What Is The Difference Between Liberal, Conservative and Fundamentalist Christians?

[GodsGrace]

So....
The more I read this thread...
The more I realize that there is no definition or group I belong inside of.

John...it wasn't meant for that purpose....just to try to explain these definitions I hear.
The only group we need to belong in is the Church....capital C.....The Body of Christ.

Because...things on Earth are getting both better and worse as time goes by. Morally and physically at the same time.

So true.

I don't think old theologies are the best theologies as some things have not changed....such as our desires for having our itching ears scratched. They scratched itching ears then...not now. We have a fresh batch of theologies to scratch our itching ears.

Would require more info as to what the old theologies are....but basically, agree.

YE or OE? I have absolutely no thoughts....because this is a very bad use of scriptures on a subject they do not speak about whatsoever. The ONLY real fact that the scriptures tell us is that God did it...Not Bob from Accounting.

Agreed ! I don't believe Genesis means anything more than that God created everything, our relationship with our creator, and how it was ruined and how to get it back.

Adam and Eve?
First off these are not tags but titles of positions and authorities. They are real people who lived and died. Scriptures do not give a complete biography on Adam and Eve because it is not the focus or even relevant information. However...they are real individuals with real children and descendants. So was Noah.

Agreed....although I do believe some of the writer's myths are mixed in. Myths, like the speaking serpent. Snakes represented evil and so a snake was used....doesn't mean that evil didn't exist. Today we would use a different symbol but the meaning and outcome would be the same.

And God is considerate. He included nothing of "extra" or "Common" knowledge in scriptures. Because a Torah scroll alone cost between a whole year's wages to five year's wages. Yes, the Torah is written in a poetic fashion...this was for memory retention, accuracy in transcription, and so that more could be said in fewer words. (Some here have expressed their obvious lack of knowledge of scriptures by their actions and words)

John said it best: Much more could have been written....but we h ave all that we NEED.

So...
Do you know what exactly was said?
Stemming from an "Originalist" viewpoint?
Who was saying it to whom?
Why was it said?
How was it said?

Originalist viewpoint indeed. That's the whole point of hermeneutics....
So much is lost in our modern understanding.
I like the WHY it was said.

Flat reading is not going to provide answers. But people seem to be ready to fight/slander over their version of "truth"....meaning they have zero understanding about God. And if that's the case then their knowledge of scriptures given to us is highly suspect along the lines of Satan's knowledge given to us.

Discussing is nice.
Some don't really want to DISCUSS....but most do. At least the ones I interact with.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I know about the Creation Museum.
Heard some of what they believe.
I just can't accept it, but I don't think it's important one way or the other.
Re Adam and Eve.....I'll PM you so as not to derail too much.

it is not salvic, amen. so not worth arguing over. good to discuss..

I will look for your PM :)

 

[Wick Stick]

However....
I am interested in conclusions from what people would classify me as. Fundamentalist? Classic? Ultra conservative? Definitely not a literalist.

You're a Musicator... j/k

A fly for your ointment... one can be more than one of those things at a time. I suspect that, whatever your upbringing was, you have been influenced (like me) by extended contact with people from the Restoration Movement.

 

[JohnDB]

You're a Musicator... j/k

A fly for your ointment... one can be more than one of those things at a time. I suspect that, whatever your upbringing was, you have been influenced (like me) by extended contact with people from the Restoration Movement.

I have no idea what the Restoration Movement is, was, or will be. Never heard of it until you said it.

My upbringing was in a wide wide variety of denominations and geographic locations.
Because of this when I was a 30-something I started over. Literally....
I started researching and reading the scriptures from scratch. Trying to figure out what was true and what was denominational or theological system bias.

Basically in scientific terms I went "back to formula".
I created a library of resource materials. These are not leisure reading materials as a famous preacher or popular writer might produce. These are encyclopedias, dictionaries, archeology, anthropology, atlases, grammar guides, theological dictionaries, lexicon, concordances (need more than one) Talmud, Targums, Sifre and history books. Even the Book of Enoch.
Like I said....it's a resource library.
Books of opinions were excluded. Meaning as well I'm not there to listen to the pastor as much as I am to discern his methods and scope of hermeneutics. I love scriptures as they are indeed alive due to God breathing life into them. Church is one of a few places where I can let my freak flag fly And discuss scriptures at length.

My opinions are my own. They do not even perfectly align with the denomination I attend. I just extend them charity on those subjects. HA!

I currently attend a church with a generously wide pail of orthodoxy so long as it's fairly conservative in nature. Not legalistic either....which is surprising to me. Usually you cannot have one without the other.

How this method of study is a Restoration Movement is beyond my knowledge. I just know what I know.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Not EVERYTHING that has happened is in the bible.

God put all He desires for mankind to know and do in His Word... sadly you have not caught on to the fact that He is right and all others are wrong, unless they agree with the Lord and His Word.

 

[GodsGrace]

God put all He desires for mankind to know and do in His Word... sadly you have not caught on to the fact that He is right and all others are wrong, unless they agree with the Lord and His Word.

Are you saying that I think that God is wrong?
Do you think the history of the church ended with Revelation and then NOTHING ever happened again?
Do you know about the heresy of arianism?
How did that get handled?
If I remember correctly, you don't care for calvinism.
How do you think calvinism was invented?

 

[Runningman]

R,,,,you're giving different descriptions.
Doesn't LIBERAL mean that a person has an open mind and is willing to accept new ideas?

If a Christian believes in the creeds doesn't that mean he's a conservative Christian?
Seeking to keep the old theology alive....

Yes, but there is something older than the creeds. So the creeds are new ideas, relatively speaking. That's why I say Catholics and Protestants and liberal. Very few of the creeds can be found to say the same exact kind of things the Old and New Testament do.

I don't speak to commentaries.....they have no authority.

I think what you call FUNDAMENTALIST is what we know as TRADITIONAL.

I do agree that the original church has changed over the centuries.
l also agree that a fundamentalist would follow the teachings of Jesus.

Problem is that we also have the OT to deal with.
Seems like in that case a fundamentalist is someone that takes every verse of the OT literally.

I could possibly agree that a fundamentalist follows the OT literally. They for sure didn't have the New Testament when they were writing it. The possibly didn't even consider the NT to be Scripture. No one directly called it Scripture in the Bible.

 

[Wick Stick]

I have no idea what the Restoration Movement is, was, or will be. Never heard of it until you said it.

My upbringing was in a wide wide variety of denominations and geographic locations.
Because of this when I was a 30-something I started over. Literally....
I started researching and reading the scriptures from scratch. Trying to figure out what was true and what was denominational or theological system bias.

Basically in scientific terms I went "back to formula".
I created a library of resource materials. These are not leisure reading materials as a famous preacher or popular writer might produce. These are encyclopedias, dictionaries, archeology, anthropology, atlases, grammar guides, theological dictionaries, lexicon, concordances (need more than one) Talmud, Targums, Sifre and history books. Even the Book of Enoch.
Like I said....it's a resource library.
Books of opinions were excluded. Meaning as well I'm not there to listen to the pastor as much as I am to discern his methods and scope of hermeneutics. I love scriptures as they are indeed alive due to God breathing life into them. Church is one of a few places where I can let my freak flag fly And discuss scriptures at length.

My opinions are my own. They do not even perfectly align with the denomination I attend. I just extend them charity on those subjects. HA!

I currently attend a church with a generously wide pail of orthodoxy so long as it's fairly conservative in nature. Not legalistic either....which is surprising to me. Usually you cannot have one without the other.

How this method of study is a Restoration Movement is beyond my knowledge. I just know what I know.

Are you not the person I think you are? Could be my mistake.

 

[JohnDB]

Are you not the person I think you are? Could be my mistake.

Perhaps...Perhaps not. I don't really know who you think I am. I'm just me....always been me.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, but there is something older than the creeds. So the creeds are new ideas, relatively speaking. That's why I say Catholics and Protestants and liberal. Very few of the creeds can be found to say the same exact kind of things the Old and New Testament do.

You're saying that conservative Christians believe in something older than the creeds.
You can't mean the bible because that would be too obvious of an answer.
So,,,what do you meant? The early church theologians/Fathers?

But then you DO mention the NT....maybe you mean the NT is older than the creeds.
This is absolutely correct....
But the creeds were written to either clarify a biblical teaching (NT) OR to deny, in writing, any heretical ideas that were circulating and making their way into the church. A creed was just an official statement declaring that the church did not hold the heretical belief to be taught in the NT.
For instance, arianism required the writing of the Nicene Creed in 325AD.

I could possibly agree that a fundamentalist follows the OT literally. They for sure didn't have the New Testament when they were writing it. The possibly didn't even consider the NT to be Scripture. No one directly called it Scripture in the Bible.

Agreed.

 

[GodsGrace]

Perhaps...Perhaps not. I don't really know who you think I am. I'm just me....always been me.

This is good.
Because I've always thought you were just you too!

 

[Bob Estey]

That's it.....

Please explain your point of view.
Thanks.

Different people would answer this question differently, I am sure.

I think those on the far right tend to believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. People on the far left would believe that we are capable of deciding for ourselves what is right and wrong. In other words, those on the far left don't think it's necessary to obey the Lord.

 

[GodsGrace]

Different people would answer this question differently, I am sure.

I think those on the far right tend to believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. People on the far left would believe that we are capable of deciding for ourselves what is right and wrong. In other words, those on the far left don't think it's necessary to obey the Lord.

You're right.
What you've stated is pretty much the consensus.
Some have gone so far as to say that those on the extreme left (politically) cannot even be considered to be Catholic because their belief system goes against what Jesus and all the NT teaches is necessary to be defined as Christian.

Thanks.

 

[Runningman]

You're saying that conservative Christians believe in something older than the creeds.
You can't mean the bible because that would be too obvious of an answer.
So,,,what do you meant? The early church theologians/Fathers?

But then you DO mention the NT....maybe you mean the NT is older than the creeds.
This is absolutely correct....
But the creeds were written to either clarify a biblical teaching (NT) OR to deny, in writing, any heretical ideas that were circulating and making their way into the church. A creed was just an official statement declaring that the church did not hold the heretical belief to be taught in the NT.
For instance, arianism required the writing of the Nicene Creed in 325AD.

Agreed.

Creeds are basically someone's commentary and theology. They couldn't agree that any of them would be included in the canonized Bible.

 

[GodsGrace]

Creeds are basically someone's commentary and theology. They couldn't agree that any of them would be included in the canonized Bible.

OK R....this is your opinion and I'm not here to change your mind.
Just want to say this:
Many on these forums state that something or other is not valid because it wasn't included in the NT.
Wasn't it John that stated that there would be so much to write that it all could not fit into the NT?
John 21:25
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Creeds are not a commentary.
The ARE theology.
They weren't meant to be included in the NT.

Do you think that the creeds (at least the early ones) were written by persons different than the ones who put together the NT??
Or do you think the persons that wrote the early creeds are the same persons who gathered the gospels and letters into the NT??

 

[Athanasius377]

Good discussion. I think the best way to describe the positions is how the three groups view and handle scripture.

-Liberal: Scripture contains the word of God.
-Conservative (or orthodox): Scripture is the word of God.
-Fundamentalist: Scripture is the word of God.

Fundamentalism is a reaction to liberalism and come to prominence in the early 20th century that affirmed the "fundamentals" of the faith. I would add that that while there is some overlap between orthodox and fundamentalist camps the difference in my opinion is how the two groups handle adiaphora. The orthodox will agree on the essentials, say the faith as taught by the Nicene Creed. However the orthodox allow latitude when it comes to things like eschatology, practice and often liturgy. Fundamentalism, at least in its modern iteration, typically tolerates no dissent and raises issues that, at least historically, were not essential, to being essential. In my experience, at least with the local IFB (Independent fundamentalist Baptist) church, anyone who dissents from what the current pastor teaches is going to hell. No matter how obscure the teaching. Things like woman wearing pants, anyone who engages in smoking, drinking of alcohol, playing card sand so forth. These folks are all damned according the this IFB preacher. Also the exclusive use the the King James Version of the Bible is often a feature. I would contend that in practice these teachings are equal to the teaching of the aforementioned Nicene Creed. To be fair, not all are this extreme and there are different levels of conformity depending on the congregation.

A couple of other comments. The liberal perspective puts the reader in the role of having to choose which texts are scripture and which are not. Of course, once determined, the Jesus he/she proclaims seems to be a lot like the before mentioned reader and not how Jesus is portrayed in Scripture. I would add mystics and many in the charismatic movements into this camp as well. These groups often affirm that scripture is the word of God, but in practice they often deviate wildly from scripture. Especially second generation mystics.

A.

 

[Wick Stick]

OK R....this is your opinion and I'm not here to change your mind.
Just want to say this:
Many on these forums state that something or other is not valid because it wasn't included in the NT.
Wasn't it John that stated that there would be so much to write that it all could not fit into the NT?
John 21:25
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Creeds are not a commentary.
The ARE theology.
They weren't meant to be included in the NT.

Do you think that the creeds (at least the early ones) were written by persons different than the ones who put together the NT??
Or do you think the persons that wrote the early creeds are the same persons who gathered the gospels and letters into the NT??

The creeds were originally intended to be something akin to a church's charter. They told everyone what that particular church believed and required from its members. This seems to be well-understood.

They also told everyone what a church DIDN'T find to be essentials of doctrine - areas where a person could be heterodox and still be in fellowship with that church. This doesn't get talked about enough. There isn't much tolerance today for any kind of heterodoxy.

 

[Skovand]

It partly depends on the culture you’re in. In America which is where this debate almost always takes place this seems to be the typical trends you see.

Conservative and fundamentalist Christians are mostly used as synonymous or closely related terms. Most conservatives are fundamentalist and most fundamentalist are conservative. Some of the common things we see among them is that they tend to be what is called biblical literalist who reads scripture as plain text literature through a concordistic lens. They tend to vote Republican. They tend to believe in young earth creation of old earth creationism. They tend to believe the Bible is inerrant. They like to use clobber verses. Tend to have more hellfire like preaching. Lots of common things.

Liberal Christians tend to have a more accommodatinist lens and apply contextual analysis. Tend to vote for democrats or Green Party. Heeds biblical scholarship.

 

[Runningman]

Do you think that the creeds (at least the early ones) were written by persons different than the ones who put together the NT??
Or do you think the persons that wrote the early creeds are the same persons who gathered the gospels and letters into the NT??

Yes absolutely. They had completely different opinions than what those who knew Jesus face to face decided to write about. I think it's because Trinitarianism became the dominant school of thought over time and the gnostic and Unitarian writings either got destroyed as heresy or were lost to time. That's why there is such a major difference between the gospels, letters, and Old Testament and the creeds that came later. There is something missing to link the Bible and the creeds together. Actually, we are quite lucky to have the Bible still.

 

[Wick Stick]

There is something missing to link the Bible and the creeds together.

It's not missing exactly; we still have the writings of all those early church guys. We just don't read them.