liberalism

umm? question. How can you "plagerize" (sp?) God's word?

 

Now THAT is a good question, Amity

 

Dr Bob has the missing autographs! Hurrah! Christendom is saved!

Next to your computer you have a copy of scripture that absolutely rocked history like no other version, translation, manuscript, etc. On top of that you have a "faithful" Greek copy of a copy of a copy of a copy . . . .

Lacy

 

To return to the OP...'liberalism', if by it you mean the theologicak product of higher criticism, is a post-Enlightenment phenomenon and did not exist in 1611; the conflict then was between High Church and Low Church, 'ritual-catholicising' and Reforming Puritanism, Establishment and Separatism, and is therefore better described as being between 'conservatives' and 'radicals', with the King James people being on the side of the former.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Does this mean God is a liberal? How does God give wisdom to those who ask for it?

Pro 2:1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
Pro 2:2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
Pro 2:3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
Pro 2:4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Pro 2:5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
Pro 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

If I am to ask in faith, not wavering, for wisdom and God is going to give it to me liberally, then I must have the words that come out of His mouth. I don't see any other way around it. If all I have is man's interpretation of His word, then all I can ever have is man's interpretation on wisdom. And a liberal interpretation at that.

 

Ed predicts for this topic:

1. a couple of hit and run attempted
definitions of "Liberalism" will be ignored.
2. The topic will "ride off in all
directions" and C4K will kill it on page 5.

My pastor is a conservative religiously
not a religious liberal.
My pastor is a liberal politically
not a political conservative.
Ain't that wierd?

 

Well, I don't know about 17th century liberalism (shoot, I don't even know about 1970's liberalism....i was just a baby) ....all I do know is that I am KJO (#3...well, moderate #4 but I'd have to elaborate on Dr. Bob's definitions), I am a religious conservative, and political conservative.

 

Well, the definition of liberal certainly has changed over time. The most conservative concervative today is more liberal than the liberalest liberal from 100 years ago.

Now, is the KJVO liberal? Considering that the KJVO doctrine as espoused by Ruckman, Riplinger, ect., is a relatively new doctrine, I consider the KJVO to be a liberal.

 

Ridiculous. To say the word "liberal" is to conjure up the democrat party, where abortion, queer nation, Michael Moorer, and every other left-wing group of God-hating and dope-smoking communists are welcome, and where Jesus Christ, His Word and commandments are not welcome. You can say Ruckman is a tangent of KJV beliefs, or a diversion, or a novelty, but liberal? Get real people, this is slanderous. And as a Christian who preaches and ministers at abortion clinics regularly, and stands before City counsel meetings when they try too pass unConstitutional Ordinanaces, or give the Homosexuals special rights that will hurt our city, I find such flippant use of words not only offensive, but surely it is sinful in the sight of God. If you don't agree with the KJV position FINE, say so and give your reasons. But this kind of talk is truly out of line.

 

Well, that's just not true at all.

 

I think that there may be one definition by which you could consider KJVO to be liberal, and it really just depends on who's calling -

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas;

I'm sure that Catholics would consider salvation by grace alone to be liberal. Praise God that He sent reformation liberally.

 

I left off the rest of that definition, which goes like this:

free from bigotry.

I didn't want to imply that any of you non-liberal MV guys were anti-KJV bigots. I think I must have found a liberal definition of liberal.

 

Well, that's just not true at all. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure it is. 100 years ago, not one "liberal" of that era (that I could find) supported gay marriage, abortions, ect. OTOH, many that claim to be conservatives today think those things are just fine.

 

What we have here is simply another KJVO ad-hominem; although it's milder than many of them, it's still an ill-conceived and false ad-hominem attack against we who reject the KJVO myth. They like to call us liberals because we accept such terms as "homosexual offender" over the older term "sodomite". How ridiculous is that? First, the term 'homosexual' didn't exist till 1892, so it couldn't possibly have been in the AV. Next, 'sodomite' has several meanings in today's English and is not specific to homosexuals.

The AV 1611 was written in the best English and spellings of its day. However, that day was 400 years ago, and English has changed vastly since then. It wouldn't be conservative, but downright SILLY to write any modern work in Elizabethan English, or to use a word or phrase in the context of its older meaning. Example: Who now uses'let' for 'restrain or hinder' outside of a special tennis term...'let serve'?

No, I don't believe we are automatically liberals, nor that KJVOs are automatically conservative. I just believe the KJVOs are incorrect.

 

Nope. It all depends on how you define liberal. In context of the original question asked, I define liberal to be someone that believes something new that goes against the traditional (conservative) beliefs that have been long held - some for millenia.

Since Ruckman doesn't believe like most baptists have believed for centuries, he is a liberal. He believes things that go against the traditional (conservative) beliefs that baptists have long held. IMO, that makes him a liberal. Using the word the way I have, it is not slander or anything like it. It is just stating facts.

It is just as much out of line when KJVO's attack and accuse people of being liberal (your definition) because they do not believe just like the KJVO does. However, using a word that has more than one meaning different than you would is not a sin. I'm glad that I will be judged by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and not you.

 

Well, that's just not true at all. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure it is. 100 years ago, not one "liberal" of that era (that I could find) supported gay marriage, abortions, ect. OTOH, many that claim to be conservatives today think those things are just fine. </font>[/QUOTE]I presumed you were speaking of a theological liberal. Theologically, 100 years ago, liberalism was just as liberal as it is today.

 

Personally, I believe prophecy is fulfilled as written. Does that make me a conservative?

 

Ok, fine. You guys &lt;personal attack deleted&gt;.

[ February 04, 2005, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]