What is a liberal?

Yes. I know all of that. But it doesn't answer the question, why? Obviously, one can be perfect and yet sin. So, having a sin nature cannot be the "cause".

 

Why did one third of the angels follow Lucifer and two thirds of the angels stay loyal to God. We will never know the answer to that until we reach heaven, and even then we may not know.
"The secret things belong unto the Lord."
There are somethings that are left unexplained.
One thing that we do know is that we now have a sin nature. Even though we all are accoutable for our own sin, our sin nature gives us the propensity for sin. We do it naturally. We can't directly blame it on our sin nature. I am not saying that. Yet, at the same time we will sin. We will sin because we do have a sin nature, but it is not the nature that causes the sin; we sin because we want to; we enjoy it; it satisfies the lusts of our flesh; our flesh is at enmity with God.

 

Ok. I can accept that. Thanks.

Well, maybe except the part about sinning because of our sin nature yet it doesn't cause us to sin. That's a little confusing.

 

HP: Your name calling and personal attacks do nothing to facilitate Christian debate among brethren, nor do they add any measure of credence or validity to your own ideas.

I will say this, that indeed Paul stated some things that are hard to reconcile, the verse you quoted is a prime example. In three short verses later, he referred to himself and even others as being made perfect in the here and now. “Php 3:15 ¶ Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” It would appear to me that in a sense he was made perfect before God in this world, yet in another sense he had not been made perfect. Exploring these ideas I believe would be fruitful for the list…..without the personal attacks of course.

I disagree that Paul stated as you say, that he would “never attain these goals” in any case. He stated in at least one sense in this passage, that he “had” not, past tense, attained, but where does it say that he ‘would not’ and ‘never would’ in this world as you imply? At the very most, from the text itself, one could only conclude that up until that point in his Christian walk he had not attained perfection in some sense yet he and others he was admonishing had or were being encouraged to be perfect in some sense of the word.

Let's get this straight. You say that I am “very arrogant” when I believe Scripture when it states that WITH TOTAL DEPENDANCY UPON THE STRENGHT CHRIST HAS PROMISED IN HIS WORD, that I am arrogant for stating that one can live and be as perfect before God as God claims one can be, i.e, perfect as our Heavenly Father is in heaven, obviously directly proportionate to our granted abilities, strength and understanding of God’s will. Some arrogance that is. 2Ti 3:17”That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” I suppose you believe this author was arrogant as well as numerous other passages where we are encouraged to be perfect before God with His proffered help?

To think that one would believe God is willing to help us accomplish what He commands…..perish the thought, right DHK? Is it is much better to simply deny that God’s commands are even possible, (or is it simply more convenient?) by denying the power of God promised help to every believer is really sufficient to keep one from sin. It would seem to me like such a belief would be paramount to God selling fire insurance as opposed to saving to the uttermost. That would certainly take the pressure of ones lifestyle and choices for one that might not desire to wholly follow the Lord, would it not? Obedience would be set forth as a good suggestion, but certainly not needed to inherit eternal life. The ten commandments, or even the two that sum up all the commandments, are turned into the ten or two ‘suggestions’ by way of such convenient doctrine.

 

HP: You think ‘well maybe?’ I think maybe as well.

 

I agree with this, but it is usually called lifestyle evangelism rather than the social gospel. It has also been called friendship evangelism and relationship evangelism, but never social gospel. For liberals, the social gospel was to replace the Biblical gospel, rather than adorn it. :type:

 

HP: Indeed it is confusing. Both cannot be true. If it is true that we sin because of our sin nature, the sin nature is the seat of all blame for our sin.

Whatever sustains to the will the relationship of a cause is indeed why one chooses something and the focus of all blame. If the sin nature sustains to the will the relationship of a cause, you cannot escape the cause of sin to be the sin nature. You cannot say our sin is a direct result of our sin nature without saying that our sin nature is indeed the cause of sin and as such the seat of all blame.

 

I think all the blame for our sin falls directly on us. We cannot use any excuse such as my "sin nature" made me do it.

 

One cannot conceive of a more liberal notion concerning salvation than what is being set forth by DHK and others even on this list. When you can have saving faith and or saving belief without continued obedience, or saving faith or saving belief divorced from continued obedience, one has presented the most liberal theology one can imagine.

 

Thats right a conservative holds to inerrancy. Errancy always leads to secularism.

 

Liberal (Christian) is a Christian (saved by Jesus) who keeps the Law of Christ regarding NOT falsly judging others. General the false judge judges with an oversimplified test: like figuring that a person is who wears cargo pants must be a shoplifter. It is harder to spot a thief than that :laugh:

Mat 7:1-5 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Judge not, that ye be not iudged.
2 Eor with what iudgement ye iudge, ye shall be iudged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you againe.
3 And why seest thou the mote, that is in thy brothers eye, and perceiuest not the beame that is in thine owne eye?
4 Or howe sayest thou to thy brother, Suffer me to cast out the mote out of thine eye, and beholde, a beame is in thine owne eye?
5 Hypocrite, first cast out that beame out of thine owne eye, and then shalt thou see clearely to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.

 

Apparently you have overlooked that errancy does not ALWAYS lead to secularism. Not to mention that frequently inerrancy leads confused people to sin: they begin to think that not only is the Bible inerrant, whatever they say the the Bible means is also ilnerrant. Sorry, it is the Bible that is inerrant NOT the spin one puts upon it.

 

I have no clue what your sorry about but thats ok wth me. And errancy always leads to secularism.

 

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

According to your theology you put yourself back under the law; under works.
You must continue in them, without fail, without making one mistake, without sinning even one time in your life. If you sin but once, the Bible condemns you as cursed under the law.

Have you sinned? Then you are condemned according to the Scripture and have no hope of salvation. Salvation is only through Christ who forgives all of our sin, and puts that sin (past, present and future) under the blood to remember them no more.

What you have presented to others here is salvation by works.

 

I'm sorry, I've stayed out of your discussion with DHK, but this statement shows you to be completely ignorant of what theological liberalism is.

Is the concept of faith without continued obedience more liberal than the view that Jesus is mere man, born of adultery between Mary and a blond Roman soldier? That there is no Heaven or Hell? That "the God (of the OT) is a dirty bully?" That the Bible is not God's revelation, but only a good book? That Jesus is not the Savior of the world but only a good example? All of these are typical statements or beliefs of past theological liberals--and I could document each of them if I took the time.

 

HP: My, aren’t you in a charitable mood today! :laugh:

I ask you kindly, what or who makes you the sole decider of what theological liberalism consists of? It would be a no brainer to me to understand such terminology is highly subjective and biased toward ones particular theological vantage point. So if the particular group you are in, or the particular theological training you have received defines it one way, does that mean all others that choose to define a liberal in another way are ‘ignorant?’ Is it not an open subject for all those interested to post what being a liberal means to them? Sorry I do not fit the mold you have placed your own ideas into, obviously a far more educated or orthodox view from your perspective than any other that dares to give their own personal opinion as to what liberal theological ideas consist of to them from their vantage point.

 

It's not a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of the commonly accepted definition by all theologians: fundamental, evangelical, liberal and neo-orthodox. If you had actually read the whole thread you would know that I quoted from a well-known SBC theologian rather than giving my own opinion. I suggest that rather than charity that you adopt humility concerning this subject, since you obviously know little about theological liberalism. :type:

 

HP: Ignorant me, I should have guessed that much. :laugh:

 

And I'm not even SBC!

 

HP: I went back and reread some of the posts……. And boy did I ever hit the mother load.:thumbs: Here JOJ tells us ”in theology a liberal is one who denies one or more of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.”

Now let me ask you Brother John, would you consider that just a wee bit subjective in nature? Do you just suppose that one might believe the 'cardinal doctrines of the faith' might possibly entail something different, for say an Arminian than a Calvinist? Would not an Arminian view the Calvinist as a liberal, and the Calvinist the Arminian by your professional and far more intelligent apprehension of what it means to be a liberal... or is the question merely ignorance personified? (You know I am just trying to add a wee bit of humor into the discussion, don't you? )