Liberal Theology at it's most basic level

[seebs]

Liberal Theology is detestable to the Lord. The Bible says what it says and you must have faith in its inerrancy. The liberalization of Christian thought throughout the centuries has been detrimental to our society.

Someone said that not a single word of this was true, but it turns out that the snippet "you must have faith" is probably true.

The rest seems to be consistently false. But I feel I should defend this by observing that, ironically enough, it can be made true through prooftexting.

 

[ahab]

Various descriptions for conservative, fundamental and evangelical, as well as liberal are banded about but are generalizations. Most evangelicals for example believe the Bible not to be inerrant but sufficiently authoritative in all matters of faith, and are not biblical literalists except where literal is appropriate.

Most evangelicals and pentecostal and charismatics are more interested in the teachings of Jesus and less interested in the mysticism and magic involved with Christian dogma, the opposite of what Liberals perceive. IMO however when it comes to liberals, all those variously described as conservatives, traditionalists, fundamentalists, charismatics, pentecostals and evangelicals tend to find common ground as they share the same basic understanding of the gospel given and handed down.

Non-liberals for example would point out that Jesus' disciples were only considered Christians when the term Christian was applied to them; believers and followers of the way being common early terms for the disciples and apostles etc.

If Saint James or Saint Peter, became members here at CF, they'd be barred from Christian only forums."

I don’t think they would as they would be writing in accordance with the scriptures thy wrote in the first place. I think they would be called fundamentalist .

One thing that any christian has to watch out for is creating an "us" and a "them".

Absolutely true in that Jesus died for all and we are to put God first and others as ourselves. However being set apart is exactly what Jesus does to His followers. Set apart and called out, John 17:17, Rom 1:1, Gal 1:15, 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:12, and Matt 16, Luke 16, John 12:25, 14, 15:18-19, 17:9, 13-16, Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 10:2, Eph 1:13, Col 2:20, James 1:27, 4:4, 1 Peter 1:1, 1 John 3:1, 4:4, 5:5,

God is inlcusive, Jesus died for all, but only the people who come and believe are Christians and so the 'exclusive church' may be nearer the truth than the 'inclusive church'

In my personal experience, literalism has never been a good thing.

Except where Jesus says ‘love one another’? There is no exception, the agape love Jesus has revealed to us is what we are commanded to show to others.

Taking the Bible as the only source of information from God can often frustrate a genuine desire to learn spiritually.

I think most non-liberals would agree, we test to see what might be of God.

I've actually found that reading philosophical works dealing with existentialism, atheism, and various other standpoints, as well as being in contact with other spiritual organizations has strengthened my faith in God and Jesus, not pulled me into darkness.

According to Jesus, Jesus is the light, so other organizations, existentialism, atheism and any and every other standpoint is either in line with Jesus or not. God cant be more known by man's understanding, than through revelation from God.

This might not be what everyone needs, but it's a place where I find myself now, and I just trust that God will show me his way for me. I could never experience that in a fundamentalist or literalist environment.

For Christians, God has shown His way. God so loved the world that He sent His Son, so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. Jesus is the truth, the way and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through Him.

Is that a verse in Leviticus, I missed it? . Can you cite chapter and verse?

Literalism is not just literally believeing something but also literally rejecting something.

 

[TScott]

If Saint James or Saint Peter, became members here at CF, they'd be barred from Christian only forums.

I don’t think they would as they would be writing in accordance with the scriptures thy wrote in the first place. I think they would be called fundamentalist .

Sure, if they actually wrote the epistles attributed to them, which is doubtful. These epistles appear to be written by well, or at least moderately educated Greeks, not un-educated Jews from the backwoods of first century Palestine.

 

[inquisitor_11]

Absolutely true in that Jesus died for all and we are to put God first and others as ourselves. However being set apart is exactly what Jesus does to His followers. Set apart and called out, John 17:17, Rom 1:1, Gal 1:15, 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:12, and Matt 16, Luke 16, John 12:25, 14, 15:18-19, 17:9, 13-16, Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 10:2, Eph 1:13, Col 2:20, James 1:27, 4:4, 1 Peter 1:1, 1 John 3:1, 4:4, 5:5,

God is inlcusive, Jesus died for all, but only the people who come and believe are Christians and so the 'exclusive church' may be nearer the truth than the 'inclusive church'

My comment was made about the need to not constantly draw lines between christians as opposed to the drawing of lines between christians and non-xians.

Various descriptions for conservative, fundamental and evangelical, as well as liberal are banded about but are generalizations. Most evangelicals for example believe the Bible not to be inerrant but sufficiently authoritative in all matters of faith, and are not biblical literalists except where literal is appropriate.

This also happens to be the position of a great many "liberals". The only reason many people use the liberal christian moniker is simply because genuinely envangelical christianity is being increasingly side-lined by a very conservative psuedo-pentecostalism that is spreading across the USA and is increasingly becoming the dominant discourse in protestant christianity.

...methinks anyway...

 

[Zippythepinhead]

I thought T. Scott put it so eloquently in another thread, that it deserved it's own.

"
The problem with liberal theology is only a problem for fundamental theology.

Unlike a fundamentalist, a liberal Christian, IMO, is usually not a biblical literalist, and instead studies all pertinent and periphrial information and uses reason in making interpretations. Also a liberal Christian is more interested in the teachings of Jesus and less interested in the mysticism and magic involved with Christian dogma, while fundamentalists seem to be much less interested in Jesus' teachings and more interested in the dogma. This is only a problem for fundamentalists because in their eyes this usually means that the liberal Christian is not a Christian at all.

The problem with fundamentalist theology is that by their way of thinking none of Jesus' disciples would have been considered Christians either.

If Saint James or Saint Peter, became members here at CF, they'd be barred from Christian only forums."

http://www.christianforums.com/t75072-the-problem-with-liberal-theology.html&page=5

I have to say very well put. I have suffered the wrath of Rule 6. Trippled it is Rule 666?

 

[ahab]

Hi TScott,



As to the authorship of the epistles, I think its more difficult to doubt that Peter and Paul wrote them. However its likely that others scribed some of them.

Paul after all was well educated in Greek at Tarsus of all places.

 

[ahab]

Hi Inquisitor_11

My comment was made about the need to not constantly draw lines between christians as opposed to the drawing of lines between christians and non-xians.

Yes I see it was, my apologies Inquisitor_11

This also happens to be the position of a great many "liberals". The only reason many people use the liberal christian moniker is simply because genuinely envangelical christianity is being increasingly side-lined by a very conservative psuedo-pentecostalism that is spreading across the USA and is increasingly becoming the dominant discourse in protestant christianity.

Yes I agree with you that is the position of many liberals, but that the Bible is not inerrant but sufficiently trustworthy in all matters of faith and divine revelation is also the position of the majority of pentecostals and charismatics and those who are called conservatives and fundamentalists.

 

[inquisitor_11]

Ahab- no worries mate.

Yes I agree with you that is the position of many liberals, but that the Bible is not inerrant but sufficiently trustworthy in all matters of faith and divine revelation is also the position of the majority of pentecostals and charismatics and those who are called conservatives and fundamentalists.

I'd probably beg to differ, although it may be a geograhical thing. While most protestant denominations have a strong tradition of sensible hermenuetics, things seem to have shifted quite abit in the last decade or so (at least out here anyway). I work closely with a few other denominations in our area , and it seems like everyone from AOG's to SDA's to Anglicans are jumping on the inerrentist band-wagon. There are some very notable exceptions, but it just seems to me that is a common, and worrying trend.

How does that compare with what you've observed in the UK?

 

[TScott]

Hi TScott,



As to the authorship of the epistles, I think its more difficult to doubt that Peter and Paul wrote them. However its likely that others scribed some of them.

Paul after all was well educated in Greek at Tarsus of all places.

Paul? I was referring to Peter and James. I think most of Paul's epistles were written by him. Paul was probably much better educated than Sts. Peter and James.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Paul? I was referring to Peter and James. I think most of Paul's epistles were written by him. Paul was probably much better educated than Sts. Peter and James.

If I am not mistaken Paul came from an upper class Jewish family? This was before his conversion and subsequent missionary efforts.

 

[Plan 9]

If I am not mistaken Paul came from an upper class Jewish family? This was before his conversion and subsequent missionary efforts.

Agreed. Paul was also a Roman citizen.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Agreed. Paul was also a Roman citizen.

I have always been fascinated by Paul, his journeys, and his teachings. He was also very well traveled. Of course you probably knew that.

 

[Plan 9]

I have always been fascinated by Paul, his journeys, and his teachings. He was also very well traveled. Of course you probably knew that.

Oh, me, too, Zippy! I love to muse over all the personal parts of his letters.

Are you having fun here in LT, or do you need to be beamed out of this quadrant?
If so, I'm in orbit, and locked on to your com badge.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Oh, me, too, Zippy! I love to muse over all the personal parts of his letters.

Are you having fun here in LT, or do you need to be beamed out of this quadrant?
If so, I'm in orbit, and locked on to your com badge.

Very nice here so far. I think Porthos would agree

 

[Plan 9]

Yes, indeed!
I believe I've offered to beam you out of the wrong thread entirely.


eek! I've distorted the thread! Does anyone know how to resize images?

 

[ahab]

Hi Inquisitor_11,

How does that compare with what you've observed in the UK?

Simple, IMO the UK is splitting into two, the liberals and the rest. I go to an evangelical Anglican church which actually works closely with Baptist, Elim, Roman Catholic and other churches in prayer, evangleisim and social action, but is seriously distanced from its liberal episcopos and cathedral hierarchy.

 

[ahab]

Hi Inquisitor_11,

How does that compare with what you've observed in the UK?

Simple, IMO the UK is splitting into two, the liberals and the rest. I go to an evangelical Anglican church which actually works closely with Baptist, Elim, Roman Catholic and other churches in prayer, evangleisim and social action, but is seriously distanced from its liberal episcopos and cathedral hierarchy.

 

[TScott]

If I am not mistaken Paul came from an upper class Jewish family? This was before his conversion and subsequent missionary efforts.

Probably. They may have been tent makers, and tentmakers tended to be pretty well off. Like modern building contractors, sort of.