Yep Johnny reddit - it was Joel Richards I was thinking of (who I admired - but he’s gone now). One of the posters to the thread says
“Subservience to her husband” is a far cry from being descriptive of my mother. Yet, she claimed to be a fundamentalist.
Hmmmm… maybe that’s why she lived to be 101, whereas my father died at age 62. 
Sounds like Joel Richards was a good chap, Dick. But depressingly and utterly predictably you have to trawl through an awful lot of homophobic bile before you reach that rare voice of compassion in these so-called Christians. Clifford’s article is deeply hypocritical (what is it about people called Clifford, eh? ). How dare he talk about “speaking the truth in love”. Evangelicalism? You can keep it.
J
Very funny and pertinent Don!!! Again I think that is what it has come to mean today. Likewise some of the early fundamentalists were like Clarence Darrow actually quite progressive in their politics I understand. He had a social gospel but this fell of the radar and is not something that you’d find amongst many who can be described as fundamentalists today.
That’s an interesting interview lotharson. Hmmm I still find these labels difficult. ‘Liberal’ is a case in point too – I mean there is a huge difference between John Shelby Spong and Rob Bell but both have been described contemptuously as ‘liberals’. These labels had a specific meaning once upon a time – but I think culture wars has degraded their currency. Perhaps the only way round this is to be specific about areas of agreement and disagreement between individuals in discussion rather than using the labels – but this is time consuming 
.
Well, that really depends on what one thinks “eternal” means, doesn’t it? 
I think evangelical means that you are concerned with soul winning for Jesus and following the Great Commission directive.
The attempts to doctrinally pigeonhole evangelicals are inaccurate in my opinion. There will always be groups insisting on primacy for their beliefs but that doesn’t mean someone with somewhat different belief positions can’t be an evangelical.
There have been multiple schools in eschatology and on afterlife questions right from the start of Christianity.
It is just the more populous denominations seem to assume because they are bigger that their whole belief system must be right. A bigger is better mentality is what I think is behind this which means they aren’t examining everything in detail enough. But a mistake can be magnified…number of believers doesn’t prove the belief is accurate. There are plenty of Hindus and Buddhists. Does that make their beliefs the truth?
For some reason groups have made hell doctrine a salvation issue when the bible doesn’t say that.
The bible says we are saved by grace not works.
Belief In hell isn’t even mentioned as a requirement for salvation In the bible and the people who have tied themselves to it lack the humility to even examine if they could be mistaken. They most likely don’t want to buck the herd so we get this knee jerk reaction from them and then they cherry pick verses to support their previous position.
It is certain groups of people who think that their existence requires them to stand firm on hell doctrine. I don’t believe God thinks so though.
Our foundation that we stand firm on is Jesus…I only need a belief in Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life to be evangelical.
The opposite of life isn’t hell…The opposite is death.
The bible says the wages of sin is death. Not hell.