Dangers of Liberal Theology in the Church

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In your finale summery you say "I am afraid Methodism is liberal theology." None of your supporting statements supports this conclusion unless you make up a definition we are not using on this thread or forum. You do, I give you this much, use liberal logic.

Have you ever heard of the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral"? Did they go over that in your membership class?

You don't write your thoughts? You can't have it both ways. Either you write your thoughts (unless you specifically state these are the thoughts of someone eles) or you don't.

You did not attempt to show how my reasoning was false. You have assertion without evidence or argument. As a debator, you must know that this is invalid in a debate. It's even more invalid in a discussion.



No, the rules are somewhat different. What is often called "Aristotlean logic" isn't. PlanetMath: Aristotelian logic

Of course, what I said was "Greek logic". That includes Plato and other Greeks. I can see that your claim to be an experienced debator is true. That's a very good attempt to change the terms. But we are not in a debate. What we call "logic" Aristotle would have called "analytics". He reserved the term "logic" for "dialectics". For instance, the commonly used syllogism to illustrate "Aristotlean syllogism" is:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
therefore Socrates is mortal.

This, however, is a Peripatetic syllogism, a form not considered by Aristotle.

Ooh. You apparently don't realize that Socrates and Plato used different "logic". Nor are you apparently aware that Aristotlean "thinking" was rejected by science during the Middle Ages and Rennaissance. Also, Aristotlean logic fell out of favor in the 19th century.

Aristotle did use the hypothetico-deductive method, but what Aristotle did was use induction from observations to deduce a hypothesis. Then he made deductions from the hypothesis back to the original observations. It was a closed loop. Lossee, Philospohy of Science: An Historical Introduction. Modern science uses hypotheses to deduce observations that have not been made yet.

No, he challenged the conclusions by data. Specifically, the Resurrection. Greek logic would be:
All men die
All men stay dead.
Therefore Jesus stayed dead.

This is what Paul referred to as the "wisdom of men". Paul says this is wrong. How? By the data that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion.

Oh. So wrong. Experience has been trumping Aristotlian logic for hundreds of years in science. I'm surprised that you are putting Aristotle's logic system on a par with God.

What they do is evaluate the patient's behavior separate from the patient's perception of that behavior. They compare the behavior of the patient to the DSM, not experiences. BUT, what is the DSM. It is not Aristotlean logic. Instead the DSM is a set of hypotheses about human behavior and psychological states based on the experience of observing behavior of other people. Based on those experiences of of the observers, psychologists have devised a classification scheme of types of human behavior: narcissim, borderline, etc. It's not so much about "sanity" but rather classification of behavior.

In scripture, when is "Word" capitalized? that is, what does "Word" refer to when capitalized? Does it refer to scripture?

Revelations 19:18 is not said by Jesus. John says clearly that they were spoken by an angel in verse 17. That angel is different from the person sitting on the white horse.

John of Patmos claims the words in Revelation 22:18 are said by Jesus. It's purpose is to give legitimacy to that particular book. Are you thinking this refers to the entire Bible? Nope. It is referring just to Revelations.

Using experience and reason, there is considerable reason to doubt the risen Christ said these things. It is too patently an authorization for a book that otherwise is way off the beaten track of Christian theology. so far off that Revelations was barely included in the canon and I know at least 4 Methodist ministers who refuse to do a Bible study on Revelations. Therefore it is presumption on your part to assert that these are the actual words of Jesus. They may have been, or they may have been what John of Patmos wished Jesus would say.

In the gospels, when Jesus refers to scripture he is referring only to those books the Jews of the time thought of as scripture. That's the way it has to be because his words -- although he stated them as authoritative -- were not considered scripture. Similarly, when Paul wrote about scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16, he was referring only to Jewish scripture. There was no Christian scripture because the gospels had yet to be written.

Excuse me, but they were written down. That's how we know of them. :) So your argument makes no sense.

Actually, I am the one putting Revelations into historical and social context. You are the one taking it out of context.

Wow. Talk about baseless assertions. John knew what was happening to all the Christian churches. After all, he was a victim of the persecution that was being applied to all Christians. Nor is there anything that indicates his exile to Patmos forbade visitors. Someone had to take the manuscript off the island and deliver it to fellow Christians. There's no postal service, after all. That someone would have brought him the news of the outside world, including the news of what was happening to the churches of Asia Minor.

Before you again choose to accuse me of poor logic, you might want to check your own.

Not specifically, but you did so implicitly in the OP:
"In short, God says, don't add to or take away anything from the word of God."

Is that not what you would consider "conservative theology"?

In any event, Jesus did not object to the theology of the Pharisees.
Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Luke 18:19-13. Matthew 3:7, 9:14, 12:2, 16:11, etc.

[/COLOR]

Wesleyans don't use "proof verses". Wesleyans look to the totality of the preaching. For instance, Jesus himself caused one of the laws -- Deut 24:1 to be changed in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Also in Matthew 12:2-5.

Not very good, since it opens you up to a lot of criticism from Jesus. Ever been divorced? Do you accept divorce as something that is OK? How, there are several "jot and titles" of the law. Do you eat pork? Shrimp? That's part of the law.

What's more, haven't you noticed that Paul freed us from the law? Was Paul wrong?

Again, have you heard about the quadrilateral?

Yes. But it does not say "don't add to or take away anything from the word of God"

First, I think you have made a strawman version of "Liberals". The Book of Discipline does say "all four guidelines be brought to bear in faithful, serious, theological consideration. Insights arising from serious study of the Scriptures and tradition enrich contemporary experience. Imaginative and critical thought enables us to understand better the Bible and our common Christian history."

That makes scripture one part of understanding scripture. It also means we can add to scripture from our own experience and reason.

Have you? Matthew 5:22:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. "

How many times so far have you essentially called me a fool? But look what Jesus is doing. He is adding to scripture.

This is so illogical that only God knows what you mean.
As we discuss further, it will become clearer.

Why can we only depend upon them in the light of scriptures? What scripture did Moses have to base his reasoning and experience on? How about Paul? No scriptures about Jesus and Paul never knew the living Jesus. So what did scripture did Paul depend on?

Also, is scripture God's only book?

I think we are back to the strawman. Why don't you give us a concrete example of what you consider "liberal theology". I'll help by asking some questions: Is ordination of women liberal theology? Is advocating civil rights liberal theology? Back in the 1850s, was opposition to slavery liberal theology? Is theistic evolution liberal theology?
As liberals do, you put much effort in spin and twisting what is actually said.The Greeks did not invent logic although they did discover many of the rules of correct inferences. The difference is types of logic is not in the inference process but in the premises of the syllogistic structure. In fact liberalism proceeds without premises that are stable and can be tested.

You continue to miss the point. Your continual questioning me to see if I have been divorced, worked in a soup kitchen, etc. is nonsense. You keep wanting and trying to make us the premise or standard of behavior. When you factor our behavior into the standards of Christ, you dilute the premises of Christianity. If you find failure in you and me, do you actually think that means Christ failed?

Your problem is not winning a debate on this forum. The problem is, will you chose the correct premise or way (Christ is the way) to solve your mental and physical anguish. Just like your practice in science, it is important to deduce and induce from the correct facts. As a Christian we by faith choose Christ and we do not explain Him away by human failures. We keep trying to live according to the standards of our premise for living. Use the same logic in your religion as you do in science and you will be fine. Your knowledge of the DSM and its data of observations will not save you but Christ will. The whole argument is about premises.
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Debate is a sport.

That is discussion. Acts 24:25 says"
"As he reasoned with them about righteousness and self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified. "Go away for now," he replied. "When it is more convenient, I'll call for you again."

See? This isn't debate; it's reasoning. In debate, you are wholeheartedly on one side. Reasoning is fine, but in debate you use whatever tactic you can to win, don't you?

What was that truth?

"contending"? Because that makes another person an "opponent" to be "beaten". That's not in accord with loving your neighbor as yourself. Also, there is no longer need for the Great Commission. Everyone knows about Jesus and the gospel. Those who choose to be of different faiths or different denominations is OK. That's their choice.

I will defend the faith if wrongfully attacked. But "contend"? Loving your neighbor includes letting him be happy with his beliefs as he lets you be happy with yours.

"adhering to the Word of God". First, you are using "Word" to refer to scripture. I do object to that. You should be able to guess why. If not, read John 1. Second, I care about God, not scripture. Scripture is a tool to help you find God. People can find God without scripture, or God can find them. An emphasis on "adhering" to scripture detracts from the emphasis on God. An overemphasis on scripture leads to Bibliolatry.

Noted. So you have never won a debate when you were debating from the side you felt was not true? I see you still think in terms of "winning". That is for your personal glory, isn't it?

I didn't attack you. Rather I attacked the idea that debate is a way to find truth. Winning seems important to you and it's a source of pride that you always win. I also made a comment about the effect of winning on you. Are you denying that you are proud that you have always wonand therefore seem to have great debating skills? That you see that as a personal attack is not a response. Instead it is a debate tactic -- don't deal with the issue but pretend they are a personal attack.

But defending a lifestyle is not the same as living a lifestyle, is it?

Excuse me, but all I did was post a quote about Methodism from the UMC website. How is stating what Methodism is a condemnation of you?

Yes, I know a bit about you. I know you like debating Christianity and are proud of your winning record. I know you believe in "adhering to the Word of God". And now I know you don't like to be reminded of some of the core beliefs of Methodism.

I'm asking you to think about some of the things you have said. Is "winning" a debate "inviting people to experience God’s grace and to grow in their knowledge and love of God through disciplined Christian living"? Don't we think of Christian living as other things than winning debates?

I'm going to take that as a "no" to all my questions.

Documentation, please. Why?

But it is one that speaks directly to salvation. Remember when I quoted Article V?
"The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

A prime tenet of Methodism is the faith produces works. Jesus tells us what type of works.

Debate isn't listed. I notice you have not tried to make an argument that debate can be considered "works". Instead you distract into something different:

The irony meter just pegged, because it is I pointing out that you were not reading "all the Bible" but only Matthew 5:17-19.

I did NOT say that. Methodist doctrine is that faith produces works. No works, then question whether there is faith. Works don't save you.

(Altho, come to think of it, Revelations 20:11-15 would seem to say that works do save you. What do you think of those verses?)

Since you are now trying to change the topic to my works, I'll take it as a "no" that you have not done anything on the list or anything comparable.

So, what if I have not followed your list of Methodism? The topic is liberal theology and a definition has been given. Christians are not going to read your long accounts of justifications of liberal theology. It remain, liberal theology as defined does opposes the scriptures. Spin the topic with as much mental frenzy as you will, at the end of the day, will you obey Jesus Christ or worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh"? It is up to you. I repeat, it's all about premises.
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Perhaps the problem lies in thinking there's only one definition/type of "liberal theology"? :scratch:
tulc(just a thought) :wave:

To add to a solution in this identification of the path to put God into the process and stay true to the most basic belief of Christians that the scriptures represent the primary source of authority for Christian living and lifestyle, it is not enough to suggest a new definition, you need to do two things. You need to show a need for a new definition because the one given does not express a discriminating ability to the facts. We do this in science. If specific germs continue to not conform to what we thought germs were, we can name a new germ to the profile. The profile can change but not drastically as germs remain germs and change in relation to the laws of mutation. What changes is scientific understanding of mutation.

Secondly, you must identify how the mutation process took place. This is not done by taking a poll and getting a condenses of opinion. It is done by experimentations, measuring with standardized techniques of measuring, and repeatability or duplication of results. We countlessly accumulate the facts of reliability. We test our logical process.

Do you have a definition that you can add to the discussion that expesses another point of view? If you do, just like the old definition, it will be an operationally defined definition. You are still stuck with a premise and must reason and make inferences within the frame of of that definition. If you do not proceed with correct inferences, you are illogical.

Do you see the personal problems Christians cause for themselves when they say the laws of God have changed? To say God is in error in his creation process is the bases of blasphemy. We are not dealing with a God that mutates. He is eternal and has no need to change. As the standard of perfection, we change in relation to God as we discover through natural and revealed revelation the facts about God. If you don't like this process, you are free to create or find a new religion. Many others and myself, we will stick with the Christian definition of theology, keep God and the scriptures in the definition.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To add to a solution in this identification of the path to put God into the process and stay true to the most basic belief of Christians that the scriptures represent the primary source of authority for Christian living and lifestyle, it is not enough to suggest a new definition, you need to do two things. You need to show a need for a new definition because the one given does not express a discriminating ability to the facts. We do this in science. If specific germs continue to not conform to what we thought germs were, we can name a new germ to the profile. The profile can change but not drastically as germs remain germs and change in relation to the laws of mutation. What changes is scientific understanding of mutation.

Secondly, you must identify how the mutation process took place. This is not done by taking a poll and getting a condenses of opinion. It is done by experimentations, measuring with standardized techniques of measuring, and repeatability or duplication of results. We countlessly accumulate the facts of reliability. We test our logical process.

Do you have a definition that you can add to the discussion that expesses another point of view? If you do, just like the old definition, it will be an operationally defined definition. You are still stuck with a premise and must reason and make inferences within the frame of of that definition. If you do not proceed with correct inferences, you are illogical.

Do you see the personal problems Christians cause for themselves when they say the laws of God have changed? To say God is in error in his creation process is the bases of blasphemy. We are not dealing with a God that mutates. He is eternal and has no need to change. As the standard of perfection, we change in relation to God as we discover through natural and revealed revelation the facts about God. If you don't like this process, you are free to create or find a new religion. Many others and myself, we will stick with the Christian definition of theology, keep God and the scriptures in the definition.

...wow, that was a lot of words that seem to add up to "Nothing that I identify as "Liberal Theology" is ever going to be right because it doesn't agree with what I think is true." Does that sum it up? :confused:
tulc(just trying to understand) :)
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...wow, that was a lot of words that seem to add up to "Nothing that I identify as "Liberal Theology" is ever going to be right because it doesn't agree with what I think is true." Does that sum it up? :confused:
tulc(just trying to understand) :)
YOU believe then that you get to make up your own definitions. How then can you have a reasnable discussion wih anybody?
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I apologize if I misunderstood your post.

I don't equate "religion" and "faith".

To clarify, I agree with Wesley that Reason is one of the four sources of Truth, and that scripture is primary. All doctrinal and dogmatic Truth needs to be measured against scripture and cannot contradict scripture.

Clearly, reason is the not the primary premise of faith, so let us look to religion.

Religion gets a bad rap on this religion site. Religion is composed of primarily of dogma, doctrine, theological opinion, right action, prayer and liturgy as practice in a faith community. I do not think that reason is the primary premise of religion.

In the end, if a religion is to be in any way important, it must be beyond reason, it must defy reason.

It is in no way reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It is in no way reasonable to believe that the Holy Spirit lives in our hearts. It is in no way reasonable to believe that we truly receive Jesus in the Eucharist. It is no way reasonable to believe that we are forgiven for all of our sin by simply believing and confessing. Ours is not a "reasonable' tradition at all.

Just my 2 cents
================
JUST BY THE WAY
I believe that while all scripture is good for teaching and rebuking, it is absolutely essential to understand the cultural context of any scripture, as well as to measure difficult verses of scripture against other scripture. We must also choose how we are to understand scripture. If we are to think of scripture as having a beginning, a series of more complete revelations, culminating in Jesus the fullfillment of the OT, then we must be extremely careful of the use of OT laws without their NT expansion. After ll, we are no longer under the law. It is impossible to reach God through following the law. If we do n ot believe this then we need to study Paul's letter to the Galatians a bit more





Thanks, lucaspa......

But, I was referring specifically to "religion," not to belief or faith or a person's personal relationship with God.........

Mark1 appears to equate one with the other.......
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, experience Of God is the primary premise and substance of religion and faith communities. If these mysteries are not beyond reason, then it makes little sense to call such a system a religion. I do understand that there are those who disagree and would call secular humanism and postive determinism religions.

I've allowed my membership in the AAAS lapse decades ago, but I am also used to dealing with God's Creation, reason and logic.

.

You, OTOH, are saying that religion and faith communities have experiences of a being that is beyond human reasoning. As you are using "premise" it is this experience that is the primary premise of religions.


I would say that putting reason (or logic) over experience of
God is seriously misguided. But then, I'm a scientist and am used to dealing with God's Creation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, we learn about Jesus through the four stools of the quadrilateral. For me, Reason is but one way to understand Scripture, one way to make sense of the Tradition of the Church, one way to measure and make sense of our Experience in God. Our very life is our Experience. Nothing is more critical or important than our continuing relationship with God, though Hisd Grace, certainly not Reason.

The 1996 Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church affirms that Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by Tradition, vivified in personal Experience and confirmed by Reason.
Aldersgate United Methodist Church | Wesleyan Quadrilateral

=================================
The central substance, the premise of our faith, the premise of our religion, is our personal experience of the Grace of God in our lives. We are alive in that relationship with Christ. Jesus meets us in the world. Jesus meets us in the Eucharist. Jesus meets us in those gathered together. Jesus meets us in Scripture. The Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us. We become more conformed to Jesus each day of our lives. We are to BE Jesus to the world. Experience is our life in Christ through the Grace of God. The Holy Spirit acts through us.

St. Teresa of Avila's Prayer
Christ has no body on earth but yours;
no hands but yours;
no feet but yours.
Yours are the eyes through which he is to look out-
Christ's compassion to the world.
Yours are the feet with which he is to go about doing good.
Yours are the hands with which he is to bless others now.


=======

I hope this helps some.



"I would say that putting reason (or logic) over experience of
God is seriously misguided."

Could you elaborate or define each and give an explanation of how one exists without the other??
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, experience Of God is the primary premise and substance of religion and faith communities. If these mysteries are not beyond reason, then it makes little sense to call such a system a religion. I do understand that there are those who disagree and would call secular humanism and postive determinism religions.

I've allowed my membership in the AAAS lapse decades ago, but I am also used to dealing with God's Creation, reason and logic.

.

You, OTOH, are saying that religion and faith communities have experiences of a being that is beyond human reasoning. As you are using "premise" it is this experience that is the primary premise of religions.


I would say that putting reason (or logic) over experience of
God is seriously misguided. But then, I'm a scientist and am used to dealing with God's Creation.
Not being scientist as you are, many of us might miss the meaning of what you are say here. To clarify what you are saying, is this statement correct? You are not saying that reasoning "conflicts" or is in opposition to experience of God but often experience is beyond our ability to reason about it.. Is that a correct assumption?
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, we learn about Jesus through the four stools of the quadrilateral. For me, Reason is but one way to understand Scripture, one way to make sense of the Tradition of the Church, one way to measure and make sense of our Experience in God. Our very life is our Experience. Nothing is more critical or important than our continuing relationship with God, though Hisd Grace, certainly not Reason.

The 1996 Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church affirms that Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by Tradition, vivified in personal Experience and confirmed by Reason.
Aldersgate United Methodist Church | Wesleyan Quadrilateral

=================================
The central substance, the premise of our faith, the premise of our religion, is our personal experience of the Grace of God in our lives. We are alive in that relationship with Christ. Jesus meets us in the world. Jesus meets us in the Eucharist. Jesus meets us in those gathered together. Jesus meets us in Scripture. The Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us. We become more conformed to Jesus each day of our lives. We are to BE Jesus to the world. Experience is our life in Christ through the Grace of God. The Holy Spirit acts through us.

St. Teresa of Avila's Prayer
Christ has no body on earth but yours;
no hands but yours;
no feet but yours.
Yours are the eyes through which he is to look out-
Christ's compassion to the world.
Yours are the feet with which he is to go about doing good.
Yours are the hands with which he is to bless others now.


=======

I hope this helps some.

Marki, you help me very much. You have a gifted way of explaining the Gospel. I would like to suggest one change in your above statement which I think would make it almost perfect IMO. I have darkened the above wording I would change. I would say instead, the following: "certainly so with reference to true Reason" or "true Reason does not conflict with this assumption" or with some other wording that reflects the idea that Reason does not conflict with grace.

I also notice that you capitalize Reason which I think you should do so. In the history of words. dabar/logos describes what we call God. These words do define a quality of God, that God is a Reasoning Process as the true God is a noun verb. Some say God is always thinking about his creation or creation would fall out of existence.This does make sense if we think all things depend on God, our creator. One thing is for sure, all things are always before the eyes of the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This thread is about the danders of liberal theology in the church. It should not surprise anybody that this thread would from time to time have some vigorous difference of opinion. The danger with liberal theology is that liberals are not restricted by the scriptures as their basic theology. However,when liberal Christians engage in debate within the Christian community, they pretend they have complete confidence in the scriptures. The debate we are having on the thread about ordaining gay ministers illustrate a line of demarcation between liberal theology and Christian theology.

Of late, the Wesleyan sub forum has debated liberal theology in the church. Who has the advantage in this debate has not been determined as yet. However, no one has stepped forward to outright reject the definition of liberal theology. This definition is presented by the sources of the OP of the question, What is Liberal Theology? Therefore, it is assumed that we are on the same page as far as our definition of liberal theology.

Once the definition of debate has been determined, participants are are suppose to make inferences in reference to the established definition. Those with the weakest argument will resort to other tactics other than logic and pure reasoning to prove their assertions that can not be true in relation to the definition. Many Christians will say to other Christians, "I am a liberal and I am a Christian" and tell the skeptics to live with this testamentary, whether you agree or not. I see nothing wrong with this defense of liberalism on the face of it. There does seem IMO to be something very logically being honestly ignored. I think we all know it is the conflict that exist with the definition of liberal theology and the acceptance of scriptures as the main authority. Liberals IMO do hide from this fact.

I maintain liberals know they operate outside the scriptures and that does throw their logic out of compatibility with Christ's logic and reasoning. Christ did tell the Pharisees that He arrived on the scene in compliance with the scriptures and the Church maintains Christ will appear again according to the scriptures. Most Christian believe we should live by the scriptures until the end of the age until Christ returns. Liberal, by their behavior, do not accept this principle.

The danger here is then that liberal theology attempts to move the church away from the truth. My next few post will discuss some of the tactics liberal theologians use to to take theology based on scipturs and Christ away from the church.
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟18,173.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So...that doesn't sum it up? :confused:
tulc(how would you sum it up?) :wave:

Tulc, here is the sum of things in reference to your interest You do not commonly post on the Wesleyan sub forum but I think that it is very clear why you are here and on my thread. You are here to demonstrate the tactics liberals use to avoid a confession that they do not depend or use the scriptures in theology. That is why you suggest there needs to be a new definition of liberal theology. Sorry, we can not change the definition ti fit your scheme of things.

So, why are you really here? Are you here because of the statement a liberal Methodist made on a political forum THAT THE LIBERAL DID NOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO MAKE OPENLY HERE? It was a third party comment. It was insulting and personal. It also invited trolling liberals to come to my specific threads on the Weslyan sub forum. We have enough confusion over the authority of the scriptures over here without trolls adding to the problem If I miss evaluated you, please point out how I do this. In the meantime, here is the quote from that political thread.
Actually, it's yet another of Gadfly's "Let me ask a fake question so I can then bloviate" thread. Y'all should come over & see the pontifical nonsense he's been spouting in Wesley's Parish: "I shall now define what liberal theology is, and you liberals shall then attempt to defend yourself in the face of my brilliant caricature - If You Dare!"

Well, if you and your liberal buddies show up here, I will continue to use you guys as "show and tell" of how liberals try to win a debate with confusion and deception and not by the word of God. The scriptures are the bases of our epistemology over here so it is easy to point out the trolls here and there is that advantage we lack on the political sub forums. But the fact is, trolls are trolls wherever they are.
__________________
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood your intent.
=========================

You seem to set up a straw liberal man on a pole, and you proceed to flog the straw man. What are discussing here as "liberal theology" is simply unbelief. When someone does not believe in the Resurrection, they cannot post here. They are not a Christian, they do not accept the Creed of the Church.

If you are merely saying that not believing in the Resurrection is harmful to Christainity, I can only respond "ya think?"
====================

But your real agenda is not to point our the dangers in not accepting the supernatural nature of Christianity, is it? Aren't you really wanting to discuss the dangers of liberal political philosophy, or of having different methods of interpreting scripture than you do?

What is it that really is being discussed, certainly not a bunch of folks who don't believe in the Resurrection?
=========
What we have here is a semantical difference in the use of "liberal theology"
which did begin in the 18th. century with the separation of dogma of the Catholic Church. The individual began to assert his right to interpret the scriptures in place of the Church only. This independence made the person a liberal Christian. However, as you point out the liberal Christian still used the scriptures as his entomological foundation.

The 18th. century definition has outlived its usefulness in modern day spiritual protestantism. In the thread on the Wesleyan sub forum called "What is Liberal Theology?" the source cited there defines liberal theology for today. In that definition, the theologian defines liberal Christianity as abandoning not only the Church as the main authority in doctrine but it abandon's the scriptures in favor of human reasoning. "

1) The Bible is not “God-breathed” and has errors. Because of this belief, man (the liberal theologians) must determine which teachings are correct and which are not........
2) The virgin birth of Christ is a mythological false teaching. This directly contradicts Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 2.
3) Jesus did not rise again from the grave in bodily form. This contradicts the Resurrection accounts in all four gospels and the entire New Testament.
4) Jesus was a good moral teacher, but His followers and their followers have taken liberties with the history of His life as recorded in Scripture (there were no “supernatural” miracles), with the gospels having been written many years later and merely ascribed to the early disciples in order to give greater weight to their teachings
5) Hell is not real. Man is not lost in sin and is not doomed to some future judgment without a relationship with Christ through faith. Man can help himself; no sacrificial death by Christ is necessary since a loving God would not send people to such a place as hell and since man is not born in sin.
6) Most of the human authors of the Bible are not as traditionally believed.
7) The most important thing for man to do is to “love” his neighbor. What is the loving thing to do in any situation is not what the Bible says is good but what the liberal theologians decide is good.

There are different ways to use the word liberal. For example, the Lord loves a liberal giver but that is not what we are talking about on this thread. There is an 18th. century definition of liberal and many other definitions of liberal but to confuse a liberal Christian for a secret Bible believing Christian is very different.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The ELIMINATION of the words leaves my statement almost intact, and is true in the shorter version.

You still seem to wish to put Reason at a higher level than Grace, something you have accused liberal theologians of doing.

In any case, it is Grace that is of paramount importance, along with a little cooperation with that Grace.

Perhaps my reason or yours will be seem to contradict that Grace. Perhaps my interpretation of Tradition (or that of my local church or denomination) will seem to contradict that Grace. Perhaps my interpretation of scripture (or that of my local church or denomination) will seem to contradict that Grace. It is God's Grace that is important and critical, not our reasoning with respect to that Grace. Salvation requires no reasoning, no scriptural interpretation, and no Tradition. Salvation requires the acceptance of the free gift of the Almighty and Sovereign God.

Perhaps our differences are semantic, but it seem that there is more to it than that.

There were and are millions of believers without bibles. There are no believers without the Grace of God. It is not important that we understand the free gift, it is important that we accept it.


Marki, you help me very much. You have a gifted way of explaining the Gospel. I would like to suggest one change in your above statement which I think would make it almost perfect IMO. I have darkened the above wording I would change. I would say instead, the following: "certainly so with reference to true Reason" or "true Reason does not conflict with this assumption" or with some other wording that reflects the idea that Reason does not conflict with grace.

I also notice that you capitalize Reason which I think you should do so. In the history of words. dabar/logos describes what we call God. These words do define a quality of God, that God is a Reasoning Process as the true God is a noun verb. Some say God is always thinking about his creation or creation would fall out of existence.This does make sense if we think all things depend on God, our creator. One thing is for sure, all things are always before the eyes of the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Natural refers to God's Creation, the material events of the world. These are the substance of what is explained by science.

Supernatural refers to events outside of the realm of science, outside of the material realm. God is supernatural. The gifts of God are both natural and supernatural, Spriritual gifts of God are supernatural by definition. The miracles of scripture are supernatural by definition. Christianity is all about supernatural events.

"But your real agenda is not to point our the dangers in not accepting the supernatural nature of Christianity, is it?"

What some examples of the "supernatural nature" of Christianity??
Or are you referring more to the supernatural nature of Scriptural accounts??
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums