<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The use of "liberal" in this matter I think is in pointing out those things which are not taught in Scripture or even against Scriptural teaching, practices which are not condoned or even forbidden in Scripture, etc. which the modern church has adopted. And even though these things may not be seen as "fundamentals, essentials" of the faith, they are certainly not OF the faith and can and often do lead to a disintegration, minimization and even denial of the fundamentals of the faith. </font><hr></blockquote><p> This is how I am using the term. I see certain practices in the "Church" as liberal because the fail to meet certain Scriptural standards. If you desire to call them "wordily", "un-scriptural", "wanting for full truth", or just plain not "fully" accepting and "fully" practicing the faith once delivered .....is fine. The point is that there is ERROR in the Church that needs to be addressed. I am not saying these are not Christians, but merely mistaken or not fully doctrinal Christians and thus liberal as compared to those that embrace more fully the faith once delivered.<br><br>Albrecht Ritschl, Friedrich Schleiermacher embraced the philosophy of Kant and I believe they were far from being Christians. Schleiermacher asserted that faith was just a feeling of absolute feeling upon God (religion is not a doctrine or action, but a feeling), whom of course they could not know in Kant's system ( Kant's Wall: noumenal world vs. phenoumenal world). He applied Kant's Wall to the attributes of God stating that what knowledge we have of God is an illegal intrusion into the noumenal world and thus we could have not actual knowledge of God. Ritschl was some better exposing the pantheism of Schleiermacher, but none the less adhered to the ethics of Kant's system of justice and said that religion was simply a matter of right action in obedience to a standard of judgment.

Reformed and Always Reforming,