Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Guest Edward_123189

The Conspiracy of Choice Liberals and Modernists vs Conservatives and Fundamentalists

Recommended Posts

Guest Edward_123189

In the Theological World, it seems we have been dealt a myriad of choices in terms of religion and politics; however, I argue and have seen that there really are two dominant choices in terms of Christian Theology: Liberal and Conservative. The Liberals(Or Post-Modernists/Progressives) formerly known as Modernists(by the English) vs Conservatives(Or Literalists) formerly known as Fundamentalists is an age-old War that seemed to have a "Good vs Evil" stamp depending on which side has indoctrinated you. But who gave us this choice? Who said, we're over here and you're over there?

 

Some have argued the origins of Liberalism has it's roots in the 18th Century or "Enlightenment Period" when Biblical Criticism and Higher Criticism and somehow raged the halls of secular/non-secular universities from then on. With the doctrines of the Bible being considered to be more figurative that literal, some fundamentalists(who were Christians by culture and not by Faith in the Cross of Jesus) fled their respective fundamentalist institutions and churches believing the Bible to not be "inerrant" which is what we consider to be "heresy". Theologically, I would declare Liberals incorrect and in the words of Albert Moher, "Post-Modernism[Liberalism/Skepticism] didn't start in the 18th Century with [skeptical atheists]. It started in the book of Genesis when the serpent asked Eve "Did God really say....?" I do believe Liberalism has not only crept into the Theological Circles such as Stanford University but it has taken advantage of the minority groups of America since the 60s(Read Martin Luther King's essay on the Deity of Christ from Stanford.) 

"The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus" | The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

 

...and has utilized the social disposition as a basis to attract those individuals to their views with hopes to spread their political, economical and theology ideologies. I, for one believe this to be tragic and a sign of the end-times. But....

 

Not so fast...

 

Fundamentalists, in which some are believers, actually believe some of the right things from an intellectual standpoint. However, intellect does not save. Believing in a list of statements and doctrines does not solidify justification. It is by the grace of God through faith and not a statement of faith with a hand shake. The Fundamentalists during the 1700s were faced with a dilemma: they had to kick African Slaves out of their churches because the white members and even many white preachers did not want to worship with slaves due to the class system at the time. Now, the Fundamentalists could have opposed and possibly lost endorsements(tithes etc) and even political influence. But it was apparent that those endorsements from politicians who were against abolition of slavery were more important. And with that action in the 1700s, a young Methodist preacher by the name of Richard Allen, constructed the Black Church which opened the door for Martin Luther King Jr to openly say, "11am on a Sunday Morning is the Most Segregated Hour in America." 

 

The Liberals took advantage of separation and now we look at America today and we see "Progressives" who are for Social Justice but not for the Word of God being upheld because they believe it to be erroneous. I believe The Fundamentalists ignored God and thought nothing of African Slaves but they were proved wrong during the Azuza street revival lead by Charles Mason, that God can use any group of people to proclaim His Gospel and even before that in Acts 2. All I'm saying is this: whether Liberal or Conservative, your stamp or hat you wear favoring each side has a black eye and Jesus was neither a Liberal or Conservative. Both Theological parties have caused great pain and theological issues in our country. It's time we stopped picking sides because of what our parents, teachers and professors have taught us. It's time we look to the Hills from whence cometh our help. It's time we look to God in the person of His Son Jesus for clarity and revelation. It's time we believe that the Word of God is just that: The Word of God. It's time we denounce creeds as a basis for justification. Let's not only have the letter of the law but let's have the Spirit of the Law. God Bless. Jesus is Lord.

 

Disclaimer: I was rushing. I know I left out many details like Socialism and Capitalism both not being scriptural. I apologize for the typos. Hopefully, someone replies!

Share this post


Link to post
Faber
1 hour ago, Edward_123189 said:

Both Theological parties have caused great pain and theological issues in our country. It's time we stopped picking sides because of what our parents, teachers and professors have taught us. It's time we look to the Hills from whence cometh our help. It's time we look to God in the person of His Son Jesus for clarity and revelation. It's time we believe that the Word of God is just that: The Word of God. It's time we denounce creeds as a basis for justification. Let's not only have the letter of the law but let's have the Spirit of the Law. God Bless. Jesus is Lord.

 Thanks for quite an interesting read. I agree with much of it. I think though that if we "denounce creeds as a basis for justification" things will quickly get confusing as to what the Bible teaches. Furthermore, isn't a denunciation of all creeds a kind of 'creed' itself? You wrote, "Jesus is Lord" which is absolutely true, but some who claim to be Christians do not think this means that "Jesus is God" thus negating their claim that they are Christians.

 

Thanks again for your thought provoking thread Edward and welcome to ChristForums.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
deade

Welcome to the forum Edward. I hope you'll enjoy your stay here.

 

7060.gif

 

dee89a695543ae3f2adfdf951ce6696b.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Edward_123189
23 hours ago, Faber said:

 Thanks for quite an interesting read. I agree with much of it. I think though that if we "denounce creeds as a basis for justification" things will quickly get confusing as to what the Bible teaches. Furthermore, isn't a denunciation of all creeds a kind of 'creed' itself? You wrote, "Jesus is Lord" which is absolutely true, but some who claim to be Christians do not think this means that "Jesus is God" thus negating their claim that they are Christians.

 

Thanks again for your thought provoking thread Edward and welcome to ChristForums.

Good Evening. Thanks for reading. You also pose a very good question. I'll paraphrase but a preacher by the name of AW Tozer brought a very important fact that true believers in the gospel do not need to be convinced of the Son being fully God. That was answered 2000 years ago. I no longer argue that with people. If someone has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then they will not deny the deity of Christ in any capacity.  

Share this post


Link to post
deade
5 hours ago, Edward_123189 said:

Good Evening. Thanks for reading. You also pose a very good question. I'll paraphrase but a preacher by the name of AW Tozer brought a very important fact that true believers in the gospel do not need to be convinced of the Son being fully God. That was answered 2000 years ago. I no longer argue that with people. If someone has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then they will not deny the deity of Christ in any capacity.  

You are quite right on that, the Spirit in me agrees with the Spirit in you on that point especially. As far as some of these early creeds, paint me skeptical as I feel antichrist was working early on in the church. I was surprised when the things I understood to be in the Bible were not. Many thing that were, I did not expect. I look around these forums and see confusion and frustration. God does not author that. Just saying...

 

5260.gif

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
On 7/12/2018 at 2:33 PM, Edward_123189 said:

Fundamentalists, in which some are believers, actually believe some of the right things from an intellectual standpoint. However, intellect does not save. Believing in a list of statements and doctrines does not solidify justification. It is by the grace of God through faith and not a statement of faith with a hand shake. The Fundamentalists during the 1700s were faced with a dilemma: they had to kick African Slaves out of their churches because the white members and even many white preachers did not want to worship with slaves due to the class system at the time. Now, the Fundamentalists could have opposed and possibly lost endorsements(tithes etc) and even political influence. But it was apparent that those endorsements from politicians who were against abolition of slavery were more important. And with that action in the 1700s, a young Methodist preacher by the name of Richard Allen, constructed the Black Church which opened the door for Martin Luther King Jr to openly say, "11am on a Sunday Morning is the Most Segregated Hour in America." 

Ironically one of the very first stages that occurs when liberalism infiltrates a church is the abolishing of creeds and confessions. Any idea as to why?

 

Second question, does the "Black Church" constructed by Richard Allen that opened the doors for Martin Luther King Jr to say anything have a creed or confession? You do know that Martin Luther King Jr denied or rejected what the Christian church considers essential to the Christian faith?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff
7 hours ago, deade said:

You are quite right on that, the Spirit in me agrees with the Spirit in you on that point especially. As far as some of these early creeds, paint me skeptical as I feel antichrist was working early on in the church. I was surprised when the things I understood to be in the Bible were not. Many thing that were, I did not expect. I look around these forums and see confusion and frustration. God does not author that. Just saying...

 

5260.gif

You could make quite the thread on a subject like that: 'Did the early church make a wrong turn?' ....would be interesting.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Edward_123189
10 hours ago, William said:

Ironically one of the very first stages that occurs when liberalism infiltrates a church is the abolishing of creeds and confessions. Any idea as to why?

 

Second question, does the "Black Church" constructed by Richard Allen that opened the doors for Martin Luther King Jr to say anything have a creed or confession? You do know that Martin Luther King Jr denied or rejected what the Christian church considers essential to the Christian faith?

 

 

The term Liberalism is not horrible. It's about context. The context of Liberalism in our sense as Christians means the delirious belief that we should evict the ideology of the miraculous and create our own narrative of the Bible. If abolishing creeds proves to improve on how effective we are as Church in preaching and living The Gospel according to the Bible, then being a Liberal would simply mean detaching from traditions and nothing more. Creeds that many established Ministers knew and even taught as a basis for bylaws etc but were never hammered into the ears of church members were always there. But the worry that biblical criticism would influence members to leave out of skepticism caused many protestant preachers of the early 1900s to highlight these creeds specifically to give clarity to those who had their faith shaken by these new ideologies. There's nothing inherently wrong with developing creeds for the sake of foundational teaching and to have bylaws etc. But at this time and due to the course the country is going, creeds will not matter, especially when the federal government of the US will inevitably restructure the constitution which would infringe on freedom of speech, thus abolishing the need for the 501c3 and the flood gates of persecution will hammer every religious establishment in the country. The bare bones Gospel will be the only thing that will matter at that time. I did not clarify earlier and I do apologize. I'm just against the system that we use to justify the banner we wear, when in fact, Jesus could care less of the banner we wear. Many of us American Christians use these Articles of Faith etc in an attempt to separate ourselves from one another, even though the scripture highlights that we are all one.

 

No, the MLK statement reflected a reality that lead this country down a horrible path which put a limit on what the American Church could do and that reality was first realized by multiple Black Preachers who wanted deliver the living Word to slaves who not allowed to obtain the Gospel apart from their Masters and their Masters' strict religious supervision every Sunday. Martin Luther King Jr, unfortunately on paper has a lot to speak against him in terms of being a true believer, but to say that God did not use him would be incorrect. Many sources that some of us look up to: John MacArthur and even John Piper openly admit and have come to terms on how God used MLK when the popular preachers of that time(Billy Graham, Charles Stanley...to name of few) kind of turned a blind eye to the injustices of minorities in this country and vaguely mentioned it in their sermons or spoke against the US by name on those terms. Furthermore, I believe that to be the stumbling block that keeps the American Church separated. Jesus looked at the City of Samaria after he spoke a Word to a random Samaritan woman with multiple marriages and the City of Samaria was turned upside down. Why? Because God used an open heart. He couldn't use the disciples who could not see passed their cultural disposition. They could not identify the plentiful harvest before them. A lot of the time the very people we look down upon culturally are the very people God uses for His Glory. Both John MacArthur and John Piper have publicly apologized and acknowledged their erroneous ideologies that many refuse to admit hindered the ministry of Fundamentalists in minority circles during those times. That's why Black American Churches have flocked to the Liberal Christianity Movement and we have failed to undo it. The harvest is plentiful in the Black Community but Black Churches can not do it by themselves.

 

Sir, I do thank you for your questions. As fellow believers, I do believe we can help build each other up in a way that glorifies the Living God. I do not know everything and maybe we can share information that we received down our separate journeys to bring clarity the things we may not fully understand. Sorry for the typos. I'm at work lol

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Edward_123189
6 hours ago, Civilwarbuff said:

You could make quite the thread on a subject like that: 'Did the early church make a wrong turn?' ....would be interesting.......

Yes that sounds cool.

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
2 hours ago, Edward_123189 said:

The term Liberalism is not horrible. It's about context. The context of Liberalism in our sense as Christians means the delirious belief that we should evict the ideology of the miraculous and create our own narrative of the Bible. If abolishing creeds proves to improve on how effective we are as Church in preaching and living The Gospel according to the Bible, then being a Liberal would simply mean detaching from traditions and nothing more. Creeds that many established Ministers knew and even taught as a basis for bylaws etc but were never hammered into the ears of church members were always there. But the worry that biblical criticism would influence members to leave out of skepticism caused many protestant preachers of the early 1900s to highlight these creeds specifically to give clarity to those who had their faith shaken by these new ideologies. There's nothing inherently wrong with developing creeds for the sake of foundational teaching and to have bylaws etc. But at this time and due to the course the country is going, creeds will not matter, especially when the federal government of the US will inevitably restructure the constitution which would infringe on freedom of speech, thus abolishing the need for the 501c3 and the flood gates of persecution will hammer every religious establishment in the country. The bare bones Gospel will be the only thing that will matter at that time. I did not clarify earlier and I do apologize. I'm just against the system that we use to justify the banner we wear, when in fact, Jesus could care less of the banner we wear. Many of us American Christians use these Articles of Faith etc in an attempt to separate ourselves from one another, even though the scripture highlights that we are all one.

I realize how you defined liberalism. However, I do make a distinction between political party and theological liberalism. For the sake of dialogue though I do agree with your definition and in my own words suggest that liberalism can be understood as simply a broad method of interpretation where the author's intent is ignored and replaced by a cultural, social, or even individual agenda. Fundamentalism arose from the post modern era to combat liberalism. We can for the sake of conversation just view it as strict literalism. We see in churches where liberalism has taken root, creeds and confessions went first and even end up rejecting the Scriptures which they were founded. Likewise, for liberalism to flourish in the United States the Constitution must go. What do they have in common? Why does liberalism seek to destroy any documents which make allusions to Christianity? Can it be said that liberalism was developed to combat religion?

 

What I do find in common between political and theological liberalism is that the nations source or founding documents and the churches creeds and confessions are ultimately destroyed by liberalism. This forum for example uses certain ecumenical creeds which all denominations agree to. In other words, we use them as a simple litmus test. This is what unifies the catholic church, as an example, all denominations agree to the Nicene Creed. We all agree that the truths conveyed in the Nicene Creed are from Scripture and that these truths are essential to the Christian faith. All denominations are unified and stand on these truths. Any body that rejects these creeds can be rightly understood outside orthodox Christianity and fall under the guise of sect or cult. For liberalism to exist and take root here in this forum like any orthodox denomination the creeds must go.

 

Another thing I find in common.... representatives and even military etc take an oath to defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats. Likewise, in the Reformed churches which are considered "ultra conservative", their members vow to uphold the church's creeds and confessions. I find it appalling that someone can be a liberal in office today considering the oath or vow they took be it in politics or even the Christian church. 

 

Quote

But at this time and due to the course the country is going, creeds will not matter, especially when the federal government of the US will inevitably restructure the constitution which would infringe on freedom of speech, thus abolishing the need for the 501c3 and the flood gates of persecution will hammer every religious establishment in the country.

What you're suggesting already has happened and is happening. Obama weaponized the IRS to attack conservative organizations and churches. Now California is imposing laws which are unconstitutional limiting the 1st amendment. Anyone that doesn't agree with the Liberal/Dem party is being criminalized. I think it no coincidence that the 2nd Amendment follows the first. And I think it no coincidence that the Constitution establishes the Declaration of Independence's certain unalienable rights as endowed by our Creator in the first amendment. 

 

Again, people in office, military etc even vets are still under the oath which they took to protect the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats. Is it any wonder why most legal gun ownership is held by Conservatives and Republicans?

  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Edward_123189
22 hours ago, William said:

I realize how you defined liberalism. However, I do make a distinction between political party and theological liberalism. For the sake of dialogue though I do agree with your definition and in my own words suggest that liberalism can be understood as simply a broad method of interpretation where the author's intent is ignored and replaced by a cultural, social, or even individual agenda. Fundamentalism arose from the post modern era to combat liberalism. We can for the sake of conversation just view it as strict literalism. We see in churches where liberalism has taken root, creeds and confessions went first and even end up rejecting the Scriptures which they were founded. Likewise, for liberalism to flourish in the United States the Constitution must go. What do they have in common? Why does liberalism seek to destroy any documents which make allusions to Christianity? Can it be said that liberalism was developed to combat religion?

 

What I do find in common between political and theological liberalism is that the nations source or founding documents and the churches creeds and confessions are ultimately destroyed by liberalism. This forum for example uses certain ecumenical creeds which all denominations agree to. In other words, we use them as a simple litmus test. This is what unifies the catholic church, as an example, all denominations agree to the Nicene Creed. We all agree that the truths conveyed in the Nicene Creed are from Scripture and that these truths are essential to the Christian faith. All denominations are unified and stand on these truths. Any body that rejects these creeds can be rightly understood outside orthodox Christianity and fall under the guise of sect or cult. For liberalism to exist and take root here in this forum like any orthodox denomination the creeds must go.

 

Again, people in office, military etc even vets are still under the oath which they took to protect the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats. Is it any wonder why most legal gun ownership is held by Conservatives and Republicans?

Creeds will be abolished whether we like it or not. We have no control over the course of this world. God makes it very as to who he allowed to rule over the system of the world. God makes it very clear that the World as a whole belongs to Him as are all other things in existence. God never once highlighted a creed as a means for justification. I believe the idea of creed does not solidify faith. It solidifies a stamp or banner for that individual to wear whether your Baptist, Methodist etc. We don't need the Nicene Creed. We need hearts dedicated to a Loving God and we need our will to be submitted to the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the dividing factor of who belongs to God and those that do not belong to Him. People who went to Seminary are probably losing their lid over my comment about the Nicene Creed. But it is what it is. 3,000 people came to God before the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is just that: a Creed.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...