What is the difference between fundamentalist christians and Conservatives?

Oct 21, 2009
4,828
321
✟17,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
While searching the internet, I found the following examples of what is rerfered to as "ultra-fundamentalism":

1. Virtue – A dress code that makes the Christian people in the group holier than others. Women should all wear skirts and not pants. Shorts and swimwear is out of the question. Men should always have short hair and wear suits/ties (or at the minimum business casual). Jeans are evil.
2. Outrage and Superiority – that others in the Church would not conform to a leader’s groups standards that are not labeled in the Bible.
3. The Bible – The KJV is the only Bible one should use as a Christian – it (KJV 1611) is inerrant above and beyond the original translations in the original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Anyone who believes otherwise is decieved.
4. Isolation – Limited access to the outside world and a prevalent sense of fear.
5. Loyalty – Unquestionable loyalty to leadership. Even when leaders do not follow their own rules and specifically go against Scripture.

I draw your attention to point #3.

I have seen this pop up here, just recently.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Cults rely on Loyalty. For example: David Koresh and Jim Jones used their followers loyalty against them and preached another gospel.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jack Koons

Guest
Faith.Man stated:

"And they would be wrong. The Statement of Faith says nothing of a KJV-Only requirement. If so, everyone before 1611 would be in Hell. Within the KJV-Only Body of Believers there's an argument about which King James Bible is the true one. It has gone through many revisions since 1611. In addition, most people would get easily lost in the Old English used in the 1611 edition. I am glad the first Bible I read all the way through was a KJV, but I needed a commentary to help me along the way."

Let's see now,

"And they would be wrong. The Statement of Faith says nothing of a KJV-Only requirement. "

Here is what it says about the Bible:

"1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;"

That is what I believe I have when I hold my 1769 KJV Bible in my hand! Through derivative inspiration, and preservation by God; I hold an infallible Bible!

" If so, everyone before 1611 would be in Hell."

No, that is not what we believe. Far too many people are making assumptions about what is believed by mainstream KJV only believers. God did not make people go without the Bible until the KJV came on the scene. He did however choose to make provision through Hampton Court to have His word translated into the English language.

"It has gone through many revisions since 1611."

I have no intentions to give a complete history lesson here on the KJV. Suffice it to say that due to the 'process' and difficulty of printing in years gone by, It did take several "editions" before God allowed man to 'know' that the work of translation of His word into the new language was complete.

"In addition, most people would get easily lost in the Old English used in the 1611 edition."

Your absolutely right. The only reason mainstream KJV only people have 1611's, is to commemorate the first edition of their English Bible.

"I am glad the first Bible I read all the way through was a KJV, but I needed a commentary to help me along the way."

2 Timothy 2
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Isaiah 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The Bible isn't a book that you read once and understand. It is a book that you study, and allow God to reveal its truth.

1 Cor 2
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he knowthem, because they are spiritually discerned.

Jack
 
Upvote 0
J

Jack Koons

Guest
standingtall stated:

"Is your wife "allowed" to wear jeans?"

The use of the word "allowed" (especially in quotation marks) insinuates I must give her "permission" to wear certain clothing. You just can't fathom a woman not having the desire to wear pants, can you? Maybe this will help; Does your Pastor "allow" you to drink a few beers, or smoke a few cigarettes?

You may say, I don't "need permission" to do those things because I have no desire to do them.

There you have it! Wasn't that simple?

Jack
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
standingtall stated:

"Is your wife "allowed" to wear jeans?"

The use of the word "allowed" (especially in quotation marks) insinuates I must give her "permission" to wear certain clothing. You just can't fathom a woman not having the desire to wear pants, can you? Maybe this will help; Does your Pastor "allow" you to drink a few beers, or smoke a few cigarettes?

You may say, I don't "need permission" to do those things because I have no desire to do them.

There you have it! Wasn't that simple?

Jack

Can you provide scripture where smoking cigars, cigarettes, or drinking wine, or beer is prohibited?

No? Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
DeaconDean stated:

"While searching the internet, I found the following examples of what is rerfered to as "ultra-fundamentalism":

1. Virtue – A dress code that makes the Christian people in the group holier than others. Women should all wear skirts and not pants. Shorts and swimwear is out of the question. Men should always have short hair and wear suits/ties (or at the minimum business casual). Jeans are evil.
2. Outrage and Superiority – that others in the Church would not conform to a leader’s groups standards that are not labeled in the Bible.
3. The Bible – The KJV is the only Bible one should use as a Christian – it (KJV 1611) is inerrant above and beyond the original translations in the original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Anyone who believes otherwise is decieved.
4. Isolation – Limited access to the outside world and a prevalent sense of fear.
5. Loyalty – Unquestionable loyalty to leadership. Even when leaders do not follow their own rules and specifically go against Scripture.

I draw your attention to point #3.

I have seen this pop up here, just recently."

DeaconDean,

While I am an "ultra-fundamentalist", I am not part of the 'Peter Ruckman' crowd. If my information is correct, Ruckman is one of the very few that hold the #3 position mentioned above.

While there is some 'truth' in the other points, they, like point #3, are inaccurate. As to the loyalty issue; I find most ultra-fundamentalists are no more loyal to their leadership, than followers of modern Bible versions are to men like Daniel Wallace, or the late Bruce Metzger.

By the way, I noticed certain 'rhetoric' such as, "Jeans are evil". I am surprised that an educated man like you would post a definition that is an obviously biased 'outside' view. (I find that nearly all 'outside' biased views such as this are extremely exaggerated, therefore, I always do my best to get information straight from the 'mainstream' of those who actually 'hold' those positions.)

Jack

You know, while in seminary, I was taught to study. Study God's word including taking Greek classes to where I don't have to rely on other translations. I can translate it for myself.

If you have a beef with men like Bruce Metzger, then tough.

Just like I pointed out the flaws in the TR.

You may deny it, you may wish it wasn't true, but nothing you can say negates the facts that the TR was based on a fairly recent Greek text, and Erasmas had errors in his text.

And you still have not shown where th scriptures where God said He would preserve His word in the KJV bible.

"Ultra_Fundamentalist" its terms like this and "hyper-calvinist" that give us a bad name.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

standingtall

Such is life....
Jan 5, 2012
790
85
✟1,535.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The use of the word "allowed" (especially in quotation marks) insinuates I must give her "permission" to wear certain clothing. You just can't fathom a woman not having the desire to wear pants, can you? Maybe this will help; Does your Pastor "allow" you to drink a few beers, or smoke a few cigarettes?

You may say, I don't "need permission" to do those things because I have no desire to do them.

There you have it! Wasn't that simple?

So your wife could wear jeans/pants if she wanted too, but doesn't because she has been indoctrinated that it's wrong to wear them. Got it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Metal Minister

New Year, Still Old School!
May 8, 2012
12,140
591
✟29,999.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
*blind post*

What's this talk of men or women wearing pants? The command of a women not wearing things pertaining to a man and vice versa had nothing to do with pants, but with women wearing armor and such and men wearing women's clothes. Remember, back then no one wore pants!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2009
4,828
321
✟17,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
*blind post*

What's this talk of men or women wearing pants? The command of a women not wearing things pertaining to a man and vice versa had nothing to do with pants, but with women wearing armor and such and men wearing women's clothes. Remember, back then no one wore pants!
Are you saying a Scot wearing a kilt is wrong?
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I confess to not having read any post from this thread but to answer the question a this thread asks, a reply to all posting is not needed. Politically I am a Conservative. As a Christian I am a fundamentalist. As a politician I can be mistaken badly but as a Christian, led by the Holy Spirit, I make no mistakes unless I refuse to obey the Spirit and continue to follow after the flesh. The Bible teaches that all temptations come from the flesh and all my mistakes come from that source; it is for this reason that I confess in the Lord's Prayer daily.. Politicians who are not Christians do not bother to repent daily or change their ways. Conservative are not always Christians. Not all citizens are Christians.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As has already been mentioned here, there are nuances that separate fundies from conservatives, but possibly one of the biggest differences is the issue of the authority of Scripture over tradition, etc. There are people within the conservative camp who hold to (T)radition over all else, such as in the RC and Eastern Orthodox churches. And there are those who hold personal experience/revelation as equal authority to Scripture, which would also potentially put them in the conservative camp, but not fundamentalist.

Here are the basics of fundamental doctrine:

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

  1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
  2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
  3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
  4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
    a. The doctrine of the Trinity
    b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
    c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
    d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
    e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
    f. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
  5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
  6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
  7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
  8. 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.
Thus a Fundamentalist can be from quite a few Protestant denominations, even nondenominational. Those that defer to a view that sacred tradition is equal to scripture (not sola scriptura) would not. For more information, see Fundamentalism.

:thumbsup: Sola Scriptura is an important distinction, and enjoyed how you explained it. If it were up to me, I would sticky your post in this section of the forum.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
:thumbsup: Sola Scriptura is an important distinction, and enjoyed how you explained it. If it were up to me, I would sticky your post in this section of the forum.

It already is.

That is the SoF for the Fundamentalist area.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nowhere is it stated that Fundamentalists believe "church tradition to be a source of authority".

Ironically, the 1878 Niagara Creed you quote, is itself a secondary source of authority...no?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jack Koons

Guest
DeaconDean stated:

"Can you provide scripture where smoking cigars, cigarettes, or drinking wine, or beer is prohibited?

No? Hum..."

Actually, I was about to give you a list of verses that tell us God's view on drinking and smoking; but then I saw that your answer was, "No? Him..." Now I not sure if that means you really don't know, or if it means that your "modern version" doesn't say anything on this issue? I can only assume that the scholars you hold in high regard, have removed these verses from your Bible. But since you can read the 'original languages', that means you can check it out for yourself.

Oh, that's right, you can't do that either. You see, the NA/USB has been revised so many times, the verses you need to find have probably been edited out of the 'original' languages as well.

Jack
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J

Jack Koons

Guest
DeaconDean stated:

"You know, while in seminary, I was taught to study. Study God's word including taking Greek classes to where I don't have to rely on other translations. I can translate it for myself.

If you have a beef with men like Bruce Metzger, then tough.

Just like I pointed out the flaws in the TR.

You may deny it, you may wish it wasn't true, but nothing you can say negates the facts that the TR was based on a fairly recent Greek text, and Erasmas had errors in his text.

And you still have not shown where th scriptures where God said He would preserve His word in the KJV bible.

"Ultra_Fundamentalist" its terms like this and "hyper-calvinist" that give us a bad name."

It's nice to know that you went to seminary, and became 'educated'. The unfortunate truth however, is that not everything they taught you was true. I only make that statement based on what you just stated.

"You may deny it, you may wish it wasn't true, but nothing you can say negates the facts that the TR was based on a fairly recent Greek text, and Erasmas had errors in his text."

According to you, "... the TR was based on a fairly recent Greek text".

I would like you to defend that statement by telling me:

1) Exactly what "Greek text" did Erasmus base the TR on;
2) Do you have PROOF that this Greek text is NOT a derivative of the Greek text used by the early church?
3) What Greek MSS. we're available to Erasmus? And;
4) Which "edition" of Erasmus' Greek text are you referring to?

You also stated; "... Erasmas had errors in his text."

Along with: "You know, while in seminary, I was taught to study. Study God's word including taking Greek classes to where I don't have to rely on other translations. I can translate it for myself."

Are you telling me (and everyone else reading this) that your education 'qualify' you to sit in judgement of Erasmus and his work?

Jack
 
Upvote 0