Soteriology and related matters

[Joy]

The fundamentalist believes he knows what every Christian should believe and think.

That sounds familiar by some (non-fundamentalist) posters on MN.

[Ken]

I certainly wouldn't include cults such as JW's and Mormons in a listing of those following the Bible.

The Mormons are not fundamentalists. The Mormon church does not dispute evolution or take a stand on evolution, for example. There are fundamentalist Mormons but they are a small splinter sect.

But the Mormons are most certainly evangelical. I get more Mormons knocking on my door than all others combined.

It is just a very rough draft idea. I'm sure if the idea is worth developing we could do a much better job with a final product.

[Josh]

Likewise, JWs follow some parts of the bible (such as Jesus teaching not to kill) that many other "Christians" ignore. It's hard to say who's following the Bible "better".

[Neto]

It would be helpful, I think, if working definitions were given for terms like "Fundamentalists" ("Fundies") and "Evangelicals". The Scripture tells us about the results of an evangelical faith, but these terms mean something different. I recall having read an article in "Christianity Today" back in the early 70's (as best I can recall) that defined these terms, but I do not remember how it read, who wrote it, or the name of the article. I have looked on their website at old publications, but it would require looking through a number of years, issue by issue. Anyway, reading that article was the first time I considered whether I was an "Evangelical". (The answer was 'no', at least according to their descriptions.) I do wish I could find it, because I think that it would be helpful to see what the proponents of "Evangelicalism" said about the movement, at that point in time. (I suspect that definitions given now, by both opponents and by proponents, would be quite different. Having lived in that setting in Bible college, I have often heard criticisms of them, statements which are untrue and unfair generalizations, even though I do not consider myself to be in that camp.)

[ohio jones]

But the Mormons are most certainly evangelical. I get more Mormons knocking on my door than all others combined.

That's "evangelistic" which is not the same thing as either "evangelical" or "Evangelical."

[Sudsy]

A significant issue for Anabaptists is that, generally speaking, they expect their members who claim to be following Jesus to practice the ideals of pacifism or nonresistance. This makes them markedly different than evangelicals, who would not expect such a lifestyle change.

For example, most Anabaptists would expect someone not to attend communion whilst carrying a concealed firearm. (I am aware there are some that would tolerate or even celebrate this, but this is not the norm.) That makes them quite different from evangelicals, who would consider the choice to carry a personal defensive weapon an entirely individual and personal matter.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus did not confront the centurion regarding his use of authority which I think we can assume included resistance involving bodily harm ? Jesus actually praised the centurion for the kind of faith He had in Jesus. Did Jesus pass up an opportunity to tell the centurion that he needed to change his lifestyle, his job ? Matthew 8:5-13.

Yes, I've often wondered. But John says that if he wrote all that could be written about Jesus' life, the world would not have enough room for all the books. So I just go with what is recorded on what Jesus said about these matters. He said plenty.

To me, this often boils down to our understandings of what are weightier matters and what are not rather than what is sinning and what is not.

For examples, it does not appear that Jesus thought it was more of a weightier matter to deal with the centurion's job than it was to point out his exceptional faith in Jesus. Scripture likewise points to how slaves and slave owners are to live as believers and this appears a weightier matter than to confront slavery itself. Another example is when Jesus told Peter to put away his sword. The weightier matter was not to attempt to defend Jesus at that time. Romans 13 seems to say there is a time to resist evil physically as one of God's servants so that can be taken as certain situations may require the killing of others. The weightier matter being to stop evil such as what was done to stop Hitler and these acts are not treated as murdering someone.

Church groups have made certain things to be significant issues that separates themselves from others going way back to the earliest church when Paul rebuked the Corinthian church for doing this. Some say they followed one apostle while another said they followed another. I wonder what those differences were in those early times. Were they weightier matters over less weightier matters or were they matters regarded as actual sinning.

[Ken]

But the Mormons are most certainly evangelical. I get more Mormons knocking on my door than all others combined.

That's "evangelistic" which is not the same thing as either "evangelical" or "Evangelical."

Like I said, I was using the terms fundamentalist and evangelical rather loosely and generically.

In the mainstream media you often see the terms used interchangeably and generically. I tend to see them as two separate things for which we can put on two independent axis. Maybe it is a useful construct, maybe it isn’t. But I think you can be a fundamentalist without being evangelical. And you can be evangelical without being fundamentalist. And you can also be both or neither. Which is how you get the diagram I sketched out. Although how you put groups into different boxes is, of course, also open for discussion. Maybe some don’t belong anywhere but are on some separate different axis someplace else.

[Joy]

Likewise, JWs follow some parts of the bible (such as Jesus teaching not to kill) that many other "Christians" ignore. It's hard to say who's following the Bible "better".

You can't be wrong on who Jesus is, though. In context of His deity, He warned, I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins." [Jhn 8:24 NIV]

JW's deny that Jesus is God, contrary to overwhelming proof in Scripture that He is.

Mormons teach the opposite--that everybody can become Gods, as they say God Himself did.

[Josh]

You can't be wrong on who Jesus is, though. In context of His deity, He warned, I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins." [Jhn 8:24 NIV]

The idea that salvation is only granted to those who believe the correct "facts" about Jesus whilst simultaneously disobeying his very plain words flies right at the heart of Jesus' entire message.

More soberingly, it is not clear to me in scripture that those who are expressly disobedient to Jesus' commands will rule and reign with him the kingdom. Jesus never presented salvation as a "get out of jail free" card, where simple mental assent to some kind of list of fundamentalist facts is all that is necessary to guarantee salvation, even if some of the magisterial reformers did so.

[Josh]

Like I said, I was using the terms fundamentalist and evangelical rather loosely and generically.

"Fundamentalist" and "evangelical" have quite specific, academic terms, and when discussing theological differences between religious groups it would seem prudent to stick to those meanings.

In the mainstream media you often see the terms used interchangeably and generically.

The mainstream media might not be staffed with people well-versed in the proper use of academic language.

I tend to see them as two separate things for which we can put on two independent axis. Maybe it is a useful construct, maybe it isn’t. But I think you can be a fundamentalist without being evangelical. And you can be evangelical without being fundamentalist. And you can also be both or neither. Which is how you get the diagram I sketched out. Although how you put groups into different boxes is, of course, also open for discussion. Maybe some don’t belong anywhere but are on some separate different axis someplace else.

"Fundamentalism" was a specific movement in Christianity about 100 years ago, and is well-documented as such. "Evangelicalism" is a particular movement that then flowed out from that.

I think you have confused the terms "evangelical" with "evangelistic".