What is a liberal?

[John of Japan]

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:

To call you "ignorant" is not a personal attack, it is describing a condition. I fully admit I am ignorant in many areas, no doubt thousands of areas, and don't consider that I am insulting myself. Do you not admit that you are ignorant in many areas? To this point you certainly have not shown any knowledge of what theological liberalism is: it's history (beginning with higher criticism), its advocates (you seem to think that "liberal" is just an insult rather than an established theological movement), its beliefs. Thus, I stand by my statement that you are ignorant about liberalism.

 

[JustChristian]

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!!

I assumed that the reference was specifically to members of CBF churches because of their preference for being called moderates. Did any of these people or groups that you mentioned have the same preference? I'm familiar with the American Baptist situation because I was a member of an American Baptist church for 15 years before I moved here 18 months ago. I'm also familiar with the liberals in the SBC seminaries that were fired by the current leadership of the convention because I was a Southern Baptist from age 7 until I joined the ABC church. It is a topic that I would like to learn more about.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I assumed that the reference was specifically to members of CBF churches because of their preference for being called moderates. Did any of these people or groups that you mentioned have the same preference?

We need better terminology than just liberal and fundamentalist. There is the third term, conservative and I do see a difference between a fundamentalist and a conservative. I believe we need to add the term moderate. All four terms need to be well defined.

Far too many fundamentalist call anyone who does not agree with them on every jot and tiddle a liberal ... and this simply is not ture. In fact, often it is the person who calls themself a fundamentalist who takes is liberal in their interpretation of the Bible. How is this? Because they try to force the Bible to say what they want it to say and do not let the Bible say what it really says. In others words, instead of letting the Bible preach to them, they preach to the Bible ... and that is liberal.

 

[John of Japan]

I assumed that the reference was specifically to members of CBF churches because of their preference for being called moderates.

Forgive me, I did mess up there, thinking I was responding to HP.

But my statement still stands that there have been liberal Baptists for centuries, though you seemed to be saying it was improper to refer to a Baptist as liberal. Of course I know that many SBC types mean only the SBC when they use the word Baptist. :laugh: (Joke!)

Frankly, I don't know a lot about the current SBF/CBF thing, having been here in Japan all these years with no SBC missionaries in the same city for all this time. (I did go to language school with the SBC guys 25-27 years ago.) But still, I know that there were genuine liberals in the SBC back in the day. In fact, last summer I had an interesting correspondence with a conservative SBC seminary prof who had been through the battles in the 1970s. According to him, there were openly liberal profs in his seminary who could be quite nasty in their treatment of conservatives--classroom lectures, chapel and the like.

Make no mistake about it, the SBC liberals of the 1970s were living in glass houses if they are the "moderates" of today. They threw plenty of stones. In John R. Rice's book, Southern Baptist and Wolves in Sheep's Clothing (1972), there is an article about W. A. Criswell (then SBC president) which details how Criswell was persecuted by the liberals for standing for Scriptural inerrancy. "A meeting of Bible teachers from Southern Baptist seminaries and colleges, in Atalanta, with sixty present, voted to rebuke the Sunday School Board for their promotion of Dr. Criswell's book. They said it might leave the impression that the fundamental, Bible-believing stand of Criswell, that the Bible is literally true, might be thought to be the official position of the Sunday School Board" (p. 71).

Did any of these people or groups that you mentioned have the same preference? I'm familiar with the American Baptist situation because I was a member of an American Baptist church for 15 years before I moved here 18 months ago. I'm also familiar with the liberals in the SBC seminaries that were fired by the current leadership of the convention because I was a Southern Baptist from age 7 until I joined the ABC church. It is a topic that I would like to learn more about.

As far as I know, the preference for being called "moderate" is limited to the SBC, and even then only starting in the 1970's when Harold Lindsell brought things to a head with his book The Battle for the Bible (1976), at the powerful effect of which the SBC liberals moved to the defense. To my knowledge, through the 1950s at a minimum, liberals didn't mind being called liberal among the Northern Baptists.

 

[Just Andrew]

Fundamentalist, conservative, Liberal

Fundamenalist: One who subscribes to the fundamental principles of the faith as described by DHK in an earlier post.

Conservative: One who does not subscribe to gospel of salvation "plus" (gospel + "last days" signs, wonders, miracles, prophecies, tongues, spiritual experiences eg "slain in the Spirit" and other spiritual phenomena which Christians add to the gospel).

Liberal: One who denies that any of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses and claims they were all written a generation or two later, and are merely collections of oral traditions handed down. One who believes this world - a sinking ship - can and must be rescued from it's woes by social intervention in the name of Christianity - one who would subscribe to "Liberation Theology" which denegrates the blood of Christ by saying that the blood of liberators shed for liberation can be equated with the blood of Jesus. One who denies the fundamentals of the faith taught by the apostles, and denies that what we read in the New Testament is the apostle's actual teaching. One who says "the Holy Spirit operates in all faiths - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc etc (such as previous head of South African Anglican Church). One who knowingly or unknowingly is at war with Christ and His flock.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I for one would like to see John of Japan repond to the post by Just Andrew concerning what is a liberal. Is JA presenting a 'well established' view point, or would you consider him as being ignorant? Please do not take offense Just Andrew. I for one do NOT consider you to be ignorant:thumbs:

 

[Darron Steele]

Heavenly Pilgrim

...

Liberal: One who denies that any of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses and claims they were all written a generation or two later, and are merely collections of oral traditions handed down. One who believes this world - a sinking ship - can and must be rescued from it's woes by social intervention in the name of Christianity - one who would subscribe to "Liberation Theology" which denegrates the blood of Christ by saying that the blood of liberators shed for liberation can be equated with the blood of Jesus. One who denies the fundamentals of the faith taught by the apostles, and denies that what we read in the New Testament is the apostle's actual teaching. One who says "the Holy Spirit operates in all faiths - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc etc (such as previous head of South African Anglican Church). One who knowingly or unknowingly is at war with Christ and His flock.

This is a good list of what happens in what is standardly recognized as "theological liberalism."

John of Japan does not need to object to it as you are challenging him to. Just Andrew is not trying to redefine `theological liberal' as you seem to be.

Look, Heavenly Pilgrim, "theological liberal" and "theological liberalism" have standard meanings in religious scholarship. For whatever reason, you want to say that these words do not have established meanings. Effort has been made to give you an informed understanding of the standard meanings of those words.

You have shown that you do not intend to accept that "theological liberal" and "theological liberalism" have standard meanings. You have shown that further efforts to correct you on this will be a waste of time and effort. You have shown that you will take comments where no insult was intended, and will claim the person intended to insult you anyway.

For all of that, very well -- but no need to be spiteful to others about it. If you want the words to mean to you whatever you want, no one is trying to force you otherwise. Trying to correct you is not the same as trying to force you. I really do not understand why you are so insistent upon keeping up this argument -- if you do not want to accept the standard meanings, leave the discussion and go your way. There is no reason for this to get nasty.

 

[Just Andrew]

I for one would like to see John of Japan repond to the post by Just Andrew concerning what is a liberal. Is JA presenting a 'well established' view point, or would you consider him as being ignorant? Please do not take offense Just Andrew. I for one do NOT consider you to be ignorant:thumbs:

It's o.k. Heavenly Pilgrim's last words there were "I for one do NOT consider you to be ignorant". But I am actually ignorant of the intellectaul scholarly definitions of what a "liberal" is anyway - I'm only going on what I've heard liberals themselves say, and on the things that liberals themselvs have written that I've read. I really couldn't be bothered with swallowing a dictionary to describe a liberal - I merely need to repeat their own words.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darron Steele: John of Japan does not need to object to it as you are challenging him to. Just Andrew is not trying to redefine `theological liberal' as you seem to be.

HP: Let me start by reposting a comment by JOJ.

JOJ: ”in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.”

I started off by simply asking him if in fact that was a bit subjective in nature. Here was his response.

JOJ: “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.”

My point originally was not to try and redefine what a liberal is for anyone else, nor mandate, as JOJ does, that everyone use the term as he or his grandfather used it. Tell me Darron, are you going to just sit there and swallow JOJ ‘s logic and tell us that the statement he made is not subjective in nature, subject to interpretation in different ways by individuals of differing theological bias?

Now the same type of statement came up with Just Andrews list. JA said, “One who knowingly or unknowingly is at war with Christ and His flock.” Again I see a highly subjective notion that is subject to ones own personal ideas and bias. I desire JOJ to tell us once again that the notion he posted, or the notion that JA posted are not subjective in nature and as such subject to differing interpretations of who is and who is not a liberal.

Jump right in there Darron.:thumbs: Give us your take. Are either one or both of these “definitions” subjective in nature?

 

[DHK]

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
It appears to be hopeless in the face of the already presented black and white historical facts that leave no room for subjectiveness.

 

[Darron Steele]

My point originally was not to try and redefine what a liberal is for anyone else, nor mandate, as JOJ does, that everyone use the term as he or his grandfather used it. Tell me Darron, are you going to just sit there and swallow JOJ ‘s logic and tell us that the statement he made is not subjective in nature, subject to interpretation in different ways by individuals of differing theological bias?

Now the same type of statement came up with Just Andrews list. JA said, “One who knowingly or unknowingly is at war with Christ and His flock.” Again I see a highly subjective notion that is subject to ones own personal ideas and bias. I desire JOJ to tell us once again that the notion he posted, or the notion that JA posted are not subjective in nature and as such subject to differing interpretations of who is and who is not a liberal.

Jump right in there Darron.:thumbs: Give us your take. Are either one or both of these “definitions” subjective in nature?

Heavenly Pilgrim: the standard meanings of "theological liberalism" and "theological liberal" are not subjective.

It is not a matter of taking your chosen `definition' or taking John of Japan's side. On a mathematical equation, a class of students solving x - (-7) = 1 will come up most often with either x = -6 or x = 8. The correct answer, in terms of how numbers work, is x = -6. My marking x = -6 right is not subjective, and is not taking sides.

For decades, "theological liberalism" and "theological liberal" have had standard meanings. When a reputable study of the church uses these words, those who are reading them are expected to understand what is meant. That is because those words have long-established meanings. Now, words can change meanings in the future -- but that these words have long-established meanings NOW is not subjective.

End of story.

If you do not like the long-established meanings of the words, and want them to mean what you think they ought to, that is your business. Prior efforts to correct misunderstanding about current long-established meanings were not efforts to force you otherwise. I do not see why you seem so driven to persist in this argument. There is no point in arguing about this.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//How is a liberal a threat to fundamentalists//

It diverts fundamentalists from the real enemy: the old man.

Col 3:8-10 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
But now put ye away euen all these things, wrath, anger, maliciousnes, cursed speaking, filthie speaking, out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that yee haue put off the olde man with his workes,
10 And haue put on the newe, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him

-

Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it! :thumbs:

-

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
It appears to be hopeless in the face of the already presented black and white historical facts that leave no room for subjectiveness.

HP: ”JOJ: in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.”

It would appear reasonable to me to believe that any list of the ‘cardinal doctrines of the faith’ would be somewhat subjective. Possibly with an object lesson the point might be established.

Who has this magical list of the ‘cardinal doctrines of the faith?’ Could someone post them?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally Posted by Revmitchell
Anyone who doesn't believe as I do. Or so I have heard.:laugh: :wavey:

Yes, that is what a Liberal is.

But i get a lot of 'bait & switch with 'Liberal' definitions.

Joe Blow doesn't believe what I do, so he is a Liberal.
You know all those liberals like to take a pint of wine with supper.
Liberals are drunks, so Joe Blow is a drunk also.

Of the some two dozen (2times12=24) reports I've read about the BB = Baptist Board, it is said that too many Liberals roost there & don't give the Fundamentals room to breath or say anything.

Anyway, I hold to my original post: A meaningful discussion of 'Liberal' cannot take place here, it is forbidden to do so.

...
Liberal: One who denies that any of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses and claims they were all written a generation or two later, and are merely collections of oral traditions handed down. One who believes this world - a sinking ship - can and must be rescued from it's woes by social intervention in the name of Christianity - one who would subscribe to "Liberation Theology" which denegrates the blood of Christ by saying that the blood of liberators shed for liberation can be equated with the blood of Jesus. One who denies the fundamentals of the faith taught by the apostles, and denies that what we read in the New Testament is the apostle's actual teaching. One who says "the Holy Spirit operates in all faiths - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc etc (such as previous head of South African Anglican Church). One who knowingly or unknowingly is at war with Christ and His flock.

Sounds good to me. But it sure is misused in the 'bait & switch' logic error a lot.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: But now put ye away euen all these things, wrath, anger, maliciousnes, cursed speaking, filthie speaking, out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that yee haue put off the olde man with his workes,
10 And haue put on the newe, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him

HP: Would one that does not do the things commanded here be classified in your opinion as a liberal? :saint:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: Anyway, I hold to my original post: A meaningful discussion of 'Liberal' cannot take place here, it is forbidden to do so.

HP: Maybe we can learn something about subjectivity. There seems to be a lack of knowledge as to what it entails. :thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Quote:
ED: But now put ye away euen all these things, wrath, anger, maliciousnes, cursed speaking, filthie speaking, out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that yee haue put off the olde man with his workes,
10 And haue put on the newe, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him

HP: Would one that does not do the things commanded here be classified in your opinion as a liberal? :saint:

No. This has nothing to do with Liberal/un-liberal. This has to do with being a real Christian/saved person or not.

Has anybody in this converstaion had a conversations at length with a Mystic Christian?

 

[Crabtownboy]

[
[/FONT][/COLOR]



Has anybody in this converstaion had a conversations at length with a Mystic Christian?

Not sure if I have. Definne mystic Christian for me. Thanks.

 

[AAA]

1What is a "liberal?" 2How is a liberal a threat to fundamentalists?

1. Arminians and others...

2. They undermine the gosple of GRACE....

Sorry, no offense intended...

 

[DHK]

HP: ”JOJ: in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.”

It would appear reasonable to me to believe that any list of the ‘cardinal doctrines of the faith’ would be somewhat subjective. Possibly with an object lesson the point might be established.

Who has this magical list of the ‘cardinal doctrines of the faith?’ Could someone post them?

From post #121 and yet another previous post (this is the third time,) here they are:

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.