Do liberal Christians have a leg to stand on?

[OldBadfish]

Fundamentalists believe that the bible is the inspired and literal (innerrant) words of God. At least thats how I define it, and it shouldn't be misinterpreted as extremism or radicalism.

If you don't believe the word of God is inerrant, then how can your perception of God be summarized as an omni-max being capable of everything except the conveyance of his word in its full truth (which should be quite easy for a being that spoke the cosmos into existence).

Where does your inspiration come from? How can you form a belief out of a chopped up version of the ONLY account of the God you worship, and how can you trust him if he is so weak he cannot convey a correct version of his word?

I am by no means saying a fundy position is right, but because God is invisible it makes the most sense...IMO

God seems to hold the bible, especially Johns revelation in pretty high regard, if the bible or the gospels are held in such high regard that if anyone alters them they are said to have the fate of all the plagues described within brought upon them that add or subtract, granted this pretty much stands out in Revelation, but Revelation is pretty much a summary of Gods plan, and contains the same prophesies,warnings and promises as the other gospels.

Ok, so we have the Holy Spirit, but according to God (or the bible) the words of God are sacred and are not for private interpretation, and are not to be messed with, and certainly an all powerful God can convey his message to the english speaking world, since the gospels contain quite the account of gentiles that will be grafted into the plan of salvation.

So does the spirit negate the bible? Who and why are some discerned while others are not? I know parable from literal, as any person who reads the bible should, but again how do you find and learn about God if the bible is errant and God is not smart enough or powerful enough to inspire his own words?

And if God allowed his words to be errant then he is a liar because he promises he is NOT the author of confusion, but if his words are errant, to the beginner his own errant words would be the definition of confusion.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Literal interpetation is important.. however
without understanding dispensations the word does contradict them selves but understanding dispensations the scriptures flows very good

 

[NeilUnreal]

Two related observations:

1) God's capability of conveying truth does not imply that said truth was actually conveyed in any particular manner.

2) My view is that the only media capable of conveying God's truth in this world are the human heart, mind, and relationships (Jeremiah 31: 33). Other things, like scripture, doctrine, and practice, are tools we use to assist this conveyance of truth which can only exist in us as vessels.

-Neil (Liberal Christian)

 

[penguingel]

2) My view is that the only media capable of conveying God's truth in this world are the human heart, mind, and relationships (Jeremiah 31: 33). Other things, like scripture, doctrine, and practice, are tools we use to assist this conveyance of truth which can only exist in us as vessels.

Amen

 

[SnowOwlMoon]

Fundamentalists believe that the bible is the inspired and literal (innerrant) words of God. At least thats how I define it, and it shouldn't be misinterpreted as extremism or radicalism.

If you don't believe the word of God is inerrant, then how can your perception of God be summarized as an omni-max being capable of everything except the conveyance of his word in its full truth (which should be quite easy for a being that spoke the cosmos into existence).


[]I believe GOD is inerrant. However, human beings--who set God's word on paper, and made the translations from one language to others, and who continue to make interpretations of God's word--are most definately fallible and capable of error.


Where does your inspiration come from? How can you form a belief out of a chopped up version of the ONLY account of the God you worship, and how can you trust him if he is so weak he cannot convey a correct version of his word?

My inspiration comes from the life of Christ. I believe the question Christians should ask themselves is "What would Jesus do?" Jesus was NOT a conservative Christian. He was, for his time and place, an extremely radical Jew.

I also believe that the ancient people who gave us the text of the Bible spoke in parables and in myths. That rather than a literal interpretation and belief in the Testaments, we should look at what the stories have to say about the human condition--our relationship with God, our relationships with other people, and with the rest of Creation.


God seems to hold the bible, especially Johns revelation in pretty high regard, if the bible or the gospels are held in such high regard that if anyone alters them they are said to have the fate of all the plagues described within brought upon them that add or subtract, granted this pretty much stands out in Revelation, but Revelation is pretty much a summary of Gods plan, and contains the same prophesies,warnings and promises as the other gospels.

IMHO, way too much attention is paid to Revelations. It is only one book out of many, and I don't think anybody yet has managed to figure it out, if it is in fact a summary of God's plan. I think there are too many other books that we should be paying attention to.


Ok, so we have the Holy Spirit, but according to God (or the bible) the words of God are sacred and are not for private interpretation, and are not to be messed with, and certainly an all powerful God can convey his message to the english speaking world, since the gospels contain quite the account of gentiles that will be grafted into the plan of salvation.

So does the spirit negate the bible? Who and why are some discerned while others are not? I know parable from literal, as any person who reads the bible should, but again how do you find and learn about God if the bible is errant and God is not smart enough or powerful enough to inspire his own words?

And if God allowed his words to be errant then he is a liar because he promises he is NOT the author of confusion, but if his words are errant, to the beginner his own errant words would be the definition of confusion.

I think you need to read the Bible in the context of the time and place of the people who first recorded it. And also in the context of the time and place of the people who translated and interpret it. As I said before, God is infallible, but human beings are not.

Also, the Bible is not the only record of the Word of God. There are other books that are not included in the Bible for various reasons--authorship is in question, or some other reason. These are the Apocryphal books and the so-called "Lost Books".

sorry about the way the quotes came out--I'm still not familiar with the forum format, and still trying to figure out how to do it.

 

[SnowOwlMoon]

Literal interpetation is important.. however
without understanding dispensations the word does contradict them selves but understanding dispensations the scriptures flows very good

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying--could you explain this, please?

 

[Polycarp1]

Fundamentalists believe that the bible is the inspired and literal (innerrant) words of God. At least thats how I define it, and it shouldn't be misinterpreted as extremism or radicalism.

If you don't believe the word of God is inerrant, then how can your perception of God be summarized as an omni-max being capable of everything except the conveyance of his word in its full truth (which should be quite easy for a being that spoke the cosmos into existence).

Where does your inspiration come from? How can you form a belief out of a chopped up version of the ONLY account of the God you worship, and how can you trust him if he is so weak he cannot convey a correct version of his word?

"Capable" does not necessarily mean that He actually did it. God is capable of creating a 1000-foot-long squirrel with an 800-foot tail -- but AFAIK He hasn't done it. When examined not as Holy Writ but as a collection of documents, the Bible shows obvious marks of the personal views of its human authors, along with His inspiration underlying and motivating what they wrote.

God seems to hold the bible, especially Johns revelation in pretty high regard, if the bible or the gospels are held in such high regard that if anyone alters them they are said to have the fate of all the plagues described within brought upon them that add or subtract, granted this pretty much stands out in Revelation, but Revelation is pretty much a summary of Gods plan, and contains the same prophesies,warnings and promises as the other gospels.

As a proof to a believer, this is unnecessary -- God validates the Bible. As a proof to a non-believer, it's fallacious. It's circular reasoning: We know that the Bible is inerrant, because the Bible says so, and we know that what it says must be true, because it's inerrant." See the problem?

we have the Holy Spirit, but according to God (or the bible) the words of God are sacred and are not for private interpretation, and are not to be messed with, and certainly an all powerful God can convey his message to the english speaking world, since the gospels contain quite the account of gentiles that will be grafted into the plan of salvation.

So does the spirit negate the bible? Who and why are some discerned while others are not?

Well, to start with, God does not equal the Bible. Even if it is literally the written Word of God, verbatim, still it is a created work. Many times liberals get upset at evangelicals who appear to be rendering unto the Bible the sort of respect due to God alone. The Bible is a precious tool for coming to know Him -- but it must not be confused with Him.

Then too we get the question raised by Oblio elsewhere, that if the Bible is the Word of God in this extreme sense, how is it that the typical Protestant rejects the fifteen books of the Old Testament that appear in the Septuagint but not in Protestant Bibles?

The biggest frustration, however, lies in those who mistake their reading and understanding of a passage for the passage itself. Look at any argument between Christians, and you'll find someone saying, "The Bible clearly says..." in defense of his/her position. By selective quotation I can make an ironclad case for either double predestination or total free will -- just let me choose the verses. Clearly one must read with a sense of an overall guiding principle, hopefully given by the Spirit -- "rightly divide Scripture" -- in order to truly understand what God is saying in it.

I know parable from literal, as any person who reads the bible should....

Do you, now? You should be hired to guide the Biblical scholars who devoutly try to study and explain such matters, and who are often at odds as to the meaning of passages.

... but again how do you find and learn about God if the bible is errant and God is not smart enough or powerful enough to inspire his own words?

Nice line. It ranks with "have you quit beating your wife yet?" in the annals of debating repartee. The question would actually be, did God choose to make the Bible an inerrant document? And are the words in it His own, or those of human beings whom He inspired to write -- but did not guide as to exactly what words they might choose -- so that Paul, knowing God's will as regards, say, marriage, might give a divine stricture and combine it with his own advice. (See I Corinthians 7:10-16 for this example.)

And if God allowed his words to be errant then he is a liar because he promises he is NOT the author of confusion, but if his words are errant, to the beginner his own errant words would be the definition of confusion.

Well. We agree that God is not a liar. Now, the evidence of the world seems to indicate a world in which some rocks have been in place for 4,200,000,000 years, and if one accepts the principle of superposition – that rocks in the series A-B-C-D from bottom to top were laid down in the order A first, then B, then C, and then D, then there seems to be a sequence of petrified skeletons and shells of animals that evidence gradual change. This does not in and of itself prove great age for earth or evolution, either by the Darwin mechanism or the guiding hand of God, for the creatures.

Now suppose that Genesis 1 is taken as a literal historical account of creation, 130 years before Adam’s death, 1,666 years before the Flood, and 3,002 years before David became King in Jerusalem. We now have evidence in Creation itself that suggests otherwise.

The words of Genesis 1 are Scripture, and true in some sense. They may be either literal or a poetic, “mythical” account (“Mythical” in the strict anthropological sense of figurative explanation of a divine act, real or not, not the “that’s false” sense often used by skeptics). But the idea that Genesis 1 is literal is a human theory, not a part of divine revelation itself. It’s our choice to class it with Acts 20 as a prosaic literal account or with most of Luke 13 as a teaching by parable.

If we call it literal, then we are calling the record of God’s work in Creation false, and hence calling God a liar.

My God is not a liar.



But you wanted to know what the guiding principles of liberal Christians actually were. Allow me a parable first:

Suppose there are a group of people who strive to obey the law of God with all their heart, out of love for Him, even choosing to avoid that which may or may not be forbidden depending on interpretation, out of a desire to choose that which is least likely to incur His wrath. Suppose too that this group attempts to use their not inconsiderable political power to ensure that the law of the land require that everyone obeys God’s law as they understand it from the pages of Scripture.

When the Lord comes, how will He judge these people?

Well, we have the answer to that. Because the “Suppose” paragraph describes the Pharisees. And we know what He had to say to them.

He taught that all the Law and Prophets (which meant “all of Scripture”) were summed up in two commandments. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind,” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” He said “Whatsoever you would that another do unto you, do unto him likewise.” He said “Judge not, lest you be judged. For with the measure by which you judge, you too will be judged.” He said, “Inasmuch as you do it, or fail to do it, unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto Me.” He condemned those who used the Scriptures as a bludgeon to judge and condemn others, and He praised those who had humility, faith, compassion, a loving heart, and mercy.

When we proclaim freedom from the Law, the Bible as not God’s rulebook but a guide to knowing Him, tolerance and acceptance, we are not playing “anything goes” games of buying into secular humanism and political correctness. We believe ourselves to be carrying out His exact commandments to the best of our understanding and ability.

 

[OldBadfish]

Okey dokey. Have it YOUR way.

 

[JEREMY O'ROURKE]

This is an excellent post. I have always wondered about liberals who called themselves Christians and why they believe like they do. I am going to just keep reading so I can maybe get a better understanding of this.

 

[OldBadfish]

This is an excellent post. I have always wondered about liberals who called themselves Christians and why they believe like they do. I am going to just keep reading so I can maybe get a better understanding of this.

Yeah, I am trying to figure out how and why they think Gods words are errant, when God said they weren't.

So God inspired men to write, easy enough for an all powerful God to do.

If God allowed the corruption of his word, then he is a God of confusion, but he's not.

Then do liberals think the bible was inspired by the author of confusion, Satan?

This is the thing, so far the liberals seem to deny the sovereignity and power of God, and it seems they follow their own ideas instead of submitting to the fullness of Gods word as instruction in righteousness.

Liberals cannot really answer this question to my satisfaction, at least so far.

 

[OldBadfish]

When we proclaim freedom from the Law, the Bible as not God’s rulebook but a guide to knowing Him, tolerance and acceptance, we are not playing “anything goes” games of buying into secular humanism and political correctness. We believe ourselves to be carrying out His exact commandments to the best of our understanding and ability.

Yeah but some liberals hide behind this type of theology to excuse their lifestyles and disagreeances with Gods word. Liberalism lends itself to an anything goes type of interpretation. They focus on the easy feel good stuff, but when it comes to crunch time, they hide behind the veil and refuse to repent of their sinful ways, like the works of simply loving will earn their way to heaven.

Jesus teaches this is not enough.

 

[Brimshack]

Funny I thought love was the central theme of Jesus' teaching. How did it become "simply loving"?

And I'm curious as to where Jesus teaches that anything greater than love is necessary. Where does he specifically deny that love is sufficient? Where does he specifically advance anything over and above this value?

 

[Plan 9]

Funny I thought love was the central theme of Jesus' teaching. How did it become "simply loving"?

And I'm curious as to where Jesus teaches that anything greater than love is necessary. Where does he specifically deny that love is sufficient? Where does he specifically advance anything over and above this value?

I can't wait, myself. Move over. Brimshack, I brought you some M & Ms. May I have some of your popcorn please?

Maybe when he's done showing us this, he'll explain how believing a Bible story is figuratively true results in an "anything goes type of interpretation".

 

[Brimshack]

(placing popcorn between us.) Oh, I got some of those candy-covered almonds.

 

[Plan 9]

(placing popcorn between us.) Oh, I got some of those candy-covered almonds.

Those are my favorites!

While we're waiting, have a look at this:

Matthew 13:33-34 He told them also this parable:
'The kingdom of Heaven is like yeast, which a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour till it was all leavened.'
In all his teaching to the crowds Jesus spoke in parables; indeed he never spoke to them except in parables.

So, Brimshack, do you think Jesus is talking about a real woman, real yeast and real flour?

Here, have a drink of my Dr. Pepper...

 

[Brimshack]

Ooh! Great, I love Dr. Pepper.

I dunno Plan 9. That looks like a parable to me. But I'm sure that Sean or whomever will say that other parts are to be taken quite literally. I just hope we can take them literally. Sean said that JESUS taught love wasn't enough. I'm sure there must be some text in which Jesus himself literally says love is not enough, you gotta do x, y, and z. I mean, if there isn't such a text, then this whole business of minimizing love and saying liberals use it as an excuse, well then that would just be an excuse wouldn't it? …a way of minimizing the importance of Jesus central commandment. But these conservatives; they always tell you you can't pick and choose, so I know Sean wouldn't do that.

 

[Plan 9]

Ooh! Great, I love Dr. Pepper.

I dunno Plan 9. That looks like a parable to me. But I'm sure that Sean or whomever will say that other parts are to be taken quite literally.

But, Brimshack, if I don't take this parable literally, then that changes its meaning, right? I mean, I don't want to go horsing around saying it was figurative yeast and then later end up denying the sovereignty and power of God. It's a slippery slope, Brimshack.

I just hope we can take them literally. Sean said that JESUS taught love wasn't enough. I'm sure there must be some text in which Jesus himself literally says love is not enough, you gotta do x, y, and z. I mean, if there isn't such a text, then this whole business of minimizing love and saying liberals use it as an excuse, well then that would just be an excuse wouldn't it? …a way of minimizing the importance of Jesus central commandment. But these conservatives; they always tell you you can't pick and choose, so I know Sean wouldn't do that.

Of course, Sean wouldn't do that. There must be a text where Jesus himself literally comes out and says that, even if I have no clue where it is myself.

Would you like a Milk Dud?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

[sits down next to Brimshack and Plan 9 and opens packet from Lowfields Bakery]

Anyone want a piece of Yorkshire Curd Tart or Bakewell Pudding?

[Brings out glass bottles]

Vimto or Dandelion and Burdock?

Actually, didn't Paul say to the Romans (3 vv8-10) that love was the fulfilling of the law?

Didn't St Augustine say "Love God, and do as you please"? (Probably in Latin).

Who should I follow? The Pharisees, who seemed to think their main job was to make sure everybody else interpreted and followed Scripture the way they did, or Jesus, who seemed to have a lackadaisical attitude to literality? I know who my money's on...

 

[Brimshack]

Actually, I already snuck a milk dud, three of them in fact (I'm a bad man). But I'd like another, please. I just don't know about that yeast thing. One could suggest that taking figurative speech literally was just as much dodging God's word as the other way around, but I'm obviously mistaken about these things. I feel quite certain in any event, that there must be some passage in which Jesus goes out of his way to tell someone there love of another is not sufficient; that they must do something else. There MUST be such a scripture.

 

[Brimshack]

Have a JubJub Mint Karl. Be careful reaching for the popcorn though. Nine here left scars on my hand last time I got in the way.

(Settling back to see the show.)