What is a liberal Christian theology?

[evenifigoalone]

I think of it as "if you don't stand for something, you might fall for anything". It's not my place to judge others, so I try not to. They're free to believe as they wish. But a definition(s) is needed, otherwise anyone or anything can call itself Christian. Further, we need definitions of the different types of doctrinal mindsets, otherwise it gets really confusing really fast and we have nothing to reference when addressing those differences. (And addressing differences doesn't always have to be about division, either. It could just be part of a pleasant and fruitful discussion.)

That said, I don't like unnecessary division, either. Which is like I like nondenominational.

So I don't think adhering to either extreme is the answer. It rarely is.

 

[Sparkey]

Fundamentalists are very conservative.And they always read Scripture literally.

Like any other broad statement this one is not always the case. For instance, I would consider myself a fundamentalist. But I am not very conservative but rather seek to explore what I've been given: True Liberty. So then, am I a "Libertarian?" No. Not by any common (political) definition.

Not saying this to you, dear Member (Kathi) but more rhetorical in nature: how about we just drop definitions and call each other "believers"? That's seems good to me. I also like being called "Peculiar" rather than weird or strange or wacko. We are a Peculiar People, called by God to become more than we would be able to be left to our own devices. Frankly? I don't know what I will be ultimately, but we are assured that we shall be like Him (our Jesus). It has not even entered into our minds what God has prepared for us.

There is no shoe-horn that works to fit me into a shoe not my own. And I don't believe in the Cinderella story anyway.

 

[childeye]

Like any other broad statement this one is not always the case. For instance, I would consider myself a fundamentalist. But I am not very conservative but rather seek to explore what I've been given: True Liberty. So then, am I a "Libertarian?" No. Not by any common (political) definition.

Not saying this to you, dear Member (Kathi) but more rhetorical in nature: how about we just drop definitions and call each other "believers"? That's seems good to me. I also like being called "Peculiar" rather than weird or strange or wacko. We are a Peculiar People, called by God to become more than we would be able to be left to our own devices. Frankly? I don't know what I will be ultimately, but we are assured that we shall be like Him (our Jesus). It has not even entered into our minds what God has prepared for us.

There is no shoe-horn that works to fit me into a shoe not my own. And I don't believe in the Cinderella story anyway.

Words are feeble things. I often think of how Christ said, let everything be either yay or nay, for everything between is of the devil. I like your liberty in Christ and your shoehorn connection. The concept of liberty in Christ speaks so much to me of a clean conscience and a pure heart. A confidence in being okay with who you are, because God would not seek to test you nor have you prove your worth, even as we would not seek to do so with others.

I believe every Christian has a unique walk with the Maker and that God has designed it this way deliberately. We all have a unique perspective as we approach Christ even as we come out of our own unique perspectives of sin. We can all call ourselves believers, but what does that mean? For more importantly of course is what we are believing in, which will define what we mean by a believer. While you speak of liberty in Christ, another might speak of slavery in Christ. I believe the pure of heart sees them both as true, and neither connotation is negative. Until God restores the true language, all words will be inadequate.

 

[OzSpen]

I've heard maybe more than one or two sermons in my lifetime, and I have to say, I have never heard anyone teaching these things. Can you point us to where you are hearing this preached?

I'm not saying that we cannot easily go find ANYONE saying just about ANYTHING... but I was curious where, specifically, you might be hearing this preached.

Why don't you listen to a sermon or two of Episcopalian liberal churchman, John Shelby Spong online? Here's a sample: 'http://progressivechristianity.org/...stianity-as-we-know-it-is-dying-sermon-video/

If you were to visit the average Anglican or Uniting Church here in Queensland, you would get your dose of liberalism in various shapes and sizes just about every Sunday. Expose yourself to some of the teaching of, say, a Roman Catholic like John Dominic Crossan. See:

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Does someone here go to listen to that preaching?

Why would I want to go to hear that when they deny the authority of Scripture, deny the fundamentals of the faith such as the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, Jesus' bodily resurrection, no hell, postmodern deconstruction of Scripture, etc?

But there are millions of Australians (in dwindling numbers) who attend such churches. I choose not to go to such a church to get my theological doctrines sizzled on a barbecue of modernism or postmodernism.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Was Jesus a liberal?
I think he was.
He turned the whole Jewish faith upside down.
Isn't that what liberals do?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Was Jesus a liberal?
I think he was.
He turned the whole Jewish faith upside down.
Isn't that what liberals do?

AW,
No. The liberals, some having put in appearances in the midst of my Church Family have all left disappointed. On the other hand when the Saddleback Liberalism hit Wildwood Baptist, it destroyed that assembly, resulting is complete death of the assembly. I find it more accurate to proclaim that as being their target but they fail when an assembly is grounded in the truth.

Getting old! What Jesus did was to expose the faultiness of the Torah, man's laws. Sorry for being absent minded.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

Yes, I do disagree with the use of the term liberal as being applied to the concepts presented. Just say false Christianity if that is what is meant. I feel I need to make the point because people, and particularly young people, get the wrong impression of Christianity, because of those who describe the church in an institutional and therefore political context. The body of Christ is a Spirit led body, not an institution of mankind.(bolded by Jack H.)

Its to late to save or rehabilitate the word "liberal", its been used for decades by untold
millions of people to describe Christian heresy and heretics like John Shelby Spong

"John Shelby "Jack" Spong (born June 16, 1931) is a retired American bishop of the
Episcopal Church From 1979 to 2000 he was Bishop of Newark (based in Newark, New
Jersey). He is a liberal Christian theologian, religion commentator and author. He calls for
a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief away from theism and traditional doctrines."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

See his liberal and heretical 12 points here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong#Twelve_points

Its to late to rehabilitate the word "liberal", it will be forever associated
with people like Spong and used to identify them.

And in the political world "liberal" will be always be used to identify people
like Peeloosie and Harry Reid .. lol ..

Btw, Spong and his organization is an example of a sizable group of "Christians" who
preach bold lies passed off as Christian truth, exactly like Kathi listed in her OP.

♫

The use of "liberal" as it relates to Christian theology is an acceptable term, often used by theologians themselves to distinguish between those who hold to orthodoxy and those who seek to undermine it. It is an acceptable use of the word and categorization of such people.

There are varying degrees of liberal theology and it can be found in almost every denomination but has been the most prevalent in mainstream, non-Evangelical denominations.

Exactly! Nailed it.

I also note that even the liberals tried to get rid of the word "liberal" but they failed
because everybody knows that their new word "progressive" is just another word
for "liberal" . . . a rose by another name is still a rose.

♫

 

[childeye]

Its to late to save or rehabilitate the word "liberal", its been used for decades by untold
millions of people to describe Christian heresy and heretics like John Shelby Spong

"John Shelby "Jack" Spong (born June 16, 1931) is a retired American bishop of the
Episcopal Church From 1979 to 2000 he was Bishop of Newark (based in Newark, New
Jersey). He is a liberal Christian theologian, religion commentator and author. He calls for
a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief away from theism and traditional doctrines."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

See his liberal and heretical 12 points here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong#Twelve_points

Its to late to rehabilitate the word "liberal", it will be forever associated
with people like Spong and used to identify them.

And in the political world "liberal" will be always be used to identify people
like Peeloosie and Harry Reid .. lol ..

Btw, Spong and his organization is an example of a sizable group of "Christians" who
preach bold lies passed off as Christian truth, exactly like Kathi listed in her OP.

♫





Exactly! Nailed it.

I also note that even the liberals tried to get rid of the word "liberal" but they failed
because everybody knows that their new word "progressive" is just another word
for "liberal" . . . a rose by another name is still a rose.

♫

I've already written many posts on this thread about putting the terms liberal and conservative in front of the Word Christian. The terms only obscure the meaning of the word Christ and his body, since their meanings are held by the subjective perspectives of those who use them. Those who use them as a means to describe what they perceive as unorthodox Christianity are reasoning upon an equivocation.

The word "Christ" means the true image of God sent by God. It is the Character of God seen in a man. A divine Love that sacrifices his life for those who deserve death. A Christian is one who believes that God is like His son Jesus. If they walk in this Spirit of Christ, they will become like him. Christianity is walking in the Eternal Spirit of Love. The Spirit leads, as any Christian should know by experience. Therefore anyone who tries to say how a Christian ought to be, as if there is no Spirit that leads, is talking as if there is no true Shepherd at the head of the body. It is not my place as one sheep to say what the other sheep should be doing. That's the job of Him whose rod comforts his sheep as necessary. To put the term conservative in front of Christian puts forth a premise that Christianity never changes, as if it is a strict regimen of rules that never move left or right.

Please note that the traditional church as described in the book of acts was a group of people who owned all things in common. This mutual arrangement was built upon trust in one another in the Love that is Christ. That was the early church. There were no tithes in the early church. There was nothing privately owned in the early church. Things have changed. Congregations don't exist in this form nowadays, and if they did, they probably would be regarded as communistic cults rather than conservative Christianity. So anyone who says they are conservative Christians yet don't live this way, could reasonably be construed as liberals.

The Roman Catholic Church changed the structure of these church communities by putting them under one Papal seat. Roman Catholics considered protestants (liberals) as apostate even though the papists resorted to burning people alive to maintain the order of the hierarchy. Some saw change as necessary. Roman Catholics to this day maintain that they are the conservatives. Clearly the need for a Pope as the head of the body of Christ asserts there is no Person in the Spirit of Christ already occupying that place. No, No, No, there is a Christ and he lives and shepherds his sheep, and none of them are conservative or liberal. These are worldly carnal terms which do not belong in front of the Word Christ or Christianity, his body.

Concerning politics, those who think change is a bad thing probably like things the way they are because they are doing well. Those who are suffering with the way things are, would like to see change. That is reasonable. So If the government is presently being bought and owned by corporations whose servitude is to money, and not to the people of the country as a whole, then being liberal would constitute a good thing, would it not?. Therefore those who reason that conservative is always good and liberal is always bad are missing this scenario. Satan is clever and he appeals to the pride of men. He is there whenever we think we are better than others. We must be as wise as serpents but as gentle as lambs.

By the way, your statement implying "Christians" follow and teach lies passed off as Christian Truth, is sort of an oxymoron. Real Christians never do that since they are led by Christ. I just say false Christianity when that is what I mean. When you say liberal, that is a term that can be taken to mean change or reform from bad things. Hence those who fought against the inquisition could be deemed as liberating or liberal to those they fought against. Those who left the Jewish synagogue could be called liberals. Jesus was probably viewed as liberal hence we have the liberty of Christ. The road out of corruption is change for the good. It's all semantics.

 

[childeye]

AW,
No. The liberals, some having put in appearances in the midst of my Church Family have all left disappointed. On the other hand when the Saddleback Liberalism hit Wildwood Baptist, it destroyed that assembly, resulting is complete death of the assembly. I find it more accurate to proclaim that as being their target but they fail when an assembly is grounded in the truth.

Getting old! What Jesus did was to expose the faultiness of the Torah, man's laws. Sorry for being absent minded.

What Jesus did was change heaven and earth.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

`

Edit: I see you came back and put the quote tags around my word Christian. Thanks.

By the way, your statement implying Christians follow and teach lies passed off as Christian Truth, is an oxymoron. Christians never do that since they are led by Christ.

If you are going to quote me, please quote me accurately. You left off my quotes tags ( "....." )

My statement was this:

"Btw, Spong and his organization is an example of a sizable group of "Christians" who
preach bold lies passed off as Christian truth, exactly like Kathi listed in her OP."__Jack H.

You will notice I put the word in quotes like this: "Christians" ~ which in the context told you
that I did not really believe they were Christians at all. Additionally I would clearly affirm
that neither do I accept them as fellow Christians. So far as I am concerned those people
who **claim to be Christians and who preach bold lies passed off as Christian truth exactly
like Kathi listed in her OP belong to Satan and are some of his goats [as the New
Testament refers to them .. [the sheep and the goats]

**And these heretics DO claim to be Christians

Edit: See the edit note at the very top [just in case you missed it]

________________________


The Opening Post was right on target and the word "liberal" is a perfect word to describe
the theological liberal Spong and his liberal ilk.

Here again is what Bishop Heretic Spong teaches the people in his pseudo-Christian
religious movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong#Twelve_points
Spong's teachings read very similar to the Opening Post.


_________________




Again, Spong is a liberal and the people who believe and follow his teachings are not
Christians so far as I am concerned. They are not my brothers and sisters in Christ
so far as I am concerned. Exactly like Rodney the "Boy Scout" who, instead of helping
little old ladies across the street, knocks them down in the street and laughs at them
as they lay there. Yet Rodney claims to be a Boy Scout and he wears the uniform of
a Boy Scout, but he rejects the written creed of the Boy Scouts and is therefore, as
far as I am concerned, NOT a Boy Scout.

If Rodney, as presented above, can be a true Boy Scout, then the automobile you
drive is a refrigerator, and if Spong and his host of heretics, as presented above,
can be true Christians then the chair you sit in is a computer. Here we enter the
realm of the Death Of Language where human communication ceases to have any
meaning whatsoever, and we find a counterpart in the "thrown paint" [and dripped paint]
of such as Jackson Pollock who literally threw his paint at his canvass.

Here is a Jackson Pollock.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg
What does this painting mean?
Answer: It can mean anything anybody says it means. And once
we enter this realm, human communication becomes so
subjective that language is no longer an effective tool to
convey ideas. Objective truth dies, stone cold dead. This
is why I will not give up the word "liberal" as an accurate
label for such as Spong and his flock of goats.

♦

 

[Jack Hectorman]

By the way, your statement implying "Christians" follow and teach lies passed off as Christian Truth, is sort of an oxymoron. Real Christians never do that since they are led by Christ. I just say false Christianity when that is what I mean. When you say liberal, that is a term that can be taken to mean change or reform from bad things. Hence those who fought against the inquisition could be deemed as liberating or liberal to those they fought against. Those who left the Jewish synagogue could be called liberals. Jesus was probably viewed as liberal hence we have the liberty of Christ. The road out of corruption is change for the good. It's all semantics.

/Big Grin ... The above is your later edited expansion of your points. I understand your point better now.
Your phrase added-in-the edit: "Real Christians never do that since they are led by Christ" made
your point clearer.

Here is a point for you to consider: We can use the word "liberal" and then proceed to clarify what
we mean by the word.

Politically, the word is used that way, for example there is a difference in a regular (1) Liberal
and in a (2) Classical Liberal.

.. lol .. At least I have friends that insist that there is a significant difference in the definition of the
two labels. They are rather "Libertarian-ish" and they self-identify as Classical Liberals, but
NOT as Liberals. Btw, they, just like you, try to "save" or "rehabilitate" the word "Liberal."

I laugh at them. The word "liberal' is way past "saving" or "rehabbing" ..

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

 

[Jack Hectorman]

Words are feeble things. I often think of how Christ said, let everything be either yay or nay, for everything between is of the devil. I like your liberty in Christ and your shoehorn connection. The concept of liberty in Christ speaks so much to me of a clean conscience and a pure heart. A confidence in being okay with who you are, because God would not seek to test you nor have you prove your worth, even as we would not seek to do so with others.

I believe every Christian has a unique walk with the Maker and that God has designed it this way deliberately. We all have a unique perspective as we approach Christ even as we come out of our own unique perspectives of sin. We can all call ourselves believers, but what does that mean? For more importantly of course is what we are believing in, which will define what we mean by a believer. While you speak of liberty in Christ, another might speak of slavery in Christ. I believe the pure of heart sees them both as true, and neither connotation is negative. Until God restores the true language, all words will be inadequate.

"Words are feeble things." __childeye

"We can all call ourselves believers, but what does that mean?"__childeye

"Until God restores the true language, all words will be inadequate."__childeye

I would bet the farm against a truck tire that when it comes to you depending on words
as you go about your regular pragmatic day-to-day living, that you do NOT see them
as "feeble things" or as "inadequate" ~ ~ for example if your neighbor decides to build
his dog house and chain link dog pen (say 20' X 20') over on your property and says
to you when you drag out your deed and show it to him, "Hey childeye, words are
feeble things and words are very inadequate and just 'cause your deed says your
lot runs 150 feet in a Northernly direction, does not actually mean 150 feet and
so I can build my dog house and dog pen based upon the "feebleness" of words
and based upon the "inadequacy" of words, and we will have to wait until "God
restores the true language" before you can seriously object to my dog house and
dog pen built upon what appears right now in our limited understanding of human
language, to be your property."

.. lol ..


You'd tell your neighbor right quick that the words in the deed to your house were
clear as a bell, and that we can all know exactly what these words mean and we can
know it for a fact, and now get your 20 feet by 20 feet chain link dog pen and your
dog house OFF my property, or I will call the police.

And you'd call the cops in a flash if he refused to do it.



`

 

[childeye]

`

Edit: I see you came back and put the quote tags around my word Christian. Thanks.



If you are going to quote me, please quote me accurately. You left off my quotes tags ( "....." )

My statement was this:

"Btw, Spong and his organization is an example of a sizable group of "Christians" who
preach bold lies passed off as Christian truth, exactly like Kathi listed in her OP."__Jack H.

You will notice I put the word in quotes like this: "Christians" ~ which in the context told you
that I did not really believe they were Christians at all. Additionally I would clearly affirm
that neither do I accept them as fellow Christians. So far as I am concerned those people
who **claim to be Christians and who preach bold lies passed off as Christian truth exactly
like Kathi listed in her OP belong to Satan and are some of his goats [as the New
Testament refers to them .. [the sheep and the goats]

**And these heretics DO claim to be Christians

Edit: See the edit note at the very top [just in case you missed it]

________________________


The Opening Post was right on target and the word "liberal" is a perfect word to describe
the theological liberal Spong and his liberal ilk.

Here again is what Bishop Heretic Spong teaches the people in his pseudo-Christian
religious movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong#Twelve_points
Spong's teachings read very similar to the Opening Post.


_________________




Again, Spong is a liberal and the people who believe and follow his teachings are not
Christians so far as I am concerned. They are not my brothers and sisters in Christ
so far as I am concerned. Exactly like Rodney the "Boy Scout" who, instead of helping
little old ladies across the street, knocks them down in the street and laughs at them
as they lay there. Yet Rodney claims to be a Boy Scout and he wears the uniform of
a Boy Scout, but he rejects the written creed of the Boy Scouts and is therefore, as
far as I am concerned, NOT a Boy Scout.

If Rodney, as presented above, can be a true Boy Scout, then the automobile you
drive is a refrigerator, and if Spong and his host of heretics, as presented above,
can be true Christians then the chair you sit in is a computer. Here we enter the
realm of the Death Of Language where human communication ceases to have any
meaning whatsoever, and we find a counterpart in the "thrown paint" [and dripped paint]
of such as Jackson Pollock who literally threw his paint at his canvass.

Here is a Jackson Pollock.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg
What does this painting mean?
Answer: It can mean anything anybody says it means. And once
we enter this realm, human communication becomes so
subjective that language is no longer an effective tool to
convey ideas. Objective truth dies, stone cold dead. This
is why I will not give up the word "liberal" as an accurate
label for such as Spong and his flock of goats.

♦

Please forgive my deliberate and errant connotation of your statement. Yes I knew what you meant, but I wanted to show that it could be misconstrued at face value, even with quotations around the word "Christian". As with so many words, statements can and will be misconstrued and misunderstandings are the result.

Satan rules people through deception. I wrote you about the false image of god that is maintained in the minds of his children. Few Christians even know that there exists a false image of god in the minds of men, nor do they realize the implications that will follow in the course of moral reasoning. All of this is made apparent by the things they say.

Take Spong for instance. His statements clearly indicate that he has no clue as to the false image of god he holds. 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. The seeing can see that the blind can't see. 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.

 

[childeye]

/Big Grin ... The above is your later edited expansion of your points. I understand your point better now.
Your phrase added-in-the edit: "Real Christians never do that since they are led by Christ" made
your point clearer.

Here is a point for you to consider: We can use the word "liberal" and then proceed to clarify what
we mean by the word.

Politically, the word is used that way, for example there is a difference in a regular (1) Liberal
and in a (2) Classical Liberal.

.. lol .. At least I have friends that insist that there is a significant difference in the definition of the
two labels. They are rather "Libertarian-ish" and they self-identify as Classical Liberals, but
NOT as Liberals. Btw, they, just like you, try to "save" or "rehabilitate" the word "Liberal."

I laugh at them. The word "liberal' is way past "saving" or "rehabbing" ..

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

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.

 

[childeye]

"Words are feeble things." __childeye

"We can all call ourselves believers, but what does that mean?"__childeye

"Until God restores the true language, all words will be inadequate."__childeye

I would bet the farm against a truck tire that when it comes to you depending on words
as you go about your regular pragmatic day-to-day living, that you do NOT see them
as "feeble things" or as "inadequate" ~ ~ for example if your neighbor decides to build
his dog house and chain link dog pen (say 20' X 20') over on your property and says
to you when you drag out your deed and show it to him, "Hey childeye, words are
feeble things and words are very inadequate and just 'cause your deed says your
lot runs 150 feet in a Northernly direction, does not actually mean 150 feet and
so I can build my dog house and dog pen based upon the "feebleness" of words
and based upon the "inadequacy" of words, and we will have to wait until "God
restores the true language" before you can seriously object to my dog house and
dog pen built upon what appears right now in our limited understanding of human
language, to be your property."

.. lol ..


You'd tell your neighbor right quick that the words in the deed to your house were
clear as a bell, and that we can all know exactly what these words mean and we can
know it for a fact, and now get your 20 feet by 20 feet chain link dog pen and your
dog house OFF my property, or I will call the police.

And you'd call the cops in a flash if he refused to do it.



`

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.

 

[OzSpen]

Was Jesus a liberal?
I think he was.
He turned the whole Jewish faith upside down.
Isn't that what liberals do?

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

 

[OzSpen]

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.

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?

 

[Elijah2.5]

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"

 

[Elijah2.5]

An interesting discussion, but trying to come terms with this labelling of “believers” as either a “fundamentalist” or a “liberalist” is beyond any comprehension. How can we define different types of Christians, when we are supposed to be followers and believers of our Lord Jesus Christ, but is this was Paul was saying: “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14)

The lack of love and forgiveness and the failure to confess and repent their sins in churches today is a reason why so many believers gave up being a “church” person, they found that to love one another, forgive one another, confess and repent their sins became fundamental and liberal.

I believe a liberal Christian is one who is willing to respect or accept the behaviour or opinions of another person that are different to one's own and allow themselves to be open to new ideas and thinking, which are contrary to God’s Word. I believe they allow liberal political correctness get in the way of Biblical correctness and common sense, allowing those liberal ideas of the world to corrupt the Biblical law on divorce, remarriage, homosexuality, and sin.

They tend to believe they can twist, distort and misrepresent God’s Word to make other people feel comfortable and believe that they are nice people who are in favour and respect of the individual rights and freedom of those people in the church who practice sin.

They preach a tolerant Gospel with a belief that they are broad and open minded; turn a blind eye to permissive attitudes and practices that are sin.

They are far too easy going and impartial and fail to teach the incorruptible word of God’s Word on love, forgiveness, confession and repentance. They are far too lenient and sway with the political agenda of church leaders and political leaders so as not to be out of step or rock the boat that would affect the promotion of the values of a liberal world of the 21st Century by watering-down God’s Word.

They believe they are forward looking and thinking, and progressive, and from all of this they believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was exactly the same, which is a downright lie.

From this I guess fundamental and liberal Christians would see me as a disgruntled person, and yes I am a disgruntled “believer” in what we call today---a church.

Can you honestly say that as we look at the churches of today, we see them the same as the early churches. Are they of Christ (God) today, if so, then we can’t come against them to overthrow them, because if we try, then we are fighting against God: “but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.” (Acts 5:39)! But, if the churches, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching our Lord Jesus Christ as the Christ: “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.” (Acts 5:42), then we wouldn’t be disgruntled, would we?

So, why are so many believers protesting and speaking out, and why are so many Christians defining themselves as “fundamentalists” or “liberalists”?

The “Body of Christ” is being “ripped off”, just the same as the days when our Lord Jesus Christ went through the temple throwing tables and chairs in all directions; and the same as they complained against each other in Acts 6:1, as they were failing to look after the needy and the widows, and they were ripping off the people with high prices for pigeons, for the sacrifice: “Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.”

Well, could it be time that we need to chose another seven and send them out. But, as sad as it is, if only in the churches of today that we had seven in each church of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, who could really look after the business and give themselves continually to prayer and the ministry of God’s Word: “Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:3-4)

Oh well, if only we could be like the churches of that time, when Saul (Paul) helped to stone Stephen. If only we had a Philip, who began his ministry in much the same manner as our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yep, the churches of today, have forgotten about those things of the churches of Acts, and have forgotten about our Lord Jesus Christ. Who cares that there isn’t any “CHRIST-centred churches” anymore, and I really do wonder who cares?