What is a liberal?

[DHK]

HP: I went back and reread some of the posts……. And boy did I ever hit the mother load.:thumbs: Here JOJ tells us ”in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.”

Now let me ask you Brother John, would you consider that just a wee bit subjective in nature? Do you just suppose that one might believe the 'cardinal doctrines of the faith' might possibly entail something different, for say an Arminian than a Calvinist? Would not an Arminian view the Calvinist as a liberal, and the Calvinist the Arminian by your professional and far more intelligent apprehension of what it means to be a liberal... or is the question merely ignorance personified? (You know I am just trying to add a wee bit of humor into the discussion, don't you? )

Historically it is quite specific. Did you read my post back at the beginning of the thread:

In 1895 conservative Protestant Christian leaders gathered together at Niagara Falls and issued a statement as to what constituted the Fundamentals of our Faith:

1) The verbal inerrancy of Scripture.
2) The divinity of Jesus Christ.
3) The virgin birth.
4) The substitutionary atonement of Christ.
5) The physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ.

From that point in history began the Fundamentalist movement. Those who opposed these fundamental doctrines were called modernists. In time the name Liberal became synonymous with modernist. A Liberal is one who also questions the authority of Scripture or any of the other fundamentals of Scripture.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1227892&postcount=29

This is very specific as to who is a liberal and who is not.
BTW, it doesn't matter whether one is a Calvinist or Arminian. That has no bearing on whether one is a fundamentalist or a liberal.

 

[John of Japan]

HP: I went back and reread some of the posts……. And boy did I ever hit the mother load.:thumbs: Here JOJ tells us ”in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.”

Now let me ask you Brother John, would you consider that just a wee bit subjective in nature? Do you just suppose that one might believe the 'cardinal doctrines of the faith' might possibly entail something different, for say an Arminian than a Calvinist? Would not an Arminian view the Calvinist as a liberal, and the Calvinist the Arminian by your professional and far more intelligent apprehension of what it means to be a liberal... or is the question merely ignorance personified? (You know I am just trying to add a wee bit of humor into the discussion, don't you? )

Okay, thanks for the humor. :thumbs:

But no, my statement was not at all subjective. It was based solidly on the history of the fundamentalist vs. liberal disputes of the 1920s-1930s. (After all, this thread did begin as a discussion of fundamentalism before it was moved to this forum.) The "cardinal doctrines of the faith" I mentioned were well defined at the time, both through the prophecy conferences of the late 19th century (well documented by Ernest Sandeen in his book, The Roots of Fundamentalism), and the series of 64 pamphlets called "The Fundamentals," edited by R. A. Torrey and put out 1910 to 1915 and distributed freely around America, due to Christian businessmen footing the cost.

As for the Calvinist/Arminian debates, they have nothing to do with liberalism. In fact, a well-known Calvinist scholar named J. Gresham Machen wrote a book on the matter, Christianity and Liberalism, which was (and still is) well-recommended by both Calvinists and Arminians. (You can read it online at: http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/index.html ) On the Calvinist side, the biggest battle between fundamentalism and liberalism took place among the Presbyterians. On the Baptist side (including both Calvinists and Arminians), the main battles of fundamentalism vs. liberalism took place among the Northern Baptists and in the SBC.

My grandfather (John R. Rice) was a first generation fundamentalist who was blackballed by the Texas Baptist Convention for opposing liberalism (notably the teaching of evolution) in Baylor U., his alma mater. And I heard him preach on liberalism and discuss it many times, as well as reading what he wrote about it in some of his 200 or so books and pamphlets. So you see, to me, attempts to redefine liberalism trivialize the dangers of theological liberalism.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am going to make a suggestion.

The term `theological liberalism' and its derivatives have a standard meaning. In religious scholarship, the terms have universally-accepted and understood standard meanings.

There will always be people who wish to redefine terms for convenience. For instance, many in the Churches of Christ will call `liberal' any member of the Churches of Christ they disagree with. There are Baptists who like to label 'liberal' any Christian who uses an English translation other than the King James Version. However, personal redefinition of terms does not change those terms' standard meanings.

It would be like a teenager claiming that looking at a smutty magazine's "page numbers" is not looking at the magazine. I have seen that argument actually made. Fortunately, this assistant principal was one of the old-order administrators. However much the kid wanted to redefine `looking at the magazine,' to be looking at the magazine meant what it means.

The terms `theological liberalism,' `theological liberal,' etc. have standard meanings in religious scholarship. There will always be people who do not want to accept that words with standard meanings have those meanings in our language.

Explain the standard meaning/s of any such word/s. If the person does not want to accept the standard meaning/s, there is a point at which you might as well not even bother anymore.

 

[DHK]

Jim is a retired Baptist preacher who attends an Anglican church because there are no other churches in the area (as far as I know). Read his testimony here and you will gain some more understanding about liberalism:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1189434&postcount=4

 

[John of Japan]

I am going to make a suggestion.

The term `theological liberalism' and its derivatives have a standard meaning. In religious scholarship, the terms have universally-accepted and understood standard meanings.

There will always be people who wish to redefine terms for convenience. For instance, many in the Churches of Christ will call `liberal' any member of the Churches of Christ they disagree with. There are Baptists who like to label 'liberal' any Christian who uses an English translation other than the King James Version. However, personal redefinition of terms does not change those terms' standard meanings.

Exactly! Right on target. I'm reminded of Humpty Dumpty in Carrol's Through the Looking Glass:

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'"​

The terms `theological liberalism,' `theological liberal,' etc. have standard meanings in religious scholarship. There will always be people who do not want to accept that words with standard meanings have those meanings in our language.

Explain the standard meaning/s of any such word/s. If the person does not want to accept the standard meaning/s, there is a point at which you might as well not even bother anymore.

We may be at that point. We'll see what the next post is. :type:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JOJ: We'll see what the next post is.

HP: I am done for now on the subject. Thanks

 

[RevScott]

A liberal is one who recites the Nicene Creed with his/her fingers crossed.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Definition:

// Theological liberalism is, broadly, the attempt to adapt religious ideas to modern culture and ways of thinking. //


Introduction to JOHN MARK MINISTRIES,
discussion of "Theological Liberalism"

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9090.htm

'Christians' can roughly be put into about ten _theological_ categories.
They are (from left to right):

'radical liberal' (eg. Cupitt),
'liberal' (Tillich, Robinson, Kung, Spong),
'neo-orthodox' (Barth),
'liberal evangelical' (Fosdick),
'radical evangelical' (Wallis),
progressive/ Lausanne evangelical' (Stott),
'conservative evangelical' (Packer),
'fundamentalist' (Bob Jones III),
'sectarian' (the JW's),
and 'cultish' (Koresh).

Now it's common to call everyone to the _left_ of one's theological position 'liberal'. But I'm ahead of myself. Let's define our terms.

Political liberalism (Latin 'liberalis', 'of a free person') is about liberty, equality, tolerance. Philosophers like John Stuart Mill believed that democracy, individualism, and the rule of law could be reconciled. Today political liberals argue about how a liberal society should accommodate illiberals - like fundamentalist Moslems, for example. (See e.g., John Rawls, 'Political Liberalism', Columbia University Press, 1994).

Theological liberalism is, broadly, the attempt to adapt religious ideas to modern culture and ways of thinking. These 'Modernists' say Christianity has always adapted itself to various cultural situations. (It is possible, by the way, for a person to be politically liberal but theologically conservative, and vice versa).

-

 

[JustChristian]

Definition:

// Theological liberalism is, broadly, the attempt to adapt religious ideas to modern culture and ways of thinking. //


Introduction to JOHN MARK MINISTRIES,
discussion of "Theological Liberalism"

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9090.htm




-

Basically, I think this article is on the mark. However, I reject putting "some Baptists" in the same category as Unitarians or those who don't accept the gender of Christ. It's this kind of characterization as well as the thirst for power and identification with certain political ideas that needlessly drove a wedge between the SBC and the CBF.

Christian liberalism varies from place to place and time to time. In the U.S. the Unitarians have been the most liberal major denomination. Recently it's the United Church of Christ (whose recent hymnbook de-genders Jesus!). Some Southern Baptists prefer to call themselves 'moderates'.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Baptistbeliever: Some Southern Baptists prefer to call themselves 'moderates'.

HP: How dare they think they can simply define themselves or align themselves with words that certainly must have well established definitions such as the word 'liberal' does. Did they consult those on this list that are well informed as to the established well defined definitions of the words before they pinned such a title on themselves? They should be aware that to do so might in fact jeopardize their reputation. They in fact might be candidates for being labeled as ignorant. Possibly they should have consulted some on this list before being so careless with terms.

By the way, Obama still maintains that he is not a liberal. :laugh:

 

[John of Japan]

Definition:

//Theological liberalism is, broadly, the attempt to adapt religious ideas to modern culture and ways of thinking. //


Introduction to JOHN MARK MINISTRIES,
discussion of "Theological Liberalism"

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9090.htm

-

This is helpful Ed. But I find the JMM category of "liberal evangelical" to be contradictory. It's like saying, "I ate an apple-orange." There is no such thing--it's apples and oranges! And then JMM names Fosdick as an example of the "Liberal Evangelical."

Harry Emerson Fosdick was a liberal all the way, not some half evangelical. As SBC theologian Erickson points out, he rejected bodily resurrection (Christian Theology, Erickson, p. 120, etc.). And Erickson just calls him a liberal--no "liberal evangelical."

 

[John of Japan]

Basically, I think this article is on the mark. However, I reject putting "some Baptists" in the same category as Unitarians or those who don't accept the gender of Christ. It's this kind of characterization as well as the thirst for power and identification with certain political ideas that needlessly drove a wedge between the SBC and the CBF.

Sigh. HP, you really need to get educated on this. Baptist history is full of liberal Baptists, going way back in Baptist history. Consider the "Downgrade Movement" that Spurgeon opposed in the late 19th century. "Spurgeon charged that a number of Baptist pastors held Socinian views of Christ, Universalist views of salvation, and infidel views of the Bible" (The Baptist Heritage, by H. Leon McBeth, p. 303). And Spurgeon eventually exited the Baptist Union because of this.

Consider the many liberals among the Northern Baptists of the first half of the 20th century, including Harry Emerson Fosdick who I mentioned in another post, who rejected the bodily resurrection of Christ. (Or do you not consider that to be liberal?) Consider that so many Northern Baptists were opposed to the liberals that they exited the NBC and formed a new fellowship, the Conservative Baptists. Consider the current controversy about ordaining homosexuals among the American Baptists (the renamed Northern Baptists).

Consider the SBC controversy of the 1970s and after on the inspiration of Scripture. Surely you don't consider that a minor issue! W. A. Criswell was up in arms about the issue enough to write his book Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True, in opposition to SBC liberalism.

I could go on and on. Get educated, friend!!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

John of Japan, when deciding who is and who is not a liberal, (obviously believed by you as being ordained by God to do so, never again to be revisited or deviated from by the least iota) did they by chance decide what the real relevance of being one is? Do they automatically get counted out of the Kingdom? Did these men that drew up the strict boundaries for the word ‘liberal’ establish the real import of attaching this word with their strict definition to it? Again, is the punishment for being a liberal (under their obviously God-ordained duty to define a liberal) decided once for all and for the whole world for being classified as a liberal? If there is no established penalty for being one, again what is the import of their conclusions?
Who has God passed this ‘liberal determining’ torch to today? Why is it some men years ago could use their intellect and debate or discuss together to establish the meaning of the word ‘liberal,’ and all others that dare to even suggest that other issues might be legitimate boundaries for the word today are simply labeled as ‘ignorant’ by men such as yourself? It would seem apparent to me that you look at the men that established the meanings, that obviously prevail in at least some theological circles, much the same regard as Catholics do the proclamations of the Pope, i.e., infallible……. or so it might in fact appear.

In all seriousness, it reminds me of a man my father spoke to once about some theological issues. The man my father was addressing replied with something like, “Please do not confuse me with any more ideas. I have it figured out to my satisfaction and I do not desire to get confused.”

The position you are espousing JOJ sounds much like the following. We have this idea of who is and who is not a liberal all wrapped up, our books written, and we desire nothing to possibly appear as if though anyone could have something else to add or detract from it. We alone are the Vicar of deciding what is and what is not liberal truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JOJ: Consider the current controversy about ordaining homosexuals among the American Baptists (the renamed Northern Baptists).

HP: Did the men you speak of at the turn of the century add this controversy to the list they made which established what is and is not a liberal? If by chance they did not, what gives you a right to tamper with the well established definition of the word 'liberal?'

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JOJ: Consider the SBC controversy of the 1970s and after on the inspiration of Scripture. Surely you don't consider that a minor issue! W. A. Criswell was up in arms about the issue enough to write his book Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True, in opposition to SBC liberalism.

HP: Educate the list JOJ. Here you speak of ‘SBC liberalism.’ Was this issue that Mr. Criswell wrote about among the issues that are clearly recognized as being one of the ‘well established' criteria of determining just who is a liberal by those at the turn of the century that defined the word liberal once for all? If not, what is it that gave Mr. Criswell the right to add or detract from the well established criteria of what denotes a liberal?

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan, when deciding who is and who is not a liberal, (obviously believed by you as being ordained by God to do so, never again to be revisited or deviated from by the least iota) did they by chance decide what the real relevance of being one is? Do they automatically get counted out of the Kingdom? Did these men that drew up the strict boundaries for the word ‘liberal’ establish the real import of attaching this word with their strict definition to it? Again, is the punishment for being a liberal (under their obviously God-ordained duty to define a liberal) decided once for all and for the whole world for being classified as a liberal? If there is no established penalty for being one, again what is the import of their conclusions?
Who has God passed this ‘liberal determining’ torch to today? Why is it some men years ago could use their intellect and debate or discuss together to establish the meaning of the word ‘liberal,’ and all others that dare to even suggest that other issues might be legitimate boundaries for the word today are simply labeled as ‘ignorant’ by men such as yourself? It would seem apparent to me that you look at the men that established the meanings, that obviously prevail in at least some theological circles, much the same regard as Catholics do the proclamations of the Pope, i.e., infallible……. or so it might in fact appear.

In all seriousness, it reminds me of a man my father spoke to once about some theological issues. The man my father was addressing replied with something like, “Please do not confuse me with any more ideas. I have it figured out to my satisfaction and I do not desire to get confused.”

The position you are espousing JOJ sounds much like the following. We have this idea of who is and who is not a liberal all wrapped up, our books written, and we desire nothing to possibly appear as if though anyone could have something else to add or detract from it. We alone are the Vicar of deciding what is and what is not liberal truth.

Okay, now we are where Darron Steele said, "Explain the standard meaning/s of any such word/s. If the person does not want to accept the standard meaning/s, there is a point at which you might as well not even bother anymore."

You obviously have your mind made up and don't want to know anything about the historical, theological meaning of liberal. You will remain content in your ignorance (I mean this as a descriptive word, not an insult), while accusing me of making up my own meaning for liberal, in spite of the fact that I have given many historical and theological references in place of my own opinion. Your insults don't move me, and I have no desire or need to enter into an argument with you (as opposed to a reasoned, informed discussion).

 

[DHK]

HP: Did the men you speak of at the turn of the century add this controversy to the list they made which established what is and is not a liberal? If by chance they did not, what gives you a right to tamper with the well established definition of the word 'liberal?'

This does:

2 John 1:9-11 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JOJ: You obviously have your mind made up and don't want to know anything about the historical, theological meaning of liberal. You will remain content in your ignorance, while accusing me of making up my own meaning for liberal, in spite of the fact that I have given many historical and theological references in place of my own opinion. And your insults don't move me.

HP: Here is what I have gained from you so far. If you decide to add to the list as to what makes a liberal a liberal, or if Mr. Criswell decides to add to the list that makes a liberal a liberal, it is well within what you term as the ‘historical and theological meaning of the word liberal’ regardless of when the addition is made. On the other hand, if one labels yourself or a colleague as a liberal, utilizing the VERY SAME CRITERIA, (JOJ: in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.”) however from a different perspective other than your own, that you yourself presented claiming it was the criteria for establishing what is a liberal, you call them “ignorant” and desiring to “remain content” in their ignorance.

Me thinks your theological bias is hampering your fair assessment of the what constitutes a liberal and to whom the right is reserved to make any such distinction.

I would agree with you that most if not all the issues you have raised would be well within the parameters of what I personally would determine are liberal, but I also see some other issues that men steeped in a theological bias might not be able to see lest the light illuminate their own ‘liberal’ ideas. (I am using the term ‘liberal’ as you defined it, JOJ: “in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith” with my personal addition to this definition which would include; “one who manufactures a belief or dogma and acts as if though it is a mandatory cardinal doctrine of the faith.” Possibly my grandson or great grandson might revere my ideas as you do your ancestors….. or so I could hope. :thumbs:

Why would adding to the doctrines of Scripture be any more undesirable than denying a cardinal doctrine?? It would appear to myself, although called by you with your kind choice of words “ignorant”, that the real import of a liberal is one that simply deviates from the truths of Scripture. That would be as easily accomplished by the addition to Scripture as it would be the denying of a particular doctrine or clearly recognized belief. Again just as the later is certainly subject to personal bias and or subjective analyses, so is the former.

Time will certainly prove out who is in accordance to truth and who is not. God will be that judge, not you, I, or Mr. Torrey or any other. In the meantime we would do well to present our ideas as we see them and refrain from personal attacks such as calling the other ignorant.:thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

I think I get the idea.

LIBERAL - a person such as HP who can spell & write sentences :tonofbricks:

 

[DHK]

On the other hand, if one labels yourself or a colleague as a liberal, utilizing the VERY SAME CRITERIA, (JOJ: in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.”) however from a different perspective other than your own,

You are wrong here HP. And you need to admit it. The theological definition of a Liberal can be found in Bible Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and most of all history books. The history books unequivocally state that a liberal is one who does not believe in the five fundamental doctrines decided upon by conservative Protestants in a conference in 1895 held in Niagra. That is history, and it is factual. There is no opinion to be disputed there. There are no other perspectives. It is black and white. Nothing could be so clear as that statement that was drawn up. Either you believe in these five cardinal truths or you do not.

I would agree with you that most if not all the issues you have raised would be well within the parameters of what I personally would determine are liberal, but I also see some other issues that men steeped in a theological bias might not be able to see lest the light illuminate their own ‘liberal’ ideas. (I am using the term ‘liberal’ as you defined it, JOJ: “in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith” with my personal addition to this definition which would include; “one who manufactures a belief or dogma and acts as if though it is a mandatory cardinal doctrine of the faith.”

Now look who is making up definitions as we go along?? Why can't you just accept the definition as it is, instead of adding to it your own "personal additions" and clouding up the entire issue. That is what makes it so difficult to carry on a debate. You change the definition of a word midway through a conversation. Words have meanings. They can't be changed on a whim.