Liberal Theology?

[panterapat]

Liberal politics and liberal theology are two different things.

But Liberation Theology unduely mixes the two. That is the problem.

 

[JillLars]

I would be considered by many to be quite liberal. To me being liberal is not giving a green light to sin, its a process of constant learning, of realizing that God judges us on our intentions and that we may not always be correct about what we believe to be right or wrong.

 

[panterapat]

To me, being liberal is always reinventing the wheel. No well founded truths are accepted. Morality is a moving target.

 

[rollingstone]

I would be considered by many to be quite liberal. To me being liberal is not giving a green light to sin, its a process of constant learning, of realizing that God judges us on our intentions and that we may not always be correct about what we believe to be right or wrong.

I would agree more with this position. Being liberal is acknowledging that no group has the monopoly of 'truths' - which would be claiming that one's affiliation is the only correct one. Knowing God is a continuing process of seeking and studying.

 

[Ruhama]

As would I. I consider the ideal something that we will never achieve through one set of perfect doctrine under one denomination, but something we can approach. I don't think one has to give up a denomination to get close to God - I think each has a role to fill (it's my personal opinion that some are further from the truth and some nearer, but that might not be God's) - but the goal to be won is a closer relationship with God and a mature faith.

As for Liberals, many things get lumped under the name of "Liberal," including things advocated by people who want to be all inclusive (of sin as well) without letting go of the name Christian. Liberals get flack for this and for the fact that they tend not to adhere to one set of doctrines because they believe all hold pointers in the right direction - it's seen as a kind of fencesitting or lack of commitment (and for some reason, this means lack of commitment to God, rather than to men's traditions).

 

[adelpit346]

does a man who is athiest have a need for a system he has not a desire to live under for eternity?
Nay he does not and since in fact he considers all of those Chirstians to he insane and he NOT,
then he should in not to be seen as hypocrite by his fellows go to show those same insane Christians the better way.
GO into all the nations ye athiests and by humantarian works teach us insane Christians(and i Do count myself as one of them) how you and the United Nations will by using peace keepers and free gifts solve all the world's problems that OUR LORD GOD JESUS HAS SAID MAN CAN NOT SOLVE.
In fact this God of insane people has said you will cry Peace but there will be No peace.
SO if you think you can use the good will of the insane to forward thy own agenda, well i have some BAd news for you: we are NOT that insane. amen
i am nothing0
Jesus is The Lord1Praise The Lord1The Lord Jesus. amen

 

[IslandBreeze]

To me, being liberal is always reinventing the wheel. No well founded truths are accepted. Morality is a moving target.

Amen to that. Jesus said you're either hot or you're cold. You can't straddle the fence....that's what being liberal is to me.

 

[JLovesUSo]

Amen to that. Jesus said you're either hot or you're cold. You can't straddle the fence....that's what being liberal is to me.

Amen Cammie, and here's one of my favorite scriptures where Jesus addresses just that....

"And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write,'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth . Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked-- I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. " Jesus - Revelations 3:14-22

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I think that is unfair. Sure, there are people like this that give liberal theology a bad name by being luke warm and not wanting to give up worldlyness and just calling themselves "liberal". I used to be like this myself. But proper liberal theology is nothing to do with this, and should not have its reputation damaged by such behavior.

I am now evangelical, but I know liberals personally, and have seen others in these forums, who are not at all luke warm but just interpret the Bible differently and so come to different conclusions about what God's will is in certain matters. I think the are misguided, but then I guess they think the same about me. Liberals often put evangelicals or conservatives to shame when it comes to being non-judgemental, accepting to all, doing social work, etc.

 

[zoziw]

Nevermind

 

[JLovesUSo]

I think that is unfair. Sure, there are people like this that give liberal theology a bad name by being luke warm and not wanting to give up worldlyness and just calling themselves "liberal". I used to be like this myself. But proper liberal theology is nothing to do with this, and should not have its reputation damaged by such behavior.

I am now evangelical, but I know liberals personally, and have seen others in these forums, who are not at all luke warm but just interpret the Bible differently and so come to different conclusions about what God's will is in certain matters. I think the are misguided, but then I guess they think the same about me. Liberals often put evangelicals or conservatives to shame when it comes to being non-judgemental, accepting to all, doing social work, etc.

Thank you for your response and yes I agree that not dying to self daily and allowing the Holy Spirit to transform you to be like Jesus and following the teachings in the Word of God

"Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do what I say?"

is the liberalism I would disagree with and does not reflect the teachings of our Lord (IMO). If someone's gonna say that Jesus was the Son of God - then IMO, every WORD he spoke was LOGOS or literally came from the mouth of God -

"I and My Father are 1 and the same".
"This is my Beloved Son, listen to Him..."

On the non-judgemental aspect of your post - Amen to that as well. Just because we hold fast to the Word of God does not mean we are to throw out that teachings of Jesus and His disciples (and the OT) that we are to be loving to all people, forgiving to all people, ask all people to forgive us when we're not christ-like, do the will of the Father, spread the gospel of redemption to all peoples and ect as the Word teaches us to...

Jesus taught us the heart of the law is justice, mercy and good faith....

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone ." Matthew 23:23

Another 1 of my favorite scriptures from Jesus along these lines:

"By this all men shall know you are my disciples - that you love one another "

Thanks again for your post and I am reminded that just as soon as I think I'm real far ahead in my Christian walk - I realize just how much farther I have to go and repent.......

 

[greeneyedgirl]

it's all subjective. I could caLL XXXX a liberal church, and a member of XXXX can call OOOO a liberal church. Someone from YYYY could call OOOO a conservative church. I can actually place well known demoninations there but, you know.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

"Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do what I say?"

is the liberalism I would disagree with and does not reflect the teachings of our Lord (IMO).

I would agree.

Thanks again for your post and I am reminded that just as soon as I think I'm real far ahead in my Christian walk - I realize just how much farther I have to go and repent.......

I get this feeling often too, humbling isn't it

 

[greeneyedgirl]

Thanks again for your post and I am reminded that just as soon as I think I'm real far ahead in my Christian walk - I realize just how much farther I have to go and repent.......

To not be reminded means you have forgotton Jesus's message at the cross. You can walk with Jesus for eternity as long as you are reminded from time to time. God Bless you

 

[TScott]

I think a liberal Christian would stress the teachings of Jesus, while a fundamentalist, or conservative Christian would stress the dogma of the religion, i.e., Trinity, infallibility, Rapture, etc.

 

[GJG]

The basic problem is that trinitarianism is a non- scriptural doctrine that contradicts a number of biblical teachings and many specific verses of scripture. Also, the most obvious internal contradiction is how there can be three persons of God in any meaningful sense and yet there be only one God.
Here is compiled a number of other contradictions and problems associated with trinitarianism. Note: This list is not exhaustive but it does give an idea of how much the doctrine deviates from the Bible.
1. Did Jesus have two fathers? The father is the father of the son (1John1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost Matt1:18,20; Luke1:35. Which one is the true father? Some Trinitarians claim that the Holy Ghost was merely the father’s agent in conception-a process they compare to artificial insemination!
2. How many spirits are there? God the father is a Spirit John4:24, the Lord Jesus is a Spirit 2Cor3:17 and the Holy Spirit is Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4
3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? Matt11:25. Can God pray to God?
4. Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? Matt24:36; Mark13:32.
5. Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? John5:19,30; 6:38.
6. Similarly, what about other verses from scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? John8:42; 14:28; 1Cor11:3.
7. Did ‘God the Son’ die? The Bible shows that the Son died Rom5:10. If so, can God die? Can part of God die?
8. How can there be an eternal Son when the Son was clearly ‘begotten’, indicating an obvious beginning John3:16; Heb1:5-6.
9. If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother during that time? The Son was made of a woman Gal4:4.
10. Did ‘God the Son’ surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could He still be God?
11. If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchanging), how can the reign of the Son have a ending? 1Cor15:24-28.
12. Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father John4:21-24, yet Stephen prayed to Jesus Acts7:59-60.
13. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Obviously the OT does not teach three, but emphasizes the simple fact that there is only one.
14. Are there three Spirits in a Christian’s heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian John14:17,23; Rom8:9; Eph3:14-17. Yet there is only one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4.
15. There is only one throne in heaven Rev4:2. Who sits upon it? Jesus does Rev1:8,18; 4:8. Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?
16. If Jesus is seated on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? Mark16:19. Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? Acts7:55. Or is He in the Fathers bosom? John1:18.
17. How is Jesus part of the Godhead, when clearly the Godhead is in Jesus? Col2:9.
18. Given Matt 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using only the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism?Acts2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; 1Cor1:13.
19. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father Eph1:20, or Jesus John2:19-21, or the Spirit? Rom8:11.
20. If the Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, then why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? Luke12:10.
21. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always show the Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? John14:26; 15:26.
22. If they are co-equal, why does the Holy Ghost not know what the Father knows regarding the return of Christ Mark13:32.
23. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?
24. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?......................and so on…………….and so on!

I believe that trinitarinism is not a biblical doctrine and that it plainly contradicts the Bible in many ways. Scripture does not teach a trinity of persons. Trinity doctrine uses terminology not used in scripture. It teaches and emphasizes plurality in the Godhead while the Bible emphasizes the fact that God is one and only one. It detracts from the fullness of Jesus Christ’s Deity. It contradicts many specific verses of scripture. It is not logical. It cannot be explained rationally, not even by those who advocate it.

 

[PastorFreud]

Okay, look. Liberal can mean a lot of things. PanterPat was referring, it seems to traditional liberal theology. I really don't identify with that as I believe religion and politics should not mix if one is using the power of politics to advance religion. And then some use liberal to mean a loose moral lifestyle. I don't fit there either. I am more straight laced than many conservatives I know. Then liberal sometimes is the brand because of the stand on a particular issue, which is always oversimplified. Like abortion or homsexual rights.

I would fit better in a Post Modern Theology paradigm, though it is still not a perfect fit. Can we get a forum dedicated to that?

Here's an example of my take on the trinity.

Trinity was, for the first century church, a useful way to talk about God. The early Christians were Jews, and strictly monotheistic. They were considered by outsiders as a sect of the Jews and allowed certain protections by the Roman government because of it.

But they worshipped Jesus as God. This created problems with the Jews and ultimately the Romans. The language of trinity became a way of talking about God so as to stay true to the monotheism of their Jewish backgrounds, while recognizing Christ as God. They found precedent for this language in some OT texts, and for a long time convinced many that they were still under the blanket of Judaism.

This language made sense to the original audience. It had meaning and purpose. It had context.

Fast forward to the enlightenment. Suddenly, words take on new meaning as they are challenged to meet new standards. A word cannot just be utilitarian, it must also conform to certain rules, one of which is the ability for all people everywhere to have the same meaning for the same word. Absolute meaning.

I believe it is useless to squabble over this, as it was not really the thrust of the language to begin with. To be sure, there were questions about whether or not Jesus is God, but one could reject the language of trinity while still holding this belief. The problem was the whole "substance" question. What is the substance of God, and is Jesus of this same substance. But that really is a weird way to talk about a transcendant being. Kind of like putting God in a language box.

The box no longer fits. I have no problem with those who keep the language, and no problem with those who abandon it. The langauge was merely a pointer to help people understand Christ. If the language now does the opposite, then we need to change it.

Another example is King James "thee" and "thou". At the time, this translation used the common language of the day. The formal "you" was not personal enough and reeked of the royal aristocracy. But now these roles have completely reversed!! We now prefer "you" to "thee" and the latter sounds to us like the language of the elite or distant. So change it. The language is a pointer only, a representation. If it is meaningful, keep it. If it is not, find language that is meaningful.

That is my position on Trinity. Not liberal in the sense that I see the term being used here, but certainly not traditional either.

 

[Boysenberry]

I agree. Postmodernism would be a more helpful lens here, rather than "liberalism", which is such a broad term. (Not that postmodernism isn't!)

 

[PaladinValer]

I'm personally tired of those conservatives coming into here and assuming all liberals (and I guess all moderates like myself as well since I'm often not "evangelical" enough) waterdown Christianity, corrupt the Bible, don't love Jesus as much as they do, etc, all because our theology is different. Not all the evangelicals are doing this, but those who are, quit it; you are only showing your bad fruits by falsely accusing your Christian brothers and sisters of things that, nearly all the time, they simply do not do!

I'm going to repeat a post I made earlier about what most liberals and pretty much all moderates like myself believe about Christianity. It's time to dispell the misinformation that "progressives" (liberals and moderates) and "evangelicals" (conservatives) have of each other. The post has been edited for some spelling/grammar/clarification purposes:

1. I do not necessarily take the Bible 100% literally, but I do take everything the Bible says seriously.
2. When I read the Bible, I always take into context the linguistics, history, anthropology, theological situation, and more as well as meditating on the Scripture and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide me. I don't believe that a "blind" literalist reading is best, but I don't believe that purely acedemic understanding is going to be enough either.
3. I do not let new discoveries made by science, archaeology, etc, effect my faith in the Scriptures. This is because...
4. ...I believe that the Bible is useful and authoritative in all matters of faith, doctrine, and salvation. I do not use it as a scientific or historical handbook, nor do I ignore what valid historical events take place within its sacred pages.
5. I read the Bible under a Christian and a Jewish context. A Jewish context is important mainly because the OT and many of the books of the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha are Jewish. The OT (Tanakh) is primarily Jewish, not Christian. As such, I believe I have a richer understanding of it than those who choose to only look at it through a Christian's perspective.
6. I place my primary emphasis on the Gospels and Acts first, then the Epistles and Revelation, and then the OT and Deuterocanon. I realize that I, as a Christian, am free from the ritual purity laws of the Torah as well as other things as well. They are important as a historical and theological context for the Christian Message, but I am no longer required to follow them.
7. I believe that the early history of Christian is vital to learn. As the Bible was not canonized until hundreds of years after Pentecost, the Church is of prime importance and therefore its trials and times must be studied from Pentecost through the Ecumenical Councils as this was when orthodoxy was established. During those times, it and not the Bible was the source of all authority, and as such, had orthodox interpretations of what the Bible passages meant because it canonized the Scriptures.
8. I make myself well aware of all heresies and all creeds; Apostle's, Nicean, and St. Athanasius'. This is because, again, during those times, it and not the Bible was the source of all authority, and as such, had orthodox interpretations of what the Bible passages meant.
9. I do not let my religious beliefs necessarily sway my political beliefs, nor do I believe I should thrust them upon those. I witness to those who seek, but try to be Christ-like at all times which expresses my faith; the best witness I got.
10. I do not simply "stop" when I think I know it all. I realize Christianity is not supposed to be easy. I reject the idea of "saved and sealed;" one heart-felt Sinner's Prayer nor one's proclaimation of faith to the Lord is, IMO, not enough to make one truly saved. It is a long process of acknowledgement, practice, penance, reconciliation, and learning that never ends. I do not make my faith wishy-washy nor do I simply say "Lord Lord" outside or inside church every 5 seconds; I believe it is fluffy worship. I choose to take my religion/relationship with Jesus very seriously; He is not just a "buddy," but a parent as well, the latter much, much more than the former.

 

[blessedbe]

VERY NICE PaladinValer!! I love it! Can I claim it too???? Blessings to you!