Liberal Christianity & its killer instinct

[childeye]

There's really no such thing as a liberal or conservative Christianity in the construct as framed. Are not liberal and conservative subjective terms? What is the qualifier in the objective view of love God with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself? No one owns God. I'd be happy to have that discussion with a Buddhist.

The church is the body of Christ orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, and it is not divided against it's self. No one owns God. There are falsehoods that are presented as Truth which can subvert, and they should be addressed as such. 1 Corinthians 1:13.

 

[OzSpen]

There's really no such thing as a liberal or conservative Christianity in the construct as framed. Are not liberal and conservative subjective terms? What is the qualifier in the objective view of love God with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself? No one owns God. I'd be happy to have that discussion with a Buddhist.

The church is the body of Christ orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, and it is not divided against it's self. No one owns God. There are falsehoods that are presented as Truth which can subvert, and they should be addressed as such. 1 Corinthians 1:13.

'What is liberal Christian theology?' (Got Questions?) refutes your view that there is no such thing as liberal Christianity.

See my article, 'The Gospel distortion: A reply to John Shelby Spong' to confirm that there is such a thing as liberal Christianity.

As for 'conservative' Christianity, it seems that this refers to Christianity that is faithful to Scripture as the authoritative word of God.

The University of Chicago Press has published, The Truth about Conservative Christians, that goes beyond their biblical beliefs to beliefs and practices about other issues.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

As for 'conservative' Christianity, it seems that this refers to Christianity that is faithful to Scripture as the authoritative word of God.

My working definitions:
A "conservative" is one who adheres to the original teachings of the Church.
A 'liberal" is one who frequents church services and adheres to whatever wind of doctrine is currently blowing.

iakov the fool

 

[Christ_empowered]

I dunno. Dorothy Day was progressive, but very Catholic. Chuck Colson was fairly traditional, but his views weren't always neatly categorized as "conservative" or "liberal."

I think a genuinely Christian worldview defies the "conservative" or "liberal" dichotomy.

 

[OzSpen]

My working definitions:
A "conservative" is one who adheres to the original teachings of the Church.
A 'liberal" is one who frequents church services and adheres to whatever wind of doctrine is currently blowing.

iakov the fool

Thanks, Jim.

My working definition would be:

• Conservative Christians adhere to the teachings of Scripture;
• Liberal Christians are those who abort the authority of Scripture and pursue any wind of doctrine, particularly that which denigrates the literal teaching of Scripture (I use 'literal' to include all types of figures of speech and taking cultural factors into consideration).

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Dorothy Day was progressive, but very Catholic

Dorothy Day was a communist. When she figured out that communism and Catholicism do not mix, she dropped the communism.

And, as an aside:
The term "progressive" was put into use when the term, "liberal" began to bee seen in a negative light.
The term "liberal" was put into use when the term, "socialist" began to be seen in a negative light.
The term "socialist" was put into use when the term, "communist" began to be seen in a negative light.
So, when you see the word, Progressive" being used, it is very likely a euphemism for the word, "communist."

No extra charge!!

 

[OzSpen]

Dorothy Day was a communist. When she figured out that communism and Catholicism do not mix, she dropped the communism.

And, as an aside:
The term "progressive" was put into use when the term, "liberal" began to bee seen in a negative light.
The term "liberal" was put into use when the term, "socialist" began to be seen in a negative light.
The term "socialist" was put into use when the term, "communist" began to be seen in a negative light.
So, when you see the word, Progressive" being used, it is very likely a euphemism for the word, "communist."

No extra charge!!

Jim,

This article, 'Dorothy Day, a Communist?' claims she was both a Communist and a Catholic to her dying day.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

This article, 'Dorothy Day, a Communist?' claims she was both a Communist and a Catholic to her dying day.

AH, I heard otherwise on EWTN, the Catholic radio channel.
In either case, one cannot be both a Catholic and a communist since communism declares that there is no God.
(I know. Someone should tell the current pope. )

jim

 

[OzSpen]

AH, I heard otherwise on EWTN, the Catholic radio channel.
In either case, one cannot be both a Catholic and a communist since communism declares that there is no God.
(I know. Someone should tell the current pope. )

jim

And we know Communism is lying about the non-existence of God as Rom 1:18ff (ESV) and Psalm 19 (ESV) confirm.

Whom am I to contradict Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse-tung with Scripture?

The bloke from Down Under,
Oz

 

[childeye]

'What is liberal Christian theology?' (Got Questions?) refutes your view that there is no such thing as liberal Christianity.

Actually, it doesn't. It in fact supports my view. Right from the beginning, it says that it is not Christianity at all. But that is still according to a subjective use of the term liberal.

See my article, 'The Gospel distortion: A reply to John Shelby Spong' to confirm that there is such a thing as liberal Christianity.

For what it's worth, I liked your article. Your dedication to syntax, the importance of inferences and connotations of words, and the spirits/intentions behind them, made me glad. In all humility I must admit, that I was surprised.

Still, Fundamentalisms, conservatisms, liberalisms, are simply subjective terms, and they are divisive in their application. So why use them? There is no such thing as liberal Christianity, yet you give up your advantage by essentially agreeing with Mr. Spong that there is. Such divisive adjectives should not be placed in front of, or near the term Christ. Wouldn't it be better to just point out that the Holy Spirit orchestrates the True Church? It seems to me that such simplicity would put to rest any of Mr. Spong's concerns as invalid.

As for 'conservative' Christianity, it seems that this refers to Christianity that is faithful to Scripture as the authoritative word of God.

The University of Chicago Press has published, The Truth about Conservative Christians, that goes beyond their biblical beliefs to beliefs and practices about other issues.

Oz

Respectfully and forthrightly, I don't think conservative should be used in any context with the word faith, or faithfulness. I suppose it may support that there exists orthodox views of scripture, but even that has it's pitfalls in vanity. Even proper interpretation of Scripture is not the foundation of our faith.

 

[Jim Parker]

Even proper interpretation of Scripture is not the foundation of our faith.

What would you say is the foundation of our faith?
(Maybe that could be a new thread. It should cause great turmoil! )

iakov the fool

 

[childeye]

What would you say is the foundation of our faith?
(Maybe that could be a new thread. It should cause great turmoil! )

iakov the fool

The deepest form of faith I can recognize, is that the Eternal God is a Perfect Love without fail. Hence the Gospel of the Christ crucified, and risen from the dead, is the foundation of our faith.

 

[Jim Parker]

The deepest form of faith I can recognize, is that the Eternal God is a Perfect Love without fail. Hence the Gospel of the Christ crucified, and risen from the dead, is the foundation of our faith.

OK.
"Christ crucified, and risen from the dead" accomplished what?
It's important to know what His incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension means to each of us personally.
Or, as I used to say to my students, "The basic theological question is; 'So what?'."

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

Still, Fundamentalisms, conservatisms, liberalisms, are simply subjective terms, and they are divisive in their application. So why use them? There is no such thing as liberal Christianity, yet you give up your advantage by essentially agreeing with Mr. Spong that there is. Such divisive adjectives should not be placed in front of, or near the term Christ. Wouldn't it be better to just point out that the Holy Spirit orchestrates the True Church? It seems to me that such simplicity would put to rest any of Mr. Spong's concerns as invalid.

The terms are used for a similar reason to using Pharisees (Matthew 9:14; 15:1-9; 23:5; 23:16, 23, Mark 7:1-23; Luke 11:42), Sadducees (they say there is no resurrection, Acts 23:8 ESV), Essenes, Gnostics, Pelagians, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc. They are descriptive of certain theologies. The same applies to fundamentalism, conservatives, liberalism, postmodernists, etc.

You speak of 'such divisive adjectives', yet your post itself is divisive in its content.

Oz

 

[childeye]

OK.
"Christ crucified, and risen from the dead" accomplished what?
It's important to know what His incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension means to each of us personally.
Or, as I used to say to my students, "The basic theological question is; 'So what?'."

iakov the fool

Well it's funny you should ask. Because I just got finished reading your excellent post #9 on the thread, Does God vindicate or is He vindictive?
There you mention a man who lived in the 4th century named Athanasius. I would say that his views appear to be the same as mine. But in the bigger picture, I would add that I believe that God is revealing Himself and the glory of His Light in the midst of darkness, through this temporal existence, that will be reviewed forever. Isaiah 66:23, 24.

 

[Jim Parker]

Still, Fundamentalisms, conservatisms, liberalisms, are simply subjective terms

No, they are not simply subjective terms. While they are not scientifically specific but they do describe general divisions of belief within Christianity.

Such divisive adjectives should not be placed in front of, or near the term Christ.

Unfortunately, you are too late. It has already been done and has achieved general acceptance in the vernacular.
When any of the terms are used, people do understand the groups to which they refer.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Because I just got finished reading your excellent post #9 on the thread, Does God vindicate or is He vindictive?

OWCH. I had my hat on when you said that and couldn't get it of before my head swelled 3 sizes.

There you mention a man who lived in the 4th century named Athanasius. I would say that his views appear to be the same as mine.

That's good! He was the leading theologian in the fight against the Neo-Platonist heresy of Arius and in support of Trinitarian Christianity.

iakov the fool

 

[childeye]

The terms are used for a similar reason to using Pharisees (Matthew 9:14; 15:1-9; 23:5; 23:16, 23, Mark 7:1-23; Luke 11:42), Sadducees (they say there is no resurrection, Acts 23:8 ESV), Essenes, Gnostics, Pelagians, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc. They are descriptive of certain theologies. The same applies to fundamentalism, conservatives, liberalism, postmodernists, etc.

You speak of 'such divisive adjectives', yet your post itself is divisive in its content.

Oz

Oz, I liked your article. Really. Respectfully, I understand that you use labels to draw distinctions between theologies. But what I meant was divisive adjectives in front of the word Christ. I'm not trying to be divisive.

 

[childeye]

No, they are not simply subjective terms. While they are not scientifically specific but they do describe general divisions of belief within Christianity.

They describe different theologies, which is not the same as what is the simple Truth that is in Christ which the term Christianity is meant to be applied.

Unfortunately, you are too late. It has already been done and has achieved general acceptance in the vernacular.
When any of the terms are used, people do understand the groups to which they refer.

iakov the fool

God be thanked that you used the word unfortunately, since when applied to Christ such divisive terms are the acceptance of a false premise. Hence likewise, when people said I am of Paul and , I am of Apollos, they accepted this too, and understood the groups to which they refer.

 

[Jim Parker]

They describe different theologies, which is not the same as what is the simple Truth that is in Christ which the term Christianity is meant to be applied.

They all purport to be "the simple truth." The proponents of each flavor believe that they most accurately communicate that truth.

God be thanked that you used the word unfortunately, since when applied to Christ such divisive terms are the acceptance of a false premise.

?????????

Hence likewise, when people said I am of Paul and , I am of Apollos, they accepted this too, and understood the groups to which they refer.

For which divisions Paul thoroughly rebuked the lot of them as did Clement of Rome the next generation of Corinthians who were still doing the same thing.