-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is a liberal?
- Thread starter sister christian
- Start date
Well, normally on the BB when you quote someone people assume you are answering their post. I would suggest that next time you simply write your post without quoting anyone if you are not replying to their post.BaptistBeliever said:
Let me repeat myself:BaptistBeliever said:
Politics has its own vocabulary.
Theology has its own vocabulary.
The word liberal used in the political field does not mean the same as it does in the theological field. To think that it does is being naive. Therefore, before you ask your question or enter into a discussion or debate, define your terms and the parameters of your discussion
"The liberal soul shall be made fat" (Prov. 11:25)
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Consider a circle, at the left is CHRISTIAN LIBERAL, at the right is CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTAL, at the bottom is MODERATE CHRISTIAN (EVANGELICAL), at the top is: HYPER-CHRISTIAN LIBERAL & HYPER-CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTAL
-
-
-
-
HYPER-CHRISTIAN LIBERAL
HYPER-CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTAL
HYPER-CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTAL
-
-
CHRISTIAN
CHRISTIAN
LIBERAL
FUNDAMENTAL
-
-
-
-
MODERATE CHRISTIAN
(EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN)
-
If you are Muslim, you ain't on the circle
If you are Hindu, you ain't on the circle
If you are confused, you ain't on the circle
If you are Pagan, you lain't on the circle
'Liberal' on the Christian scale, like 'liberal' on the political scale is both a direction and a location. On this scale 'liberal' is clock-wise (Direction) and the point at the left (location).
Unlike 'conservative' on the political scale, 'fundamental' on the Christian scale does NOT denote a direction, only a location. So somebody needs a word to describe the contra-clock-wise direction on this scale/circle.
The point at the top on the Political scale is hyper-liberal (Communist) & hyper-conservative (Nazi) - they are the same. Likewise in the Christian area, both the hyper-liberal and the hyper-fundamental - are the same -- AKA: bigot
-
(EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN)
-
If you are Muslim, you ain't on the circle
If you are Hindu, you ain't on the circle
If you are confused, you ain't on the circle
If you are Pagan, you lain't on the circle
'Liberal' on the Christian scale, like 'liberal' on the political scale is both a direction and a location. On this scale 'liberal' is clock-wise (Direction) and the point at the left (location).
Unlike 'conservative' on the political scale, 'fundamental' on the Christian scale does NOT denote a direction, only a location. So somebody needs a word to describe the contra-clock-wise direction on this scale/circle.
The point at the top on the Political scale is hyper-liberal (Communist) & hyper-conservative (Nazi) - they are the same. Likewise in the Christian area, both the hyper-liberal and the hyper-fundamental - are the same -- AKA: bigot
-
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Here is the only use of 'liberal' in the TNIV:
2 Corinthians 8:20 (TNIV):
We want to avoid any criticism of the
way we administer this liberal gift.
2 Corinthians 8:20 (TNIV):
We want to avoid any criticism of the
way we administer this liberal gift.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Here are some uses of 'liberal' in the TMB
roverbs 11:25 - Third Millennium Bible
The liberal soul shall prosper, and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.
Isaiah 32:5 - Third Millennium Bible
The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
Isaiah 32:8 - Third Millennium Bible
But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
2 Corinthians 9:13 - Third Millennium Bible
while by the experience of this ministration they glorify God for your freely declared subjection unto the Gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them and unto all men,
Sirach 31:23 - Third Millennium Bible
Whoso is liberal with his meat, men shall speak well of him; and the report of his good housekeeping will be believed.
Obviously in the Bible 'liberal' means 'generous', especially with one's own stuff.
(as opposed to 'politically liberal' which sometimes means 'generous with other people's stuff :laugh: ).
roverbs 11:25 - Third Millennium BibleThe liberal soul shall prosper, and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.
Isaiah 32:5 - Third Millennium Bible
The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
Isaiah 32:8 - Third Millennium Bible
But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
2 Corinthians 9:13 - Third Millennium Bible
while by the experience of this ministration they glorify God for your freely declared subjection unto the Gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them and unto all men,
Sirach 31:23 - Third Millennium Bible
Whoso is liberal with his meat, men shall speak well of him; and the report of his good housekeeping will be believed.
Obviously in the Bible 'liberal' means 'generous', especially with one's own stuff.
(as opposed to 'politically liberal' which sometimes means 'generous with other people's stuff :laugh: ).
Ed Edwards said:
The KJV says
2Co 8:20 Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us:
Is blame and criticism the same thing? Criticism is often not deserved and based on opinion, but blame is deserved, it means that there is absolute fault. Looks to me like a totally different meaning...and the word "liberal" does not appear at all.
AJ
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
The NRS = New Revised Standard uses 'liberal' only in Sirach 31:23. So the O.T. and N.T. of the NRS doesn't use 'liberal' at all.
The HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003), does not use 'liberal' at all.
The NASB = New American Standard Bible, does not use 'liberal' at all.
I'd say we are amiss in talking about 'Christian Liberal' unless we are talking German Poliltics.
So what was the question?
The HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003), does not use 'liberal' at all.
The NASB = New American Standard Bible, does not use 'liberal' at all.
I'd say we are amiss in talking about 'Christian Liberal' unless we are talking German Poliltics.
So what was the question?
JustChristian
New Member
DHK said:
The originator of the thread did that by leaving it open to interpretation. The reason I replied that you need to make a distinction, which you repeated, is that too many political conservatives these days believe and go around saying that if you don't belong to their political party (Republican) you can't be a Christian. This to me is the same as saying that if you're a liberal politically you must also be a liberal theologically. (I agree that very liberal theology is not the gospel and people who adhere to it are not saved). Of course the question is where do you draw the line. Some would say you must only use the KJV of the Bible. Some would say that you must believe that the Bible is inerrant, and so on.
Actually, this thread originated strictly as a discussion of theological liberalism in the Fundamental Baptist forum, but was then moved to here. Sister Christian was doing a school paper on the subject of fundamentalism, and wanted definitions of a number of things from us fundamental Baptists. She started out with the definitions she wanted all on one post, then branched out. Here is her original thread FYI: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=48867BaptistBeliever said:
JustChristian
New Member
John of Japan said:
It seems the topic of the thread was broadened when it was moved. I didn't read the original one so there's no way I could have known that.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: You are misusing and abusing what I have stated DHK. My point is that one cannot judge the Scripture by whether or not a specific individual is living up to a command or not. That in and of itself proves nothing as to whether or not the command is a real possibility or not. Your whole thrust of reasoning has been to try and debunk God’s clear command to be perfect even as God is perfect by attempting to set yourself up as a judge over the personal experience of an another from your finite perspective, setting up yourself to be a judge over another’s servant. Even if I were to share my personal experiences with you, you are in no position to be the judge of my life or the life of any other for that matter. Paul stated that he did not judge himself, but it is God the final Judge. I am certain Paul judged his own actions in a senses, yet he realized that in the end God knows us better than we know ourselves, and it is God alone that will be our final judge. Again, your attempt at turning this debate into a personal attack on my life or that of another proves nothing as to the validity of the passage bearing not only a true possibility but a command by God to His children.
HP: What does it prove if I am not?
HP: That is NOT what we are debating DHK, and has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the command as given is possible.
HP: I have and I will once again. This debate is not about my personal life nor is about yours or any other. It is whether or not it is possible to keep the command as God gave it to us in His Word. Your attempts are futile to prove anything as be impossible because I or you or any other may or may not have lived up to it. God will be our final judge.
HP: We are to be imitators of Christ in everything we act do or think. God will be the final Judge as to how well we did, and we shall indeed stand before Him and give an account as Scripture states we will.
HP: There is a song “Oh To Be Like Thee” by William J Kirkpatrick in which the chorus goes like this. I believe it should be the cry and watchword of our life. “Oh to be like Thee, Oh to be like Thee, Blessed Redeemer, pure as Thou art. Come in the sweetness, come in Thy fullness. Stamp Thine own image, deep on my heart!
HP: The point is that what it does not say or imply is what you have stated, i.e., that it is an impossible command to fulfill. Your mere pointing to the verse and stating that such a command is impossible does not make it so.
I believe your personal attacks are unwarranted and not in the spirit of Christian charity. Is it not true that personal attacks are forbidden on this board? Should not the moderators, of all people, set the example for the rest of us?
HP: Not so as I read Scripture. Heb 6:1 ¶ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, Ro 12:1 ¶ I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Ro 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
HP:How about answering the post I wrote last on the thread concerning a ‘Sinful Nature’ where you connected understanding the need of salvation and hearing the gospel to the age of accountability?
That's what I figured. :wavey:BaptistBeliever said:
Quote:
DHK: I don't want to hear your vain philosophies. I want to hear the Biblical outworking of a practical theology. Theology is useless unless it has a practical application in your own life. I want to know how you apply these Scriptures to your own life.
I want to hear the Biblical outworking of a practical theology. Theology is useless unless it has a practical application in your own life. I want to know how you apply these Scriptures (Mat.5:48; Rom.8:29; 1Pet.1:15; Mat.22:37-39) to your own life.
Demonstrate how these verses are fully and completely worked out and obeyed in your own life. If theology does not have a practical applcation what good is it? I await your answer.
DHK: I don't want to hear your vain philosophies. I want to hear the Biblical outworking of a practical theology. Theology is useless unless it has a practical application in your own life. I want to know how you apply these Scriptures to your own life.
Let me ask again:
I want to hear the Biblical outworking of a practical theology. Theology is useless unless it has a practical application in your own life. I want to know how you apply these Scriptures (Mat.5:48; Rom.8:29; 1Pet.1:15; Mat.22:37-39) to your own life.
Demonstrate how these verses are fully and completely worked out and obeyed in your own life. If theology does not have a practical applcation what good is it? I await your answer.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I will answer you yet another time. This is not a personal inquisition as you would obviously desire it to become. This is no place to cast ones pearls. God will be my judge as to whether or not I have complied with His commands, not you or anyone else. He will be your Judge as well. This forum is not the place to try and judge the others life to see if they are personally consistent with Scriptures demands. This debate centers on the merits of what is taught in Scripture concerning whether or not the commands of God are indeed possible or not and again is NOT based upon the practical application of it in anyone’s particular life or the lack thereof.
Your argument is paramount to one telling one that states that the Word of God can wash away ones sins and make the vilest sinner clean, but who might now be living in sin, that they cannot prove that to be so, nor teach it as being so unless they have personally worked it out and obeyed such a message in their own life. That is exactly your false argument. The truth is that it does not matter if not one individual has chosen to respond in repentance and faith to the message of hope, the message of hope would be just as real regardless who or how many have responded.
No, I will not be detracted from this debate by your attempts to play judge, jury, and executioner of the messenger. Individual consistency to, or lack thereof, from your finite perspective or the finite perspective of any other, in any way proves or disproves the clear reality that God commands no impossibilities out of His children, nor does this verse imply any such impossibility exists. What we should be debating and discussing, is in what sense, or by what proportionate application, can we be assured that we can be judged by God as being perfect even as He is.
You cannot give an honest answer to these questions because you know that in this lifetime it is impossible to fulfill them. They are goals to reach toward. They are goals that will never be achieved until we reach heaven. They are commands, yes; but commands that are impossible to achieve during this lifetime.Heavenly Pilgrim said:
Does God give us commands that are impossible to keep? Yes, He does. He puts them forth as goals to work toward that will never be achieved until Christ comes again or until we reach heaven, which ever comes first.
Be perfect as God is perfect. You will never attain that on this earth.
Be holy as God is holy. You will never attain that on this earth. No one will. No one ever has.
Be conformed to the image of Christ. You will never attain that on this earth. No one has and no one ever will; not on this earth.
You say that it is possible to attain these goals. You are very arrogant. The Apostle Paul said that he would never attain these goals.
Philippians 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Can any man love God with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength, all of the time, every minute, all of his life. No. Not in this life. Not until you get to heaven. You may have that goal, but it will not be accomplished until Christ comes again.
The sin nature is one reason that prevents us from doing all of those things.
Christ never had a sin nature.
He never had a sin nature for he was born of a virgin.
Darron Steele
New Member
DHK said:
Agreed. A theological liberal in church-related circles is an individual who denies that what the Bible says is true.ajg1959 said:
Other things associated with theological liberalism follow from this. If the person believed that the Bible was to believed at all points, s/he would never become a theological liberal.
I will say more about the relationship between theological liberalism and socio-political liberalism later.
Adam sinned though he was created perfect.Amy.G said:
Lucifer sinned though he was created perfect.
One third of all the angels sinned though they were perfect.
It seems that all of God's creatures are tested as to whether or not they are willing to obey God. If Adam had passed that test, and eaten of the Tree of Life instead we can assume that he would have lived forever.
Lucifer rebelled and was cast down to the earth, and awaits his final doom; likewise the angels that followed him.
However, the angels that did not rebel against the Lord were "confirmed" in their holiness and remain with the Lord forever more. In one way or another all are given a test by God.
In Adam's case his sin did not just affect himself, it affected the entire human or "Adamic" race.
Darron Steele
New Member
Revmitchell said:
Revmitchell has noted that theological liberalism and socio-political liberalism are frequently associated, although they are distinct things. There are reasons for this frequent association.DHK said:
Socio-political liberalism has one notable precept that is particularly loud: downplaying individual responsibility. This is beyond `Help your neighbor because it is right.' This is `Expecting people to be responsible is restrictive, oppressive, and cruel.' This is why socio-political liberals are so big on entitlements, so quick to champion that which is immoral, so quick to stand up for the troublemaker and criminal, so quick to oppose law and order, so adamant against those who stand up for right and wrong, and so hateful of moral religion. Now, a lot of socio-political liberals are such due to innocent simplemindedness -- others are anything but innocent.
Needless to say, such a worldview is going to be conducive to theological liberalism, which in essence is a rejection of the Bible as truth. The Bible is replete with commands pushing right/wrong and telling us about this authority known as the Lord Jesus Christ. Socio-political liberals would want none of this.
Theological liberalism spread like fast-acting poison through the church by liars who agreed to teach biblically -- but had every intention of using their academic posts to undermine Scripture. Their jobs were to teach people to follow Scripture; they were completely satisfied to accept pay while not doing the job for which they were hired. Again, socio-political liberalism rejects right/wrong, so if these individuals thought it was okay to lie, they lied. Before too long, they were standing up for opponents of God's written Word, blocking the advancement of Bible believers, and making more skeptics of God's written Word. Theological liberalism grew.
However, there is some small truth to the "social gospel" idea. I reject that notion as it is, because the Gospel is about Heavenly things -- not affairs of this world. The Gospel is "Good News" (ICB) and is the Good News about how sinful mortals can be saved from their sins in this depraved world.
Here is what I believe is valid about the "social gospel" idea: evangelism should not be done without active concern for people. Matthew 5:16 says “Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (ASV); we should be doing good deeds to make the Lord good to people.
Last edited by a moderator: