Is this not the natural outgrowth of liberal "Christianity"

[BandGuy]

Nope.  Actually, what I am describing is theological liberalism.  There was actually nothing political or social in my definitions.  It was doctrinal on both counts.  Here is more about theological liberalism:

http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism

Might want to try a less biased article for your definition. 

I am totally biased against Satanic Theological Liberalism and find no reason to be any other way.  But please, do give me your definition of theological liberalism if you think I am being unfair to the attacks of Satan.

 

[rsc2a]

Here is an even more simple statement of what I believe theological liberalism is:

A rebellious, sinful human being who doesn't want to be told that something is wrong and therefore have to change their life, reads the Bible, doesn't like what it says, and spends their entire life trying to reinterpret or explain away the Bible to where it fits their sin and rebellion. I think that works for me.

Funny...I heard the same message Sunday at an extremely conservative church.

Did you listen to them and take heed of it, or find yourself someone else to tell you what you wished to have heard?

Why would I listen to a bunch of people tell me that the ticket to heaven (as if that's the main point) is that I vote Republican, avoid alcohol, and not use swear words?

[quote author=BandGuy][quote author=rsc2a][quote author=BandGuy]Bottom line, Liberal religion is a dead religion with no Scriptural support and no power to change lives or to save from sin.  The only thing it does is support heresy and a life of outright rebellion to God and His Word and leads its followers to Hell.[/quote]

What you are arguing against here wouldn't even be remotely limited to "liberal religion".
[/quote]

I never said it would.  It is, however, the hallmark of liberal theology.  Nice attempt at a dodge, though. [/quote]

No...it's the hallmark of bad theology and it comes from all different types of camps.

[quote author=BandGuy]Are you a theological liberal or is there another reason you keep trying to redirect the focus of this thread to attacking conservatives?  Perhaps, if you would like to attack conservative theology, you should start another thread and I might interact with you on that subject, and even agree on some issues.[/quote]

My liberal friends call me an arch-conservative. My conservative friends call me an arch-liberal. I'm fine with that.

I keep trying to "redirect the focus of this thread" because one of the worst parts of modern Christianity is this "us vs them" attitude where everyone who doesn't think exactly like us is, by default, "them" and therefore the enemy. Read back on your high priestly prayer passage and see what Jesus pray for when it came to the Church. (Hint: it's unity). Unity does not equal uniformity.

[quote author=BandGuy]The bottom line is, when the atheists in the original post on page one of this thread can't tell the difference between a theological liberal and an atheist, it ought to cause us to stop and reflect on whether or not liberal theology is nothing more than a lie from the pit of Hell designed to deceive its followers into following a dead religion and feeling good about themselves.[/quote]

And when I can't tell the difference in conservative "theology" and Christ-less works-based righteousness, it is somehow less of a "lie from the pit of Hell designed to deceive its followers into following a dead religion and feeling good about themselves"?

[quote author=BandGuy]It is not a major surprise to me that the so called pastors who are becoming atheists and joining this attack on Christianity come from liberal denominational backgrounds.[/quote]

Ahh....more "us vs them". Do you feel pride when you do the work of the accuser for him?

 

[rsc2a]

Nope.  Actually, what I am describing is theological liberalism.  There was actually nothing political or social in my definitions.  It was doctrinal on both counts.  Here is more about theological liberalism:

http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism

Might want to try a less biased article for your definition. 

I am totally biased against Satanic Theological Liberalism and find no reason to be any other way.  But please, do give me your definition of theological liberalism if you think I am being unfair to the attacks of Satan.

Even wikipedia tries to be less biased with their definition and that took 30 seconds for me to find that out. And I don't think you are being unfair to the attacks of Satan...I think you are leading some of those attacks on his behalf, albeit unknowingly (and with what you honestly feel is for good reason).

 

[BandGuy]

Here is an even more simple statement of what I believe theological liberalism is:

A rebellious, sinful human being who doesn't want to be told that something is wrong and therefore have to change their life, reads the Bible, doesn't like what it says, and spends their entire life trying to reinterpret or explain away the Bible to where it fits their sin and rebellion. I think that works for me.

Funny...I heard the same message Sunday at an extremely conservative church.

Did you listen to them and take heed of it, or find yourself someone else to tell you what you wished to have heard?

Why would I listen to a bunch of people tell me that the ticket to heaven (as if that's the main point) is that I vote Republican, avoid alcohol, and not use swear words?

I am sorry that is what you heard (even though I recognize it as a mindless redirect away from what is wrong with liberal theology).  I never once in this thread, or anywhere that I know of, made reference to your "ticket to heaven", voting Republican, avoiding alcohol or not using swear words as a means of getting to heaven.  It would seem to me that you don't recognize the difference between a theological and political liberal, although, I will confess that many times, there is a lot of overlap.  You have falsely accused me of being a part of a works salvation theology.  You seem to have a problem with either understanding this conversation or with telling the truth.  Which is it?

[quote author=BandGuy]It is not a major surprise to me that the so called pastors who are becoming atheists and joining this attack on Christianity come from liberal denominational backgrounds.

Ahh....more "us vs them". Do you feel pride when you do the work of the accuser for him?

I am sad you think everyone in the world who calls themselves "Christian" is part of us.  Scripture disagrees with you quite strongly in several places.  Also, you should be quite careful not to commit blasphemy by calling what is good, evil and vice versa.  Liberal theology is a heretical, unscriptural lie of the accuser meant to deceive the religious to go down a path of destruction.

 

[BandGuy]

Nope.  Actually, what I am describing is theological liberalism.  There was actually nothing political or social in my definitions.  It was doctrinal on both counts.  Here is more about theological liberalism:

http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism

Might want to try a less biased article for your definition. 

I am totally biased against Satanic Theological Liberalism and find no reason to be any other way.  But please, do give me your definition of theological liberalism if you think I am being unfair to the attacks of Satan.

Even wikipedia tries to be less biased with their definition and that took 30 seconds for me to find that out. And I don't think you are being unfair to the attacks of Satan...I think you are leading some of those attacks on his behalf, albeit unknowingly (and with what you honestly feel is for good reason).

Enough mindless rhetoric.  Put up or shut up, as we say in the South.  What parts of theological liberalism do you find to be Scriptural which I have attacked?  Let's hear it.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]Why would I listen to a bunch of people tell me that the ticket to heaven (as if that's the main point) is that I vote Republican, avoid alcohol, and not use swear words?

I am sorry that is what you heard (even though I recognize it as a mindless redirect away from what is wrong with liberal theology).  I never once in this thread, or anywhere that I know of, made reference to your "ticket to heaven", voting Republican, avoiding alcohol or not using swear words as a means of getting to heaven.  It would seem to me that you don't recognize the difference between a theological and political liberal, although, I will confess that many times, there is a lot of overlap.  You have falsely accused me of being a part of a works salvation theology.  You seem to have a problem with either understanding this conversation or with telling the truth.  Which is it?[/quote]

No...you don't seem to be following your own argument. You defined a theological "liberal" as one who...

...doesn't want to be told that something is wrong and therefore have to change their life, reads the Bible, doesn't like what it says, and spends their entire life trying to reinterpret or explain away the Bible to where it fits their sin and rebellion...

...yet the very same thing can be said about those you would label theological conservatives. They just choose to apply these principles to different parts of Scripture.

[quote author=BandGuy]I haven't quite figured out yet what you are since you seem to be unwilling to respond to the actual question being asked.  It is like you have something to hide. [/quote]

I'm arguing with the definitions you are using. If we aren't even meaning the same thing when we use the same words, it would be kind of hard for me to answer the question in a way that was clear, wouldn' it be? 

[quote author=BandGuy]My enemy is sin and the Devil. God's enemies are those who are lost.  [/quote]

You realize the dichotomy here?

[quote author=BandGuy]We have been called to love our enemies.  Even Christ Himself recognized the "us vs. them" reality, but kept it within a Biblical perspective.  God has indeed called us to unity, but not simply for unity's sake.  We should not have fellowship with those who spread heresy and act as if sin is no big deal.  We are to be unified around the Gospel.  That is the message of 1 Corinthians 1.  We are not to find unity around staying quiet about sin and heresy for the mere sake of maintaining peace and not offending the world.[/quote]

Then why are you only picking on "liberals"? Why not address the problems in your own camp instead of setting out to create animosity towards outsiders? You might find it a lot harder to point out specks in their eyes when you start paying attention to the beam in your own.

(I'll tell you why...because it is a whole lot easier to bash "those other people", especially when you have a cheer-leading section. It's fun to be popular. Of course, if you want to lose some of those popularity points, start talking about what's wrong with your own team.)

[quote author=BandGuy]Go start another thread about heresy preached in conservative theology and we can discuss it there.  Otherwise, it is nothing more than a mindless attempt at misdirection meant to justify liberal theology, and quite frankly, I am not interested in that kind of garbage.[/quote]

It's sad when pointing out hypocrisy is painted as justifying bad behavior.

[quote author=BandGuy]I am sad you think everyone in the world who calls themselves "Christian" is part of us.  Scripture disagrees with you quite strongly in several places.[/quote]

Funny...it's not really that clear who belongs to which camp very often. It appears to me that individuals from each side have a habit of wearing each others' uniforms. Tell me....do you have a 'Christ-o-meter' so that you can tell who is really a Christian or does God just tell you audibly?

[quote author=BandGuy]Also, you should be quite careful not to commit blasphemy by calling what is good, evil and vice versa.[/quote]

I have no problem with calling what I call good and evil. I'm not the one ignoring the evil in my own camp because it's inconvenient. I'm also not the one that's painting with such a wide brush that the good gets called evil merely by association.

[quote author=BandGuy]Liberal theology is a heretical, unscriptural lie of the accuser meant to deceive the religious to go down a path of destruction.[/quote]

You haven't even given us a reliable definition for "liberal theology". If you would be so kind as to start there...

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=BandGuy]Enough mindless rhetoric.  Put up or shut up, as we say in the South.  What parts of theological liberalism do you find to be Scriptural which I have attacked?  Let's hear it.[/quote]

Define this please.

 

[BandGuy]

[quote author=BandGuy]Enough mindless rhetoric.  Put up or shut up, as we say in the South.  What parts of theological liberalism do you find to be Scriptural which I have attacked?  Let's hear it.

Define this please.
[/quote]

I think you are very dishonest in your comments and not interested in having an intelligent discussion.  My life is too short to engage in your stupidity so have a good day.

 

[BandGuy]

Izdaari,

What part of your interpretation of inerrancy and infallibility do you think I would consider to be liberal?

 

[rsc2a]

Do you not know what a theological liberal is?  Let's start with a very simple definition and see if you agree:

They generally tend to view that which is described as supernatural in Scripture with skepticism and tend to try and find natural explanations for it.  They do not believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

Nope.  Actually, what I am describing is theological liberalism.  There was actually nothing political or social in my definitions.  It was doctrinal on both counts.  Here is more about theological liberalism:

http://www.theopedia.com/Theological_liberalism

Here is an even more simple statement of what I believe theological liberalism is:

A rebellious, sinful human being who doesn't want to be told that something is wrong and therefore have to change their life, reads the Bible, doesn't like what it says, and spends their entire life trying to reinterpret or explain away the Bible to where it fits their sin and rebellion.  I think that works for me.  Bottom line, Liberal religion is a dead religion with no Scriptural support and no power to change lives or to save from sin.  The only thing it does is support heresy and a life of outright rebellion to God and His Word and leads its followers to Hell.

Here is an even more concise explanation of theological liberalism:

3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound[a] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

You've offered four different definitions, none of which would apply to one particular flavor of Christianity. In fact, every definition you offered (with the possible exception of the linked article) could apply to every flavor of Christianity. So how can I tell you what parts of "theological liberalism" are Scriptural when you haven't even given one sure definition and the pseudo-definitions you have were broad enough to cover all of Christianity?

 

[BandGuy]

They do not apply to Christianity at all.  We are talking about the dead religion of liberal theology.  It is not Christianity.  If you want my definitions of liberal Christianity, see your own post.  If you want to actually respond to my post with something intelligent, please start doing so.  Otherwise, I don't have time for your stupidity.

 

[Izdaari]

Izdaari,

When you say that you believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, what is your interpretation of that which you believe I would disagree with?  Personally, I hold mainly to the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy as stated and explained here:  http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

I also can agree with the Chicago Statement. It's a very carefully nuanced document. I'm pretty sure that at least some fundamentalists would think it's too liberal. I'm glad you're not one of them.

 

[BandGuy]

I don't see it as being theologically liberal at all.  Quite the opposite.  What do you think some fundamentalists would find liberal about it?  You are correct that it is a very carefully crafted work.

 

[Izdaari]

I don't see it as being theologically liberal at all.  Quite the opposite.  What do you think some fundamentalists would find liberal about it?  You are correct that it is a very carefully crafted work.

Just be happy we've found something we can agree on instead of yet another area of disagreement.  :-*

This thread had a lot of potential, or so I thought at first... but it seems like you guys are totally talking past each other.

 

[rsc2a]

...Otherwise, I don't have time for your stupidity.

How Christ-like.  :

 

[rsc2a]

I also can agree with the Chicago Statement. It's a very carefully nuanced document. I'm pretty sure that at least some fundamentalists would think it's too liberal. I'm glad you're not one of them.

I completely agree. I also think the underlined portion is key and what causes problems when people insist on making everything black and white without allowing for grey.

 

[Izdaari]

I also can agree with the Chicago Statement. It's a very carefully nuanced document. I'm pretty sure that at least some fundamentalists would think it's too liberal. I'm glad you're not one of them.

I completely agree. I also think the underlined portion is key and what causes problems when people insist on making everything black and white without allowing for grey.

Just so. That it is nuanced, rather than purely black and white, is why I expect some fundamentalists to reject it as too liberal. I'm glad BandGuy is not one of those.

 

[Ransom]

rsc said:

Might want to try a less biased article for your definition.

Theopedia doesn't claim to be an unbiased source, so at least they're a step up from Wikipedioa in that regard 9in that it claims to be "NPOV" when in rewality it's held thrall to activist little Wikipedian godlings who game the system to keep their biases on their pet pages.

That said . . . in the first three paragraphs of the Theopedia article on liberalism, what is inaccurate? It looked like a pretty accurate summary to me.

 

[rsc2a]

rsc said:

Might want to try a less biased article for your definition.

Theopedia doesn't claim to be an unbiased source, so at least they're a step up from Wikipedioa in that regard 9in that it claims to be "NPOV" when in rewality it's held thrall to activist little Wikipedian godlings who game the system to keep their biases on their pet pages.

And the fact that wikipedia has a less biased definition in spite of* their inherent biases relays my point, something I alluded to by saying "even Wikipedia...".

Even wikipedia tries to be less biased with their definition and that took 30 seconds for me to find that out.

[quote author=Ransom]That said . . . in the first three paragraphs of the Theopedia article on liberalism, what is inaccurate? It looked like a pretty accurate summary to me.[/quote]

inaccurate ≠ biased <=> accurate ≠ unbiased

 

[Ransom]

inaccurate ≠ biased <=> accurate ≠ unbiased

And? You asked for a definition of theological liberalism.  Theopedia defines theological liberalism - quite accurately, from what I saw.

Do you object to the content of their definition or not, and if so, on what grounds?