PDA

View Full Version : The Plight of the Liberal:


JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 02:26 PM
The plight of the liberal is freedom. Who knows if or when one is a liberal, or whether or not they are acting liberal? The point is that they are with us; this plight is with us. It is with us as much as they are with us. Since the Fall in the Garden liberalism has been de-constructing what God originally designed and intended. Liberal thought is basically a thought pattern or intent to liberate man from certain standards or restrictions thereby increasing a sense of freedom. In some sense freedom is necessary for Truth to survive and become known.

For example, truth is the relationship between our thoughts and reality. If I called a friend and told him that I posted a particular thread on this forum and that, later, I wanted him to read that thread. My friend would only have my word and his thoughts until he got to his computer and went to JP and saw the reality. The reality that I indeed did post a particular thread. Truth is the relationship between thoughts and reality. Freedom then enables us to know truth. Thankfully we know the Truth of God's Word today because of freedom that we enjoy. Freedom that liberal thinking people took from tyranny. Liberal then is a bit relative.

The issue becomes absurd and confusing when freedom is conceived of as self-autonomy. Liberty without order is not liberty but soon to be infringement upon another person's freedom. In fact, to have liberty you must be willing to give it to others.

When liberty destroys order, the hunger for order will destroy liberty. Will Durant

Those who overtly seek freedom from laws can become lawless and no longer be free. Their liberating conquest is now an enemy unto themselves and has bound them to the consequences of aloneness and self-governance. When one's liberties, like those of terrorism, begin to embark upon the liberties and freedoms of others then order must destroy that liberty to survive. There is and will always be a thin line between freedom and order; freedom and authority.

Voltaire once said, "man is free at the moment he wishes to be." In some sense this is true, yet man only becomes free from one taskmaster to become property of another.

Adam and Eve realized after the Fall that they could not hide from God within the leaves and cover of the Garden of Eden. God indeed found them. Now man seeks to hide within himself. Man, inwardly, is constantly wishing and wanting to be free from constraint...to be self-autonomous. In fact, in large part this is the plight of the atheist too. He does not want a God over him.

No human will be without the struggle of flesh and spirit. No human will find true happiness and contentment without following after God and yielding control to His Holy Spirit. Man cannot find Eden on His own. Eden is no longer a place on the map, it is a relationship with God.

Galatians 5:1 NIV
(1) is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Galatians 5:24 NIV
(24) Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

Galatians 5 speaks of our freedom in Christ and to not turn to the yokes of slavery. Yet we must hold such words in contrast to vs. 24. Paul says we "belong" to Christ. Just three chapters earlier Paul stated:

Galatians 2:20 NIV
(20) I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

No we are not slaves to this world, but we have indeed chosen to crucify ourselves. To die and then live again as Christ lives in us. We BELONG to Christ. Having it "your way" may work for fast-food but it does not work for the Apostolic lifestyle. We are in a race and in such a race let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. We must endure and finish the race. Sin will cause us to miss this mark.

Everyday man is in a battle with his humanity. In fact, humanity may once again, take control, reach its pinnacle and bring human thought and intellect back to its darkest times. When one tends toward liberalism, indeed if one ever feels the need for this plight, he should ask himself four questions.

1. Am I attempting to make more room for my flesh to glory?
2. How much room have I made to glorify God lately?
3. Will this liberty prove too heavy for me in this race?
4. Who is in control here? Me or God.

SDG
07-07-2008, 02:37 PM
Flawed on the premise that freedom will always = lawlessness or leads to it....

That somehow your paradigm is the guardrails prescribed by God or even bible based

And that somehow a liberal has no standards or disdains authority ...

You have described anarchy ... the lawless man.

Always at question ... are the laws God ordained and bible based ???... not if they are to be obeyed.

RandyWayne
07-07-2008, 02:38 PM
Great article! I accept the premise when using the word liberal as it applies to the political world. Not so much as to it's true definition.

Example:
Ted Kennedy is a liberal.

and

One can "liberally" apply spices to a dish.

Politically I am a right wing conservative on most social and nearly all economic issues. But I also like to be able to think outside of the box and engage in new ideas. Galileo and Copernicus were "liberals" per the Catholic church for daring to prove and explain how the Earth circled around the Sun versus the other way around. In this example the "Conservatives" of the day are equated with being "close minded".

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 02:45 PM
Flawed on the premise that freedom will always = lawlessness or lead to it....

That somehow your paradigm is the guardrails prescribed by God or even bible based

And that somehow a liberal has no standards or disdains authority ...

You have described anarchy ... the lawless man.

Always at question is are the laws God ordained and bible based ... not if they are to be obeyed.

That is your premise, not mine. Nothing like attempting stack your own deck. I noticed your still editing though...continue. :snapout

Brad Murphy
07-07-2008, 02:48 PM
Sabellius confuses me... he talks like an ultra-con but is smiling in his picture....

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 02:49 PM
Great article! I accept the premise when using the word liberal as it applies to the political world. Not so much as to it's true definition.

Example:
Ted Kennedy is a liberal.

and

One can "liberally" apply spices to a dish.

Politically I am a right wing conservative on most social and nearly all economic issues. But I also like to be able to think outside of the box and engage in new ideas. Galileo and Copernicus were "liberals" per the Catholic church for daring to prove and explain how the Earth circled around the Sun versus the other way around. In this example the "Conservatives" of the day are equated with being "close minded".

True. Notice that I pointed this out:

Liberal thought is basically a thought pattern or intent to liberate man from certain standards or restrictions thereby increasing a sense of freedom. In some sense freedom is necessary for Truth to survive and become known...

...Thankfully we know the Truth of God's Word today because of freedom that we enjoy. Freedom that liberal thinking people took from tyranny. Liberal then is a bit relative...

The issue becomes absurd and confusing when freedom is conceived of as self-autonomy. Liberty without order is not liberty but soon to be infringement upon another person's freedom. In fact, to have liberty you must be willing to give it to others.

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 02:50 PM
Sabellius confuses me... he talks like an ultra-con but is smiling in his picture....

No, I am not ultra-con. But I am like Sojourner Truth:

"I feel safe even in the midst of my enemies; for the truth is powerful and will prevail. "

SDG
07-07-2008, 02:53 PM
That is your premise, not mine. Nothing like attempting stack your own deck. I noticed your still editing though...continue. :snapout

Really Sabellius ...

Those who overtly seek freedom from laws can become lawless and no longer be free. Their liberating conquest is now an enemy unto themselves and has bound them to the consequences of aloneness and self-governance.

Once again we go to the ethereal world of "what ifs" and "may happen"

Imagine if your thinking on the dangers of seeking freedom would have been heeded during our colonial rule ... slavery ... segregation ...

The powers that be in the struggle for control have always used arguments like these to maintain there control.

Is it too much for a scholar such as yourself to question the soundness and validity of a paradigm, a rule, or tradition in light of the ultimate authority ... God's Word?

SDG
07-07-2008, 02:53 PM
Sabellius is a moderate at best ... who caters to his peers, IMO.

Brad Murphy
07-07-2008, 02:54 PM
Sabellius is a moderate at best ... who caters to his peers, IMO.

Just living in East Texas gives him a couple of ultra-con points... :D

SDG
07-07-2008, 02:56 PM
No, I am not ultra-con. But I am like Sojourner Truth:

Truth is powerful and therefore arguments from an authoritarian viewpoint cannot withstand it for long ... because Truth always has the final word.

SDG
07-07-2008, 02:57 PM
Just living in East Texas gives him a couple of ultra-con points... :D

That and puff pieces like this gets high fives from the JP crowd.

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 02:57 PM
Once again we go to the ethereal world of "what ifs" and "may happen"

Imagine if your thinking on the dangers of seeking freedom would have been heeded during our colonial rule ... slavery ... segregation ...

The powers that be in the struggle for control have always used arguments like these to maintain there control.

Is it too much for a scholar such as yourself to question the soundness and validity of a paradigm, a rule, or tradition in light of the ultimate authority ... God's Word?

DA, I am wondering if you even read what I posted fully. I think you are bent on your own way and this post tends to prove that. For example, I clearly stated that the issue is when freedom is supposed to mean you are self-autonomous. Is this what you are arguing with? Yes or no.

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:00 PM
Truth is powerful and therefore arguments from an authoritarian viewpoint cannot withstand it for long ... because Truth always has the final word.

Truth will always prevail, for sure. Truth makes way for authority. In fact, in the most general sense it will refer you to God.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:01 PM
DA, I am wondering if you even read what I posted fully. I think you are bent on your own way and this post tends to prove that. For example, I clearly stated that the issue is when freedom is supposed to mean you are self-autonomous. Is this what you are arguing with? Yes or no.

Yet you equate liberal thinking to wanting to be self-autonomous ... you can't have both ...

In our circles these terms have been defined by certain criteria ... and in our sub-culture there is a value placed on not "listening to the man of God in your life" ... even if he's wrong or teaching false doctrine.

Neither liberals, moderates or conservatives who love God's Word ... and want to obey it ... view themselves as self-autonomous ... yet we all struggle w/ it.

This is where your thinking, IMO, breaks down

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:04 PM
Truth will always prevail, for sure. Truth makes way for authority. In fact, in the most general sense it will refer you to God.

Exactly ... the ultimate authority ... His Word ... not some man that says I can't have intimacy with my spouse on a church day... or that articles of clothing will send me to hell ... or are even "holy".

Being a liberal in our context .... does not mean the Word is ignored in the name of self-autonomy ... I argue that the liberal in our context loves the Word so much that he/she seeks to return to it as the final authority.

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:05 PM
That and puff pieces like this gets high fives from the JP crowd.

Do you feel bitter about something? I notice you seem to have this chip on your shoulder quite a bit.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:05 PM
There are conservatives that seek self-autonomy in many other areas ... as liberals ... what you describe is not an ideological problem but a sin problem ... one that seeks to rebel against God and relies on self-sufficiency.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:06 PM
Do you feel bitter about something? I notice you seem to have this chip on your shoulder quite a bit.

A lot better ... I'm sure this piece went well or will go well over there.

Ferd
07-07-2008, 03:07 PM
I thought it was quite nice.


thanks Sabdude.

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:10 PM
Yet you equate liberal thinking to wanting to be self-autonomous ... you can't have both ...

In our circles these terms have been defined by certain criteria ... and in our culture there is a value placed on not "listening to the man of God in your life" ... even if he's wrong or teaching false doctrine.

Neither liberals, moderates or conservatives who love God's Word view themselves as self-autonomous ...

This is where your thinking, IMO, breaks down

You are rather narrow in your estimations of things DA. I see this a lot in your posts or rants.

I am specifically dealing with liberalism that tends towards self-autonomous goals. As my thread pointed out freedom and a desire for liberty is what enables us to hold the Word of God in our hands, and read it in an English version. I dare say the liberal in all of us would like to think itself more self-governing than we would care to admit.

This is a plight before many, and it plagues a few. My post is a warning to those who feel this urge in relation to the Apostolic lifestyle. It is also a guide during these times to see who is in control and why we want certain freedoms.

Ferd
07-07-2008, 03:12 PM
You are rather narrow in your estimations of things DA. I see this a lot in your posts or rants.

I am specifically dealing with liberalism that tends towards self-autonomous goals. As my thread pointed out freedom and a desire for liberty is what enables us to hold the Word of God in our hands, and read it in an English version. I dare say the liberal in all of us would like to think itself more self-governing than we would care to admit.

This is a plight before many, and it plagues a few. My post is a warning to those who feel this urge in relation to the Apostolic lifestyle. It is also a guide during these times to see who is in control and why we want certain freedoms.


See, this is the source of DA's consternation. He opposes the concept. (or at least that is what seems to come accross....)

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:12 PM
There are conservatives that seek self-autonomy in many other areas ... as liberals ... what you describe is not an ideological problem but a sin problem ... one that seeks to rebel against God and relies on self-sufficiency.

You keep trying to divide and stack the decks Dan. As if you are unconsciously trying to form sides, always. My thread was for anyone who has the capacity to read. The statements about liberalism are then for anyone. Thanks for pointing out the most obvious and that is we all struggle with this.

tstew
07-07-2008, 03:16 PM
Let me just state my problem with "liberalism" in general not about specific issues here. My major concern is that there is a way that seems right to man, but the end is dead. It was scary to me that I could be honestly trying to do right, but be sabotaged by my own mind and perceptions. I am a pretty balanced person, but I have learned to not over-celebrate my "right" to follow my mind and my heart as it is deceitfully wicked above all things and even I can not know it.
It has seemed even in our society in general that liberalism and the pursuit of personal freedoms has led to bondage by secular humanism. It is very telling to me that what led to the fall of perfect man in the first place was "Did God really say..." and an appeal to the the inate humanistic desire to free the mind.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:17 PM
What sides am I trying to form? ... You titled your thread and directed your words exclusively to liberals

The problem Sabellius is self-sufficiency as it relates to the link between freedom and authority ... it afflicts all of us .... cons, mods and libs ... and sinner.

This word from Romans 12 is for all:

1For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27936A)) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27937B)) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27938C)) exchanged the glory of(D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27938D)) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24Therefore(E (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27939E)) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to(F (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27939F)) the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for(G (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27940G)) a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,(H (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27940H)) who is blessed forever! Amen.
26For this reason(I (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27941I)) God gave them up to(J (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27941J)) dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(K (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27942K)) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God,(L (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27943L)) God gave them up to(M (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27943M)) a debased mind to do(N (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27943N)) what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know(O (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27947O)) God’s decree that those who practice such things(P (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27947P)) deserve to die, they not only do them but(Q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-32&version=47;#cen-ESV-27947Q)) give approval to those who practice them.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:20 PM
Max Lucado shares this Parable of the River in his book ... In the Grip of Grace:

Once there were five sons who lived in a mountain castle with their father. The eldest was an obedient son, but his four younger brothers were rebellious. Their father had warned them of the river, but they had not listened. He had begged them to stay clear of the bank lest they be swept downstream, but the river's lure was too strong. Each day the four rebellious brothers ventured closer and closer until one son dared to reach in and feel the waters. "Hold my hand so I won't fall in," he said, and his brothers did. But when he touched the water, the current yanked him and the other three into the rapids and rolled them down the river.
Over rocks they bounced, through the channels they roared, on the swells they rode. Their cries for help were lost in the rage of the river. Though they fought to gain their balance, they were powerless against the strength of the current. After hours of struggle, they surrendered to the pull of the river. The waters finally dumped them on the bank in a strange land, in a distant country, in a barren place.
Savage people dwelt in the land. It was not safe like their home.
Cold winds chilled the land. It was not warm like their home.
Rugged mountains marked the land. It was not inviting like their home.

Though they did not know where they were, of one fact they were sure: They were not intended for this place. For a long time the four young sons lay on the bank, stunned at their fall and not knowing where to turn. After some time they gathered their courage and reentered the waters, hoping to walk upstream. But the current was too strong. They attempted to walk along the river's edge, but the terrain was too steep. They considered climbing the mountains, but the peaks were too high. Besides, they didn't know the way.

Finally, they built a fire and sat down. "We shouldn't have disobeyed our father," they admitted. "We are a long way from home."

With the passage of time the sons learned to survive in the strange land. They found nuts for food and killed animals for skins. They determined not to forget their homeland nor abandon hopes of returning. Each day they set about the task of finding food and building shelter. Each evening they built a fire and told stories of their father and brother. All four sons longed to see them again.
Then, one night, one brother failed to come to the fire. The others found him the next morning in the valley with the savages. He was building a hut of grass and mud. "I've grown tired of our talks," he told them. "What good does it do to remember? Besides, this land isn't so bad. I will build a great house and settle here."
"But it isn't home," they objected.
"No, but it is if you don't think of the real one."
"But what of Father?"
"What of him? He isn't here. He isn't near. Am I to spend forever awaiting his arrival? I'm making new friends; I'm learning new ways. If he comes, he comes, but I'm not holding my breath."

And so the other three left their hut-building brother and walked away. They continued to meet around the fire, speaking of home and dreaming of their return.

Some days later, a second brother failed to appear at the campfire. The next morning his siblings found him on a hillside staring at the hut of his brother.

"How disgusting," he told them as they approached. "Our brother is an utter failure. An insult to our family name. Can you imageine a more despicable deed? Building a hut and forgetting our father?"
"What he's doing is wrong," agreed the youngest, "but what we did was wrong as well. We disobeyed. We touched the river. We ignored our father's warnings."

"Well, we may have made a mistake or two, but compared to the sleaze in the hut, we are saints. Father will dismiss our sin and punish him."

"Come," urged his two brothers, "return to the fire with us."
"No, I think I'll keep an eye on our brother. Someone needs to keep a record of his wrongs to show Father."

And so the two returned, leaving one brother building and the other judging.

The remaining two sons stayed near the fire, encouraging each other and speaking of home. Then one morning the youngest son awoke to find he was alone. He searched for his brother and found him near the river, stacking rocks.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:21 PM
"It's no use," the rock-stacking brother explained as he worked. Father won't come for me. I must go to him. I offended him. I insulted him. I failed him. There is only one option. I will build a path back up the river and walk into our father's presence. Rock upon rock I will stack until I have enough rocks to travel upstream to the castle. When he sees how hard I have worked and how diligent I have been, he will have no choice but to open the door and let me into his house."
The last brother did not know what to say. He returned to sit by the fire, alone. One morning he heard a familiar voice behind him. "Father has sent me to bring you home."

The youngest lifted his eyes to see the face of his oldest brother. "You have come for us!" he shouted. For a long time the two embraced.
"And your brothers?" the eldest finally asked.
"One has made a home here. Another is watching him. The third is building a path up the river."
And so firstborn set out to find his siblings. He went first to the thatched hut in the valley.
"Go away, stranger!" screamed the brother through the window. "You are not welcome here!"
"I have come to take you home."
"You have not. You have come to take my mansion."
"This is no mansion," Firstborn countered. "This is a hut."
"It is a mansion! The finest in the lowlands. I built it with my own hands. Now, go away. You cannot have my mansion."
"Don't you remember the house of your father?"
"I have no father."
"You were born in a castle in a distant land where the air is warm and the fruit is plentiful. You disobeyed your father and ended up in this strange land. I have come to take you home."
The brother peered through the window at Firstborn as if recognizing a face he'd remembered from a dream. But the pause was brief, for suddenly the savages in the house filled the window as well. "Go away, intruder!" they demanded. "This is not your home."
"You are right," responded the firstborn son, "but neither is it his."
The eyes of the two brothers met again. Once more the hut-building brother felt a tug at his heart, but the savages had won his trust. "He just wants your mansion," they cried. "Send him away!"
And so he did.
Firstborn sought the next brother. He didn't have to walk far. On the hillside near the hut, within eyesight of the savages, sat the fault-finding son. When he saw Firstborn approaching, he shouted, "How good that you are here to behold the sin of our brother! Are you aware that he turned his back on the castle? Are you aware that he never speaks of home? I knew you would come. I have kept careful account of his deeds. Punish him! I will applaud your anger. He deserves it! Deal with the sins of our brother."
Firstborn spoke softly, "We need to deal with your sins first."
"My sins?"
"Yes, you disobeyed Father."
The son smirked and slapped at the air. "My sins are nothing. There is the sinner," he claimed, pointing to the hut. "Let me tell you of the savages who stay there..."
"I'd rather you tell me about yourself."
"Don't worry about me. Let me show you who needs help," he said, running toward the hut. "Come, we'll peek in the windows. He never sees me. Let's go together." The son was at the hut before he noticed that Firstborn hadn't followed him.
Next, the eldest son walked to the river. There he found the last brother, knee-deep in the water, stacking rocks.
"Father has sent me to take you home."
The brother never looked up. "I can't talk now. I must work."
"Father knows you have fallen. But he will forgive you..."
"He may," the brother interrupted, struggling to keep his balance against the current, "but I have to get to the castle first. I must build a pathway up the river. First I will show him that I am worthy. Then I will ask for his mercy".
"He has already given his mercy. I will carry you up the river. You will never be able to build a pathway. The river is too long. The task is too great for your hands. Father sent me to carry you home. I am stronger."
For the first time the rock-stacking brother looked up. "How dare you speak with such irreverence! My father will not simply forgive. I have sinned. I have sinned greatly! He told us to avoid the river, and we disobeyed. I am a great sinner. I need much work."
"No, my brother, you don't need much work. You need much grace. The distance between you and our father's house is too great. You haven't enough strength nor the stones to build the road. That is why our father sent me. He wants me to carry you home."

"Are you saying I can't do it? Are you saying I'm not strong enough? Look at my work. Look at my rocks. Already I can walk five steps!"
"But you have five million to go!"
The younger brother looked at Firstborn with anger. "I know who you are. You are the voice of evil. You are trying to seduce me from my holy work. Get behind me, you serpent!" He hurled at Firstborn the rock he was about to place in the river.
"Heretic!" screamed the path-builder. "Leave this land. You can't stop me! I will build this walkway and stand before my father, and he will have to forgive me. I will win his favor. I will earn his mercy."
Firstborn shook his head. "Favor won is no favor. Mercy earned is no mercy. I implore you, let me carry you up the river."
The response was another rock. So Firstborn turned and left.
The youngest brother was waiting near the fire when Firstborn returned.
"The others didn't come?"
"No. One chose to indulge, the other to judge, and the third to work. None of them chose our father."
"So they will remain here?"
The eldest brother nodded slowly. "For now."
"And we will return to Father?" asked the brother.
"Yes."
"Will he forgive me?"
"Would he have sent me if he wouldn't?"
And so the younger brother climbed on the back of the Firstborn and began the journey home.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:22 PM
All four brothers heard the same invitation. Each had an opportunity to be carried home by the elder brother. The first said no, choosing a grass hut over his father's house. The second said no, preferring to analyze the mistakes of his brother rather than admit his own. The third said no, thinking it wiser to make a good impression than an honest confession. And the fourth said yes, choosing gratitude over guilt.



"I'll indulge myself," resolves one son.

"I'll compare myself," opts another.

"I'll save myself," determines the third.

"I'll entrust myself to you," decides the fourth.







May I ask a vital question? As you read of the brothers, which describes your relationship to GOD? Have you, like the fourth son, recognized your helplessness to make the journey home alone? Do you take the extended hand of your Father? Are you caught in the grip of his grace?


Or are like one of the other three sons?


A hedonist. A judgmentalist. A legalist. All occupied with self to the exclusion of their father. Paul addresses these three in the first three chapters of Romans. Let's look at each one.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:23 PM
All of us stumble ... against the the Stone, Sabellius ...

We're both right ... liberals ... can seek self-autonomy and self-sufficiency ... but so does the legalist, the hedonist and the sinner.

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:27 PM
What sides am I trying to form? ... You titled your thread and directed your words exclusively to liberals

The problem Sabellius is self-sufficiency as it relates to the link between freedom and authority ... it afflicts all of us .... cons, mods and libs ... and sinner.

Yes, did you read the thread? The plight is an "it" but sometimes liberal is a "who". I think you realize you are a liberal, and I am conservative for the most part and do not like the essence of anything I might post. I posted this thread to point us all back to what is essential and that as we move forward there are some questions we should ask:

1. Am I attempting to make more room for my flesh to glory?
2. How much room have I made to glorify God lately?
3. Will this liberty prove too heavy for me in this race?
4. Who is in control here? Me or God.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:30 PM
Yes, did you read the thread? The plight is an "it" but sometimes liberal is a "who". I think you realize you are a liberal, and I am conservative for the most part and do not like the essence of anything I might post. I posted this thread to point us all back to what is essential and that as we move forward there are some questions we should ask:

1. Am I attempting to make more room for my flesh to glory?
2. How much room have I made to glorify God lately?
3. Will this liberty prove too heavy for me in this race?
4. Who is in control here? Me or God.

Yes I did ... and suggest a title reflect the root of the problem ... not those we seek to mark.

Michael Phelps
07-07-2008, 03:31 PM
Yes, did you read the thread? The plight is an "it" but sometimes liberal is a "who". I think you realize you are a liberal, and I am conservative for the most part and do not like the essence of anything I might post. I posted this thread to point us all back to what is essential and that as we move forward there are some questions we should ask:

1. Am I attempting to make more room for my flesh to glory?
2. How much room have I made to glorify God lately?
3. Will this liberty prove too heavy for me in this race?
4. Who is in control here? Me or God.

I think this simple synopsis sums up the heart of the matter. Well said, Sab.

Great questions for us all to ask ourselves, no matter our leanings.

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:31 PM
Let me just state my problem with "liberalism" in general not about specific issues here. My major concern is that there is a way that seems right to man, but the end is dead. It was scary to me that I could be honestly trying to do right, but be sabotaged by my own mind and perceptions. I am a pretty balanced person, but I have learned to not over-celebrate my "right" to follow my mind and my heart as it is deceitfully wicked above all things and even I can not know it.
It has seemed even in our society in general that liberalism and the pursuit of personal freedoms has led to bondage by secular humanism. It is very telling to me that what led to the fall of perfect man in the first place was "Did God really say..." and an appeal to the the inate humanistic desire to free the mind.

Awesome post!

Nahum
07-07-2008, 03:33 PM
Hmmm, I've never been in such a quandry.....what to do..what to do....


Okay, I have decided I agree with both Sabellius and Daniel.

Is that okay?

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:34 PM
I think this simple synopsis sums up the heart of the matter. Well said, Sab.

Great questions for us all to ask ourselves, no matter our leanings.

Exactly.

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:34 PM
Hmmm, I've never been in such a quandry.....what to do..what to do....


Okay, I have decided I agree with both Sabellius and Daniel.

Is that okay?

Sounds like a good plan.

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:35 PM
Yes I did ... and suggest a title reflect the root of the problem ... not those we seek to mark.

4 pages now Dan and you still do not get the point. According to my post there are liberals and there are those who are plagued by it at times. Also, I said that liberalism in some sense gave us the freedom to enjoy our inalienable rights we know as Americans. The plight here is dangerous, and if we care to tend this way we should do so carefully.

Michael Phelps
07-07-2008, 03:35 PM
Hmmm, I've never been in such a quandry.....what to do..what to do....


Okay, I have decided I agree with both Sabellius and Daniel.

Is that okay?

Just make a firm statement that you feel strongly both ways.

Sister Alvear
07-07-2008, 03:40 PM
and if we compare ourselves among ourselves we are not wise...

Kinda reminds me of the country of the blind...

We can get used to anything and think it is normal...

Rhoni
07-07-2008, 03:44 PM
The plight of the liberal is freedom. Who knows if or when one is a liberal, or whether or not they are acting liberal? The point is that they are with us; this plight is with us. It is with us as much as they are with us. Since the Fall in the Garden liberalism has been de-constructing what God originally designed and intended. Liberal thought is basically a thought pattern or intent to liberate man from certain standards or restrictions thereby increasing a sense of freedom. In some sense freedom is necessary for Truth to survive and become known.

For example, truth is the relationship between our thoughts and reality. If I called a friend and told him that I posted a particular thread on this forum and that, later, I wanted him to read that thread. My friend would only have my word and his thoughts until he got to his computer and went to JP and saw the reality. The reality that I indeed did post a particular thread. Truth is the relationship between thoughts and reality. Freedom then enables us to know truth. Thankfully we know the Truth of God's Word today because of freedom that we enjoy. Freedom that liberal thinking people took from tyranny. Liberal then is a bit relative.

The issue becomes absurd and confusing when freedom is conceived of as self-autonomy. Liberty without order is not liberty but soon to be infringement upon another person's freedom. In fact, to have liberty you must be willing to give it to others.



Those who overtly seek freedom from laws can become lawless and no longer be free. Their liberating conquest is now an enemy unto themselves and has bound them to the consequences of aloneness and self-governance. When one's liberties, like those of terrorism, begin to embark upon the liberties and freedoms of others then order must destroy that liberty to survive. There is and will always be a thin line between freedom and order; freedom and authority.

Voltaire once said, "man is free at the moment he wishes to be." In some sense this is true, yet man only becomes free from one taskmaster to become property of another.

Adam and Eve realized after the Fall that they could not hide from God within the leaves and cover of the Garden of Eden. God indeed found them. Now man seeks to hide within himself. Man, inwardly, is constantly wishing and wanting to be free from constraint...to be self-autonomous. In fact, in large part this is the plight of the atheist too. He does not want a God over him.

No human will be without the struggle of flesh and spirit. No human will find true happiness and contentment without following after God and yielding control to His Holy Spirit. Man cannot find Eden on His own. Eden is no longer a place on the map, it is a relationship with God.



Galatians 5 speaks of our freedom in Christ and to not turn to the yokes of slavery. Yet we must hold such words in contrast to vs. 24. Paul says we "belong" to Christ. Just three chapters earlier Paul stated:



No we are not slaves to this world, but we have indeed chosen to crucify ourselves. To die and then live again as Christ lives in us. We BELONG to Christ. Having it "your way" may work for fast-food but it does not work for the Apostolic lifestyle. We are in a race and in such a race let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. We must endure and finish the race. Sin will cause us to miss this mark.

Everyday man is in a battle with his humanity. In fact, humanity may once again, take control, reach its pinnacle and bring human thought and intellect back to its darkest times. When one tends toward liberalism, indeed if one ever feels the need for this plight, he should ask himself four questions.

1. Am I attempting to make more room for my flesh to glory?
2. How much room have I made to glorify God lately?
3. Will this liberty prove too heavy for me in this race?
4. Who is in control here? Me or God.


That is just psychobabble:snapout

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:45 PM
Dan, if I was your enemy I would never be able to share anything of value with you most likely. If I am your friend we can at least dialogue. Friends have differences and I see there are a few between me and you. When you say that you know a thing, there is also how do you know what you know? If our epistemology is liberally centered, as yours must be since you take offense to my usage, then we will come to know certain things accordingly. However, we should be willing to temper ourselves and be guided as we are "coming to know" more each day.

Rhoni
07-07-2008, 03:45 PM
and if we compare ourselves among ourselves we are not wise...

Kinda reminds me of the country of the blind...

We can get used to anything and think it is normal...

:friend

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:46 PM
Well Rhoni ... you just didn't get it ...

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:48 PM
Dan, if I was your enemy I would never be able to share anything of value with you most likely. If I am your friend we can at least dialogue. Friends have differences and I see there are a few between me and you. When you say that you know a thing, there is also how do you know what you know? If our epistemology is liberally centered, as yours must be since you take offense to my usage, then we will come to know certain things accordingly. However, we should be willing to temper ourselves and be guided as we are "coming to know" more each day.

There are differences that I am willing to overlook ... how about you? Friends?

:friend

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:48 PM
That is just psychobabble:snapout

If you'll hurry, I'll be glad to show you how it is not. First, I need you to show me why you believe otherwise. Can you manage?

Tyk
07-07-2008, 03:50 PM
I read your post and Agree with the "bases" of what you said.

It's... presentation? labeling? wordage? (not sure of exactly the word im looking for..) comes off wrong. I'm assume not on purpose, but i definitely see why and where DA is coming from.

" Originally Posted by Sabellius View Post
Yes, did you read the thread? The plight is an "it" but sometimes liberal is a "who". I think you realize you are a liberal, and I am conservative for the most part and do not like the essence of anything I might post. I posted this thread to point us all back to what is essential and that as we move forward there are some questions we should ask:

1. Am I attempting to make more room for my flesh to glory?
2. How much room have I made to glorify God lately?
3. Will this liberty prove too heavy for me in this race?
4. Who is in control here? Me or God."


I liked that better than the big essay you wrote though :-P

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:50 PM
There are differences that I am willing to overlook ... how about you? Friends?

:friend

Is dialogue all about ignoring differences? Or is it learning to deal with them in some way?

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:51 PM
Well Rhoni ... you just didn't get it ...

Clearly. :whistle

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:52 PM
Is dialogue all about ignoring differences? Or is it learning to deal with them in some way?

Maybe a dab of both ...

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:52 PM
I read your post and Agree with the "bases" of what you said.

It's... presentation? labeling? wordage? (not sure of exactly the word im looking for..) comes off wrong. I'm assume not on purpose, but i definitely see why and where DA is coming from.

" Originally Posted by Sabellius View Post
Yes, did you read the thread? The plight is an "it" but sometimes liberal is a "who". I think you realize you are a liberal, and I am conservative for the most part and do not like the essence of anything I might post. I posted this thread to point us all back to what is essential and that as we move forward there are some questions we should ask:

1. Am I attempting to make more room for my flesh to glory?
2. How much room have I made to glorify God lately?
3. Will this liberty prove too heavy for me in this race?
4. Who is in control here? Me or God."


I liked that better than the big essay you wrote though :-P

There are shorter thread, and some even have pictures. Move along if you need. :whistle

SDG
07-07-2008, 03:53 PM
There are shorter thread, and some even have pictures. Move along if you need. :whistle

I love your mind anyway, Sabs ... even if you have a chip on your shoulder after our constructive criticism of your piece.

Tyk
07-07-2008, 03:56 PM
I enjoy big essays and thoughtful post! I appreciate the time you took to write it up and post it. There are SOME big threads I regret reading, that wasn't one of them.

Those 4 questions are very good though. They make me think and self reflect\examine more than the original post. That's all I was trying to say.

Ferd
07-07-2008, 03:57 PM
That is just psychobabble:snapout

help me out somebody. am I the only one here who sees irony?

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 03:59 PM
I love your mind anyway, Sabs ... even if you have a chip on your shoulder after our constructive criticism of your piece.

:lol

Touche. I'll try to get back on tonight if you want to dialogue about those differences. ;)

JN Anderson
07-07-2008, 04:00 PM
I enjoy big essays and thoughtful post! I appreciate the time you took to write it up and post it. There are SOME big threads I regret reading, that wasn't one of them.

Those 4 questions are very good though. They make me think and self reflect\examine more than the original post. That's all I was trying to say.

I apologize for the negative comment. Internet communication is horrible. At best.

SDG
07-07-2008, 04:01 PM
:lol

Touche. I'll try to get back on tonight if you want to dialogue about those differences. ;)

Sounds like fun ... and a compliment from a great mind ... like you.

mizpeh
07-07-2008, 04:01 PM
Let me just state my problem with "liberalism" in general not about specific issues here. My major concern is that there is a way that seems right to man, but the end is dead. It was scary to me that I could be honestly trying to do right, but be sabotaged by my own mind and perceptions. I am a pretty balanced person, but I have learned to not over-celebrate my "right" to follow my mind and my heart as it is deceitfully wicked above all things and even I can not know it.
It has seemed even in our society in general that liberalism and the pursuit of personal freedoms has led to bondage by secular humanism. It is very telling to me that what led to the fall of perfect man in the first place was "Did God really say..." and an appeal to the the inate humanistic desire to free the mind.

Excellent post!!!!! I've experienced that same fear.....I don't want to decieve myself!

SDG
07-07-2008, 04:04 PM
Excellent post!!!!!

It is humanism (self-sufficiency ....) that seems to be the root .... but self-sufficiency can take the form of legalism and religiosity ... or hedonism of the sinner .... all the same problem ... as TSTEW says .... rebellion to God's Word.

Rhoni
07-07-2008, 05:24 PM
If you'll hurry, I'll be glad to show you how it is not. First, I need you to show me why you believe otherwise. Can you manage?


Not if you are looking for a fight or being condescending which is what I perceive about this.:club

theoldpaths
07-07-2008, 09:24 PM
I don't see the word Liberal or Conservative or Ultra-Conservative used in the NT at all.

I do see the words blameless, obedience, holy, without spot, wrinkle, blemish, etc though.

Rhoni
07-08-2008, 04:58 AM
I don't see the word Liberal or Conservative or Ultra-Conservative used in the NT at all.

I do see the words blameless, obedience, holy, without spot, wrinkle, blemish, etc though.

Preach on, OP! You are totally correct and we needed reminded.

Respectfully,
Rhoni

JN Anderson
07-08-2008, 09:49 AM
Preach on, OP! You are totally correct and we needed reminded.

Respectfully,
Rhoni

Can you explain what he is "correct" about?

JN Anderson
07-08-2008, 09:51 AM
Not if you are looking for a fight or being condescending which is what I perceive about this.:club

Rhoni, I think you should know better. Don't shift here. Be still. If you would have read my post fully you would have understood my point better, instead you say it is psychobabble. I think I was trying to divert your jab to get to the point. So, stop swinging and answer this, where's the psychobabble?

JN Anderson
07-08-2008, 10:01 AM
I don't see the word Liberal or Conservative or Ultra-Conservative used in the NT at all.

I do see the words blameless, obedience, holy, without spot, wrinkle, blemish, etc though.

Regardless, the concepts are there but understood and conveyed in other forms. We are talking about a collection of books mostly written in and around the 1st Century. The Jewish sects and their liberal and conservative interpretations, and then those of rabbinic Judaism imply this generally. That is not the point. The point is what to do with the problem of liberalism that his been gaining rapidly in our culture as it has grown too fond of existentialism? A society that is basically driven by the Eastern notion that Truth is within and not without.

When Truth is is beginning to be determined, largely, upon the human condition then we lose the concept of being a disciple and follower of Jesus, the Christ. We belong to Him. That belonging will demand things of us that we may not ever want to let go of, or possibly completely understand.

Aquila
07-08-2008, 11:10 AM
The issue isn't liberalism or conservatism. There are vast numbers of godless conservatives who worship at the altars of secular humanism.

The issue is "sin".

Philosophically liberalism does tend to greater personal freedom while conservatism tends to restrict personal freedoms.

But here's the deal...sin.

Politically: Of course the greater personal freedoms are embraced the more visible man's sin becomes. The more restricted personal freedoms are the more hidden man's sin becomes. In either case...the sin is still prevelant. Politically, both liberalism and conservatism are incapable of dealing with sin.

Religiously: Liberalism seeks to redefine religion and religious beliefs to accomodate man's opinions and preferences. This is dangerous. However, occasionally theologically libera approaches to Scripture bring great truth. For example, the "conservative" position on the Godhead is Trinitarian. Antitrinitarianism is regarded in mainstream religious circles as being liberal. But for the most part religious conservatism is known for attempting to preserve religious traditions, practices, and interpretations.

Politically, I lean moderate (centrist) to liberal because I am a strong believer in individual freedom and human rights. Religiously and theologically I tend to be very conservative.

theoldpaths
07-10-2008, 09:10 PM
Regardless, the concepts are there but understood and conveyed in other forms. We are talking about a collection of books mostly written in and around the 1st Century. The Jewish sects and their liberal and conservative interpretations, and then those of rabbinic Judaism imply this generally. That is not the point. The point is what to do with the problem of liberalism that his been gaining rapidly in our culture as it has grown too fond of existentialism? A society that is basically driven by the Eastern notion that Truth is within and not without.

When Truth is is beginning to be determined, largely, upon the human condition then we lose the concept of being a disciple and follower of Jesus, the Christ. We belong to Him. That belonging will demand things of us that we may not ever want to let go of, or possibly completely understand.

I'm not sure we can ever do anything about liberalism except stand for truth.

When the kingdom of Israel was split due to rebellion against God-given authority, even in the kingdom of Judah sometimes there were kings that did NOT like their fathers but turned to the groves, high-places, etc. Eventually, they would face judgement and die but were NOT buried with the Judah kings which did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD. Then their son would be annointed and do that which WAS right in the eyes of the LORD.

So even tho the kingdom of Judah was preferred over the kingdom of Israel, even in the preferred kingdom, the ruler messed up. A big question that could be asked is why? If his father did that which was right and was a good example to him, and his grandfather as well, why then when the grandchild became king, did he turn to the groves?

So even in a very good situation, things can still go backwards. Kinda like the devil I guess - he was in a perfect situation, but iniquity was still found in him.

JN Anderson
07-13-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm not sure we can ever do anything about liberalism except stand for truth.

When the kingdom of Israel was split due to rebellion against God-given authority, even in the kingdom of Judah sometimes there were kings that did NOT like their fathers but turned to the groves, high-places, etc. Eventually, they would face judgement and die but were NOT buried with the Judah kings which did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD. Then their son would be annointed and do that which WAS right in the eyes of the LORD.

So even tho the kingdom of Judah was preferred over the kingdom of Israel, even in the preferred kingdom, the ruler messed up. A big question that could be asked is why? If his father did that which was right and was a good example to him, and his grandfather as well, why then when the grandchild became king, did he turn to the groves?

So even in a very good situation, things can still go backwards. Kinda like the devil I guess - he was in a perfect situation, but iniquity was still found in him.

Great post. Especially the bolded part.