What is the difference between fundamentalist christians and Conservatives?

We've shown that they are neither 1) similar, nor 2) the same.

What's the problem?

It sounds like a play on words. Being a fundamentalist is someone who lives by book, chapter, and verse; this is the N.T. church that we read about, the pattern by which we live by. R we conservative, for the most part....yes.

Going back to ur question....there is no problem.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It sounds like a play on words. Being a fundamentalist is someone who lives by book, chapter, and verse; this is the N.T. church that we read about, the pattern by which we live by. R we conservative, for the most part....yes.

Going back to ur question....there is no problem.

I see that you don't understand. There is a definition of "Fundamentalism " given on this forum. There also have been threads on which the meaning has been discussed at length. Read the definition (sticky) and see the difference between Fundamentalism and Conservatism as well as the Fundamentalist perspective on Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
What do You think of recent New Testament commentary sets by one author that cite the KJV and have mostly modern day Christian living/some counterpoint examples plus application as content? (The author probably believes that the earth was created in 6 literal days, but probably doesn't believe in the young earth creationism as the university he went to doesn't but does purport literal 6-day creation.) The author of the set I'm thinking about preached the first time when he was 16, and is now 58. The NT set started to appear in the mid-00's and is not complete, dedicated volumes on books such as Mt and Mk are missing as well as Col, 1 Jn, Jude. (What books are missing is not a major problem since I have some other commentaries):
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.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Just curious because I have read about them and they seem similar.

Sometimes one can be both, sometimes it conflicts,

If you base your interpretation on scripture and read it plainly you may notice conservatives ignore certain verses that do not lead to a conservative conclusion .

a fundamentalist bases their faith on the fundamentals of the faith and may come to different conclusions depending on how they interpret the golden rule and apply it to people in general.

that's my take .
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Here are the beliefs of the university where the author graduated as a Doctor of Ministry: Bethany Divinity College and Seminary :: Doctrinal Statement:
What do You think of recent New Testament commentary sets by one author that cite the KJV and have mostly modern day Christian living/some counterpoint examples plus application as content? (The author probably believes that the earth was created in 6 literal days, but probably doesn't believe in the young earth creationism as the university he went to doesn't but does purport literal 6-day creation.)



If You have time, read also my personality-test answers: http://www.christianforums.com/t7830849-post65942754/#post65942754
 
Upvote 0

VCViking

Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel...
Oct 21, 2006
2,073
168
United States
✟10,648.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
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:
 
Upvote 0

VCViking

Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel...
Oct 21, 2006
2,073
168
United States
✟10,648.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
My dear friend desmalia was nice enogh to show what is the definition as far as Fundamentalists are concerned here on christianforums.com.

What she did not do, I will.



http://www.christianforums.com/t7395085/

Here is the difference between Fundamentalists and Conservatives:



As it was originally written, the 1878 Niagara Creed for Fundamentalists said:

14 point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878:
1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.
2. The Trinity.
3. The Creation of man, the Fall into sin, and total depravity.
4. The universal transmission of spiritual death from Adam.
5. The necessity of the new birth.
6. Redemption by the blood of Christ.
7. Salvation by faith alone in Christ.
8. The assurance of salvation.
9. The centrality of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures.
10. The constitution of the true church by genuine believers.
11. The personality of the Holy Spirit.
12. The believer’s call to a holy life.
13. The immediate passing of the souls of believers to be with Christ at death.
14. The premillennial Second Coming of Christ.

Source

Nowhere is it stated that Fundamentalists believe "church tradition to be a source of authority".

God Bless

Till all are one.


:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

cubanito

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2005
2,680
222
Southeast Florida, US (Coral Gables near Miami)
✟4,071.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The above post is correct. Put another way, the Pharisees were conservatives who by giving excess weight to tradition, made void the Law of God. Thus no healing on Shabbat and so on. Jesus was a fundamentalist as He held to every letter of Scripture and gave little concern for tradition. He was so adamant about the tiniest letter of Scriprture that when asked by the religious liberals of His day (the Sadducees) to show the resurection from the Torah; He made His case from the TENSE of a verb by pointing out that God is referred to as the God of Jacob in the present, by implication that Jacob was still alive.

This may seem as a put down of conservative Christians, given that the Pharisees are generally condemmed in Scripture. Yet some Pharisees were quite kind to Christ and His followers: Nicodemus tried to help, and Gamaliel also sought to stop the persecution of the early Church.

When I was a resident, the medical program director was on my case to an absurd degree. I could do nothing right by this man's opinion. One time, when it was obvious to all I was right and he was not, he turned red, visibly shook, yelled "You are right for the wrong reason!" and left rounds midway with no further explanation. Years later as I commented to another physician that had gone through the same training, he laughed and explained to me WHY that man was so critical of me: he thought I had potentioal. He had seen various trainees under him, and he took interest only in those few he thought were worth his time and effort to train into good physicians. Apparently, this was this man's way of paying me a great complement: you are worth me flogging you.

I honestly believe that while the Pharisees were wrong, Christ took an interest in them because they were NOT LUKEWARM! At least they stood for something, they cared to some extent for the things of God. Perhaps they got much more wrong than right, but they CARED enough to try.

When I compare conservative Christians to Pharisees, I am trying to do so in a relatively positive way. They at least are not lukewarm liberals with whom I've no interest at all.

JR
 
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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
A fundamentalist follows the bible, a conservative follows a socio-political idea?

No. The statement of purpose for the Conservative Christians forum is clear that the meaning of the term there is traditionalist Christians holding to the historic beliefs and practices of tChristianity, regardless of denomination. It's a religious use of the word, in other words.

A fundamentalist would be similar but not identical. A comparison of the two statements of principle for the two forums would answer the question quite well, I think.

On the other hand, if the question is supposed to be "What's the difference between a fundamentalist and a political Conservative" (which would be an odd comparison), I suppose that we'd conclude that we're comparing apples and oranges because there are fundamentalists who vote Democrat, (or Labour), Bible believers who are not fundamentalists, and political Conservatives who aren't at all conventional in their religious values.
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
Before 1881 the KJV was "THE" Bible for all English-speaking Christians worldwide. Even the Geneva Bible (which is very close) did not hold that position. So you might have a misunderstanding about the time from which the KJV became an issue. And yes, today, a true Fundamentalist would have no choice but to hold to the KJV-only position.

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.
This is a strawman argument. I have a reprint of the 1611 edition and other than spellings and some minor differences, the words are identical. The so-called "revisions" were to bring conformity to more recent lnaguage usage.

In addition, most people would get easily lost in the Old English used in the 1611 edition.
There are a few passages where the old English usage needs clarification (through the use of a Concordance). But overall this is really not the issue it is made out to be.

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.
And that's perfectly fine. The real issue is that the Greek manuscripts supporting the modern versions have attacked Bible doctrines, and changed thousands of words to "emend" the text. The Hebrew text has been "emended" on modernisitic lines.

If we believe in plenary verbal inspiration (every word is a word of God, including the jots and tittle), then a revised, "emended", corrupted Hebrew or Greek text is unacceptable, particularly if there was doctrinal bias in making the changes. The Gnostics had much to do with the changes.

Coming back to the OP, some of the key differences between conservative and fundamentalist Christians would be (a) less denominational loyalty for fundamentalists, (b) more aggressive outreach with the Gospel for fundamentalists, (c) Dispensationalism and a pretribulation, premillenial Rapture doctrine for fundamentalists, and (d) a more literal interpretation of Bible prophecy for fundamentalists.
 
Upvote 0