• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

What is the difference between fundamentalist christians and Conservatives?

Discussion in 'Fundamentalist Christians' started by PraiseHisName9, Jul 30, 2013.

  1. Faith.Man

    Faith.Man .

    +306
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Cults rely on Loyalty. For example: David Koresh and Jim Jones used their followers loyalty against them and preached another gospel.
     
  2. standingtall

    standingtall Such is life....

    790
    +81
    Christian
    Married
    Is your wife "allowed" to wear jeans?
     
  3. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    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
     
  4. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    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
     
  5. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Can you provide scripture where smoking cigars, cigarettes, or drinking wine, or beer is prohibited?

    No? Hum...

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  6. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  7. standingtall

    standingtall Such is life....

    790
    +81
    Christian
    Married
    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: Aug 1, 2013
  8. Metal Minister

    Metal Minister New Year, Still Old School!

    +450
    Baptist
    Married
    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!
     
  9. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    DeaconDean stated:

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

    No? Hum..."

    Really, did you just ask me that?

    Jack
     
  10. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    DeaconDean stated:

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

    No? Hum..."

    Really, did you just ask me that?

    Jack
     
  11. standingtall

    standingtall Such is life....

    790
    +81
    Christian
    Married
    Did you have to ask him twice if he asked you that?
     
  12. Faith.Man

    Faith.Man .

    +306
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Are you saying a Scot wearing a kilt is wrong?
     
  13. Metal Minister

    Metal Minister New Year, Still Old School!

    +450
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Nope, just the opposite. My point was that back in the time of Jesus, even men didn't wear pants.
     
  14. GadFly

    GadFly Newbie

    +76
    Methodist
    Married
    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.
     
  15. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    :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.
     
  16. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    It already is.

    That is the SoF for the Fundamentalist area.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  17. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Ironically, the 1878 Niagara Creed you quote, is itself a secondary source of authority...no?
     
  18. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Ah ha :D
     
  19. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    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
     
  20. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    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
     
Loading...