What makes a conservative????????????

[Anglian]

Dear New Dawn,
Thank you for helping me here.

Fundamentalism is considered to be built around the five tenets of the Christian faith, although there is much more to the movement then those tenets. The five tenets are:

1) The insistence that the Bible is to be taken as literally true. Along with this is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, i.e. without error and free from all contradictions.

With the same caveats as my friend Izdaari wave: Izdaari), I would agree.

2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ—the belief that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine.

Indeed, provided it is held that there is no mixing of the two natures.

3. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith—the belief that Christ was crucified for all the sins of man, and because of His perfect sacrifice, all men can find salvation through faith in Him.

Indeed.

4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus—the belief that He was crucified and died and on the third day, He rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

Amen, it is so.

5. The authenticity of the miracles of Christ as found in Scripture and his pre-millennial second coming.

His miracles are so; the premillennial second coming is something upon which I would tend to be with Izdaari.

My own Church, which was founded in Alexandria by St. Mark in AD 58 is certainly conservative; fundamentalism as defined here seems rather fond of precise definitions, which is a feature, I know, of the various Western traditions.

I don't really associate my Faith with political positions, and tend to be distrustful of attempts to align any one political position with Christianity.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Jim47]

Hadn't noticed this thread..

Maybe a bigger question is what separates the "conservative" from the "fundamentalist"?

Edit, I just found the anwer in another following post , sorry.

That is a good question Jim, can you answer it? And also can you define fundamentalist? And what is the importamtce of the difference?

 

[MrJim]

Edit, I just found the anwer in another following post , sorry.

That is a good question Jim, can you answer it? And also can you define fundamentalist? And what is the importamtce of the difference?

I was lookin' for other's definitions and answers...

 

[Jim47]

I was lookin' for other's definitions and answers...

I remember this being discussed last year about this time and at that time I thought there was a different definition?

Myself I don't like titles like Funde etc, except for one- Christian

 

[CADude12]

I remember this being discussed last year about this time and at that time I thought there was a different definition?

Myself I don't like titles like Funde etc, except for one- Christian

I don't like the titles either. However, I think it's important to distinguish between what is acceptable theology and what is not. Cults and other obvious heresies are not Christians. Very often they seem to have an additional "book" or "revelation" which is taken along with the Bible. And they sometimes have their own versions of the scriptures which are full of their heresies.

Neither, do I belive are what we call "liberal Christians", who quietly deny the Scriptures, and follow a course of cultural accomodation with whatever is trendy at the moment.

But, for the vast majority, are we not all Christians? We have differnet faith traditions, and some disagreements...

 

[Nadiine]

I don't like the titles either. However, I think it's important to distinguish between what is acceptable theology and what is not. Cults and other obvious heresies are not Christians. Very often they seem to have an additional "book" or "revelation" which is taken along with the Bible. And they sometimes have their own versions of the scriptures which are full of their heresies.

Neither, do I belive are what we call "liberal Christians", who quietly deny the Scriptures, and follow a course of cultural accomodation with whatever is trendy at the moment.

But, for the vast majority, are we not all Christians? We have differnet faith traditions, and some disagreements...

Well, according to the Bible, few go thru the narrow gate and the majority go thru the wide gate.
Peter said that the righteous scarcely enter, so what will become of the ungodly? Sobering to me. But then,... I take the bible at its word - many do not, so it isn't so 'sobering' to others when they read it.

To others, it's probly like if I were to pick up & read the Koran - it means nothing to me & affects me none.

As far as titles & labels, I think we need them to some extent.
I know when CF didn't have the faith icons up for awhile, it was difficult to debate becuz you didn't know anyone's base beliefs - alot of people were asking if they'de hurry up & get the faith icons up.

odd.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Woof!!
I like the blue dog.

I agree with that. But I would add, that conservative means not abandoning the truth of the Scripture, or the morality it teaches, or the centrality of the Gospel to our lives, for the sake of being up to date/politically correct. Technological progress is happening all the time, but moral progress is not; it's even retrograding.

I usually see conservative as a general term that affects political and religious views. But I know lots of people tend to associate it with religion nowadays.

Hadn't noticed this thread..

Maybe a bigger question is what separates the "conservative" from the "fundamentalist"?

I think a good many people use those terms interchangeably more and more.

Personally I think all these terms do some good to help us understand where we stand. But they also serve to divide us more than we should be.

 

[Anglian]

Interesting discussion, especially to those of us unfamiliar with these American distinctions.

I once popped into the Fundamentalist forum, only to be told very firmly by someone whose Church dated from the sixteenth century that what we had been doing since AD 58 was not fundamental. Puzzled, I retired from thence.

peace,

Anglian

 

[A New Dawn]

Interesting discussion, especially to those of us unfamiliar with these American distinctions.

I once popped into the Fundamentalist forum, only to be told very firmly by someone whose Church dated from the sixteenth century that what we had been doing since AD 58 was not fundamental. Puzzled, I retired from thence.

peace,

Anglian

Fundamentalism was started in the mid 1800s in response to the rising liberalism in the church and world (evolution, mainly). It doesn't mean historic or traditional or anything, just a movement back towards the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

 

[Anglian]

Fundamentalism was started in the mid 1800s in response to the rising liberalism in the church and world (evolution, mainly). It doesn't mean historic or traditional or anything, just a movement back towards the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

Many thanks. I guess since we've never had any liberalism in Alexandria and haven't changed things at all, we were fundamentalists without knowing it all along

peace,

Anglian

 

[Nadiine]

Many thanks. I guess since we've never had any liberalism in Alexandria and haven't changed things at all, we were fundamentalists without knowing it all along

peace,

Anglian

At the rate it's going lately, I might pack my bags for Alexandria

*fumbles for a map

 

[desmalia]

Fundamentalism was started in the mid 1800s in response to the rising liberalism in the church and world (evolution, mainly). It doesn't mean historic or traditional or anything, just a movement back towards the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

Yes, this is true. More specifically with an emphasis on Sola Scriptura, ie. Scripture has higher authority than tradition, cultural changes, etc., etc.

 

[Anglian]

Yes, this is true. More specifically with an emphasis on Sola Scriptura, ie. Scripture has higher authority than tradition, cultural changes, etc., etc.

Dear Desmalia,

I take your point, but when St. Mark founded our Church, most of the Bible wasn't written!

The way we see Holy Tradition is this. We have the ancient liturgies, which we still use and which describe the faith of the faithful (indeed in our sister Syria Church they still use Aramaic); we have the Holy Scriptures themselves, with the first canon we use now being seen in Alexandria in St. Athanasius' festal letter in the 360s; we have the writings of the Church Fathers and Saints; and we have the Councils of the early Church. All of them express the Faith as we have received it, and no point that runs against the writings of the Apostles can be allowed; but where, as they do, matters of dispute arise, then all four pillars of the Faith must be in support of any resolution before it can be accepted.

My Church still bears the scars of our prideful priest, Arius, who was forever quoting Scripture to support his heretical view that Christ was merely a creature and not one with God; that taught us something we have never forgotten - that whilst any heretic may twist Scripture to support his heresy, none has ever been able to found his heresy on all four pillars of the faith.

So it is not that we put anything higher than the book the Church recognised as the Word of God, just that when there is a dispute over its meaning, we have a way of deciding which does not rely on our prideful intellect or powers of persuading ourselves that what we believe is right; neither does it rely on a Pope. Gets a trifle messy from time to time, but we've been around since AD 58, so something, or someone, is helping us along.

peace,

Anglian

p.s. for Nadine - straight west from Miami, up a bit, and stop when you see the pyramids, you've gone too far south. You'll spot us easily enough - we're the ones the Muslims are throwing things at

 

[desmalia]

Dear Desmalia,

I take your point, but when St. Mark founded our Church, most of the Bible wasn't written!

The way we see Holy Tradition is this. We have the ancient liturgies, which we still use and which describe the faith of the faithful (indeed in our sister Syria Church they still use Aramaic); we have the Holy Scriptures themselves, with the first canon we use now being seen in Alexandria in St. Athanasius' festal letter in the 360s; we have the writings of the Church Fathers and Saints; and we have the Councils of the early Church. All of them express the Faith as we have received it, and no point that runs against the writings of the Apostles can be allowed; but where, as they do, matters of dispute arise, then all four pillars of the Faith must be in support of any resolution before it can be accepted.

My Church still bears the scars of our prideful priest, Arius, who was forever quoting Scripture to support his heretical view that Christ was merely a creature and not one with God; that taught us something we have never forgotten - that whilst any heretic may twist Scripture to support his heresy, none has ever been able to found his heresy on all four pillars of the faith.

So it is not that we put anything higher than the book the Church recognised as the Word of God, just that when there is a dispute over its meaning, we have a way of deciding which does not rely on our prideful intellect or powers of persuading ourselves that what we believe is right; neither does it rely on a Pope. Gets a trifle messy from time to time, but we've been around since AD 58, so something, or someone, is helping us along.

peace,

Anglian

p.s. for Nadine - straight west from Miami, up a bit, and stop when you see the pyramids, you've gone too far south. You'll spot us easily enough - we're the ones the Muslims are throwing things at

Please not also that fundamentalists do not reject tradition either. There are many point on which I'm sure we completely agree. I was just explaining one of the things that defines fundamentalism, not trying to start a debate.

 

[Anglian]

Please not also that fundamentalists do not reject tradition either. There are many point on which I'm sure we completely agree. I was just explaining one of the things that defines fundamentalism, not trying to start a debate.

Dear Desmalia,

Thank you, I'm glad to know that. I wasn't, I hope, trying to start a debate, simply to explain how the Coptic Church (which isn't one of the better known Churches in the West) sees Tradition. We all stand in Christ, and by our love for each other shall we be known as His.

peace,

Anglian

 

[desmalia]

Dear Desmalia,

Thank you, I'm glad to know that. I wasn't, I hope, trying to start a debate, simply to explain how the Coptic Church (which isn't one of the better known Churches in the West) sees Tradition. We all stand in Christ, and by our love for each other shall we be known as His.

peace,

Anglian