complete misunderstanding of the American movement.

The missing element in all of these definitions is that a fundamentalist takes a stand against theological liberalism that results in ecclesiastical separation. So a fundamentalist is one who not only holds to the basic doctrines of Biblical Christianity, the "fundamentals of the faith," but is willing to contend for them up to and including ecclesiastical separation from liberals and the ecclesiastical bodies they control.

 

Here is a definition of fundamentalism by John R. Rice, a leader in shaping the movement:

"So as we define fundamentalism it means a vigorous defense of the faith, active soul winning, great New Testament-type local churches going abroad to win multitudes, having fervent love for all of God's people and earnestly avoiding compromise in doctrine or yoking up with unbelievers" (I Am a Fundamentalist, by John R. Rice, p. 10).

 

Well, friend, looking back at the OP I see that it is about a "general meaning," so I somewhat disagree with myself and agree with you.

There is now a technical meaning for the term (what I defined it as) and a general meaning for the term (what was in the OP).

What has happened to the term, whether we like it or not, is called in linguistics "semantic change," defined: "Usually of change in the meaning of words. Types include extension or widening of meaning and restriction of meaning" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, by P. H. Matthews, p. 360).

Here is where the difference in the term as a technical term or a general term becomes clear. This statement is dealing with the term as a technical term, except for your phrase "in the eyes of the beholder." Evangelicals themselves generally reject the term when applied to themselves. (Billy Graham is the prime example.) However, the media, British liberals and others do apply the term to anyone who believes in a verbally inspired Bible.

 

Wrong. When you talk about Christian Fundamentalists, the first definition in the dictionary is implied. If you mean another definition, you need to define it, else you're miscommunication (and, you're still being silly in using #3 in reference to Christians). #3 is not the definition used by the secular world in regard to Christians.

 

Is General Definition in the Army or Marines?? That's a fundamental fact we need to know.

 

It seems that the definition of the term "Fundamentalist" is a moving target and therefore we will never meet on a level playing field.

HankD