Conservative v. Fundamentalist

[Iosias]

There seems to be a legitimate question as to what differentiates between a conservative and a fundamentalist if indeed anything does.

So are they different and if so how?

To kick of the debate:

1. Conservative Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity)
2. Fundamentalist Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fundamentalism)
3. Evangelical Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism)

[GreenMunchkin]

This has also been covered already :)

[Debi1967]

To sum this up briefly

fundamentalism - Literal belief in the Bible and it bases it doctrines on explicit criteria using Sola Scriptura alone

Conservative Christianity -embraces not only the afore mentioned belief system but also includes the belief that Scriptura and Tradition can be used or explicit and Implicitly implied doctrine may be used.... Also another primary difference with SOME Conservative Christians, mostly Apostolic is that Tradition is and was used for the formation of the written Word th Bible ....

[Iosias]

This has also been covered already :)

According to the proposed rules

This Forum Affirms that…

1) The Holy Scriptures are the inspired, written Word of God. Scripture is the revelation of God given for the instruction of his people in faith, morals, and doctrine. The revelation of scripture is completely reliable and authoritative.


2) The minimum standard of doctrinal belief in order for a person to be considered a Christian is accurately contained within the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. The doctrines contained within these creeds are the bare essentials upon which Christians must agree. It is understood, however, that even within the creeds there are some differences of interpretation. Specifically, it is allowed in this forum that the term “Catholic Church” can be understood to mean the universal, invisible body of which all Christians are members. The phrase “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” can be understood in a symbolic sense.


3) Our Christian faith can not be separated from our views on politics and society, or any other area of life. The Conservative Christian worldview holds the following values and views to be necessary expressions of Christian morality based upon Holy Scripture and the established teachings of the Christian Church.

- The sanctity of human life. Physical life begins at conception and ends when the body can no longer naturally sustain itself. Human life can not be ended prematurely without just cause and just authority to do so. This includes most cases of abortion and euthanasia.

- Sexual morality is a fundamental requirement of Christian moral teaching. The Scriptures repeatedly address the topic of sexual morality as a necessary part of our obedience to God and right living. Sexually moral behavior, in Scripture, and in the established teachings of the Church is held to be limited to sex between a husband and his wife. All other sexual activities fall under the heading of sexual immorality.


4) Sin separates people from God. Thus it is destructive and harmful. Jesus Christ came not only to grant us a way of forgiveness from sin, but also to free us from bondage to sin. Our Lord Jesus Christ has imparted to us the ministry of reconciliation. It is our duty and privilege to teach people the gospel of forgiveness of sins, freedom from sin, and reconciliation to God. Freedom begins with knowing the truth.

How does this differ from what a Fundamentalist believes?

[Iosias]

fundamentalism - Literal belief in the Bible and it bases it doctrines on explicit criteria using Sola Scriptura alone

Which means what and according to whom?

Conservative Christianity -embraces not only the afore mentioned belief system but also includes the belief that Scriptura and Tradition can be used or explicit and Implicitly implied doctrine may be used.... Also another primary difference with SOME Conservative Christians, mostly Apostolic is that Tradition is and was used for the formation of the written Word th Bible ....

According to whom?

[Debi1967]

Which means what and according to whom?



According to whom?
why not go to the fundy forum and ask them what they believe I have and I debated many of them

now if you cannot take the word of someone that is known on these forums as an apologist to know what she is talking about when it comes to the Faith and beliefs of others then by all means you do the homework .....

[Iosias]

why not go to the fundy forum and ask them what they believe I have and I debated many of them

now if you cannot take the word of someone that is known on these forums as an apologist to know what she is talking about when it comes to the Faith and beliefs of others then by all means you do the homework .....

My point is simple...where is the objective definition?

The Fundamentals were written by Conservative Christians and affirmed by Presbyterians such as J Gresham Machen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gresham_Machen)who wrote Christianity and Liberalism (http://www.reformed.org/books/chr_and_lib/).

I think that you would get a better understanding if you looked into some history. To that end I shall post some.

[Iosias]

Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the United States during and immediately after the First World War in order to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and to defend it militantly against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other isms regarded as harmful to American Christianity. Since then, the focus of the movement, the meaning of the term, and the ranks of those who willingly use the term to identify themselves have changed several times. Fundamentalism has so far gone through four phases of expression while maintaining an essential continuity of spirit, belief, and method.
Phase I - Through the 1920s

The earliest phase involved articulating what was fundamental to Christianity and initiating an urgent battle to expel the enemies of orthodox Protestantism from the ranks of the churches

The series of twelve volumes called The Fundamentals (1910 - 15) provided a wide listing of the enemies, Romanism, socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Eddyism, Mormonism, spiritualism, and the like, but above all liberal theology, which rested on a naturalistic interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, and German higher criticism and Darwinism, which appeared to undermine the Bible's authority. The writers of the articles were a broad group from English speaking North America and the United Kingdom and from many denominations. The doctrines they defined and defended covered the whole range of traditional Christian teachings. They presented their criticisms fairly, with careful argument, and in appreciation of much that their opponents said.
Almost immediately, however, the list of enemies became narrower and the fundamentals less comprehensive. Defenders of the fundamentals of the faith began to organize outside the churches and within the denominations. The General Assembly of the northern Presbyterian Church in 1910 affirmed five essential doctrines regarded as under attack in the church: the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, Christ's bodily resurrection, and the historicity of the miracles. These were reaffirmed in 1916 and 1923, by which time they had come to be regarded as the fundamental doctrines of Christianity itself. On a parallel track, and in the tradition of Bible prophecy conferences since 1878, premillenarian Baptists and independents founded the World's Christian Fundamentals Association in 1919, with William B Riley as the prime mover. The premillennialists tended to replace the miracles with the resurrection and the second coming of Christ, or even premillenarian doctrine as the fifth fundamental. Another version put the deity of Christ in place of the virgin birth.

The term "fundamentalist" was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in the Baptist Watchman - Examiner, but it seemed to pop up everywhere in the early 1920s as an obvious way to identify someone who believed and actively defended the fundamentals of the faith. The Baptist John Roach Straton called his newspaper The Fundamentalist in the 1920s. The Presbyterian scholar J Gresham Machen disliked the word, and only hesitantingly accepted it to described himself, because, he said, it sounded like a new religion and not the same historic Christianity that the church had always believed.
Through the 1920s the fundamentalists waged the battle in the large northern church denominations as nothing less than a struggle for true Christianity against a new non Christian religion that had crept into the churches themselves. In his book Christianity and Liberalism (1923), Machen called the new naturalistic religion "liberalism," but later followed the more popular fashion of calling it "modernism."

Even though people like Harry Emerson Fosdick professed to be Christian, fundamentalists felt they could not be regarded as such because they denied the traditional formulations of the doctrines of Christianity and created modern, naturalistic statements of the doctrines. The issue was as much a struggle over a view of the identity of Christianity as it was over a method of doing theology and a view of history. Fundamentalists believed that the ways the doctrines were formulated in an earlier era were true and that modern attempts to reformulate them were bound to be false. In other words, the fundamentals were unchanging.
Church struggles occurred in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church, and even in the southern Presbyterian Church, but the grand battles were fought in the northern Presbyterian and northern Baptist denominations. Machen was the undisputed leader among Presbyterians, joined by Clarence E Macartney. Baptists created the National Federation of the Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists (1921), the Fundamentalist Fellowship (1921), and the Baptist Bible Union (1923) to lead the fight. The battles focused upon the seminaries, the mission boards, and the ordination of clergy. In many ways, however, the real strongholds of the fundamentalists were the Southern Baptists and the countless new independent churches spread across the south and midwest, as well as the east and west.
In politics fundamentalists opposed the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools, leading up to the famous Scopes trial (1925) in Dayton, Tennessee. William Jennings Bryan, a Presbyterian layman and three times candidate for the American presidency, was acknowledged leader of the antievolution battle.

[Iosias]

Phase II - Late 1920s to the Early 1940s

By 1926 or so, those who were militant for the fundamentals had failed to expel the modernists from any denomination. Moreover, they also lost the battle against evolutionism. Orthodox Protestants, who still numerically dominated all the denominations, now began to struggle among themselves. During the Depression of the 1930s the term "fundamentalist" gradually shifted meaning as it came to apply to only one party among those who believed the traditional fundamentals of the faith. Meanwhile, neo orthodoxy associated with Karl Barth's critique of liberalism found adherents in America.


In several cases in the north fundamentalists created new denominations in order to carry on the true faith in purity apart from the larger bodies they regarded as apostate. They formed the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (1932), the Presbyterian Church of America (1936), renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Bible Presbyterian Church (1938), the Conservative Baptist Association of America (1947), the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (1930), and many others. In the south fundamentalists dominated the huge Southern Baptist Convention, the southern Presbyterian Church, and the expanding independent Bible church and Baptist church movements, including the American Baptist Association. Across the United States fundamentalists founded new revival ministries, mission agencies, seminaries, Bible schools, Bible conferences, and newspapers.
During this period the distinctive theological point that the fundamentalists made was that they represented true Christianity based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that de facto this truth ought to be expressed organizationally separate from any association with liberals and modernists. They came to connect a separatist practice with the maintenance of the fundamentals of the faith. They also identified themselves with what they believed was pure in personal morality and American culture. Thus, the term "fundamentalist" came to refer largely to orthodox Protestants outside the large northern denominations, whether in the newly established denominations, in the southern churches, or in the many independent churches across the land.

[Iosias]

Phase III - Early 1940s to the 1970s

Beginning in the early 1940s the fundamentalists, thus becoming redefined, divided gradually into two camps. There were those who voluntarily continued to use the term to refer to themselves and to equate it with true Bible believing Christianity. There were others who came to regard the term as undesirable, having connotations of divisive, intolerant, anti intellectual, unconcerned with social problems, even foolish. This second group wished to regain fellowship with the orthodox Protestants who still constituted the vast majority of the clergy and people in the large northern denominations, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian. They began during the 1940s to call themselves "evangelicals" and to equate that term with true Christianity. Beginning in 1948 a few called themselves neoevangelical.

Organizationally this spilt among largely northern fundamentalists was expressed on one hand by the American Council of Christian Churches (1941), which was ecclesiastically separatist in principle, and on the other by the National Association of Evangelicals (1942), which sought to embrace orthodox Protestants as individuals in all denominations. The term "fundamentalist" was carried into the 1950s by the ACCC as well as by a vast number of southern churches and independent churches not included in either body. It was proudly used by such schools as Bob Jones University, Moody Bible Institute, and Dallas Theological Seminary, and by hundreds of evangelists and radio preachers. The International Council of Christian Churches (1948) sought to give the term worldwide currency in opposition to the World Council of Churches.

The term "fundamentalist" took on special meaning in contrast with evangelical or neoevangelical, rather than merely in contrast with liberalism, modernism, or neo orthodoxy. Fundamentalists and evangelicals in the 1950s and 1960s shared much; both adhered to the traditional doctrines of Scripture and Christ; both promoted evangelism, revivals, missions, and a personal morality against smoking, drinking, theater, movies, and card playing; both identified American values with Christian values; both believed in creating organizational networks that separated themselves from the rest of society.

However, fundamentalists believed they differed from evangelicals and neoevangelicals by being more faithful to Bible believing Christianity, more militant against church apostasy, communism, and personal evils, less ready to cater to social and intellectual respectability. They tended to oppose evangelist Billy Graham, not to read Christianity Today, and not to support Wheaton College or Fuller Theological Seminary. Instead they favored their own evangelists, radio preachers, newspapers, and schools. Fundamentalists tended to differ greatly among themselves and found it difficult to achieve widespread fundamentalist cooperation.
Meanwhile people in North America and Great Britain who were neither fundamentalist nor evangelical tended to regard both as fundamentalist, noting their underlying similarities.

[Iosias]

Phase IV - Late 1970s and the 1980s

By the late 1970s and in particular by the 1980 campaign of Ronald Reagan for the American presidency, fundamentalists entered a new phase. They became nationally prominent as offering an answer for what many regarded as a supreme social, economic, moral, and religious crisis in America. They identified a new and more pervasive enemy, secular humanism, which they believed was responsible for eroding churches, schools, universities, the government, and above all families. They fought all enemies which they considered to be offspring of secular humanism, evolutionism, political and theological liberalism, loose personal morality, sexual perversion, socialism, communism, and any lessening of the absolute, inerrant authority of the Bible. They called Americans to return to the fundamentals of the faith and the fundamental moral values of America.

Leading this phase was a new generation of television and print fundamentalists, notably Jerry Falwell, Tim La Haye, Hal Lindsey, and Pat Robertson. Their base was Baptist and southern, but they reached into all denominations. They benefited from three decades of post World War II fundamentalist and evangelical expansion through evangelism, publishing, church extension, and radio ministry. They tended to blur the distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical. Statistically, they could claim that perhaps one fourth of the American population was fundamentalist - evangelical. However, not all fundamentalists accepted these new leaders, considering them to be neofundamentalists.

The fundamentalists of the early 1980s were in many ways very different people from their predecessors, and they faced many different issues. But they continued important traits common to fundamentalists from the 1920s through the early 1980s. They were certain that they possessed true knowledge of the fundamentals of the faith and that they therefore represented true Christianity based on the authority of a literally interpreted Bible. They believed it was their duty to carry on the great battle of history, the battle of God against Satan, of light against darkness, and to fight against all enemies who undermined Christianity and America. Faced with this titanic struggle they were inclined to consider other Christians who were not fundamentalists as either unfaithful to Christ or not genuinely Christian. They called for a return to an inerrant and infallible Bible, to the traditional statement of the doctrines, and to a traditional morality which they believed once prevailed in America. To do all this, they created a vast number of separate organizations and ministries to propagate the fundamentalist faith and practice.

C T McIntire
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography
G W Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America; R Lightner, Neo Evangelicalism; L Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, 1930 - 1956; J Falwell, E Dobson, and E Hindson, eds., The Fundamentalist Phenomenon; G M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture; C A Russell, Voices of American Fundamentalism; N F Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918 - 1931; E R Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism; J I Packer, "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God; James Barr, Fundamentalism.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/fundamen.htm

[Debi1967]

Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the United States during and immediately after the First World War in order to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and to defend it militantly against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other isms regarded as harmful to American Christianity. Since then, the focus of the movement, the meaning of the term, and the ranks of those who willingly use the term to identify themselves have changed several times. Fundamentalism has so far gone through four phases of expression while maintaining an essential continuity of spirit, belief, and method.
Phase I - Through the 1920s

The earliest phase involved articulating what was fundamental to Christianity and initiating an urgent battle to expel the enemies of orthodox Protestantism from the ranks of the churches

The series of twelve volumes called The Fundamentals (1910 - 15) provided a wide listing of the enemies, Romanism, socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Eddyism, Mormonism, spiritualism, and the like, but above all liberal theology, which rested on a naturalistic interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, and German higher criticism and Darwinism, which appeared to undermine the Bible's authority. The writers of the articles were a broad group from English speaking North America and the United Kingdom and from many denominations. The doctrines they defined and defended covered the whole range of traditional Christian teachings. They presented their criticisms fairly, with careful argument, and in appreciation of much that their opponents said.
Almost immediately, however, the list of enemies became narrower and the fundamentals less comprehensive. Defenders of the fundamentals of the faith began to organize outside the churches and within the denominations. The General Assembly of the northern Presbyterian Church in 1910 affirmed five essential doctrines regarded as under attack in the church: the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, Christ's bodily resurrection, and the historicity of the miracles. These were reaffirmed in 1916 and 1923, by which time they had come to be regarded as the fundamental doctrines of Christianity itself. On a parallel track, and in the tradition of Bible prophecy conferences since 1878, premillenarian Baptists and independents founded the World's Christian Fundamentals Association in 1919, with William B Riley as the prime mover. The premillennialists tended to replace the miracles with the resurrection and the second coming of Christ, or even premillenarian doctrine as the fifth fundamental. Another version put the deity of Christ in place of the virgin birth.

The term "fundamentalist" was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in the Baptist Watchman - Examiner, but it seemed to pop up everywhere in the early 1920s as an obvious way to identify someone who believed and actively defended the fundamentals of the faith. The Baptist John Roach Straton called his newspaper The Fundamentalist in the 1920s. The Presbyterian scholar J Gresham Machen disliked the word, and only hesitantingly accepted it to described himself, because, he said, it sounded like a new religion and not the same historic Christianity that the church had always believed.
Through the 1920s the fundamentalists waged the battle in the large northern church denominations as nothing less than a struggle for true Christianity against a new non Christian religion that had crept into the churches themselves. In his book Christianity and Liberalism (1923), Machen called the new naturalistic religion "liberalism," but later followed the more popular fashion of calling it "modernism."

Even though people like Harry Emerson Fosdick professed to be Christian, fundamentalists felt they could not be regarded as such because they denied the traditional formulations of the doctrines of Christianity and created modern, naturalistic statements of the doctrines. The issue was as much a struggle over a view of the identity of Christianity as it was over a method of doing theology and a view of history. Fundamentalists believed that the ways the doctrines were formulated in an earlier era were true and that modern attempts to reformulate them were bound to be false. In other words, the fundamentals were unchanging.
Church struggles occurred in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church, and even in the southern Presbyterian Church, but the grand battles were fought in the northern Presbyterian and northern Baptist denominations. Machen was the undisputed leader among Presbyterians, joined by Clarence E Macartney. Baptists created the National Federation of the Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists (1921), the Fundamentalist Fellowship (1921), and the Baptist Bible Union (1923) to lead the fight. The battles focused upon the seminaries, the mission boards, and the ordination of clergy. In many ways, however, the real strongholds of the fundamentalists were the Southern Baptists and the countless new independent churches spread across the south and midwest, as well as the east and west.
In politics fundamentalists opposed the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools, leading up to the famous Scopes trial (1925) in Dayton, Tennessee. William Jennings Bryan, a Presbyterian layman and three times candidate for the American presidency, was acknowledged leader of the antievolution battle.
Where does this tell you HOW a Fundamentalist interprets the BIBLE Which I did BTW as opposed to how Apostolic and many other Protestant Churches interpret the BIBLE?


You asked for the differences I gave them to you

[GreenMunchkin]

:sigh:

Letalis, dude, honestly...

[Debi1967]

:sigh:

Letalis, dude, honestly...
Is that letalis' sock puppet account

[Iosias]

You asked for the differences I gave them to you

What you fail to notice is that the fundamentalists were conservative Christians. You have not provided objective definitions. Before you can show me differences you must define what fundamentalists and conservative christians are.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

:sigh:

Letalis, dude, honestly...
^_^ I love your knack for understatement!

[GreenMunchkin]

Is that letalis' sock puppet accountNo, no. It's not that. But I've told him what's going on so am just waiting for something to get better :(

[Debi1967]

fun·da·men·tal·ism
n.1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

tra·di·tion·al·ism
n.1. Adherence to tradition, especially in cultural or religious practice.

con·ser·va·tive
1. Favoring traditional views and values.
2. Traditional or restrained in style


4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

[Lisa0315]

According to the proposed rules

This Forum Affirms that…

1) The Holy Scriptures are the inspired, written Word of God. Scripture is the revelation of God given for the instruction of his people in faith, morals, and doctrine. The revelation of scripture is completely reliable and authoritative.


2) The minimum standard of doctrinal belief in order for a person to be considered a Christian is accurately contained within the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. The doctrines contained within these creeds are the bare essentials upon which Christians must agree. It is understood, however, that even within the creeds there are some differences of interpretation. Specifically, it is allowed in this forum that the term “Catholic Church” can be understood to mean the universal, invisible body of which all Christians are members. The phrase “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” can be understood in a symbolic sense.


3) Our Christian faith can not be separated from our views on politics and society, or any other area of life. The Conservative Christian worldview holds the following values and views to be necessary expressions of Christian morality based upon Holy Scripture and the established teachings of the Christian Church.

- The sanctity of human life. Physical life begins at conception and ends when the body can no longer naturally sustain itself. Human life can not be ended prematurely without just cause and just authority to do so. This includes most cases of abortion and euthanasia.

- Sexual morality is a fundamental requirement of Christian moral teaching. The Scriptures repeatedly address the topic of sexual morality as a necessary part of our obedience to God and right living. Sexually moral behavior, in Scripture, and in the established teachings of the Church is held to be limited to sex between a husband and his wife. All other sexual activities fall under the heading of sexual immorality.


4) Sin separates people from God. Thus it is destructive and harmful. Jesus Christ came not only to grant us a way of forgiveness from sin, but also to free us from bondage to sin. Our Lord Jesus Christ has imparted to us the ministry of reconciliation. It is our duty and privilege to teach people the gospel of forgiveness of sins, freedom from sin, and reconciliation to God. Freedom begins with knowing the truth.

How does this differ from what a Fundamentalist believes?

You left out Rule # 5 which IS the dividing line between Fundamentalist and Conservatives.

Lisa

[Iosias]

fun·da·men·tal·ism play_w("F0362700")
n.1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Who's definition is this?

BTW: Would you call J I Packer a Fundamentalist?

[Iosias]

You left out Rule # 5 which IS the dividing line between Fundamentalist and Conservatives.

Rule five:

5) Truth and Love are both God's character. All truth can be expressed in love. When addressing others in the forum we should hold ourselves accountable to the belief that all people are created in God's image, and as such deserve a basic level of respect, regardless of their deeds. This is not meant to muzzle honest discourse or comment, but to remind that all truth, must be expressed in love. Therefore, Conservative Christians may not flame visitors but rather seek to reason with them with an attitude of service and love.

Now I am unable to see how this is a dividing line.

[Debi1967]

Who's definition is this?

BTW: Would you call J I Packer a Fundamentalist?
the freedictionary online would you rather I use merriam webster I can use that

are you going to question everyone's motives around here just because you can

[Lisa0315]

Rule five:

5) Truth and Love are both God's character. All truth can be expressed in love. When addressing others in the forum we should hold ourselves accountable to the belief that all people are created in God's image, and as such deserve a basic level of respect, regardless of their deeds. This is not meant to muzzle honest discourse or comment, but to remind that all truth, must be expressed in love. Therefore, Conservative Christians may not flame visitors but rather seek to reason with them with an attitude of service and love.

Now I am unable to see how this is a dividing line.

There is just no kind way to say it. I don't want to flame anyone, not a person nor a group. It is just my opinion that conservatives tend to tender their words very carefully while fundies may not always worry about that.

Lisa

[Iosias]

There is just no kind way to say it. I don't want to flame anyone, not a person nor a group. It is just my opinion that conservatives tend to tender their words very carefully while fundies may not always worry about that.

Lisa

That is not a doctrinal difference now is it? There are people of all different temperments in all different denominations and viewpoints.

[Iosias]

the freedictionary online would you rather I use merriam webster I can use that

are you going to question everyone's motives around here just because you can

I just wanted to know who's definition you were using. :)

BTW: Would you call the Anglican J I Packer a Fundamentalist?

[Debi1967]

In 1978, he signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy), which affirmed a conservative position on Biblical inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy).

I never said anywhere that Fundamentalist should not be allowed in this forum nor did I say that they were not Conservatives, we simply are saying that our opening statment should be something that includes all conservatives not just some

[Debi1967]

So now AV why not stop arguing every point with us and try to work with us a little better

[Lisa0315]

That is not a doctrinal difference now is it? There are people of all different temperments in all different denominations and viewpoints.

I don't know. I think it is a doctrinal thing. Again, this cannot be discussed without the potential for offense, and I am really trying not to do that. However, it seems that we see "love" as two different things. Conservatives see speaking truth in love by demonstrating it and never ever using truth to hurt someone. Fundementalists see speaking truth in love as more of a ,"I am sorry if this offends you, but these are the facts! It would be more harmful to keep the truth from you than to hurt your feelings by telling you in a very direct manner".

It is not that Conservatives are wishy-washy about truth by no means. However, delievery of truth is considered as critical as the truth itself.

Lisa

[Iosias]

In 1978, he signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy), which affirmed a conservative position on Biblical inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy).

I never said anywhere that Fundamentalist should not be allowed in this forum nor did I say that they were not Conservatives, we simply are saying that our opening statment should be something that includes all conservatives not just some

Now we are getting somewhere :clap:

The question is what is it that you are using as the determinative factor of being a conservative?

Is it an approach to Scriptural interpretation?

Is it an approach to issues of morality? (this is where I see this forum going inevitably). Because Fundamentalists are Conservative Christians and they affirm that Scripture is the final authority in matters of faith and morals and Roman Catholics are also Conservative Christians and affirm Scripture and Tradition the only basis for rules in the Conservative Forum is to focus on what both agree on i.e. Scripture.

Therefore the rules must be stripped to its basics (dare I say its fundamentals). The only thing they agree on is that Scripture is authoritative in matters of faith and morals hence this is where the rules should begin. :)

[Iosias]

So now AV why not stop arguing every point with us and try to work with us a little better

It was not I who began the hostility but GreenMunchin who denied my right to post in the Conservative Christian forum :)

[Lisa0315]

Now we are getting somewhere :clap:

The question is what is it that you are using as the determinative factor of being a conservative?

Is it an approach to Scriptural interpretation?

Is it an approach to issues of morality? (this is where I see this forum going inevitably). Because Fundamentalists are Conservative Christians and they affirm that Scripture is the final authority in matters of faith and morals and Roman Catholics are also Conservative Christians and affirm Scripture and Tradition the only basis for rules in the Conservative Forum is to focus on what both agree on i.e. Scripture.

Therefore the rules must be stripped to its basics (dare I say its fundamentals). The only thing they agree on is that Scripture is authoritative in matters of faith and morals hence this is where the rules should begin. :)

And they have...However, there is no need for a unique forum if we are really all just Fundies. We aren't. I am not. Roman Catholics are not going to agree to Bible only. That is another difference.

Lisa

[Debi1967]

Therefore the rules must be stripped to its basics (dare I say its fundamentals). The only thing they agree on is that Scripture is authoritative in matters of faith and morals hence this is where the rules should begin. :)This where I disagree I think that Tradituion should also be a key element used because it is with Apostolic Christians which takes in a great number of the Conservatives on this board and they are not just Catholic....

They are in the following
Old Anglican
Catholic
Old Catholic
TAW
Oriental TAW

[cubanito]

There is just no kind way to say it. I don't want to flame anyone, not a person nor a group. It is just my opinion that conservatives tend to tender their words very carefully while fundies may not always worry about that.

Lisa
How nice and sweetly delvered was that viewpoint, huh?

Seems to me you just defined yourself as a Fundamentalist dear.

JR Conservative Catholic by this forums definitions so far

[Iosias]

Roman Catholics are not going to agree to Bible only.

Hence my suggestion of stating something along the lines of "Scripture is authoritative in matters of faith and morals" for both agree on this and any more will mean disagreement. :thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

How nice and sweetly delvered was that viewpoint, huh?

Seems to me you just defined yourself as a Fundamentalist dear.

JR Conservative Catholic by this forums definitions so far

I was trying not to offend...Sometimes there can be no help for it. I guess what I am getting at is a pattern of offending rather than a single occurance here or there.

Lisa

[Iosias]

This where I disagree I think that Tradituion should also be a key element used because it is with Apostolic Christians which takes in a great number of the Conservatives on this board and they are not just Catholic

But do you accept Scripture as authoritative?

[Debi1967]

I was trying not to offend...Sometimes there can be no help for it. I guess what I am getting at is a pattern of offending rather than a single occurance here or there.

Lisa
Lisa cubanito is a Liberal from the Liberal forum ..... be careful

[Debi1967]

But do you accept Scripture as authoritative?
I accept Scripture and Tradition as Authoritative

[cubanito]

This where I disagree I think that Tradituion should also be a key element used because it is with Apostolic Christians which takes in a great number of the Conservatives on this board and they are not just Catholic....

They are in the following
Old Anglican
Catholic
Old Catholic
TAW
Oriental TAW
Now THAT is the first sensible discriminative posted so far!

How far the role of tradition should govern sounds like exactly what y'all are searching for.

Anyone using a "nasty meter" to differentiate Fundys from Conservatives would automatically register high on the meter themselves. A historical approach, such as the very fair postings by AV1611, which basically would devolve into a list is also "nasty neutral."

Frankly I wish you'd all close up shop and join us in the Fundy forum, but if this is your wish (and I can certainly understand it) you ought be careful w your definitions. I, for example, take great offense that the OBOB site wants to appropiate the ancient term "Catholic" to themselves. As this site acknowledges, anyone affirming the ancient creeds necessarily affirms they are Catholic.

I am actually quite interested how the RCs are going to aquiesce to not being the One True Church, the only Catholics, ect ect ect. You want to talk "nasty meters?" Run some of the exclusivity titles of the RCC on it and see.

Now, asking a particular person, such as a foul smelling, careless, obese and intemperate Hippo to leave would be quite fair. If you plan to run a china shop, you ask Hippos to leave. But you also asks even bigger and natier beasts to leave also, even if they wear a wool sweater for disguise.

JR, the man w the most accurate avatar

[cubanito]

Lisa cubanito is a Liberal from the Liberal forum ..... be careful

WHAT?!?!?!? Me a liberal???

I'm turning green from the thought.

Excuse me while I violently expel my stomach contents...

OK, I feel better now.

Nasty, foul, divisive, lewd, disgusting, even (pardon my language) that most disgusting of epithets in modern times: fundamentalist

Sure, OK, I'm all that and worse.

But LIBERAL!!

I'm sorry, I'm turning another shade of green, I think it's my gallbladder I needs empty now....

[Lisa0315]

Lisa cubanito is a Liberal from the Liberal forum ..... be careful

Thanks Hon. :hug: I have the Lion of Judah who walks beside me along these treacherous paths.

Lisa

[cubanito]

Well, I need to thank some of you. My ampula of Vater opened so wide that I vomited out several gallstones.

Oh my, well, I can't type the "L" word again or it's be pancreatic chymotrypsin coming out my mouth next.

OK, right, I'll shut up now for awhile, and come back after y'all hash this out some more.

JR Catholic Fundy, FUNDAMENTALIST, please no "L", OK?

[desmalia]

Lisa cubanito is a Liberal from the Liberal forum ..... be careful
Nope, it's MUCH MUCH worse than that! He's a tried and true FUNDIE! ^_^ (and one I have a great deal of respect for.)

LOL, JR mentioned in the same sentance as "liberal". I'm surprised my computer screen didn't just explode...

[Albion]

This where I disagree I think that Tradituion should also be a key element used because it is with Apostolic Christians which takes in a great number of the Conservatives on this board and they are not just Catholic....

They are in the following
Old Anglican
Catholic
Old Catholic
TAW
Oriental TAW

But it can't JUST be the above. That would clearly not be commesurate with being "conservative."

The question was asked if one accepts the authority of scripture. Every Catholic should answer "yes," so I don't see any reason to dwell on "but I also...."

[desmalia]

JR, it needs to be said again. You are warped, my friend. Warped! (Hope you're feeling better now. Yikes!)

[CyberPaladin]

I think the better question to ask is why do the fundies feel they have to be solely in control of every conservative forum on this board? I mean really you already have one board setup for your group yet you still have come over here and try to take this one over to.

[Debi1967]

But it can't JUST be the above. That would clearly not be commesurate with being "conservative."

The question was asked if one accepts the authority of scripture. Every Catholic should answer "yes," so I don't see any reason to dwell on "but I also...."
No because we ACCEPT them both equally

Let me explain to you basic Catholic thinking

Yes we accept the Scriptures as Authoritative but only in the light of Tradition ..... One cannot contradict the other.... So to us both are essential you cannot separate the two from one another

[desmalia]

I think the better question to ask is why do the fundies feel they have to be solely in control of every conservative forum on this board? I mean really you already have one board setup for your group yet you still have come over here and try to take this one over to.
Haven't you figured it out yet? We're planning to take over the world! (Starting with CF, naturally).

[Lisa0315]

Haven't you figured it out yet? We're planning to take over the world! (Starting with CF, naturally).

:scratch: I thought that was the atheist plan...:scratch:

Lisa

[CyberPaladin]

Haven't you figured it out yet? We're planning to take over the world! (Starting with CF, naturally).

Why do think we other conservatives on the CF are trying to hold up here we were hoping you fundies would go slug it out with athesists, pagans, jehovah's witness and liberal christians and we would be the last man standing by default.;) But if you guys want to do it the hard way that's fine by me and you may win but by time I'm willing to give up the victory will taste like ASH IN YOUR MOUTH.

[Debi1967]

:scratch: I thought that was the atheist plan...:scratch:

Lisa
Now here I was thinking it was the Catholic plan???? j/k ;) :D

[Debi1967]

Why do think we other conservatives on the CF are trying to hold up here we were hoping you fundies would go slug it out with athesists, pagans, jehovah's witness and liberal christians and we would be the last man standing by default.;) But if you guys want to do it the hard way that's fine by me and you may win but by time I'm willing to give up the victory will taste like ASH IN YOUR MOUTH.
:D

[Lisa0315]

Why do think we other conservatives on the CF are trying to hold up here we were hoping you fundies would go slug it out with athesists, pagans, jehovah's witness and liberal christians and we would be the last man standing by default.;) But if you guys want to do it the hard way that's fine by me and you may win but by time I'm willing to give up the victory will taste like ASH IN YOUR MOUTH.

http://www.national-anthems.net/music_stream/?from=real&what=usa&id=US

[CyberPaladin]

Remember ladies the battle has just started for who will control this forum.;)

[Letalis]

Frankly I wish you'd all close up shop and join us in the Fundy forum, but if this is your wish (and I can certainly understand it) you ought be careful w your definitions.
I don't think so.

The fundamentalist forum is far more exclusive than this one. Many many Christians would be left out if this forum were to combine with the Fundie board.

You did this in the Catholic forum as well. Stop trying to control other's forums.

[PostTribber]

.... though heaven and earth pass away, My words will never pass away. it's not a matter of opinion, but God's word. it's not up to any personal interpretation. and if Christians voted accordingly, God would truly bless America.

[Lisa0315]

Ooh, I have a question for any fundie on this board.

Is the belief in Pre-Tribulation a tenent of Fundementalism?

Lisa

[CyberPaladin]

Look all I know is that on my time on the CF the most of the fundies I have encounter tened to be very militant. Most also seemed to be of the belief that if you don't fall lockstep behind them on everything your goddless heathen pretending to be a Christian which is why I may seem a little hesitant about being a board with them and would never consider joining the fundie boards.

[Lisa0315]

Look all I know is that on my time on the CF the most of the fundies I have encounter tened to be very militant. Most also seemed to be of the belief that if you don't fall lockstep behind them on everything your goddless heathen pretending to be a Christian which is why I may seem a little hesitant about being a board with them and would never consider joining the fundie boards.

Well, they actually have "militant orthodoxy" in their Statement of Beliefs. I think that would be our dividing line right there.

Lisa

[daniel777]

i think we should close both and open a "born-again" forum. but that would make everione else mad, and we can't do that here. . .
Ooh, I have a question for any fundie on this board.

Is the belief in Pre-Tribulation a tenent of Fundementalism?

not for me. most of us only get rattled over salvation issues. some examples are this: changing Gods law to suit yourself is bad because the law is the very personhood of God, and by changing it you are creating a false Jesus for youself. or any other redefining of Jesus or God. or any devaluing of his wrath, mercy, justice, glory, holliness, majesty, grace, and power. most of us wouldn't (some would though. . . ) get rattled over contraversy in the views of the apocolyps.

anyway i think that's about the def. of a "fundie"

[CyberPaladin]

Well, they actually have "militant orthodoxy" in their Statement of Beliefs. I think that would be our dividing line right there.

Lisa
It's actauly it's a bit of understatment from what I have seen from alot of them but I doubt anyone is going to refer to themselves as deranged and paranoid.

[Lisa0315]

It's actauly it's a bit of understatment from what I haves seen from alot of them but I doubt anyone is going to refer to themselves as deranged and paranoid.

Well, I agree. I grew up with them. I am so fortunate to have found a Baptist church that does not have that attitude. There is a faction of people within the church, but the pastor contols it. (My uncle! ;) ) So, when they get out of hand, he puts a stop to it.

Lisa

[CyberPaladin]

Well, I agree. I grew up with them. I am so fortunate to have found a Baptist church that does not have that attitude. There is a faction of people within the church, but the pastor contols it. (My uncle! ;) ) So, when they get out of hand, he puts a stop to it.

Lisa

Yeah well ones that used to belong to my church they since left believe that could be good Wholsome Christian to the tool of satan simply by changing instruments from organ to those of a more contemporary nature.

[daniel777]

Yeah well ones that used to belong to my church they since left believe that could be good Wholsome Christian to the tool of satan simply by changing instruments from organ to those of a more contemporary nature.
thats the problem with tradition. . . if a tradition has a good meaning benind it (by Good i mean it brings glory to God) then it's good. if a tradition doesnt have a good meaning behind it then it's worthless, and can actually cause harm.

[tel0004]

I don't see why they have to conflict. Maybe I'm not defining it right, but I consider myself to be both.

It was my understanding that every fundamentalist would be a conservative, but the opposite isn't true, like how in geometry, every square is always a rectangle, but every rectangle isn't a square.

[daniel777]

I don't see why they have to conflict. Maybe I'm not defining it right, but I consider myself to be both.

It was my understanding that every fundamentalist would be a conservative, but the opposite isn't true, like how in geometry, every square is always a rectangle, but every rectangle isn't a square.


like i said, combine them and call it "born again" forum. . . . if only people wouldn't get mad. . . huuuugh.

nice signature by the way.

[CyberPaladin]

thats the problem with tradition. . . if a tradition has a good meaning benind it (by Good i mean it brings glory to God) then it's good. if a tradition doesnt have a good meaning behind it then it's worthless, and can actually cause harm.

The problem I have found at least with some when it comes to tradition it becomes like a false god to them they become far more concerned with following the traditions than with serving the Lord.

[daniel777]

The problem I have found at least with some when it comes to tradition it becomes like a false god to them they become far more concerned with following the traditions than with serving the Lord.

yep, right on. but tradition isn't just inherent to fundamentalism, unwillingness to let go of the things of this world even when it becomes a hinderence to your walk can fall into the same catagory. compramising the scriptures, God, and brothers and sisters in Christ is always bad no matter how heavy the load of consequence will be on our shoulders.

[CyberPaladin]

yep, right on. but tradition isn't just inherent to fundamentalism, unwillingness to let go of the things of this world even when it becomes a hinderence to your walk can fall into the same catagory. compramising the scriptures, God, and brothers and sisters in Christ is always bad no matter how heavy the load of consequence will be on our shoulders.
I didn't mean to imply that it was exclusive to fundamentalist.

[daniel777]

I didn't mean to imply that it was exclusive to fundamentalist.
i suspected, just preachin to the choir OH HAPPY DAY AMEN HALALUJAH:D

[desmalia]

Well, they actually have "militant orthodoxy" in their Statement of Beliefs. I think that would be our dividing line right there.Division indeed. And with that I make my exit from this forum. There ya go. One less horrible fundie trying to get in the way of whatever you guys have planned here. Congrats to all of you. You win.
I for one have read quite enough gross and pathetic generalizations of fundies. Looks like everyone here is allowed to pick at us, but we're not allowed to say a thing because we're not "true conservatives", we're just a bunch of mindless law enforcers.

[Vambram]

By reading through this thread, I saw more than a few statements generalizing and attacking Fundamentalists. This is very sad and unfortunate, since I am an independent fundamental baptist, and I am also a staunch, firm, and steadfast conservative. Due to the extreme right wing of the Fundamentalists, not only the general public, but also apparently the Conservatives of this Forum have fallen prey to the media's portrayal of all fundies as being whacked out militant Christians. I expect the lost unsaved people to be deceived by this, but clearly I did NOT expect Christian Conservatives to also believe that deception.

[Vambram]

The problem I have found at least with some when it comes to tradition it becomes like a false god to them they become far more concerned with following the traditions than with serving the Lord.
that is a false, or at least an over generalized statement based upon one person's observation. Please do not insult all fundamentalists like this. Fundamentalists and Conservatives should be and really ought to be close allies and friends. WE have so very much in common, so why drive away Fundies because of your perceptions of a small and limited minority of Fundies?

[Iosias]

Is the belief in Pre-Tribulation a tenent of Fundementalism?

A good question and if you do not mind I will use this as a chance to set forth some points about the whole conservative/fundamentalist thing. The quick answer is that no belief in Pre-Tribulation is not a tenent of Fundementalism although some fundamentalists would hold to it.

The key question to ask is where did fundamentalism arise from? The term "fundamentalist" was used first in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws to describe someone who defended the historic doctrines of the Christian faith over and against the modernists who denied the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ and the truth of miracles.

Historically the term was used to describe someone who held to the five fundamentals of the faith which were adopted by the Presbyterian Church in the USA in 1910. These included the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture and the miracles of Christ.

Hence fundamentalism stood for the historic fundamentals of the Christian faith which were then propounded in greater depth in The Fundamentals (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm) which included the work of B. B. Warfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Breckinridge_Warfield) who was a professor at Princeton Seminary and a Presbyterian.

J. Gresham Machen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gresham_Machen)was also involved in the movement and wrote Christianity and Liberalism (http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/index.html). He led a number of Princeton Seminary professors to form Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929 which stood for historic conservative Christianity.

These then were characteristic of the first fundamentalists. They were nothing more than orthodox Protestants who adhered to the Westminster Confession of Faith.


Hence according to the Encyclopædia Britannica fundamentalism was a "movement in American Protestantism (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109446/The-Protestant-Heritage) that arose in the late 19th century in reaction to theological modernism, which aimed to revise traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate new developments in the natural and social sciences, especially the advent of the theory of biological evolution (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106075/evolution). In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the mission of Jesus Christ (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106456/Jesus-Christ), and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists affirmed a core of Christian beliefs that included the historical accuracy of the Bible (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9079096/Bible), the imminent and physical Second Coming (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066515/Second-Coming) of Jesus Christ, and Christ's Virgin Birth (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9075467/Virgin-Birth), Resurrection (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9063298/resurrection) (see resurrection (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9063298/resurrection)), and Atonement (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9010139/atonement) (see atonement (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9010139/atonement))."

[PaladinGirl]

Fundamentalists tend to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and in Scripture alone or sola scriptura. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't generally believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and sometimes not in sola scriptura. Fundamentalists tend to not include the Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholics. Conservative Christians on the other hand do include these groups.

[Iosias]

Fundamentalists tend to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and in Scripture alone or sola scriptura. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't generally believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and sometimes not in sola scriptura. Fundamentalists tend to not include the Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholics. Conservative Christians on the other hand do include these groups.

This is historically false. :)

Now it is correct that there are conservative Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox etc but fundamentalism is a subset of conservative Christianity.

[GreenMunchkin]

It was not I who began the hostility but GreenMunchin who denied my right to post in the Conservative Christian forum :):D

Post an example of my doing that, please :)

[Debi1967]

This is historically false. :)

Now it is correct that there are conservative Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox etc but fundamentalism is a subset of conservative Christianity.
these are the rules from the Fundamentalist Forum as they now stand as to what you have to believe

Fundamentalist: (Defined by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976)

A born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who
Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

essentially then that means that they do affirm that Sola Scriptura is how all things are judged and they deny that of Tradition altogether

[Lisa0315]

these are the rules from the Fundamentalist Forum as they now stand as to what you have to believe


And most importantly, I do not think Conservatives consider themselves "militant orthodoxy". That language alone disqualifies a Fundementalist from Conservativism as is written in the Conservative Statement of Beliefs.

Lisa

[Debi1967]

Fundamentalists tend to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and in Scripture alone or sola scriptura. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't generally believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and sometimes not in sola scriptura. Fundamentalists tend to not include the Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholics. Conservative Christians on the other hand do include these groups.
This statemement has merit and is accurate not false.