What's the difference between a Fundamentalist, a conservative & a reformed believer?

[Jon 316]

I know.. its sounds like the begining of a joke... but its not.

I was speaking to a retired Baptist Union minister about the independant baptists we have in our area. He termed them as 'fundamentalist'. (I think they actually refer to themselves as this.

Anyway in the age of 'jelloterms' i.e there seems to be no concrete terms for anything anymore!

What are actually the differences between Reformed Christians, Conservatives and Fundamentalists?

And just out of curiousity... which one of these terms, conservative or fundamentalist, would be most suited to teh Plymouth brethren?

Alternatively, see if you can come up with a good punchline for this potential joke!

 

[Oecolampadius]

Hmm.. I'm not sure whether conservatives should have their own category. In my humble opinion, most fundamentalists would consider themselves as conservatives. And, there might also be Reformed Christians who would be considered as conservatives.

 

[steven-nemes]

Fundamentalists, to me, always seem like the type of people who don't watch Rated PG movies and don't allow their kids to read Harry Potter and live in small towns in the midwest.

 

[larryjf]

I would consider fundamentalists to be more reductionist than the Reformed would be.
So while the Reformed would have no problem submitting to Confessions, many fundamentalists would because it's not the Scripture.

It's a difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura.

 

[TheocraticMonarchist]

The Reformed are orthodox, the rest are not.

 

[DMcFadden]

Greatly overlapping semantic fields make precision impossible, especially since everyone seems to have their own definitional boundaries.

In the U.S., fundamentalism began as a transdenominational movement committed to the essentials ("fundamentals") of the faith and included a goodly number of Baptists and Presbyterians (e.g., Machen). Within a short time the tenor of the group strayed into legalisms and negative attitudes to such an extent that the word "fundamentalist" became associated with several negative sociological characteristics (anti-education, culture denying, legalistic, etc.) more than with the doctrinal points of agreed upon unity.

"Reformed" in the PB sense would be "conservative" but not particuarly fundamentalist. However, even here the elasticity of usage has made the term less than ideal for describing anything. Depending upon your definitions, "EP all male eldership," OP, PCA, and "pro ordination of women, pro gay, Karl Barth is my hero, PCUSA" congregations are all examples of "Reformed."

In fact, one of my profs in seminary (Jack Rogers) has written several books on what it means to be Reformed and confessional AND his most recent one is a defense of a revisionist view of homosexuality.

He is certainly qualified to call himself a Presbyterian:

Jack Rogers is Professor of Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and Moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). He also served as vice-president of San Francisco Theological Seminary and founded their Southern California campus. Earlier, he was Professor of Philosophical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary for 17 years.

Having taught for nearly two decades at Fuller, he probably has to call himself an "evangelical" too. In a recent piece, he praises The Queer Bible Commentary, suggesting that it "brings together the work of several scholars and pastors known for their interest in the areas of gender, sexuality and biblical studies." He also opines that "It is designed to jar us awake from traditional understandings to new possibilities" and that the $63 list price might seem steep, "but for the pastor preparing a sermon, the professor working on a class, or the lay reader who really wants to understand these texts on a deeper level it's really an essential resource."

Rogers would NOT call himself a fundamentalist. However, he evidently sees himself as a "Reformed evangelical." See what I mean about the problems of definition and overlapping semantic fields?

 

[Oecolampadius]

See what I mean about the problems of definition and overlapping semantic fields?

When I read the phrases "problems of definition" and "overlapping semantic fields," I had this eerie feeling that a postmodernist would suddenly jump out and say, "See, we were right all along!"

And, then I suddenly remembered that I'm in a reformed forum.

 

[DMcFadden]

A fundamentalist is someone who got saved after listening to Tim LaHaye scare the "h" out of him in a "the clock is ticking and the antichrist is on the scene" sermon. Now he reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't smoke, drink, dance, watch anything beyond a PG movie, or go with girls that do.

A conservative is a fundamentalist who graduated from a Christian liberal arts college and discovered (much as Origen did with his self administered inguinal orchiectomy), radical legalistic "solutions" to the problem of sin don't always lead to permanently satisfying outcomes. The conservative reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't recognize fellow Baptists in a liquor store, and watches his movies on DirecTV. He reads Left Behind books but is a little embarrassed to admit it.

A Reformed person comes in two flavors: "mainline" and "micro denomination."
* A mainline "Reformed" person doesn't know what a Tim LaHaye is, has never heard of Left Behind books, has a Bible, goes to church (when in or near Grand Rapids), smokes like a chimney, prefers cocktails and hard liquor, and may even make hard R rated movies about the p*** industry (e.g., Paul Schrader's Hardcore . . . "Oh my, that's my daughter.")
* A micro denomination "Reformed" person knows about Tim LaHaye from a Gentry or DeMar DVD, reads the Bible (but only in the KJV, Geneva, or ESV versions), goes to church 2x on the Sabbath, enjoys beer and liquor in moderation, smokes cigars, and only goes to a movie when not homsechooling his 8 children or posting on the Puritan Board about the dangers of the Federal Vision, theonomy, or female deaconesses.

 

[Rich Koster]

A fundamentalist is someone who got saved after listening to Tim LaHaye scare the h*** out of him in a "the clock is ticking and the antichrist is on the scene" sermon. Now he reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't smoke, drink, dance, watch anything beyond a PG movie, or go with girls that do.

A conservative is a fundamentalist who graduated from a Christian liberal arts college and discovered (much as Origen did with his self administered inguinal orchiectomy), radical legalistic "solutions" to the problem of sin don't always lead to permanently satisfying outcomes. The conservative reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't recognize fellow Baptists in a liquor store, and watches his movies on DirecTV. He reads Left Behind books but is a little embarrassed to admit it.

A Reformed person comes in two flavors: "mainline" and "micro denomination."
* A mainline "Reformed" person doesn't know what a Tim LaHaye is, has never heard of Left Behind books, has a Bible, goes to church (when in or near Grand Rapids), smokes like a chimney, prefers cocktails and hard liquor, and may even make hard R rated movies about the p*** industry (e.g., Paul Schrader's Hardcore . . . "Oh my, that's my daughter.")
* A micro "Reformed" person knows about Tim LaHaye from a Gentry or DeMar DVD, reads the Bible (but only in the KJV, Geneva, or ESV versions), goes to church 2x on the Sabbath, enjoys beer and liquor in moderation, smokes cigars, and only goes to a movie when not homsechooling his 8 children or posting on the Puritan Board.

Now I know why I don't fit in anywhere

 

[DMcFadden]

See what I mean about the problems of definition and overlapping semantic fields?

When I read the phrases "problems of definition" and "overlapping semantic fields," I had this eerie feeling that a postmodernist would suddenly jump out and say, "See, we were right all along!"

And, then I suddenly remembered that I'm in a reformed forum.

Not a postmodern bone in my fundamental, conservative, mostly-Reformed baptist body!

 

[MrMerlin777]

A Fundamentalist and a Reformed dude walk into a pub. The Funda....er ah... um... Never mind.

 

[Oecolampadius]

See what I mean about the problems of definition and overlapping semantic fields?

When I read the phrases "problems of definition" and "overlapping semantic fields," I had this eerie feeling that a postmodernist would suddenly jump out and say, "See, we were right all along!"

And, then I suddenly remembered that I'm in a reformed forum.

Not a postmodern bone in my fundamental, conservative, mostly-Reformed baptist body!

Oh, I wasn't referring to you. I'm just being paranoid that maybe some postmodernist would use what you said against us. I think I'm being paranoid because I've been reading too much about the Emergent church.

Have you ever visited the Ooze? It's scary!

 

[Ivan]

The Reformed are orthodox, the rest are not.

Elaborate, please.

 

[YXU]

The old path (reformed) and a strange path (fundamentalism). The reason I call it strange is because I find it pretty much the same in its core to Romanism, I am speaking this as I come from a five generation catholic family. The religious experience of fundamentalists are very similar to my own religious experience and affections back in my childhood according to my observation.

We used to have many do;s that will make you ready to go and have merit, although, it will be refuted by the fundamentalists, however, they have the very same principle, an oral acception or confession of faith, evangelism to the neighborhood, modesty in appearance always, refrain themselves from any wine consumption, pursuading someone at work to make confession, various of weekend lay ministries and etc., These things are in principle very much their sacraments. As long as you do these, you are always ready to go. They are lack of the understanding about the evil and wickedness of ourselves and God's absolute holiness.

All the things they do all the reformed Christians will also do, they are our reasonable service to God and we know we are far from what we ought to do.

 

[Confessor]

From what I have seen, "fundamentalist" usually refers to Arminian dispensationalists. I try to distance myself from the label. "Reformed" sounds cooler anyway.

 

[Oecolampadius]

From what I have seen, "fundamentalist" usually refers to Arminian dispensationalists.

I used to belong to a Fundamental Baptist church when I was still in the Philippines and I also spent 3 years at a fundamentalist bible institute where I met lots of other fundamentalists. The number of Arminian Dispensational's that I met were very few and, in fact, they were regarded as abberations.

According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."

That's actually the reason why, ever since I joined the OPC, I have always maintained that Calvinism should not be viewed as simply being the TULIP.

 

[CharlieJ]

Fundamentalism

I think it's reasonable to allow people who identify themselves as Fundamentalists to define themselves, as long as their definitions are consistent with reality. Also, when creating a definition, one should look for essential rather than accidental characteristics.

Thus, a present-day Christian Fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamentals of the faith and is militantly committed positively to proclaiming them and negatively to separating from those who do not believe them or actively fellowship with those who do not believe them.

There are several books written by Fundamentalist scholars on the Fundamentalist/Evangelical controversy. The most definitive (though obviously biased) work is In Pursuit of Purity by David Beale. Another work, focusing more on the new-evangelicalism from a fundamentalist perspective, is Promise Unfulfilled by Roland McCune. Also in that vein is The Tragedy of Compromise by Ernest Pickering.

One problem with fundamentalist historiography is its lack of a category for confessionalists, or anyone else whose roots extend back before the revivalism of the 19th century. If Warfield were to come back from the dead, he certainly would not fit quite in the mold of "fundamentalist" but would certainly not fit in the category of "new-evangelical" or "liberal." If the confessional churches continue to grow, Fundamentalism will have to adjust its definitions and rethink its stance toward groups such as the PCA, since Fundamentalists tend to call everyone who does not identify themselves as a Fundamentalist a "neo-evangelical."

 

[TheocraticMonarchist]

The Reformed are orthodox, the rest are not.

Elaborate, please.

No problem

I was listening to the local fundamentalist Baptist radio station earlier today. One fellow read Isaiah 3:4, which is about God judging Israel by having children rule over the nation, and applied it to America claiming that Obama was a child sent by God to judge this nation. These guys are very conservative, politically and religiously, but I don’t know if we can consider them to be orthodox.

 

[ChristianHedonist]

From what I have seen, "fundamentalist" usually refers to Arminian dispensationalists.

I used to belong to a Fundamental Baptist church when I was still in the Philippines and I also spent 3 years at a fundamentalist bible institute where I met lots of other fundamentalists. The number of Arminian Dispensational's that I met were very few and, in fact, they were regarded as abberations.

According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."

That's actually the reason why, ever since I joined the OPC, I have always maintained that Calvinism should not be viewed as simply being the TULIP.

FYI, the formula "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect" is actually a classic reformed understanding of limited atonement (see the Synods of Dordt).

 

[Oecolampadius]

From what I have seen, "fundamentalist" usually refers to Arminian dispensationalists.

I used to belong to a Fundamental Baptist church when I was still in the Philippines and I also spent 3 years at a fundamentalist bible institute where I met lots of other fundamentalists. The number of Arminian Dispensational's that I met were very few and, in fact, they were regarded as abberations.

According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."

That's actually the reason why, ever since I joined the OPC, I have always maintained that Calvinism should not be viewed as simply being the TULIP.

FYI, the formula "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect" is actually a classic reformed understanding of limited atonement (see the Synods of Dordt).

Forgive my ignorance, but does the Synods of Dordt actually say that Christ died for all men but that the benefits of Christ's atonement apply only to the elect or something to that effect? Because that is what they actually meant by that formulation in that fundamentalist denomination.

 

[ChristianHedonist]

Forgive my ignorance, but does the Synods of Dordt actually say that Christ died for all men but that the benefits of Christ's atonement apply only to the elect or something to that effect? Because that is what they actually meant by that formulation in that fundamentalist denomination.

Not exactly, They don't say that he died for all men with an intent of atoning for their sins. Here is the wording:

"This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world."

"This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved."

"However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault."

 

[Jen]

In the U.S., fundamentalism began as a transdenominational movement committed to the essentials ("fundamentals") of the faith and included a goodly number of Baptists and Presbyterians (e.g., Machen).

Machen actually clashed with the fundamentalists a good bit -- particularly because he didn't support them on prohibition.

From D.G. Hart:

Machen stood for practically everything that fundamentalism did not. Where fundamentalists were anti-creedal and anti-clerical, Machen's instincts were confessional and churchly; where fundamentalists had the reputation of being rural and anti-intellectual, Machen thrived in urban and academic settings. What is more, he regarded fundamentalist eschatology (i.e., dispensationalism) as bizarre and extreme, avoided altogether the crusade against evolution even though invited to testify at the Scopes trial, and viewed United States' politics in ways remarkably different from fundamentalists - Machen opposed prayer and Bible reading in public schools and the churches' support for Prohibition because he did not believe America was a Christian nation.

Link.

 

[Oecolampadius]

Thanks Dan a.k.a ChristianHedonist. (I've been trying to figure out what button should I click on to express my thanks for your very useful post but since I couldn't find it, I decided to reply to you instead.)

 

[YXU]

According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."

Negative. To the best of my knowledge, except the Free Presbyterian fundamentalists, others reject the saying that Christ's atonement is efficient only for the elect. This is the scripture teaching adopted by the reformers, which the fundamentalists reject. The so called "reformed" fundamentalists are some Amyraldian at most.

 

[Rangerus]

A fundamentalist is someone who got saved after listening to Tim LaHaye scare the "h" out of him in a "the clock is ticking and the antichrist is on the scene" sermon. Now he reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't smoke, drink, dance, watch anything beyond a PG movie, or go with girls that do.

A conservative is a fundamentalist who graduated from a Christian liberal arts college and discovered (much as Origen did with his self administered inguinal orchiectomy), radical legalistic "solutions" to the problem of sin don't always lead to permanently satisfying outcomes. The conservative reads his Bible, goes to church, doesn't recognize fellow Baptists in a liquor store, and watches his movies on DirecTV. He reads Left Behind books but is a little embarrassed to admit it.

A Reformed person comes in two flavors: "mainline" and "micro denomination."
* A mainline "Reformed" person doesn't know what a Tim LaHaye is, has never heard of Left Behind books, has a Bible, goes to church (when in or near Grand Rapids), smokes like a chimney, prefers cocktails and hard liquor, and may even make hard R rated movies about the p*** industry (e.g., Paul Schrader's Hardcore . . . "Oh my, that's my daughter.")
* A micro "Reformed" person knows about Tim LaHaye from a Gentry or DeMar DVD, reads the Bible (but only in the KJV, Geneva, or ESV versions), goes to church 2x on the Sabbath, enjoys beer and liquor in moderation, smokes cigars, and only goes to a movie when not homsechooling his 8 children or posting on the Puritan Board about the dangers of the Federal Vision, theonomy, or female deaconesses.

Well played my man, well played!

 

[Oecolampadius]

According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."

Negative. To the best of my knowledge, except the Free Presbyterian fundamentalists, others reject the saying that Christ's atonement is efficient only for the elect. This is the scripture teaching adopted by the reformers, which the fundamentalists reject. The so called "reformed" fundamentalists are some Amyraldian at most.

Uhmm.. I'm actually referring to fundamentalists in my own country (Philippines). That's why I described my experience as "limited." I'm sorry if you misunderstood me but I never meant those statements to apply to fundamentalists outside the Philippines (although, fundamentalism in my country was brought there by American missionaries).

 

[YXU]

According to my limited experience, most fundamentalists in the Philippines would be considered as Calvinistic (not Calvinist, for there is a difference). They even taught the TULIP. However, their view on Limited Atonement is different; their teaching regarding that is stated in the following formula: "Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."

Negative. To the best of my knowledge, except the Free Presbyterian fundamentalists, others reject the saying that Christ's atonement is efficient only for the elect. This is the scripture teaching adopted by the reformers, which the fundamentalists reject. The so called "reformed" fundamentalists are some Amyraldian at most.

Uhmm.. I'm actually referring to fundamentalists in my own country (Philippines). That's why I described my experience as "limited." I'm sorry if you misunderstood me but I never meant those statements to apply to fundamentalists outside the Philippines (although, fundamentalism in my country was brought there by American missionaries).

Sorry about that, I have not noticed it is in Philippines. If they agree with the doctrine of grace, then it is pretty good, isn't it. However, I tend to think the reason why they would claim themselves to be a fundamentalist is based on some misunderstandings of how the word is used right now.

 

[Kiffin]

I think it's reasonable to allow people who identify themselves as Fundamentalists to define themselves, as long as their definitions are consistent with reality. Also, when creating a definition, one should look for essential rather than accidental characteristics.

Thus, a present-day Christian Fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamentals of the faith and is militantly committed positively to proclaiming them and negatively to separating from those who do not believe them or actively fellowship with those who do not believe them.

There are several books written by Fundamentalist scholars on the Fundamentalist/Evangelical controversy. The most definitive (though obviously biased) work is In Pursuit of Purity by David Beale. Another work, focusing more on the new-evangelicalism from a fundamentalist perspective, is Promise Unfulfilled by Roland McCune. Also in that vein is The Tragedy of Compromise by Ernest Pickering.

One problem with fundamentalist historiography is its lack of a category for confessionalists, or anyone else whose roots extend back before the revivalism of the 19th century. If Warfield were to come back from the dead, he certainly would not fit quite in the mold of "fundamentalist" but would certainly not fit in the category of "new-evangelical" or "liberal." If the confessional churches continue to grow, Fundamentalism will have to adjust its definitions and rethink its stance toward groups such as the PCA, since Fundamentalists tend to call everyone who does not identify themselves as a Fundamentalist a "neo-evangelical."

The so called "reformed" fundamentalists are some Amyraldian at most.

These are good assessments. In the near future, conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists will realize that they are saying the same thing.

I graduated from Maranatha BBC and the Amyraldian view seemed to be the most "reformed" the faculty would go (save one professor).

-----Added 4/28/2009 at 11:49:33 EST-----

Uhmm.. I'm actually referring to fundamentalists in my own country (Philippines). That's why I described my experience as "limited." I'm sorry if you misunderstood me but I never meant those statements to apply to fundamentalists outside the Philippines (although, fundamentalism in my country was brought there by American missionaries).

Hoy! Musta?

My assessment of the fundamentalism in the Philippines is that it is a cultural fundamentalism rather than a theological one; no pants on women, KJVO, no drinking, "Christ had a comb-over" types. The Hyles boys screwed things up in my opinion....

 

[JOwen]

* A micro "Reformed" person knows about Tim LaHaye from a Gentry or DeMar DVD, reads the Bible (but only in the KJV, Geneva, or ESV versions), goes to church 2x on the Sabbath, enjoys beer and liquor in moderation, smokes cigars, and only goes to a movie when not homsechooling his 8 children or posting on the Puritan Board about the dangers of the Federal Vision, theonomy, or female deaconesses.

KJV-check
2 x on Sabbath- check
liquor in moderation- check
homeschools 8 children- check

posting on the Puritan Board about:

Dangers of FV- check
Dangers of Theonomy- Check
Dangers of female deaconesses- no check!

Whew! I'm not a micro

 

[Oecolampadius]

Hoy! Musta?

My assessment of the fundamentalism in the Philippines is that it is a cultural fundamentalism rather than a theological one; no pants on women, KJVO, no drinking, "Christ had a comb-over" types. The Hyles boys screwed things up in my opinion....

I agree with your assessment. It was indeed mainly a reaction to the culture which is why Fundamentalism in the Philippines is a mixed bag (Calvinistic, Arminian, etc.).

However, American Fundamentalism also had an aspect of being a reaction to culture (i.e. modern culture). The following statements are quoted from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology on the topic of Fundamentalism:

They came to connect a separatist practice with the maintenance of the fundamentals of the faith. They also identified themselves with what they believed was pure in personal morality and American culture.

By the way, it's nice to meet a fellow Filipino(?) or someone who can speak Tagalog in PB. I'll send you a PM later.