What do you consider is "Fundamentalism"

[Madad21]

I have my moments.

Repent

I'm sorry you see Revelation 3:15,16 as referring to fundamentalism

Nope, like I had already said "The scripture itself is not exclusive to this interpretation but in all things Spiritual in supplication to the Lord"
Which does not cancel out my use of it for the purpose of this thread.

Apparently you're not reading your own definition because it affirmed what I said about fundamentalism being a view of the Bible as a strict, literal record of events that omits no details and must be interpreted precisely as written. At no point did your pasted definition refer to the measure of zeal one has for Christianity and following Jesus. So thank you for setting the record straight that I was right all along.

Where do you think "Faith" and "Morals" fits into zeal? and I quote again "he infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals
but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world

I will remember to make it easier next time.

The cold/hot/lukewarm/spew-out-of-mouth discussion is entirely separate. I said before and it can't be refuted that one does not need to be a fundamentalist to be filled with the Holy Spirit and enthusiastic in following Jesus.

Well thanks for reaffirming the indwelling of the Holy Spirit issue, unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I was talking about and not once did I infer that fundamentalism means indwelling or salvation.

Regarding popular trends in science, I believe science is abused when a predetermined assumption that God doesn't exist or that man descended from crap flinging apes directs one's vector of scientific inquiry. Science is a tool by which we come to know our Creator better by understanding how he made all of this. To make science an enemy of faith is to pervert its true intention.

*sigh*
And again.
.now there is nothing wrong with a modernist theology (in fact its necessary) as long as it takes a back seat to infallibility every-time, those who would sit on the fence and say I have no stand because I have no proof either way, show lack of conviction and a (2 Tim 4:3) nature, these people are obviously lukewarm.

(I made the words bigger to make it easier)

Then in regard to infallibility, it means different things to different people. Catholics and many other Christians believe that it's the inspiration of God upon the authors of the various books that's infallible, not the details which were written in the context of the author's time, culture, and the limits of his understanding. In fact, I view it as a weak faith that demands that everything in the Bible be a literal, historical fact. What if it isn't? What shifting sands we build our faith upon when we put our faith in the details rather than the divine inspiration that gave us such a great book.

I have no argument with that, it certainly doesn't go against anything I've said.

If it means different things to different people then you should have no problem with the scripture I used, especially when part of the definition included "Zeal" as in "Faith and "Morals"
My interpretation is far more accurate then your flimsy "Different things to different people" approach. :huh:

Clarkes Commentry
"Thou art neither cold nor hot - Ye are neither heathens nor Christians - neither good nor evil - neither led away by false doctrine, nor thoroughly addicted to that which is true. In a word, they were listless and indifferent, and seemed to care little whether heathenism or Christianity prevailed. Though they felt little zeal either for the salvation of their own souls or that of others, yet they had such a general conviction of the truth and importance of Christianity, that they could not readily give it up."
(http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/revelation/3.htm)

Heathenism[1]
(also called Heathenry,[2] or Germanic Heathenry[3][4]) is the contemporary revival of historical Germanic paganism, therefore it is also frequently known as Germanic Neopaganism. Precursor movements appeared in the early 20th century in Germany and Austria. A second wave of revival began in the early 1970s.
Attitude and focus of adherents may vary considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), pragmatic psychologist (Jungian archetypal), Agnostic-Atheist/Humanist, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic Neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Heathenism)

 

[River Jordan]

This is a pretty good read on the subject: Fundamentalist Christianity

 

[StanJ]

The Nicene Creed is considered by most to be Fundamentalist Christianity.
Most denoms have a Statement of Faith (SoF) that they consider fundamental.

It's good to start with the Nicene Creed and add to is as required.