How do you define "Fundamentalist"?

In this video, it seems to mean sth else than an inerrantist:

3 Reasons I Have a Problem with Fundamentalist Christians
PastorTanner | 14 Oct. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXCFrKLNxAI

2:45 Our Lord Jesus once told some people that St. John retroactively qualifies as "Jews" though he elsewhere shows Jesus would not have used the word that way:

For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me.

If you insist every book, chapter, verse of all the Bible is "interpretation" ... how do you deal with Our Lord expecting His words to be verifiable (and in fact verified by people living 45 miles or 73 km from Thessalonica, if you know where Berea is on a map)?

3:46 Great, the text from I think Acts 4 does not negate Romans 13, or in context, since the priests of the temple prior to deicide were ecclesiastic prelates, Hebrews 13:7, it actually just tells us where the limits are.

Romans 13 should for instance not be a recommendation to take the mark of the beast bc it is required by government, if that is the manner in which it is imposed.

Tensions are beautiful ... when it comes to soteriology (read Eph 2:8--10 for one) or instructions on how to live.

It does not follow that tensions can actually be all that present about Biblical history. Nuance can. Speaking of nuance, how do you interpret Shinar in Genesis 11? If the LXX translates the word Shinar as Babylon on occasion (seemingly not in Genesis 11), does this reflect when Babylonian Empire was South of Assyrian, or when Babylonian Empire had entirely already swallowed up Assyria? Or in other words, was Babel a place only in Sumer or a place anywhere in the physical geographical region between two rivers, as per the precision "in the land of Shinar"?

I hold to the latter, btw ...

4:38 Catholicism actually would agree that pre-millennial or post-millennial (sometimes called "amillennial") is secondary. Though this is an ill known fact, some hold chiliasm to be a formally condemned heresy.

However, pre-trib (at least for all of the Church) would contradict Matthew 28:20 "all days" .... the tribulation saints are still part of the Church that Jesus founded on the Apostles, they are not like OT bis, as some have held.

Now, some Protestants when dealing with Catholics will fail to understand we also do distinguish between primary and secondary, simply because for us, more quantity of doctrines come into the level primary, a k a dogma. E. g. a Protestant may argue one could disagree on Real Presence vs Symbolism + Spiritual effect, a Catholic holds we need to believe Real Presence. A sinner can physically receive the Body of Christ, and thereby commit a sacrilege. As St. Paul actually says.

If we have more primary doctrines, we might have more secondary and tertiary ones as well, not less ... where Babel was is tertiary, if my guess in advance on what you will define that as is correct. It's important for apologetics. W a i t ... it actually has sth to say on what Babel was as a moral atmosphere.

In my view:

• imagine a bungler, who thinks he can launch a space craft, if he only can continue to command everyone else on earth
• but who in reality can't, because the Neolithic he is helping to technically and socially advance doesn't have all pre-Flood technology, whatever that was and didn't have Wernher von Braun
• but as he thinks he can, and getting up into space and onto a plane where God lives and which can't be flooded is vital to human survival, he thinks he has a right to command human unity internationally, to save mankind
• and as he was popular (but also efficient in coercion) as a mammoth hunter in the not far off palaeolithic (when he was a decade or two younger, or three or four), he gets away with capital punishment involving some kind of decapitation and leaving decapitated bodies to vultures, while he strings the skulls on top of each other, as skulls so stringed have been found in Göbekli Tepe, and as bodies lying under flying vultures are depicted on ceramics from the same neolithic ...

I think this is a fairly important message. Antichrist won't be a great New Age guru, as they are normally seen. If he can rely on people, including Christians, to bark up the wrong tree, to see the tower as a bronze age ziggurat or chalcolithic ziggurat, and esoterism as its goal, he can get pretty far, even supported by Christians. Or supposed such.

5:02 Post-trib is obviously the correct, or at least safest doctrine.

William Tapley believes there is a partial pre-trib, which is obviously not in the fault against Mt 28:20. But then, that cannot be what 1 Thessalonians 4:16 speaks of.

5:08 Indeed, Calvinism was condemned by Trent, and women priests were condemned when they were Montanists, and no one outside Montanism was ordaining women.

I don't know what an "ordained preacher" is, doesn't exist. Someone can preach because he is ordained and stationed at a particular parish (or diocese), and someone can preach with "venia praedicandi" from the bishop, this would involve St. Francis of Assisi, and probably at least internally to the nuns, St. Bridget.

5:21 It could be that you misjudge him.

God could have given him the grace to approach Catholic, i e true, doctrine. The examples he gave definitely are not what we would call secondary.

5:50 Now, fine enough ... "Fundamentalism of this sort" ... you have not brought up whether you'd admit it is a primary doctrine Adam was directly created, with no biological ancestry.

Pius XII tried to treat it as secondary, but he could not define it as secondary. A Pope can define, from what he sees, as primary doctrine, i e as dogma.

He cannot definitely say for the rest of history "this position is just secondary" ... one never knows in advance, when a previously seen as secondary doctrine turns out for some reason to be primary. The only things he can really define for the rest of history are infallible things. And an infallible thing, by the fact of being so, is a primary doctrine.

I had once been of the idea, that Quo Primum (about the Traditional Latin Mass) could be non-doctrinal, therefore non-infallible, but still binding on all successors. I recently saw a debate article from 77 state that it was simply not just disciplinary, but doctrinal, and that's why it could be binding on all successors, not just binding on all future barring changes by successors, as the wording was also interpreted.

So much more can a "right now, the teaching authority does not forbid that" (on Humani Generis) not be eternally binding because it's not an infallible statement, when it even says "right now" in close synonym in the text.

That Adam had no biological ancestry was not just taken for granted by all centuries, but is implicit in ...

• God's goodness to Adam, should the hypothetical biological ancestry, despite common anatomy, be non-human
• God's goodness to us, in punishing us for his sin, if he was not the human from which all other humans come.

Btw, that Adam is not a figure of speech for a collective, is already defined as dogma, Trent Session V.

Plus, making the first and that momentuous sin a collective one is in fact a kind of supralapsarian Calvinism, horrible heresy, since collectives as such do not exercise free will, only the individuals that constitute them can exercise it, or any other faculty of the soul.