Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label Liberal

Intolerance in Theological Liberalism

In some ways, liberal  implies being generous and having a kind heart. Politically, liberalism has changed its meaning over the years, so classical liberalism is very different from leftist modern liberalism. Theologically, liberalism does not hold to the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. Liberalism can emphasize dialogue, which may seem reasonable on the surface. Dialogue is important for clarifying points and determining viewpoints. However, the dialogue of liberalism also involves compromise and change in areas where these things do not belong — often in the name of being "progressive". With liberalism, to be progressive may seem like a worthy goal, but it "progresses" away from the Word of God. (Indeed, I did a web search on apologetics resources which yielded items "you can trust" that include theistic evolutionists and other untrustworthy sources. Biblical creationists were conspicuously absent.) Notice that theological liberals believe few if a

Why There is no Compromise on Creation

It may seem fair and reasonable for mainstream evangelicals to ask biblical creationists to compromise on literal six-day creation. Indeed, sometimes we are seen as a niche group in an offshoot of the Fundamentalist movement. It is ironic that the Fundamentalists were not exactly biblical creationists . Again, belief in recent six-day creation is not required for salvation. Accepting theistic evolution (TE) is not a disqualifier, nor is acceptance of billions of years. Those beliefs do show, however, that people are not understanding or have a low view of Scripture. Silhouette of group at sunset, Pexels / Min An Some do not understand Scripture or the failings of secular science, and many do not believe Scripture. (I believe that knowledgeable TEs are actually Deists because they reject the inerrancy and authority of God's Word.) Joining in with a group hug and affirming the "Why can't we all just get along?" sentiment involves degrading the Bible. Evolution is not co

A Dangerous False Curriculum

As any skilled totalitarian dictator knows, indoctrinate children early with propaganda and disparage God's Word. But we are not contending with a physical person or organization. It is spiritual in nature, and uses people, false religions, governments, and more to strike at the heart of biblical Christianity. Credit: Freeimages / bayek We are not at war with flesh and blood, but instead, Satan and his minions (Eph. 6:12). People who are unsaved belong to Satan and are serving him willingly or unwillingly (1 Cor. 2:14, John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:4). Professing atheists blatantly attack God's Word, but others put on a guise of religiosity, even professing to believe in Christ. Some are sincere, but sincerely deluded. They are clever enough to attack the very foundations of the faith which are found in Genesis. Parents are to instruct their children (Eph. 6:4, Deut. 11:19, 2 Tim. 3:15) so they are able to deal with struggles and deceptions in life. A viperine "Christian" curri

Determining the Original Intent

When reading a document, it is important to understand the original intent of the authors. The goat rodeo hearings for the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh showed the lengths that some politicians will go to attain prominence for their own political viewpoints. Kavanaugh is an originalist, which means that he considers the original intent of the US Constitution when making his decisions. An interesting parallel can be made with interpreting the Bible. Credits: Left image, Freeimages /  Robert Owen-Wahl ; Right image: US  National Archives and Records Administration It seems reasonable to determine the intent of the authors. Obviously, there are some marked differences because the Bible was written by several people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the Constitution was written by fallible men with good intentions.  When the original meanings are abandoned, all sorts of bad judgments ensue. In the case of the Constitution, we had the Dred Scott decision and that

Matt Walsh and the Age of the Earth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited about 22 hours after initial posting. Matt Walsh has a strong pro-life view, stands up for politically conservative values, and has an excellent sense of humor. I have occasionally linked to him, and his material spurred me to do some writing (such as " It's Not My Fault! "). Unfortunately, he is bothersome to many of his supporters when he discusses theology. What really took the rag off the bush is when he decided to slap leather with biblical creation science. Credit: Freeimages / Robb Kiser Matt seems like the kind of guy that I could hang out with, and we could have some interesting discussions. Unfortunately, he is a staunch defender of Roman Catholicism and has weak theological foundations . When he threw down on creation science, I posted a couple of articles at The Question Evolution Project . The first one was by Peter Heck, " Why Matt Walsh is Dangerously Wrong About Genesis ". Later, I posted an article by Pa

Non-Human Persons, Pro-Life, and Evolutionary Thinking

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One aspect of the extreme environmentalist movement is to give "rights" to animals, even going so far as to call them non-human persons.  Naturally, vegans also saddle up to ride for this brand, which is primarily based on evolutionary thinking. Professing Christians are also joining in. Christians and creationists need to think logically, and not fall for emotional manipulation tactics, nor get their values from worldly thinking. Ham the chimpanzee in the biopack couch for the MR-2 suborbital test flight Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Be wary of word games, because not only do extremists use loaded, emotion-provoking terminology, but they redefine words. It is interesting that just before I wrote this, I saw a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "Lonely Among Us". Commander Riker told someone , "We no longer enslave animals for food purposes". Enslave? A slave is a person , not a

Reformers and the Age of the Earth

Despite the claims of some old-earth compromisers like Hugh Ross, the church fathers believed , for the most part, in a young earth. For that matter, the Genesis Flood, recent creation, and similar matters were largely undisputed and a defense of the position was generally considered unnecessary. The concept of deep time is the new gelding in the theological stable. Credit: Pixabay / strecosa What about the Reformers? You know, that Protestant Reformation that is considered to have begun back yonder about 500 years ago? Yeah, those guys. Remember, a movement does not usually happen in a moment; there is groundwork and developments until the thing commences to happen. We know that Martin Luther took Genesis seriously , but we may wonder about the other Reformers during that period of years. It's a reasonable question, since liberal theologians and many professing Christians today believe the old earth view — especially since Christians ceded both science and theology to secula

Liberal Theology Fails Churches

Before we saddle up for the journey, I wanted to share some personal remarks from my history. Way back when, my father was the pastor in the liberal United Methodist Church denomination. He denied the inerrancy of Scripture, supported the ordination of women as pastors, and had other unsavory views. (Interestingly, he was against ordaining homosexuals, and was ready to resign if the denomination passed that in a vote. Sad that it was subject to a vote in the first place! He also rejected evolution, and that was before all the evidence we have refuting it and affirming special creation that we have today.) The UMC denomination has become far more liberal after his time. When I attended a Christian high school and learned the truth of the Bible, things began to get my attention, such as the phrase "reach the unchurched". Seemed to me that they were more interested in building up numbers than in reaching the lost with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Also, after I had left

Rewriting the Ten Commandments for Today

Ever since God gave the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), people have been a mite cranky about them. The Israelites broke them, and everyone else has been happy to oblige in breaking them as well (which is one reason taking people through the Ten Commandments is a powerful witnessing tool ). They've been around for a few thousand years, and have been making people mighty uncomfortable. Ten Commandments Monument in Austin, Texas image credit: J. Williams Some folks have tried to rewrite them, including Clinton Richard Dawkins (who does not even keep number eight ). It's not like there's anything wrong with them — except to misotheists and liberal culture revisionists who mock the authority of God's Word. We're in a pagan evolutionary culture, and the Commandments make for a hostile environment. Some yahoos at Seeker dot com decided to replace the Ten Commandments with their own rules for the "good person" (defining "good" by their own s