A summation of "Progressive" Christianity beliefs.

[rturner76]

I was listening to Issue, etc. today and heard Alisa Childers give a summary of the Progressive movement. I looked her up on the internet and found her summation of progressive beliefs posted on the White Horse Inn archives.

**************

The Atonement
Often, progressive Christians will refer to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross as horrific or unnecessary. The idea that God the Father would require the blood sacrifice of his Son is perceived to be an indictment on God’s character, turning him into a divine abuser. This is sometimes referred to as “Cosmic Child Abuse.”


Biblical Authority or Inspiration
In the progressive church, the Bible is viewed more like an ancient spiritual travel journal than the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. The Biblical writers are viewed as well-meaning ancient people who were doing their best to understand God in the times and places in which they lived, but they were not necessarily speaking for God. Scripture is also seen as contradictory, not internally coherent, and not authoritative for Christians.


Original Sin
The doctrine of Original Sin is roundly rejected in progressive Christianity, with the idea of Original Blessing put in its place. Progressive Christians don’t typically deny that sin exists or that it is a bad thing. But they often deny the idea that we have some sort of a sin nature that was passed down to us from Adam and Eve. Instead, progressive Christians often teach that sin isn’t what separates us from God, but our own self-imposed shame. In the progressive view, it’s often taught that we simply need to realize that we were never separated in the first place…that we are beloved and accepted by God just as we are.


The Deity of Jesus
Certainly not all progressive Christians will deny Jesus’ deity, but this doctrine tends to be downplayed. The concept of “Cosmic Christ” is sometimes presented as our ultimate goal…that Jesus is a model and exemplar of someone who was christened as both human and divine, and we can follow his example by finding the divine within ourselves.


The Physical Resurrection of Jesus
Again, not every progressive denies the physical resurrection, but the idea that Jesus was bodily raised back to life is often deemed less important or significant than the meaning we can draw from the idea of resurrection.


The Virgin Birth
In the progressive church, the virgin birth and other miraculous events can be downplayed, ignored—or like the resurrection—viewed as less important than the life-lessons we can learn from these stories.


The Trinity
A denial of the deity of Jesus would naturally be a denial of the Trinity. But some progressive Christians take it further and affirm the view of pantheism, which states that the universe is God. Others will affirm a slightly less radical view called panentheism, which is the belief that God and the world are inter-related. God is in all and all is in God. This implies that God is somehow dependent upon creation, which casts serious aspersions on the nature of the Trinity.


The Sinlessness of Jesus
You probably won’t find many progressive Christians who outright declare that Jesus was a sinner. However, Jesus’ humanity tends to be emphasized. For example, in Matthew 15, Jesus tells the Syrophoenician woman, “It’s not good to take children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” This is viewed as Jesus’ having racial biases that were recognized and corrected during this exchange.

Affirmations​

LGBTQ Relationships and Marriage
One of the hallmarks of progressive Christianity is the shift on issues of sexuality and gender. There is an almost universal acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage, a belief in the validity of transgenderism, and a rejection of cisgender norms.


Universalism / Universal Reconciliation
The primary view of heaven and hell in the progressive church is Universalism, which is the idea that no one will be punished in hell, and everyone will eventually be saved and restored to right relationship with God. Some progressive Christians will still say that Jesus is the only way, but believe he will save everyone.


The Gospel of Social Justice and Critical Theory
In progressive Christianity, the gospel is not seen primarily as the good news of God saving sinners and reconciling them to Himself. Instead, social justice issues become the heart of the gospel message, with what one does being viewed as more important than what one believes. Often, the secular framework of critical theory is embraced, where the world is viewed through the lens of oppressed vs. oppressor.


Pluralism
Religious pluralism is the idea that all roads lead to God, and no one religion holds ultimate truth when it comes to who God is and how he reveals himself to the world. Often, progressive Christians will tout the mantra, “Everyone has a seat at the table,” meaning all creeds and religions are true in their own way and the people who embrace them are equally accepted by God.


Pantheism, Panentheism or Perennialism
As stated above, many progressive Christians affirm pantheism or panentheism. Another view that is promoted in the progressive church is perennialism, the idea that although different religions look different on the outside, at their core they share the same truth. In other words, they share the same source and come from the same ultimate or divine reality. This divine reality can be discovered through mysticism and contemplative practices.

*********

My additional 2cents.... All GOSPEL and no LAW.

Way off the mark. Are you looking at this topic objectively or looking through the lens of "their way is wrong and here's why? Because first of all, I have never heard of the "Progressive Church of America" or any such thing. So you sputter out right at the starting line.

Every "progressive" leaning person has their own interpretation of the gospel , how best to spread it, and how to be the best Christian you can be. I would say in general that a progressive-minded person would be more likely to highlight Go'd forgiveness and the free gift of grace (through faith). In general (of course not being the spokesman for progressive Christianity," it would also make sense to me that a church of this type would be more likely to embrace sinners rather than the conservative who is more likely to shun sinners (in my personal observation.

Whether progressive or conservative, do you think the message of Christ is tainted by believing things like "treat people how you want to be treated" or "feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked?" I believe that notion is more in line with the gospel than the notion that "God helps those who help themselves."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Every "progressive" leaning person has their own interpretation of the gospel

Ah, potluck theology. I am not interested what teaching you affirm as you have given examples. But what teachings of Scripture are irrelevant, outdated, culturally mandated or just plain nonsensical. After all, if each progressive has there own interpretation of Scripture, what distinquishes yours from other progressives?

 

[Ted-01]

Quit crying in your beer. Does a confession Lutheranism affirm or deny the listing? Shelby Spong, Markus Borg, JOhn Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk are defacto Richard Rohr philosphically.....panenthesists.

Progressives and liberals portray the "Christ of faith" is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. They reconstruct the historical Jesus portraying him as an itinerant sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms. Progressive Christianity is by definition political in nature. It can't be avoided because it is the only thing that is appealing about it to the masses....unless your are only into deconstructionism.

Bucks to bottle tops....progressives affirm one or more of Childers listing.

I've not heard of any of these people and appreciate the info.

Sometimes there are indeed people that cover themselves with the "label" Christian but in my think their progress stance really moves them out of Christianity altogether.

""Christogenesis" is a thing I just recently heard of by way of a 40-50-minute interview with Ilia Delio had on a podcast. It was rather disturbing stuff coming from a Catholic/Franciscan nun/sister. The topic was "Ilia Delio on Evolution, Quantum Physics, and Neuroscience in Theology".
One thing that she spoke about was how God is evolving... He is not immutable, as is the traditional view in Christianity.

 

[rturner76]

I could also ask "Kf each group of Protestants has their own interpretation of scripture, what distinguishes one Protestant from another?" Here is a completely "irrelevant and outdated scripture in this day and age......

Deuteronomy 22​

22. If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,

24. you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Can you see that law being respected in today's society? Maybe if you grew up in a country that follows Sharia Law. Do you follow Sharia Law? If you think this and other sexual offences require the death penalty, it would be helpful to move somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan with the other Muslims that follow this law.

If you believe in things like humanity and forgiveness, this is a good place to be (USA)

 

[The Liturgist]

One thing that she spoke about was how God is evolving... He is not immutable, as is the traditional view in Christianity.

If she were an Orthodox nun, she would be packing her bags about now, unless she immediately recanted such a heretical position, which denies Divine Immitability and the Coeternality of the Uncreated Persons of the Trinity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Quit crying in your beer. Does a confession Lutheranism affirm or deny the listing? Shelby Spong, Markus Borg, JOhn Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk are defacto Richard Rohr philosphically.....panenthesists.

Progressives and liberals portray the "Christ of faith" is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. They reconstruct the historical Jesus portraying him as an itinerant sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms. Progressive Christianity is by definition political in nature. It can't be avoided because it is the only thing that is appealing about it to the masses....unless your are only into deconstructionism.

Bucks to bottle tops....progressives affirm one or more of Childers listing.

As a confessing Lutheran I maintain that a number of the things in the list are heretical and flatly incompatible with Christianity.

I'm uncertain how my engagement with this topic constitutes crying in my beer, however. Is there anything in what I've said that you consider invalid or would care to address?

I respect you, but I'm uncertain what I've said or done that has warranted this response.

-CryptoLUtheran

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was listening to Issue, etc. today and heard Alisa Childers give a summary of the Progressive movement. I looked her up on the internet and found her summation of progressive beliefs posted on the White Horse Inn archives.

**************

The Atonement
Often, progressive Christians will refer to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross as horrific or unnecessary. The idea that God the Father would require the blood sacrifice of his Son is perceived to be an indictment on God’s character, turning him into a divine abuser. This is sometimes referred to as “Cosmic Child Abuse.”


Biblical Authority or Inspiration
In the progressive church, the Bible is viewed more like an ancient spiritual travel journal than the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. The Biblical writers are viewed as well-meaning ancient people who were doing their best to understand God in the times and places in which they lived, but they were not necessarily speaking for God. Scripture is also seen as contradictory, not internally coherent, and not authoritative for Christians.


Original Sin
The doctrine of Original Sin is roundly rejected in progressive Christianity, with the idea of Original Blessing put in its place. Progressive Christians don’t typically deny that sin exists or that it is a bad thing. But they often deny the idea that we have some sort of a sin nature that was passed down to us from Adam and Eve. Instead, progressive Christians often teach that sin isn’t what separates us from God, but our own self-imposed shame. In the progressive view, it’s often taught that we simply need to realize that we were never separated in the first place…that we are beloved and accepted by God just as we are.


The Deity of Jesus
Certainly not all progressive Christians will deny Jesus’ deity, but this doctrine tends to be downplayed. The concept of “Cosmic Christ” is sometimes presented as our ultimate goal…that Jesus is a model and exemplar of someone who was christened as both human and divine, and we can follow his example by finding the divine within ourselves.


The Physical Resurrection of Jesus
Again, not every progressive denies the physical resurrection, but the idea that Jesus was bodily raised back to life is often deemed less important or significant than the meaning we can draw from the idea of resurrection.


The Virgin Birth
In the progressive church, the virgin birth and other miraculous events can be downplayed, ignored—or like the resurrection—viewed as less important than the life-lessons we can learn from these stories.


The Trinity
A denial of the deity of Jesus would naturally be a denial of the Trinity. But some progressive Christians take it further and affirm the view of pantheism, which states that the universe is God. Others will affirm a slightly less radical view called panentheism, which is the belief that God and the world are inter-related. God is in all and all is in God. This implies that God is somehow dependent upon creation, which casts serious aspersions on the nature of the Trinity.


The Sinlessness of Jesus
You probably won’t find many progressive Christians who outright declare that Jesus was a sinner. However, Jesus’ humanity tends to be emphasized. For example, in Matthew 15, Jesus tells the Syrophoenician woman, “It’s not good to take children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” This is viewed as Jesus’ having racial biases that were recognized and corrected during this exchange.

Affirmations​

LGBTQ Relationships and Marriage
One of the hallmarks of progressive Christianity is the shift on issues of sexuality and gender. There is an almost universal acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage, a belief in the validity of transgenderism, and a rejection of cisgender norms.


Universalism / Universal Reconciliation
The primary view of heaven and hell in the progressive church is Universalism, which is the idea that no one will be punished in hell, and everyone will eventually be saved and restored to right relationship with God. Some progressive Christians will still say that Jesus is the only way, but believe he will save everyone.


The Gospel of Social Justice and Critical Theory
In progressive Christianity, the gospel is not seen primarily as the good news of God saving sinners and reconciling them to Himself. Instead, social justice issues become the heart of the gospel message, with what one does being viewed as more important than what one believes. Often, the secular framework of critical theory is embraced, where the world is viewed through the lens of oppressed vs. oppressor.


Pluralism
Religious pluralism is the idea that all roads lead to God, and no one religion holds ultimate truth when it comes to who God is and how he reveals himself to the world. Often, progressive Christians will tout the mantra, “Everyone has a seat at the table,” meaning all creeds and religions are true in their own way and the people who embrace them are equally accepted by God.


Pantheism, Panentheism or Perennialism
As stated above, many progressive Christians affirm pantheism or panentheism. Another view that is promoted in the progressive church is perennialism, the idea that although different religions look different on the outside, at their core they share the same truth. In other words, they share the same source and come from the same ultimate or divine reality. This divine reality can be discovered through mysticism and contemplative practices.

*********

My additional 2cents.... All GOSPEL and no LAW.

I deny the literal "inerrancy" of the Bible. So, do I magically now become transmuted into a "Progressive" Christian, or is there a certain number of check marks on the list that I have to tick into order to be considered a bona-fide consumer of Progresso Soup?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Deuteronomy 22​

22. If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,

24. you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Can you see that law being respected in today's society? Maybe if you grew up in a country that follows Sharia Law. Do you follow Sharia Law? If you think this and other sexual offences require the death penalty, it would be helpful to move somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan with the other Muslims that follow this law.

On Mt. Sinai, God gave three kinds of laws to Moses for the people of Israel. He gave the civil law to govern them as a nation. For example, the civil law established the punisment for crimes such as injury to another person or damage to another persons property (EX21:22).

God also gave Israel the ceremonial law. There were the laws which God told the people when, where, and how they were to worship God. The laws about priests, the sacrifices, the sabbath days, the tabernacle ----all these were the ceremonial laws. The ceremonial laws also served as types or pictures which pointed ahead to the promised Savior.

Thirdly, God gave Israel the moral law. God had written the moral law on man's heart already at creation because it is God's will for all people all the time (Ro. 1:20; Roms 2:14-15; Romans 1:32). God gave the moral law to the people of Israel in the form of the Ten commandments. In these Ten Commandments, God told the people of Israel how His holy will for ALL people applied in a special way to them as a chosen people.

God clearly says in the NT, since the OT civil and ceremonial laws were give only to Israel those laws on Sinai are longer in effect (Col. 2:16-17; Gal 3:23-25 and Gal 5:1). The distinction here is the OT civil and ceremonial laws were special laws made by God only for Israel, are time bound and finite; the Ten Commandments are form the God's moral law.....his holy will for ALL PEOPLE.

For this reason the basic content of the Ten Commandments forever morally binding is this: they are repeated in the NT though not always in the same words or in the same order in which God gave on Mt. Sinai (Mt 19:18 Romans 13:8-10 Gal 5:19). We use the standard hermeneutical rule here....the NT interprets the OT. Because the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the NT they are binding on all of God's creatures though time. The civil and ceremonial laws now has become obsolete.

This is just standard material needed to understand how to interpret the Bible correctly. It seems you don't understand some of the basics. I am done with this conversation.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I respect you, but I'm uncertain what I've said or done that has warranted this response.

Sorry...I will mind my manners. It is unwarranted.

 

[rturner76]

On Mt. Sinai, God gave three kinds of laws to Moses for the people of Israel. He gave the civil law to govern them as a nation. For example, the civil law established the punisment for crimes such as injury to another person or damage to another persons property (EX21:22).

God also gave Israel the ceremonial law. There were the laws which God told the people when, where, and how they were to worship God. The laws about priests, the sacrifices, the sabbath days, the tabernacle ----all these were the ceremonial laws. The ceremonial laws also served as types or pictures which pointed ahead to the promised Savior.

Thirdly, God gave Israel the moral law. God had written the moral law on man's heart already at creation because it is God's will for all people all the time (Ro. 1:20; Roms 2:14-15; Romans 1:32). God gave the moral law to the people of Israel in the form of the Ten commandments. In these Ten Commandments, God told the people of Israel how His holy will for ALL people applied in a special way to them as a chosen people.

God clearly says in the NT, since the OT civil and ceremonial laws were give only to Israel those laws God gave on Sinai as He gave to Moses are longer in effect ( Col. 2:16-17; Gal 3:23-25 and Gal 5:1). The distinction here is the OT civil and ceremonial laws were special laws made by God only for Israel, are time bound and finite; the Ten Commandments are form the God's moral law.....his holy will for ALL PEOPLE.

For this reason the basic content of the Ten Commandments forever morally binding is it repeated in the NT though not always in the same words or in the same order in which God gave on Mt. Sinai (Mt 19:18 Romans 13:8-10 Gal 5:19). We use the standard hermeneutical rule here....the NT interprets the OT. Because the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the NT they are binding on all of God's creatures though time. The civil and ceremonial laws now has become obsolete.

This is just standard material needed to understand how to interpret the Bible correctly. It seems you don't understand some of the basics. I am done with this conversation.

I would be done with it to if I didn't have a leg to stand on. Peace be with you...... BTW did God throw out the then commandments when he threw out the rest of the Mosaic law? Food for thought.

Also, your inability to answer the question "If each group of Protestants has their own interpretation of scripture, what distinguishes one Protestant from another?" is noted. Why should I believe your interpretation of scripture when there are 1000 other ways? Which of the thousands of Protestant interpretations are in fact valid? Don't think you have an answer for that one either. Basically you believe what you want to believe.

 

[jas3]

I would be done with it to if I didn't have a leg to stand on. Peace be with you......

This is a disrespectful response to someone who has given a thoughtful and detailed response to your original claim.

Why should I believe your interpretation of scripture when there are 1000 other ways?

For that matter, why should anyone believe yours?

 

[The Liturgist]

Why should I believe your interpretation of scripture when there are 1000 other ways?

Because what @Ain't Zwinglian writes is broadly in accord with the views of the Early Church. As an Orthodox Christian, I agree with the majority of what our Confessional Lutheran members have to say, as well as our more traditional Catholic members such as @chevyontheriver . They both believe in a liturgical, sacramental Christianity focused on an incarnational theology and refuse to compromise to secular demands on human sexuality.

It is a red herring to group the Lutherans with the thousands of more recent denominations, but even that number is overblown, since practically speaking, most of these denominations are similar to and in fellowship with other denominations and thus are equivalent to the various Orthodox jurisdictions or the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches. Yes, there are too many denominations, but Martin Luther and subsequent Lutherans opposed the Radical Reformation which gave rise to a great many of these, and fought against the schismatic tendency more broadly.

And really, I think all of this could have been avoided had Rome not excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox starting in 1054. We did not initiate that schism. But the Church will get nowhere on the basis of “could have”, what matters is what has happened, and how we obtain reconciliation. The left wing movement in Roman Catholicism is a risk to the program of ecumenical reconciliation insofar as it threatens another schism in the Roman Catholic Church, which would dwarf all other schisms caused by the left, such as those among the Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists, in terms of size.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church for he said on more than one occasion, the Orthodox don't have a Pope. This positive side of Luther concerning the Orthodox existed because of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the Orthodox as the "Greek church." Luther never attempted to build a bridge to the Eastern church but second and third generation Lutherans did.

With the advent of the Augsburg Confession, the Lutherans were convinced that they, rather than Rome, were the true apostolic and catholic church of Western Christianity. Second and third generation Lutheran established contact with the venerable Greek church, to enlist its support against the papacy, a sort of political-theological move would have been an hugely historic victory against Rome. The Lutherans thus made the first move with Melancthon's Greek translation the Augsburg Confession which was presented to Patriarch Jeremias II for his review. With the ball in Jeremias court, he dropped it by not replying back to the Lutherans at Tubingen.

 

[The Liturgist]

Luther was generally positive toward the Eastern Orthodox church for he said on more than one occasion, the Orthodox don't have a Pope. This positive side of Luther concerning the Orthodox existed because of the things he most disliked about the Roman Catholic church: clerical celibacy, papal supremacy, purgatory, indulgences, and Communion by bread alone. He frequently referred to the Orthodox as the "Greek church." Luther never attempted to build a bridge to the Eastern church but second and third generation Lutherans did.

It’s a pity Luther never had the chance to try this, because I think he could have made progress where his successors failed.

By the way, he also had a high regard for the Oriental Orthodox: it was the realization or the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox under the Pope of Alexandria, completely free from influence of the Pope of Rome, and the other Orthodox churches, Eastern and Oriental, that made him realize communion with Rome was not necessary.

From an Orthodox perspective the things we share in common with High Church Confessional Lutheranism and the theology of Martin Luther are an opposition to iconoclasm, a belief in the importance of Infant Baptism and the Real Presence of Christ in the precious and life-giving Eucharist, and a complete repudiation of Nestorianism, by recognizing the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, stressing the unity of the humanity and divinity in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, who in His incarnation put on our humanity, uniting it hypostatically to His divinity without change, confusion, separation or division, and from this, the principle of communicatio idiomatum.

 

[rturner76]

This is a disrespectful response to someone who has given a thoughtful and detailed response to your original claim.

I admit, it was a flippant response. In hindsight, it was a regrettable choice of words. In my clumsy way, I accepted that he had no way to reply to what I stated. J wanted to convey that I understood why he wasn't able to respond. However, perhaps he felt it didn't warrant a response.

For that matter, why should anyone believe yours?

Exactly, opinions are far more difficult to prove than facts. One may use facts to inform their opinion but it is not fruitful to use one's opinion to prove a fact.

 

[rturner76]

Because what @Ain't Zwinglian writes is broadly in accord with the views of the Early Church. As an Orthodox Christian, I agree with the majority of what our Confessional Lutheran members have to say, as well as our more traditional Catholic members such as @chevyontheriver . They both believe in a liturgical, sacramental Christianity focused on an incarnational theology and refuse to compromise to secular demands on human sexuality.

It is a red herring to group the Lutherans with the thousands of more recent denominations, but even that number is overblown, since practically speaking, most of these denominations are similar to and in fellowship with other denominations and thus are equivalent to the various Orthodox jurisdictions or the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches. Yes, there are too many denominations, but Martin Luther and subsequent Lutherans opposed the Radical Reformation which gave rise to a great many of these, and fought against the schismatic tendency more broadly.

And really, I think all of this could have been avoided had Rome not excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox starting in 1054. We did not initiate that schism. But the Church will get nowhere on the basis of “could have”, what matters is what has happened, and how we obtain reconciliation. The left wing movement in Roman Catholicism is a risk to the program of ecumenical reconciliation insofar as it threatens another schism in the Roman Catholic Church, which would dwarf all other schisms caused by the left, such as those among the Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists, in terms of size.

What you bring up is at the heart of the split between West and East......

In the East, it is believed that the revelation is already complete and unchanging. The Roman Church believes that God continues to make revelation to his Church.

So based on his personal beliefs, he is right, however, one's personal truth does not make it a universal truth for all.

That is why I bring up the multitude of new churches started since the Reformation. While all of them are faithful to Christ, there are issues that cannot be agreed upon so each of us feels like our Church has the fullness of Revelation and proper interpretation. However, can this multitude of churches in disagreement all have the fullness of truth?

Not all but in my experience, most Christians, even the most conservative of people still prefer the separation of church ad state. The consequence of that is that laws of one church cannot superceed the laws of another church in the courts so with a separation of the state's laws which are enforcible, no one is being forced to follow the teachings of any particular church.

 

[rturner76]

On Mt. Sinai, God gave three kinds of laws to Moses for the people of Israel. He gave the civil law to govern them as a nation. For example, the civil law established the punisment for crimes such as injury to another person or damage to another persons property (EX21:22).

God also gave Israel the ceremonial law. There were the laws which God told the people when, where, and how they were to worship God. The laws about priests, the sacrifices, the sabbath days, the tabernacle ----all these were the ceremonial laws. The ceremonial laws also served as types or pictures which pointed ahead to the promised Savior.

Thirdly, God gave Israel the moral law. God had written the moral law on man's heart already at creation because it is God's will for all people all the time (Ro. 1:20; Roms 2:14-15; Romans 1:32). God gave the moral law to the people of Israel in the form of the Ten commandments. In these Ten Commandments, God told the people of Israel how His holy will for ALL people applied in a special way to them as a chosen people.

God clearly says in the NT, since the OT civil and ceremonial laws were give only to Israel those laws on Sinai are longer in effect (Col. 2:16-17; Gal 3:23-25 and Gal 5:1). The distinction here is the OT civil and ceremonial laws were special laws made by God only for Israel, are time bound and finite; the Ten Commandments are form the God's moral law.....his holy will for ALL PEOPLE.

For this reason the basic content of the Ten Commandments forever morally binding is this: they are repeated in the NT though not always in the same words or in the same order in which God gave on Mt. Sinai (Mt 19:18 Romans 13:8-10 Gal 5:19). We use the standard hermeneutical rule here....the NT interprets the OT. Because the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the NT they are binding on all of God's creatures though time. The civil and ceremonial laws now has become obsolete.

This is just standard material needed to understand how to interpret the Bible correctly. It seems you don't understand some of the basics. I am done with this conversation.

I wanted to apologize for my flippant response to your "carefully considered reply." as on poster put it. It was disrespectful of your precious time and I didn't follow up with a robust counter.

The point I was trying to make in Deuteronomy was that, at that time the law of the land and religious laws were equally enforceable. As society moved into the second covenant, the old laws were no longer necessary. Now we are ruled by secular law and just because it's legal, it doesn't make it right. In my opinion, the way progressive church members are portrayed is not always accurate.

I believe one of the differences between the teo is that in my experience, the conservative way of dealing with sin is to remove the sinner from among the church so not to contaminate the faithful with temptation. In my opinion, the progressive way is to embrace the sinner and meet them where they are on their journey. Perhaps I take a misguided view but being a political progressive is not the same as condoning sin. The political progressive believes in the individual right to freedom of choice and that a crime by law has not been committed unless there is a victim. Conservatives seem to put forward laws to legislate morality. Morality comes from within through our relationship with God. One can't be forced by law into being a moral person as our minds are our own.

 

[The Liturgist]

In the East, it is believed that the revelation is already complete and unchanging. The Roman Church believes that God continues to make revelation to his Church.

That is a mischaracterization of the Eastern doctrine which does deny Progressive Revelation but also does not claim to know everything God will reveal to us Eschatologically. It is also the case that many traditional Catholics and most Eastern Catholics reject the idea of Progressive Revelation, which was also clearly rejected by the Early Church, which is why non-Apostolic writings were not included in the Canon of Scripture, even those that are very ancient, have always been extremely well-accepred, and are relevant even now, such as the epistles of St. Ignatius the Martyr, St. Polycarp of Smyrna and I Clement (the other Clementine epistles are regarded as spurious).

 

[rturner76]

That is a mischaracterization of the Eastern doctrine which does deny Progressive Revelation but also does not claim to know everything God will reveal to us Eschatologically. It is also the case that many traditional Catholics and most Eastern Catholics reject the idea of Progressive Revelation, which was also clearly rejected by the Early Church, which is why non-Apostolic writings were not included in the Canon of Scripture, even those that are very ancient, have always been extremely well-accepred, and are relevant even now, such as the epistles of St. Ignatius the Martyr, St. Polycarp of Smyrna and I Clement (the other Clementine epistles are regarded as spurious).

So please help me clarify......The EO Church does or does not believe in Progressive Revelation? Also, what about the shift in society with most countries no longer accepting religious courts when the sentence could be carried out by the Church? Is EO philosophy for church governance or secular governance? By that I mean do they support theocracy over secular government?

I'm not clear about my own church's stance on this. Many conservative Catholics do support a theocratic rather than secular government. In the research I have done about Jesus' view of government leans toward the church not be involved with the ruling government but we are advised to live by the law of the land AND our Christian law of love.

Sin being punishable by the secular government does not seem to be congruent with things Jesus said like Mark 12:15-17
15 But, knowing gtheir hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me ia denarius2 and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

A passage such as this would seem to indicate the separation of Church and state is the best way forward.

We must obey God before the government. God is our King. Many in an open society like ours are not adherent to God's rule. For those people, I believe the rule of law acts in a way that doesn't allow our country's non-believers to victimize other citizens. A secular government also guarantees our right to practice Christianity. Places where theocracy is responsible for the rule of law, do not allow religious freedom

I don't think that "Progressive" Christians approve of sin but they do approve of free will which is granted to us by God. So at the crux of it, I think progressives believe that morality is our law but for those who do not follow our moral code and we should be protected from those who victimize people.

There is also a different view between Prograssive and Conservative Christianity in the matter of dealing with sin in the Church. I see Conservatives as wanting to purge the church of sin and advise not admitting sinners to the sanctuary of the Church whereas the Progressive view would likely be that there is no better place for a sinner than Church so that they may not be shunned by the Lord but have their hearts turned to repentance.

These are example of how two different approaches are taken in our quest to make more disciples. I believe the method of this may vary but the intention is the same. There are some things that needed to change such as stoning people or children for disobedience but some things should never be changes like the Saxraments.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

@chevyontheriver

How do I quote an @person on a post? Nothing seems to work for me. I need to quote you more often. Procedure please.