What is a Liberal Baptist Church?

[Paul of Eugene]

Nobody ever considers themself excessivly "liberal" or "fundamental". Its always a word in one's mind about somebody else.

So we need to heed the words of Paul when he wrote how necessary it is to deal gently and undestandingly with the "weaker brother". Each of us realizes, of course, the other brother is the weaker brother. So we need to deal gently with the other brother for his conscience sake. For example, we shouldn't go around calling him names like "liberal" or "hyperfundamentalist".

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
So we need to deal gently with the other brother for his conscience sake. For example, we shouldn't go around calling him names like "liberal" or "hyperfundamentalist".

Where can a guy find a violin player at a time like this
Murph

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
John, conservative and biblical and truthful are all talking about the same thing. They are one and the same.

Ridiculous! If that were true, we'd still be owning black men as property. Abolition of slavery was a rather liberal idea.

Just because you wallow in the mud of relativism, doesn't mean we have to.

Hmmm, please let me know what "relativism" you're referring to. I adhere to the biblical.

How hilarious that you say we can't be dogmatic, but you don't even know for sure.

Liberals and moderates are wrong on everything and need to repent and come to Christ for salvation before it is too late.

Please let me know what sin it is that I need to repent of. So far, all you've done is slap labels on me without backing up your assertion. Now, with this post, you're implying that I'm not saved. Shame on you!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
Actually John the name and scope of this board is not my business but the name and scope of this forum is. Your own words point to the truth that you do not belong in this forum.

The forum name is "Fundamental Baptist". Since I adhere strictly to Baptist Fundamentals, that includes me. Unless this forum is supposed to be a "IFB only" forum. I hardly think that IFB's have a monopoly as Fundamental Baptists. Some of them may think so, but that ain't the case.

Since you feel that the board name is misleading maybe you should pay more attention to the name of this forum.

Fundemental Baptist Forum. I don't see "hyperconservative" in there anywhere. I don't see the phrase "moderate conservatives need not enter" anywhere either.

It is fundamental and while we may dissagree among ourselves as to what defines a fundamental church we all agree that nothing liberal or moderate even comes close.

Who's "we"? Everyone on the far right? While that may be a significant segment of Fundamental Baptists, it is not by any stretch the segment that speaks for all Fundamental Baptists.

I have a right to be here and discuss the topic as much as anyone else. If you're going to kick me out, you should also kick out anyone here who's KJVO, since KJVOnlyism is a liberal concept.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Johnv:
1. Ridiculous! If that were true, we'd still be owning black men as property. Abolition of slavery was a rather liberal idea.

2. Hmmm, please let me know what "relativism" you're referring to. I adhere to the biblical.

3. Please let me know what sin it is that I need to repent of. So far, all you've done is slap labels on me without backing up your assertion. Now, with this post, you're implying that I'm not saved. Shame on you!

1. Can we beyond mindless arguments? Liberals held slaves too John. You aren't Alice, and you aren't in wonderland. You don't get to decide what is truth and what isn't.

2. Conservativism is built upon it being truth, and that it can know truth. Since you disagree that conservatism equal to truth, you waffle worse than John Kerry.

3. Why, you aren't conservative. Are you an egalitarian? Do you think Open Theism is okay? etc.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Liberals held slaves too John.

Yes, that's true. Many Liberals held slaves, even though abolition was a liberal idea.

Conservativism is built upon it being truth...

No, conservatism is built upon the inclination to maintain the more traditional order. While I prefer the traditional order, I do not believe the traditional order should be maintained for its own sake.

Why, you aren't conservative.

In the majority of things, I am, and in some, I'm not.

Are you an egalitarian?

If you mean egalitarianism to be the belief in equal rights for all people, then yes. If you mean it in any other fashion, then no.

Do you think Open Theism is okay? etc.

Open Theism is defined as a belief that choices of human beings cannot be known, by any being including God, until they happen. No, I don't believe in open theism, since I believe that God is completely omniscient without regard to our measure of time.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Good grief!!

Look at this list!!

1. Egalitarian (perverts God-given roles)
2. KJVO (prostitutes inspiration)
3. Deny virgin birth (denies need for a savior)
4. Deny Inerrancy
5. Deny deity of Christ
6. Open Theism
7. Deny bodily return of Christ
8. Deny bodily resurrection/ascension
9. Pro rock music in any form

So listening to rock music is the same as denying the deity of Christ!! THis is the same problem as with Pinoy's list!! Going to a movie or wearing short's is sinful? Where is that in the scriptures? "Goest not thou unto the theaters, neither enterest thou therein..."

A liberal Christian is one who denies fundamental truths of the religion.

A silly Pharisaic Christian is one who worries more about pants on women, shorts and the movies than about saving sinners and showing Christ's love.

 

[Daniel David]

Charles, I don't equate rock music with denying the deity of Christ. Did you see me state that? Oh, you were just twisting my words so you could mock them.

Let me introduce you to Mr. Reality. He will be your friend if you let him.

 

[tinytim]

Ok guys, sort of sorry I asked what you considered to be a liberal Baptist.

Nah, my theories are correct. The whole idea of liberalism is relative. As is Conservativism.

It is relative to what you believe is correct biblical interpretation.

chalk one up for postmodernism!

We can't even agree what is basic fundamentals.

I hold to the five classic fundamentals.
Those I will fight tooth and nail over.
I'll never back down from those.

but pants on women, KJVOism, CCM, etc is just people's opinion that we have no right from God's word to be dogmatic over.
To do so puts us in the same category as a Pharisee.
to make such incidentals of the faith a guage to measure holiness does 2 things.

1) creates a legalistic system
2) creates pride in the ones that keep these rules, to the point that they begin seeing themselves as the only ones that can ever be right. Or right with God!

My grandmother used to think that drinking coke from a glass bottle was a sin. Her pastor taught that in the 1920s.
How times have changed.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by tinytim:
I hold to the five classic fundamentals.
Those I will fight tooth and nail over.
I'll never back down from those.

but pants on women, KJVOism, CCM, etc is just people's opinion that we have no right from God's word to be dogmatic over.
To do so puts us in the same category as a Pharisee.

I'm in agreement with you, 100%. It's unfortunate, however, that some don't consider a person like myself, who, like you, holds to the classic fundamentals, to be fundamental. Further, it's a shame that those Christians like me must constantly defend themselves from constistent labelling by the McCarthyist tactics of some.

 

[john6:63]

Johnv

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.)

I have yet to step foot in a Church that truly holds to the fundamentals and have considered Genesis allegory. I have OTHO, visited a few liberal Churches, mainly SBC and a few UMC (I was Methodist before coming to my senses) that took an allegory view of Genesis and tried to pass it off as them adhering to the fundamentals.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by john6:63:
Johnv

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.)

Now this is interesting, what about it Johnv. And please be direct no beating around the bush.
Murph

 

[Ed Edwards]

The basics of Fundamentalism are:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture
2. the diety of Christ
3. the substitutinary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

/ed searches the fundamentals for reference
to one's view on Gensis, don't find it/

 

[Jim Ward]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
The basics of Fundamentalism are:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture
2. the diety of Christ
3. the substitutinary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

/ed searches the fundamentals for reference
to one's view on Gensis, don't find it/

/Jim hands Ed, Ed's glasses so he can see it right there at point #1/

 

[Ed Edwards]

You mean God cannot inspire an infallible book to be
written that is alegorical?

 

[Jim Ward]

I'd love to give you a detailed reply, but I need to leave for work. Go to the Answers in Genesis website. I know they answer your question there in a far better way then I can.

However, if the beginning is not accurate and factual, how can you trust the rest of it to be so?


Jim

 

[john6:63]

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

I don’t reference something to my peers as fact when it’s really a metaphor. Example, Moses referred to the Genesis account as fact not allegory. Jesus Himself referred to the Genesis account as fact and historical! But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Jesus Christ Himself our creator just disproved evolution and verified the authenticity of Genesis. Creation is referred to numerous times throughout the Bible. As a matter of fact, over 200 verses refer back to Genesis throughout the Bible.

Every Pastor I have visited with, I ask that one question first about Genesis, his view of it. If it’s a Fundamental Church the answer is without hesitation an historical account. If the church is liberal the Pastor will lean back and chuckle and say, Don’t you know men wrote the bible? Therefore you can’t really believe everything you read in the bible, only certain parts are inspired. My and my wife’s jaw hit the ground and the conversation was over before it began.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
However, if the beginning is not accurate and factual, how can you trust the rest of it to be so?
Jim

You’re right, Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of scripture. For if there was no Adam, there was no Fall; and if there was no Fall, there is no Hell; and if there is no Hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result, the whole biblical system of salvation collapses.

 

[Johnv]

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.

 

[john6:63]

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]That’s a smoke screen if I ever saw one. 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.