Why is there a Conservative Christian sub-forum and a Fundamentalist one?

[faithbeliever1]

Isn't a Conservative Christian the same thing as a Fundamentalist? If not, what is the difference?

Edit:
Never mind. I just read the rules for being a Conservative Christian. The difference is that Catholics can be Conservative Christians, but Catholics can't be considered to be Fundamentalists.

[Albion]

Isn't a Conservative Christian the same thing as a Fundamentalist? If not, what is the difference?

Edit:
Never mind. I just read the rules for being a Conservative Christian. The difference is that Catholics can be Conservative Christians, but Catholics can't be considered to be Fundamentalists.

And it isn't just that. A person can be a Fundamentalist and also a liberal on issues not covered by the Fundamentals you just read in the rules section.

[faithbeliever1]

And it isn't just that. A person can be a Fundamentalist and also a liberal on issues not covered by the Fundamentals you just read in the rules section.What I said covers that. Catholics can't be Fundamentalists, but anyone else can.

[Project 86]

What I said covers that. Catholics can't be Fundamentalists, but anyone else can.

I wouldn't say anyone. Mormon, JW's and people that hold to many of the views of liberal denominations can't.

[Albion]

What I said covers that. Catholics can't be Fundamentalists, but anyone else can.

Well, you may think you covered it, but the difference between the Fundy and Conservative forums is not just that some Christians (Catholics in particular) cannot, by definition, be Fundamentalists.

There is a difference between Conservatives and Fundamentalists aside from the acceptance of Sola Scriptura.

This was discussed at length some time ago, although I suppose it would be hard to retrieve now.

[No Swansong]

Indeed that is probably the main difference. Fundamentalists must affirm Sola Scriptura to be a member of the board. Conservative Christians need not affirm Sola Scriptura, in fact there are many who do not. But there are some other issues that arise because of Sola Scriptura. I contend however that it is theoretically possible to be a liberal Fundamentalist although I have never met one.

[Ishida]

What about EO?

[rrguy]

I believe pertaining to this question, the EO would be in the same boat as the Catholics? As not affirming to Sola Scriptura.

[DeaconDean]

See now, there is where the confusion comes.

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, JW's, any group can be considered "Fundamental."

Your a Fundamental Catholic as long as you stay true to Catholicism. The same for other demoninations.

However, where we differ from other groups is out stance on scripture. That is what distinguishes us from other "Fundamental" groups.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[No Swansong]

What about EO?
I do not believe that the Eastern Orthodox affirm Sola Scriptura. In fact I am sure they do not.

[cubanito]

See now, there is where the confusion comes.

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, JW's, any group can be considered "Fundamental."

Your a Fundamental Catholic as long as you stay true to Catholicism. The same for other demoninations.

However, where we differ from other groups is out stance on scripture. That is what distinguishes us from other "Fundamental" groups.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Sort of...

A fundamentalist is someone who focuses on the fundamentals. It can apply to mathematicians, physicists, stock brokers, teachers and many other fields.

As a Christian Fundamentalist, we face at least 2 different definitions. One is that "defined" by various "manifestos," most recently by the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy. The other is more subtle, yet related.

What is THE fundamental source of authority for the Christian? For the RC it is not the Scripture, but the INTERPRETATION of the Scripture, along with whatever "unfolding tradition" the Roman Pontiff gives. This is a most difficult proposition to maintain, given the clear references by Christ tto what is WRITTEN.

I agree w jtdad that one can be a liberal fundamentalist Christian. In fact, for much of world history, fundamentalist Christians were very much the liberals. They promoted women's rights, the abolition of slaverty, labor laws, child protection and even animal rights at times when the culture was clearly willing to opress women, poor, slaves and so on. These Christians were very much liberals and vigorously opposed the conservative "status quo" in society.

The problem is that contemporary western society has moved past these evils but not to the middle which the Scripture indicates. Rather our Western society is now at the other extreme, and so, the fundamentalist Christian remaining true to Scripture, appears to be "conservative", even anachronistic.

Sin is to miss the mark. One can miss the mark in various directions. The fundamentalist Christian, guided by an unchanging written document which is very clear in the majority, watches society swing back and forth like a pendulum but most times missing that center mark. So today it is exceedingly difficult to find a liberal True fundamentalist Christian, just as in the past it was difficult to find a True conservative fundamentalist Christian.

We may not be EXACTLY at the bulls' eye on every social issue, but because of the Bible, and our fanatical allegiance to the WRITTEN word as understood by it's plain sense to each of us, we rarely stray far as a group for long. RCC propaganda notwithstanding, most of the Bible is simple to understand at the surface, though of course one can maliciously misinterpret it, just as one could willingly or by error misinterpret any Papal Bull. No matter what the document, or written word, it is always subject to misinterpretation at some level.

JR

[DeaconDean]

Oh, so you are saying that a Catholic can't be a Fundamentalist even though they practice everything Catholism teaches.

That they aren't "Fundamental Catholics"?

http://bradley.chattablogs.com/dr.evil.jpg

Yea, right.

Anybody who practices the "fundamentals" of their beliefs can't be considered a Fundy just because "Fundamentalists' claim to have a corner on the "Fundamental" title?

Here again, Yea, right.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Albion]

Oh, so you are saying that a Catholic can't be a Fundamentalist even though they practice everything Catholism teaches.

That they aren't "Fundamental Catholics"?

Yea, right.

Anybody who practices the "fundamentals" of their beliefs can't be considered a Fundy just because "Fundamentalists' claim to have a corner on the "Fundamental" title?

Here again, Yea, right.

Yes, that is what we are saying. And that is what is the fact as concerns the religious movement that history calls, and which calls itself, "Fundamentalist." It could, presumably, have chosen some other term, but this is the one that it assumed many years ago and quite formally and deliberately.

All you are saying is that anyone of any persuasion can be said to adhere to the foundational principles of his faith. That's so, but the word "Fundamentalist" has a particular meaning. It means what the fundamentals listed by the movement outlined. On that list is at least one item that no practicing Catholic can accept (Sola Scriptura), and this is why Catholics are not Fundamentalists.

If you want to say that there are Catholics who adhere to all the basics or essentials of their faith, you could call them "Orthodox" as is often done, or "Practicing," or something else like that. But although the word fundamental is part of everyone's language, "Fundamentalism" has a particular meaning (despite the way that it has come to be used in the press and by many people very casually, as in 'Fundamentalist Muslim." Of course, that is impossible in the strict sense).

[faithbeliever1]

It means what the fundamentals listed by the movement outlined. On that list is at least one item that no practicing Catholic can accept (Sola Scriptura), and this is why Catholics are not Fundamentalists.Where is sola sciptura in the Bible?

[Albion]

Where is sola sciptura in the Bible?

Feel free to pose that question as a new thread in this debate forum.

This thread is about the difference between Conservative Christians and Fundamentalist Christians (and the fact--one among several separating the two-- that the latter calls for a belief in Sola Scriptura whereas the former does not).

[DeaconDean]

This thread is about the difference between Conservative Christians and Fundamentalist Christians (and the fact--one among several separating the two-- that the latter calls for a belief in Sola Scriptura whereas the former does not).

Here again, I respectfully say you don't know what you're talking about.

I went through seminary classes offered by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, from Wake Forest, N.C.

I was educated in the Reformed Theology.

I am what is considered Conservative, (in the fact the abortion is killing, all life is precious, one man + one wife = marriage, etc) Orthodox in that I uphold traditional Baptist views, Fundamental in that I believve that the Bible is God's inspired word, and that it is the only, certain, rule of faith.

Just because "Fundamentalists" claim to hold to "Sola Scriptura" does not give them the corner on the title "Fundamental."

If a person believes in all the doctrines that a certain denomination teaches, not only are they considered Orthodox, but they are practicing the "Fundamental" beliefs of their faith.

As I said before, any one of these can apply to me personally:

Conservative.

Orthodox.

Fundamental.

I was part of the committee that reviewed the definition for the Fundy room last year. And it was agreed then that Catholics could be considered "Fundamental" if they practiced the fundamental basics of their faith. However, for the purpose of this room, because "Sola Scriptura" was one of the descriptions for this particular room, they could not be "Fundmental."

Whereas the Pope is their authority, ours lies in the scriptures. And this was the defining point.

So, there can indeed be Fundamental Catholics, Fundamental Orthodox, etc. What separates us from the rest of the crowd is our stance on scripture.

In fact, here is a link to what is called: "Fundamental Articles of Catholicism"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06319a.htm

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Albion]

Here again, I respectfully say you don't know what you're talking about.

I think your problem is that you aren't associating the terms with their real meaning, especially in the case of "Conservative." These have specific meanings above and beyond the common use people casually put to them.

I went through seminary classes offered by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, from Wake Forest, N.C.

I was educated in the Reformed Theology.

Glad to hear it, although it's less than I can point to in my own case.

I am what is considered Conservative, (in the fact the abortion is killing, all life is precious, one man + one wife = marriage, etc)

As I said, ask the "man on the street" to tell you want Conservative and Liberal mean, and you will be getting back a wide range of answers, mostly ignorant of the historic meaning and origin of these terms. Of course, if we want to talk about a conservative person as one who wears mostly gray and black and never is late for dinner, I suppose that is correct in one sense. But here, we are interested in the meaning of ideas, of ideologies (although Conservatism is often said not to be ideological). Being against abortion is not the test of whether one is a Conservative Christian, although we would expect that to be the position taken, in that it accords with the value structure of Conservatism.

Orthodox in that I uphold traditional Baptist views,

Which are unorthodox.

Fundamental in that I believve that the Bible is God's inspired word, and that it is the only, certain, rule of faith.

That's an important part of what a Fundamentalist it, yes.

Just because "Fundamentalists" claim to hold to "Sola Scriptura" does not give them the corner on the title "Fundamental."

Certainly so, but then again, I never said anything to the opposite.

If a person believes in all the doctrines that a certain denomination teaches, not only are they considered Orthodox, but they are practicing the "Fundamental" beliefs of their faith.

Oh, that's so superficial. Sorry, but that approach misses the point altogether. We might as well be arguing that one is a Catholic if he believes in the faith being spread all over the world or a Baptist if he believes in receiving the sacrament/ordinance of baptism, regardless of his theology or denomination. The wikis, etc. of the Conservative Christian and the Fundamentalist forums are quite good treatments of both terms. Neither is something like "if a person believes whatever any denomination teaches, ergo he is orthodox or fundamental," etc.

reviewed the definition for the Fundy room last year. And it was agreed then that Catholics could be considered "Fundamental" if they practiced the fundamental basics of their faith. However, for the purpose of this room, because "Sola Scriptura" was one of the descriptions for this particular room, they could not be "Fundmental."

Whatever this forum decides to be, Fundamentalism remains Fundamentalism, a recognized religious movement whose definition is not up for grabs by us here. Fundamentalism is a specific movement dating from the early 20th century. It drew up its statement of beliefs. A recent modification of them by the current Fundamentalist association was what became the forum's definition. Sola Sciptura is included, and is not merely there for the purpose of this room even if you might have wanted to create a new meaning for the term.

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.So, there can indeed be Fundamental Catholics, Fundamental Orthodox, etc. What separates us from the rest of the crowd is our stance on scripture.

In fact, here is a link to what is called: "Fundamental Articles of Catholicism"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06319a.htm

Note that you are describing something else and also that what is described in the Catholic link is not even related to Fundamentalism, but something called "Fundamental" Catholicism. This article doesn't even aspire to be talking about the same thing at all. Sure, anyone subscribing to the basics of anything can be called fundamental, but the word used is different and means something else from "Fundamentalism."

[DeaconDean]

Sure, anyone subscribing to the basics of anything can be called fundamental,

Thank you for ackowleding and making my point.

And you don't need to lay out the meaning of the word Fundamental for me, I was one who helped keep it as it is.

was part of the committee that reviewed the definition for the Fundy room last year. And it was agreed then that Catholics could be considered "Fundamental" if they practiced the fundamental basics of their faith. However, for the purpose of this room, because "Sola Scriptura" was one of the descriptions for this particular room, they could not be "Fundmental."

However, since you think that because "Fundamentalists" have the corner on this word just because of:

Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";

Then I'm wrong, 100%, absolutely, cannot be correct, in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Then I'll humbly bow to your wisdom, since you are so much smarter than I.

Unsubscribing.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Albion]

Thank you for ackowleding and making my point.

And you don't need to lay out the meaning of the word Fundamental for me, I was one who helped keep it as it is.

Whatever that is supposed to mean, "Fundamentalism" is a known set of ideas--the ones we use.

"Fundamental" means something else. It does not refer to a known religious cause with a known set of principles. You cannot argue that the one means the other any more than you would say that "the Reformation" means nothing more or less than reform of the voting system or changing to the metric system. They are "reforms" are they not?

However, since you think that because "Fundamentalists" have the corner on this word just because of:

No, that is not why. The reason is that the forum was set up to accord with the statement of principles created by the World Congress of Fundamentalists. It does not represent itself as the forum for those interested in the fundamentals of plumbing or any of the other examples you used.

The movement...and the term...exist on their own. In order to make absolutely sure that this point could not be missed, I pasted the entire thing for you in the previous post, and in colors for emphasis.

[DeaconDean]

Albion, you still miss the whole point of this discussion.

The OP said that Catholics can be considered Conservative but not Fundamental.

Yes, for the purpose of this forum, that statement is true. According to the definitions given for this one particular room, no Catholics cannot be considered Fundamental.

But, you are still missing the point.

Catholics have a certain set of beliefs and practices which according to the book "Fundmantals of the Faith" by: Peter J. Kreeft, Ph.D. Lists the "fundamental' beliefs and practices observed by Catholicism.

So, in reality, if a person calls themselves "Catholic" and practices what the RCC church teaches, then they can be considered a Fundamental Catholic.

You may also want to take the time to read:

"Fundamentals of Catholicism" a 3 Volume set, by: Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., which covers:

"A complete course in Catholicism by the editor of Homiletic and Pastoral Review that presents Catholic teaching on all important points of doctrine and morals. Vol 1 thoroughly analyzes the Creed and the Ten Commandments. Vol 2 takes up God, the Trinity, Creation, Christ and Mary. Vol 3 covers the Church, Grace, and the Sacraments."

Now, to the next thing.

I said:

Orthodox in that I uphold traditional Baptist views

To wit, you said:

Which are unorthodox

Brother, let me tell you one thing,

I DO NOT APPRECIATE YOUR REMARKS!

I hold traditional Baptist views. I hold to:

THE WESTMINISTER CONFESSION OF FAITH OF 1642;

THE FIRST LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, 1644

THE PHILADELPHIA CONFESSION, 1742

THE SANDY CREEK CONFESSION, 1758

THE ABSTRACT OF PRINCIPLES, 1858

BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE, 1925

BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE, 1963

And more recently:

BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE OF 2000.

While I have not disrespected your Anglican beliefs and called them:

unorthodox

I would appreciate the same from you.

Got that?

Now if you wish to take this to the personal level, we can get down to it.

But I will not sit here and watch you disrespect my traditional, orthodox, Baptist views. Or refer to them as such.

Are we clear on that?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Albion]

Albion, you still miss the whole point of this discussion.

Reconsidered "unsubscribing" and "I'm outta here," huh? I'm flattered.

The OP said that Catholics can be considered Conservative but not Fundamental.

Yes, for the purpose of this forum, that statement is true. According to the definitions given for this one particular room, no Catholics cannot be considered Fundamental.

But, you are still missing the point.

Catholics have a certain set of beliefs and practices which according to the book "Fundmantals of the Faith" by: Peter J. Kreeft, Ph.D. Lists the "fundamental' beliefs and practices observed by Catholicism.

I agree with you that we are struggling with two ideas simultaneously, and that this might not be helpful. That is to say, allowing Catholics to qualify for this forum even while not being Fundamentalists...and the meaning of the word itself.

But even on the latter, you are missing the point. The word has a meaning and neither you nor I are changing it.

When that one article you are hanging your argument on is read--one that is strictly unofficial--it can be easily seen that it has nothing to do with Fundamentalism, not even with some mythical construct that you are thinking amounts to Catholic Fundamentalism.

It is talking about Reformation era concepts. Fundamentalism is a recent, not a 16th century, movement. There is not even the word Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist used! There is no connection.

I gave you multiple examples of how words can be misused merely because they seem to sound like another or are spelled in a similar if different way. That's the case here.

In reality, if a person calls themselves Catholic" and practices what the RCC church teaches, then they can be considered a Fundamental Catholic.

That might be so-if we assume that every Catholic has to start calling himself by a term that you coined, that he's never used for himself before, and because of the unremarkable writings of one recent convert to Catholicism.

Maybe so, but we are talking about Fundamentalism, not "Fundamental Catholicism."

You may also want to take the time to read:

"Fundamentals of Catholicism" a 3 Volume set, by: Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., which covers:

"A complete course in Catholicism by the editor of Homiletic and Pastoral Review that presents Catholic teaching on all important points of doctrine and morals. Vol 1 thoroughly analyzes the Creed and the Ten Commandments. Vol 2 takes up God, the Trinity, Creation, Christ and Mary. Vol 3 covers the Church, Grace, and the Sacraments."

Now, to the next thing.

Notice that there is no reference at all to Fundamentalism in any of that. You are using one word to mean another word, which is obviously as ridiculous as arguing that a Vegetarian and a Vegetable are the same thing.

Look, the movement called Fundamentalism has a meaning. Had it chosen to call itself, let's say, True Protestant Christianity, it might have helped you out. But it chose to call itself Fundamentalism...and that is how the world knows it.

[ImperialPhantom]

The rules seem almost a bit loose. By that list I'd arguably considered fundamentalist, but I don't consider myself one, and I'm definitely not a "conservative Christian".

[No Swansong]

By what list?

The definition used by this forum is found here. (http://foru.ms/t5769410-please-read-current-rules-as-of-7-25-07.html)

[Albion]

The rules seem almost a bit loose. By that list I'd arguably considered fundamentalist, but I don't consider myself one, and I'm definitely not a "conservative Christian".

You probably speak for a lot of people who would say the same thing. But if we understand what Fundamentalism is and always has been--as opposed to the popular image conjured up by the press and others who have tried to turn the word into something fanatical--it would be easier to see how all of this makes sense.

The point of Fundamentalism was to "include in" all Christians who subscribe to an admittedly limited (or "loose') set of principles. These days, some people have gotten the idea that Fundamentalism is something intentionally narrow-minded or bent upon excluding people. Really, it's the opposite.

All who subscribe to those basics of the faith, regardless of all other denominational or doctrinal disagreements on less critical matters, were what the movement meant to bring together against the advocates of religious modernism or liberalism.

Plenty of us are Fundamentalists but don't usually label ourselves as such. We tend to descibe ourselves in terms of those beliefs and practices that distinguish us from other Christians rather than those that mark us as in agreement with them. People want to stand out from a crowd, it seems, and maybe that is human nature at work.

As for Conservative Christianity, you are right. It is entirely possible not to be a conservative or a Conservative Christian and still be a Fundamentalist. We've discussed the differences many times.