What is a liberal Christian theology?

[jasonc]

Three things. What is #5 referring to? What does ac stand for? What does this have to do with politics since it is about Christianity?

a liberal Christian can be one who votes democrat. the fifth definition has been posted already. ac=antichrist

 

[evenifigoalone]

I understand your point, but Satan is clever and he plays both ends against the middle so as to move a person in their convictions through subterfuge. Wouldn't it make more sense to learn how to see through his lies, rather than just take deceived peoples" word for what something stands for?

This is why I often look up definitions before using words and try to make clear their meaning if need be. Sometimes even in the middle of typing or writing a sentence. My stance on the term "liberal Christianity" has differed over different times. When a clear definition is provided, however, it helps.
Even the different denominations have many differences in them...what one person in that denomination may say represents them may differ from what another would say. Even in the denomination/subdenomination I grew up in. But it's still helpful in defining basically what they espouse to believe.

The word liberal has several meanings, but then so do most words in the English language. They come to have meaning because people use them...and because people may use them incorrectly, they may change in meaning slightly over long periods of time.

While I would not throw around the term "liberal Christianity" carelessly, I do believe it has a proper usage.

 

[childeye]

show where I cant? Its implied by this

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
if you say that im a false Christian and declare that the church has historically believe that Jesus is the son of god and I say he isn't but im still a Christian. therefore I am a liberal in that I have by definition

Let's be honest here, shall we? If you call yourself a Christian but do not believe in the Christ, you are not a Christian.

you have claimed by orthodoxy what is the correct position. like it or not you are an orthodox Christian.

Nonsense, I never claimed by orthodoxy I know God or am a Christian, as If there is a single correct position, doctrine, dogma, or way of thinking to know Him from. That is absurd. He has to reveal Himself and He does so according to His grace. Am I to assume no one knows Him better than I? Here is some orthodoxy for you. He can't be put in an orthodox box. Did you see the post where I said that each individual has their own unique walk in Christ? Note that the church are the "called out chosen assembly of God". How do you possibly have an orthodox called out chosen assembly of God?

I have claimed that it is by revelation that Jesus is seen as the Christ, the personification of God. He is a living Person and there is no way there is a correct position to see Him from, for His Truth is seen in circumference which is why he defies all terms. Indeed, as the Creator of all things, what words can hold Him?

therefore because of your bias , you don't like the usage.

Yes, I am bias towards God's Glory.

 

[jasonc]

why have words then ? you just don't get it by claiming that jesus said this or that. and I didn't bring up the grey areas of origins debates and end times. just the basic facts of what isn't grey . that is orthodox. yes what I may call orthodox will be different then you at times but you did say by implication we have a base of reference thus orthodoxy

its orthodox to believe these:

1) jesus died on the cross
2) that he will come again'
3) to follow his will
4) faith wilth works as evidence of repantance, though often we argue over that
5) solo scriptura if one is a protestant

to know a few
a catholic and orthodox Christian of the schism will see the above save #5.

the early church didn't have the doctrine of the trinity in words nor creeds until challenged. take note of what that is. its very revalant today as the same arguments are the same the untity church is a gnostic one! yup that is right.
http://www.unityofvero.org/what-unity
I know a man who attends that place. he basically told me what they believe in more depth.they do follow Christ idea of love in a perverse idea of removing his diety. they see us as spirits and also that jesus was the same. a man whom died on the cross but wasn't raised from the dead. he like us all have a spirit and that spirit has a bodily experience. sound familiar? its called gnostism. is not new.

 

[childeye]

This is why I often look up definitions before using words and try to make clear their meaning if need be. Sometimes even in the middle of typing or writing a sentence. My stance on the term "liberal Christianity" has differed over different times. When a clear definition is provided, however, it helps.
Even the different denominations have many differences in them...what one person in that denomination may say represents them may differ from what another would say. Even in the denomination/subdenomination I grew up in. But it's still helpful in defining basically what they espouse to believe.

The word liberal has several meanings, but then so do most words in the English language. They come to have meaning because people use them...and because people may use them incorrectly, they may change in meaning slightly over long periods of time.

While I would not throw around the term "liberal Christianity" carelessly, I do believe it has a proper usage.

The Christ is a Person, the living Word of God. Christianity is the knowledge of God's Character through the Christ. There is no right or wrong way to know Him since it comes through revelation. They shall all be taught by God is what scripture says. If the spirit behind the term being used is essentially denying this, then I don't care what the term means. I care about the intent of the user of the term.

 

[evenifigoalone]

The Christ is a Person, the living Word of God. Christianity is the knowledge of God's Character through the Christ. There is no right or wrong way to know Him since it comes through revelation. They shall all be taught by God is what scripture says. If the spirit behind the term being used is essentially denying this, then I don't care what the term means. I care about the intent of the user of the term.

And that's something to keep in mind, too. Words can be used in many ways. For example, depending on how people use it, "fundamentalist" could be an insult, simply a term, or it could be something that defines your beliefs. That it can be used in the wrong way doesn't mean it can't be used correctly.

 

[childeye]

4 : not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal?show=0&t=1407284247

Liberal Christianity ends up as false Christianity because they eschew orthodoxy.

Not if that orthodoxy is false orthodoxy. See how that works. Here it is. The knowledge of God is the revelation of his Character. The Gospel uses the cross as the means to show what is most important to know about God. For it shows a Love that would die in the place of those lesser than Himself. That's what only an infinite Love would do. That, is the True Light. That ,is a Love that is trustworthy unto death. And that, is why Gospel preachers will gladly suffer death to preach it. Any teaching that tries to cover up that revelation is falsehood. Anyone who thinks there is an authority over it, is practicing falsehood. There is no official authority to issue God an official I.D.

 

[Free]

Not if that orthodoxy is false orthodoxy.

By definition, orthodoxy is "right belief," so just how is it that there can be "false right belief"?

 

[childeye]

And that's something to keep in mind, too. Words can be used in many ways. For example, depending on how people use it, "fundamentalist" could be an insult, simply a term, or it could be something that defines your beliefs. That it can be used in the wrong way doesn't mean it can't be used correctly.

No one defines the Christ but Christ.

Matthew 13:13
New International Version (NIV)
13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

John 9:39-41
New International Version (NIV)
39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Matthew 6:22-23
New King James Version (NKJV)
22 “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

 

[childeye]

By definition, orthodoxy is "right belief," so just how is it that there can be "false right belief"?

You are describing an axiom. Orthodoxy implies a belief that is "accepted" as the "right belief". Moreover, the belief in this op is being applied to scriptural interpretation and veracity. I'll say it one more time. Christianity is belief in the Christ. The knowledge of God is the revelation of His Character, not an accepted right belief.

 

[childeye]

why have words then ?

Why not just ask why the letter kills and why the Spirit gives life?

you just don't get it by claiming that jesus said this or that. and I didn't bring up the grey areas of origins debates and end times. just the basic facts of what isn't grey . that is orthodox. yes what I may call orthodox will be different then you at times but you did say by implication we have a base of reference thus orthodoxy

its orthodox to believe these:

1) jesus died on the cross
2) that he will come again'
3) to follow his will
4) faith wilth works as evidence of repantance, though often we argue over that
5) solo scriptura if one is a protestant

to know a few
a catholic and orthodox Christian of the schism will see the above save #5.

the early church didn't have the doctrine of the trinity in words nor creeds until challenged. take note of what that is. its very revalant today as the same arguments are the same the untity church is a gnostic one! yup that is right.
http://www.unityofvero.org/what-unity
I know a man who attends that place. he basically told me what they believe in more depth.they do follow Christ idea of love in a perverse idea of removing his diety. they see us as spirits and also that jesus was the same. a man whom died on the cross but wasn't raised from the dead. he like us all have a spirit and that spirit has a bodily experience. sound familiar? its called gnostism. is not new.

The counsel in Nicea was an attempt to form a description of Christianity so as to establish an orthodoxy almost three hundred years after the Christ was crucified. The results were never fully agreed upon because of petty differences caused by the semantics of words. It is very likely that this was an attempt to politicize Christ. I was told by a professor of Eastern orthodoxy that they only could agree on one thing for a long time. That the Spirit proceeded from the Father. It probably should have been left at that. For the rest became an exercise in division, ending with a leadership that declared it god's will to burn everyone alive who would not accept the papacy. The letter kills and the Spirit gives life.

 

[childeye]

`
childeye @ 105

Miscellaneous Points:

(1) Your post 87 was:
• scary
• unhinged

The fact is, that the teaching that Christ did not atone for sins is like saying he died in vain, never defeated Satan, and was not the lamb of God. I take that as an antichrist spirit and I will fight with every fiber of my being, the lies that are formed around it. It's not funny. I get pretty fired up when fighting Satan, and therefore I am not going to accept the premise that this false Christianity is liberal Christianity, lest I blaspheme his Name.

Your post 93 was "not all that reassuring"

Wasn't your post 87, here in Webby World, the equivalent
of throwing a hissy fit tantrum and jumping up and down!

.. lol ..

I said it's not funny. No, It was no hissy fit tantrum as you errantly assume. And I don't appreciate this remark.

Maybe you take disagreements too serious and get to emotional
over disagreements.

Either that or I hate Satan deceiving people. I'll let you choose which one you wish to believe. After all what's the difference between judging and projecting?

Here is reality: True born again Christians
strongly disagree over a significant number of doctrines and
this strong disagreement is going to continue onward into the
foreseeable future ...
* Catholics ..Protestants
* Armenians .. Calvinists
* Premillennialists .. Postmillennialists
* And those are just the tip of the huge iceberg of inter-Christianity
disagreements [we've all read threads and we know its true]

Here is reality. Any division is not by the Holy Spirit. Can we agree on that?

(2) I am convinced that 99.9% of all Christendom [and America
too] is going to continue to use the word "liberal" the way it was
used in the OP, and you will not be successful in your attempts
to stop that usage. But it does not bother me that you will most
likely continue to spend your time here in Digital World, arguing
in futility, against that usage. That's my way of saying I have no
pressing desire to try to change your mind, and that's a good thing
for me, because its pretty clear by now that you are as fully
locked-down on your view as I am fully locked-down on my view,
which brings me to my third point.


(3) In order to save me all the typing that'd be involved in me re-stating
my view, I will just say that I fully agree with what Free has said in his
posts 19, 26, 85, 89, and 99 .. every word of it.

Actually free already agreed with me, he just doesn't know it. So I think the same about you.

(4) So I'm now back to let us simply "agree to disagree". I can assure you
that you will not change my mind, and I have lost interest in trying to change
yours

Let's see. I said Christianity is belief in the Christ as the revelation from God, of the Character of God, displayed on a cross where he suffered and died in the place of those who were lesser than Himself. That is the foundation that has been laid, and no other foundation can be laid. That is all I have been defending here as Christianity. It's not about who is better than who, or who knows more. It's all about him, his bruised body and his sacred blood. Nothing more, nothing less. Such is Holiness. Why would you seek to change my mind?

 

[evenifigoalone]

No one defines the Christ but Christ.

Maybe not, but we can define different schools of thought on the scriptures within the realm of Christianity (or that claim to be). And there are legitimate reasons to do so at times.

That is all. Obviously your mind is set, and I'm not particularly fond of conflicts. Good night.

 

[Free]

You are describing an axiom. Orthodoxy implies a belief that is "accepted" as the "right belief". Moreover, the belief in this op is being applied to scriptural interpretation and veracity.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

I'll say it one more time. Christianity is belief in the Christ. The knowledge of God is the revelation of His Character, not an accepted right belief.

And I'll ask you one more time: Who is the Christ? Do you really think that one can claim to have belief in the Christ and have knowledge of God if they have false beliefs about them, that they can think whatever they want and still be a Christian?

Without orthodoxy, there is no Christianity.

 

[jasonc]

Why not just ask why the letter kills and why the Spirit gives life?

The counsel in Nicea was an attempt to form a description of Christianity so as to establish an orthodoxy almost three hundred years after the Christ was crucified. The results were never fully agreed upon because of petty differences caused by the semantics of words. It is very likely that this was an attempt to politicize Christ. I was told by a professor of Eastern orthodoxy that they only could agree on one thing for a long time. That the Spirit proceeded from the Father. It probably should have been left at that. For the rest became an exercise in division, ending with a leadership that declared it god's will to burn everyone alive who would not accept the papacy. The letter kills and the Spirit gives life.

so the trinity or gnostics are going to heaven? I never said nothing about the rcc. no one will ever agree on the bible. no going to happen.

you do realize that the nicean council was a response to denying the nature of Christ!

 

[jasonc]

childeye

Why not just ask why the letter kills and why the Spirit gives life?

that my friend is the function of the torah, its supposed to do that. why? because without the revalation of our sins, how would we know we are death and full of sin? it has nothing to do with what you said. if we want to do that way. if I as a jew, muslim, atheist loves my fellow man that is all they needed. they don't need the church for nothing. they have love.

 

[childeye]

Maybe not, but we can define different schools of thought on the scriptures within the realm of Christianity (or that claim to be). And there are legitimate reasons to do so at times.

That is all. Obviously your mind is set, and I'm not particularly fond of conflicts. Good night.

My mind is set that Jesus is the Christ, that is for certain. I am fully aware that there are divisions based on differing schools of thought. My mind is also set that divisions are not brought about by the Holy Spirit. Obviously I am not fond of conflicts either, which is why I say what I say. In all honesty I had no idea you were trying to change my mind on something. Just show me what I have said that you believe is untrue, as any good brother would do.

 

[evenifigoalone]

My mind is set that Jesus is the Christ, that is for certain. I am fully aware that there are divisions based on differing schools of thought. My mind is also set that divisions are not brought about by the Holy Spirit. Obviously I am not fond of conflicts either, which is why I say what I say. So what exactly are you trying to change my mind about? Just say it.

Not out to change any minds.=/ Just think we're going in circles, so most likely I've gotten all I can out of this discussion.
And has to do with my personality, which doesn't like disagreeing with people...so I have a love/hate relationship with debates. Because of this I'm usually the one to just drop out of them.

That's all that post was about, honestly. I was just trying to drop out of the discussion.

 

[childeye]

I have no idea what you're saying here.

You're using orthodoxy to describe an axiom. As in an accepted Truth based in it's being self evident. An axiom is the beginning of sound reasoning. Here is the definition of orthodoxy.
or·tho·doxy
noun
: a belief or a way of thinking that is accepted as true or correct.
Note that orthodoxy implies a belief that is accepted as true. There is a difference between a self evident Truth (axiom), and a belief, or way of thinking that is accepted as true. In other words orthodox Jews do not believe Jesus is the Christ. Does that make their belief true? Of course not. So simply putting the word orthodox in front of something doesn't make it the "right belief" as you claim.

And I'll ask you one more time: Who is the Christ?

And I'll tell you again. Jesus is the Christ. Now answer me a question. What is a Christ?

Do you really think that one can claim to have belief in the Christ and have knowledge of God if they have false beliefs about them, that they can think whatever they want and still be a Christian?

Of course not. I view Christ as an axiom, the beginning of sound reasoning. If one believes on this image of God his mind is renewed, and his Spirit is changed and he becomes a child of God. That is what manifests because of that belief.

Without orthodoxy, there is no Christianity.

No. Without Christ there is no Christianity. Christ is an axiom. Why do you think Satan must kill and persecute those who preach the Truth that is Christ? Because in Christ is the exposing of the foundational lie upon which the kingdom of darkness is built. The Truth is greater than the lie. There are no born again children of God without Christ.

 

[Free]

You're using orthodoxy to describe an axiom. As in an accepted Truth based in it's being self evident. An axiom is the beginning of sound reasoning. Here is the definition of orthodoxy.
or·tho·doxy
noun
: a belief or a way of thinking that is accepted as true or correct.
Note that orthodoxy implies a belief that is accepted as true. There is a difference between a self evident Truth (axiom), and a belief, or way of thinking that is accepted as true. In other words orthodox Jews do not believe Jesus is the Christ. Does that make their belief true? Of course not. So simply putting the word orthodox in front of something doesn't make it the "right belief" as you claim.

Your argument to Judaism completely misses the point. An orthodox Jew will have "right belief" concerning Judaism, so of course he won't believe Jesus is the Christ. As much as you fight it, there most certainly is right belief concerning Christianity, just as there is wrong belief.

And I'll tell you again. Jesus is the Christ. Now answer me a question. What is a Christ?

Once again you have completely missed the point. Jesus even asked his disciples who the world thought he was, then asked who they thought he was. Is Jesus a mere man? Did he preexist as an angel? Was he a manifestation of God? Is he one person of a Trinity? Did he physically rise from the dead, spiritually rise, or not at all? Did he actually die? Etc., etc., etc.

Who Jesus is, is central to salvation. Do you or do you not agree that there are central tenets one must believe to be a Christian?

Of course not. I view Christ as an axiom, the beginning of sound reasoning. If one believes on this image of God his mind is renewed, and his Spirit is changed and he becomes a child of God. That is what manifests because of that belief.

This makes little sense. What precisely does one believe on? What does the Bible say about how one becomes a child of God?

No. Without Christ there is no Christianity.

Of course, that is obvious. But without orthodox belief about who Christ is, there is no Christianity. One cannot simply make Jesus out to be whomever, or whatever, they want, and believe whatever they want about what Scripture says about his life and work, and believe that they are a Christian.

If there is no orthodoxy, no right belief about about such things, there is no Christianity. This is precisely what the term "liberal" is referring to when used regarding Christianity, as shown in the OP.

Christ is an axiom. Why do you think Satan must kill and persecute those who preach the Truth that is Christ? Because in Christ is the exposing of the foundational lie upon which the kingdom of darkness is built. The Truth is greater than the lie. There are no born again children of God without Christ.

So what is the truth about who Jesus is and what he accomplished?