Featured Liberal Hermeneutics

Too bad he had to travel over to the University of Wales in order to earn his PhD in NT theology though!

 

Returning to topic of OP:

Would it be correct to assume left leaning voters embrace liberal Christianity? Would it be correct to assume the decline in mainline churches is due to liberal theology. Would it be correct to consider the use of loose translations and paraphrases as indicative of liberal theology?

The Bible tells us that false teachers will sneak in and hide their destructive doctrines, such as the Bible does not mean what it says.

 

I don't think this is automatic. I know that Britain is very different to the USA when it comes to politics, but I know some conservative Christians who are politically left wing.
In my church there are a couple of people whom I know to have voted for Jeremy Corbyn (who makes Bernie Saunders seem like Donald Trump!) at the last election, and I think I'm possibly in the minority as one who voted in favour of Brexit. But apart from praying for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-2) we leave politics at the church door and we all get on fine.

 

Just curious as to which bible versions per you would be liberal ones though?

 

Many that post here say the bible does not mean what it says. Take amillennialists,..please. By the numbers, if you are going to read man-made doctrine into scripture, start with a loose translation, so you can change the message. And of course, just as left leaning politicians say they are not liberal, liberal theology folks say they are not liberal. But make no mistake folks, they have crept in with destructive doctrines, The bible really does mean what it says!

 

Are you the poster that asks questions, but usually does not answer them?

 

They sure have like amillennialism and open theism

 

Spot on!

 

No, as I like to use the Nasb/Esv for my versions, how about you?

 

Open Theism is heresy, but A mil is just another viable eschatology option.

 

Liberals claim almilinnialism is viable because those verses that say Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years do not mean what they say. Matthew 23:13 means what it says - unsaved people were in the process of entering the kingdom of heaven, but we blocked by false teachers. Thus (1) they had some limited spiritual ability in order to be entering heaven, yet were not being compelled by irresistible grace because they were blocked. So if you think the bible means what it says, how do you explain Matthew 23:13. Folks, do not hold your breath waiting for an answer. None will be forthcoming.

 

Are you saying that all Reformed and Baptists who hold to Amil are liberal and do not understand scriptures?

 

Yet another attempt to deflect, as if he can not understand posts. The bible means what it says about Jesus reigning for 1000 years here on earth.

Matthew 23:13 means what it says - unsaved people were in the process of entering the kingdom of heaven, but we blocked by false teachers. Thus (1) they had some limited spiritual ability in order to be entering heaven, yet were not being compelled by irresistible grace because they were blocked. So if you think the bible means what it says, how do you explain Matthew 23:13. Folks, do not hold your breath waiting for an answer. None will be forthcoming.

Will more deflection, change of subject, be forthcoming?

 

Who are the they you are referencing?

I doubt that any who hold to Amillennialism also hold to Open Theism.

You are fan of false equivalencies.

 

Most of the reformed hold to A mil, and most of them NOT into Open Theism!

 

Again, you display a real misunderstanding of what the bible teaches!

 

The endless "taint so" posts grow wearisome. The above post is simply an insult, devoid of content and off topic. This is all they have.