Why I like LIberals...

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Zebedee:
It is not a definition, its an analysis.

Okay, then you either have a flawed analysis or there are no liberals on BaptistBoard.com. And for the record, I don't think I've ever personally met any Baptist liberals according to this "analysis."

[ August 18, 2002, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[Zebedee]

BB-- Okay, then you either have a flawed analysis or there are no liberals on BaptistBoard.com. And for the record, I don't think I've ever personally met any Baptist liberals according to this "analysis."
__________________________________________________

First, I never said there was a theological liberal on the baptistboard, so what difference does it make that you've never met one here? Did I say there was one to meet?

Also, I am talking about theological liberalism as a whole, not the group of baptist liberals that you've met.

The denial the bodily resurrection, virgin birth, miracles of the Bible, personal return of Christ, etc, stem from a denial of the supernatural, influenced by the rise of rationalism, scientific advancement, and the "enlightenment."

[ August 18, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Zebedee ]

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Zebedee:
BB-- Okay, then you either have a flawed analysis or there are no liberals on BaptistBoard.com. And for the record, I don't think I've ever personally met any Baptist liberals according to this "analysis."
__________________________________________________

First, I never said there was a theological liberal on the baptistboard, so what difference does it make that you've never met one here? Did I say there was one to meet?

No you didn't, but you sounded like you were suggesting there were. I am delighted to read that you don't think there are any theological liberals on BaptistBoard.com!

Also, I am talking about theological liberalism as a whole, not the group of baptist liberals that you've met.

Who said I've met any Baptist liberals?

I've known people who were theologically to the left of me as well as the right. I personally haven't knowingly met any Baptists who deny the "supernatural" or the deity of Christ -- and I've attended more than a few CBF meetings in my day (allegedly the hotbed of theological liberalism!)

The denial the bodily resurrection, virgin birth, miracles of the Bible, personal return of Christ, etc, stem from a denial of the supernatural, influenced by the rise of rationalism, scientific advancement, and the "enlightenment."

Yep... That's rationalism. Historically, fundamentalists responded to the threat (and there was truly a threat) by unfortunately taking the same intellectual tools (rationalism) to construct theological idols of "certainty" like the theory of inerrancy.

For many people. these rational models construct theological houses of cards that collapse if any portion of the theory turns out not to be completely accurate -- even if the Bible doesn't support it. Because of the fragility of these beliefs, any breezes of new information or Biblical interpretation that might jostle the house of cards has to be suppressed as quickly as possible using just about any tactic necessary -- including personal attacks on the offenders or outright lies. I've seen this personally in my experience in the Southern Baptist Convention, at Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, and against friends of mine. I've also faced some attacks as well.

For the record, I'm not necessarily accusing anyone here of this, but if the shoe fits...

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Zebedee:
Liberalism is unbelief. Liberals deny the supernatural, whether it be the resurrection, the virgin birth, miracles, you name it. Paul said without the resurrection you are still in your sins. John said to deny the diety of Christ was to prove you were not His. Peter said the mockers would scorn the belief that Jesus woulds return. Folks, liberals do all of this and more. Hence, they are apostates.

Believers are not to fellowship with apostates.

Using this definition, I don't think we have any liberals on BaptistBoard.com. For that matter, I don't think I've ever met a Baptist liberal...</font>[/QUOTE]BB you didn't mean to say I don't think I've ever met a Christian liberal did you?
Murph

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Zebedee:

The denial the bodily resurrection, virgin birth, miracles of the Bible, personal return of Christ, etc, stem from a denial of the supernatural, influenced by the rise of rationalism, scientific advancement, and the "enlightenment."[/QB]

Who ever denied the supernatural? Of course the supernatural exists, otherwise God could not exist. I think you are confusing atheist scientific type with liberals. Sorry to pop your balloon, but we liberals believe in God and the Deity of Christ and that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

[ August 19, 2002, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[LadyEagle]

Post-it: "Sorry to pop your balloon, but we liberals believe in God and the Deity of Christ and that the Bible is the inspired word of God."

The Deity of Christ does not exist without the virgin birth. I challenge you to prove otherwise from Scripture.

 

[Daniel David]

Post-it will never be able to prove his position. He can only put forth a collection of fanciful, pagan ideas and not answer any of my posts.

Josh will never fully believe the virgin birth because the Scriptures declare it to be true. Imagine that, he will accept it if a bunch of "christians" accept it but not if the Bible says it to be so. Hmmm...

I personally love liberals. They insist on tearing the walls down and "just follow Christ". While admirable, they are wrong, becuase I know what they really mean by that. I also wish to tear down walls and just follow Christ. The liberals call that unity. I call it evangelism.

Liberals mark off the parameters of what us Christians never want to believe. Oh sure they give lip service to some areas of agreement. They don't really believe it though. That is why they are liberal.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Yep... That's rationalism. Historically, fundamentalists responded to the threat (and there was truly a threat) by unfortunately taking the same intellectual tools (rationalism) to construct theological idols of "certainty" like the theory of inerrancy.

Which is why, in my opinion, fundamentalism will become increasingly irrelevant in a postmodern culture - and why likewise Christianity has the opportunity to thrive in postmodernism.

Joshua

[ August 19, 2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by 2 Timothy 4:2:
Josh will never fully believe the virgin birth because the Scriptures declare it to be true. Imagine that, he will accept it if a bunch of "christians" accept it but not if the Bible says it to be so. Hmmm...

The Bible is how I know that the Church has traditionally held this belief.

Joshua

[ August 19, 2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

[Bible-belted]

About the connectionb alleged between the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ:

From the New Dictionary of Theology, "Virgin Birth" (p. 709), by A.N.S. Lane (IVP, and hence not a liberal publication):

"Granted that the virgin birth and the incarnation are distinct, do they logically entail one another? No. The virgin brith does not of itself prove the deity of Christ. Arians (who deny Christ's deity), adoptionists (who deny the incarnation), and Muslims have all traditionally beleived in the virgin birth. The virgini birth is a supernatural conception which shows Jesus to be someone very special. It does not prove his diety. Conversely, while it can be argued that the incarnation required a supernatural birth, this does not necessarily mean a virgin birth. Scripture tells us that Jesus was as a matter of fact conceivd by a virgin. It never tells us that ths was the only possible way for him to have been conceived."

In essence I think what this quoe shows is tha those claiming that there is no deity of Christ witout a virgin birth are engaging in the logical fallacy of post hoc reasoning.

Now again, I believe the Virgin Birth, and the deity of Christ. Keep that in mind in responding please...

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
[QBBB you didn't mean to say I don't think I've ever met a Christian liberal did you?
Murph[/QB]

I wasn't talking to you.

I have no idea either way. All I know is that by the definition (or "analysis") given in this thread of a "liberal", I've never knowingly met one in Baptist ranks.

I have met one who was close to it, but he believed the resurrection and did not deny that the supernatural was possible with God. He just had a bunch of lame ideas about how the people of the Bible times were just superstitious and interpreted many things are miracles that could be interpreted other ways.

 

[sfcgijill]

I've been lurking around this discussion for days, and finally I have to ask:

Can someone please tell me what a liberal is and what a conservative is, in as plain language as you can muster? I'm not trying to be smart, in fact, am revealing my ignorance in the matter...

I've been reading your posts but I never get a clear picture of what either is. Help?

 

[post-it]

sheeagle911: The Deity of Christ does not exist without the virgin birth. I challenge you to prove otherwise from Scripture.

Here are some questions and problems with the virgin birth motif. Including how Christ could have been Deified. There are more but I these are the most important to me personally.

Christ said he was from the seed of David. Matthew gave a lineage to Joseph from David but it appears someone changed the very last part to “husband of Mary” instead of Joseph begat Jesus and thus establishing the link to David. OT said he would be born from David’s seed and NT confirmed including Christ himself.

Either Christ was formed from an egg Mary produced, which then passes sin since she is man, or a fertilized egg was implanted in Mary in which case we don’t have David’s seed line anymore. If God used Mary’s egg, where is the lineage which traces her back to David? And why didn’t her lineage get listed if that was the "real" link back to David instead of Joseph? It makes sense if you figure some later writer changed the original Matt. text by including a virgin birth then switching a few words around.

Next,
We have John the Baptist baptizing Jesus and the Holy Spirit coming down and filling him. At that point he was made God’s son as it was announced. matt3:17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Jesus became Devine in that instant his body could have also changed much like ours will when we are reborn in heaven, his body at that moment and our future bodies will "know no sin".

If this didn't happen why did Jesus need to be Baptized? And why all make it such an important event, even to the point that God had it announced at that time.

If the father of Jesus was the Holy Spirit as the virgin birth story says, he would already have the Holy Spirit since it made at least half of him, he shouldn't of had to be Baptized.

[ August 19, 2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />sheeagle911: The Deity of Christ does not exist without the virgin birth. I challenge you to prove otherwise from Scripture.

Here are some questions and problems with the virgin birth motif. Including how Christ could have been Deified. There are more but I these are the most important to me personally.

Christ said he was from the seed of David. Matthew gave a lineage to from Joseph to David but it appears someone changed the very last part to ?husband of Mary? instead of Joseph begat Jesus thus establishing the link to David. OT said he would be born from David?s seed and NT confirmed including Christ himself.

Either Christ was formed from an egg Mary produced, which then passes sin since she is man, or a fertilized egg was implanted in Mary in which case we don?t have David?s seed line anymore. If God used Mary?s egg, where is the lineage which traces her back to David? And why didn?t her lineage get listed if that was the "real" link back to David instead of Joseph? It makes sense if you figure some later writer changed the original Matt. text by including a virgin birth then switching a few words around.

Next,
We have John the Baptist baptizing Jesus and the Holy Spirit coming down and filling him. At that point he was made God?s son as it was announced. Jesus became Devine in that instant his body was also changed much like ours will when we are reborn in heaven, his body at that moment and our future bodies will "know no sin".

If this didn't happen why did Jesus need to be Baptized? And why all make it such an important event, even to the point that God had it announced at that time.

</font>[/QUOTE]POst, I don't know that I would say that ther was a change made in the geneology. Granted that the phrae is unusual, and a break from the patern, that in itself does not establish that it is unoriginal. I am unaware of any textua variants that call into question the originality of the verse.

I would also question whther Christ's saying that was from the seed of David is inconsistent with the legal relationship implied in the geneology. IOW it is not established that a legal relationship is an insufficient accounting for Christ's claim.

As to Mary's geneology, I am sure you are aware that the Lucan list is thought by many to be that geneology, taking "joesph the son of Heli" to mean "son by marriage". That would establish that Jesus is of the seed of david through Mary.

About th baptism.

I would not say tha Jesus was "made the Son" at that time as that would be adoptionism, a heresy.

The question remais though of how the orthodox view acounts for the reason of the baptism.

Let it be said that it is sufficient, in one sense, to just say as Christ did, that it as necessary to fulfill all righteousness. You might complain that this needs to be explained. And in a way you are right. It would certainlybe hlpeful to be able toi say what that means. But let us be clear: even if we cannot explain what jesus meant in explaining the reason for his baptism it does not negate the fact that it **is** Jesus stated reason. We cannot ignore it because we don't understand it. And that is not to say that there are not explanantions. But I am sure you are aware of the various interpretations of that phrase "to fulfill all righteousness."

"If the father of Jesus was the Holy Spirit as the virgin birth story says, he would already have the Holy Spirit since it made at least half of him, he shouldn't of had to be Baptized."

Several problems with this statement:

1) That's a non sequitur. it does not follow that Jesus already had the Holy Spirit in Him. It is possible, but it does not follow necessarily.

2) It assumes that the purpose of the baptism was to receive the Spirit. This is not necessarily so.

3) It does not deal with the actual reason that Jesus gave for the reason for baptism.

 

[Me2]

I Just wanted to double check some opinions about liberals in The Baptist Denomination.

Is Believing That Satan Was Created Evil Instead of Becoming a Fallen Creature..A Liberal Belief in the Baptist denomination?

Is Denying Mankind The "FreeWill" To Deny Gods Sovereignty over His Creation A Liberal Belief in the Baptist Denomination?

Is Believing in The Reconciliation of All Gods Creation A Liberal Belief in the Baptist Denomination ?

Is Not Believing in The Physical Existence of "Hell" and Eternal Punishment..a Liberal Belief in the Baptist Denomination ?

Is Believing That Jesus Actually Died and Covered ALL of The Sins of Gods Creation a Liberal Belief in the Baptist Denomination?

Is Believing That Mankind Can Do Nothing..whether Accept or Deny the imputation of Gods Righteousness as a liberal Belief in The Baptist Denomination?

These Are Some of The Beliefs of My Baptist Faith..
I Believe Satan Is A Tool Of God..Not A Freewill Creature..Not Fallen and out of control
I Believe in The Total Sovereignty of God..Not Allowing Man To Destroy Himself by "FreeWill"
I Believe God Loves His Creation..Not That Its Doomed, but Under A Plan of Recreation
I Believe That "Hell" Is A Product Of Mans Imagination..Not A Literal Place of Punishment
I Believe That Jesus Died For All Sin..Once and For All. Ending All Curse towards Man By God
I Believe The Imputation of Righteousness is For All Mankind..Man doesnt Choose to Accept
I Believe That God Draws SOME Men To become a Part of His Plan Of Reconciliation through Grace in this State of Death. All Men Will eventually Be Drawn to God AFTER Physical Death.

So Here A Good Question if You Believe Im Too Liberal..How Far Does A Persons Belief Structure of "Liberalism" Have to Be Before They No Longer Can Remain in the Baptist Denomination ?

Me2

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by sfcgijill:
[QB]I've been lurking around this discussion for days, and finally I have to ask:

Can someone please tell me what a liberal is and what a conservative is, in as plain language as you can muster?QB]

Liberals are turtle-neck wearing, closet homosexual children of the devil who purposely sneak into God-fearing Baptist assemblies and try to wreak as much havoc as possible before they collapse into a hopeless pile of doubt brought on by a lack of belief in a secret rapture and the necessity of affirming the virgin birth for salvation.

Or at least that's the impression I get from some folks around here...

Seriously, the word liberal is often used as a slur against people whom you don't think believe as much or as strongly as you do. Usually people who see more shades of gray in difficult issues instead of just black and white are often called (or even call themselves) liberals. "Conservatives" are often fundamentalists in disguise who hold to black and white positions and almost always a theory of inerrancy and hold disdain for any forms of higher criticism. Strangely enough, "conservatives" are often more rationalistic in their theology, building their theology "precept by precept" (to borrow a Mormon catchphrase) upon their views of inerrancy.

You will find many variations about both "liberals" and "conservatives" as well as a very broad middle ground of "moderates" who tend to be somewhat "conservative" in their theology but more "liberal" in its application.

[ August 19, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Me 2 I appreciate your post, just when I am concerned with the few liberals I have encountered here you open my eyes to the fact taht the woods are full of them. As to you question of how far can one go and still be a baptist I truly believe that you listed 8 points that not only disqualify you as baptist but make it highly unlikely that you are a Christian. Read the Word and then Believe the Word.
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Which is why, in my opinion, fundamentalism will become increasingly irrelevant in a postmodern culture - and why likewise Christianity has the opportunity to thrive in postmodernism.

Joshua[/QB]

Very cute Joshua, keep up the good work. remember the Bible says that people will turn from sound doctrine. Keep smiling and you will be right there with itching ears.
Murph

 

[Daniel David]

It is okay Murph. They must exist until Christ returns - 1 Thess. 1:9-10.

 

[post-it]

Latreia, of course I was not putting forth any "known truth" but rather possibilities that in as much as a virgin birth could explain Christ's Deity. I have not ruled out a virgin birth, it just seems unlikely given the evidence of scripture.

I would also question whther Christ's saying that was from the seed of David is inconsistent with the legal relationship implied in the geneology. IOW it is not established that a legal relationship is an insufficient accounting for Christ's claim.

Yes, I have considered that point too and while it is a valid argument, it could go to either side of the argument, therefore, I cancel it out of support for either side. You can see why, I'm sure.

As to Mary's geneology, I am sure you are aware that the Lucan list is thought by many to be that geneology, taking "joesph the son of Heli" to mean "son by marriage". That would establish that Jesus is of the seed of David through Mary.

Being Baptist, you will understand why I can only approach this from OT and the synoptic gospels? I think the answers are to be found and accepted from just these areas, don't you? The OT could predict what would happen, and the synoptic’s told what happened.

"If the father of Jesus was the Holy Spirit as the virgin birth story says, he would already have the Holy Spirit since it made at least half of him, he shouldn't of had to be Baptized."

Several problems with this statement:

1) That's a non sequitur. It does not follow that Jesus already had the Holy Spirit in Him. It is possible, but it does not follow necessarily.

2) It assumes that the purpose of the baptism was to receive the Spirit. This is not necessarily so.

3) It does not deal with the actual reason that Jesus gave for the reason for baptism.

While you are correct in your opinion, you haven't proved that it couldn't be true either. Again, we come to a draw on scripture or possibilities which could have happened.

I would not say tha Jesus was "made the Son" at that time as that would be adoptionism, a heresy

I haven't commented when people on the board make a claim that "something" we say is heresy, but I will now since I know you will understand.

Claiming that X is heresy does not make X invalid or wrong to claim. A heresy is just a disagreement, via a claim, with anything that has been the norm in church doctrine and teaching, as tradition has held. It is allowed in protestant religions including the Baptists. Therefore, it has no value as a claim in any argument I or others on the BB may make.