A fourth century saint could not be a liberal in any modern sense; that category did not exist.
Liberal is an English word. Of course they wouldn't use that word.
There are, however, several words we could use which come directly from the scriptures themselves that would explain what a person who didn't subscribe to what the scriptures said was or is.
The words of Jesus come to mind most readily.
"“O
foolish ones, and
slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"
Luke 24:25
It would be pretty hard for me to hurt Gregory's feelings at this point. But when it comes to people I am talking to here, like you, it seemed more charitable to use the generic "liberal" handle. It's a bit less offensive than if I called you and other people on this thread "fools". In addition - most of us are quite familiar with the fact that people who don''t believe or who tinker with the obvious meaning of scripture are referred to as "liberals" in theological circles.
You insinuated that my calling Gregory a liberal was tantamount to questioning his status a saint (i.e. questioning his salvation). I merely cleared that up by saying that I do not consider his liberal stance on the literal judgment by God on certain people in the O.T. as having anything to do with his salvation.
There are ways and questions which can be used to shed light light on the salvation of people. But such as this belief of Gregory isn't one of them.
No one cares about your personal criteria for interpreting the Bible. Just get over the idea that you alone possess the authority to decide what legitimate interpretations of scripture are.
It's isn't my personal criteria for interpreting the Bible that I am espousing.
Reading scripture in context is a common and indeed necessary adjunct to determining the meaning of a passage. The context of the Genesis description of God's creation of man leaves no doubt as to the plain meaning being the most likely and indeed the only legitimate interpretation.
In fact - far from this method of interpretation being something merely personal with me - the old adage repeated so often in the first year of most seminaries remains the gold standard for the interpretation of scripture passages.
"When the plain sense makes perfect sense - seek no other sense."
Evolutionists such as yourself have taken their personal beliefs and super imposed them on the very clear cut statements by God concerning the creation of animals and man.
In that way you have warped what the scriptures are obviously meant to convey to us in order to line them up with the beliefs of a fallen world (and, in case of way too many scientists, a God rejecting world).
That's liberalism in a Bible believing Christian sense and it isn't good theology.
It certainly isn't a wise thing to do considering the centrality in the thinking of the Lord of believing all that the prophets have spoken.
