In all seriousness, do you not see how Chris R. took Bell’s call for humility in the things we cannot know… and twisted it… then Ingrid amplified it to ““Any definitive and authoritative statement about God is placing him in a box.”

Do you not see the twisting and amplifying?

Neil

Sounds like you all have put Rob in the Box and Pastorboy in the box. – PB

I think reading a post should be a requirement before commenting… doing so would show neither of you were even mentioned.

…you make your own strawmen about people who love the Lord God Almighty and understand who He is according to His revealed word.- PB

And then when you do read a post you miss the point. No one denies that aspects of God are knowable. No one denies that he has revealed aspects of himself. No one denies that Chris R. and Ingrid love the Lorg God Almighty.

You cannot stand up to the clear teaching of scripture, – PB

In my OP I challenged Ingrid to show where anyone she routinely names says “Any definitive and authoritative statement about God is placing him in a box.” Now I challenge you to show where we have denied the clear teaching os Scripture.

Finally, you make grand accusations and fail to deliver proof or examples. You also seize on my illustration and ignore my greater point.

The point of the OP was to show how both Ingrid and Chris R. twisted what was said to better attack it, they both created caricatures that do not exist in reality, they both CHANGED WHAT THE PERSON SAID and then attacked it.

This you cannot deny.

Liberalism in my view is an interpretation of redemption that either removes or compromises these truths:

* The Incarnation of Christ
* The cross as redemption and forgiveness of sin
* The reality of the bodily resurrection
* The exclusivity of Christ as eternal salvation
* Salvation by faith alone

These are core to the definition of Christianity. Notice things about which I omitted.

Liberalism can also mean (and I take it to mean) an open posture to any and all, to freely give of what resources we have been gifted with (as opposed to the mindset that we own anything) and a desire to follow after the leading of the Spirit into a future that is not predetermined (thus holding loosely to old methods and beliefs).

To sum up what I am saying, a classic liberal line might sound something like: You have heard it said…but I tell you…

Liberalism in the classic sense is more in line with the way of Jesus than, say, conservatism.

It depends on what you mean by liberalism and conservatism. In the classic sense, liberalism was associated with Enlightenment ideals, putting individual liberty ahead of all other ideas. To me, a person who would sort of embody classic liberalism was Thomas Jefferson.

Now conservatism, I think in its purest form is about personal responsibility. It’s kind of taking the classic liberal idea a step further by saying that not only standing up for personal liberties, but by somehow saying that everyone has to fight for their own and make their own way in the world.

In the end, I’d say Jesus wouldn’t necessarily endorse either worldview totally. Jesus’ command as to how we should live is to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. I don’t think any political philosophy can claim to have lived up to this ideal all that well.

Mark 9:
38″Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39″Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

These are scriptures I think of whenever I try and “put God in a box” by saying He won’t/can’t work in *insert method I don’t approve of* way…

Liberalism in the classic sense is more in line with the way of Jesus than, say, conservatism.