Liberal Christians,are they here at Religious forums?

[omega2xx]

I was raised a fundamentalist.

Please define "fundamentalist" so I can be sure you really understand the term.

 

[metis]

And what are the fundamental doctrines?

A few include, Jesus was God in the flesh, the inerrancy of the Scriptures, Salvation by Grace alone, not on works. the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, Jesus is the Messiah and He is coming again.

You have made up your own definition of "fundamentalism" as used in the Christian context.

The reality is that the term began to be used in the 1800's as a counter to "modernism", and "fundamentalism" mean to go back and use the Bible directly (more of a literalistic approach) and not interpretations, especially "liberal" ones.

Therefore, the issue of inerrancy actually is not found within that definition, although most who referred to themselves as being "fundamentalist" chose that interpretation.

 

[omega2xx]

You have made up your own definition of "fundamentalism" as used in the Christian context.

Not true. I use the one that can be found in wikepedia. You are the one who has made up adefintion to fit your understanding.

]The reality is that the term began to be used in the 1800's as a counter to "modernism", and "fundamentalism" mean to go back and use the Bible directly (more of a literalistic approach) and not interpretations, especially "liberal" ones.

That is basically right, but it did not include a more literalistic approach. It rejected all interpretation not reinforced by Scripture, which is common fault of liberfalism.

Therefore, the issue of inerrancy actually is not found within that definition, although most who referred to themselves as being "fundamentalist" chose that interpretation.

<<

Inerrancy like infallibility is expressed in "all Scripture is inspired by God." Surely you don't believe that God inspired what is not inerrant to teach His truths. How can man learn the truth from errant passages?

Did you teach your children that way?

 

[columbus]

Inerrancy like infallibility is expressed in "all Scripture is inspired by God." Surely you don't believe that God inspired what is not inerrant to teach His truths. How can man learn the truth from errant passages?

That's an easy question.
You teach your children discernment. You teach them to use their God given minds to evaluate the things people tell you, attempting to discern what is true and meaningful from the rest.
Tom

 

[omega2xx]

That's an easy question.
You teach your children discernment. You teach them to use their God given minds to evaluate the things people tell you, attempting to discern what is true and meaningful from the rest.
Tom

Of course that is right, but you don't teach them the truth with something that is not true.

 

[columbus]

Of course that is right, but you don't teach them the truth with something that is not true.

Being partially true is the norm in human doings, especially literature. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is an impossible standard, given human limitations and ignorance.
Tom

 

[omega2xx]

Being partially true is the norm in human doings, especially literature.

What is done in literature is not the subject. Do we teach truth to those we love with wht is not true?

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is an impossible standard, given human limitations and ignorance.Tom

It is impossible for humans but not for God.

 

[Riders]

Well I believe I'm gonna go to Unity church of Dallas tomarrow. Its Metahysical Christian and they have folks from different religions.

They teach the bible but don't believe Jesus as God and do teach the belief of the inner Godself or Inner Christ self.

But they have folks from all religions so when they give the bible teaching anyone cpply it to their own religion. I like that idea a lot.

 

[columbus]

What is done in literature is not the subject.

Yes it is.
Scripture is literature.
And there's lots of it, including the Hindu writings and various indigenous oral traditions etc. And it doesn't all match up because it is all from human sources.
If there is a God who favors any of them nobody knows about Him.
Tom

 

[omega2xx]

Well I believe I'm gonna go to Unity church of Dallas tomarrow. Its Metahysical Christian and they have folks from different religions.

They teach the bible but don't believe Jesus as God and do teach the belief of the inner Godself or Inner Christ self.

But they have folks from all religions so when they give the bible teaching anyone cpply it to their own religion. I like that idea a lot.

If they do not teach that Jesus is God, they are not teaching the Bible. Having an inner Godself or inner Christ self is not Biblical. If you teach God is One as the Bible says, how can those religions that have more than one god, apply that to their religion?

 

[omega2xx]

Yes it is.
Scripture is literature.
And there's lots of it, including the Hindu writings and various indigenous oral traditions etc. And it doesn't all match up because it is all from human sources.
If there is a God who favors any of them nobody knows about Him.
Tom

How do you know the Bible has a human source?

God favors the one started by His Son and those who believe what He says in the Bible know about Him.

 

[metis]

Did you teach your children that way?

I taught my children that they shouldn't blindly swallow what any religion or source may teach but to do the research and then contemplate what they find.

Also, it's obvious that either you didn't actually know the history behind "fundamentalism" as it became used in the more recent history of Christianity.

 

[metis]

Not true. I use the one that can be found in wikepedia. You are the one who has made up adefintion to fit your understanding.

Really? Then let me quote from such source:

"Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologianshad misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, that they viewed as the fundamentals of the Christian faith.[3] Fundamentalists are almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible." -- Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

That is what I wrote.

 

[omega2xx]

I taught my children that they shouldn't blindly swallow what any religion or source may teach but to do the research and then contemplate what they find.<<

You have blindly followed the theology of liberal scholars, who never provide any evidence for what they preach.

Also, it's obvious that either you didn't actually know the history behind "fundamentalism" as it became used in the more recent history of Christianity.

There is no recent history of fundamentalism. Non-believers and liberals have invented a definition that is wrong and insulting and you have blindly accepted it because you dislike conservative theology.

 

[omega2xx]

Really? Then let me quote from such source:

"Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologianshad misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, that they viewed as the fundamentals of the Christian faith.[3] Fundamentalists are almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible." -- Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

That is what I wrote.

That is a good definition except for [3]. Insisting on all the Bible being literal is not part of fundamentalism. That is part of the definition made up by nonbelievers and liberal theologians.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That is a good definition except for [3]. Insisting on all the Bible being literal is not part of fundamentalism. That is part of the definition made up by nonbelievers and liberal theologians.

That seems a little harsh. I think I've heard evangelical preachers teach the Bible is inerrant, protected by God from corruption; and if I say that Satan is a personification of sin they say I've made it up. Many have very far fetched notions about invisible battles between angels and demons, because they take 'War in heaven' literally as if there must be knives and shields. I think those who call themselves fundamentalists are generally literalists; and they take many other things literally that are easily taken non-literally. For example everywhere that Matthew says 'Fulfillment' they preclude he is talking about a fulfilled prediction. Some believe the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man is proof of a burning fiery hell and speak it with confidence, effectively scaring the livers out of hearers.

 

[omega2xx]

That seems a little harsh. I think I've heard evangelical preachers teach the Bible is inerrant, protected by God from corruption;

Being inerrant has nothing to do with being all literal.

and if I say that Satan is a personification of sin they say I've made it up.

A fundamentalist would never say that.

Many have very far fetched notions about invisible battles between angels and demons, because they take 'War in heaven' literally as if there must be knives and shields.

The Bible does teach ther will be war in heaven between the good angels and the fallen ones.

I think those who call themselves fundamentalists are generally literalists; and they take many other things literally that are easily taken non-literally.

If they do, they are not really fundamentalist.

For example everywhere that Matthew says 'Fulfillment' they preclude he is talking about a fulfilled prediction. Some believe the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man is proof of a burning fiery hell and speak it with confidence, effectively scaring the livers out of hearers.

For all you know that is a legitimate understanding of the true story. Jesus spoke more about hell than he did about salvation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A fundamentalist would never say that.

Perhaps they would have to first look it up in the twelve volumes of The Fundamentals.

The Bible does teach ther will be war in heaven between the good angels and the fallen ones.

In the literalist reading. It also says Jesus has a sword coming out of his mouth in the same book.

If they do, they are not really fundamentalist.

Well we must first check with the twelve volumes of The Fundamentals. I wouldn't want to say something unscriptural.

For all you know that is a legitimate understanding of the true story. Jesus spoke more about hell than he did about salvation.

Sure, sure. Don't mind me. I'm merely saying what seems sensible without regard for established traditions.

 

[Milton Platt]

I have a question and critique for the Forum/ How is it that every debate is between Atheists and Fundamentalist Christianity. I see posts that are always from a Fundamentalist Christian point of view Pagans, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and few others. But every Christian response I read is from a Fundamentalist conservative Christian view point. SO where are all our wonderful Liberal Christians?

How would you define that term, anyway?

 

[omega2xx]

Perhaps they would have to first look it up in the twelve volumes of The Fundamentals.

Not even then. If they did they would not be a true fundamentalists.

In the literalist reading. It also says Jesus has a sword coming out of his mouth in the same book.

DUUH. That is not a literal verse. The sword is God's word(Eph 6:17). Jesus will slay them spiritually.

Well we must first check with the twelve volumes of The Fundamentals. I wouldn't want to say something unscriptural.

You already have.

Sure, sure. Don't mind me. I'm merely saying what seems sensible without regard for established traditions.

True fundamentalist do not pay attention to non-Biblical traditions.