- Aug 24, 2012
- 20,738
- 13,176
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
I'm not moderate..
- Thread starter Tigger45
- Start date
Unlike most groups, there's no official definition of what Moderate means for CF purposes.
I would consider conservative to mean you believe in inerrancy, and liberal to mean you doubt a substantial number of traditional Christian ideas. Moderate to me means roughly typical mainline or the more liberal end of evangelicalism: fairly normal theology, but not inerrancy. Others consider moderate to be anyone who isn't legalistic and condemning, even if their theology is conservative. The problem with the second definition here is that everyone thinks they're moderate in that sense. I mean, how many people think they're legalistic extremists? A CF faith group that includes everyone may not be all that useful.
None of the orientations, conservative, moderate or liberal, have necessarily compromised their Christianity, though many members of each group at times feel that the others have done so. There can be people of all 3 orientations with a strong commitment to their faith, living it out. There can also be people of all 3 orientations with only nominal faith, whose lives do not show it. It's the latter who I would say have compromised the faith. Claims that one group or another do not follow Christ, but let the world determine their values is largely ad hominem attack. One can be uncompromising but dead wrong. Unfortunately it's not that uncommon.
I would consider conservative to mean you believe in inerrancy, and liberal to mean you doubt a substantial number of traditional Christian ideas. Moderate to me means roughly typical mainline or the more liberal end of evangelicalism: fairly normal theology, but not inerrancy. Others consider moderate to be anyone who isn't legalistic and condemning, even if their theology is conservative. The problem with the second definition here is that everyone thinks they're moderate in that sense. I mean, how many people think they're legalistic extremists? A CF faith group that includes everyone may not be all that useful.
None of the orientations, conservative, moderate or liberal, have necessarily compromised their Christianity, though many members of each group at times feel that the others have done so. There can be people of all 3 orientations with a strong commitment to their faith, living it out. There can also be people of all 3 orientations with only nominal faith, whose lives do not show it. It's the latter who I would say have compromised the faith. Claims that one group or another do not follow Christ, but let the world determine their values is largely ad hominem attack. One can be uncompromising but dead wrong. Unfortunately it's not that uncommon.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Norah63
Newbie
At first I stated I was a Christian, then on the forums they told me I wasn't, didn't worship the same as them.
Then maybe I'm a conservative? No they are too legalistic and quarrelsome at times.
Can't be a liberal cause I love life, and husband and wife as the truth.
Won't compromise, that wouldn't be wise, lukewarm sounds yucky.
However I can read and listen and encourage, maybe a bridge-builder fit's better.
Reading in Acts mostly as of late. Was Paul a moderate?
Trying to build those bridges between the Jews and the gentiles .
Then maybe I'm a conservative? No they are too legalistic and quarrelsome at times.
Can't be a liberal cause I love life, and husband and wife as the truth.
Won't compromise, that wouldn't be wise, lukewarm sounds yucky.
However I can read and listen and encourage, maybe a bridge-builder fit's better.
Reading in Acts mostly as of late. Was Paul a moderate?
Trying to build those bridges between the Jews and the gentiles .
Upvote
0
S
salamacum
Guest
I suppose I am moderate because for one reason I don't think even those that give the impression of having it all buttoned down and explained really have emotional and spiritual conviction of having it all sussed.
In fact when these people are honest with you they will say that a great deal of their biblical exposition is to prove something they don't like is wrong. They just WANTED to be right and the bible was ammunition for them
Even John Piper I have just read had been agonising for years about cessationism. He agonised because he didn't WANT to be endorsing something that might be discreditable or lead people away from the bible. So presumable in this the evidence from the scriptures (whether from proof-texting or biblical theology) would have been for him ambivalent.
So if something so crucial and basic as the supernatural manifestation of a supernatural God is something he can't make his mind up about, then how many other controversies are there?
How many preachers truly DON'T have the assurance they seem to demonstrate?
In fact when these people are honest with you they will say that a great deal of their biblical exposition is to prove something they don't like is wrong. They just WANTED to be right and the bible was ammunition for them
Even John Piper I have just read had been agonising for years about cessationism. He agonised because he didn't WANT to be endorsing something that might be discreditable or lead people away from the bible. So presumable in this the evidence from the scriptures (whether from proof-texting or biblical theology) would have been for him ambivalent.
So if something so crucial and basic as the supernatural manifestation of a supernatural God is something he can't make his mind up about, then how many other controversies are there?
How many preachers truly DON'T have the assurance they seem to demonstrate?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
