URL]http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2299855/k.DC15/Foundational_Documents_of_The_United_Methodist_Faith.htm[/url]
I'm afraid Methodism
is "liberal theology".
In your finale summery you say "I am afraid Methodism is liberal theology." None of your supporting statements supports this conclusion unless you make up a definition we are not using on this thread or forum. You do, I give you this much, use liberal logic. [/quote]
Have you ever heard of the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral"? Did they go over that in your membership class?
Your argument should not be based on or include what I am thinking as you have no idea what my thoughts are.
You don't write your thoughts? You can't have it both ways. Either you write your thoughts (unless you specifically state these are the thoughts of someone eles) or you don't.
Where you submit that I misuse the scriptures is a false accusation.
You did not attempt to show how my reasoning was false. You have assertion without evidence or argument. As a debator, you must know that this is invalid in a debate. It's even more invalid in a discussion.
You do disagree but out of unfamiliarity with Aristotelian logic, which includes the rules of modern scientific and rational thought.
No, the rules are somewhat different. What is often called "Aristotlean logic" isn't.
PlanetMath: Aristotelian logic
Of course, what I said was "Greek logic". That includes Plato and other Greeks. I can see that your claim to be an experienced debator is true. That's a very good attempt to change the terms. But we are not in a debate. What we call "logic" Aristotle would have called "analytics". He reserved the term "logic" for "dialectics". For instance, the commonly used syllogism to illustrate "Aristotlean syllogism" is:
All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
therefore Socrates is mortal.
This, however, is a Peripatetic syllogism, a form not considered by Aristotle.
Jesus, Paul, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and anybody who has any sense today uses this same logic.
Ooh. You apparently don't realize that Socrates and Plato used different "logic". Nor are you apparently aware that Aristotlean "thinking" was rejected by science during the Middle Ages and Rennaissance. Also, Aristotlean logic fell out of favor in the 19th century.
Aristotle did use the hypothetico-deductive method, but what Aristotle did was use induction from observations to deduce a hypothesis. Then he made deductions from the hypothesis back to the original observations. It was a closed loop. Lossee, Philospohy of Science: An Historical Introduction. Modern science uses hypotheses to deduce observations that have not been made yet.
Paul was not stupid. He challenged the conclusions of the Greeks by using Greek logic.
No, he challenged the conclusions by
data. Specifically, the Resurrection. Greek logic would be:
All men die
All men stay dead.
Therefore Jesus stayed dead.
This is what Paul referred to as the "wisdom of men". Paul says this is wrong. How? By the data that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion.
Your reference to empirical experience is nonsense. If experience does not conform to standard Aristotlian logic, experience is faulty.
Oh. So wrong. Experience has been trumping Aristotlian logic for hundreds of years in science. I'm surprised that you are putting Aristotle's logic system on a par with God.
Doctors determine the sanity of patient's experiences by comparing their experiences to the DSM.
What they do is evaluate the patient's behavior separate from the patient's perception of that behavior. They compare the behavior of the patient to the DSM, not experiences. BUT, what is the DSM. It is
not Aristotlean logic. Instead the DSM is a set of hypotheses about human behavior and psychological states based on the experience of observing behavior of other people. Based on those experiences of
of the observers, psychologists have devised a classification scheme of types of human behavior: narcissim, borderline, etc. It's not so much about "sanity" but rather classification of behavior.
It is clear that the scriptures to which you refer were the words of Jesus Christ. Christ was referring to the Word which also included the Old Testament and all the things Christ said, although these words were not as yet written as the New Testament.
In scripture, when is "Word" capitalized? that is, what does "Word" refer to when capitalized? Does it refer to scripture?
Revelations 19:18 is
not said by Jesus. John says clearly that they were spoken by an
angel in verse 17. That angel is different from the person sitting on the white horse.
John of Patmos claims the words in Revelation 22:18 are said by Jesus. It's purpose is to give legitimacy to that particular book. Are you thinking this refers to the entire Bible? Nope. It is referring just to Revelations.
Using experience and reason, there is considerable reason to doubt the risen Christ said these things. It is too patently an authorization for a book that otherwise is way off the beaten track of Christian theology. so far off that Revelations was barely included in the canon and I know at least 4 Methodist ministers who refuse to do a Bible study on Revelations. Therefore it is presumption on your part to assert that these are the actual words of Jesus. They may have been, or they may have been what John of Patmos
wished Jesus would say.
In the gospels, when Jesus refers to scripture he is referring
only to those books the Jews of the time thought of as scripture. That's the way it has to be because his words -- although he stated them as authoritative -- were not considered scripture. Similarly, when Paul wrote about scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16, he was referring only to Jewish scripture. There was no Christian scripture because the gospels had yet to be written.
Are you saying these words did not count because they were not written down?
Excuse me, but they
were written down. That's how we know of them.
So your argument makes no sense.
Your logic is very poor here again. You take the scriptures out of context to make the above foolish statements.
Actually, I am the one
putting Revelations into historical and social context. You are the one taking it out of context.
John probably did not know what he was doing other than writing what Christ told him to write. John had no way of knowing what was going on in the churches of Asia Minor.
Wow. Talk about baseless assertions. John knew what was happening to
all the Christian churches. After all, he was a victim of the persecution that was being applied to
all Christians. Nor is there anything that indicates his exile to Patmos forbade visitors. Someone had to take the manuscript off the island and deliver it to fellow Christians. There's no postal service, after all. That someone would have brought him the news of the outside world, including the news of what was happening to the churches of Asia Minor.
Before you again choose to accuse me of poor logic, you might want to check your own.
You do not define what you mean by conservative theology but you do infer that liberal theology is superior to conservative theology.
Not specifically, but you did so implicitly in the OP:
"In short, God says, don't add to or take away anything from the word of God."
Is that not what you would consider "conservative theology"?
In any event, Jesus did not object to the theology of the Pharisees.
Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Luke 18:19-13. Matthew 3:7, 9:14, 12:2, 16:11, etc.
let's allow Christ to speak to that very thing. Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven
Wesleyans don't use "proof verses". Wesleyans look to the totality of the preaching. For instance, Jesus himself caused one of the laws -- Deut 24:1 to be changed in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Also in Matthew 12:2-5.
I would much rather have your criticism rather than that of Jesus Christ. How's that for logic?
Not very good, since it opens you up to a lot of criticism from Jesus. Ever been divorced? Do you accept divorce as something that is OK? How, there are several "jot and titles" of the law. Do you eat pork? Shrimp? That's part of the law.
What's more, haven't you noticed that Paul freed us from the law? Was Paul wrong?
John Wesley did not deemphasis the word of God in anyway approaching liberal theology. I have not checked your profile as yet but I hope you are not in a teaching position in the Church.
Again, have you heard about the quadrilateral?
Brother, you can not read! I did look at it carefully and it said the scriptures contains the things necessary for salvation.
Yes. But it does
not say "don't add to or take away anything from the word of God"
Nowhere in the Book of Discipline does it say to not emphasize the scriptures. Liberals do say that, however.
First, I think you have made a strawman version of "Liberals". The Book of Discipline does say "all four guidelines be brought to bear in faithful, serious, theological consideration. Insights arising from serious study of the Scriptures and tradition enrich contemporary experience. Imaginative and critical thought enables us to understand better the Bible and our common Christian history."
That makes scripture
one part of understanding scripture. It also means we can
add to scripture from our own experience and reason.
You best re-read Matt.5 and that quickly.
Have you? Matthew 5:22:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. "
How many times so far have you essentially called me a fool? But look what Jesus is doing. He is
adding to scripture.
This is so illogical that only God knows what you mean.
As we discuss further, it will become clearer.
Just tell us, if you don't get your emphasis on Christian living from the Bible, where do you receive it? We all use reasoning, experience, reflection, and experience but we can only depend on these in light of the scriptures.
Why can we only depend upon them in the light of scriptures? What scripture did Moses have to base his reasoning and experience on? How about Paul? No scriptures about Jesus and Paul never knew the living Jesus. So what did scripture did Paul depend on?
Also, is scripture God's only book?
Liberal theology does not depend on the scriptures whatsoever
I think we are back to the strawman. Why don't you give us a concrete example of what you consider "liberal theology". I'll help by asking some questions: Is ordination of women liberal theology? Is advocating civil rights liberal theology? Back in the 1850s, was opposition to slavery liberal theology? Is theistic evolution liberal theology?