Differences between Fundamentalism and other Christian Conservatives?

[Job8]

The church does not replace Israel, but we are partaker of the spiritual blessing of the covenants, not over takers of the covenant.

Who said anything about *overtakers*. The Church is Jew and Gentile in One Body, and Gentiles are not to be highminded according to Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Norm's post at #3 highlights one of the biggest issues I have with Fundamentalism, and Evangelicalism as a whole. They seem all too happy to pass on the Gnostic genophobia that was started by people like Origen and Augustine. I hate Joshua Harris.

You DO seem to have a problem, all right.

 

[com7fy8]

Hi. I was wondering what members consider to be some of the differences between Christian Fundamentalists and other Christian Conservatives.

Thank you.
Norm

The basic that I was told is that a fundie believes the Bible means what it says. And we must not add to what the Bible says.

So, "of course", since the Bible does not command us not to kiss before we marry, making this a commandment would be adding to God's word. And so, a person who does this is not a true fundamentalist.

So, I would say not to let wrong people decide how a term or group is defined.

I consider myself to be a "soft fundamentalist". I mean, that because I am not perfect I can easily fail to understand the Bible the way God does. Also - - I believe the Bible says what it means, but I need to find out with God Himself what He knows He means, and not go by what groups are saying - - nor assume they know what they are talking about, when they might make general statements about others they do not even know personally.

Also, for another example > if you claim you go by what the Bible says and do not add to it, nowhere does the Bible in plain and simple language say "Jesus will come back and resurrect His bride church immediately before the seven-year tribulation". But there are fundies who make a statement more or less like this, even though there is no scripture which says anything like "Jesus will return before the great tribulation." I could say this in seven words, and it is clear; yet, the Holy Spirit has not said any such simple statement in the Bible, nor does the Bible call so much attention to this, like some number of people seem to do.

So, also, I think that a Biblical fundamentalist will have the right amount of attention going to things, in keeping with how much the Bible gives attention to each thing.

Ones seem to spend a lot of time on end-time things, but giving the main attention to time and place and who, but nothing or very little about how to actually be ready. So, I would say they are not Biblical fundamentalists, if they misdirect our attention to too much of one thing and fail to deal with what could be much more essential.

I myself find more and more how the Bible is mainly about becoming the way our Father wants us to be like Jesus, so we are pleasing to Him like His Son Jesus is > Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:14-16, Ephesians 5:2. But I have never known certain people to give any or much attention to this, though they claim to be fundamentalists. Also, by the way, for becoming truly pleasing to our Father, we have 1 Peter 3:4 >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

And there is plenty about how God's love has us becoming in our nature (1 John 4:17-18, along with plenty of other scriptures, including Philippians 2:14-16) and in our relating with one another (Ephesians 4:31-5:2) . . . all while we submit to how our Father rules us in His peace (Colossians 3:15, Isaiah 58:11).

So, Biblical fundamentalist means how God's love has us becoming and living His love meaning of His word.

Another thing > there are ones claiming to be by the Bible; they say if you get saved, you can not lose your salvation > going by 1 Corinthians 6:17, I am fine with this. And they use plenty of scripture to support this. They say the Bible means what it says and this is what it says. But then I hear ones of them saying oh someone rebelled against God but will still go to Heaven.

But God's word says His word "shall accomplish" what He pleases > Isaiah 55:11. To me, fundamentally, this means that all God's word commands for us will be done in us and our lives > therefore, there will not be ones who fall and leave God, if He has started His good work in them (Philippians 1:6, with 2:12-13). Plus, He will succeed in getting us to become "as He is" "in this world." (in 1 John 4:17). His love does this in us.

So, if someone claims the Bible means we are guaranteed that God is able to get us to Heaven . . . well, also, it guarantees He will succeed in this life to make us like His Son Jesus. But I have heard some number of ones claiming to be by the Bible saying oh they are "sinners" and vile and can't be expected to do much better, but after they die they will be made right with God. This is not what I call fundamentalist.

So, it is clear to me, how there are people who claim to be fundies, but they are not; and so, I would recommend that we do not call them what they aren't, and spend time and attention with how God's love in us (Romans 5:5) has us discovering all He means by His word. His love with His light is infallible (Philippians 1:9) and gives us better than what we can know only in words

 

[ToBeLoved]

The church does not replace Israel, but we are partaker of the spiritual blessing of the covenants, not over takers of the covenant.

^^ THIS.

Adding to what ClassicalHero has already said.

This theology (that the church replaces Israel) is straight out of the depths of hell, because God is perfect and God made SPECIFIC, EVERLASTING promises to Israel. God DOES NOT change. God was very clear that Israel was His chosen people. Did they not listen? Yes. Does that change that God PICKED THEM? No.

Thank Jesus that He does not give up on sinners that do not listen.

 

[ken777]

The definition of a Conservative Christian (for purposes of this forum) is pretty well constructed, I'd say. Take a look at that definition/explanation in the permanent posts here for this forum (the tinted ones at the top of the list of threads), if you have not done so previously. It was fashioned with more care than might now be thought, and it laid out the idea that certain basics are involved which include both Catholics and Protestants.

"Fundamentalism" is something else (and you can see their statement on that forum, too), such that I'm not sure it's even a good exercise to try to make one fit the other or that we should consider one as a subsection of the other.

I'm thinking that maybe you should take your inquiry straight to the Fundamentalism forum, since it is that perspective, more than that of Conservative, Traditional Christianity, which seems to be the focus of your questions.

Where do evangelical Christians fit in the fundamental - conservative spectrum?

.

 

[Albion]

Where do evangelical Christians fit in the fundamental - conservative spectrum?

.

I don't know how to answer that question adequately, and for one reason--no one knows what "Evangelical" means anymore. It once meant "Protestant" (which is why many Lutherans--the original Protestants--still often title their congregations "Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church" or something like that and the largest Lutheran body in the USA is the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)." )

It later came to be applied to those Protestants who are more missionary-minded than many of the established, mainline denominations. This would include, say, non-denoms and Bible church people.

Then Charismatics and Pentecostals started to be lumped together in contrast to everyone else and called "Evangelicals" by pollsters and journalists. Many of them like that designation.

And it's even more complicated and debatable than that. In short, I'd love to offer whatever answer to your question I can, but I'd have to have a clear definition to work from. Maybe if we just put the word "Evangelical" aside for the purposes of answering that question, it would be best.

 

[outsidethecamp]

I don't know how to answer that question adequately, and for one reason--no one knows what "Evangelical" means anymore. It once meant "Protestant" (which is why many Lutherans--the original Protestants--still often title their congregations "Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church" or something like that and the largest Lutheran body in the USA is the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)." )

It later came to be applied to those Protestants who are more missionary-minded than many of the established, mainline denominations. Then Charismatics and Pentecostals started to be lumped together and called "Evangelicals" by pollsters and journalists. And it's even more complicated and debatable than that. In short, I'd love to offer whatever answer to your question I can, but I need a clear definition.

One thing they all seem to have in common:

"I fear that many Christians have been restrained from understanding the Scriptures as God would seek to apply them to their lives, because they approach the text of Scripture from an super-imposed pre-suppositional "grid" of vocabulary and interpretation. In fact, I wonder if some of the narrow, theologically-slanted and conservatively-maintained definitions and interpretations which evangelicals have imposed on other Christians, have not kept Christians as ignorant of true Christianity, as did the denial of the Scriptures themselves to the masses in the Middle Ages. Back then it was the denial of physical access; today it is the denial of the interpretive access of the Holy Spirit. Back then the Bible was chained to the pulpit; now it is chained to ideological constructs and semantic formulations.

It has been the propensity of the Western church to "box" up Christian thought into neat little air-tight packages, the composite of which becomes our accepted "belief-system," or what we call "the gospel". The Western mind has a "lust for certainty" which allows for no "loose ends", no paradoxes, no antinomies. We want to get everything "figured out", cut and dried; categorized, formulized, systematized, theologized--fossilized! If God will not fit into our "reasonable categories", then we will have to reduce Him to fit. We want to get a handle on it, so we can "handle it". But God is not an "it".

We are "thing" oriented, instead of God-oriented, and theology is the biggest "plaything" in the evangelical play-pen. We want logical formulas, precise techniques, definite doctrines, exact theology. We do not like intangibles-such as the invisible dynamic of the Spirit of God at work in His created order, so we formulate tangibles - golden calves-or their counterpart, ideological idols carved in the concrete of inflexible minds.

Even the present attempt to move beyond the static definitions of staid evangelicalism is fraught with its own inherent danger. Definitions by their very definition are static. A definition is an attempt to "nail down" and particularize to the point of precision of thought. There is no such thing as a "dynamic definition", yet it is my objective to ascertain how the divine dynamic of Jesus Christ applies to certain Biblical categories. The warning of James Stewart Stewart, Scottish preacher and writer, A Man in Christ, is probably appropriate: "Those who have succeeded in defining doctrine most closely, have lost Christ most completely." With that warning ringing in my ears, I proceed to consider some of the dynamic implications of certain Biblical and theological words, remembering that the dynamic is in Jesus Christ, not in the definition." (James Fowler - The Dynamic of Christ)

 

[Kirsten]

Hi. I was wondering what members consider to be some of the differences between Christian Fundamentalists and other Christian Conservatives.

Thank you.
Norm

What is the definition of a Christian Conservative?

 

[Albion]

What is the definition of a Christian Conservative?

For purposes of this forum (and the thread, I'd presume) see the Statement of Purpose given for the forum. It's basically a synonym for "traditional beliefs," regardless of denomination, as opposed to the cultish churches and the individual opinions we frequently read here on CF which offer theories about God, man, worship, salvation, etc. that are radically different from what the typical Catholic OR Protestant church has historically held to.

 

[Kirsten]

For purposes of this forum (and the thread, I'd presume) see the Statement of Purpose given for the forum. It's basically a synonym for "traditional beliefs," regardless of denomination, as opposed to the cultish churches and the individual opinions we frequently read here on CF which offer theories about God, man, worship, salvation, etc. that are radically different from what the typical Catholic OR Protestant church has historically held to.

Where would I find the Statement of Purpose?

 

[Albion]

Where would I find the Statement of Purpose?

Click on the words Conservative Christianity at the top of this page, right below the title of this thread. Then see the second entry in the list.