Another Question for My Liberal-Leaning "Evangelical" Friends

Since many of you like to use the word "fundamentalist" to refer to people who believe in a literal Adam and history of the Bible, a view of the Bible that sees it as inerrant, a dogmatism that seeks to protect what is considered orthodox theology from innovation, etc.; and since you like to imply that such is not the true trajectory of Christ and Christianity, I have just one question, formed in many questions, for you.

Would the apostles be considered fundamentalists by your definitions? Would the Church Fathers be fundamentalists by your definitions? Would the scholastics and reformers be fundamentalists by your definitions? Would the Puritans by fundamentalists by your definitions?

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that if you have such a love for Christ, Christ's people, and Christianity then why do you have such a disdain for Christ's people and Christianity? Is it because, in truth, you have such disdain for Christ Himself, the real One that is? If not, why do you speak so condescendingly to those who represent the bulk of the Christian stance and attitude toward certain issues?

Do you have some sort of illusion that the old Christians weren't corrected by scientific discovery, prevalent philosophies of the day, logic, a critical study of the Bible? Was evolution not taught by the atheists? Was not logic available? Did they not see the Bible in terms of critical reflection and defend against critical assumptions that were hostile toward its divine origin? Were they all, the entirety of the Christian Church before you, a bunch of unthoughtful apologists who didn't really understand the Bible and Christianity before you and your culture did?

Maybe you have a problem with those you view as fundamentalists because you actually have a problem with orthodox Christianity.

Now, I actually think that true fundamentalism is cult-like, but I define it differently than you do. I don't see fundamentalists as literalists. Some of the fundamentalists and cults I've studied are more allegorical than most liberals are when it comes to the text. They just have a different theology of the world, God, and humanity to which they apply those "allegorizings." Instead, what you really mean by "fundamentalist" is someone who is a conservative evangelical that looks at the Bible much like the apostles, fathers, scholastics, reformers, and puritans (i.e., the lion's share of Christians in history) did.

So do you really work that out in your mind to where you love all of these Christians in history but are annoyed by their descendents in the present? Maybe you aren't explicitly calling them, "You Fool," or "Raca," but you are implying it with your attitude toward them. And maybe they are fools in your mind, but why are they fools and the rest of their kin brilliant, godly men who tried to be faithful to the Word of God? Why give respect for such in history but not in the contemporary? Why honor the prophet of yesteryear and stone the one today who speaks with the same voice?

Maybe instead of giving some knee-jerk apologetic defense against what I've said here in favor of bashing evangelical Christians for holding the same beliefs that Christians have always held throughout the ages, you should think about it for awhile instead? Maybe.