Theological Liberalism

[Dirk1540]

What makes a person theologically liberal?

Anything in the Bible that opposes political correctness is a metaphor by default not literal...the exegesis involved in seperating mataphor from literal?? Simply checking whether or not it violates political correctness.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You are sadly out of touch regarding the status of evolution theory among scientists. Evolution is widely accepted among scientists, so much so that creationists complain they cannot get a hearing for their attempts to deny evolution. And the scientists who do so will seriously take umbrage if you try to characterize them as anything but "true" and "honest". A scientist has to bring truth to the table - it is the medium of exchange in science. Men like Carl Sagan, Neal Degrasse Tyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, they bring real evidence and real logic to the table.

Evolution denial has had its chance for over 150 years and continues to fail where it counts . . . in evaluating and explaining the evidence. Denying evolution is no longer a reasonable stance.

Actually it's the other way around.

When evolutionists are required to prove their theories rather than simply state them as fact as they do to captive audiences in school classrooms - they run from debates like scalded cats.

When an evolutionist "scientist" has to bring truth to the table as the medium of exchange it should be - they are woefully inadequate to compete with non-evolutionists.

For the Christian - the most significant point to consider regarding where to come down on this issue is how evolution cuts the heart out of the gospel.

The theory of evolution requires death (millions of years of it), struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest millions of years before man comes on the scene. In this kind of unscriptural theology, death is not the enemy but the very means by which God created everything.

But for a true person of faith the Bible is very clear about the fact that the wages of sin is death. Death came into the world through Adam’s sin. Therefore there was no death prior to the fall of man and therefore there could be no evolution as commonly taught by so called theistic evolutionists before that time.

If death and evolution are what God used to create (or even if He simply permitted it to reign for billions of years before sin, as “theistic evolution" creationists teach, then death is not the “last enemy” nor is it the wages of sin. And if this is the case, then what becomes of Jesus Christ, whose very purpose in coming was to break the power of death and pay the penalty for our sins? This is the most powerful argument against both theistic evolution and progressive creation, and whatever other compromise liberal positions there may be.

You folks may say that theistic evolution will not necessarily take the church to the point where she denies these basic truths. But I say she's well on her way to this kind of "post modern" Christianity.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Returning to the question posed in the OP - what makes a person theologically liberal is a willingness to exchange the clear teaching of the scriptures for what is the prevailing opinion of secular society.

This - in an effort to avoid the persecution of that society and thus refusing to take up their cross and follow God.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actually it's the other way around.

When evolutionists are required to prove their theories rather than simply state them as fact as they do to captive audiences in school classrooms - they run from debates like scalded cats.

Oh, you put up a debate with an audience of anti-evolutionists and a skilled audience speaker attacking evolution, sure, many will decline to participate, and rightly so. However, when the debates take place in forums like this, where people have time to address points carefully, deniers of evolution are seen to be wrong about their facts and losing the debate over and over. Of course, they many times are not smart enough to be able to tell how badly they are losing.

For the Christian - the most significant point to consider regarding where to come down on this issue is how evolution cuts the heart out of the gospel.

Science is not determined by how well it allows you to keep your theology. However, the good news is, you are wrong about this. Evolution does NOT cut the heart out of the gospel.

The theory of evolution requires death (millions of years of it), struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest millions of years before man comes on the scene. In this kind of unscriptural theology, death is not the enemy but the very means by which God created everything.

But for a true person of faith the Bible is very clear about the fact that the wages of sin is death. Death came into the world through Adam’s sin. Therefore there was no death prior to the fall of man and therefore there could be no evolution as commonly taught by so called theistic evolutionists before that time.

See, you don't have to believe that for animals came only after the fall of man. All you have to do is accept that death came to MAN from the fall of Adam, not animals. Adam, of course, being the first homo sapiens to become a living soul before God.

You folks may say that theistic evolution will not necessarily take the church to the point where she denies these basic truths. But I say she's well on her way to this kind of "post modern" Christianity.

Whatever changes are taking place that you deplore in the churches, you are weakening your voice against them by being so out of touch with reality as to deny evolution. You might as well join Martin Luther and oppose the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night. How did that work out for Christianity?

By the way, even as you teach and preach against evolution, you hide in your shoes vestigal, useless digits, inherited from a previous species that actually used all those toes.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Evolution does NOT cut the heart out of the gospel.

Yes - it does and I've shown you exactly how it does it.

Adam, of course, being the first homo sapiens to become a living soul before God.

You mean the first living dirt don't you?

Whatever changes are taking place that you deplore in the churches, you are weakening your voice against them by being so out of touch with reality as to deny evolution.

I am strengthening the voice of the Spirit of God in the church by repeating what He has clearly said in His Word. I must decrease and He must increase and I'm perfectly fine with that.

You might as well join Martin Luther and oppose the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night. How did that work out for Christianity?

Denying the rotation of the earth can hardly be compared to supporting the idea that death came through the transgression of one man and life comes through the obedience of another.

By the way, even as you teach and preach against evolution, you hide in your shoes vestigal, useless digits, inherited from a previous species that actually used all those toes.

Toes assist men while walking - providing balance, weight-bearing, and thrust during his steps. I use mine every day.

They were "inherited" from the dust of the earth and not from a previous species.

That's according to the Word of God which, obviously, you don't believe.

But I'm not going to debate the ins and outs of evolution with you. Better scholars than you and I have done that before us.

What I am going to do is warn you directly that you have denied what the Word of God clearly teaches in order to keep from being frowned upon by the society around you.

Better, as the Lord and I see it, to take up your cross and follow Christ than to compromise the truth just to avoid persecution.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Returning to the question posed in the OP - what makes a person theologically liberal is a willingness to exchange the clear teaching of the scriptures for what is the prevailing opinion of secular society.

This - in an effort to avoid the persecution of that society and thus refusing to take up their cross and follow God.

I would agree, except that I would be slower to attribute motives.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

In general, Theological Liberals follow the lead of culture, rather than the established law of God. They always seem to find some new and improved way of interpreting a text *after* society is headed in a certain direction. For example, if homosexuality is not indeed wrong, then why did liberals wait until very recently to say so? They had the same texts, so why didn't they claim what they do now, 75 years ago?

 

[Marvin Knox]

In general, Theological Liberals follow the lead of culture, rather than the established law of God. They always seem to find some new and improved way of interpreting a text *after* society is headed in a certain direction. For example, if homosexuality is not indeed wrong, then why did liberals wait until very recently to say so? They had the same texts, so why didn't they claim what they do now, 75 years ago?

IMO - it is because there was little pressure from society 75 years ago to warp their theology in a manner which goes against what the scriptures clearly teach.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I am strengthening the voice of the Spirit of God in the church by repeating what He has clearly said in His Word. I must decrease and He must increase and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I know you mean well. But like the pharisees of Jesus' day, you cannot see what is in front of you because your mind has been made up regardless of the evidence.

Denying the rotation of the earth can hardly be compared to supporting the idea that death came through the transgression of one man and life comes through the obedience of another.

Of course it can. And the comparison is apt. Both represent the denial of plain truth based on false understanding of scripture.

Toes assist men while walking - providing balance, weight-bearing, and thrust during his steps. I use mine every day.

You just made that up. You use the great toe, of course, to shove off each step. But your little toe is completely unnecessary. You could balance just fine without it.

That's according to the Word of God which, obviously, you don't believe.

I believe the Bible, and I also believe the Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. Each helps me understand, properly, the other.

But I'm not going to debate the ins and outs of evolution with you. Better scholars than you and I have done that before us.

So you admit the debate isn't an easy cake walk for your side after all. OK.

What I am going to do is warn you directly that you have denied what the Word of God clearly teaches in order to keep from being frowned upon by the society around you.

Oh, we might debate the facts about evolution. . . whether or not I have denied the Word of God . . but one thing I know, and that is I did NOT choose to accept the truth of evolution "in order to keep from being frowned upon by the society around" me. Your ilk is over and over guilty of telling untruths about the motives for accepting evolution. It is, of course, a proof you cannot reason well, that you are capable of being spectacularly wrong about something.

Better, as the Lord and I see it, to take up your cross and follow Christ than to compromise the truth just to avoid persecution.

And just how much persecution are you enduring? Aren't you, rather, finding aid and comfort from like minded folk? Wouldn't you, rather, find it very uncomfortable in your clique if you decided to accept evolution? Wouldn't you find yourself persecuted by your fellow believers for such a stance? Pharisees were persecuted by Roman Conquerors, and in turn persecuted Jesus. Be wary of falling into the error of the Pharisees.

Let's instead return this to a discussion about what is a liberal. You assert that accepting evolution is to be a "liberal". It is perfectly true, of course, that accepting reality is part of being a "liberal". Accepting evidence and logic when one should be denying them based on tradition . . . who knows where such shocking changes will lead? Next thing you know, we'll be freeing slaves, and letting women vote. Oh, wait, the liberals already managed to get that done.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Anything in the Bible that opposes political correctness is a metaphor by default not literal...the exegesis involved in seperating mataphor from literal?? Simply checking whether or not it violates political correctness.

Today many people try to argue against things that are correct by labeling them politically correct, as if that suddenly makes them wrong.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I know you mean well. But like the pharisees of Jesus' day, you cannot see what is in front of you because your mind has been made up regardless of the evidence.

There is no evidence which proves evolution.

Of course it can. And the comparison is apt. Both represent the denial of plain truth based on false understanding of scripture.

So you are saying that death did not come through the transgression of one man and life does not come through the obedience of another?

See where liberal takes people?

You just made that up. You use the great toe, of course, to shove off each step. But your little toe is completely unnecessary. You could balance just fine without it.

Well there you go then. That's the almost solid evidence for the evolution of the species I've ever heard.

I believe the Bible, and I also believe the Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. Each helps me understand, properly, the other.

The scriptures are the ultimate truth which God has given to us.

So you admit the debate isn't an easy cake walk for your side after all.

Debate in a forum like this is always difficult.

I find that what to believe concerning the Bible's clear teaching about the origin of mankind is very, very simple for one with the Spirit of God to guide him.

Oh, we might debate the facts about evolution. . . whether or not I have denied the Word of God . . but one thing I know, and that is I did NOT choose to accept the truth of evolution "in order to keep from being frowned upon by the society around" me. Your ilk is over and over guilty of telling untruths about the motives for accepting evolution. It is, of course, a proof you cannot reason well, that you are capable of being spectacularly wrong about something.

If you claim to believe the Bible as God's Word and yet read the account of the creation of mankind as evolutionary - I see either one of two choices.

You either can't read and or reason well or you are doing what I said you are doing.

You simply could not have read that account and come up with evolution on your own if you had not been told about it by society beforehand.

You may choose what the world tells you over what God tells you and that's your choice. That's hardly something new for mankind. It started in the garden.

Oh - that's right - you don't believe what God has said about what happened when man was created and placed in the garden.

Look - you obviously either don't believe that the Bible is God's Word to us or you don't believe what the Bible says about things. That's your choice.

I find myself in a catch22 with you. I'd tell you what God says about what you are doing. But, since you don't believe what God says, it would do no good to do so.

When I was there, I found that many in Eugene, Oregon (particularly the professors at the U of O) had their own quite fluid reality. I'm sure you fit in real well there.

 

[Dirk1540]

Today many people try to argue against things that are correct by labeling them politically correct, as if that suddenly makes them wrong.

I never run into that. Only the opposite. I don't know if you're referencing your argument above, but I do not claim that a belief in 'Common Descent' is political correctness. I don't like using the word evolution, evolution literally happens right in front of our faces, it sounds silly to argue 'Evolution.' It's common descent that people are arguing. I at least appreciate that both sides in the common descent debate are using arguments of inference. Political correctness on the other hand is literally a social training tool to violate the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Look - you obviously either don't believe that the Bible is God's Word to us or you don't believe what the Bible says about things. That's your choice.

I find myself in a catch22 with you. I'd tell you what God says about what you are doing. But, since you don't believe what God says, it would do no good to do so.

Typical binary thinking that refuses to consider other possibilities. You should consider that it's possible to re-interpret our understanding of scripture in the light of new knowledge. The conservatives of Jesus' day rejected Him, unable to accommodate His new ways.

You can trust the direct Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. You should not offend Him by rejecting that Word.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I never run into that. Only the opposite. I don't know if you're referencing your argument above, but I do not claim that a belief in 'Common Descent' is political correctness. I don't like using the word evolution, evolution literally happens right in front of our faces, it sounds silly to argue 'Evolution.' It's common descent that people are arguing. I at least appreciate that both sides in the common descent debate are using arguments of inference. Political correctness on the other hand is literally a social training tool to violate the law of non-contradiction.

Taking down a confederate battle flag from a state capitol is not an expression of political correctness gone to far. But letting a commentator go from a radio program because his last name is "Lee" is definitely an expression of political correctness gone to far.

 

[Marvin Knox]

....You can trust the direct Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. You should not offend Him by rejecting that Word.

Neither the stars, the rocks, or genomes reveal anything which proves the evolution of man in the way it is commonly taught.

To the contrary - they reveal the sudden appearance of complex systems which defy (in that sudden appearance) the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Neither the stars, the rocks, or genomes reveal anything which proves the evolution of man in the way it is commonly taught.

To the contrary - they reveal the sudden appearance of complex systems which defy (in that sudden appearance) the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Of course they reveal evolution. And the laws of thermodynamics are not revoked. Indeed, given a constant source of energy flow, development of dissipative complexity is highly favored. From that point of view, you are a complex dissipative structure.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Of course they reveal evolution. And the laws of thermodynamics are not revoked. Indeed, given a constant source of energy flow, development of dissipative complexity is highly favored. From that point of view, you are a complex dissipative structure.

If you honestly feel that the evolution of man is so well established by science that you simply must reject or rationalize the picture given to us in the scriptures, go ahead on.

But I and thousands of well educated scientists disagree that it has been established as scientific fact.

Even if it seemed to be - I might well go with the literal interpretation of the scripture picture. But given that it definitely is not settled science - I'm going with what the scriptures teach.

Someone earlier compared my denying the evolution of man with denying that the earth was round or that it rotated on it's axis. The concept of evolution is not in the same league as those other two ideas. We can observe and even prove those last two items. The same is not true for the evolution of man.

If I were able to know about evolution as clearly as we know about those other things, I might consider reconsidering my conservative theology. Even I - just like the ancients - would likely look seriously at some other ways of interpreting scripture if I was so well convinced that I was wrong to take it literally.

But - like I said - evolution is not even in the same ball park as those other things.

To believe in theistic evolution is not just a matter of reconsidering theology in the light of facts IMO.

IMO - to give up on the literal interpretation concerning the creation of man so easily is simply evidence of a lack of faith in the Word of God and nothing less than that.

I have no reason to alter what is a good systematic understanding of theology in favor of what fallen men (without the Spirit of God for the most part) tell me I should believe - when it is far from settled science.

One thing I do know for sure is that yours is a liberal position to say the least and IMO it shows a distinct lack of faith in the Word of God to men.

Assuming your view of salvation isn't also as liberal - I hope to see you on the other side of things.