What is a liberal Christian theology?

[childeye]

Continuation:

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.

Respectfully, you are reaching pretty hard to discredit me here. I admit I took in a homeless family one time. When I saw them, I felt convicted in my heart with compassion for them. I felt moved by sincere empathy for their condition and I knew I could do something about it, so I did. I admit that they didn't bring the teaching that Jesus came in the flesh, nor did I ask. So I guess you got me here. I am guilty of sharing in their wicked work. Unless of course John is speaking about people who are actively preaching that Jesus didn't come in the flesh. In that case I plead not guilty. I've never welcomed any such person into my home. I've met a few on line. I quickly set them straight with historical evidence of the reality of Jesus' existence. I don't see anything wrong with disproving lies.

I believe John is addressing an issue that he felt moved to. I don't disagree with his attitude at all, I think he is spot on. Nor does anything in my understanding of Christianity prevent me from speaking to or even about someone with the same attitude and tone concerning this matter. Perhaps my posts don't reflect that because there is no one on this forum I can recall ever posting that Chris never came in the flesh. Did you consider that?
_______________________

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."

Let me be clear. I am not for false teachers. I know what wolves in sheep's clothing implies. Just because I don't write posts that would vent anger or vitriol at them doesn't mean I approve of them.

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.

Did you notice that because I pointed out that the words liberal and conservative have both good and bad connotations and inferences, is what prompted you to question my Christian attitude towards heretics and enemies of God? Could it be that what I write about the division that is caused by not understanding the terms correctly, is being made self evident on this forum through this post, for the edification of all who read and write here?

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.]

Please note that you are saying that I am muddying the waters by making clear that the term liberal is not a good term to describe bad people or practices.
Proverbs 11:25King James Version (KJV)
25 The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

 

[childeye]

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.

♦

I see nothing I have said in any posts that would warrant my being corrected with any of the verses that you have applied towards my attitude as regards to heretics. Now please be a good fellow and tell me what gives you the impression that I have a bad attitude. Is it because I don't voice anger at heretics? Is it because I said I feel sorry for Spong?

Respectfully, if you feel the need to agree to disagree, it is most likely because you misconstrue what I say. Notice that I don't feel any need to agree to disagree with you. I feel the need to agree to agree due to misunderstandings.

 

[childeye]

For everyone who reads this thread. It is my contribution to this thread to remark, that to use the term liberal to describe bad people and bad practices is a misuse of the term and supports a spirit of division that can only end in hypocrisy.

Isaiah 32:3-8King James Version (KJV)
3 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.
4 The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

 

[jasonc]

For everyone who reads this thread. It is my contribution to this thread to remark, that to use the term liberal to describe bad people and bad practices is a misuse of the term and supports a spirit of division that can only end in hypocrisy.

Isaiah 32:3-8King James Version (KJV)
3 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.
4 The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

not all use the kjv era English. I recall the bible uses the word gay. should I protest that usage as the modern connotion if of homosexuality verses the older usage of happy/happiness?

 

[Free]

For everyone who reads this thread. It is my contribution to this thread to remark, that to use the term liberal to describe bad people and bad practices is a misuse of the term and supports a spirit of division that can only end in hypocrisy.

Well, you're incorrect. The term liberal as it is used here, and by most everyone who uses it these days, including theologians, is a legitimate use of the term.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

I did read the op. I understand there are those who call themselves christian and are not. Such was foretold that there would be, without the misleading term liberal being applied. Please understand that if I respond to the op without disclaiming the built in premise of the existence of a liberal Christianity, I am accepting the premise that is proposed as valid.

It is a valid premise. Liberal Christianity does exist just as Carnal Christianity does
exist, just as Immature Christianity does exist, just as Unwise Christianity does exist,
just as Ignorant Christianity does exist. All of which is to say that true born again
Christians can be, and sometimes are, liberal, carnal, unwise, immature, and
ignorant. Paul taught that true Christians can be both "true Christians" and also
"carnal Christians" ~~ "Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who
live by the Spirit but as people who are still carnal" 1 Cor.3:1
And common sense teaches us that there are many true born again Christians in
the developing countries who know very little about the major doctrines of Biblical
Christianity, and who also dangerously mix in some of their old past heathen
religious superstitions with their Christian practice.

So Liberal Christianity does exist, just as Carnal Christianity and Immature
Christianity does exist.

There is no such thing as a liberal or conservative Christian.

Respectfully disagree. Old Aunt Bertha who lives in Timbuctoo is a true born
again Christian who was born into a Democratic family and all her life was
taught by her parents and friends that the Democratic Party was the "party
of the poor" and they were trying to bring about "social justice" for the
"poor and the downtrodden" and so old Aunt Bertha is totally convinced
that she is doing God's work when she votes for the Democratic Party.
In her perception [based in ignorance] she is fully practicing her Christian
faith when she votes for the Democrats. She belongs to (say) the local
Methodist Church and she believes the Federal Government is doing
a good thing for the "poor people" when they tax and redistribute
wealth. Old Aunt Bertha is a left leaning Christian or in other words
a liberal Christian. 99% of America would say Bertha is a Liberal
Christian. Words are invented by humans to communicate ideas, and
we all know that Bertha is a liberal Christian.

The Democratic Party has tens of millions of true born again Christians
within their party. I don't think any of us actually believe that all the
Democrats are going to Hell.

The meanings of the terms liberal and conservative are actually held in the
perspectives of those who use them. They are therefore subjective in their
applications and don't really have any precise meaning.

That's true for all of these "hot words" or "key labels" that represent a belief system.

Words, not only like "liberal" and "conservative", but words like:
• Fundamentalist
• Christian
• Democrat
• Republican
• Libertarian
• Orthodoxy

.. And true also for words like: carnal, unwise, immature, ignorant, right, wrong,
moral, and immoral. All these words are highly "subjective in their applications"
and do not have any more "precise meanings" than the meaning we humans
give to them, and we don't agree among ourselves on the applications of any
of these key "hot words" up there.

♫ ♪

PS
I'll get to your questions up-thread asap.

PSS
I love your big font up there

 

[childeye]

Well, you're incorrect. The term liberal as it is used here, and by most everyone who uses it these days, including theologians, is a legitimate use of the term.

No , No, NO. I am absolutely right about this and I'm fed up with debating it. I'm going to be as forthright as I can be, and I am not going to say it again. I don't care if I never write on this forum again. Here is where I draw the line or be a coward before my Lord.

The way "liberal" is being perverted here in this op is Satanic subterfuge. For in reality, the teachings in the opening post are the spirit of antichrist. The term "liberal Christianity" is only propaganda , an equivocation, a cover up, a lie. Something the Holy Spirit would never conceive of. Why would you or anyone else who knows Christ fight me on this? It is Antichrist, and I am not going to be fooled into accepting the premise in any form, that this is somehow Christianity in degrees. Nor will I join in with those who repeat the lie as if it were true. The end of such reasoning can only lead to hypocrisy.

 

[jasonc]

No , No, NO. I am absolutely right about this and I'm fed up with debating it. I'm going to be as forthright as I can be, and I am not going to say it again. I don't care if I never write on this forum again. Here is where I draw the line or be a coward before my Lord.

The way "liberal" is being perverted here in this op is Satanic subterfuge. For in reality, the teachings in the opening post are the spirit of antichrist. The term "liberal Christianity" is only propaganda , an equivocation, a cover up, a lie. Something the Holy Spirit would never conceive of. Why would you or anyone else who knows Christ fight me on this? It is Antichrist, and I am not going to be fooled into accepting the premise in any form, that this is somehow Christianity in degrees. Nor will I join in with those who repeat the lie as if it were true. The end of such reasoning can only lead to hypocrisy.

how do we then define what is a Christian? the word will and does call uu, unity and other false Christians. well Christians. I personally know a humanist that calls herself a Christian!

 

[Free]

No , No, NO. I am absolutely right about this and I'm fed up with debating it. I'm going to be as forthright as I can be, and I am not going to say it again. I don't care if I never write on this forum again. Here is where I draw the line or be a coward before my Lord.

The way "liberal" is being perverted here in this op is Satanic subterfuge. For in reality, the teachings in the opening post are the spirit of antichrist. The term "liberal Christianity" is only propaganda , an equivocation, a cover up, a lie. Something the Holy Spirit would never conceive of. Why would you or anyone else who knows Christ fight me on this? It is Antichrist, and I am not going to be fooled into accepting the premise in any form, that this is somehow Christianity in degrees.

Well, no, you're not absolutely right about "this," whatever "this" is since you've said so many things. You're wrong in your assertion that the way "liberal" is being used is incorrect. It is quite correct.

You're right in that of course it is a lie. I've already agreed with you on that, so that is not at all what I am arguing against. The point remains, as per the OP, that there are those who call themselves "liberal Christians," like it or not, and that OP shows what they believe. This perfectly valid use of the term "liberal" is necessary so that true Christians can be seen as separate from them.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This goes on in other forums on other topics.
Someone reads a doctrine on OSAS on the internet and believes this is exactly what OSAS is and everyone who is OSAS believes exactly this.
Someone reads on the internet what a Messianic Jew is and believes all Messianic Jews believe exactly this.
And it goes on and on.
Nothing to get upset about.
I use to get very upset about it.
Now I see you can just teach the truth and whoever accepts it, accepts it.
Then move on to the next topic.

Somewhere along the way these topics get recycled and suddenly people are teaching exactly what you taught a long time ago.
And that's the way it goes.

 

[Free]

This goes on in other forums on other topics.
Someone reads a doctrine on OSAS on the internet and believes this is exactly what OSAS is and everyone who is OSAS believes exactly this.
Someone reads on the internet what a Messianic Jew is and believes all Messianic Jews believe exactly this.
And it goes on and on.
Nothing to get upset about.
I use to get very upset about it.
Now I see you can just teach the truth and whoever accepts it, accepts it.
Then move on to the next topic.

Somewhere along the way these topics get recycled and suddenly people are teaching exactly what you taught a long time ago.
And that's the way it goes.

This is very different than mere doctrinal disagreement about something like OSAS.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Proverbs 15:1; NIV
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger".

 

[childeye]

Well, no, you're not absolutely right about "this," whatever "this" is since you've said so many things.

Well if you don't understand "this" whatever "this" is that I said, then frankly and with all due respect, how do you conclude that what I am saying is not right? It is hypocritical reasoning that would say I don't understand what you say, but I disagree with it.

You're wrong in your assertion that the way "liberal" is being used is incorrect. It is quite correct.

No it isn't correct. It is the spirit of antichrist, not "liberal" Christianity. You are just repeating the lie. Your reasoning upon it and repeating it can only end in hypocrisy as all lies do. I can prove that unto your edification.

You're right in that of course it is a lie. I've already agreed with you on that, so that is not at all what I am arguing against. The point remains, as per the OP, that there are those who call themselves "liberal Christians," like it or not, and that OP shows what they believe.

And here is where such reasoning must end in hypocrisy. For you say the liars call themselves liberal Christians which means they are not Liberal Christians because they are liars.

This perfectly valid use of the term "liberal" is necessary so that true Christians can be seen as separate from them.

More hypocrisy for me to reveal for your edification. You first say of course it is a lie, and then call it perfectly valid? Nonsense, doublespeak. And what of all the faithful loving Christians that find nothing wrong with being liberal Christians? What of those who see Christ as a liberal and love him for it? You just categorically lump them together with antichrist because you opine that it is a valid use of the term? Moreover you then absurdly claim the term is necessary to make the distinction between true and false Christians while admitting Satan uses it as a cover. Then you claim I am muddying the waters because I'm saying it is antichrist which makes the distinction with no equivocations.

 

[childeye]

how do we then define what is a Christian? the word will and does call uu, unity and other false Christians. well Christians. I personally know a humanist that calls herself a Christian!

What does the term Christ mean? It means the true image of God sent by God. A Christian believes Jesus is the Christ. All Truth is revealed upon the subsequent implications of believing that Christ has come. It's that simple. That is precisely why antichrist must have people believe he did not come in the flesh.

 

[childeye]

Proverbs 15:1; NIV
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger".

I believe you are addressing me, and I thank you for your loving admonition.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This is very different than mere doctrinal disagreement about something like OSAS.

I think this is rather harsh criticism saying that what you are talking about is more important than what I am talking about.
I'm surprised to hear this from you.

 

[Free]

I think this is rather harsh criticism saying that what you are talking about is more important than what I am talking about.
I'm surprised to hear this from you.

It's not at all a criticism. A discussion on just what liberal theology is, which is what this thread is about, is quite different, and much more serious, than mere doctrinal disagreement.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It's not at all a criticism. A discussion on just what liberal theology is, which is what this thread is about, is quite different, and much more serious, than mere doctrinal disagreement.

Now I'm double surprised.

 

[Free]

Well if you don't understand "this" whatever "this" is that I said, then frankly and with all due respect, how do you conclude that what I am saying is not right? It is hypocritical reasoning that would say I don't understand what you say, but I disagree with it.

Well, because you weren't clear as what "this" was referring to, I assumed two things:

1. That you were disagreeing with the way "liberal" was being used, since that is what you were quoting.
2. That you were disagreeing with a point not being made--that some were arguing that liberal Christian theology is actually Christian--since that was also a part of your response.

No it isn't correct. It is the spirit of antichrist, not "liberal" Christianity. You are just repeating the lie. Your reasoning upon it and repeating it can only end in hypocrisy as all lies do. I can prove that unto your edification.

No, it is correct. You simply are not following what is being said, as I will show.

And here is where such reasoning must end in hypocrisy. For you say the liars call themselves liberal Christians which means they are not Liberal Christians because they are liars.

More hypocrisy for me to reveal for your edification. You first say of course it is a lie, and then call it perfectly valid? Nonsense, doublespeak. And what of all the faithful loving Christians that find nothing wrong with being liberal Christians? What of those who see Christ as a liberal and love him for it? You just categorically lump them together with antichrist because you opine that it is a valid use of the term? Moreover you then absurdly claim the term is necessary to make the distinction between true and false Christians while admitting Satan uses it as a cover. Then you claim I am muddying the waters because I'm saying it is antichrist which makes the distinction with no equivocations.

There is no hypocrisy in my response but rather your failing to try and understand what I am saying. Please try and follow.

You clearly don't understand the way in which "liberal" is being used with respect to the OP. But it is a valid use, even used by those who refer to themselves as "liberal Christians". There are many meanings to it's use and I suggest you look them up. The OP shows the beliefs of those who are considered liberal Christians, which shows you what definition is being used.

Are such "liberal Christians" actually Christian? No, of course not. But that in no way means that they are not using a valid definition of "liberal".

I did not claim that you were "muddying the waters because [you're] saying it is antichrist which makes the distinction with no equivocations." You stated: "If the orthodoxy of Christianity is all about being filled with Love and serving Love, and people have strayed from that simple faith, then it is because someone has complicated the matter and changed Christianity into something else. We should not muddy the waters with equivocations."

That is what I was addressing as muddying the waters. It seems as though correct doctrine doesn't matter to you, which is precisely why I stated in response that I find it is your position which is muddying the waters. If correct doctrine matters, then it matters when we acknowledge that there are those who call themselves liberal Christians and then show what those beliefs are. Your statement above removes the need for correct doctrine and makes it all about love, as though that is all that matters.

 

[Free]

Now I'm double surprised.