Liberal Christians

[Violet Edge]

The Bible sets the standard for morality and it is not subjective to the individual.

Here is a great video folks here should check out:

THANK YOU. This video is great and everyone should have a look!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I believe standing behind the Moral values of Scripture will lead one to not agree with Calvinism. But that is my conviction under the Spirit when reading the Scriptures.

Hi brother Jason, we're going off topic a bit here, and proving a point I made, but I guess that's okay at this junction. I used to have the same conviction, for a long time I did. So I understand where it is you're coming from, theologically at least.

In fact, many today think that Jesus gives them a license to sin on some level (Whether it be many sins or one or two sins). Granted, many of them will not admit to this, but that is basically what their theology teaches. For many will say that all their past, present, and future sin is forgiven them (So living holy is optional). But it doesn't work like that. Granted, we are initially and ultimately saved by God's grace. But grace is not a license to sin but a means to overcome sin (i.e. obedience to the commands primarily in the New Testament, and not the Old Testament).

At the moment, I'm tired and still trying to wake up, as I'm more of a night owl than a morning bird. I used to think as you do, however I had not actually researched or spent time reading what Calvinists teach. The fact of the matter is, it is not what Calvinists teach, not at all, quite the contrary my friend. One only need to read from the Puritans. You may not agree, you may think the implications are there, or the consequences, but it cannot be said that Calvinism teaches what you claim.

In fact, I believe it is possible to walk holy and upright in this life (While most seem to think we will live in an endless get dirty and then get clean wash cycle our whole lives). While I have not attained yet a walk of perfection like I see certain men of God have, I am still praying and believing that one day I will. Here is a link to another thread I created here (at Christians Forums) that talks about this. A noteable Pastor who currently stands behind this teaching is Pastor Alan Ballou. His YouTube video page can be found here.

Anyways, may God bless you;
And may you please be well.

I certainly believe it is possible too, but never in our own strength, never for purposes of boasting, unless that entails bragging on the Lord, giving all credit where it is due. Anyway, I heartily recommend looking into Protestant Christian history with emphasis on Reformation history, especially key figures and movements in those time periods. While it does not prove or necessarily make one's theology correct, it doesn't hurt that what is called Calvinism has a long historical pedigree of upstanding outstanding adherents. Anyway thank you for taking the time and caring. Sincerely

Peace to you from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Vicomte13]

Did He mean for the government to do these things (force them on us), or did he mean for the body of believers to take care of the body of believers?

He meant the first thing.
He only ever directly ruled one land: Israel.
He imposed a law on Israel, intending for it to make Israel prosperous.
He's God and he knew that he was doing.

It was this:
(1) Free land distribution at the beginning, with it automatically reverting to the original family after a number of years (and no way to contract out of that.

(2) Debt elimination, by law, in the seventh year. People have to be able to repay the debts in six years. If they can't, then in the seventh year the debt is erased and the people go free of it, with no residual owed. This was MANDATORY for Israelites and any foreigner who sojourned with them in Israel. If Congress passed a law that automatically and without recourse cancelled every private debt every seven years, we would (rightly) say that was government action. In Israel, the government enforced this - by not permitting debt collection in and after the seventh year. There was no opt out for normal people.

(3) Mandatory lending to poor people who asked. The rich did not have the power to refuse to lend to the poor Israelites who asked. They could neither hoard money, nor choose to refuse to lend. Think about what that meant for capital formation. It meant that the the rich had a strong incentive to lend out all of their excess capital voluntarily, to people they choose (poor family members, neighbors and friends), because if they weren't spontaneously generous with loans - to people they knew whom they figured would pay them back - then poor people they DIDN'T know and couldn't trust could ask them for a loan, and they did not have the legal right to refuse. God's law was mandatory, and it effectively forced those with wealth to put all of their accumulating capital back into circulation and not attempt to hold it - for the law then granted the poor the right to ask for a loan, and denied the rich the power to refuse it.

So, the "voluntary" aspect for the rich was merely whom they decided to lend it to FIRST, BEFORE somebody else asked to borrow it. If the rich sat on their wealth and didn't voluntarily choose to lend it out to neighbors and friends in need, then the law forced them to lend it out to the first people who asked.

And the law forced the lender to forgive the unpaid debt after seven years.

(4) And what of the bankrupt in, say, the second year who could not pay his debt? The lender had this option, if he was a fellow believer: he could simply let the man go to try to pay him back, and forgive the portion unpaid in the seventh, Sabbatical year. Or he could go to court and the man would be directed into the lender's service to pay for the debt. Now, note well: the Hebrew could not be ENSLAVED by the lender. He was an indentured servant. He, and if he had wife and choldren, they had to be clothed, fed, housed, provided for AND PAID, though that pay could be withheld until the end of the term. The support could not be. If the lender could not provide for the bankrupt, he could not take him into forced service.

Then, when the sabbatical year came, the 7th year (not of the debt, but the official seventh year), whatever was unpaid on the loan was wiped out, and the indentured man was free to go. And the lender had to pay him wages for his work to send him on his way. He could not send him out empty handed.

(5) Interest could not be charged on lent money to the fellow Hebrews.

None of these laws were voluntary, or goodness of the heart thing. The rich HAD TO LEND, if asked, and HAD TO FORGIVE in the Sabbatical Year. And the conditionas of indenture were set and had to be respected.

(6) Going further, even foreign slaves had to be freed in the 50th year, the Jubilee.

(7) Land ownership was absolute, in the sence that in the 50th Year it ALWAYS reverted to the orignal title family. Nothing could stop this - not debt, not criminal punishment, not the desire of some generation to not be in that land. There was a minimum level of family land protection below which the law did not let anybody fall. No matter how badly a generation squandered everything, the next generation would get the land back, for free, and could start anew as farmers, in their tents, on their own land, which could not be taken for debt or punishment or taxes.

(8) The use of the land, however, was not absolute. The farmer had certain, but not absolute, rights to his crops. Notably, the farmer could not prevent the poor from passing through his fields and orchards and picking what they needed to eat. The poor could not take baskets and take food away, but they could always walk through and feed themselves directly by plucking fruit off the trees or grain heads and eating them there. The poor did not need to pay for the fruit. This was not a privilege, this was a legal right.

(8B) Also, the farmer, in harvesting his crops, was allowed a pass through with his workers. They were not, however, permitted to go back through and harvest the late blooming food, nor to go back and pick up anything they dropped. These gleanings were legally the property of the poor - the poor had the right to come on the land and pick all of these things and take them, again for free. The farmer was not permitted to harvest right to the edge of his fields either, that was to be left as gleanings for the poor.

(8C) Every 7th year, and also in the 50th year, the farmer was not permitted to either plant crops nor harvest what grew of its own accord. This was all left as gleanings for the poor.

If you've ever been to California, you have have seen vast orange and grapefruit groves with huge numbers of oranges and grapefruit fallen from the trees sitting on the groud, and big signs warning that picking up fallen fruit is theft, and entering the orchards is tresspassing.

Under God's law, the orange farmers have no right to do any of that. Poor people have the right to walk through the orchard and eat that fruit.

The economic theory is simple and especially spoken of by Jesus: man is not an owner of wealth. He is a steward. All wealth comes from and belongs to God, and God has directed, by law (enforceable in the courts of ancient Israel), certain things to be done with his property: mandatory lending without interest, mandatory debt forgiveness, mandatory right to eat from the fields, mandatory gleanings. These aren't just good ideas or suggestions from God - they are God's mandatory charity, and were intended for the good of all, that there not be any hunger or true poverty in the land over time.

Our belief and argument is that wealth is the actual PROPERTY of the wealthy man, to do as he pleases.. This is not God's law at all.

None of these laws have been incorporated into our laws.

And finally we have (9), the law of mandatory tithes for the poor and for support of the Levites. There were other taxes, such as first fruits and the priest's portions of each sacrifice, but the tithe was earmarked for support of the Levites and for them to distribute to the poor. Nothing about this was voluntary.

Now then, one could correctly note: "We are not under the law, that was just for Israel", and that's true - but only to a point. We are not under THAT law, exactly, but we ARE under the Law of Jesus, and HE gave the direct (and ugly for the stingy) parable of the sheep and the goats, with those who who said "Where did we see you hungry and not feed you?" etc., being sent into the fire. So yes, it's true, we are free from having to structure it exactly as God did (although if we think we're wiser than he we are as stupid as we are arrogant), but no , we are not free to simply not have a structure: the penalty for not getting the job done is hellfire, and truth is, before we set up universal public education we had broad ignorance, and before we set up Social Security we had a great deal of destitution among the old and poor: the system of private charty did not get the job done, which is why we moved back towards the government structures of modern time, which parallel the government structures God set up in Israel.

American conservatives hate all of this, but it's right there in the Torah, and in Jesus' own law.

 

[HMS]

What a great topic. I too tend to lean more on the right. I worked in a political office for a couple years. Todd Akin sound familiar? Lol bah ha if not Google should help.


I learned a little more than I wanted during my time in politics. My biggest lesson was that there really isn't a right or wrong. Also, God does not pick sides. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, my time, my Republican/Christian cause is better spent loving other people and bringing them to Jesus. Rather than attempting to convert a liberal to a conservative. Turn a sinner into a believer. The rest will follow.


I am first and foremost a Christian. Which doesn't mean I'm perfectly but that I've recognized that I will always be imperfect.


I tend to vote Republican but I cannot sum up all my beliefs into one word. Republican Democrat liberal conservative. We are too complex to use one single word.


There are key issues that separate us "us" from "them". Gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, redistribution of wealth. To name a few. That doesn't mean that just because someone uses a political label that they feel the same way as the party on all issues.


The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is a sin. It's also a sin to judge. And to take away someone else's free will.


The Bible says we shouldn't kill. Yet in the Bible God helped individuals kill enemies in battle. Abortion is wrong because your killing the innocent. Death penalty is right because you kill the wicked. Should we be able to someone they can't kill their baby or are we playing God by killing people that are convicted of harsh crime? I don't know how God feels about that.


God tells us to give to the poor and needy. Should we be able to make people give without a cheerful heart?


I have my convictions because of God but does that mean that I have the right to impose those on anyone else? Should the government?


I have a lot more questions than answers when it comes to politics. All I know is that the battles are better fought with the Word than a political opinion.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

He meant the first thing.
He only ever directly ruled one land: Israel.
He imposed a law on Israel, intending for it to make Israel prosperous.
He's God and he knew that he was doing.

It was this:
(1) Free land distribution at the beginning, with it automatically reverting to the original family after a number of years (and no way to contract out of that.

(2) Debt elimination, by law, in the seventh year. People have to be able to repay the debts in six years. If they can't, then in the seventh year the debt is erased and the people go free of it, with no residual owed. This was MANDATORY for Israelites and any foreigner who sojourned with them in Israel. If Congress passed a law that automatically and without recourse cancelled every private debt every seven years, we would (rightly) say that was government action. In Israel, the government enforced this - by not permitting debt collection in and after the seventh year. There was no opt out for normal people.

(3) Mandatory lending to poor people who asked. The rich did not have the power to refuse to lend to the poor Israelites who asked. They could neither hoard money, nor choose to refuse to lend. Think about what that meant for capital formation. It meant that the the rich had a strong incentive to lend out all of their excess capital voluntarily, to people they choose (poor family members, neighbors and friends), because if they weren't spontaneously generous with loans - to people they knew whom they figured would pay them back - then poor people they DIDN'T know and couldn't trust could ask them for a loan, and they did not have the legal right to refuse. God's law was mandatory, and it effectively forced those with wealth to put all of their accumulating capital back into circulation and not attempt to hold it - for the law then granted the poor the right to ask for a loan, and denied the rich the power to refuse it.

So, the "voluntary" aspect for the rich was merely whom they decided to lend it to FIRST, BEFORE somebody else asked to borrow it. If the rich sat on their wealth and didn't voluntarily choose to lend it out to neighbors and friends in need, then the law forced them to lend it out to the first people who asked.

And the law forced the lender to forgive the unpaid debt after seven years.

(4) And what of the bankrupt in, say, the second year who could not pay his debt? The lender had this option, if he was a fellow believer: he could simply let the man go to try to pay him back, and forgive the portion unpaid in the seventh, Sabbatical year. Or he could go to court and the man would be directed into the lender's service to pay for the debt. Now, note well: the Hebrew could not be ENSLAVED by the lender. He was an indentured servant. He, and if he had wife and choldren, they had to be clothed, fed, housed, provided for AND PAID, though that pay could be withheld until the end of the term. The support could not be. If the lender could not provide for the bankrupt, he could not take him into forced service.

Then, when the sabbatical year came, the 7th year (not of the debt, but the official seventh year), whatever was unpaid on the loan was wiped out, and the indentured man was free to go. And the lender had to pay him wages for his work to send him on his way. He could not send him out empty handed.

(5) Interest could not be charged on lent money to the fellow Hebrews.

None of these laws were voluntary, or goodness of the heart thing. The rich HAD TO LEND, if asked, and HAD TO FORGIVE in the Sabbatical Year. And the conditionas of indenture were set and had to be respected.

(6) Going further, even foreign slaves had to be freed in the 50th year, the Jubilee.

(7) Land ownership was absolute, in the sence that in the 50th Year it ALWAYS reverted to the orignal title family. Nothing could stop this - not debt, not criminal punishment, not the desire of some generation to not be in that land. There was a minimum level of family land protection below which the law did not let anybody fall. No matter how badly a generation squandered everything, the next generation would get the land back, for free, and could start anew as farmers, in their tents, on their own land, which could not be taken for debt or punishment or taxes.

(8) The use of the land, however, was not absolute. The farmer had certain, but not absolute, rights to his crops. Notably, the farmer could not prevent the poor from passing through his fields and orchards and picking what they needed to eat. The poor could not take baskets and take food away, but they could always walk through and feed themselves directly by plucking fruit off the trees or grain heads and eating them there. The poor did not need to pay for the fruit. This was not a privilege, this was a legal right.

(8B) Also, the farmer, in harvesting his crops, was allowed a pass through with his workers. They were not, however, permitted to go back through and harvest the late blooming food, nor to go back and pick up anything they dropped. These gleanings were legally the property of the poor - the poor had the right to come on the land and pick all of these things and take them, again for free. The farmer was not permitted to harvest right to the edge of his fields either, that was to be left as gleanings for the poor.

(8C) Every 7th year, and also in the 50th year, the farmer was not permitted to either plant crops nor harvest what grew of its own accord. This was all left as gleanings for the poor.

If you've ever been to California, you have have seen vast orange and grapefruit groves with huge numbers of oranges and grapefruit fallen from the trees sitting on the groud, and big signs warning that picking up fallen fruit is theft, and entering the orchards is tresspassing.

Under God's law, the orange farmers have no right to do any of that. Poor people have the right to walk through the orchard and eat that fruit.

The economic theory is simple and especially spoken of by Jesus: man is not an owner of wealth. He is a steward. All wealth comes from and belongs to God, and God has directed, by law (enforceable in the courts of ancient Israel), certain things to be done with his property: mandatory lending without interest, mandatory debt forgiveness, mandatory right to eat from the fields, mandatory gleanings. These aren't just good ideas or suggestions from God - they are God's mandatory charity, and were intended for the good of all, that there not be any hunger or true poverty in the land over time.

Our belief and argument is that wealth is the actual PROPERTY of the wealthy man, to do as he pleases.. This is not God's law at all.

None of these laws have been incorporated into our laws.

And finally we have (9), the law of mandatory tithes for the poor and for support of the Levites. There were other taxes, such as first fruits and the priest's portions of each sacrifice, but the tithe was earmarked for support of the Levites and for them to distribute to the poor. Nothing about this was voluntary.

Now then, one could correctly note: "We are not under the law, that was just for Israel", and that's true - but only to a point. We are not under THAT law, exactly, but we ARE under the Law of Jesus, and HE gave the direct (and ugly for the stingy) parable of the sheep and the goats, with those who who said "Where did we see you hungry and not feed you?" etc., being sent into the fire. So yes, it's true, we are free from having to structure it exactly as God did (although if we think we're wiser than he we are as stupid as we are arrogant), but no , we are not free to simply not have a structure: the penalty for not getting the job done is hellfire, and truth is, before we set up universal public education we had broad ignorance, and before we set up Social Security we had a great deal of destitution among the old and poor: the system of private charty did not get the job done, which is why we moved back towards the government structures of modern time, which parallel the government structures God set up in Israel.

American conservatives hate all of this, but it's right there in the Torah, and in Jesus' own law.

I sure would like to see what you have posted in the scriptures, I have read them several times through and have never seen most of what you said, although there is mention of debt forgiveness after a time of servant/slave obligation to work off the loan until the 7th year which you did not post. Nor is there an obligation to lend to everyone that ask, I may have overlooked it, so scripture would surely refresh my memory. If you could show some on every point you made so that it can be studied, thanks.

But we also have to remember that was the OT and was meant for the Jewish people in accordance with the law if I am not mistaken. For I remember they were allowed to lean for interest to outsiders.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

A person is liberal if they dislike Trump?

I don't know how a Christian taking their faith seriously can like Trump.

I am theologically conservative, but there is an astonishing amount of hypocrisy around conservative Christians when it comes to politics; homosexuality is assaulted constantly(yes, Scripture clearly states it's wrong) and yet gluttony, lying, greed and other sins are overlooked and often embraced.

If someone argues that they voted for Trump so the Republicans at large could make progress, okay, I can understand that... but to defend someone whose actions, past and present, are nothing but an affront to Christian values is nothing short of utter, utter hypocrisy and, as far as I'm concerned, a failure in the Christian's stewardship as an ambassador for Christ.

I do not think the intention was to defend Trump. Hypocrisy is everywhere, it makes no distinctions, as we're all sinners. Although I am a conservative both theologically and politically, and although I vote Rep, I have some major issues with the Rep party platform, especially concerning economics related to social issues. I can only hope the Rep representatives will reform to an extent on said issues, but I am not getting hopes up too high.

*edited because I was mistaken with first comment, apologies*

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

For precision... Orthodox and every stance that follows in between and on the opposite side of the spectrum would be the theological verbiage.

When I say “republican”-“Jesus”... you know what I am saying. But, Jesus was not a politician. He is the King of Kings.

The issue with orthodoxy is that Paul asked if Christ is divided. All systematic theology is false! It attempts to speak for the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy binds to systematic theology. Okay... like what? Systematic Universal (Catholicism)? Is that Roman Catholic? Reformed doctrine? Double Predestination? Open Theology? It’s all false divisiveness...

Let’s look at true orthodox delivery of the Holy Spirit...

Acts 2:14-41 To Israel and resulting in Pentecost

Romans 8

1 Corinthians 15

There are other passages; but... there’s no need to conflate modern politics with Christ Jesus! Agendas that empty the cross of its power and men struggling to harness that emptied power are to blame! How do we know? History!

Sanhedrin in power when Christ came? Perfect example!

Dispensational... Covenant view... this all leads to cynical understanding that brings division.

However... I managed to elude to all of this in three sentences or so. I was going for succinct. Theological extrapolation is of no real assistance than to disagree and debate or in a perfect world... agree to disagree, while being understood and understanding.

Yikes you're all over the place with baseless statements, sorry to say but three sentences might suite you well. Reads much like an AnaBaptist perspective, but probably something else. Enjoy the lonely theological island and the spiritual arrogance it entails.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No, what I was responding to was the poster’s point that people on different sides of the Christian conservative/liberal divide pick and choose those elements of the gospel they like and support. I’ve found that to be generally true also.

It may seem too obvious, or not at all obvious, that those who pick and choose what to believe instead of simply believing SCRIPTURE , are actually putting themselves above God's Word and thus, not subject to JESUS CHRIST MESSIAH SAVIOR KING HEALER COMFORTER who ATONED once for all time for our sins. (everyone in HIM)...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How do we know? History!

This idea ^^^^ is not an Anabaptist perspective.

Reads much like an AnaBaptist perspective, but probably something else. Enjoy the lonely theological island and the spiritual arrogance it entails.

Also, Anabaptists are not spiritually arrogant, not any more than any other group anyway (individuals thereof) , so that association is not pertinent nor accurate here.

 

[Truthfrees]

im a hardcore conservative Christian. I have always thought that conservative views go hand and hang with Christianity. Morals. Values. Standards. These are things I thought Christians should stand up for.

I can understand how some economic views such as capitalism and like healthcare can be controversial for anyone (including Christians) but issues such as abortion, gay rights, transgenderism, islam, - aren't these topics that all Christian's should be consistent with opposing? I mean, the Bible does support opposing it... so if Christians support scripture, why are some Christians liberal??? like shouldn't Christians be conservative?

I know a couple people who claim they are Christian but also have very liberal ideas. for example, this girl i met recently is basically a hardcore feminist, anti-trump, it seems her idealogy cannot support Christian values. This is just one example, I know so many Christians that are liberal. and i just dont understand

thoughts?

I dont wanna start a debate here, i am just genuinely concerned for the way our society is moving - LIBERAL.

i wondered the same thing my friend

i talked to some liberal christians about their beliefs and how they interpret scripture on certain issues like the ones you mentioned

what i was told is that conservative christians believe God wrote/inspired the writing of the Bible - word for word

liberal christians believe man wrote the Bible to record as best they can man's encounters with God

once i found that out i could understand why we are so diverse and almost opposite on our interpretations of the Bible

so to a conservative who takes the literal interpretation of the words in the Bible - we must obey what God says - 3500 years ago to Moses and the prophets - 2000 years ago to Jesus and the apostles - because God's words still work today just as well as they worked then

to a liberal who thinks man did his best to record his encounters with God and what he "thought" God was saying to him - they must discern for themselves what is right and wrong on each issue in a modern context - because the ancient context no longer accurately applies to modern times - the ancient times seem barbaric to them - modern times seem more progressive/civilized - this makes ancient words outdated and unreliable/fallible for today for them

God Bless you dear friend

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This idea ^^^^ is not an Anabaptist perspective.

Also, Anabaptists are not spiritually arrogant, not any more than any other group anyway (individuals thereof) , so that association is not pertinent nor accurate here.

One of the problems with the Anabaptist...way of dealing with Scripture, is that it rules out statements of faith, rules out doctrines even within the Anabaptist camp. Such that without standards, the doors of misinterpretation are wide open. Such views also have a way of contradicting themselves when anything is said or attempts to explain or apply Scripture. We both know Anabaptists have shared beliefs, that are based on, not citations of Scripture. To even suggest that one does not engage in interpretation when reading Scripture, is the height of arrogance. To think that we are superior interpreters over all the Christians throughout the history of the Christian Church is not only arrogant, but to not recognize the God of Scripture as Lord of History denying His hand in history outside of Scripture.

 

[Grip Docility]

Yikes you're all over the place with baseless statements, sorry to say but three sentences might suite you well. Reads much like an AnaBaptist perspective, but probably something else. Enjoy the lonely theological island and the spiritual arrogance it entails.

Yikes... I think I found someone more arrogant than me!

Congratulations on using less than 1000 words in your last reply.

I take it you dislike the idea that 1 John 2:27 means what it says? Aren’t Apologist’s supposed to be as removed or “island like” as possible to obtain genuine theological sincerity?

 

[Grip Docility]

This idea ^^^^ is not an Anabaptist perspective.

Also, Anabaptists are not spiritually arrogant, not any more than any other group anyway (individuals thereof) , so that association is not pertinent nor accurate here.

Winner, winner chicken dinner! You are correct. I do not have an anabaptist perspective.

Out of 35,000 Denominations... I decided to keep things simple and cling to John 5:39, 1 John 2:27 and 2 Timothy 3:16 ...

When I feel too big for my britches... I sit next to Job and remember how small I am.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi brother Jason, we're going off topic a bit here, and proving a point I made, but I guess that's okay at this junction. I used to have the same conviction, for a long time I did. So I understand where it is you're coming from, theologically at least.

I created a new thread here at Christian Forums with the goal or aim at asking Calvinists in what they believe. Hopefully, whenever you have the time, I would like for you to answer my questions.

A Few Questions for Calvinists (Trying to figure out what you believe).

At the moment, I'm tired and still trying to wake up, as I'm more of a night owl than a morning bird.

Me, too. I mean, I am more of a night owl, as well.

I used to think as you do,

I am a Christian who believes things that are foundational like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the blood atonement, the Bible is our sole authority for all spiritual matters, etc. but I also believe things that most Christians today find offensive (Like: Jesus created non-intoxicating grape juice at the Wedding at Cana, Conditional Salvation, New Testament Pacifism, Ham slept with Noah's wife, Hosea did not marry a prostitute to begin with, and Christian Hardcore Music is evil). So I am not so sure about that, my friend.
But if you believe so, then... okay.

however I had not actually researched or spent time reading what Calvinists teach. The fact of the matter is, it is not what Calvinists teach, not at all, quite the contrary my friend. One only need to read from the Puritans. You may not agree, you may think the implications are there, or the consequences, but it cannot be said that Calvinism teaches what you claim.

I do realize there are different degrees of Calvinism. I was never exposed much to liberal forms of Calvinism. I usually encountered those who are into the Hardcore versions of Calvinism.

I certainly believe it is possible too, but never in our own strength, never for purposes of boasting, unless that entails bragging on the Lord, giving all credit where it is due. Anyway, I heartily recommend looking into Protestant Christian history with emphasis on Reformation history, especially key figures and movements in those time periods. While it does not prove or necessarily make one's theology correct, it doesn't hurt that what is called Calvinism has a long historical pedigree of upstanding outstanding adherents. Anyway thank you for taking the time and caring. Sincerely

Peace to you from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ

Yes, I would never suggest that we can be perfect by our own power or that we can overcome sin by our own ability. Only God working in us can do these things (Whereby He deserves all the glory). Most in whom I talk with today are strongly against walking uprightly with God in this life; And some say it is even heresy.

 

[Grip Docility]

One of the problems with the Anabaptist...way of dealing with Scripture, is that it rules out statements of faith, rules out doctrines even within the Anabaptist camp. Such that without standards, the doors of misinterpretation are wide open. Such views also have a way of contradicting themselves when anything is said or attempts to explain or apply Scripture. We both know Anabaptists have shared beliefs, that are based on, not citations of Scripture. To even suggest that one does not engage in interpretation when reading Scripture, is the height of arrogance. To think that we are superior interpreters over all the Christians throughout the history of the Christian Church is not only arrogant, but to not recognize the God of Scripture as Lord of History denying His hand in history outside of Scripture.

One problem with all divisions and statements of faith is that they assume scripture and the Holy Spirit aren’t active in each individual.

Jesus said to call no one teacher... and John 5:39 validates cannon... pre cannon. 66 or 66 plus for the universal types. Either way... God is alive and well capable of saving and guiding each individual.

1 John 2:27 is good enough for me. Statements of faith are a person’s way of saying... yeah... Jesus said this and that... but we need brother so and so to tell us what Jesus “really” meant.

Palm to forehead.

 

[Vicomte13]

I sure would like to see what you have posted in the scriptures, I have read them several times through and have never seen most of what you said, although there is mention of debt forgiveness after a time of servant/slave obligation to work off the loan until the 7th year which you did not post. Nor is there an obligation to lend to everyone that ask, I may have overlooked it, so scripture would surely refresh my memory. If you could show some on every point you made so that it can be studied, thanks.

But we also have to remember that was the OT and was meant for the Jewish people in accordance with the law if I am not mistaken. For I remember they were allowed to lean for interest to outsiders.

Go read the Torah again, slowly, with a yellow marker in hand, and highlight each time that God speaks. Everything that I said was in there, or was the result of what was in there.

I will not go point by point. You can do that. Start with Exodus and read through it and Leviticus and Numbers, marker in hand. Give yourself a "red letter version" of the Torah, so you can see exactly what God commanded in his constitution for ruling his country. You'll see a whole lot else that you might not have noticed before, like how the kosher food laws were never a ceremonial law, but a law with a health promise, or how Hebrew slavery was structured to be a method to encourage people to convert.

 

[Violet Edge]

i wondered the same thing my friend

i talked to some liberal christians about their beliefs and how they interpret scripture on certain issues like the ones you mentioned

what i was told is that conservative christians believe God wrote/inspired the writing of the Bible - word for word

liberal christians believe man wrote the Bible to record as best they can man's encounters with God

once i found that out i could understand why we are so diverse and almost opposite on our interpretations of the Bible

so to a conservative who takes the literal interpretation of the words in the Bible - we must obey what God says - 3500 years ago to Moses and the prophets - 2000 years ago to Jesus and the apostles - because God's words still work today just as well as they worked then

to a liberal who thinks man did his best to record his encounters with God and what he "thought" God was saying to him - they must discern for themselves what is right and wrong on each issue in a modern context - because the ancient context no longer accurately applies to modern times - the ancient times seem barbaric to them - modern times seem more progressive/civilized - this makes ancient words outdated and unreliable/fallible for today for them

God Bless you dear friend

Cool, that makes sense! Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

I'll always interpret the Bible literally
Still, I don't understand how a Christian can say that the bible is "ancient context" and no longer apples to today. I'm not going to conform to modern day values because other people are! Nope, I'll follow the scripture, I mean it is God's word.

 

[Truthfrees]

A person is liberal if they dislike Trump?

I don't know how a Christian taking their faith seriously can like Trump.

I am theologically conservative, but there is an astonishing amount of hypocrisy around conservative Christians when it comes to politics; homosexuality is assaulted constantly(yes, Scripture clearly states it's wrong) and yet gluttony, lying, greed and other sins are overlooked and often embraced.

If someone argues that they voted for Trump so the Republicans at large could make progress, okay, I can understand that... but to defend someone whose actions, past and present, are nothing but an affront to Christian values is nothing short of utter, utter hypocrisy and, as far as I'm concerned, a failure in the Christian's stewardship as an ambassador for Christ.

the real Trump does not resemble the media spin on him

he made a lot of mistakes but he is the first to say his marriage problems were his fault

and he has learned from his mistakes

and he now listens to only the news and christian tv - as per the christian ministers who are holding weekly prayer meetings with him to help him grow strong in the Lord and do well as a president

he now says that he wants to go down in history as the president who prays the most

1 timothy 2:1-5 tells us to pray for our leaders

several ministers and their followers have been doing so

and Trump is now a serious christian learning from godly ministers how to walk as a christian walks

God's word works if we apply it properly

watch and see what God will do with a man like Trump

Saul of Tarsus murdered christians and look what God did through him after he encountered the Living Christ

pray for Trump to continue to grow in godliness and the wisdom of God

 

[Grip Docility]

Cool, that makes sense! Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

I'll always interpret the Bible literally
Still, I don't understand how a Christian can say that the bible is "ancient context" and no longer apples to today. I'm not going to conform to modern day values because other people are! Nope, I'll follow the scripture, I mean it is God's word.

Okay... believe it or not... I’m a literalist. 2 Timothy 3:16 all the way!

Now... what do James 2:10 and Romans 2:1-2 mean?

Have you studied Moses (The Law) from the genuine, historical perspective? If so, do you understand what 613 mitzvahs means?

You wonder why I’m asking? Because politicizing Christianity and claiming to take stands on certain sins comes with a heavy price tag... if you are indeed a person that reads scripture literally.

 

[Grip Docility]

the real Trump does not resemble the media spin on him

he made a lot of mistakes but he is the first to say his marriage problems were his fault

and he has learned from his mistakes

and he now listens to only the news and christian tv - as per the christian ministers who are holding weekly prayer meetings with him to help him grow strong in the Lord and do well as a president

he now says that he wants to go down in history as the president who prays the most

1 timothy 2:1-5 tells us to pray for our leaders

several ministers and their followers have been doing so

and Trump is now a serious christian learning from godly ministers how to walk as a christian walks

God's word works if we apply it properly

watch and see what God will do with a man like Trump

Saul of Tarsus murdered christians and look what God did through him after he encountered the Living Christ

pray for Trump to continue to grow in godliness and the wisdom of God

I have no issue confessing I voted for Trump, and I fully agree with your points.

I also agree that every Christian in every region, should pray for their leaders, just as you pointed out. This means that the type of leader and choices of the leader have nothing to do with their biblical stances.

I didn’t vote for Trump because I’m a Christian... I voted for him because he was the answer to the pendulum swinging that was exaggerated from the U.S. presidential sway, for our previous regime.

Balance of power was the goal. If Hillary had gone in, we would have had another 8 years of the same leadership and thus, a major imbalance.

However... My relationship with Jesus and Politics are completely divided. I also have no desire to judge Christians based on their politics. I do have issue with Christians politicizing the gospel and pretending they don’t. Which... by your writing, I’m certain you don’t do.

Also... I love your avatar. <3 to Israel