How does a conservative differ from an fundamentalist?

[Rochir]

I just realised there is also a fundamentalist forum here, so I wonder - what's the difference between members here and there?

 

[jive4005]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm very conservative and only marginally fundamentalist. Some qualities and beliefs overlap, but certainly not all.

His,
Rev J

 

[Macrina]

Interesting question. Those words, as with most labels, are a little slippery, but I'll give it a go.

In the classic/historical sense, a Fundamentalist adheres to the five "fundamental" doctrines: The virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, the inerrancy of scripture, the historical truth of miracles, and Christ's bodily resurrection. In this sense, I would qualify as a Fundamentalist (depending on how you defined "inerrancy").

But the connotations of Fundamentalism are much different in colloquial usage. It is often used to designate that subset of conservatives which is the most conservative. As many here can vouch for, the term is often used in a pejorative sense to mean "fanatic" or some such. Because of this pejorative use, it has a negative connotation for many people and has lost its historical definition.

I have spent a good bit of time in both very liberal and very conservative theological environments, and although I don't claim to have the ultimate definition, these are the things that I think make me conservative: A high view of scripture (infallibility), an emphasis on evangelism, and the belief that Jesus is the only way to God. Among other things, these are issues which have distinguished me from others.

I would not self-identify as a fundamentalist, though, because of the connotations the word has. Like I said, it's a slippery term, but most people I encounter seem to consider one particular approach to reading the Bible to be the correct one, and I differ in places with the methodology. Also, those who use the word in a pejorative sense generally imply aggressive dogmatism; while this isn't (IMO) a tenet of fundamentalism, I don't want to confuse the issue by claiming the label.

So, in short -- fundamentalists are the most conservative conservatives. I think.

 

[Tonks]

Fundamentalist forum here:

http://www.christianforums.com/f370-fundamentalist-churches.html

 

[Simon_Templar]

"Fundamentalists" originally were simply defined as those who adhere to the fundamentals of the faith.

In the US, however, fundamentalism took on a unique character that defined the 'fundamentals' on its own terms.

no definition is going to cover everything, and this one is based on stereotypes, but it is fairly accurate to the general perception of what are defining aspects of fundamentalism in the US.

Fundamentalists believe in the absolute inerrancy and verbal inspiration of scripture. However, a large sub-section of fundamentalists in the US take this a step further and believe that the King James Authorized Version of the bible is also infallible and perfect in its translation. This group tend to believe that other modern translations are fatally flawed and contain the seeds of false doctrines and deceptions.

Fundamentalists are generally young earth creationists and take the genesis account of creation as literal historical truth.

Fundamentalists are generally adherents of the "sola scriptura" doctrine that only the bible can be used to establish a doctrine. The use of church tradition in interpeting scripture etc is usually seen as false teaching.

Fundamentalists are usually pre-milenial, pre-tribulation view point in their eschatology. I think there is quite a bit of crossover between dispensationalism and fundamentalism, but I could be wrong on that.

Although there may have been some change in this area, fundamentalist churches in the US has traditionally been anti-charismatic.


Fundamentalist, generally is a sub-set of conservative. A fundamentalist is conservative, but not all conservatives are fundamentalist.

I for example believe in the inerrancy of scripture, (not the KJV) and am a young earth creationist and I take genesis literally, and I am a pre-mil, POST-trib view point, but alot of fundamentalists would not accept me because of other doctrinal views I hold, specifically those that are more 'catholic'

 

[No Swansong]

Not a bad attempt Simon and "Generally" accurate.

As pointed out there are exceptions to everything. In the U.S. the term Fundamentalist was specifically applied to those who supported the arguments made in the "The Fundamentals" a series of essays compiled and distributed to initially combat "Higher Criticism" (a misnomer really) The definition we have long used over on Fundamentalist Churches is the following;


For the purposes of this sub-forum, we adopt the Definition by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976, to wit:

A born-again believer in the 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:
   • 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;
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.

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.

 

[Albion]

Not a bad attempt Simon and "Generally" accurate.

As pointed out there are exceptions to everything. In the U.S. the term Fundamentalist was specifically applied to those who supported the arguments made in the "The Fundamentals" a series of essays compiled and distributed to initially combat "Higher Criticism" (a misnomer really) The definition we have long used over on Fundamentalist Churches is the following;


For the purposes of this sub-forum, we adopt the Definition by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976, to wit:

A born-again believer in the 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:
   • 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;
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.

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.

Exactly. A Fundamentalist is one who subscribes to these fundamentals. He wouldn't have to be a Conservative in the least to do so. And although it no doubt is true that "some" Fundamentalists or "many" Fundamentalists believe strongly in additional doctrines (Pre-Mill, KJVO, for example), it is only the 7 points above that define a Fundamentalist.

 

[Rochir]

Thanks for the explanations, everyone!

 

[jive4005]

I never realized being (or NOT being...) me was so complicated!


Rev J

 

[MrJim]

One of the things not brought up is the political aspect of it...fundamentalist would have the spiritual nature, but often "conservative christians" are defined by their politics~views on issues. Very often these are the same as the fundamentalists though not necessarily (some fundamentalist parts of some denoms [I'm thinking particularly of anabaptists] would eschew the voting aspect all together).

Now I'm not saying that an easy way to figure out the liberal/conservative christian is to ask their political party affiliation, but it would probably weed out 80%...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Conservatism simply means a combination of Nicene orthodoxy and traditional American political mores. It adheres to the general principles of the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman, Renaissance-Enlightenment of the west. It's a very broad category.

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is a distinctly American phenomenon based in the religious revival of the 1920s. It's adherents are generally Arminian, dispensationalist, Pietist. I am none of the three.

 

[MrJim]

Conservatism simply means a combination of Nicene orthodoxy and traditional American political mores. It adheres to the general principles of the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman, Renaissance-Enlightenment of the west. It's a very broad category.

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is a distinctly American phenomenon based in the religious revival of the 1920s. It's adherents are generally Arminian, dispensationalist, Pietist. I am none of the three.

Hmmm, I'm two of the three somewhat, but certainly not dispensationalist.

When you say "arminian"~what are you meaning, just opposite of calvinist?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hmmm, I'm two of the three somewhat, but certainly not dispensationalist.

When you say "arminian"~what are you meaning, just opposite of calvinist?

Well, just the opposite of four of the five points, (Arminians holding to Conditional Elected Based on Foreknowedge, General Atonement, Prevenient and Resistable Grace, and Conditional Preservation of the Saints), since Arminians still work within a generally Reformed, non capax, covenantal framework. (its really a subset of Calvinism if you think about it...)

 

[No Swansong]

Actually many fundamntalists are Calvinists. (not sure that most are Arminian but to be fair I am not sure how to even research this) Many of the essays contained within "The Fundamentals" were written by Presbyterians.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Actually many fundamntalists are Calvinists. (not sure that most are Arminian but to be fair I am not sure how to even research this) Many of the essays contained within "The Fundamentals" were written by Presbyterians.

Historically, this was and is not the case. Fundamentalism has come under heavy critique by Calvinists, especially Mark Noll, author of The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

Jonathan Edwards, no doubt, was strongly Calvinist. But the tent revival style of mass conversion adopted by the later fundamentals lent itself to Arminian theology, enamored as it was with the supposed ability of people to choose for themselves their eternal destination.

 

[Albion]

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is a distinctly American phenomenon based in the religious revival of the 1920s. It's adherents are generally Arminian, dispensationalist, Pietist. I am none of the three.

Yes, but what it is that makes a Fundamentalist, by definition, is in the points, not anything that generally is typical of "a Fundamentalist." None of those three points is part of the definition of a Fundamentalist.

So, just for fun, what points that are there in black and white would you say you could not agree with? I, after all, am an Anglican with all that that means, yet I am a Fundamentalist according to the definition. And I certainly know that the average Fundamentalist would run in horror from my kind of worship service.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

One of the things not brought up is the political aspect of it...fundamentalist would have the spiritual nature, but often "conservative christians" are defined by their politics~views on issues. Very often these are the same as the fundamentalists though not necessarily (some fundamentalist parts of some denoms [I'm thinking particularly of anabaptists] would eschew the voting aspect all together).

Now I'm not saying that an easy way to figure out the liberal/conservative christian is to ask their political party affiliation, but it would probably weed out 80%...

One could almost equate it to pharisees and sadducees...

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yes, but what it is that makes a Fundamentalist, by definition, is in the points, not anything that generally is typical of "a Fundamentalist." None of those three points is part of the definition of a Fundamentalist.

So, just for fun, what points that are there in black and white would you say you could not agree with? I, after all, am an Anglican with all that that means, yet I am a Fundamentalist according to the definition. And I certainly know that the average Fundamentalist would run in horror from my kind of worship service.

You're an Arminian and a dispensationalist??

Anyway, of course, dispensationalism brings belief in the rapture and the contemporary applicability of end-times prophecy, as well as a 'consistently liberal' hermeneutic.

Which also implies six-day young earth creationism.

Yes, that would do it. Arminian, Pietist, Credobaptist, dispensationalist, creationist is generally how I would definite fundamentalism, in addition to that which is implied by the last two tenants, namely, strict adherences to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures including inerrancy, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the emphasis on 19th century tent revival-style mass conversion and sermon-oriented worship style.

 

[Albion]

You're an Arminian and a dispensationalist??

I didn't say that...and what would it have to do with the question about where you would differ from the list of Fundamentals that define Fundamentalism?

Arminian, Pietist, Credobaptist, dispensationalist, creationist is generally how I would definite fundamentalism,

Except that those are NOT part of the definition of Fundamentalism. They are, at best, characteristics of those people who happen to be Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism, you know, is not something that just evolved until we named it, like Rock music. It was identified and defined at a point in time by those who created the movement. Those beliefs are not in doubt.

in addition to that which is implied by the last two tenants, namely, strict adherences to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures including inerrancy, the virgin birth, the resurrection,

Uh, not literal interpretation. That's not one of them. So how about virgin birth, inerrancy, and the resurrection? Any disagreements there?

and the emphasis on 19th century tent revival-style mass conversion and sermon-oriented worship style.

No, those aren't part of the definition, either. The CF forum for Fundamentalists does extrapolate from the definition that Fundamentalists have a soul-winning zeal, but nothing about tents, sawdust, or the length of the sermon. You probably have a soul-winning zeal yourself, and being here is a hint of that.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I didn't say that...and what would it have to do with the question about where you would differ from the list of Fundamentals that define Fundamentalism?



Except that those are NOT part of the definition of Fundamentalism. They are, at best, characteristics of those people who happen to be Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism, you know, is not something that just evolved until we named it, like Rock music. It was identified and defined at a point in time by those who created the movement. Those beliefs are not in doubt.



Uh, not literal interpretation. That's not one of them. So how about virgin birth, inerrancy, and the resurrection? Any disagreements there?



No, those aren't part of the definition, either. The CF forum for Fundamentalists does extrapolate from the definition that Fundamentalists have a soul-winning zeal, but nothing about tents, sawdust, or the length of the sermon. You probably have a soul-winning zeal yourself, and being here is a hint of that.

All of that aside, those are the historical, sociological characteristics of the fundamentalist movement in America.