Is there not a difference? Theological liberals as I recall attack the authority of the Bible, the trinity, the virgin birth, etc.. While seeker friendly types like Rick Warren, and others do not, they just are questionable in their methodology. Warren for example endorses certain books that defend the true gospel so he is no theological liberal.
What are some liberal denominations?
Episcopal
Lutheran
PC USA
United Methodist
?
I believe this church is a example of a Theological liberal one. I pass this one up or one similar to it up when I go out witnessing.
http://www.saintthomasdenver.org/tp40/page.asp?ID=162111
Liberal Christianity vs. Seeker Friendly Christanity
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, Apr 23, 2013.
Page 1 of 8
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Is it that the rector and assistant rector are women?
That is a clear violation of Scripture but that alone does not define it as liberal.
What characteristic do you consider makes it liberal? -
I'm guessing it was the GLBT Welcome on near the Bottom left of the page that gave it away...
http://www.saintthomasdenver.org/tp40/page.asp?id=281384
Though I'm not sure the point of the OP... -
If we define a liberal as someone who redefines the meanings of words in order to make scripture to no effect, then we can say Calvinistic churches are liberal. But that would miss the actual meaning of the term as currently used.
1) Marriage = bond between a man and a woman.
2) Virgin = someone who has never had sexual intercourse.
3) Sex outside of a marriage is wrong, thus homosexual behavior is wrong.
Any so called Christian who denies these truths is liberal. -
One of my many weaknesses is that I am not observant.
However, though I would not put that on my advertisement, GLBT are welcome to come to my church.
They cannot join without repentance, but they are welcome. -
-
gay church under banner of BOTH! -
Pitchback
My positions are supported by many scholars. Choice means choice, not non-choice. Calvinism interprets choice to mean non-choice. Therefore Calvinism does not know how to interpret scripture. Regeneration means rebirth in Christ, not irresistible grace.
Calvinism ignores the syntax of Ephesians 2:8 in order to interpret it as supporting faith not of ourselves. Calvinism repeatedly ignores the Greek grammar to "interpret" scripture according to man-made doctrine.
Calvinism redefines a word that means after or out of or since as meaning "before." Calvinists do not interpret scripture, they rewrite it to suit their man-made doctrine.
Calvinists add to scripture such as when scripture says no one seeks God, they interpret it to mean no one seeks God at any time.
Calvinism makes a mockery of sound interpretation of scripture.
So what they left, only to attack an opponent's credibility which is yet another fallacy, argument against the man. Go figure. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
It's very hard to take the things you do get right seriously when you say things like this.
Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen, Piper, MacArthur...Never EVER give scriptual support???
Here's some of your past quotes, Van...are you debating issues or "the man."?
-
And?
Your problem is you believe in decisional regeneration.
You believe in salvation by grace through CHOICE.
The question is WHY does a man who does not seek God START to seek God? -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
My idea on this thread is growing up in Gulfport at a Presbyterian Church that is PCA. There is a distinct difference in the PCA and the PC USA, not so much in theology, but in things like tolerence of the gay life style, women elders and deacons, and in infaliblitly of Scrpiture.
On the other hand, there are theological differences between Presbyterians and Baptists on baptism, church govt, etc. I do not consider this type of difference to be liberal and conservative.
I may not have worded this very well. -
-
Pitchback
Yes, Calvinists cite scripture but the scripture does not support the position. No one seeks God does not equate with no one seeks God at any time. Hence no actual evidence of support for total spiritual inability.
You claim 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not say God chooses for salvation through faith in the truth. Deception.
Calvinists claim Ephesians 2:8 indicates faith is not of ourselves. Deception
Calvinists claim 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 does not indicate men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel. Deception
Calvinists claim God does not set life and death before the lost and then beseeches us to choose life. Deception
Calvinists claim James 2:5 does not indicate God chooses individual that love Him. Deception.
Calvinist claim individuals who by nature are children of wrath are elect, when scripture says no charge can be brought again the elect. Deception
Calvinists claim Jesus did not die for all men. Deception -
Pitchback
Calvinism plays fast and loose with scripture, rewriting verse after verse, adding to scripture and ignoring scripture. So churches of this sort are liberal in the historical sense. Thus on topic in the historical sense, yet off topic in the sense used in the op. -
2. I am addressing your stated views of calvinists...and saying they are flawed. There are no scriptures to cite that prove calvinists USE scriptures to support their positions...only history can prove or disprove that.
I'll address a few of these below:
The overarching problem here is that the people you are accusing of deception actually believe what they are saying...they are not trying to decieve anyone, but rather state what they believe to be the truth.
Even if you believe them all to be wrong, and themselves decieved...and even if you believe me to be one of those who is intentionally trying to decieve...It seems pointless, and unhelpful, at best to accuse someone of deception simply for stating what they believe to be the truth. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Me thinks he protests too much
Page 1 of 8