What do Fundamentalist Christians think of non-fundamentalist Christians?

[mossrose]

You would say that a non-fundamentalist Christian is a Christian or probably not a Christian?

I would say probably not a Christian. Or, at the very least, a weak, immature believer who hasn't got the "fundamentals" down pat, yet.

[Catholicity]

The modern use of the term Fundamentalist has long strayed from the published pamphlet "the Fundamentals"

[Christianbookworm]

Wait. Are we talking about the primary importance doctrines? Like the Resurrection? I guess fundy is code for wacky cultist on the internet.

[Catholicity]

I also tend to think there is a dividing line between fundamentalist Christian and say one who identifies via Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian etc. they do not identify strictly the pamphlets guidelines (which for intents and purposes is a very modern definition of what constitutes a Christian) but none the less are still Christian. Putting the term Christian into a neat little box isn't fair to believes who hear Jesus in their respective ways.

[KingsGambit]

Wait. Are we talking about the primary importance doctrines? Like the Resurrection? I guess fundy is code for wacky cultist on the internet.

The movement called "fundamentalism" named five fundamentals:

*Inerrancy
*Virgin birth
*Atonement
*Resurrection
*Jesus's miracles as historically real

[Christianbookworm]

The movement called "fundamentalism" named five fundamentals:

*Inerrancy
*Virgin birth
*Atonement
*Resurrection
*Jesus's miracles as historically real

I think inerrancy might be the only one that gets debated. In that some make it a primary and others make it a secondary. I believe the original documents of Scripture were inerrant, but I'm not dogmatic about it. I don't hold to the idea that God told the writers exactly what words to write, but who does?

[KingsGambit]

I think inerrancy might be the only one that gets debated. In that some make it a primary and others make it a secondary. I believe the original documents of Scripture were inerrant, but I'm not dogmatic about it. I don't hold to the idea that God told the writers exactly what words to write, but who does?

In Sunday school as a youth my teacher suggested that the writers put their hands out and God moved them with pen in hand, and I went along with it.

[Catholicity]

I would be inclined to believe scripture is spiritually inerrent, as well as correct as opposed to precise. It is God's word written through the pen of man. therefore it will contain some "error" that does not negate its spiritual inerrent nor its correctness of account.

[DesertBerean]

In Sunday school as a youth my teacher suggested that the writers put their hands out and God moved them with pen in hand, and I went along with it.

That's called auto-something, and....yeah, no.

[Jedidiah]

The movement called "fundamentalism" named five fundamentals:

*Inerrancy
*Virgin birth
*Atonement
*Resurrection
*Jesus's miracles as historically real

I believe those. I must be a fundamentalist. Oh wait, I already knew that.

ETA: I believe that inerrancy (while I accept it as true) is not a requirement for being a Christian. I would also add the Trinity.

[Catholicity]

One serious issue I have with the five fundamentals they left out baptism. Jesus was pretty clear to the disciples that they were to do it.

[KingsGambit]

I personally don't understand why some people get hung up on the virgin birth. I know Dietrich Bonhoeffer had a major problem with the concept. If God can raise Jesus from the death, why would the virgin birth be a problem?

[JonathanL]

I personally don't understand why some people get hung up on the virgin birth. I know Dietrich Bonhoeffer had a major problem with the concept. If God can raise Jesus from the death, why would the virgin birth be a problem?

If God can create the universe out of nothing, why would either the virgin birth or the resurrection be a problem?

[Paprika]

I personally don't understand why some people get hung up on the virgin birth. I know Dietrich Bonhoeffer had a major problem with the concept. If God can raise Jesus from the death, why would the virgin birth be a problem?

A little googling reveals that Bonhoeffer didn't affirm the physical resurrection either.

Bonhoeffer, child of German liberal theology, held precisely the type of views that Christian fundamentalism reacted against.

[Thoughtful Monk]

The modern use of the term Fundamentalist has long strayed from the published pamphlet "the Fundamentals"

I hesitate to call a 4 volume set of books just a pamphlet. http://www.theopedia.com/The_Fundamentals Even if it is a group of pamphlets, its like calling the Federalist Papers a pamphlet.

I would want to read the volumes before I comment on how far the straying has gone...