A summation of "Progressive" Christianity beliefs.

[Ain't Zwinglian]

@Liturgist Solved. I just place an @ symbol in front of the name.

 

[jas3]

A secular government also guarantees our right to practice Christianity.

No, it doesn't. The French Revolution saw a secular government killing priests, ransacking churches, and erecting idols to Reason. For most of the 20th century, Christianity was heavily persecuted by the secular governments in the Soviet Union, China, and everywhere else infected with Communism.

Places where theocracy is responsible for the rule of law, do not allow religious freedom

You mentioned you weren't clear on the historic Catholic doctrine on religious liberty, and it's relevant here. Historical Catholic doctrine was opposed to religious freedom; Pope Pius IX condemned in his Syllabus of Errors the following propositions:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

...

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

...

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

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.

You say this as if there haven't been a multitude of schisms in mainline Protestant denominations in the past few decades caused by self-proclaimed "progressive Christians" trying to get (and succeeding in getting) their denomination to approve of various sins, including homosexuality, fornication, and adultery, among others. The UMC, for example, just did this a few weeks ago. And as for your own church, there is no shortage of progressive priests holding ceremonies to bless same-sex couples following the scandalous publication of Fiducia Supplicans.

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.

I hope you don't actually believe this absurd strawman.

 

[The Liturgist]

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

To mention someone, you type the @ character followed by the first few letters of their username and it should prompt you with a list of usernames, unless you are in BBCode editing mode.

By the way, you just successfully mentioned a user with the name “person” and the ID 101654.

Otherwise, you select the text I wrote for example, and then hit reply, and it will quote only the selected text.

 

[The Liturgist]

@Liturgist Solved. I just place an @ symbol in front of the name.

Yes that works but you have to get the username right, for example, my username is “The Liturgist” which I realize in retrospect is pretentious and it would have been better to go with “Liturgist” or “A Liturgist” but I will have to live with that I suppose.

 

[hedrick]

I’m not going to say much here, because CF rules don’t permit discussion of most of it, but please don’t confuse objections to penal satisfaction with rejection of the atonement.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes that works but you have to get the username right, for example, my username is “The Liturgist” which I realize in retrospect is pretentious and it would have been better to go with “Liturgist” or “A Liturgist” but I will have to live with that I suppose.

Speaking of usernames, mine, bbbbbbb, was kept simple and theologically neutral so that people will need to engage with me in order to understand my beliefs better.

 

[The Liturgist]

Speaking of usernames, mine, bbbbbbb, was kept simple and theologically neutral so that people will need to engage with me in order to understand my beliefs better.

It is also one of the most difficult for me to remember; if it were not for the auto-complete feature I would be out of luck. That said, I do like it, but imagine if we had voicechat - your name would be an absolute tongue twister!

 

[The Liturgist]

I’m not going to say much here, because CF rules don’t permit discussion of most of it, but please don’t confuse objections to penal satisfaction with rejection of the atonement.

Indeed, the Orthodox reject penal satisfaction theology but are also the most conservative and traditional church, one where epic schisms, which are still ongoing nearly four hundred years later, have resulted from minor changes to the liturgy which even I can’t explain in fewer than five paragraphs. Some might disagree, but I regard our antipathy for change as one of our great strengths, as it makes the Orthodox Church timeless, like God.

Indeed we reject penal satisfaction because it was first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury a mere thousand years ago and is thus unmistakably a Scholastic innovation, and unacceptably modern. If we accept that the next thing you know people will be opening cafes in our cathedrals (which is now a thing in some C of E cathedrals).

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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 moved to the bible belt 13 years ago. I brought with me my views and study methodology when it comes to my beliefs and the bible. I joined a southern gospel band that travelled around a lot of the small churches around here (In all seriousness, there must be thousands of them). My beliefs have been labelled "progressive", but the only one on your list that remotely comes close to my beliefs is "biblical authority and inspiration". And only close because of my description of the bible: The bible is not the word of God, but rather, it contains the words of God. And I question the authority of those that decided for us what books our modern bible contains, and what books were left out, and their reasoning.

That being said, I completely agree with Paul's words to a young Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...

But for me it begs the question, what written word (documents), specifically is meant by the word "scripture", and though it is describes its usefulness and that the writers are inspired by God, it does not call scripture the "word of God". And what about the written words of men today who are inspired by God. Should they be stapled to the end of our bibles, Revelation 22:18-19 notwithstanding (which is only talking about the words of "this prophesy", not the bible or even the NT.

But this may explain why I picked up 1 Enoch and the Apocrypha. I figured no study of the NT would be complete without reading the books the writers of the epistles quoted.

The only other thing is that I tend to break with the "traditions of men" regarding beliefs about hell here in the bible belt. This area seems to be the birthplace of the "turn or burn" message.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

This is a good summary of theological progressivism, although I would say "all Gospel no Law" is too generous to this error that is plaguing every church today. It is not teaching the Gospel to say that all religions are paths to salvation (i.e. that the Incarnation wasn't necessary) or to cast doubt on the Trinity as it was revealed to man (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - progressives often take issue with the masculine pronouns and terms used for all three Persons).

Fundamentally, the error of theological progressivism is the idea that there is no need for the Church today to have continuity with the Church founded by our Lord. All Christians could simply have been wrong about the sinfulness of certain relationships or about Christianity being the only path to salvation. I do not see how such a self-indulgent way of thinking can lead to spiritual fruitfulness; it seems much more likely that it is the "wide gate" and "broad path" that Christ warned about.

Since the word, "trinity" is not in the bible, I try to avoid using it at all, partly because the word carries too much baggage for most people that have any church background, whether they are Christian or not. I prefer to keep it simple. Jesus is the son of God and the son of man. And the holy spirit is one with God as well. And even then, the argument can be made that they are "one" in the same way my wife and I are one - sort of. I say "sort of" because we are trying to describe something we really don't fully understand regarding God and the unseen realm. It is beyond our current understanding. In a way we are like a man from 2000 years ago being projected into modern times, playing a video game for 20 minutes, and then going back and trying to describe to his contemporaries what it is and how it works. It will be, uh, lacking.

 

[jas3]

Since the word, "trinity" is not in the bible, I try to avoid using it at all, partly because the word carries too much baggage for most people that have any church background, whether they are Christian or not. I prefer to keep it simple. Jesus is the son of God and the son of man. And the holy spirit is one with God as well.

I think everyone would prefer to keep it simple, but the mere affirmations that "Jesus is the son of God and the son of man" and "the Holy Spirit is one with God" don't get you to the Christian God. Those affirmations would be acceptable to Arians, for example, who called Jesus the "son of God" because he was, according to their heresy, the first and highest of the created beings and was uniquely close to God, but was not God himself. There was a similar heresy regarding the Holy Spirit called pneumatomachianism or Macedonianism which denied His divinity, but which would probably be able to affirm your statements.

And even then, the argument can be made that they are "one" in the same way my wife and I are one - sort of.

This risks falling into tritheism though. It is true that there is a very limited, qualified way in which two people can be said to be "consubstantial" or "of one essence," but outside of that, this analogy again doesn't get you to Christianity from a starting point of saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God but are not identical.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I think everyone would prefer to keep it simple, but the mere affirmations that "Jesus is the son of God and the son of man" and "the Holy Spirit is one with God" don't get you to the Christian God. Those affirmations would be acceptable to Arians, for example, who called Jesus the "son of God" because he was, according to their heresy, the first and highest of the created beings and was uniquely close to God, but was not God himself. There was a similar heresy regarding the Holy Spirit called pneumatomachianism or Macedonianism which denied His divinity, but which would probably be able to affirm your statements.


This risks falling into tritheism though. It is true that there is a very limited, qualified way in which two people can be said to be "consubstantial" or "of one essence," but outside of that, this analogy again doesn't get you to Christianity from a starting point of saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God but are not identical.

I usually clarify "son of god and son of man" also means "fully god and fully man". And regarding the other comment. It's why I said, "sort of" and then clarified. Also, the point I was trying to bring up with my analogy of an ancient man playing video games for a few minutes and trying to explain it to his contemporaries later. Actually, I should have said, "watches others play video games". It leaves more room for incorrect and incomplete understanding of what he say.

Kinda like "wheels within wheels".

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is also one of the most difficult for me to remember; if it were not for the auto-complete feature I would be out of luck. That said, I do like it, but imagine if we had voicechat - your name would be an absolute tongue twister!

I decided that the pronunciation would be the fluttering of the lips producing a run of b's. As a curious aside, I discovered that the vast majority of Chinese people cannot roll their tongues. Other than personal interactions, which have been countless, I watched an excellent Chinese tenor perform an Italian opera. Although he was an excellent singer he failed utterly in rolling his r's.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Speaking of usernames, mine, bbbbbbb, was kept simple and theologically neutral so that people will need to engage with me in order to understand my beliefs better.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. I am just the opposite...I want members of CF to understand my presuppositions out front rather than hidden. I have nothing to hide.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. I am just the opposite...I want members of CF to understand my presuppositions out front rather than hidden. I have nothing to hide.

The risk that you run is being identified with one oppositional theology. I have discovered, to my pleasure, there is much more depth to you than merely opposing Zwinglianism. You actually oppose a much broader range of theologies and heresies. In my case, I don't have any major ax to grind with anyone. I try to be an equal-opportunity ax-grinder.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The risk that you run is being identified with one oppositional theology. I have discovered, to my pleasure, there is much more depth to you than merely opposing Zwinglianism. You actually oppose a much broader range of theologies and heresies. In my case, I don't have any major ax to grind with anyone. I try to be an equal-opportunity ax-grinder.

Starting to getting close to the belief in "non-presuppositionalism."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Starting to getting close to the belief in "non-presuppositionalism."

Indeed.

 

[jas3]

Also, the point I was trying to bring up with my analogy of an ancient man playing video games for a few minutes and trying to explain it to his contemporaries later. Actually, I should have said, "watches others play video games". It leaves more room for incorrect and incomplete understanding of what he say.

Your analogy is more like individual prophecy than the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the early Church. The whole point of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople was to define dogmatically the full divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the assurance that they would not be causing the Church to fall into error. Think of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15: the judgment of the council is given with the words, "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us." That council had absolute certainty that its decision was correct, which the ancient man in your analogy couldn't have.

 

[PloverWing]

Your analogy is more like individual prophecy than the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the early Church. The whole point of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople was to define dogmatically the full divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the assurance that they would not be causing the Church to fall into error. Think of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15: the judgment of the council is given with the words, "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us." That council had absolute certainty that its decision was correct, which the ancient man in your analogy couldn't have.

I would say, rather, that the councils had very high confidence that their decisions were correct. "Absolute certainty" is extremely rare.

 

[jas3]

I would say, rather, that the councils had very high confidence that their decisions were correct. "Absolute certainty" is extremely rare.

It is, but I don't know how you get any more absolute than saying that God agrees with your council's definition.