-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are liberal religionist sending
- Thread starter massdak
- Start date
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
I don't know that I've ever preached a sermon on this topic; but I do mention the concept whenever I think congregants might have a visceral reaction to a patriarchal image in a particular passage. BB2, if you're thinking of a particular sermon - let me know which one.
Sex is a consequence of sexual reproduction - beings that don't reproduce sexually do not have sexual genitalia. God does not reproduce sexually - therefore God does not have a sex.
Gender is a social construct focused around a person's sex. People can assume gender identity's based on their role in a particular community. Traditionally most people have related to God as having a masculine gender identity (although there have been notable Christian exceptions - such as Julian of Norwich - who also called God "Mother"). Since God has no sex, however, any image of God we have is incomplete. It is simply a projection to help us relate more naturally to a God who desires to relate to us.
Good preaching, therefore, offers models of God which are as comprehensive as we can manage. None of us will convey the fullness of Holy God, but we can offer as many theologically healthy ways as we can for people to relate to God. God as "Mother" as well as "Father" falls into that category.
This is pretty standard stuff in mainstream Christian theology - and I was genuinely surprised when many of the people here had never encountered it.
Joshua
Sex is a consequence of sexual reproduction - beings that don't reproduce sexually do not have sexual genitalia. God does not reproduce sexually - therefore God does not have a sex.
Gender is a social construct focused around a person's sex. People can assume gender identity's based on their role in a particular community. Traditionally most people have related to God as having a masculine gender identity (although there have been notable Christian exceptions - such as Julian of Norwich - who also called God "Mother"). Since God has no sex, however, any image of God we have is incomplete. It is simply a projection to help us relate more naturally to a God who desires to relate to us.
Good preaching, therefore, offers models of God which are as comprehensive as we can manage. None of us will convey the fullness of Holy God, but we can offer as many theologically healthy ways as we can for people to relate to God. God as "Mother" as well as "Father" falls into that category.
This is pretty standard stuff in mainstream Christian theology - and I was genuinely surprised when many of the people here had never encountered it.
Joshua
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
Hank,
"Gender" in the context of a language is a different animal from gender identity within the context of human social systems.
Nevertheless, your metaphor is valid in that the linguistic "gender" of an object is not intrinsic to its identity. It changes depending on the language one is speaking. Likewise, God can be addressed as either masculine or feminine.
The metaphor breaks down, though, since God encompasses the personal attirbutes that are stereotypical masculine and feminine. It is not that we refer to God as Mother and Father because God is neither but because God is both.
Joshua
"Gender" in the context of a language is a different animal from gender identity within the context of human social systems.
Nevertheless, your metaphor is valid in that the linguistic "gender" of an object is not intrinsic to its identity. It changes depending on the language one is speaking. Likewise, God can be addressed as either masculine or feminine.
The metaphor breaks down, though, since God encompasses the personal attirbutes that are stereotypical masculine and feminine. It is not that we refer to God as Mother and Father because God is neither but because God is both.
Joshua
USN2Pulpit
New Member
HankD, this was well put:
Why?
On what basis do you call yourselves Baptists? What historical confession or description or acknowledged set of biblical distinctives do you ascribe to?
Why would someone like you want to be called a Baptist requiring you to explain how you disagree with what most (and the best known) Baptists promote as truth?
BTW, can you name a sin that you consider a sin 100% of the time regardless of the situation? If so, can you please cite the authority by which you make your claim?
Dear Joshua,
You said...
Feminine function: To give birth, a feminine function.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The New Covenant Spiritual birth is allegorically spoken of (Paul himself using the word "allegory") refering to Jerusalem "which is above", the mother of us all.
Masculine function :To beget
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us; again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Both functions:
1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
My view therefore is that while God may possess feminine attributes and function, these characteristics are the metaphorical or the allegorical but God in His essential person applied to each member of the Trinity is masculine in gender and sexually as well for the Second Person of the Trinity (He was circumcised according to the Scripture, Luke 2:21).
HankD
You said...
Yes, that is my point and would even go so far as to say that God is viewed with both masculine and feminine gender of function in the Scriptures.
Feminine function: To give birth, a feminine function.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The New Covenant Spiritual birth is allegorically spoken of (Paul himself using the word "allegory") refering to Jerusalem "which is above", the mother of us all.
Masculine function :To beget
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us; again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Both functions:
1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
Here we would not agree. Jesus uses the pronoun "He" of the "Spirit" which is feminine in Hebrew (Ruach) and neutral in Greek (Pneuma). Jesus overrides Greek grammar to force this point of the personhood of the Spirit, and His gender as well. This should come across in any translation of the Greek.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
My view therefore is that while God may possess feminine attributes and function, these characteristics are the metaphorical or the allegorical but God in His essential person applied to each member of the Trinity is masculine in gender and sexually as well for the Second Person of the Trinity (He was circumcised according to the Scripture, Luke 2:21).
HankD
Southeastbaptist
New Member
Actually, I find it interesting that there are some who wanted to be identified as baptist but in reality, are contrary to the historic baptist faith. This proves that the baptist is a worthy name and others want to descredit it.
Those were used as instrument of the devil. And may God have mercy on them. For no marvel even the Devil is transforming himself into an angel of light. We should be patient about them for God will reveal them in due time.
It is good to obey the word of God that a " a heretic, after admonishing him for two to three times should be rejected.
Those were used as instrument of the devil. And may God have mercy on them. For no marvel even the Devil is transforming himself into an angel of light. We should be patient about them for God will reveal them in due time.
It is good to obey the word of God that a " a heretic, after admonishing him for two to three times should be rejected.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
I feel this way about the new SBC's gushing support of the current U.S. President and seeming ignorance on the historic baptist belief in Separation of Church and State. That may not be what you meant though.
Hello Joshua,
I am referring to a post that you made a couple of months ago here on the Baptistboard. I remember that the title said something about the way we here on BB have effected your preaching. Then you posted the text of a sermon that you had written dealing with the subject in question. I also remember that when I engaged in debate with you over the issue you rebuked me saying something about me being "a seminary student in the midst of my indoctrination." Do you recall that exchange?
You use the right words but you have changed all of the meanings. Who is this Christ that you preach?
Matt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
You have changed it to:
Matt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Rev Joshua answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the child of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Rev Joshua: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my parent which is in heaven.
and if the truth be know the last part would be:
Not so blessed art thou, Rev Joshua: fo rmy parent which is in heaven hath not reaveled it unto you, but, flesh and blood.
I have no trouble understanding the point you are trying to get across. It is just that that point is not correct.
You said:
It isn't "pretty standard stuff in mainstream Christian theology". Most reasonably educated Christians as aware that this concept has been put forth by a few heretics but it isn't "in" mainstream Christian theology and it is nowhere near standard. "Neutering" God is nothing more than an absurd ploy to justify the unbiblical notions of feminists and homosexuals.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
BB2 - I think I remember the discussion you're talking about, but I don't remember which sermon that was. If I remember correctly, someone (you?) pulled out a reference I made in the sermon to God as Mother that I'd forgotten about and we got sidetracked there for a while.
Artimaeus - I'm willing to bet that if you were to poll 100 seminaries and divinity schools, the vast majority of them encourage the use of inclusive language in reference to God. This may not be normative among Southern Baptists, but it is in the larger theological community.
Joshua
Artimaeus - I'm willing to bet that if you were to poll 100 seminaries and divinity schools, the vast majority of them encourage the use of inclusive language in reference to God. This may not be normative among Southern Baptists, but it is in the larger theological community.
Joshua
Joshua, so what you are saying is to preach what people want to hear? Or is it that because everyone else is doing it, it must be right?
I believe every reference to God in the bible refers to "him" as a "he".
If I was born a female, and never had sex, would this make me a man? Thinking of God as a sexual person is rediculous, to acknowledge "him" as a "he" is only comonsense.
I believe every reference to God in the bible refers to "him" as a "he".
If I was born a female, and never had sex, would this make me a man? Thinking of God as a sexual person is rediculous, to acknowledge "him" as a "he" is only comonsense.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
No, I'm saying that I preach what I believe they need to hear.
No, but I do hold myself accountable to my peers and to Christian scholarship.
There may be some debate here regarding the "hymns to Wisdom" which some feminist theologians argue is a feminine aspect of God.
No, but if you were part of a species that did not reproduce sexually then you could be neither male nore female.
So which is it: ridiculous or common sense?
Joshua
joshua you are very liberal and you have offended the biblical principle of plain sound teaching of scripture in important references of doctrine. why not take your practice and be part of a different religion that doesn't try to water down or confuse new believers that Christianity is one big tent of diversity of beliefs? it is fundamentally clear that your doctrine is counter to main stream biblical Christianity. why not infiltrate the UU organizations? they are much closer to your doctrine. this is friendly advice, i do loathe your doctrine but until you repent of your religion, i can only warn others and rebuke your liberal stance
I continue to be hurt by the name-calling of my Baptist brothers and sisters by labeling other Baptists as Liberals. I have attended more than one Baptist seminary and NEVER have known a Baptist "LIBERAL". Who are these people? Do you know of any personally or do you hear this second, third or fourth hand?? Baptist are quite diverse people. What if we all were exactly alike....how frightening!!!
Joshua , That bet is insufficient grounds to get you convicted of gambling (even by me).
As far as getting the consensus of the "larger theological community" is concerned, I would just as soon get the consensus of the Pharsees, Sadducees, and the Sanhedrin whether Jesus was someone they ought to worship or not. Either way, truth is not a priority.Just because a philosophy is taught in a seminary doesn't mean that it is accepted by the mainstream Christians. The SBC seminaries were taken back by the majority of the SBC who did not believe what the teachers were teaching. The mainstream SBC voted to to get presidents of the SBC seminaries back in track with their beliefs.
All the teachers who were teaching a more liberal theology left the SBC seminaries and went to schools that they would be allowed to teach their unbiblical views. I have heard a debate with a professor from one of the more liberal schools. A man considered by some publications to be one of the leading theologians in the USA. He was asked if he knew if he was going to heaven, he said he did not know, but hoped he would. That is what some of your seminaries have for teachers of theology.
All the teachers who were teaching a more liberal theology left the SBC seminaries and went to schools that they would be allowed to teach their unbiblical views. I have heard a debate with a professor from one of the more liberal schools. A man considered by some publications to be one of the leading theologians in the USA. He was asked if he knew if he was going to heaven, he said he did not know, but hoped he would. That is what some of your seminaries have for teachers of theology.
This is a Baptist forum and we must realize that there are liberal Baptists and liberal Baptist seminaries teaching liberalism.
While I seldom, if ever, agree with Joshua and would be happy if he stayed on his own site, he has the right to promote the liberal agenda.
I do believe, however, that the MAJORITY of Baptists are not liberal. By nature of the Gospel (which, if truly believed, is very conservative and based on infallible Word of God) that is preached, Baptists distinguish themselves from other denominations.
While I seldom, if ever, agree with Joshua and would be happy if he stayed on his own site, he has the right to promote the liberal agenda.
I do believe, however, that the MAJORITY of Baptists are not liberal. By nature of the Gospel (which, if truly believed, is very conservative and based on infallible Word of God) that is preached, Baptists distinguish themselves from other denominations.
Why?
On what basis do you call yourselves Baptists? What historical confession or description or acknowledged set of biblical distinctives do you ascribe to?
Why would someone like you want to be called a Baptist requiring you to explain how you disagree with what most (and the best known) Baptists promote as truth?
BTW, can you name a sin that you consider a sin 100% of the time regardless of the situation? If so, can you please cite the authority by which you make your claim? </font>[/QUOTE]Bump to Joshua.
I am asking these questions in all seriousness and not to simply be argumentative.
My contention has long been that "Baptist" is what I believe, not what I am. Many of your views depart from the historical baptistic beliefs.
It is a mystery as to why liberals such as yourself would want to be identified with traditions and beliefs that are contrary to much of what you espouse.