What is a Liberal?

... there is a difference between a non-fundamentalist and a liberal.

 

Amen, Brother Craigbythesea -- Preach it.

There is also a difference between a
fundamentalist and an absolute liberal.
However, some fundamentalists are more
liberal than other other fundamentalists
for "liberal" is a direction. The term
"liberal" is only good for comparing two
groups of people. The term "religious
libral" is only good for comparing t2wo
groups of religious people.

Everytime someone uses "liberal" without
specifing two groups of people, without
saying which of the two two groups
is more or less liberal than the others --
they are confusing us. And we all know
that God is not the author of confusion.

 

One of the problems seems still to be that we like to sneak some of our own thoughts into the definition of liberal. Craig put it very well that just because someone is not a fundamentalist he or she is not a liberal necessarily.

The virgin birth, death for sins, bodily resurrection, second coming - these are essentials of the Christian faith. Those who would deny these (such as Spong and the Jesus Seminar) are indeed quite liberal.

There are a number of MODERATE Christians who believe the above points but who think the Genesis creation account can be interpreted nonliterally, who think that we can allow for figures of speech or storytelling by biblical authors, or who believe that Revelation is not a book of literal prophecy. These people are not really liberal but are not necessarily conservative. They are still very much Christian but yet not fundamentalist.

 

There are also many very conservative christians who believe in the fundamentals of the faith (as described by Dr. Bob) but who reject the political side of the conservative resurgence/takeover by the political fundamentalists in the SBC. We as a group are described as liberals by the SBC, but I would describe myself as a conservative.

Dr. Dilday, the former president of SWBTS is an aquaintance of mine. I have been in several formal and informal settings with him. He is a very conservative Christian, with a heart for people - yet he was been branded a liberal by the SBC, when in fact he was simply in the way of their ploitical agenda.

 

Are we saved by holding the correct theology? Or, does our salvation create the correct theology in us?

The doctrine of grace states that "all are lost, unrepentent sinners and unenlightened to spiritual matters, and then are saved by the good pleasure of the Lord." Are the lost (those unenlightened) liberal or fundamentalists? Does it matter?

Some say that denying the doctrine of grace is a liberal theology. - I'm not arguing the merits of the doctrine of grace, I'm just wondering how the theology (a work?) of a person relates to the salvation issue.

 

I Cor 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

A Liberal says:
Christianity is the worship of nature.
"man" doesn't mean man.
"long" is relative and therefore meaningless.
"hair" isn't really hair but is symbolic.
"shame" is a good thing.
Therefore, this vesrse means Moses supported gay marriages.

A leagalist says:
"long" = less than .5" from the eyebrow, not tapered in the back and near the ear which would interfer with hearing the Wooooorrrrrrd (KJV1611original)
"man" is manly men of the prehippy days.
"shame" vile, disgusting, repugnant.
Therefore, this vesrse means Moses had a crewcut.

A Fundamentalist says:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Therefor, this verse means Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 

Are we saved by holding the correct theology? Or, does our salvation create the correct theology in us?

The doctrine of grace states that "all are lost, unrepentent sinners and unenlightened to spiritual matters, and then are saved by the good pleasure of the Lord." Are the lost (those unenlightened) liberal or fundamentalists? Does it matter?

Some say that denying the doctrine of grace is a liberal theology. - I'm not arguing the merits of the doctrine of grace, I'm just wondering how the theology (a work?) of a person relates to the salvation issue. </font>[/QUOTE]2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

 

A fundamentalist knows intuitively all about nature teaching. Its the ol spontaneous reflex, born of the teachings from childhood that he has long forgotten.

A liberal has no conception of nature teaching anything. He learns things by human logic and reasoning alone, and teaches them to the next generation who will call his every whim the fundamentals of the next generation. Well, some of them, anyway.

Reality check - thats the way out. I'd say go by scripture, but so often its the very interpretation of scripture that is being disagreed about.

 

liberalism is the main erosion of good doctrine period. liberalism needs to be fought every step of the way

 

This is true. That would include KJVOnlyism, since KJVOnlyisn is false doctrine. If not false, most definitely "liberal", by your own definition.

However, Massdak, you most often use the term "liberal" when discussing matters of interpretation, not doctrine. There are few doctrinal "liberals" on this board.

 

... never mind ...