Pope calls for worldwide abolition of death penalty

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

 

 

so what exactly is a "liberal"   - someone who doesn't agree with your personal interpretation of scripture?

It seems you believe all conservative evangelicals are fundamentalists, but that certainly is not true.

• All of us, as evangelical Protestant Christians, believe in 1) the supreme authority of inspired Scripture for faith and practice, 2) basic Christian orthodoxy as embodied in the consensus of the church fathers and reformers about the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, etc., 3) a supernatural worldview, 4) salvation by God’s grace through faith alone, 5) personal conversion as normative for authentic Christianity, 6) the cross of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation and as vicarious atonement, 7) the virgin birth, resurrection and visible return of Jesus Christ.

  The distinctive hallmarks of post-1925 fundamentalism are 1) adding to those essentials of Christianity non-essentials such as premillennial eschatology, 2) “biblical separation” as the duty of every Christian to refuse fellowship with people who call themselves Christians but are considered doctrinally or morally impure, 3) a chronically negative and critical attitude toward culture including non-fundamentalist higher education, 4) emphatic anti-evolution, anti-communist, anti-Catholic and anti-ecumenical attitudes and actions (including elevation of young earth creationism and American exceptionalism as markers of authentic Christianity), 5) emphasis on verbal inspiration and technical inerrancy of the Bible as necessary for real Christianity (including exclusion of all biblical criticism and, often, exclusive use the KJV), and 6) a general tendency to require adherence to traditional lifestyle norms (hair, clothes, entertainment, sex roles, etc.).

  Who were these post-1925 fundamentalists? Not all of these embodied all six of the above hallmarks, but they generally functioned within that ethos: William Bell Riley, Frank Norris, Bob Jones, Carl McIntire, John R. Rice and the early Jerry Falwell. And many, many more. Most of them were non-Reformed, but there was a Reformed camp of fundamentalists who shared that ethos without premillennialism. (I would locate Cornelius Van Til there.)

  How did the postfundamentalist evangelicals differ from them? Beginning in the 1940s and increasingly throughout the 1950s former self-identified fundamentalists began to shy away from that identity and ethos without embracing liberalism or neo-orthodoxy. They 1) sought to establish ecumenical cooperation and fellowship among evangelicals who disagreed about non-essentials such as eschatology and predestination [“generous orthodoxy”], 2) sought to be cautiously open to secular culture and higher education and its products, and 3) sought to overcome legalism that had become characteristic of much fundamentalism.

  In other words, the main difference between the new evangelicals and the fundamentalists was one of ethos—at least from the new evangelical point of view. From the fundamentalist point of view, of course, the difference was more than one of ethos. It was often viewed as one of departure from the gospel.

  The new evangelicalism was to be a broad tent that included everyone from conservative Presbyterians to Pentecostals to Advent Christians to Nazarenes to (recently) the Worldwide Church of God. Fundamentalists were invited to join but declined. Still, formally speaking, fundamentalists are evangelicals and, to liberals, anyway, all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/04/what-distinguishes-evangelical-from-fundamentalist/

 

 

Noting that last line,

• Still, formally speaking, fundamentalists are evangelicals and, to liberals, anyway, all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

since I recognize all evangelicals are not fundamentalists, I cannot be liberal by definition.

 

[enoob57]

Sola Scriptura is one aspect of fundamental required beliefs... in Scriptures- last canonized book a seal is set forth by God
and within the 66 books lies the assembled Words of God to lead us to His Promise of only source called Scripture

2 Ti 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
KJV
as a true fundamental believer of Scripture I see nothing else needed but the canon of Scripture (66 books Genesis-Revelation)...
Liberality would extend to outside this fundamental truth and include other -as any religion and belief does that says Scripture plus!
TLF scholarship is closed on this as The Scripture above clearly states ... to press further or other than Scripture equates to denial of
the truth of God here in Timothy and begins one on the  journey of liberal belief of other authorities.... Love, Steven
 

[enoob57]

A note for all who are reading this thread:
Any being can put God's name to anything here and now but only God's Word can verify if it
is truly of God or not... thus we are all exhorted by God in His Word to verify everything by
http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm
The very first fundamental fact of anything is source and the only source that God Himself
claims to be our foundation is The Christ The Living Word and His source and objective
truth is found solely in The Scripture ... if one extends past this to other they have left their
only foundation given them by God

2 Ti 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
KJV

and are resting on a created source being idolatry against the Uncreated of God...
Idolatry is simply taking the created thing and putting it before God.  Love, Steven

[thereselittleflower]

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Sola Scriptura is one aspect of fundamental required beliefs... in Scriptures- last canonized book a seal is set forth by God
and within the 66 books lies the assembled Words of God to lead us to His Promise of only source called Scripture

2 Ti 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
KJV
as a true fundamental believer of Scripture I see nothing else needed but the canon of Scripture (66 books Genesis-Revelation)...
Liberality would extend to outside this fundamental truth and include other -as any religion and belief does that says Scripture plus!
TLF scholarship is closed on this as The Scripture above clearly states ... to press further or other than Scripture equates to denial of
the truth of God here in Timothy and begins one on the  journey of liberal belief of other authorities.... Love, Steven
 

Fundamenatalists do not have an exclusive claim to, and hold on, sola scriptural.

Sola scriptura is held by ALL evangelicals, not just fundamentalists.   In fact, sola scriptura is held by protestantism in general, of which evangelicals make up only a part, and fundamentalists make up even a smaller part.

 

[enoob57]

18 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Fundamenatalists do not have an exclusive claim to, and hold on, sola scriptural.

Sola scriptura is held by ALL evangelicals, not just fundamentalists.   In fact, sola scriptura is held by protestantism in general, of which evangelicals make up only a part, and fundamentalists make up even a smaller part.

 

your broad stroking of statements I find lacks the scholarship of reality
'sola scriptura is held by protestantism in general' this simply is not true of today...
most of the charismatic persuasion is not!  They believe current tongues is equal
to Scripture or when in conflict of Scripture more authoritative. The catholic have
oral tradition as equal to Scripture etc...   

[thereselittleflower]

9 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

your broad stroking of statements I find lacks the scholarship of reality
'sola scriptura is held by protestantism in general' this simply is not true of today...
most of the charismatic persuasion is not!  They believe current tongues is equal
to Scripture or when in conflict of Scripture more authoritative. The catholic have
oral tradition as equal to Scripture etc...   

Well you're entitled to your opinion of course, even if it ignores what is meant by "in general" - which, by definition, is not all inclusive of all protestants.   That's why I used "in general" to qualify what I said.

enough said.

[*Deidre*]

On 2/25/2016 at 10:17 PM, junobet said:

 

Hi there,

Surely you are aware that the Psalms were written hundreds of years before the volume we are holding in our hands was finalized. That said: while I don’t tend to idolize the Bible, I love it dearly. I don’t need to believe that the mustardseed is actually the smallest of all seeds to believe that the Bible tells me all I need to know about my salvation. And knowing that Christ forgave me, I can’t possibly condemn any other person to death.

Love,

junobet

Beautiful post, and I agree. 

[FresnoJoe]

On ‎2‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 9:06 PM, *Deidre* said:

Beautiful post....
and I agree.... 

God's Post....

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

Beautiful And I Agree....

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

Love, Your Brother Joe