What is your definition of a Liberal?

Daniel David,

Do we have reason to believe that false teachers grew worse and worse in Timothy's time? Yes. Did persecution of Christians increase in his time (v. 12)? Yes. So Paul says TO TIMOTHY "continue in the things you have learned (including from his childhood)... Preach the word....watch in all things....endure afflliction...do the work of an evangelist...and do your best to come to me soon (4:9)"

Take the letter in it's historical context. There's no prophecy here of a continuing decline in history from the first century onward. Has Christianity really been THAT unsuccessful?

Pessimism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In Christ,

Tim

 

1. Tim, they would continue. If the warnings of false teachers and persecution are limited to Paul and Timothy's day, then there would be no false teachers and persecutions.

2. I did.

3. You misunderstand the purpose of the church, Tim. It isn't to create the Kingdom of God on earth and build a righteous society. It never was.

4. I have absolute confidence that the church will accomplish the purpose God gave her. No pessimism there. No, I just don't have misplaced optimism.

[ April 28, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Daniel David ]

 

Hmmm… You’ve been the one making false allegations – and you’re getting tired of me?

Ah yes, the change of subject…

Yes, I find have some affinity that what is loosely called Open Theism, but I do not endorse any other person’s view of it. With every Open Theism writer I have read I always find that they seem to be slightly off center on one or more points. I’ve also noticed that the most vocal critics of Open Theism often embrace the most speculative elements of discussion and try to present them as the mainstream of the discussion.

Sometimes the teachings of the Bible may conflict with the accepted orthodoxy of the day – we’ve seen this many times in church history.

Actually I find quite a bit of support… It tends to make sense of many difficult passages.

That’s a complete distortion of the view and I have strong theological disagreement with the doctrine you allege I hold.

Here’s my quick take on that teaching: God does not depend on man for anything. God has chosen to be in relationship with us and acts and reacts according to our actions toward Him and each other. God knows all possible outcomes and is actively working with humanity to move the stream of history toward His ultimate conclusion. There is a sense where God has foreknowledge of all things set in motion and is actively working with possibilities to create the Divinely determined outcome. This, of course, is a simplication of Open Theist understanding, but is hardly the teaching you allege.

Not really. This is yet another example of oversimplification. God knows all of the future that can be known as well as the outcomes He will create within the circumstances of the present. Again, even my version is an oversimplification, but at least it is much closer to the real viewpoint.

I believe in the fundamentals of the faith. I believe and live the scripture. Why should I not be here?

Now why don’t we get back to the subject of the thread and come up with an accurate definition of a “liberal”?

 

BB, God does not react to man. Your view alledges that God knows all possible outcomes. There is only one future. God knows with certainty what the future holds.

"I declare the end from the beginning."

Would you agree that modernism and postmodernism are the product of liberals?

 

Since the answer Tim gave was right on, I don't need to answer DanielDavid's "question" or read the "paper". As to the canon of scripture, I never questioned the canon of scripture I questioned your interpretation. Sleep tight the liberals might bite!

 

Translation: I hate it when people point out my ridiculous statements.

 

Translation: I hate it when people point out my ridiculous statements. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Now DD you know this isn't the translations forum By the way I appreciate the way you have handled yourself on this thread today. I still may not agree with you on some things but your style agrees with me.
Murph

 

Go2church.....

"In 1828 society had not progressed to the level of degradation we see today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really think things were better in 1828, then they are now?!?!? What history book are you reading? When are we going to grow up and stop thinking of the "good ole days" as so good? Next we will be promoting the thinking that all of the founding fathers of this country were Christians!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 1.......in some ways. The list I gave as examples was reflective of ways I believe things were in better shape then than now....

Question 2.......hmmmm other than the Bible...none in years that readily come to mind (but it is 3 A.M. and my memory isn't awake yet ). History is not one of my favorite subjects. I do read biographies periodically. Does that count?

Question 3a.......never and you can't make me

Question 3b.......I do enjoy trivia so I will continue to reminisce about "the good old days".
I remember when gas was 30 something cents a gallon....loaves of bread were 8 for a dollar....a dozen eggs cost a $.25 and family doctors still made house calls. That's mo betta...don't you think?

Observation.......You sound quite cynical.

 

I think Dr. Bob has the idea!

Most of what he said would, at least in part, describe what most of the liberals I know believe.

I think it would be safe to say "a liberal is one who would like to see the world come into the church rather than the church reach out to the world."

I've taped a little clipping into the cover of my Bible. It says:

"Men do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself but because it contradicts them."

A liberal would poo-poo that statement!

Dr. Bob....you are so right. This Fundamental Board is full of liberals.....wonder why that is.

 

The word "liberal" has become a label overused by hyperconservatives to find fault in others. They was it's often used, you think that Senator McCarthy was alive and well.

A hyperconservative will view a liberal as anyone who's not as conservative as they are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Spoken like a true liberal!

 

ooooooooops.

i had my BB's and BBB's confused.



sorry about that.

 

Oversimplification, but yes. Not only does God know all possible outcomes, but He is also active and working out His purpose through His people and through history.

There is certainly only one future that can possibly occur, but there are many possibilities for the future.

We must interpret scripture in context. In the context of Isaiah 46, God is comparing Himself to impotent idols who cannot free the Israelites from captivity. The passage below is in poetic form where thoughts are repeated and coupled together to emphasize the truth being spoken:

A call to remember the previous mighty works of God – God freed Israel from the Egypt and will free His people from captivity this time as well.

There is no idol or person like God. God is unique. The idols are completely false and impotent.

God has purposed what He will do and has declared it from the very beginning.

God will do everything He has decided and His plans will come to pass.

God calls on nature and people to do His purposes and is not limited to the local circumstance of captivity.

God has promised it and will personally ensure it will be accomplished.

The thought is repeated again for emphasis: God will accomplish His purposes.


There is nothing in this passage that undermines Open Theism (unless you don’t understand Open Theism because you’ve only read what the critics claim). Just because the future is not rigidly determined does not mean that God will not accomplish His purposes. God is active and working in his creation.

But this thread is about finding a definition of a “liberal”.

I’d be happy to discuss this in another discussion, but very briefly:

Modernism is the result of the scientism and rationalism making it’s way into theology. Fundamentalists properly reacted against this erosion of biblical authority but unfortunately embraced the same rationalism in order to respond to the liberalism of the late 19th century. Fundamentalist reclaimed the fundamentals of the faith but unfortunately showed a propensity to add many nonessential doctrines to what was considered essential. Furthermore, fundamentalists tended to demand “certainty” in their theology so that they could “prove” the truth of the gospel rationally.

Both liberals and fundamentalists (and the Western world at large) continued in this scientism and rationalism provoking a reaction against modernism, called postmodernism, that rejects the quest for “certainty” and “proof” for better or worse. Just as there were/are many strains of modernism, there are many strains of postmodernism.

Modernism was a shift in modern thinking embraced by liberals and eventually by fundamentalists. Postmodernism is a rejection of the paradigm of modernism embraced by many (and some are liberals). Postmodernism recognizes the folly of trying to respond to religious questions using reason alone because of the inherent limitations of reason.

Fundamentalists and “conservative” groups seem to be the primary defenders of the previous rationalism.

EDITED TO PLACE QUOTED SCRIPTURE IN ITALICS

[ April 29, 2003, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Exactly. Otherwise, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph would have no basis for their faith and practice in the worship of our Lord because the Bible had yet to be written down. Neither would the new testament leaders of the decades after Christ, including Paul and the other, because the NT had yet to be written down. (the above supposes you are referring to the bible as "the Word of God").
Now, if by "Word of God" you mean Jesus, then many liberals do view Jesus, the Word made flesh, as the highest authority for faith and practice. Of course, there are varying opinions on this. (No surprise).

 

I cannot hear the word 'liberal' without associating it with politics. Therefore liberal to me is the political party that takes my hard earned money and gives it to those who won't work for themselves, uses it to pay for abortions, allows illegal immigrants to have drivers license and get food stamps.......

Hyperconservative Diane

 

All these "labels" continue to confuse me.

 

This forum has existed for nearly a year without much attack from the liberal crowd but sadly it is occuring. I will not name names as we all know whether we should post here or not but I do caution everyone to stay close to the literal interpretation if they choose to post here.
Murph

 

This all depends on the dictionary. Mine says they are loose and basically agreeable to anything. Also that they use Political parties to change things to their way of thinking. But what does God say about liberals?

Isaiah 32:5-6 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

God says they are vile.

But it also depends on the subject matter. Notice: 2 Corinthians 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

These people would have been good liberals.

Truth

 

Great definition above.

My personal definition of a liberal in the religious realm is one who picks and chooses which Bible verses they want to follow.

The verses that do not fit good with their personal situation or are not agreeable to those around them are tossed aside or spoken of as not for today, too hard to understand, or symbolism.