What exactly is a liberal Christian?

[Polycarp1]

How do you love?

If you have a friend, child or muslim that is doing drugs is it loving to just tell them it is ok. If that what makes you feel good. Or do try to give them help? Would it be judging them to get them help?

Sorry, friend; I know where you're going, and I won't bite.

Say I'm a smoker. As most people know, smoking is a habit that is very hard to break. If you've been my friend for years, spent evenings watching TV or playing games with me, gone to baseball games with me, and you begin to be concerned that smoking is harming my health, you have every right to try to get me to stop smoking, and I ought to listen, because you've proven your friendship already.

On the other hand, if you walk up to me, grab the cigarette from my mouth, throw it to the ground and destroy it with your shoe, and begin to lecture me about how I'm going to Hell if I don't stop smoking, and if the next day I see your picture in the paper with an interview where you're trying to get smoking declared illegal and send smokers to jail, then it doesn't matter what you think your motives are -- I'll be convinced you're condemning me, not showing love.

Compassion for an individual can -- and usually does -- coexist with a desire to help that person with his or her life problems, including those things which you see as problems but he or she does not. A stance that says, "The Bible says X is a sin, and therefore you're a member of a particular group of sinners that doesn't include me," is no more showing love than was the attitude of the Pharisees in the Gospels.

 

[Katmando]

Sorry, friend; I know where you're going, and I won't bite.

No need to be sorry. No trickery here, I was just looking for an honest answer.

Thank you <><

 

[Katmando]

Sorry, friend; I know where you're going, and I won't bite.

Say I'm a smoker. As most people know, smoking is a habit that is very hard to break. If you've been my friend for years, spent evenings watching TV or playing games with me, gone to baseball games with me, and you begin to be concerned that smoking is harming my health, you have every right to try to get me to stop smoking, and I ought to listen, because you've proven your friendship already.

On the other hand, if you walk up to me, grab the cigarette from my mouth, throw it to the ground and destroy it with your shoe, and begin to lecture me about how I'm going to Hell if I don't stop smoking, and if the next day I see your picture in the paper with an interview where you're trying to get smoking declared illegal and send smokers to jail, then it doesn't matter what you think your motives are -- I'll be convinced you're condemning me, not showing love.

Compassion for an individual can -- and usually does -- coexist with a desire to help that person with his or her life problems, including those things which you see as problems but he or she does not. A stance that says, "The Bible says X is a sin, and therefore you're a member of a particular group of sinners that doesn't include me," is no more showing love than was the attitude of the Pharisees in the Gospels.

If a fellow christian came to you and asked you if you thought something was a sin. For example if someone asked you if you thought homosexuality was a sin. How would you reply? Would you give them your take on it (your interpertation) or just tell them they need to seek that answer on there own?

Thank you <><

 

[Polycarp1]

I would certainly give them my own perspective on it, including how it is founded in Scripture and doctrine. And I would encourage them to think it through, and come to their own conclusions.

 

[seebs]

If a fellow christian came to you and asked you if you thought something was a sin. For example if someone asked you if you thought homosexuality was a sin. How would you reply? Would you give them your take on it (your interpertation) or just tell them they need to seek that answer on there own?

My answer would be to try to give them an overview of what different people believe on this, and suggest resources they could look at, but in the end, the best advice is for them to pray, and seek guidance. God knows; we don't.

 

[HumbleforHim]

Liberal Christians are Burger King Christians; You know have it your way. They pick and chose those parts they like and throw out the rest.

LOL.

 

[HumbleforHim]

My answer would be to try to give them an overview of what different people believe on this, and suggest resources they could look at, but in the end, the best advice is for them to pray, and seek guidance. God knows; we don't.

We don't know based on God's words given to the prophets and apostles. Or we don't know because you believe the Bible is inaccurate.

H4H

 

[seebs]

We don't know based on God's words given to the prophets and apostles. Or we don't know because you believe the Bible is inaccurate.

Or we don't know because we are fallible interpreters, which seems the most likely explanation.

 

[Buck72]

Or we don't know because we are fallible interpreters, which seems the most likely explanation.

Speak for yourself brother. We are definitely fallible, but the written word does just fine on its own, until we start messing it up with what "we think" it says.

Any open, literal, plain reading of scripture pretty much shuts down most of the contentions in this thread. But, if the contendor doesn't "agree", then they have to execute an acrobatic interpretation of scripture to refute that it doesn't really mean what it plainly says.

Much in the manner that Clinton actually contested the word "is". The man is still GUILTY, despite what his cool way of interpretation managed to win for him, he will still face the simplicity of God's judgement.

 

[Buck72]

Which means, my friend, that when I am faced with how to treat another, say those gay people whose love lives you are pleased to call sin (and let me note that there have been several threads in the Sexuality forum discussing the accuracy of the translations of the passages which you quote), what I am obliged to do is to count them as my brothers and sisters for whom, as much as for you and me, Christ offered Himself in sacrifice for their sins. I am not to judge them, which for me means not only to stand in judgment over them but to call their acts sinful -- because that is between Him and them -- He will convict them of their sins, if they are sins in His sight.

Polycarp, it is my hope for you to know that I re-read your post about 3-4 times in order to LISTEN to what you have to say (communication analyses likened unto verbal rather than written for the sake of feedback).

Here's what I understand from your post:

We are to be wholly devoted to Christ, and wholly devoted to one another that we may fulfill the Greatest Commandment, and also the Second Greatest Commandment, for upon these two hang all the Law and the prophets.

PERFECT. HALLELUJAH. AMEN.

HOWEVER.

We are not commanded to close our eyes and plug our ears to sin. ESPECIALLY IN THE CHURCH!!!

Joh 15:22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
Rom 6:12-13 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Rom 6:16-23 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1Ti 5:20-22 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.

I take ZERO, and I mean Z-E-R-O pleasure in calling gay "sin", but it flat-out IS sin, the same as stealing, lying, murder, etc, is sin.

If the verses leap off the page in the face of those whom they condemn, of course they'll want to interpret them differently!

Much the same as I want to interpret THIS verse differently:

Mat 5:27-28 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

That is a very frusterating verse for me because there are some amazing looking women out there and if I could somehow get around that verse by "choosing" to interpret it another way, man I would.

But it condemns me as an adulterer when I have never touched another woman since I married my wife almost eight years ago.

So then, either the verse changes (which it cannot) or Buck changes, which I must, and oh how I'm glad to know that God loves me enough to tell me about this compulsion of mine so as to afford me the opportunity of repentance, and oh how pleased I am to have brothers that pointed out my vicarious drooling of Katie Holmes a number of years ago and pointed me to this verse (thanks guys!).

Why then should we be afraid of those who point us to the word!?

Where then is the Christ-seeker that seeks to legitimize homosexuality!?

 

[Buck72]

But the question is not "tolerance of sin", but "is this sin at all", and that question belongs over there.

No it belongs RIGHT HERE.

You quote it to support your position, but it doesn't actually support your position.

Huh!??

Imagine that someone were to say "Rich men cannot go to heaven, ever." He cites the passage about "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle". Now, you might think that he's misunderstood this passage. The problem isn't with his quote; it's with how he chooses to understand it.

I do not have to "imagine". Someone DID say:

Mat 19:21-26 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Thus we understand that Christ meant exactly that, a man whose sufficiency is in himself rather than Christ, will exchange the salvation work upon himself rather than Christ.

Luk 12:15-21 Then He said to them, "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions." And He told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man was very productive. "And he began reasoning to himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?' "Then he said, 'This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 'And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry."' "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?' "So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

From what does a self-sufficient man need saving?

The problem is that you have an interpretation of the entire Bible which is wrong.

That's a strong statement for a man that does not take a stand on the word of God. Dare I ask thee what is the "wrong" in anything I have claimed?

This means that you interpret every single passage remotely relevant to the question in a way which is consistent with your beliefs

Really? That is amazing since my "beliefs" have been TRANSFORMED by the word of God and not the other way around. Isn't that what "conversion" and "salvation" is all about? Being "TRANSFORMED IN THE RENEWING OF YOUR MIND?"

Rom 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

...but which I believe is incorrect. There is no passage which "shows" this; your interpretation applies to the entire Bible.

Feel free to believe whatever you wish. But do not attempt to equate your "belief" with what God says. The LORD reserves the right to call sin "sin". And we reserve the right to repent, or rebel.

It is impossible for humans to read a text "as is"; we always interpret it. There is no way for us to get past this.

How about that STOP sign?

When you read the Bible, you are putting your own personal "spin" on it. You can't avoid doing this. That's not sinful, or wrong; it's just what it is to be fallible and human.

Negative. The Bible puts its "spin" into my life, and I thereby choose to obey it or ignore it - obedience is much, much better.

However, once you've done that, you can't just say "show me a passage that says I'm wrong". You will interpret any such text in accordance with your own beliefs.

Ditto. I argue the Bible all over these forums and I have people tell me all sorts of crazy things like "six days" really means "billions of years", and "you can be a defiant sinner, and still qualify for the ministry".

Someone, somewhere, is a clearly a liar.

All I can do is point out that, taken as a whole, your position seems to be clearly wrong, and that this means that your entire interpretation needs to be reconsidered.

My position is BIBLE Seebs! How can that be CLEARLY wrong!? If it is so clear, why can neither you, nor ANYONE in this forum point it out other than by what you personally believe?

Once again proof, reason, and logic slip silently under the carpet while the hungry stay hungry for knowledge....

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

 

[seebs]

Speak for yourself brother. We are definitely fallible, but the written word does just fine on its own, until we start messing it up with what "we think" it says.

Which is to say, until we read it.

When you read text, the meaning you understand is "what you think it says", not what it actually says.

Any open, literal, plain reading of scripture pretty much shuts down most of the contentions in this thread.

Sure. It also contradicts the plain sense of the world, and indeed, itself a chapter or a book later.

But, if the contendor doesn't "agree", then they have to execute an acrobatic interpretation of scripture to refute that it doesn't really mean what it plainly says.

What is "plain" to you is "acrobatic interpretation" to someone else.

Much in the manner that Clinton actually contested the word "is". The man is still GUILTY, despite what his cool way of interpretation managed to win for him, he will still face the simplicity of God's judgement.

That is one of the most hateful things I've seen in a long time. It's all about how smug we are in being better than other people, isn't it.

 

[seebs]

No it belongs RIGHT HERE.

Neither of us has the authority to determine policy for this board. The people running the board have said that all discussions of whether or not homosexuality is sinful, or what the Bible says, belong in a single forum, so people won't wreck threads on other topics with that digression.

Huh!??

You quote things that you believe support your position, but your interpretation is flawed.

I do not have to "imagine". Someone DID say:

I'm talking about, say, people on this message board.

Thus we understand that Christ meant exactly that, a man whose sufficiency is in himself rather than Christ, will exchange the salvation work upon himself rather than Christ.

This heroic effort of interpretation from someone who was talking about "plain, literal, readings"? Jesus said "no rich men in Heaven".

That's a strong statement for a man that does not take a stand on the word of God. Dare I ask thee what is the "wrong" in anything I have claimed?

I take a very strong stand on the word. I just don't take a strong stand on the Bible, except to observe that it is not the Word.

Really? That is amazing since my "beliefs" have been TRANSFORMED by the word of God and not the other way around. Isn't that what "conversion" and "salvation" is all about? Being "TRANSFORMED IN THE RENEWING OF YOUR MIND?"

Yes, really. You say you are not changing the Bible, but when each man reads it and hears a different message, all I can do is assume that the readers are changing the message.

Unless you, Buck72, are the one and only person ever to get it right, you are indeed changing the meaning of the text when you read it.

Feel free to believe whatever you wish. But do not attempt to equate your "belief" with what God says.

You're telling me?

You're the one who keeps claiming that you are merely passing on "what God says". I'm admitting that I speak for myself.

How about that STOP sign?

We interpret it, since we know it's a road sign, to mean that we need to stop there. We also know that we're allowed to start going again once we've come to a stop, unless there's oncoming traffic.

In short, even that one word carries with it a great deal of interpretation.

Negative. The Bible puts its "spin" into my life, and I thereby choose to obey it or ignore it - obedience is much, much better.

You can say this all you want, but I won't believe it, because it is not possible for humans to not impose their own spin on their experiences. It's never happened before, and I see no reason to believe that you, alone among men, are so blessed as to be free of that fallibility.

Ditto. I argue the Bible all over these forums and I have people tell me all sorts of crazy things like "six days" really means "billions of years", and "you can be a defiant sinner, and still qualify for the ministry".

Someone, somewhere, is a clearly a liar.

Or mistaken, perhaps.

My position is BIBLE Seebs!

No, it isn't. It's "Bible as interpreted by Buck72". Your position is different from every other position ever held by any human, and from any position that anyone will ever hold again. This is the joy, and the curse, of being human.

How can that be CLEARLY wrong!? If it is so clear, why can neither you, nor ANYONE in this forum point it out other than by what you personally believe?

I already explained that. You have built a set of filters up through which you understand the Bible. Other people have different sets of filters. Your interpretation is consistent, and no verse in the Bible clearly contradicts it. Other people have equally consistent interpretations, which no verse in the Bible contradicts.

But, out of these thousands of people, no more than one can possibly be right all the time.

Once again proof, reason, and logic slip silently under the carpet while the hungry stay hungry for knowledge....

Proof, reason, and logic depend on true premises. As long as you maintain the false claim that you, uniquely blessed among men, are magically able to avoid imposing your own understanding on the Bible when you read it, proof, reason, and logic are all irrelevant; false premises make them powerless.

Tell ya what. Answer me a few simple questions, without any personal interpretation, and I'll reconsider my position.

1. Is the communion wafer really the flesh of Jesus?
2. Is baptism necessary for salvation?
3. Is baptism in water, specifically, necessary for salvation?
4. How much should you tithe, and how often, and to whom should the tithe be paid?
5. What earthly authorities are qualified to interpret Scripture correctly?
6. How many books should there be in the Bible?
7. Is believing that Jesus is Lord sufficient to guarantee you salvation?
8. Is adultery grounds for a divorce?
9. How did Judas die?
10. Did Adam die in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
11. Is it permissible for Christians to own slaves?
12. Should women ever speak in Church at all?

Go ahead. Answer these from the text without ANY interpretation. Plain, literal, readings every time. No contradictions. No verses which appear to suggest otherwise and seem to need some kind of interpretation. None of that; every answer must be absolutely, totally, without doubt.

We'll be waiting.

 

[caley]

Is there anything to being a liberal Christian other than being a theistic evolutionist instead of a YEC?

it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. if the term comes from a self-described liberal, it means whatever that person's personal beliefs happen to be, if the term comes from a self-described conservative, it usually is a simple insult.

i wish everyone would realize that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are completely meaningless and would stop using them. meaningless banter annoys me.

 

[caley]

Liberal Christians are Burger King Christians; You know have it your way. They pick and chose those parts they like and throw out the rest.

yeah, but everyone does that. i mean, do you really follow all the rules laid out in leviticus? or are there some that you attribute to being cultural mores? nobody follows everything in the bible exactly. also, some people take genesis literally, some don't, but NOBODY takes revelation literally.

the important thing about being a christian is the willingness to admit that you will be wrong about certain beliefs and right about others, and that you will need to accept that.

i probably shouldn't have said "the" important thing, because there's many other important things, but i think that's high on the list.

 

[Suzannah]

Wow. I've been meaning to get into this thread for several days. I'm not even sure what a "YEC" is... I didn't even know what "preterism" was, until yesterday.

But here goes. i think I qualify as a "liberal Christian" because:
1. I believe in OSAS
2. I believe that Genesis is a mystery we cannot really understand
3. I believe that all Christians who adhere to the Nicene Creed are Christians. (yeah, like, that includes Catholic/Orthodox)
4. I believe that baptism is unnecessary for salvation
5. I believe that some tribal individuals (who never heard the Gospel) just might be saved.
6. I believe that "tongues" just well might be "for today" but that others who, like Billy Graham, say they've never had the "priviledge" are just as saved as those who have.
7. I believe that Calvinists are just as saved as anyone else, through pre-destination of course. (tongue in cheek)
8. I believe that Jesus wants us to give our lives to HIM, not to Scripture.
9. I believe that although Scripture is inerrant, and the infallible Word of God, there is something to be said for "tradition". (and here I digress: "Tradition...because of our 'traditions', each man knows who he is, and what God expects him to do." -- Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof)
10. I accept Truth, if it's true, as God's Truth. Therefore, if Buddha repeated it, I won't refute it. (tongue in cheek again!)

 

[Buck72]

Neither of us has the authority to determine policy for this board. The people running the board have said that all discussions of whether or not homosexuality is sinful, or what the Bible says, belong in a single forum, so people won't wreck threads on other topics with that digression.

We're discussing what makes a liberal christian; gay plays a HUGE part in that.

You quote things that you believe support your position, but your interpretation is flawed.

How so? So far, no evidence.

The heroic effort of interpretation from someone who was talking about "plain, literal, readings"? Jesus said "no rich men in Heaven".

Mat 19:23-24 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Wha!? Am I missing something? I see ENTER, not IN.

I take a very strong stand on the word. I just don't take a strong stand on the Bible, except to observe that it is not the Word.

Well, there is the problem.

1Ti 4:13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

Unless you, Buck72, are the one and only person ever to get it right, you are indeed changing the meaning of the text when you read it.

Thankfully, I'm NOT the only one, otherwise that would make much of me and little of God. I'm one of millions that simply read the text and say: "Yes LORD". No spinning, just plain 'ol Bible.

You're telling me?

Yep.

You're the one who keeps claiming that you are merely passing on "what God says". I'm admitting that I speak for myself.

That's cool - I'm quoting scripture, you're quoting Seebs.

Where is the breakdown of our agreement?

We interpret it, since we know it's a road sign, to mean that we need to stop there. We also know that we're allowed to start going again once we've come to a stop, unless there's oncoming traffic.

The comparison was to place a light of simplicity upon the scripture, whereby God says:

1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

In short, even that one word carries with it a great deal of interpretation.

I can hardly argue with that. People run stop signs all the time, does that make them RIGHT? Will their "interpretation" hold up in court? Who makes the laws? What is HIS interpretation!?

You can say this all you want, but I won't believe it, because it is not possible for humans to not impose their own spin on their experiences. It's never happened before, and I see no reason to believe that you, alone among men, are so blessed as to be free of that fallibility.

Seebs, Seebs, Seebs...I am NOT infallible, and I repeat that again, and again, and again. The Bible changes me, prayer changes me, God changes me. I do not change anything, but I am subject to change. That is what submitting to God is all about. C.S. Lewis said:

"I do not pray to change God, I pray to change me."

Where then does Buck72 get any benefit of effecting change or creating a stir in the faith but for crying out: "Yes LORD!" among my peers in the faith? How then do I earn the accusation of malfeasance?

Or mistaken, perhaps.

Sorry, my bad, the Bible should read Satan was "mistaken":

(this is NOT directed at anyone in particular, quoted simply for illustration)

Joh 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.

Joh 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Joh 8:45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

Joh 8:46 "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?

Joh 8:47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

No, it isn't. It's "Bible as interpreted by Buck72". Your position is different from every other position ever held by any human, and from any position that anyone will ever hold again. This is the joy, and the curse, of being human.

Nope, I'm a small kid in a BIG church, I am very much a follower and not a pioneer when it comes to doctrine. It is because we are on separate ends of the spectrum that we do not meet at the same point. I'll tell you where I am: in the Bible.

I already explained that. You have built a set of filters up through which you understand the Bible. Other people have different sets of filters. Your interpretation is consistent, and no verse in the Bible clearly contradicts it. Other people have equally consistent interpretations, which no verse in the Bible contradicts.

The Bible NEVER contradicts itself, EVER. Allegations otherwise are false and easily dismantled.

But, out of these thousands of people, no more than one can possibly be right all the time.

God is right. His word (THE BIBLE) is right, 100%.

Proof, reason, and logic depend on true premises. As long as you maintain the false claim that you, uniquely blessed among men, are magically able to avoid imposing your own understanding on the Bible when you read it, proof, reason, and logic are all irrelevant; false premises make them powerless.

Where have I claimed that Seebs? Now you are starting on a undignified frontal attack with nothing more than an ubsubstantiated false witness against me. SHOW ME WHERE I CLAIMED THAT OR RECANT THAT LAST STATEMENT. Failure to do either will discredit further posts.

Tell ya what. Answer me a few simple questions, without any personal interpretation, and I'll reconsider my position.

Gladly

1. Is the communion wafer really the flesh of Jesus?

Joh 6:48-61 "I am the bread of life. "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?

The answer is NO. The wafer is a piece of bread. It is symbolic of the flesh of Christ. Remember our discussion of whether He is the WORD of God?

Consider this:

Eze 2:7-10 "But you shall speak My words to them whether they listen or not, for they are rebellious. "Now you, son of man, listen to what I am speaking to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you." Then I looked, and behold, a hand was extended to me; and lo, a scroll was in it. When He spread it out before me, it was written on the front and back, and written on it were lamentations, mourning and woe.

Eze 3:1-3 Then He said to me, "Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. He said to me, "Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you." Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.

2. Is baptism necessary for salvation?

No. Abraham was saved without baptism, so was just about everyone else until John (John 1:25). Here's another saved without baptism:

Luk 23:40-43 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

3. Is baptism in water, specifically, necessary for salvation?

Nope. See above. Oh, and see:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

 

[Buck72]

4. How much should you tithe, and how often, and to whom should the tithe be paid?

The first mention of 'tithe' is in Lev 27:30 meaning a "tenth"

&#1502;&#1506;&#1513;&#1474;&#1512;&#1492; &#1502;&#1506;&#1513;&#1474;&#1512; &#1502;&#1506;&#1513;&#1474;&#1512;

ma&#8219;a&#774;s&#769;e&#770;r ma&#8219;a&#774;s&#769;ar ma&#8219;as&#769;ra&#770;h

mah-as-ayr', mah-as-ar', mah-as-raw'

From H6240; a tenth; especially a tithe: - tenth (part), tithe (-ing).

The NT has a seemingly greater contribution as based on need:

Luk 21:1-4 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on."

Act 4:31-37 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness. And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need. Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Jam 2:14-17 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

1Co 13:3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Phi 4:11-19 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction. You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

The question isn't "how much do I HAVE to give?" It is "how much CAN I give?"

5. What earthly authorities are qualified to interpret Scripture correctly?

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

6. How many books should there be in the Bible?

66

7. Is believing that Jesus is Lord sufficient to guarantee you salvation?

Joh 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

8. Is adultery grounds for a divorce?

Mat 19:7-11 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples *said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

Man's hardness of heart brought about divorce, not God.

9. How did Judas die?

Mat 27:5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

Act 1:18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

He hung, then his body fell and his guts burst out.

10. Did Adam die in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

I've answered this many times before in the Creation forums; here's the quick answer:

Gen 2:16-17 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Gen 3:6-7 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Something phenomenal occured immediately. Whether is was "spiritual death" or not is up to debate, (I believe it was) but Christ's death opened the door of redemption of both soul, and body. Adam's body died after 930 years (how long before the curse we do not know); but his soul died that very day.

11. Is it permissible for Christians to own slaves?

No. Folks arguing pre-Civil War entitlement to slavery were mostly Mormons who belive the Africans bear the mark of Cain and are unfit for freedom.

Think I'm kidding? Ask a Mormon what they believe about the "mark of Cain".

12. Should women ever speak in Church at all?

1Co 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.


1Ti 2:8-15 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

Tough stuff, but there is a DESIGN that is overlooked in our modern, cosmopolitan, 'new-age' society where women fulfilled a God-sanctified place of honor. Proverbs 31 comes to mind, plus dozens of noble passages which expand, compliment, and contextualize the above verses.

I have been in this thread WAY too long to get into it now, maybe tomorrow.

Go ahead. Answer these from the text without ANY interpretation. Plain, literal, readings every time. No contradictions. No verses which appear to suggest otherwise and seem to need some kind of interpretation. None of that; every answer must be absolutely, totally, without doubt.

We'll be waiting.

You know, I wish I could belive you here, but it is quite obvious to me that you are looking to embattle me about the Bible. Okay then....shoot.

 

[Fideist]

YEC is an acronym for Young Earth Creationist. In general, that means the person reads Genesis literally.

 

[seebs]

We're discussing what makes a liberal christian; gay plays a HUGE part in that.

But nonetheless, there is a board policy that homosexuality debates go in Sexuality & Christianity.

How so? So far, no evidence.

As I've said, the question is one of how you understand the evidence.

Wha!? Am I missing something? I see ENTER, not IN.

And how do you get there without entering?

Thankfully, I'm NOT the only one, otherwise that would make much of me and little of God. I'm one of millions that simply read the text and say: "Yes LORD". No spinning, just plain 'ol Bible.

This is, as pointed out before, not possible. To read text is to interpret it in light of your understanding and your expectation.

That's cool - I'm quoting scripture, you're quoting Seebs.

Ever seen Neo, over in General Apologetics? He quotes scripture all the time.

The comparison was to place a light of simplicity upon the scripture, whereby God says:

The epistles were written by people, you know.

I can hardly argue with that. People run stop signs all the time, does that make them RIGHT? Will their "interpretation" hold up in court? Who makes the laws? What is HIS interpretation!?

The point is that there is interpretation involved even in the stop sign. It never says "after you stop, continue on". It doesn't say "STOP. GO." It just says "STOP"; everything else about it is our interpretation. The law tells us which interpretation is correct, through many additional words.

Seebs, Seebs, Seebs...I am NOT infallible, and I repeat that again, and again, and again.

Right. And if you're not infallible, then when you read the Bible, your fallibility creates the possibility that you misunderstand it.

Sorry, my bad, the Bible should read Satan was "mistaken":

This is a non sequitur at best. When two people read the Bible, and understand it differently, it is possible for them to simply be mistaken, and in fact, it is very unlikely that either is lying. Satan, by contrast, is presumed to know the truth, and be lying.

I'll tell you where I am: in the Bible.

The Bible NEVER contradicts itself, EVER. Allegations otherwise are false and easily dismantled.

And yet, when you answered my questions, you sometimes said things that other parts of the Bible disagree with, assuming a plain literal reading of everything.

Which was created first, man, or animals?

God is right. His word (THE BIBLE) is right, 100%.

You keep engaging in this blasphemous idolatry. The Word of God is Jesus. Not the Bible. You can say it as often as you want, and it will never be true.

Where have I claimed that Seebs? Now you are starting on a undignified frontal attack with nothing more than an ubsubstantiated false witness against me. SHOW ME WHERE I CLAIMED THAT OR RECANT THAT LAST STATEMENT. Failure to do either will discredit further posts.

You say it every time you claim your position is "just the Bible", not your own personal interpretation. There are no other alternatives; either you have a magic ability denied every other living human, or your understanding is your own, and filters and changes the meaning of the text.

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
The answer is NO. The wafer is a piece of bread. It is symbolic of the flesh of Christ. Remember our discussion of whether He is the WORD of God?

So, you're saying that what Jesus said was not plain and literal, but symbolic. Point for me.

No. Abraham was saved without baptism, so was just about everyone else until John (John 1:25). Here's another saved without baptism:

Very good. So, explain Mark 16:16. Why is "and is baptised" in here if it doesn't matter? How about Acts 22:16? "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." How about 1 Peter 3:21?

Does baptism save us? The Bible says, in several places, that it does.