Where in the Bible . . . ?

Starting in Gen. 1 and ending in Rev. 22.

Here are two basic examples of liberal theology in the last two centuries.

1) Jesus is not God.
2) The Bible is not inerrant, nor is it the Word of God.

 

This from another thread:

It's a test to see if you're liberal in your theology. (O.K., so they call it "heretic". Semantics, semantics)

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=131773

 

Jack, that test is a fake. The page changes and the questions rearrange everytime one refreshes the page. The first question jumped from first position to tenth, back to eighth. Not answering any test like that.

 

Interesting. I went to this thread just to see what this could be about, and found it to be about labeling and name-calling.

Perhaps I missed a post or two, but where did anyone venture to define "conservative," "liberal" or "orthodox?" (Except Bible-boy) Without that we're just arguing in ignorance, ISTM.

If you refer to a conservative view regarding the inspiration of God's Word, then "yes," Jesus was a conservative. But if you refer to a conservative view of outreach, then Jesus was by all means a liberal. He ate with sinners, tax collectors and former prostitutes.

I don't think that Christianity is about being a Democrat or Republican. Though there is a significantly greater percentage of Republican Christians than Democrats (according to Gallup polls) does that mean that all good Christians are Republicans?

Are you really talking of "fundamentalism" here? The problem is that when most here talk of "liberal" theology they think of doctrines that say that Jesus was created, or doctrines claiming that God's Word is not inspired or is fallible. They think of doctrines claiming that there is no physical resurrection from the dead.

So let me ask you, Craig, just for instance. Do you believe in the physical resurrection of the dead and would that be considered a "conservative" doctrine?

Interesting, because when Paul spoke of such to the Athenians they considered it to be quite liberal, as did the citizens of Jerusalem after Pentecost.

So FWIW, I think we need to define terms here.

FA

 

Yes, of course I believe in the physical resurrection of the dead. No, it is not a “conservative” doctrine—it is a Bible doctrine expressly taught in the word of God. Anyone who is knowledgeable about the Bible but denies the truth of this doctrine is, in my opinion, outside of the body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15

</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks. So you are saying that all Christians (liberal or conservative) believe in the resurrection, and if they do not they are not liberal, they are not Christians.

Sounds right. But what some people would label as essential Christian doctrine others would not.

FA

 

According to your definition supplied here, every Baptist posting to the Baptist Board is a liberal because we all, inevitably, “take the liberity (sic) to add [our] private thoughts and interpitatons (sic) to” the Bible. Fundamentalists do so based upon the grossest imaginable ignorance; liberals do it based upon many years of highly academic scholarship with a very detailed and comprehensive knowledge of the original languages, the original culture, and 2,000 years of biblical scholarship!
</font>[/QUOTE]Uh- excuse me?? Says who?? Who is it that had decided this? Seems to me I just ran into this on another thread. Fact is, I was so 'bothered' by a charge made that I had my alter ego, Language Cop, answer on my behalf!! Now I see one person responding [Questionable use of the word responding! (LC)] to another using the same tactics as the respondee (See above! -LC) is accused of using, or at the least, sanctioning. I asked the question on page 1, in response to the opening post, by asking this:

"Better question from the OP- Where in the Bible does it say anything 'PERIOD!' about 'theology' per se?"

It was a valid question; it still is; and it has not drawn forth even a hint of a response from any, save a response of "Jude 15" from shiloh which may or may not have been a particular response to me, or to Craig, or both, or even someone else in the thread! (I would suggest that Jude 16 is illuminating in this thread.)

The aspersions that are here cast on (undefined, of course) 'fundamentalists' are judgemental and undeserved, at best, IMO, and scandalous, appalling and libelous at worst, again IMO.

For any characterization of 'fundamentalists', by definition, has to refer back to "The Fundamentals", of the early 20th Century. So, yes, I resent the caricature-ization of Editors, A.C. Dixon, Louis Meyer, and R.A. Torry, not to mention the heads, at one time or another, of at least six 'Theological Schools' of one or more bents, including Southern Baptist Seminary, 5 out of 8 Consulting Editors of the 'Scofield' Bible, at least a dozen instructors or professors of theology, including B.B. Warfield, G.F.Wright, Charles J. Williams, and James Orr, to name a few, not to mention the remaining contributors of that work, as the purveyors of "the grossest imaginable ignorance." How could this not be perceived as insulting?? By what standard??
Couple that with the unmitigated gall to suggest another persuasion's motives, ideals, and attainments are of such nobility, that they would make Ivory Soap look like dirt, by comparison is beyond insulting! (Fortunately, I gave Language Cop the rest of the day off!)

I would suggest that THAT characterization is more akin to a blatant arrogance of 'scholarship' and quasi-intellectual snobbery on one one hand, as OPPOSED to a supposed 'gross ignorance' on the other!

With all due respect, I suggest you read your own words which are in the same post, and I have copied below. For I, for one, am going to claim that if anyone is guilty of this, it certainly is not the authors and contributors to "The Fundamantals"! The rest of you can decide whom this shoe really fits!
Ed

 

Conservative, properly speaking, should refer to what is being conserved. That is, a pre-existing thing that is being held onto.

Liberal, properly speaking, should refer to what is done in freedom. That is, something is allowed that is new.

Both should have their place.

KJVO can be conservative now when it would have been a new thing earlier. It was never about allowing more freedom, but about less, so it doesn't really fit the phrase "liberal".

The terms have of course been altered to mean entirely different things, as in liberalism is the sum of all evil etc.

 

That's not a defining aspect of being a fundamentalist (though most fundamentalists probably do). A fundamentalist is one who adheres to biblical fundamentals. YECism is not a biblical fundamental. The inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc, are fundamentals.

 

Craig wrote:
" EdSutton wrote,

quote: For any characterization of 'fundamentalists', by definition, has to refer back to "The Fundamentals", of the early 20th Century.

Hogwash!

I have in my personal library a first edition copy of The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth that was mailed free of charge with the compliments of the two Christian laymen who mailed copies to thousands of pastors. I hold not only this first edition, which has been subsequently beautifully bound in four deluxe hardcover volumes, but the words that they contain in very high esteem, but I hold in even higher regard the words found in the Bible. The Truth is not to be found in my four beautifully bound volumes of The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth, but in the Truth itself found in the Bible.

Since the day when The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth was first printed, the word “fundamentalist” has been transformed into a terribly pejorative term to describe a person who believes in such things as a young earth and a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 – 11; concepts which have now been proven to be false.

God, in His sovereign design, not only chose to give man the Bible, but also the intellect to study the Bible, ourselves, and the world that we live in, and all of these things with the help of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our search for the knowledge of the truth. Very many, if not most, fundamentalists have proven themselves to be very poor stewards over what God chose to give to us."

(At times I feel like Dick Cheney on a hunting trip. Moving targets are extremely hard to hit! Unfortunately, sometimes you pull the trigger and find that something else has gotten into the line of fire.)

Craig, the very link YOU, not me, provided in a response to Johnv says this:

"Origin of the Concept: The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals.""

You also made the comment that said this:

"Since the day when The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth was first printed, the word “fundamentalist” has been transformed into a terribly pejorative term to describe a person who believes in such things as a young earth and a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 – 11; concepts which have now been proven to be false."

I would suggest that Chapters 11 and 14 of Vol. I; and chapters 5 and 6 in Vol. IV might not be in agreement with thses sentiments.

Finally as to the use of the term "pejorative".

" Fundamentalists do so based upon the grossest imaginable ignorance;"

Is it just me, or would the language of this sentence qualify?

Ed

 

Craig wrote:

"Here you are not only taking “the liberity to add [your] private thoughts and interpitatons (sic) to” the Bible, you are adding thoughts and concepts to the words of the Apostle Paul that were totally foreign to him. Most certainly and incontrovertibly Paul was NOT writing of liberal theology or scholarship; he was writing of contaminating the gospel of Christ with Jewish legalism. In the first century, the conservative Christians were those who believed that the Law of Moses was the word of God and that every Christian was bound by them. The liberal Christians, on the other hand, were those who agreed that the Law of Moses was the word of God, but believed that it had no part in the gospel message. Paul was arrested in Jerusalem for being far too liberal in his theology!"

This certainly seems to be a new perspective.

Ed

 

As an example, Jesus was both liberal and conservative in His theology.

As a liberal He bucked the contemporary theological crowd and forgave people of sins for which the law of Moses demanded the death penalty.

On the other hand He said not one jot or tittle would pass away from this Law.

He was both liberal and conservative in His deeds, He fed the 5000 with an entitlement of bread and fish, no forms to fill out, no questions, no requirements, no quid pro quo, just receive and eat.

He didn't even require that the people clean up the mess.

As a conservative He had the disciples clean up the pieces so nothing would be wasted.

Over all, I would say that in one way Jesus is the most liberal person in the entire world with an offer of the biggest entitlement in history:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

HankD

 

At least part of the problem is simply semantic and grammatical. "Liberal," "conservative,"
"fundamental," "modern" are all ADJECTIVES, NOT NOUNS! (My wife hates it when I capitalize like that - says she won't read that part, because it's like I'm yelling at her!) A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. Adjectives are descriptive words which modify nouns, etc.
Adjectives take on the "protective coloration" of their referents. Paul of Eugene hit the nail right on the thumb - thanks, Brother! The real question is "liberal what?" "conservative what?"

Too bad the board will be down on a snowy night (at least here!) - very few churches around here will meet tomorrow, so lots of Baptist folks will stay up late. Is that "liberal?" It was when I was a child! Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

"Liberal" and "conservative" are also nouns.

He/she is a liberal.
He/she is a conservative.

HankD