Why I like LIberals...

[Daniel David]

BB said:
Second, the theological "liberalism" of Jesus certainly offended the theological conservatives (the Saducees) because of His "belief" in the resurrection -- a belief that the theological "liberals" (the Pharisees) embraced. (The Pharisees were theological liberals of their day because they believed in doctrine that wasn't clearly spelled out in the Old Testament, like resurrection.)

2 Timothy 4:2 says:
The Pharisees and Saducees were both lost groups. Neither could correctly represent a conservative or a liberal group. The resurrection is clearly spelled out in the O.T. You just need to read it. In fact, Jesus quoted the O.T. (the Law at that) to prove the Saducees wrong. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

BB, it is not a matter of being right or left but a matter of being right or wrong. Jesus never gave some mystical interpretation of Scripture, and He never advocated more than one interpretation. He certainly didn't let the disciples believe what they wanted to. He let them believe what He wanted them to.

If you want to correctly compare the Pharisees and Saducees, you could say that the Pharisees are like the Catholics (adding to the Gospel a bunch of works in order to be saved). The Saducees would be like the CBF (giving some vague preference to something that resembles truth but in the end denying that the Scriptures are true and therefore authoritative). In fact, Jesus told the Saducees that their problem was in not believing the Scriptures or understanding the power of God. I wonder why He didn't tell them that their problem was a lack of a personal relationship with Him or some other thing like that???

 

[C.S. Murphy]

May I repeat, this post is Petty. But since it is in existance let's give it a more fitting name.
The liberal lovefest.
Murph

 

[Zebedee]

I hate theological liberalism and wouldn't want to be around liberals AT ALL! It is true though that they are less judgmental, so much so that they will gladly accapt the worst and most vile people into their ranks.

 

[Bible-belted]

Murph said:

"May I repeat, this post is Petty. But since it is in existance let's give it a more fitting name.
The liberal lovefest."

If you think this is petty then you miss the point. This is not about loving liberalism. It is about seeing the positives in liberals themselves, positives that, as evidenced by remarks such as yours, are sorely lacking in those whom we should expect to see them prcisely becuase they hold to truth that liberals do not.

But here I guess we have the irony. Not least a part of it Murph is that si far, I find I am more conservative than you.

Zebedee said:

"I hate theological liberalism and wouldn't want to be around liberals AT ALL! It is true though that they are less judgmental, so much so that they will gladly accapt the worst and most vile people into their ranks."

Look, there is a differnece between hating liberalism and hating liberals, or does the adage "hate the sin, love the sinner" not apply in the theological realm?

Who are the vile people that they let into their ranks? What makes them vile? How does hanging out with the equivalent of "publicans and sinners" make them worse than theological conservatives?

I tell ya, some people really make me think my mom had it right when she said there was no benefit to be so right you end up being wrong...

 

[C.S. Murphy]

The vile persons are those whose sin (whatever it may be) cannot be dealt with by the Holy Ghost because their liberal pastor teaches them that after a closer look by higher criticism that the scripture that points out their sin is flawed.
When this occurs they stay vile because they won't accept the truth.
Murph

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by 2 Timothy 4:2:
BB said:
Second, the theological "liberalism" of Jesus certainly offended the theological conservatives (the Saducees) because of His "belief" in the resurrection -- a belief that the theological "liberals" (the Pharisees) embraced. (The Pharisees were theological liberals of their day because they believed in doctrine that wasn't clearly spelled out in the Old Testament, like resurrection.)

2 Timothy 4:2 says:
The Pharisees and Saducees were both lost groups. Neither could correctly represent a conservative or a liberal group.

They were not "liberal" or "conservative" is the modern simplistic sense... That's why I made the distinction between being theologically conservative and socially conservative. The Pharisees were theological liberals in the sense that they believed things that weren't as clearly spelled out in the Old Testament while the Saducees were very conservative in their interpretive method. They accepted only what was very clearly spelled out.

As far as the groups being "lost", I don't believe groups are "saved" in the first place. Individuals respond to God's love and are saved -- not groups. Many of Jesus' early followers came from the ranks of the Pharisees and the Saducees.

The resurrection is clearly spelled out in the O.T. You just need to read it.

Um, yes. I've read it. I've read the entire Bible on several occasions and many books more times than I can count. While certain passages clearly specify some sort of existence after death, Jesus and the New Testament writers make it very clear. If you know what you are looking for, you can recognize it.

In fact, Jesus quoted the O.T. (the Law at that) to prove the Saducees wrong. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

Yep. After hearing the words of Jesus, we can't look at the Old Testament the same way again. Jesus really messed up the Saducees theology when He resurrected Lazarus in John 11. It made them so angry that they joined with the Pharisees to kill Jesus (John 11:45-53). They also were really chapped about Lazarus walking around alive and kicking, so they planned to murder him too. (John 12:9-11).

BB, it is not a matter of being right or left but a matter of being right or wrong.

Yes, that was essentially the point of my post. People (especially theological and social extremists) called Jesus all sorts of things that were not accurate. Today people call His followers all sorts of things that are also not accurate. For example, I've been called a "liberal", a "fundamentalist", a "conservative", a "radical", a "son of perdition" (a Mormon stake leader gave me that one), a "satanist" (a former Minister of Education once interrogated me about my "occult" activities ), an "unbeliever", a "zealot", a "right winger", a "left winger", and even more names and labels that I can recall. I usually manage to make at least one person in the room angry.

I made the point that Jesus was correct, but people who were not correct couldn't/wouldn't comprehend it and therefore condemned Jesus according to their own standards.

Jesus never gave some mystical interpretation of Scripture, and He never advocated more than one interpretation. He certainly didn't let the disciples believe what they wanted to. He let them believe what He wanted them to.

Very true.

If you want to correctly compare the Pharisees and Saducees, you could say that the Pharisees are like the Catholics (adding to the Gospel a bunch of works in order to be saved).

There are some similarities to popular Roman Catholic teaching, but Catholic doctrine is surprisingly diverse depending on what part of the world you are in. I chose to avoid trying to identify a modern group because I wanted to make a broader point about labels, not about theology. Not all Catholics or Catholic priests preach salvation by faith *and* works.

The Saducees would be like the CBF (giving some vague preference to something that resembles truth but in the end denying that the Scriptures are true and therefore authoritative).

Hmmm... based on what you said earlier about both groups being lost, I think I see what you are trying to do here...

I'm getting tired of saying it but I don't like lies and liars. The CBF may have a few bad eggs in it, but there are very few in CBF who deny that the Scriptures are untrue. Most CBFers believe the Bible and submit to it's truth as they follow Christ. To try to paint the entire group (or even a majority of the group) are denying scripture would be laughable if it wasn't so slanderous. That would be like my saying that all Southern Baptists are racists. I can point to many Southern Baptists I know and have known (my home church was full of them) who regularly used the "n-word" to describe black people and would have nothing to do with black people except have them as household servants. My home church received their first black members in 1987 (not without some controversy) and in the end were so unsure about them that the black family only staying there about a year. If I said that Southern Baptists were racist, I could point to a heritage of supporting slavery and discrimination and give many individual examples of those beliefs. But that would be unfair, unkind and inaccurate. The same thing goes with your statement about CBF -- except CBF only denies whatever interpretation of scripture you hold, not scripture itself. I hope you are humble enough to know the difference!

For the record, I am not CBF and no longer Southern Baptist. I consider myself a Texas Baptist (Baptist General Convention of Texas).

In fact, Jesus told the Saducees that their problem was in not believing the Scriptures or understanding the power of God. I wonder why He didn't tell them that their problem was a lack of a personal relationship with Him or some other thing like that???

I don't know. I'm guessing He was probably pointing out the problems with their beliefs so that they would be ready to receive a new understanding. Too often all of us hold to our pet opinions and blind ourselves to seeing and comprehending anything that would undermine them. Sometimes God has to tear us down before He can do a new work in us.

[ August 18, 2002, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Hmmm...try being a Pro Life Democrat and see if the Liberal Democrats will allow you to speak at the Democratic Convention. Hmmm...when has the NAACP invited Alan Keyes, Niger Innis to speak at one of their conventions Hmm...or how about how the Flordia Secretary of State had her looks attacked by the Liberal Democrats Hmmm...How about NOW and all those lovable feminists ignoring charges of sexual harrasment against Bill Clinton....Oh, those lovable fair minded teddy bear liberals

I think you may be equaling political liberalism with theological "liberalism". The two are not necessarily related.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
The vile persons are those whose sin (whatever it may be) cannot be dealt with by the Holy Ghost because their liberal pastor teaches them that after a closer look by higher criticism that the scripture that points out their sin is flawed.
When this occurs they stay vile because they won't accept the truth.
Murph

So you codemn liberals fro having siners in their midst? What must you think of jesus?

Seriously, I think you give the Spirit too little credit for having power to convict.

You also give too much credit to higher criticism. You do realise I hope that many fine evenaglical scholars use these methods?

 

[Naomi]

BB,
You stated:
I don't know. I'm guessing He was probably pointing out the problems with their beliefs so that they would be ready to receive a new understanding. Too often all of us hold to our pet opinions and blind ourselves to seeing and comprehending anything that would undermine them. Sometimes God has to tear us down before He can do a new world in us.

How very true this is!

Thank you for making this statement. If we could all receive this truth into our heart, this world, (theologically as well as politically)
would truly be a better place to live.

BTW...Did you mean to write "work" instead of "world" at the end?
God Bless,
Naomi

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Naomi:
Thank you for making this statement. If we could all receive this truth into our heart, this world, (theologically as well as politically)
would truly be a better place to live.

Thank you for your kindness!

I try to live my live as open as possible for God's Spirit to teach me. I'm not always successful, but God manages anyway.

Originally posted by Naomi:
BTW...Did you mean to write "work" instead of "world" at the end?

Oops! Yes, I'll go back and edit. Thanks!

 

[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.

 

[TomVols]

There are nice folks and jerks on all sides of the theological spectrum. We can disagree without being disagreeable. The only way I'll be disagreeable is with Joshua who did not tell me when he was in the Knoxville area and thereby missed the blessing of buying me lunch

 

[Zebedee]

Hey Tom Vols,

about 5 years ago I attended a Baptist church in LaFollette TN when travelling. I think it was called LaFollette Baptist Temple, but my memory isn't always accurate.

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by Zebedee:
Hey Tom Vols,

about 5 years ago I attended a Baptist church in LaFollette TN when travelling. I think it was called LaFollette Baptist Temple, but my memory isn't always accurate.

Yep. I know where it is! It's about 2 or 3 miles from the church I serve.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Zebedee:
[QB]Liberalism is unbelief. Liberals deny the supernatural, whether it be the resurrection, the virgin birth, miracles, you name it. ...Believers are not to fellowship with apostates

I'm liberal and do believe many things in the Bible. So your definition of Liberalism is wrong. By extension, the rest of your claims are also wrong since they are based on a false definition of liberal (false premise).

I would like to suggest you not use generalizations when defining those you seek to divide from. This is how bigots create their creeds.

 

[Zebedee]

Post it-- I'm liberal and do believe many things in the Bible. So your definition of Liberalism is wrong. By extension, the rest of your claims are also wrong since they are based on a false definition of liberal (false premise).

I would like to suggest you not use generalizations when defining those you seek to divide from. This is how bigots create their creeds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha! Theological liberalism at its core is the denial of the supernatural. No generalization, just fact. And that, my friend, will land a man in hot water with God.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by TomVols:
There are nice folks and jerks on all sides of the theological spectrum. We can disagree without being disagreeable. The only way I'll be disagreeable is with Joshua who did not tell me when he was in the Knoxville area and thereby missed the blessing of buying me lunch

I think I've only been in Knoxville once since that particular lunch debt was incurred - and that was a whirlwind trip to pick up a TV from my father-in-law. They've been coming down to visit more than we've been going up (something about Brigit working Saturdays and me working Sundays ). I haven't forgotten you friend!

Joshua

 

[Baptist Believer]

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...

 

[Zebedee]

It is not a definition, its an analysis.

 

[Baptist Believer]

[ August 18, 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]