Liberal Christianity vs. Seeker Friendly Christanity

[evangelist6589]

Is there not a difference? Theological liberals as I recall attack the authority of the Bible, the trinity, the virgin birth, etc.. While seeker friendly types like Rick Warren, and others do not, they just are questionable in their methodology. Warren for example endorses certain books that defend the true gospel so he is no theological liberal.

What are some liberal denominations?

Episcopal
Lutheran
PC USA
United Methodist
?

I believe this church is a example of a Theological liberal one. I pass this one up or one similar to it up when I go out witnessing.

http://www.saintthomasdenver.org/tp40/page.asp?ID=162111

 

[Revmitchell]

While seeker friendly types like Rick Warren, and others do not, they just are questionable in their methodology.

According to whom?

 

[Luke2427]

Is there not a difference? Theological liberals as I recall attack the authority of the Bible, the trinity, the virgin birth, etc.. While seeker friendly types like Rick Warren, and others do not, they just are questionable in their methodology. Warren for example endorses certain books that defend the true gospel so he is no theological liberal.

What are some liberal denominations?

Episcopal
Lutheran
PC USA
United Methodist
?

I believe this church is a example of a Theological liberal one. I pass this one up or one similar to it up when I go out witnessing.

http://www.saintthomasdenver.org/tp40/page.asp?ID=162111

What is liberal about it?

Is it that the rector and assistant rector are women?

That is a clear violation of Scripture but that alone does not define it as liberal.

What characteristic do you consider makes it liberal?

 

[12strings]

What is liberal about it?

Is it that the rector and assistant rector are women?

That is a clear violation of Scripture but that alone does not define it as liberal.

What characteristic do you consider makes it liberal?

I'm guessing it was the GLBT Welcome on near the Bottom left of the page that gave it away...

http://www.saintthomasdenver.org/tp40/page.asp?id=281384

Though I'm not sure the point of the OP...

 

[Van]

If we define a liberal as someone who redefines the meanings of words in order to make scripture to no effect, then we can say Calvinistic churches are liberal. But that would miss the actual meaning of the term as currently used.

1) Marriage = bond between a man and a woman.

2) Virgin = someone who has never had sexual intercourse.

3) Sex outside of a marriage is wrong, thus homosexual behavior is wrong.

Any so called Christian who denies these truths is liberal.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm guessing it was the GLBT Welcome on near the Bottom left of the page that gave it away...

http://www.saintthomasdenver.org/tp40/page.asp?id=281384

Though I'm not sure the point of the OP...

I didn't catch that.

One of my many weaknesses is that I am not observant.

However, though I would not put that on my advertisement, GLBT are welcome to come to my church.

They cannot join without repentance, but they are welcome.

 

[Luke2427]

If we define a liberal as someone who redefines the meanings of words in order to make scripture to no effect, then we can say Calvinistic churches are liberal. But that would miss the actual meaning of the term as currently used.

1) Marriage = bond between a man and a woman.

2) Virgin = someone who has never had sexual intercourse.

3) Sex outside of a marriage is wrong, thus homosexual behavior is wrong.

Any so called Christian who denies these truths is liberal.

I think we've proven to you that the reason you think Calvinism is not biblical is because you don't know how to interpret Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

If we define a liberal as someone who redefines the meanings of words in order to make scripture to no effect, then we can say Calvinistic churches are liberal. But that would miss the actual meaning of the term as currently used.

1) Marriage = bond between a man and a woman.

2) Virgin = someone who has never had sexual intercourse.

3) Sex outside of a marriage is wrong, thus homosexual behavior is wrong.

Any so called Christian who denies these truths is liberal.

can be liberal socially, or doctrinally, or both!

gay church under banner of BOTH!

 

[Van]

Pitchback

I think we've proven to you that the reason you think Calvinism is not biblical is because you don't know how to interpret Scripture.

No Calvinist has provided any evidence of support from scripture for their man-made doctrine.

My positions are supported by many scholars. Choice means choice, not non-choice. Calvinism interprets choice to mean non-choice. Therefore Calvinism does not know how to interpret scripture. Regeneration means rebirth in Christ, not irresistible grace.

Calvinism ignores the syntax of Ephesians 2:8 in order to interpret it as supporting faith not of ourselves. Calvinism repeatedly ignores the Greek grammar to "interpret" scripture according to man-made doctrine.

Calvinism redefines a word that means after or out of or since as meaning "before." Calvinists do not interpret scripture, they rewrite it to suit their man-made doctrine.

Calvinists add to scripture such as when scripture says no one seeks God, they interpret it to mean no one seeks God at any time.

Calvinism makes a mockery of sound interpretation of scripture.

So what they left, only to attack an opponent's credibility which is yet another fallacy, argument against the man. Go figure.

 

[Revmitchell]

No Calvinist has provided any evidence of support from scripture for their man-made doctrine.

My positions are supported by many scholars. Choice means choice, not non-choice. Calvinism interprets choice to mean non-choice. Therefore Calvinism does not know how to interpret scripture. Regeneration means rebirth in Christ, not irresistible grace.

Calvinism ignores the syntax of Ephesians 2:8 in order to interpret it as supporting faith not of ourselves. Calvinism repeatedly ignores the Greek grammar to "interpret" scripture according to man-made doctrine.

Calvinism redefines a word that means after or out of or since as meaning "before." Calvinists do not interpret scripture, they rewrite it to suit their man-made doctrine.

Calvinists add to scripture such as when scripture says no one seeks God, they interpret it to mean no one seeks God at any time.

Calvinism makes a mockery of sound interpretation of scripture.

So what they left, only to attack an opponent's credibility which is yet another fallacy, argument against the man. Go figure.

Does anyone else understand that this is clearly off topic?

 

[12strings]

No Calvinist has provided any evidence of support from scripture for their man-made doctrine.

Seriously? No Calvinists...EVER...has provided ANY evidence of support from scripture for what they believe? EVER?

It's very hard to take the things you do get right seriously when you say things like this.

Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen, Piper, MacArthur...Never EVER give scriptual support???

So what they left, only to attack an opponent's credibility which is yet another fallacy, argument against the man. Go figure.

Here's some of your past quotes, Van...are you debating issues or "the man."?

100% of the Calvinists use deception.

Folks, deception is the stock and trade of Calvinism.

Sounds like the pot & the kettle again...

 

[Luke2427]

No Calvinist has provided any evidence of support from scripture for their man-made doctrine.

Calvinists support their assertions with Scripture constantly- have for hundreds of years.

Choice means choice, not non-choice.

And?

Calvinism interprets choice to mean non-choice.

How so?

Your problem is you believe in decisional regeneration.

You believe in salvation by grace through CHOICE.

Regeneration means rebirth in Christ, not irresistible grace.

And?

Calvinists add to scripture such as when scripture says no one seeks God, they interpret it to mean no one seeks God at any time.

No Calvinist believes no man seeks God AT ANY TIME. Every Calvinist believes that every man who is ever saved seeks God. You don't know the issues- that's the problem.

The question is WHY does a man who does not seek God START to seek God?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What is liberal about it?

Is it that the rector and assistant rector are women?

That is a clear violation of Scripture but that alone does not define it as liberal.

What characteristic do you consider makes it liberal?

Abortion stance.

 

[saturneptune]

What is liberal about it?

Is it that the rector and assistant rector are women?

That is a clear violation of Scripture but that alone does not define it as liberal.

What characteristic do you consider makes it liberal?

Luke,
My idea on this thread is growing up in Gulfport at a Presbyterian Church that is PCA. There is a distinct difference in the PCA and the PC USA, not so much in theology, but in things like tolerence of the gay life style, women elders and deacons, and in infaliblitly of Scrpiture.

On the other hand, there are theological differences between Presbyterians and Baptists on baptism, church govt, etc. I do not consider this type of difference to be liberal and conservative.

I may not have worded this very well.

 

[Yeshua1]

No Calvinist has provided any evidence of support from scripture for their man-made doctrine.

My positions are supported by many scholars. Choice means choice, not non-choice. Calvinism interprets choice to mean non-choice. Therefore Calvinism does not know how to interpret scripture. Regeneration means rebirth in Christ, not irresistible grace.

Calvinism ignores the syntax of Ephesians 2:8 in order to interpret it as supporting faith not of ourselves. Calvinism repeatedly ignores the Greek grammar to "interpret" scripture according to man-made doctrine.

Calvinism redefines a word that means after or out of or since as meaning "before." Calvinists do not interpret scripture, they rewrite it to suit their man-made doctrine.

Calvinists add to scripture such as when scripture says no one seeks God, they interpret it to mean no one seeks God at any time.

Calvinism makes a mockery of sound interpretation of scripture.

So what they left, only to attack an opponent's credibility which is yet another fallacy, argument against the man. Go figure.

Guess Spurgeon/Calvin/Augustine/Hodgh/Berkof/edwards/owen/Gill and the rest of the gang were ALL liars and distorters of the bible, eh?

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Seriously? No Calvinists...EVER...has provided ANY evidence of support from scripture for what they believe? EVER?

It's very hard to take the things you do get right seriously when you say things like this.

Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen, Piper, MacArthur...Never EVER give scriptural support???

Here's some of your past quotes, Van...are you debating issues or "the man."?

Sounds like the pot & the kettle again...

Deception is when a person's views are ignored, but is character is attacked. The above post is just the latest example. Did you provide one scriptural reference, or did you practice deception by citing instead historical Calvinists.

Yes, Calvinists cite scripture but the scripture does not support the position. No one seeks God does not equate with no one seeks God at any time. Hence no actual evidence of support for total spiritual inability.

You claim 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not say God chooses for salvation through faith in the truth. Deception.

Calvinists claim Ephesians 2:8 indicates faith is not of ourselves. Deception

Calvinists claim 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 does not indicate men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel. Deception

Calvinists claim God does not set life and death before the lost and then beseeches us to choose life. Deception

Calvinists claim James 2:5 does not indicate God chooses individual that love Him. Deception.

Calvinist claim individuals who by nature are children of wrath are elect, when scripture says no charge can be brought again the elect. Deception

Calvinists claim Jesus did not die for all men. Deception

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Does anyone else understand that this is clearly off topic?

Note that post #7 was ignored, but my response to post #7 was said to be off-topic. This selective effort to dismiss and disparage views rather than address the issues is part and parcel of Calvinism.

Calvinism plays fast and loose with scripture, rewriting verse after verse, adding to scripture and ignoring scripture. So churches of this sort are liberal in the historical sense. Thus on topic in the historical sense, yet off topic in the sense used in the op.

 

[12strings]

Deception is when a person's views are ignored, but is character is attacked. The above post is just the latest example. Did you provide one scriptural reference, or did you practice deception by citing instead historical Calvinists.

1. Your Definition of Deception is flawed...Deception is when a person knows the truth, but intentionally hides, misleads, or distorts the truth.

2. I am addressing your stated views of calvinists...and saying they are flawed. There are no scriptures to cite that prove calvinists USE scriptures to support their positions...only history can prove or disprove that.

I'll address a few of these below:

Calvinists claim Ephesians 2:8 indicates faith is not of ourselves. Deception

Actually, some calvinists believe it is the Salvation and grace which are not of ourselves...and that other passages point to faith being a gift.

Calvinists claim God does not set life and death before the lost and then beseeches us to choose life. Deception

Actually, few calvinists would say this...but rather than without the drawing of God, all have already chosen death.

Calvinists claim Jesus did not die for all men. Deception

TRUE! 5-pointers claim this...Some 4-pointers don't...

You claim 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not say God chooses for salvation through faith in the truth. Deception.

Calvinists claim 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 does not indicate men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel. Deception

Calvinists claim James 2:5 does not indicate God chooses individual that love Him. Deception.

Calvinist claim individuals who by nature are children of wrath are elect, when scripture says no charge can be brought again the elect. Deception

The overarching problem here is that the people you are accusing of deception actually believe what they are saying...they are not trying to decieve anyone, but rather state what they believe to be the truth.

Even if you believe them all to be wrong, and themselves decieved...and even if you believe me to be one of those who is intentionally trying to decieve...It seems pointless, and unhelpful, at best to accuse someone of deception simply for stating what they believe to be the truth.

 

[Revmitchell]

Deception is when a person's views are ignored, but is character is attacked. The above post is just the latest example. Did you provide one scriptural reference, or did you practice deception by citing instead historical Calvinists.

Yes, Calvinists cite scripture but the scripture does not support the position. No one seeks God does not equate with no one seeks God at any time. Hence no actual evidence of support for total spiritual inability.

You claim 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not say God chooses for salvation through faith in the truth. Deception.

Calvinists claim Ephesians 2:8 indicates faith is not of ourselves. Deception

Calvinists claim 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 does not indicate men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel. Deception

Calvinists claim God does not set life and death before the lost and then beseeches us to choose life. Deception

Calvinists claim James 2:5 does not indicate God chooses individual that love Him. Deception.

Calvinist claim individuals who by nature are children of wrath are elect, when scripture says no charge can be brought again the elect. Deception

Calvinists claim Jesus did not die for all men. Deception

I am not a Calvinist but your statements are over the top and greatly exaggerate them.

 

[Van]

Me thinks he protests too much

1. Your Definition of Deception is flawed...Deception is when a person knows the truth, but intentionally hides, misleads, or distorts the truth.

Using a logical fallacy is argument by deception. Thus person attack are a form of deception practiced by Calvinists. Deflecting and side-stepping are also forms of deception.

2. I am addressing your stated views of calvinists...and saying they are flawed. There are no scriptures to cite that prove calvinists USE scriptures to support their positions...only history can prove or disprove that.

Yet another deflection. Rather than cite even one scripture that provides evidence is support of Calvinism, you point to the judgment of history.

Actually, some Calvinists believe it is the Salvation and grace which are not of ourselves...and that other passages point to faith being a gift.

So rather than clearly indicate my point is well taken, you point to some Calvinists who do not use this verse to support "irresistible grace." No mention is made of the numerous Calvinists that do.

Actually, few calvinists would say this...but rather than without the drawing of God, all have already chosen death.

Another deflection. The lost are condemned already at conception, and are by nature children of wrath. They do choose death when they sin, and everybody sins, cementing their condemnation, piling up wrath for themselves. But what about those who choose life. You did not mention that according to Calvinism all the lost are unable to choose life unless enabled by irresistible grace. Instead you refer to the drawing of God as code for irresistible grace. More deception.

TRUE! 5-pointers claim this...Some 4-pointers don't...

And the five pointers will claim the 4 pointer are not "real" Calvinists. But again, you agree with me, yet phrase it as a disagreement. Deception.

The overarching problem here is that the people you are accusing of deception actually believe what they are saying...they are not trying to deceive anyone, but rather state what they believe to be the truth.

I am not a mind reader, I must go by what they do. They misrepresent my position, they use logical fallacies, such as it must be true because great men of God believed it, and so forth. Deception.

Even if you believe them all to be wrong, and themselves deceived...and even if you believe me to be one of those who is intentionally trying to deceive...It seems pointless, and unhelpful, at best to accuse someone of deception simply for stating what they believe to be the truth.

When they resort to logical fallacies, such as personal attacks, it demonstrates they have no support from scripture. Two wrongs do not make a right. Why change the subject from the lack of supporting evidence in scripture for Calvinism to my behavior except to deflect and deceive.