What is a liberal Christian theology?

[OzSpen]

Elijah,

I find that to be way too hypothetical. I have two friends who are Anglican ministers in my state of Queensland. They are evangelicals but the liberal Anglican church has persecuted them throughout their ministry. When ministers become known for their evangelical convictions in liberal Anglicanism in my state, their churches most often grow while the others decrease in number.

One retired evangelical Anglican told me a few weeks ago that it was 3 minutes before he began a church service - with a packed congregation - that his bishop told him that he would never again be offered an Anglican church after he left the one he was in. And that's exactly what happened.

So a theological liberalism, according to your definition - 'One who is willing to respect or accept the behaviour or opinions of another person that are different to one's own; and is open to new ideas' - that is open to evangelical Christianity is a joke in my part of the world.

I'll try to track down an article by a Uniting Church minister here in Australia that tells what liberalism does to churches and give you a link.

Sincerely, Oz

interesting discussion, but I am still trying to come terms of a fundamental and liberal Christian, because I have always believed that I am a believer, and I do get sick and tired being unequally yoked with unbelievers. As far as I am concerned, you are a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ, you: love one another, forgive one another, confess your sins and repent. You are kind, good, gentle, faithful, self-controlled and patient person.

Now the definition of a liberal person is:

One who is willing to respect or accept the behaviour or opinions of another person that are different to one's own; and is open to new ideas, and I believe such liberal Christians have a liberal idea on divorce and remarrying and homosexuality. I believe that a liberal Christian is in favour and respect the individual rights and freedom of those Christians who practice those things that are seen to be sin. They preach a tolerant Gospel with a broad and open mind, and turn a blind eye to permissive attitudes that are sin. They are far to easy, and impartial, lenient and sway with the political correctness of that promote the values of a liberal society. They believe they are forward looking and thinking, being progressive as they believer that our Lord Jesus Christ was the same.

• antonyms:conservative, reactionary
• relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party.
  adjective: Liberal
  "the Liberal leader"
• Theology
  regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

• 2.
  (of education) concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
  "the provision of liberal adult education"

 

[OzSpen]

Elijah,

I could not find the article I was seeking by a Uniting Church in Australia minister who wrote that theological liberalism empties churches.

But I have uncovered some other articles that expose the serious consequences of theological liberalism in Christianity. This is only a brief sample:

• 'Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins', LA Times 2006: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/09/opinion/op-allen9
• 'Why liberal Christianity (too often) sucks', Tony Jones: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2012/08/01/why-liberal-christianity-too-often-sucks/
• 'A new Exodus? Americans are exiting liberal churches', Albert Mohler: http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/a-new-exodus-americans-are-exiting-liberal-churches-1333899.html
• 'Theological Liberalism' by Reg Burrows: http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_101_3_Burrows.pdf
• Thomas C Reeves, The Empty Church: The Suicide of Liberal Christianity: http://www.amazon.com/The-Empty-Church-Suicide-Christianity/dp/0684828111/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
• 'The meltdown of liberal Christianity - Episcopal church near collapse', Rob Kirby: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2014/May06/065.html
• 'Liberal Christianity has simply collapsed', Chris Brauns: http://chrisbrauns.com/2012/07/liberal-christianity-has-collapsed/
• 'Vanishing Christianity - a lesson from the Presbyterians', Albert Mohler: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/11/vanishing-christianity-a-lesson-from-the-presbyterians/
• 'The liberal church: Part of the decline?' http://ucmpage.org/articles/libchurch.html

That should give a reasonable sample of what theological liberalism will do to a church and denomination. The answer is death and destruction.

Oz

interesting discussion, but I am still trying to come terms of a fundamental and liberal Christian, because I have always believed that I am a believer, and I do get sick and tired being unequally yoked with unbelievers. As far as I am concerned, you are a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ, you: love one another, forgive one another, confess your sins and repent. You are kind, good, gentle, faithful, self-controlled and patient person.

Now the definition of a liberal person is:

One who is willing to respect or accept the behaviour or opinions of another person that are different to one's own; and is open to new ideas, and I believe such liberal Christians have a liberal idea on divorce and remarrying and homosexuality. I believe that a liberal Christian is in favour and respect the individual rights and freedom of those Christians who practice those things that are seen to be sin. They preach a tolerant Gospel with a broad and open mind, and turn a blind eye to permissive attitudes that are sin. They are far to easy, and impartial, lenient and sway with the political correctness of that promote the values of a liberal society. They believe they are forward looking and thinking, being progressive as they believer that our Lord Jesus Christ was the same.

• antonyms:conservative, reactionary
• relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party.
  adjective: Liberal
  "the Liberal leader"
• Theology
  regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

• 2.
  (of education) concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
  "the provision of liberal adult education"

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

With that kind of statement, would you please define the meaning of 'liberal' for me?

I mean going against the grain and presenting a New Covenant, the one they weren't ready for given by the prophets.
We are all liberal in that sense.
We stick to the Gospel and it goes against the grain of society, and many churches that we call liberal.
So yes, liberal takes on many meanings, depending on your point of view.

 

[OzSpen]

I mean going against the grain and presenting a New Covenant, the one they weren't ready for given by the prophets.
We are all liberal in that sense.
We stick to the Gospel and it goes against the grain of society, and many churches that we call liberal.
So yes, liberal takes on many meanings, depending on your point of view.

Actually, theological liberalism does not take on many meanings. It has been and is represented by what is known as modernism and now, postmodernism.

Both of these views that are represented in the last couple of centuries have attacked the fundamentals of the faith.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

Please forgive my deliberate and errant connotation of your statement.

Forgiven, totally forgiven, remembered no more, and put away as far as the east is from the west ..
.lol .. it was a very small error on your part .. I have done much worse I am sure, at least in principle

Take Spong for instance. His statements clearly indicate that he has no clue as to the false image of god he holds.

We both know you are guessing on that. Your underlying [unproven] assumption is that Spong is a
sincere but misguided human being and that perhaps if you "could talk to him" you could speak words
that would enlighten Spong's mind and heart. [As an aside, I feel certain you believe the Holy Spirit would
be the power behind any possible success you'd have with that.]

You attempt to strengthen your assumption below with your, "But he does not really see the false
dichotomy he has erected."

So you are approaching one of Christendom's major heretics with the unproven assumption that
he is totally different from the heretics condemned in the strongest of terms by the Apostles
who were hand hand-picked by the Lord Christ Himself.

For example, here is the Apostle Peter on the heretics of his time:

12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals,
creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse
in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in
greed—an accursed brood! 2 Peter 2:12-14

Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, called than an "accursed brood."

___________


Here is the great Apostle Paul on the heretics of his time:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ
and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are
throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel
from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s
curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than
what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Gal. 1:6-9

There is that word "curse" again . . . let them be under God's curse", said the Apostle Paul under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul said it two times, he wanted to be certain his Christian readers
got the message.

That bears repeating: Paul wanted his Christian readers to be certain they got his "let them be
under God's curse" point. It was a "teaching moment" and the great Apostle was teaching the
Christians put in his care by God, how to approach heretics.

childeye, I do not mean to say the following in a hostile tone, but you have a much "higher" standard
that Christ's Apostles and a much "higher" standard than the Lord Christ Himself. I kindly suggest
you get rid of it, and bring your standard down to the level of God's standards, which is where the
true standard is located.

The Lord Christ Himself taught by His example a "lower" standard than you hold. This means
your "higher" standard is grossly incorrect and needs to be brought back in line with the
standard taught by God via the Lord Christ and His Apostles.

Here is the Lord Christ Himself in His "teaching moment" setting the example before His Christian
Church regarding how to think of, and speak to, the heretics of His time:

Matthew 23:13--15 and verse 33
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom
of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win
a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are...
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

So we gotta conclude that you hold to a "higher" standard than does the Lord Christ, which tells you
that you that your "higher standard" is NOT really a higher standard at all, but is in reality an
INCORRECT standard.

The Lord Christ referred to heretics like Spong as, "You snakes! You brood of vipers!", and
by example, taught His Christian Church to think of heretics as hypocrites and snakes and vipers.

Therefore by reading his words, his imagery of god is clearly seen. He is transparent. He values
what he would call science and fact over fables. But he does not really see the false dichotomy he has erected.

You can't possibly know that. Spong might be exactly like those heretics the Apostle Peter mentioned:
Peter called them an "accursed brood."

Don't get mad at him, he can't help it. He thinks he is doing good. I feel sorry for him in all sincerity.
I wish I could talk to him and show him how his reasoning actually ends in a contradiction.

"he [Spong] can't help it. He thinks he is doing good"__childeye

The Lord Christ and His Apostles have a different approach to heretics than you do.
You should line up with their approach.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

 

[Jack Hectorman]

Liberal is just a word with both good and bad connotations and inferences. A word ripe for deception when perceived improperly. Please note that when you use the word liberal, I get the impression a bad feeling rises up in you, when either saying it or hearing it.
(bolded by Jack)

A bad feeling may rise up in me, but honestly I'm kinda proud that it does.

Liberals and their Liberalism are not good for the Christian Church, not good for Christian families,
not good for my family, my wife, my children, and my grandchildren that have to grow up in this
rotten and immoral popular culture that the Liberals, both religious and political, have created.

I am deeply concerned about the physical and spiritual safety of my grandchildren!

I, therefore, think that my "bad feeling" is really a very good feeling.

Do you have any grandchildren that are being daily exposed to this rotten and immoral culture
created by religious and political Liberals?


♫

 

[Jack Hectorman]

Sure, as per your example, they are not feeble in that sense. But that is not what I meant, when I said words are feeble. Hence there is miscommunication because words are feeble.

I spend considerable time writing on an atheist forum. One time, I started a thread called the God term, where I asked the atheists how they defined the term god. They write it as god/gods/ goddesses. Some said they don't define the term. Others called it wishful thinking. Others called it a man made image created for political use. But overall when the word god/gods/goddesses is used, it means to them a superstition. They were very well versed in scripture with probably eighty percent claiming to be former Christians.

They asked me how I defined god and I said that God is Love/empathy. I have to write it this way so that it will not be misconstrued with romantic infatuation. I showed them that Love/empathy rules as the supreme moral authority in all of mankind and that Love was real and not superstition. I pointed out that Love/empathy causes people to treat others as they would want to be treated. They agreed with that, but still would not believe in God. I then said that according to their own words, atheism was a hypocritical reasoning based upon a misunderstanding of the term God. I pointed out that they each made up their own definition of what god is, that they then did not believe in. A circular reasoning that according to their definitions of god, would even make God an atheist. The thread had something like twenty thousand responses.

I had a hard time responding adequately because they kept writing god/gods/goddesses when referring to their definition of god. I put a stop to it by pointing out that scientists believe in the big bang theory or the standard model, where the universe was created from a single point of exploding energy. Therefore the Creator could only be reasonably conceived as a single God, and would therefore be the God of everyone in that sense. Since they love science and logic, they had to yield to the logic presented.

How little people understand that one's imagery of god defines all of their terms, such as success /failure, good/evil, rich/poor, etc...When someone believes god is superstition, then many words change meaning. For instance, when they said that they used to be Christians, I insisted they never were and said I could even prove it. That got them very upset. But they had already said how they had great faith and used to go to church and sincerely worship God, until they got educated and learned that it was all fairy tales and that the "sky-daddy" did not exist. I therefore was enabled to show them that a True Christian knows that true worship is drawn out by the object of worship, and not put forth by the efforts of the worshipper. They therefore had been but-kissing not worshipping. They said they had great faith and greatly desired to be saved. I pointed out that having "faith" did not mean believing blindly in something you can't see for the sake of selfish gain. Faith means trusting in something that is trustworthy in hope of mercy. Again they were butt-kissing. In the end they could not deny they were not practicing Christianity, they had been practicing religion.

Spongs hypocrisy can be as easily pointed out by his own admitted non-understanding of the term God. The Truth is greater than the lie.

Zephaniah 3:9King James Version (KJV)
9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.

childeye,

I read your post 56 up there very slow and carefully two times. I think I am beginning to understand
how you understand, God, Christianity, the gospel, and fallen corrupted human beings.

In response to your post 56, here are a few miscellaneous points that will directly relate to the
general thrust of what you wrote in your post 56

Re activist atheists who can't stop complaining [or talking] about Christianity:

What is the New Testament solutions for them? Its simple really. Step one is for them to resign their
self-appointed position as God of their own lives. Hand in their resignation, apologize, keep their mouth
shut, listen instead of talking, and learn from their Creator.

Here is an inadequate analogy, but one that does make a decent point: A marine recruit, after two weeks
of basic, starts mouthing off to his D.I. and says, "I now know more than you do about the Corps and I'll
be instructing you, henceforth, about what to do and what not to do. It cannot work that way in the Corps
or in the spiritual arena with the Sovereign God. Step one for the Marine recruit is for him to shut his
mouth and listen. Period. End of discussion.

The atheist has to come to the place where he shuts his proud mouth and starts listening instead of talking.

After he does that, and only after he does that, will he find the way to get his un-regenerated nature changed.

Its as simple as the sincere prayer from the heart, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

The point is that after the human man shuts his mouth hands in his resignation as God of his own life, then
its usually only a very short time and a mere formality before he becomes a born again Christian, [Jh. 3:3]
what the theologians call regeneration [that is, he experiences a supernaturally changed nature] so that
he no longer has his old un-regenerated unchanged spiritually dead fallen nature that does not have the
power to experience more that mere head belief. He now can believe with his heart in the Lord Christ as
his Savior.

Christianity is NOT primarily about so-called "logic" and "reason" and "argumentation", Christianity is
primarily about being willing to embrace simple child-like faith. [Note: I am not talking about full blown
Fideism here.]

So what good is Christian apologetics if becoming a Christian is not primarily about evidences, logic,
and reason?

My view is that Christian Apologetics always mixes in a lot of simple Bible gospel truths with its presentation of
logical evidences and reason [eg. your post 56 up there] and thus ends up presenting the simple gospel message
to the atheists. The Sovereign God uses the truth to regenerate the human heart and He uses primarily, in my view,
the simple truths of the gospel to get this done. As the Apostle Paul put it, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel,
because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes." Ro. 1:16 The gospel is the simple
truths about the Person and salvation work of the Lord Jesus found in the New Testament.

The gospel is not Christian Apologetics [eg. your post 56] even though Christian Apologetics contains the
gospel and does clearly present the gospel . Also it is vital to know that Christian Apologetics is NOT
necessary for the salvation of human beings. Hundreds of millions of human beings have become
Christians long before there was any such thing as Christian Apologetics which is, historically speaking,
a recently established intellectual department within Christendom.

What prevents saving heart faith in the Lord Christ as Savior is not lack of evidences or lack of answers to intellectual
questions or lack of logical proofs, rather its the fact that the human man is locked down in his will on his false assumption
that it is he that is in charge of his life and it is he that is, de facto, his own God.

Message to the atheist: It can never work that way. There is only one God in Heaven and he is not going to share His throne
with a slug like you, or me or any other mere human man. On the day you sincerely hand in your resignation as God of your
own life, will start the days just ahead where you will find true peace and happiness as you come to believe with your heart
in the Lord Christ as your personal Savior.

Anyway that's my approach and my view with regard to activists atheists and how I approach them. I present the simple
gospel message and do NOT enter their pseudo-intellectual world of bafflegab.

Most of the activist atheists are nothing but pseudo-philosophical academic intellectual talking heads anyway, and all they
need to hear is John 3:16


______________


In connection with what I wrote above, here is a much appreciated quote I picked
up from William Lane Craig: [He is quoting Barth [I'm no huge fan of Barth, but I
do appreciate this quote]

"According to Barth, there can be no approach to God whatsoever via human reason.
Apart from God's revelation in Christ, human reason comprehends absolutely nothing
about God ... But God has revealed Himself to man in Jesus Christ, indeed, Christ is
the revelation of the Word of God (See John 1:1-4 'In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind') ...

Barth continues: .... Lost in sin, man cannot even began to move in the direction of faith,
so that even a leap of faith is impossible for him. No, it must be God who breaks into man's
indolent sinfullness to confront him with the Word of God (Christ). As Barth writes, 'Knowledge
of God is a knowledge completely effected and determined from the side of its object, from the
side of God.' Or again, 'the fact that he [ie the believing man] did come to this decision, that he
really believed, and that he actually had freedom to enter this new life of obedience and
hope --- all this was not the work of his spirit but the work of the Holy Spirit."
__Source: William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, pg. 36

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

 

[Jack Hectorman]

childeye,

PS

Here is a post script that I forgot to put at the end of my post 67
[It strongly relates to your post 56 and my response to your post
56, which was my post 67]

It is a powerful verse from the Lord Jesus in John 7:16-17

"16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.
17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes
from God or whether I speak on my own."

After I read and internalized this verse I stopped letting these activists atheists "jerk me
around" on the web [or anywhere else], that is, I stopped allowing them to pull me into their
pseudo-bafflegab-world of "endless questions" where they run you all over the Internet
as you spend hours digging up "answers" to their questions and return after 3 hours of
hard research and present them with reasonable answers to their "hard questions",
only to have them post back and issue a proclamation to you that says, "All that is
pure nonsense, try harder next time." .. lol ..The activists atheists have "jerked me
around" on the web for the last time. I present to them the simple gospel message,
which is the "power of God unto salvation" . . . . .

. . . . and I think to myself John 7:16-17, where
"Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own.
It comes from the one who sent me. Anyone
who chooses to do the will of God will find out
whether my teaching comes from God or whether
I speak on my own."

♫

 

[th1b.taylor]

Actually, theological liberalism does not take on many meanings. It has been and is represented by what is known as modernism and now, postmodernism.

Both of these views that are represented in the last couple of centuries have attacked the fundamentals of the faith.

Hello Oz,
Being a Fundamentalist has been redirected by the Revisionists of this day. My BLOG is titled Basic Christianity and I do my best to redirect people back to the Operator's Manual, the Bible, God's directions to every one of us that we might live a holy (separated) life for the glory of God.

As I grew up I understood there were two classes of Christians. Most of them were Say So Christians but on a rare occasion I met a Fundamental Christian, they walked the talk. Since my conversion, at 45, I have strove to become more and more like Jesus and that makes me to become more and more like the Fundamentalists I knew.

Today the Revisionist has worked to make the word. fundamentalist, into a nasty word. I admit, to simple minded people it might be confusing because the Worldly Press has linked all fundamentalists with the Jihad Minded Extremists of Islam. So much so that the Westboro Baptist church is, now, considered, by the Press, as being a member of the fundamentalists. And as a Fundamentalist, I know them as a sin sick family directed, Satan influenced group of Extremists.

I, also, use the definition of Liberalism as you have indicated. I do use it in that vent so much that in my world, Liberal Christian, and any morphed form there-from are Oxymorons. It appears that most of the Church membership, here, in the U.S. want to ignore the clear and biblically defined teaching of Jesus when they come to the example Jesus used of the two paths with the two gates, so much so that we have clung onto the Gnostic teaching of Universalism.

Good post brother.

 

[Elijah2.5]

Hi Ozspen,

What part of the sunshine state do you protect; I float around on the Gold Coast in an “out-of-Church” Christen and left the churches two years ago as there are “two masters”. I was involved with the UCA and found them very orientated to two masters, and was more God-centred than CHRIST-centred.

Yes, I knew a few evangelical Anglican ministers on the GC and were treated much the same. Is it true that the Anglican Church has too many Chiefs and not enough Indians, to send the seven out to gather the people? I guess TPTB in the Church want the minister out on retirement---was he old enough? Maybe, this minister was serving one master and the Bishop serving two masters.


Yes, we can have a belief that a good church could be founded on these basis by the people of the church, not the church leaders, and being willing to respect or accept the behaviour or opinions of another person that are different to one's own; and is open to new ideas, which are achieved when there are only “one master”, our Lord Jesus Christ. If HE is the HEAD of the Church then these problems will not exist of a form of pseudo evangelical Christianity that is being developed as a religion, and if that is so, then it will be a joke.

My short description of a disgruntled church begins with the teaching of watered-down theology and God’s Word that sounds all nice and spice so as to make the hearers feel comfortable, therefore the church is broken up into a number of comfort zones and as a result, the growing number of people are being fed with a false impression that our Lord Jesus Christ is an easy sort of God who loves us so much that he does not see our sin, and the strong reasons and beliefs of why we become believers begins to take the back stage producing “goats”who shape their lives on the basis of “we can talk it, but we do not have to walk it”.

We witness extreme and stupid services by supposed stupid men that contribute to the public malaise, by promoting pagan celebrations, “Christmas in July” and “Easter Bunny” to attract pagans to their church. You see coloured balloons rising from the pulpit like a stage play, the church leader all dressed up and the congregation play acting, and with no real message behind it. The "lack of solid moral teaching” plays a role in the decline of churches as they have moved right away by showing Churchgoers how to live a Christian life and how to win others to our Lord Jesus Christ in a world of satanic enticers that has gone mad with materialism.

My walk began with the Salvation Army, then wandered in the wilderness for many years, then I met our Lord Jesus Christ for the first time and found that HE wasn’t in the UCA, and moved on to the Pentecostals and so-called Spirit-filled churches who thrived on materialism and how much you must give in tithes, and not giving with a grateful heart. My church is a coffee club with two or three other out-of-church believers who gather in His Name and we discuss the real Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[childeye]

One of the leading conservative political parties in Australia - which is in government now - is the Liberal Party. What's the meaning of 'liberal' in this example?

I am sure I don't know. The word liberal and the word conservative hold their meanings in the perspectives of those who use them. Just like if I say, I am a believer, it can only be perceived upon understanding what it is I believe in. To me liberal means something akin to change in some degree. Therefore whether it is a good or bad thing to be a liberal is solely based on what it is that needs to be changed, if anything needs changing at all.

 

[childeye]

Childeye said: Take Spong for instance. His statements clearly indicate that he has no clue as to the false image of god he holds.

We both know you are guessing on that.

Respectfully, I am not guessing. I am just taking him at his word. Note below; taken from his twelve points,

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

Spong asserts that theism as a means to define god is dead. A straw man argument to begin with. Since when has theism ever existed to define God? He then says it makes no sense to "seek" to understand Jesus as the incarnation of God. He says it right there in full clarity, Spong does not see the point of even trying to understand Jesus as God. He therefore cannot possibly conceive of the need for any true image of God sent by God. Therefore he has no clue as to the false image he holds, or he would not say that.

Your underlying [unproven] assumption is that Spong is a
sincere but misguided human being and that perhaps if you "could talk to him" you could speak words
that would enlighten Spong's mind and heart. [As an aside, I feel certain you believe the Holy Spirit would
be the power behind any possible success you'd have with that.]

Respectfully, you assumed I assume. I did not assume anything. He says it makes no sense to him to try to understand the incarnation of God. I simply take him at his word just as I would want done to me.
Are you suggesting that it is wrong for me to wish this guy saw the Truth? Or that I am wrong to want to correct people that I feel have the wrong ideas about God, Christ, the church? I dare say, we do that on this forum all the time. In all sincerity, I feel I am just loving others as I would want to be loved. I would hope if I have need of correction and someone saw that I did, they too would correct me, and not let me walk into destruction.

So you are approaching one of Christendom's major heretics with the unproven assumption that
he is totally different from the heretics condemned in the strongest of terms by the Apostles
who were hand hand-picked by the Lord Christ Himself.

I didn't say that nor did I think it. I would imagine all heretics are the same. The deceived go about deceiving, what else could they do?

12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals,
creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse
in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in
greed—an accursed brood! 2 Peter 2:12-14

Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, called than an "accursed brood."

Note that Peter says they blaspheme in matters they don't understand. He doesn't say they understand. That is no different than what I am saying about Spong. As for Peter's unreasoning animals, how could Peter not count them accursed? Anyone following a lie is accursed even as everyone following the Truth is blessed. Just as the wages of sin are death and walking in the Spirit is Life.

Here is the great Apostle Paul on the heretics of his time:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ
and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are
throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel
from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s
curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than
what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Gal. 1:6-9

There is that word "curse" again . . . let them be under God's curse", said the Apostle Paul under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul said it two times, he wanted to be certain his Christian readers
got the message.

That bears repeating: Paul wanted his Christian readers to be certain they got his "let them be
under God's curse" point. It was a "teaching moment" and the great Apostle was teaching the
Christians put in his care by God, how to approach heretics.

childeye, I do not mean to say the following in a hostile tone, but you have a much "higher" standard
that Christ's Apostles and a much "higher" standard than the Lord Christ Himself. I kindly suggest
you get rid of it, and bring your standard down to the level of God's standards, which is where the
true standard is located.

The Lord Christ Himself taught by His example a "lower" standard than you hold. This means
your "higher" standard is grossly incorrect and needs to be brought back in line with the
standard taught by God via the Lord Christ and His Apostles.

Here is the Lord Christ Himself in His "teaching moment" setting the example before His Christian
Church regarding how to think of, and speak to, the heretics of His time:

Matthew 23:13--15 and verse 33
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom
of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win
a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are...
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

So we gotta conclude that you hold to a "higher" standard than does the Lord Christ, which tells you
that you that your "higher standard" is NOT really a higher standard at all, but is in reality an
INCORRECT standard.

The Lord Christ referred to heretics like Spong as, "You snakes! You brood of vipers!", and
by example, taught His Christian Church to think of heretics as hypocrites and snakes and vipers.



You can't possibly know that. Spong might be exactly like those heretics the Apostle Peter mentioned:
Peter called them an "accursed brood."

I see your concern and thank you for it. I don't feel I have a "higher" standard than the Christ or his apostles, though I get why you say that. So let me explain myself. I view heretics as accursed due to the fact that the path they are on leads to nothing good. I do not feel the need to curse them personally, they already do that to themselves. To rebuke a misguided person with gentleness and genuine empathy is my only secure position in this matter. It is in keeping with loving others as myself. Not loving others as Paul or Peter did. Paul was Saul, a persecutor of Christians until Jesus clued him in.

Sure, I could call Spong and any other false teachers a brood of vipers, as the Christ did with the self righteous Pharisees. But I am not him and I have no sinless ground to stand on. For all I know, I would be no different than Spong, if not for God's grace. That to me, is my humility, which I do not care to lose sight of. For only with all purity and putting off no sense of self righteousness, am I able to gain the fragile trust necessary to get close enough to plant a single seed of Truth in the heart or mind of the deceived. The minute an unbeliever smells an other than genuine altruistic intention, they will take a defensive posture and I will be viewed with skepticism.

"he [Spong] can't help it. He thinks he is doing good"__childeye

The Lord Christ and His Apostles have a different approach to heretics than you do.
You should line up with their approach.

I don't see what it is you expect me to do. I already said heretics are deceived deceivers. I see nothing wrong with wanting them to be corrected. Realizing it may be futile does not escape me.

 

[childeye]

"16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.
17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes
from God or whether I speak on my own."

An excellent choice of scripture to make your case. I should have told you, I didn't start the thread on the atheist forum as a means to preach the Gospel. I simply wanted to know how they defined God. My post 56 was meant to show how words change meaning depending how one views God. It solidifies my resolve that the deceived cannot help it, and that I have received grace, so that I am convinced that no flesh can glory.

 

[childeye]

childeye,

I read your post 56 up there very slow and carefully two times. I think I am beginning to understand
how you understand, God, Christianity, the gospel, and fallen corrupted human beings.

In response to your post 56, here are a few miscellaneous points that will directly relate to the
general thrust of what you wrote in your post 56

Re activist atheists who can't stop complaining [or talking] about Christianity:

What is the New Testament solutions for them? Its simple really. Step one is for them to resign their
self-appointed position as God of their own lives. Hand in their resignation, apologize, keep their mouth
shut, listen instead of talking, and learn from their Creator.

Here is an inadequate analogy, but one that does make a decent point: A marine recruit, after two weeks
of basic, starts mouthing off to his D.I. and says, "I now know more than you do about the Corps and I'll
be instructing you, henceforth, about what to do and what not to do. It cannot work that way in the Corps
or in the spiritual arena with the Sovereign God. Step one for the Marine recruit is for him to shut his
mouth and listen. Period. End of discussion.

The atheist has to come to the place where he shuts his proud mouth and starts listening instead of talking.

After he does that, and only after he does that, will he find the way to get his un-regenerated nature changed.

Its as simple as the sincere prayer from the heart, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

The point is that after the human man shuts his mouth hands in his resignation as God of his own life, then
its usually only a very short time and a mere formality before he becomes a born again Christian, [Jh. 3:3]
what the theologians call regeneration [that is, he experiences a supernaturally changed nature] so that
he no longer has his old un-regenerated unchanged spiritually dead fallen nature that does not have the
power to experience more that mere head belief. He now can believe with his heart in the Lord Christ as
his Savior.

Christianity is NOT primarily about so-called "logic" and "reason" and "argumentation", Christianity is
primarily about being willing to embrace simple child-like faith. [Note: I am not talking about full blown
Fideism here.]

So what good is Christian apologetics if becoming a Christian is not primarily about evidences, logic,
and reason?

My view is that Christian Apologetics always mixes in a lot of simple Bible gospel truths with its presentation of
logical evidences and reason [eg. your post 56 up there] and thus ends up presenting the simple gospel message
to the atheists. The Sovereign God uses the truth to regenerate the human heart and He uses primarily, in my view,
the simple truths of the gospel to get this done. As the Apostle Paul put it, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel,
because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes." Ro. 1:16 The gospel is the simple
truths about the Person and salvation work of the Lord Jesus found in the New Testament.

The gospel is not Christian Apologetics [eg. your post 56] even though Christian Apologetics contains the
gospel and does clearly present the gospel . Also it is vital to know that Christian Apologetics is NOT
necessary for the salvation of human beings. Hundreds of millions of human beings have become
Christians long before there was any such thing as Christian Apologetics which is, historically speaking,
a recently established intellectual department within Christendom.

What prevents saving heart faith in the Lord Christ as Savior is not lack of evidences or lack of answers to intellectual
questions or lack of logical proofs, rather its the fact that the human man is locked down in his will on his false assumption
that it is he that is in charge of his life and it is he that is, de facto, his own God.

Message to the atheist: It can never work that way. There is only one God in Heaven and he is not going to share His throne
with a slug like you, or me or any other mere human man. On the day you sincerely hand in your resignation as God of your
own life, will start the days just ahead where you will find true peace and happiness as you come to believe with your heart
in the Lord Christ as your personal Savior.

Anyway that's my approach and my view with regard to activists atheists and how I approach them. I present the simple
gospel message and do NOT enter their pseudo-intellectual world of bafflegab.

Most of the activist atheists are nothing but pseudo-philosophical academic intellectual talking heads anyway, and all they
need to hear is John 3:16


______________


In connection with what I wrote above, here is a much appreciated quote I picked
up from William Lane Craig: [He is quoting Barth [I'm no huge fan of Barth, but I
do appreciate this quote]

"According to Barth, there can be no approach to God whatsoever via human reason.
Apart from God's revelation in Christ, human reason comprehends absolutely nothing
about God ... But God has revealed Himself to man in Jesus Christ, indeed, Christ is
the revelation of the Word of God (See John 1:1-4 'In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind') ...

Barth continues: .... Lost in sin, man cannot even began to move in the direction of faith,
so that even a leap of faith is impossible for him. No, it must be God who breaks into man's
indolent sinfullness to confront him with the Word of God (Christ). As Barth writes, 'Knowledge
of God is a knowledge completely effected and determined from the side of its object, from the
side of God.' Or again, 'the fact that he [ie the believing man] did come to this decision, that he
really believed, and that he actually had freedom to enter this new life of obedience and
hope --- all this was not the work of his spirit but the work of the Holy Spirit."
__Source: William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, pg. 36

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

I agree with everything you say above. It is God's work to bring men to Christ. I do not claim to be able to convince anybody concerning Christ with reason and logic. I just maintain that faith in Love is logical to those who would say faith is not logical. Although I can't personally save someone, it does not mean that God does not move me to speak Truth to those who openly speak lies.

 

[childeye]

A bad feeling may rise up in me, but honestly I'm kinda proud that it does.

You are definitely an honest man to say you are proud of it.

Liberals and their Liberalism are not good for the Christian Church, not good for Christian families,
not good for my family, my wife, my children, and my grandchildren that have to grow up in this
rotten and immoral popular culture that the Liberals, both religious and political, have created.

I am deeply concerned about the physical and spiritual safety of my grandchildren!

I, therefore, think that my "bad feeling" is really a very good feeling.

I understand that. Why blame liberals or liberalism? What you probably actually mean is you don't like sin being made acceptable.

Do you have any grandchildren that are being daily exposed to this rotten and immoral culture
created by religious and political Liberals?

Yes I do, but perhaps I don't see the cause of the corruption of culture the same way as you do. I also do not mix Christ with worldly politics. It's like mixing darkness with Light. I therefore don't use labels such as conservatism or liberalism, precisely because they are not precise.

In the so called conservative inference, they are a means to divide into two groups, those who want to make sin acceptable as liberal, and those who don't, as conservative. That is a negative connotation of liberal and a positive for conservative.

In the so called liberal inference, it is meant to divide into two groups, the self righteous as conservatives, and the non-judgmental, as liberals. That is a negative connotation of conservative and a positive for liberal.

In my view this is all spin by those who benefit from political division and government gridlock. It is someone playing both ends against the middle and I believe it is Satanic in origin, since it hypocritically plays both tempter and accuser..

In reality, no one should find sin desirable. Yet it should be seen as a corruption that is inherent in all of mankind, and people should not be condemned for having it. Mercy and understanding is what is needed.

In the Church, sin should diminish as people mature in Christ. Conversely therefore, sin should be expected to continue in a secular world. One should not expect government to be able to legislate righteousness into a society. Only through Christ can that be accomplished.

I tell my children and grandchildren that all sin comes from pride. When I see envy or jealousy in a child's countenance I say, "let me look at your face". I then study what is there. I then halfway declare and halfway ask," you feel that blackness in your heart? That is Satan telling you a lie. Then I keep guessing what the lie is until they nod indicating what it is they are believing that gives them the dark feeling. I then proceed to give them the Truth that will dissuade the lie, and when they believe that, their countenance changes and the darkness is gone. I cannot always be there to show them this, but they do grow up scrutinizing their thoughts when they get a dark feeling. They have been taught that every lie of the devil can be destroyed by loving others as yourself.

However thinking you're better than someone else is not a darkness in the heart, but rather a lifted up feeling of pride. I tell them that God is your goodness and you should not be tricked into thinking it is you. If you think this and get lifted up in yourself so that you look down on others, then God will bring you down because you have taken him for granted. Whenever you do good, you should feel like that is what you were supposed to do. Never take Love for granted.

I can't believe I just wrote this lesson to my grandchildren on this forum.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

childeye,

I went back and read all your posts in this thread and have decided that the crux of our differences is that you have a different attitude, tone, and approach to heretics and the enemies of God than the attitude, tone, and approach Jesus and His apostles had toward heretics and the enemies of God. I will have to stand with their attitude, tone, and approach, and stand against your attitude, tone, and approach.


_____________________



Not a single one of your posts indicates that you have the attitude towards heretics & the enemies of God like Jesus expressed in Matthew 23:15,33 where He said to them:

"v.15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are... v.33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

Instead, your posts clearly and boldly declare that your understanding
of Christianity would prevent you from speaking to [or about] anyone
with the same attitude and tone that Jesus used in Matt. 23:15,33
and in fact that entire 23rd chapter of Matthew where Jesus heaped
even more castigations upon them.

_________________


Not a single one of your posts indicates that you have the attitude towards heretics & the enemies of God like the Apostle Paul expressed in Galatians 1:6-9

"6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"

Instead, your posts clearly and boldly declare that your understanding
of Christianity would prevent you from speaking to [or about] anyone
with the same attitude and tone that Paul used in Galatians 1:6-9
where he said, two times strongly, "let them be under God's curse."

You clearly have a standard "higher" than the Lord Christ and His great apostle to the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul.

________________________


Not a single one of your posts indicates that you have the attitude towards heretics & the enemies of God like Jesus had in Matthew 15:14 where He said to His disciples, "Leave them alone, they are blind guides."

"Leave them alone"__Jesus

Leave them along means break off contact with them, it means close the door, stop talking to them.

Jesus said the same thing in other words when He told His disciples in Matt. 7:6

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Note that Jesus referred to a certain class of human beings as "dogs" and "pigs" and then continued on to instruct His disciples to break off contact with them and stop talking to them about spiritual matters.

This was another "teaching moment" as Jesus taught His disciples,
and by extension His entire Christian Church, what kind of attitude
we ought to have toward heretics and the enemies of God.

Again, your posts clearly and boldly declare that your understanding of
Christianity would prevent you from speaking to [or about] anyone
with the same attitude and tone that Jesus used here in Matthew's
gospel as noted above.

______________________


Not a single one of your posts indicates that you have the attitude towards heretics & the enemies of God like John expressed in 2 John 6-11

"6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work."

Instead, your posts clearly and boldly declare that your understanding of
Christianity would prevent you from speaking to [or about] anyone
with the same attitude and tone that John used in 2 John 6-11 where
he said by the way in the context defining love ["this is love ... His command
is that you walk in love v.6] that heretics were not to be welcomed into the
homes of Christians.

In other words that's how John applied his doctrine of love: Do not even welcome these heretics into your home.

_______________________


Not a single one of your posts indicates that you have the attitude towards heretics & the enemies of God like Peter had in 2 Peter:2:12-14 where he said the following about heretics and the enemies of God:

"12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!"

Instead, your posts clearly and boldly declare that your understanding of
Christianity would prevent you from speaking to [or about] anyone with
the same attitude and tone that the Apostle Peter here where he said they
were "an accursed brood" and "They are like unreasoning animals, creatures
of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish."

My conclusion:

You have a different attitude, tone, and approach to heretics and the enemies of
God than the attitude, tone, and approach Jesus and His apostles had toward heretics
and the enemies of God. I will have to stand with their attitude, tone, and approach,
and stand against your attitude, tone, and approach.

All those verses up there were "teaching moments" where the Lord Jesus
and His apostles were teaching Christ's Christian Church the correct attitude
and tone to have toward heretics and the enemies of God. When Christ and
His apostles spoke the truths of those verses up there, they were "setting an
example" before the Christian Church, and so was the Holy Spirit who inspired
[2 Tim.3:16-17] all that came to be included in our New Testament. Their attitude,
tone, and approach is quite different from your attitude, tone, and approach set
forth in your posts.

↑ That up there bolded blue is a powerful argument and, in my view, irrefutable.

Respectfully, I will have to agree with Free in post 26 where he said to you,
"I find that it is your position that muddies the water." [With regard to your
comments in response to the Opening Post in this thread.]

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

PS
I expect this will come down to "We will have to agree to disagree." Its pretty
clear by now that I am not going to change my position on this issue, and you
are not going to change yours.

PSS
You made many very good points in your posts in this thread and I found many
of them to be a blessing to my heart and mind, and they were much appreciated
by me. For example, I could not agree with you more that there are no political
solutions to the spiritual problems of humanity.

`

 

[Jack Hectorman]

Continued from post 76

I forgot to include Titus 3:10 in the list of verses that
speak directly on the issue of the attitude and tone
of the Lord Christ and His apostle towards heretics
and the enemies of God.


Titus 3:10-11 King James Version (KJV)
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

_______

Titus 3:10-11 New International Version (NIV)
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have
nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful;
they are self-condemned.

♦

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Actually, theological liberalism does not take on many meanings. It has been and is represented by what is known as modernism and now, postmodernism.

Both of these views that are represented in the last couple of centuries have attacked the fundamentals of the faith.

Well, if I'm wrong, then what is it that I'm saying?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Well, if I'm wrong, then what is it that I'm saying?

Please disregard this reply.
Thank you.

 

[childeye]

childeye,

I went back and read all your posts in this thread and have decided that the crux of our differences is that you have a different attitude, tone, and approach to heretics and the enemies of God than the attitude, tone, and approach Jesus and His apostles had toward heretics and the enemies of God. I will have to stand with their attitude, tone, and approach, and stand against your attitude, tone, and approach.


_____________________
Not a single one of your posts indicates that you have the attitude towards heretics & the enemies of God like Jesus expressed in Matthew 23:15,33 where He said to them:

"v.15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are... v.33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

Time to take the time to clarify some misperceptions.
#1, I don't agree that my attitude towards the Pharisee type of mindset is any different than that of Jesus. I feel the same way as he does above, and that by God's grace not by my own wisdom.

#2, My tone and approach are different. That is because Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and Earth to judge all things. He carries the rod, not I. The sin of the Pharisees is, in my view, a self righteous better than thou attitude. They think they see, but they are the blind leading the blind. They therefore are judgmental of others in a blind hypocrisy. I will not be sucked into their blindness by somehow thinking I am better than they in God's eyes. Concerning their being enemies to God. Two scriptures I will post that defend my approach and tone.

Romans 12:17-20New International Version (NIV)
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[b]

Romans 2:1King James Version (KJV)
2 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Instead, your posts clearly and boldly declare that your understanding
of Christianity would prevent you from speaking to [or about] anyone
with the same attitude and tone that Jesus used in Matt. 23:15,33
and in fact that entire 23rd chapter of Matthew where Jesus heaped
even more castigations upon them.

Well yes of course. If I count myself as unworthy or undeserving of the admonitions of Christ towards the Pharisees, how then can his words bring forth any repentance from such an attitude? It is humility to count myself among them, and pride that would think Jesus is not talking to me, when speaking against self righteous judgment of others.

_________________

Not a single one of your posts indicates that you have the attitude towards heretics & the enemies of God like the Apostle Paul expressed in Galatians 1:6-9

"6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"

#1, I have the same attitude about those who would return to the law for righteousness as Paul. That is what this scripture is pertaining to. Anyone who preaches a return to the law as a means of righteousness is under the curse of the law.
#2 I have said or alluded to this many times in many posts.

Instead, your posts clearly and boldly declare that your understanding
of Christianity would prevent you from speaking to [or about] anyone
with the same attitude and tone that Paul used in Galatians 1:6-9
where he said, two times strongly, "let them be under God's curse."

You clearly have a standard "higher" than the Lord Christ and His great apostle to the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul.

#1,To be clear Paul is speaking about any teaching that would confound the Gospel. In this case it is a return to the law as a means of righteousness. I've spoken out against it many times on this forum. Therefore your claim that my understanding of Christianity prevents me from speaking to someone with such an attitude is unjustified. However you are correct that I would never speak about someone who believes in the law for righteousness, as in behind their back. I try to keep my tone always in love and caring for the gentle correction of the blind individual. I see nothing hypocritical about that.

Of course they who preach contrary to the Gospel and contrary to God are under God's curse. When Paul says, "let them be under God's curse", I find it hard to believe he is suggesting that you or I can place them under God's curse and therefore be able to place them under God's blessing, as if that were in our power. I believe he is saying to count them as cursed, and not give them any credibility. I've spoken against it many times on this forum.

#2, You keep saying my standard is higher than the Christ who submitted himself to torture, crucifixion and death, and yet prayed for the forgiveness of his enemies.


________________________

Not a single one of your posts indicates that you have the attitude towards heretics & the enemies of God like Jesus had in Matthew 15:14 where He said to His disciples, "Leave them alone, they are blind guides."

"Leave them alone"__Jesus

Leave them along means break off contact with them, it means close the door, stop talking to them.

Jesus said the same thing in other words when He told His disciples in Matt. 7:6

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Note that Jesus referred to a certain class of human beings as "dogs" and "pigs" and then continued on to instruct His disciples to break off contact with them and stop talking to them about spiritual matters.

This was another "teaching moment" as Jesus taught His disciples,
and by extension His entire Christian Church, what kind of attitude
we ought to have toward heretics and the enemies of God.

Again, your posts clearly and boldly declare that your understanding of
Christianity would prevent you from speaking to [or about] anyone
with the same attitude and tone that Jesus used here in Matthew's
gospel as noted above.

In my view, the lesson to be drawn from this teaching, is that some people do not have the capacity to appreciate spiritual things, so don't waste your time. I don't think he meant to teach us that some people are dogs and pigs in any derogatory sense. So what are we supposed to take away from the following scripture?
Matthew 15:26-28New International Version (NIV)
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

To be continued.