Why is it difficult to be a liberal in this day and time?

> it is this nonsense of inerrancy that I can't stomach--and thus other examples from the list I don't agree with.

Amen.

One would think that if God wanted us to believe in inerrancy as a fundamental tenet, he'd have mentioned that term in the Bible somewhere...

 

Yep. I agree.

Unfortunately, God has not made Christianity cut-and-dry. We have to work with what we are given.

If we had an inerrant Bible, we wouldn't need a Holy Spirit to guide us in our understanding of God's Word. As it stands, we do need the Spirit to illumine our understanding.

 

But as we have pointed out, this is an unthinking position riddled with fallacy. You have no record of the experience of Israel or the person of Christ apart from the Bible. Yet in the experience of Israel and the person of Christ, anything you don't like (such as miracles) you simply call them man's writing.

You have no consistent way to explain what is true and what isn't. You have never offered any substantive argument for your position.

No we don't. We believe Jesus is the authority. We have pointed out that you have no way to argue for only part of it. You know nothing about Jesus except for the Bible. It is not Jesus vs. the Bible, at least not in the thinking theologian's world. It is Jesus through the Bible.

 

Pan-in-theism or NeoLiberalism doubts either God's omniscience or God's omnipotence. Essentially, they limit God's knowledge of future events, or they limit God's power over His universe.

Basically, philosophical concepts drawn from secular philosophy and theological ideas drawn from liberal theology guide their thinking.

I agree with another poster, who said that it is diffucult being a conservative Bible believer and preacher. Being a liberal is easier today because that seems to be the trend, especially in deconstruction circles.

rufus

 

But as we have pointed out, this is an unthinking position riddled with fallacy.</font>[/QUOTE]I wouldn't call it "unthinking" just because you don't like it...

Just because there is only one (canonical) messenger from the Divine doesn't mean that the message AND the messenger are both divine. My calling it all "man's writing" goes for both what I like and don't like.

(And I DO like the miracles, thank you...)

Sure I do, you just don't like it because it doesn't fit your expectations of what God 'should have given us'.

The Bible is the theological standard by which our faith and practice is measured. It contains diverse genres from diverse writers. Ultimately, it is all theologically true when each part is taken in its individual context. (Of course, "what each context is" is not necessarily going to be agreed upon.)

No we don't. We believe Jesus is the authority. We have pointed out that you have no way to argue for only part of it. You know nothing about Jesus except for the Bible. It is not Jesus vs. the Bible, at least not in the thinking theologian's world. It is Jesus through the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]But there's plenty in the Bible that doesn't discuss Jesus (the entire OT, for example). As such, while Christians may choose to interpret any particular passage as a messianic prophecy, there is a primary historical (and Jewish) context for every verse in the OT that may or may not line up with the revelation through Christ. There's also plenty in the NT that discusses the church and the body of believers and not Jesus directly. As such, there is only a small part that deals with Jesus Himself, and the apparent message of Jesus may not always jibe with other assertions made in other parts of Scripture.

 

I'm not too concerned about what is easy or hard, but rather what is right or wrong.

I'm sure life and faith is hard for the Moonies and the Hare Krishnas. That doesn't make them right.

 

In Jesus' day, he dealt with both liberals and conservatives and criticised the typical excesses of each. The conservatives (pharasees) tended to take their own interpretation of the word and give it equal and even greator value to what God's word really was. The liberals (saducees) tended to discount scripture and just make their own interpretations as a consequence. Hmmmm - both were guilty of doing their own interpretations in their alternate ways!

We do not have an inerrant Bible. To those who complain about that, I'm sorry, its not my fault! We've got what we've got! We do have a worthy and chosen Bible, chosen by God to be His instrument of revelation. To those who discount it, I'm sorry, that's what God chose for us to have as His revelation!

God is both liberal and conservative. He is as liberal as the father of the prodigal son; He is as conservative as the vineyard owner paying his laborers.

 

I would like to know how anyone can come to know Jesus apart from the Bible. Jesus is the authority but the Bible is the means. Another question for those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture, how do you know what is right and what is wrong? What basis do you use to come to your conclusion? How can you have any faith in what you believe if you don't have any foundation other than your own feelings?

After your first statement, how can you make this second with any authority other than your own finite mind? How do you know this is what God is like? How do you know if these two parables are truthful? How do you know you can rely on them? I think it is ironic that you say the Bible is not inerrant, then go on to use it to make your point. You have no certainty, from your position, that you can even trust these parables much less apply them to God.

Neal

 

[/qb]I wouldn't either, and I didn't. I called "unthinking" because it cannot stand up when put to the test of thought.

The Bible is the word of God, and in that sense it is divine revelation. It is not divine in a personal sense and no one says that it is.

I have never seen you given any rational coherent explanation of this.

I don't disagree with this. But your position denies the theological truth of some of the passages. Additionally it fails to recognize the inherent and inseparable connection between theological truth and material truth.

I don't argue that the whole OT does discuss Jesus.

I do not disagree.

Unfortunately, neither of those is the point.

This is where your thought process goes awry. You fail to recognize distinctions; you fail to recognize the unchanging nature of God's revelation. You fail to be consistent. Earlier you said that it is all theologically true; here you deny it. I happen to agree with the first, not with the second.

 

After your first statement, how can you make this second with any authority other than your own finite mind? How do you know this is what God is like? How do you know if these two parables are truthful? How do you know you can rely on them? I think it is ironic that you say the Bible is not inerrant, then go on to use it to make your point. You have no certainty, from your position, that you can even trust these parables much less apply them to God.
Neal [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I understand your confusion over this. But in my own way of thinking, there is a simple answer to the problem you believe exists over inerrancy. There are two components to accepting the Bible as God's word; there is the evidence for the Bible as being God's word, and there is the evidence for whether or not it is inerrant. I accept the evidence for the Bible as being God's word and also accept the evidence that there are such things as contradictions and errors to be found within its pages.

Inerrancy by itself is not a sign that a document is God's word for us. There are many documents that succeed in being inerrant without being God's word for us, such as Robert's Rules of Order, for example. Or perhaps a very elementary physics book might succeed in being inerrant after a fashion. That is at least conceivable, I havn't any nominations in mind.

Many participants in this board that consider themselves perfectly conservative will concede they do not have God's inerrant word. Watch for the phrase "inerrant in the original autographs". Guess what - we do not have the origninal autographs, therefore these people are admitting we do not NOW have God's exactly inerrant scriptures before us.

Why is this different from my position that it is possible not only to have errors in copies but also in the originals? I'm not saying I think they are full of errors all over the place!

God could choose to express His truths in earthen vessels if He decided to glorify His name in that way. It is not our choice what He did. We only get to see what He did and respond appropriately.

It is not appropriate to twist scriptures all out of context in order to preserve inerrancy.

I choose by faith to accept the scriptures as my God chosen instructions for faith and practice. I feel led to take this position. That's where I am coming from.

 

Thank-you for explaining your position. While I do not agree, I better understand where you are coming from and what you are saying.

Neal

 

Preach the Word I: Liberals lack creativity.
Preach the Word II: I mentioned him as a creative liberal ...

Norm: Well, which is it, Preach the Word?

Hang in there, BW; likely the original manuscripts have errors, too, but I would think that some fundamentalists have themselves in something of a bind with this doctrine. If an original was actually discovered and it had an error, I would presume it would not be viewed as an original (given that the theory must dictate the evidence rather than evidence providing support/nonsupport for theory). That is, without the ability to falsify a claim, one negates the seriousness of one's position that another might consider (assuming, of course, we are speaking about something that can be verified [or not]).

In terms of panentheism -- put me in favor of this insightful aspect of Christian theology, and not just from a process-theology perspective.

And while I would agree that revelation is important in doing theology, I cannot affirm it as the exclusive perspective for doing theology. I am a bit eclectic and prefer consideration of experience, tradition, scripture, and reason, too.

I guess this makes me a liberal among my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ. I truly love fried-chicken Sunday dinners.