1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What is your definition of a Liberal?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Wisdom Seeker, Apr 26, 2003.

  1. Baptist Bible Believer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm thinking that a good definition of a liberal might set pretty well with our eschatology. Why not call them, "Anticonservatives". heh heh.

    : )...
     
  2. Tim

    Tim New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would respond to Daniel David's "did too" comments about historical context, but that post is so many pages back that it's developed a historical context of it's own.

    Tim
     
  3. David Cooke Jr

    David Cooke Jr New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I did not, that's why I answered the way I did. The literal interpretation of the opening of John is that Jesus is the Word made flesh. Dr. Bob had a genuine question. I had a genuine answer. End of Story.
    By the way, I 've never posted here before (that I recall) but the topic was "definition of a liberal".Since I'm called a "liberal" here so much I thought you could get an answer from the horses' mouth (I'm sure others may refer to me as the other end).
     
  4. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I did not, that's why I answered the way I did. The literal interpretation of the opening of John is that Jesus is the Word made flesh. Dr. Bob had a genuine question. I had a genuine answer. End of Story.
    By the way, I 've never posted here before (that I recall) but the topic was "definition of a liberal".Since I'm called a "liberal" here so much I thought you could get an answer from the horses' mouth (I'm sure others may refer to me as the other end). [/QB][/QUOTE]

    Let's take a look at this in the context Dr. Bob presented it: Am I right -
    Liberals do not accept the literal, inspired, perfect Word of God as sole authority for faith and practice. Right?

    When one speaks of the word being literal and inspired they are referring to the written word. Atleast in fundamental, conservative circles and this is exactly what the good doctor meant. Now by your own admission you are called a liberal here and apparently this is accurate by your claim that you did not know this basic truthas well as your admission that you were drawn in here because of thsi topic. I am sory that you felt led into this discussion by it's title I do Pray that it doesn't happen again.
    Murph
     
  5. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perphaps a better term then "literal" would "contexual". Because not even literalist hold to a literal reading in every case.

    Also wouldn't it better to change the name of this forum from fundamental to fundamental/ dispensationalist? It is a better reflection of those who wanted to start this forum and those who police it.
     
  6. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Hmmm...not sure whether I'm supposed to post here as I seem to be considered too liberal (however that is defined!) for some people's liking, but having read the definition of fundamentalist on the thread pertaining thereto (see also my post there)I've reached the conclusion that prehaps I'm not as liberal on the theological front at least as I thought (plus, if Haruo and David Cooke, Jr are allowed to post here, I guess I am too :D ); no doubt a mod will chastise me if I have erred!

    I think we need to distinguish between theological liberals and political liberals. The theological aspect is perhaps easier to deal with; a rather crude way of doing that as far as I am concerned is to say that 'a liberal is not an evangelical' ('evangelical' being defined here by its UK meaning as set out HERE , not the US meaning which I understand is more synonymous with 'fundamentalist'). Thus a liberal would for example deny the inspiration of Scripture, or penal substitutionary atonement. Note: this definition has its weaknesses, as 'not an evangelical' could also include Catholics and Orthodox, eg: on denying salvation solely by grace. By this definition, I am not a theological liberal but an evangelical.

    Politics - here the picture becomes even more confused on account of as Churchill (who was a Conservative, then a Liberal, then a Conservative) would have put it our nations being "divided by a common language". Traditionally, in UK politics, 'liberal' meant pursuing a degree of progressive political reform (such as granting everyone the vote) and a degree of social reform (such as ending the sending of children down mines) but beyond that in the economic sphere a high degree of laissez-faire, the idea being that as long as there was a level playing field, there should be no government interference in people going about their business, "God helps those who help themselves", emphasis on individual liberties, free trade etc. By the UK definition, therefore, the US Republican Party could be said to be 'liberal' in many respects :eek: . Modern UK liberals are libertarian on social issues such as homosexuality (after all what business is it of the State to interfere with people's private lives?), for 'small' government and devolution of political power to localities (subsidiarity), human and civil rights etc.

    The US definition of political liberal is much closer to what we in the UK would call a Social Democrat or even Socialist (old Labour) - Keynes rather than Friedman-monetarist on the fiscal front, redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor, 'big' government to achieve all of the above etc.

    The picture is further complicated by the fact that in 1987 the UK Liberals and the Social Democrats merged to become the Liberal Democrats, and also by Tony Blair moving the previously socialist Labour Party to the right rather like Clinton did with the Democrats so that the Labour Party now has two wings: 'old' Labour (socialist) and 'new' Labour (centre-right) - kind of like the reverse of the Democrats being divided into conservative southerners and liberal northerners. This leaves the Liberal Democrats centre-left, with the Tories (Conservatives) so far out to the right that they are currently unelectable.

    Where do I fit into this? I tend to gravitate towards the Lib Dems, although I disagree with them on stuff like homosexuality, because I agree with their mixture of justice for the poor (from social democracy), individual rights and freedoms and subsidiarity both on a UK and European level, and generally I tend to be centre-left (although politically/ morally conservative on some issues such as abortion).

    Hope that helps rather than hinders!

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    PS Sorry for double-post but I agree in part at least with whoever it was said that fundamentalism is a product of Modernity; I see it very much as a reaction against Modern liberal theology and Darwinism, as epitomised by the Scopes 'monkey trial'. In that sense, it is as much a prisoner of the Modernist worldview as liberalism.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
Loading...