What is a Liberal Baptist Church?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by john6:63:
That’s a smoke screen if I ever saw one.

Well, if we're to take the Bible as 100% ractually inerrant, we've got a problem with the Gospels. All four give different, and some contradictory, accounts of the details Jesus' resurrection. That doesn't, however, discount the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

So reading Genesis in context tells you that the earth is millions of years old and than man evolved from a monkey? Say it ain’t so.

It ain't so. Genesis doesn't tell me that, any more than Paul tells women they're required to wear headcoverings. Yet few would refer to women ithout headcoverings as not adhering to the fundamentals.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Well, if we're to take the Bible as 100% ractually inerrant, we've got a problem with the Gospels. All four give different, and some contradictory, accounts of the details Jesus' resurrection. That doesn't, however, discount the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

It doesn’t discount the fact that there were more than one witness to the events of the resurrection either, which is why we have a slightly, but non-contradictory account of the resurrection. I’d have a bigger problem if each Gospel account were identical word for word.

Originally posted by Johnv:
It ain't so. Genesis doesn't tell me that, any more than Paul tells women they're required to wear headcoverings. Yet few would refer to women ithout headcoverings as not adhering to the fundamentals.

Paul rebuked the church at Corinth for a reason. They were prostituting the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Church was infested with once pagans who refused to separate themselves from the world. Paul directed how the church should function and how his Christian brethren should conduct themselves.

You build a straw man comparing Paul to Genesis and allowing today’s culture to dictate how we should interpret the Bible. Some churches today need a good rebuking. Still you can’t side step the fact that a simple straightforward reading of Genesis does nothing more than say exactly how God created this earth and it’s inhabitants.

You may have the last word, since this thread isn’t about the debate of Genesis, but it does however show what liberal churches believes compared to a conservative church. You demonstrated it nicely in your Gospel contradiction remark above.

 

[Johnv]

I'm surprised that you don't consider the accounts of finding the empty tomb contradictory. You must not have a 100% factual view of the Bible as you insist I must have. The real straw man being built is the one that requires 100% factual view of the Bible in order to adhere to the fundamentals.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Johnv:
I'm surprised that you don't consider the accounts of finding the empty tomb contradictory.

So if two others and I were at a scene of a car crash and I relayed my account to a reporter that I saw 3 firefighters and one police officer and another witness stated that he saw 4 firefighters and 1 firefighter inside the car. Now does this make our accounts contradictory, b/c I didn't mention the one inside the car? I didn’t think so. The same goes with the accounts of the Gospels. If one account mentions two angels or shinning men and fails to recount the one in the tomb that another Gospel recalls, doesn’t make them contradictory either. The same applies to Mary’s conversation with the angels and so on.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
If I remember correctly you view Genesis as a book pure allegory and that Adam and Eve were figurative and the Fall symbolic. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Somewhat. But rather than argue over Genesis, nothing in the fundamentals requires that the Bible be taken as 100% accurately detailed fact from cover to cover. Indeed, the Bible in its entirety must be accepted as inspired by God and infallible in regards to truth. However, each INDIVIDUAL writing must also be treated in accordance to the contextual purpose, intent, and audience of the author. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry John but that doesn't cut it. Please reread the forum guidelines, here is a quote from it.

Many have asked who should post here and the answer is, “Anyone who will not deny the truths of the Word of God.” For example, we may disagree on the various interpretations of Scripture; but we will not be allowed to deny or question a clearly revealed truth. (Creation, virgin birth, salvation by grace, Old & New Testament miracles, etc…)


I cannot allow you to cast doubt on the scripture whether genesis or any other part. Please post accordingly or leave, the choice is yours.
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
You mean God cannot inspire an infallible book to be
written that is alegorical?

Sorry Ed but that doesn't cut it. Please reread the forum guidelines, here is a quote from it.

Many have asked who should post here and the answer is, “Anyone who will not deny the truths of the Word of God.” For example, we may disagree on the various interpretations of Scripture; but we will not be allowed to deny or question a clearly revealed truth. (Creation, virgin birth, salvation by grace, Old & New Testament miracles, etc…)


I cannot allow you to cast doubt on the scripture whether genesis or any other part. Please post accordingly or leave, the choice is yours.
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Ladies and gentlemen, sadly we know what a liberal church is and maybe the worst part of it is the way they deny the fact that they deny the Bible. The intention of this forum was to provide a place where discussions could be held without someone doubting, denying or questioning the scripture. Until my fingers are removed from this keyboard (by the webmaster) I will make every effort to keep it this way. For the most part the liberals have their way but not on this forum.
God Bless
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Johnv:
The real straw man being built is the one that requires 100% factual view of the Bible in order to adhere to the fundamentals.

Once again I ask you to read the forum guidelines, here is another quote for you.

Many threads in this forum have asked the question, “What is a fundamentalist?” or various issues surrounding fundamentalism. This is fine, but I want to add that everyone posting here is not a “fundamentalist,” but I pray that everyone here will respect and defend the truth of the word of God.

John you are not following this requirement and if you continue posting here you must
Murph

 

[Shiloh]

(What is a Liberal Baptist) It should be clear to everyone what a liberal Baptist is by reading what has been posted here. The first thing the liberal does is deny the Scripture. Why (as some say) there are no young fundamentalists in our churches? Tell them we don't have a copy of God's Word today! I read this on almost every post. What is a fundamentalist......one who believes we have God's Word today.

 

[Daniel David]

Johnv, you do deny the word of God.

1. You don't accept the creation account as 100% historical and factual. This demonstrates inept theological reasoning as well.

2. Because you smack the creation account, you smack the inspiration of Scripture. God cannot inspire anything that is not perfect. One's view of inspiration directly reflects one's view of God himself.

3. Because you smack inspiration, you have no real objective knowledge of even the basics (such as salvation). This would lead to bizarre conclusions about divorce, baptism, adultery, and catholics that you have.

4. Christ explicitly stated that God created male and female in the beginning. Is this true or not?

5. The Scriptures explicitly state that Christ is the creator of all things? Is this true or not?

6. Evolution teaches a death then stronger life paradigm. Scripture teaches life then death, then new life paradigm.

Romans 5:12 "For by one MAN sin entered the world, and DEATH THROUGH SIN..."

Was Paul an idiot or did he have God's approval on that statement?

You see, you can mask your beliefs behind smoke and mirrors, and use just the right language to pass as mildly conservative, but when pressed, you might as well be a liberal.

 

[aefting]

Well, if we're to take the Bible as 100% ractually inerrant, we've got a problem with the Gospels. All four give different, and some contradictory, accounts of the details Jesus' resurrection.

John,

Until you wrote that, I would have considered you a moderate rather than a liberal. At the core of liberalism, however, is a denial of the doctrine of inspiration, a doctrine that demands inerrancy. Words that are God-breathed cannot contain factual errors without impuning the righteous, omniscient character of God.

My understanding of the forum's rules is that any one can post here; they just cannot argue against the fundamentals of the faith. By arguing against inerrancy, you are taking a position contrary to theological orthodoxy and, IMO, violating the rules of this forum.

Personally, I don't care what you post or where. I'm just explaining my understanding of the rules.

Andy

 

[aefting]

I want to add one more thing. I am a very staunch 6-day, ex nihilo creationist. I believe that a departure from such is wrong, dangerous, and can lead to further theological error. HOWEVER, there are theological conservatives that do believe in gap theories and various other erroneous interpretations. I don't agree with them, but I'm not going to brand someone liberal soley on their view of Genesis 1-2.

6-day, ex nihilo creationism is not a fundamental of the faith, but it is often denied because of a departure from a fundamental of the faith.

Andy

 

[aefting]

Again, inerrancy to the truth, there is no dispite. Biblical truth is 100% inerrant. But inerrancy of facts, ...

I don't understand how you can write that. If some of the facts in the Bible are not true then how can Biblical truth be 100% accurate. This sounds like double talk to me. Didn't God breathe out the facts, too?


As for the resurrection accounts, several people have constructed timelines, etc, that harmonize all four gospels. Westcott (ironic for KJVO fundamentalists) and John Wenham are two that Leon Morris mentions in his commentary on John. It is certainly possible for all four accounts to be historically accurate while highlighting different aspects of the reaction of the women and the disciples. It is more important for us to understand the messages from the various accounts than it is to be able to reconstruct the chronological history.

Andy

 

[C.S. Murphy]

This thread is far afield and I suppose I am partly to blame, sorry. I feel the question asked has been answered so I am closing it down. Feel free to start another on either of the items we have discussed.
Murph