by leavingwt 95 Replies latest jw friends
Is Liberal Christianity Smug and Arrogant?
The liberal Christian finds himself in a belief system that would be unfamiliar to the overwhelming majority of Christians who've lived and died before him, over the past two thousand years. Is the liberal Christian, in effect, saying to these previous Christians, "You were doing it wrong. I'm doing it right"?
Is this smug and arrogant?
Liberal Christians are simply modern Christians. Like modern materials they have become more flexible in order to cope with the demands of modern life. In an age of so much information, the challenge of maintaining faith becomes more difficult.
I don't see it as Smug or arrogant but a matter of expediency, if Christianity is to survive the demands of the 21st century.
Walter Martin gave lively speeches, denouncing Liberal Theology. Here is one. (Basically, as a very dedicated Evangelical, he believed that Liberal Theology was as bad or worse than cult theology.)
How is "liberal Christianity" defined?
And why would it be a slap in ANYONE's face?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
Put simply, it would be non-Evangelical, non-Fundamentalist theology, in which the Bible is not THE word of God and individuals can decide for themselves to ignore certain Scriptural commands, etc.
How is "liberal Christianity" defined?
That is what I was wondering myself. I guess if you aren't a sola scriptura Christian adhering to a hyper literal interpretation of the text, then you are a liberal Christian.
Here is a wiki page on the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
BTS
Put simply, it would be non-Evangelical, non-Fundamentalist theology, in which the Bible is not THE word of God and individuals can decide for themselves to ignore certain Scriptural commands, etc.
In that case, this statement is moot:
The liberal Christian finds himself in a belief system that would be unfamiliar to the overwhelming majority of Christians who've lived and died before him, over the past two thousand years.
....because Evangelical Fundamentalist theology is neither ancient, or universal. In fact, even today, the majority of Christians are not evangelical or fundamentalist. Additionally, you can still hold that the Bible is the word of God, yet have different ideas regarding what inerrancy means.
BTS
From the Wikipedia article:
Contemporary liberal Christians may prefer to read Jesus' miracles as metaphorical narratives for understanding the power of God.
One need not believe that Jesus actually performed miracles, to be a liberal Christian. He or she can believe that these were nice little stories with great meaning.
Put simply, it would be non-Evangelical, non-Fundamentalist theology, in which the Bible is not THE word of God and individuals can decide for themselves to ignore certain Scriptural commands, etc.
Ah, so it is SOMEONE's definition of someone elses beliefs ( by the sounds of it an evangelical/fundamentalist, LOL ).
Well, since lables mean so much ( not) then I guess one has to look back and see what exactly the 1st century followers of Christ were and were doing.
They believed that Jesus was the Word of God and not some collection of writings, they quoted the OT ( the NT didn't exist yet) WHEN it matched what Jesus taught and when it didn't, Jesus's teachings overruled it ( the OT).
Jesus gave them new commandments and they themselves, via the Holy Spirit, "ignored" certain scriptural commandments (dealing with gentiles, food, circumcission, etc), so it would seem that the first followers of Christ were "liberal Christians".
Evangelical Fundamentalist theology is neither ancient,
Perry might want to respond to that one.
