Very Liberal Christianity

[IACOBVS]

No fight to it, I know what the bible says and that settles it for me, no need to try to convince me otherwise nor is there any reason for me to try to convince someone on the opposite side as they will believe they are right as well. I will base muine on the Word and let it drop right there.

Just as I know what the Bible says, and that settles it for me.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Let's not get too excited about the latest fad in translation; it will change again in a few years. (That question was asked rhetorically, btw. I'm not going to get into it with anyone on a public forum.)

Just as I know what the Bible says, and that settles it for me.

Would that be according to the same translation fad, or something different?

 

[ValleyGal]

I am accused of being too conservative by the liberals and I'm accused of being too liberal by the conservatives. So...take your pick. Problem is, I rarely poke my nose out of the Women's Private Forum. One thing I wanted to say about the verses that IDay posted is that I don't believe it's so much about the behaviours themselves. After all, if we are talking about behaviours, we can refer to Jesus' comment to the crowd "whoever has never sinned can throw the first stone." I think the point of the verse is to say that there is no one alive who has not done something on the list, at least a little, especially given that to even think it, is as though you've done it. I think the point is that no one is good enough to enter the Kingdom based on behavioural merits. We all need Jesus.

 

[IACOBVS]

Would that be according to the same translation fad, or something different?

Something different. :heheh:

 

[psalms 91]

I am accused of being too conservative by the liberals and I'm accused of being too liberal by the conservatives. So...take your pick. Problem is, I rarely poke my nose out of the Women's Private Forum. One thing I wanted to say about the verses that IDay posted is that I don't believe it's so much about the behaviours themselves. After all, if we are talking about behaviours, we can refer to Jesus' comment to the crowd "whoever has never sinned can throw the first stone." I think the point of the verse is to say that there is no one alive who has not done something on the list, at least a little, especially given that to even think it, is as though you've done it. I think the point is that no one is good enough to enter the Kingdom based on behavioural merits. We all need Jesus.

Amen

 

[Pedrito]

IACOBVS, Post #14 on Page 2:

Ah, but what really are some of those things on that list? They've been translated so many different ways in so many different versions. Let's not get too excited about the latest fad in translation; it will change again in a few years. (That question was asked rhetorically, btw. I'm not going to get into it with anyone on a public forum.)

And from Post #15:

I was merely asking if there were others like me here. I'm not going to argue with anyone about it, nor will I get into a public defense of those beliefs here. That would only cause a fight.

==============================================================================================

Just for fun, why don’t we have a look at the significant words from Galatians 5:19-21 (and Strong’s meanings):

“Adultery” G3430 – adultery
“fornication” G4202 – prostitution (including adultery, incest, and porn); unwedded stimulation or fulfillment of sexual desire
“uncleanness” G167 – impurity (the quality)
“lasciviousness” G766 – licentiousness (sometimes including other vices)
“Idolatry” G149 – image-worship
“witchcraft” G5331 – the use of drugs, potions, and enchantments; poisoning ("pharmacy"); the occult, witchcraft
“hatred” G2189 – hostility; a reason for opposition
“variance” G2054 – a quarrel; wrangling
“emulations” G2205 – heat; "zeal"; ardor; (of a husband) jealousy (also used of God); (of an enemy) malice
“wrath” G2372 – passion
“strife” G2052 – intrigue; faction
“seditions” G1370 – disunion; dissension
“heresies” G139 – a choice; a preference; a (religious) party, a sect, a denomination; disunion
“Envyings” G5355 – ill-will (as detraction), i.e. jealousy (spite)
“murders” G5408 – murder
“drunkenness” G3178 – an intoxicant; intoxication
“revellings” G2970 – a carousal (as if letting loose)

Naturally, of those words that can have positive and negative applications, the negative applies in the context.

“They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

==============================================================================================

And what about 1 Corinthians 6:9,10:

“fornicators” G4205 – a (male) prostitute; a sex addict, a debauchee, a pornographer; one sexually or morally unrestrained
“idolaters” G1496 – an image-servant or image-worshipper
“adulterers” G3432 – a (male) adulterer; (figuratively) apostate
“effeminate” G3120 – soft, i.e. fine (clothing); (figuratively) a catamite [boy or youth practising homosexual acts]
“abusers of themselves with mankind” G733 – a male homosexual, sodomite
“thieves” G2812 – a stealer, a thief
“covetous” G4123 – holding (desiring) more, i.e. eager for gain (avaricious, hence a defrauder)
“drunkards” G3183 – tipsy; (as noun) a sot
“revilers” G3060 – abusive, i.e. a blackguard
“extortioners” G727 – rapacious

​“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [[none of the above]] shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

==============================================================================================

IACOBVS can now review the plain meanings, without the confusion of any “latest fad in translation” be it past, present or future.

Whether or not he or anyone else wishes to accept those statements as part of God’s Inspired Revelation is up to that person. However, anyone who rejects the above statements of Paul, but cherry-picks other statements from Scripture to support a cherished stance, might be leaving themselves open to question in God’s perspective of things.

==============================================================================================

And please understand, Pedrito is not attempting to get the budgie to budge.

 

[IACOBVS]

IACOBVS, Post #14 on Page 2:


And from Post #15:


==============================================================================================

Just for fun, why don’t we have a look at the significant words from Galatians 5:19-21 (and Strong’s meanings):

“Adultery” G3430 – adultery
“fornication” G4202 – prostitution (including adultery, incest, and porn); unwedded stimulation or fulfillment of sexual desire
“uncleanness” G167 – impurity (the quality)
“lasciviousness” G766 – licentiousness (sometimes including other vices)
“Idolatry” G149 – image-worship
“witchcraft” G5331 – the use of drugs, potions, and enchantments; poisoning ("pharmacy"); the occult, witchcraft
“hatred” G2189 – hostility; a reason for opposition
“variance” G2054 – a quarrel; wrangling
“emulations” G2205 – heat; "zeal"; ardor; (of a husband) jealousy (also used of God); (of an enemy) malice
“wrath” G2372 – passion
“strife” G2052 – intrigue; faction
“seditions” G1370 – disunion; dissension
“heresies” G139 – a choice; a preference; a (religious) party, a sect, a denomination; disunion
“Envyings” G5355 – ill-will (as detraction), i.e. jealousy (spite)
“murders” G5408 – murder
“drunkenness” G3178 – an intoxicant; intoxication
“revellings” G2970 – a carousal (as if letting loose)

Naturally, of those words that can have positive and negative applications, the negative applies in the context.

“They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

==============================================================================================

And what about 1 Corinthians 6:9,10:

“fornicators” G4205 – a (male) prostitute; a sex addict, a debauchee, a pornographer; one sexually or morally unrestrained
“idolaters” G1496 – an image-servant or image-worshipper
“adulterers” G3432 – a (male) adulterer; (figuratively) apostate
“effeminate” G3120 – soft, i.e. fine (clothing); (figuratively) a catamite [boy or youth practising homosexual acts]
“abusers of themselves with mankind” G733 – a male homosexual, sodomite
“thieves” G2812 – a stealer, a thief
“covetous” G4123 – holding (desiring) more, i.e. eager for gain (avaricious, hence a defrauder)
“drunkards” G3183 – tipsy; (as noun) a sot
“revilers” G3060 – abusive, i.e. a blackguard
“extortioners” G727 – rapacious

​“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [[none of the above]] shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

==============================================================================================

IACOBVS can now review the plain meanings, without the confusion of any “latest fad in translation” be it past, present or future.

Whether or not he or anyone else wishes to accept those statements as part of God’s Inspired Revelation is up to that person. However, anyone who rejects the above statements of Paul, but cherry-picks other statements from Scripture to support a cherished stance, might be leaving themselves open to question in God’s perspective of things.

==============================================================================================

And please understand, Pedrito is not attempting to get the budgie to budge.

I beg to differ as to the above being the plain meanings of anything, but this isn't the point of this thread, so I will decline to debate you.

 

[tango]

Are there any other liberal Christians besides me out there on this forum? (As in: reproductive choice, same sex marriage, trans-gender rights, that Jesus really meant it when he said that if he would draw all people to himself through his sacrifice on the cross, etc.) Some of you conservatives are very nice in your own way, but I'm looking for some "kindred spirits", as Anne of Green Gables would have said ... and no comments from the peanut gallery about any kindred spirits that would go along with what I'm asking would have to be evil spirits. Just wondering. :smile:

I guess it would depend on just what you mean by "reproductive choice, same sex marriage, trans-gender rights" etc. Jesus does draw all people to himself, and as we draw closer to Jesus we break away the parts of our lives that aren't pleasing to him.

I won't dispute that some on the more conservative wing of the faith have a tendency to expect people to fix themselves up before approaching Jesus (it doesn't work that way), although at the same time those on the more liberal wing have a tendency to let people think they are just fine as they are and don't need to change anything. Certainly when I came to Christ there was plenty in my life that did need changing, and anyone who told me otherwise really wouldn't have done me any favors at all. (Some of it still needs changing, I'm a work in progress like the rest of us!)

 

[IACOBVS]

I guess it would depend on just what you mean by "reproductive choice, same sex marriage, trans-gender rights" etc. Jesus does draw all people to himself, and as we draw closer to Jesus we break away the parts of our lives that aren't pleasing to him.

I won't dispute that some on the more conservative wing of the faith have a tendency to expect people to fix themselves up before approaching Jesus (it doesn't work that way), although at the same time those on the more liberal wing have a tendency to let people think they are just fine as they are and don't need to change anything. Certainly when I came to Christ there was plenty in my life that did need changing, and anyone who told me otherwise really wouldn't have done me any favors at all. (Some of it still needs changing, I'm a work in progress like the rest of us!)

What I mean by those things is the most straightforward way of understanding them possible, and that, when looked at in the proper context, those things aren't actually condemned by Scripture.

 

[Josiah]

I think a distinction between Law and Gospel is needed.....

Does morality matter to God? Is it good to be good? Did God really mean all the Law statements in Scripture (and on those two tablets) or was he joking? Is it good and right to stand up for good and right? Is it proper to reject bad and wrong? Those are all issues of the Law. And yes, things like The Big Ten apply here.... yes at least the moral laws of the 717 found in just the OT apply here.... yes, the Great Commandment to LOVE (agape - unconditionally) exactly as and to the same extent that Jesus loved on the Cross applies here. Does the Law apply? IMO, yes.

Is Jesus' blood for all? Is God's love unconditional? Does God love sinners (and remember, all 7.5 billion people on the planet are all sinners)? Does God so love the world that He GAVE (free gift, undeserved gift) His Son that WHOSOEVER has faith in Him will not parish but has everlasting life? Does the Gospel apply? IMO, yes.

I see no conflict. Just two different things. The "key" is not to subject one to the other or blend them together into one muddy, blurry MESS that ends up being neither moral or gracious. The "key" is in applying them. Where one or the other "fits".


Pax Christi


- Josiah



http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?3948-Sometimes-the-critics-have-a-point




.

 

[Josiah]

Here's a discussion of abortion...


http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?2256-Why-I-m-Pro-Life




.

 

[hedrick]

There is surely a distinction between justification and proper Christian action. God loves us no matter what, but he still requires us to obey him, and we’ll be accountable to him if we don’t.

I’m not so sure it’s right to call that Law vs Gospel. First, Paul used Law to refer specifically to the Jewish Law, and more specifically the Jewish Law taken as something that separates Jews from Gentiles. Law is thus not synonymous with proper Christian behavior, which is primarily based on love, though certainly with behavioral standards to guide us.

Similarly, what Jesus meant by the Gospel is that God had sent him to establish the Kingdom. This included proclaiming God’s love and forgiveness, but also included new behavioral standards such as the beatitudes. That God is establishnig justice is actually good news.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is surely a distinction between justification and proper Christian action. God loves us no matter what, but he still requires us to obey him, and we’ll be accountable to him if we don’t.

I’m not so sure it’s right to call that Law vs Gospel. First, Paul used Law to refer specifically to the Jewish Law, and more specifically the Jewish Law taken as something that separates Jews from Gentiles. Law is thus not synonymous with proper Christian behavior, which is primarily based on love, though certainly with behavioral standards to guide us.

Similarly, what Jesus meant by the Gospel is that God had sent him to establish the Kingdom. This included proclaiming God’s love and forgiveness, but also included new behavioral standards such as the beatitudes. That God is establishnig justice is actually good news.

I am not so sure why some advocate radical separation between law and gospel. The separation in the holy scriptures is between grace and works of the law. Paul says that the law is holy and just and good. He is right.

 

[psalms 91]

I am not so sure why some advocate radical separation between law and gospel. The separation in the holy scriptures is between grace and works of the law. Paul says that the law is holy and just and good. He is right.

Totally agree

 

[Josiah]

There is surely a distinction between justification and proper Christian action. God loves us no matter what, but he still requires us to obey him, and we’ll be accountable to him if we don’t.

I agree.


Justification (narrow) is entirely, wholly, completely God's action (which is why the foundational Christian affirmation is that Jesus is the Savior - not that self is, not that Jesus is just a helper or possibility maker). This is what makes Christianity a distinct religion and not just a variation of all the others where self eventually gets it right (or not).

Sanctification (narrow) is all that results in our lives because of justification. Now that we are His own.... now that we have His love and Spirit in our lives.... now that our hearts have been transformed.... now that we have spiritual life (and are no longer DEAD), we can - and should - DO things: Love perfectly, live perfectly, serve all, make disciples of all (you know, all the Law commands Christians to do).

The problem comes when the two are both watered down to next-to-nothing (often nothing more than "TRY hard enough" with no idea what "enough" is) and then intertwined so that justification becomes something WE do, God being pushed more and more out of the picture (sometimes so radically that Christianity becomes secular and godless), perhaps Jesus stripped of His role as Savior (and likely also as God) and just becomes A helper or the possibility maker but not really the Savior.

It is wrong to water-down or eliminate EITHER Law or Gospel, sanctification or justification. BOTH are fully, completely, totally true - in all their fulness. They just apply to different things.

I’m not so sure it’s right to call that Law vs Gospel.

EXACTLY!!!! It's Law AND Gospel. Christianity is NOT exclusively about God performing the miracle of life for us (physical or spiritual) it's about our growing, our loving, our serving, our giving, our being Christ-like. It's not either/or, it's both/and. The problem with confusing and blending them is that both tend to get destroyed and what arises is a blended, entangled, mixed-up, unchristian MESS that is neither Law or Gospel, neither justification or sanctification but little more than "Try hard enough." I have witnessed threads at sites like CH and have people upload post after post on the subject of justification and NOT ONCE even so much as MENTION (even in passing, just to give a false impression) Christ or the Cross or the Blood - just one long, long celebration of SELF (although perhaps giving God a bit of credit for HELPING them or for opening doors for them - but sometimes, even "GOD" isn't mentioned - stripping Christianity entirely, making it a godless, secular, Christless, Crossless shell of goody-goodyness).



- Josiah

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #26 on Page 3, Pedrito said: “Just for fun” and “Pedrito is not attempting to get the budgie to budge.”

In the light of that, why don’t we have a little more fun? (Just a bit.)

==============================================================================================

IACOBVS, Post #37 on Page 3:

I beg to differ as to the above being the plain meanings of anything, but this isn't the point of this thread, so I will decline to debate you.

(Pedrito points out that he had already indicated that he was not debating. Pedrito was merely presenting information for those people who were perhaps a little confused by some modern trends which have crept into various churches, or are attempting to.)

IACOBVS, Post #37 on Page 3, prior to editing, as contained in the CH email notifying of the post:

Those are either the NIV Strong's or Strongest Strong's so-called Strong's "definitions", not the actual, original Strong's... so they are just modern faddish definitions. Try again.

==============================================================================================

Once again, in the spirit of fun only (not debate), Pedrito offers the following.

1. The ‘Strongest Strong's so-called Strong's "definitions"’ was published in 2001 and is promoted as “The most accurate and complete Strong's ever published, the only Strong's compiled and verified by computer technology, the only truly exhaustive concordance to the KJV, and includes the most up-to-date Hebrew and Greek dictionaries for precise word studies.”

2. Pedrito still has his old Windows 95 notebook computer with its then-current versions of the Online Bible and Seedmaster programs (circa 1996). They both include what was the then-current versions of Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionaries – long before the Strongest Strong's hit the press.

==============================================================================================

The above is offered as more information for those who are perhaps a little confused by modern trends, and methods used to defend them.

But it was offered primarily as fun. As Pedrito assumes MoreCoffee (for instance) offers some of his thought-provoking topics. (Pedrito begs forgiveness if his assumption is incorrect.)

 

[IACOBVS]

I see that I have made an enemy here. I thrive on enemies, and they eventually become my friends. Actually, the meanest ones usually turn out to be closet gays, because they hate themselves so much. Just sayin'.

 

[Lamb]

STAFF NOTICE:

Since the topic of this thread has evolved...could it return back to what the OP originally wanted? Any new discussion on abortion can be done in a new thread elsewhere.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think that Liberal Christianity is a mainly Protestant thing.

 

[IACOBVS]

STAFF NOTICE:

Since the topic of this thread has evolved...could it return back to what the OP originally wanted? Any new discussion on abortion can be done in a new thread elsewhere.

Thank you.