Liberal Christians - What Do You Mean?

hedrick said:

Most liberal theologians of which I'm aware believe in

Click to expand...

hedrick said:

CF rules are generally intended to permit evangelical and Catholic theology, although not necessarily mainline theology.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the helpful info.

God is only analogically like a parent to us, our relationship is not equivocal to a child.

Authoritarianism in human relationships is prone to abuse, as history has shown, so I don't see how it is good to project that image onto God and use it as a controlling paradigm for understanding the Scriptures. That potentially confuses Law and Gospel because people who have been abused by authority will not hear that as a message of good news.

I really cannot put it more simply than the Gospel is about freedom in the end. It is not about obedience as humans define it, but freedom to be the creatures God created us to be, which is defined by love of ones neighbor, not obedience to abstract principles.

One thing I appreciate about Lutheranism is our concern that religion is not used to manipulate peoples consciences. Our whole theology is pastoral. Time and again history has shown the dark side of religion as a tool of oppression and I am grateful to our doctor Martin for giving us the tools in our confessions to free us from the power machinations of human beings over our consciences.

.

FireDragon76 said:

God is only analogically like a parent to us, our relationship is not equivocal to a child.

Authoritarianism in human relationships is prone to abuse, as history has shown, so I don't see how it is good to project that image onto God and use it as a controlling paradigm for understanding the Scriptures. That potentially confuses Law and Gospel because people who have been abused by authority will not hear that as a message of good news.

I really cannot put it more simply than the Gospel is about freedom in the end. It is not about obedience as humans define it, but freedom to be the creatures God created us to be, which is defined by love of ones neighbor, not obedience to abstract principles.

One thing I appreciate about Lutheranism is our concern that religion is not used to manipulate peoples consciences. Our whole theology is pastoral. Time and again history has shown the dark side of religion as a tool of oppression and I am grateful to our doctor Martin for giving us the tools in our confessions to free us from the power machinations of human beings over our consciences.

Click to expand...

Yes we have freedom to chose to obey or not obey. But we do not have the freedom to choose our consequences. God is the authority. It's his way or the highway.

God loves ys and knows the the final outcome of our rejection if his son and his way. He doesn't want any to perish but all to come to repentance.

He wants us to be controlled by the Holy Spirit. He wants us to have the mind of Christ. He wants us to discipline ourselves and in necessary cases discipline others in the church.

Yes Hid wants us to be free to be the people he wants us to be and the people he wants us to be is described in the scriptures. Who does God want you to be? The Bible tells us.

hedrick said:

* We must understand the Bible as supporting traditional theology (an odd principle for a Protestant, in my view).

Click to expand...

It's really not an odd principle as that traditional view is the Hebrew historical view as we find out from Josephus' Antiquities.

I believe the liberal view to deny the actual history because a loving God would not slay entire cultures is a very good example of eisegesis. Why can't they consider our God is Holy and Just. Meaning He will and has executed judgments throughout history on the temporal level.

For the dozens of times I've read the OT prophets most of their prophecies are against the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Those books show a Just, Loving, Holy God with longsuffering and with His Grace and Mercy sent the prophets.

rjs330 said:

Yet he did alienate people.
“The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding party for his son.He sent his servants to call those invited to the wedding party. But they didn’t want to come.Again he sent other servants and said to them, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Look, the meal is all prepared. I’ve butchered the oxen and the fattened cattle. Now everything’s ready. Come to the wedding party!”’But they paid no attention and went away—some to their fields, others to their businesses.The rest of them grabbed his servants, abused them, and killed them.“The king was angry. He sent his soldiers to destroy those murderers and set their city on fire.Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding party is prepared, but those who were invited weren’t worthy.Therefore, go to the roads on the edge of town and invite everyone you find to the wedding party.’“Then those servants went to the roads and gathered everyone they found, both evil and good. The wedding party was full of guests.Now when the king came in and saw the guests, he spotted a man who wasn’t wearing wedding clothes.He said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ But he was speechless.Then the king said to his servants, ‘Tie his hands and feet and throw him out into the farthest darkness. People there will be weeping and grinding their teeth.’“Many people are invited, but few people are chosen.” - Matthew 22:2-14 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 22:2-14 - Common English Bible

He also said not everyone who says Lord Lord to him gets in . There is a requirement to obedience .

Control is not the opposite of love. Authority is not the opposite of love. Not when it come from God for he is pure. His heaet is pure, he is love. If you try and control someone it is most likely self centered and selfish . If God seeks control it is for our benefit and not his. We can be like that when we say to our child don't put your hand on a hot stove. God acts like that ALL the time . He motives are pure and unselfish and perfectly healthy for us. He seeks to be our Lord and have authority over us for our benefit. He does not want us to suffer. Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments .

“Who then are the faithful and wise servants whom their master puts in charge of giving food at the right time to those who live in his house?Happy are those servants whom the master finds fulfilling their responsibilities when he comes.I assure you that he will put them in charge of all his possessions.But suppose those bad servants should say to themselves, My master won’t come until later.And suppose they began to beat their fellow servants and to eat and drink with the drunks?The master of those servants will come on a day when they are not expecting him, at a time they couldn’t predict.He will cut them in pieces and put them in a place with the hypocrites. People there will be weeping and grinding their teeth. - Matthew 24:45-51 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 24:45-51 - Common English Bible

This sounds fairly controlling to me.

Click to expand...

Indeed Jesus Christ is Lord. That right there makes it clear. Yet He also called the disciples 'friend.'

redleghunter said:

I believe the liberal view to deny the actual history because a loving God would not slay entire cultures is a very good example of eisegesis. Why can't they consider our God is Holy and Just. Meaning He will and has executed judgments throughout history on the temporal level.

Click to expand...

That's not the way we make historical judgements. We do that based on archaeology and history. If genocide happened, it happened. I wouldn't deny it because I don't like it.

I deny that genocide was God's will based on Jesus' teaching. It's barely possible that God could have allowed it because Israel wasn't yet firm enough in its faith to coexist with pagans. But I doubt it. At any rate, that's independent of whether the genocides actually happened.

The claim that it wasn't really genocide because only hardcore millitants were killed was actually from a conservative trying to minimize the moral problem.

hedrick said:

That's not the way we make historical judgements. We do that based on archaeology and history. If genocide happened, it happened. I wouldn't deny it because I don't like it.

I deny that genocide was God's will based on Jesus' teaching. It's barely possible that God could have allowed it because Israel wasn't yet firm enough in its faith to coexist with pagans. But I doubt it. At any rate, that's independent of whether the genocides actually happened.

The claim that it wasn't really genocide because only hardcore millitants were killed was actually from a conservative trying to minimize the moral problem.

Click to expand...

Nor would I call what God called judgment, genocide.

You are forgetting a most important historical document. The Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

hedrick said:

That's not the way we make historical judgements. We do that based on archaeology and history. If genocide happened, it happened. I wouldn't deny it because I don't like it.

I deny that genocide was God's will based on Jesus' teaching. It's barely possible that God could have allowed it because Israel wasn't yet firm enough in its faith to coexist with pagans. But I doubt it. At any rate, that's independent of whether the genocides actually happened.

The claim that it wasn't really genocide because only hardcore millitants were killed was actually from a conservative trying to minimize the moral problem.

Click to expand...

That's really the problem. Morality has nothing to do with it. I do agree that some may try and claim that only hardcore militants were killed in order to minimize the damage. But quite frankly I don't think we need to try and minimize anything. God does not deal in "morality" as humans view it. He deals in law and obedience. He deals with things from HIS point of view, not ours. It may seem immoral to some to kill a goat or sheep or bull as a sacrifice for sin because my morality says that's cruelty to animals. God commanded that people be killed for a reason. He didn't always explain it all to us. He just expected obedience and you know what, I'm okay with that. Many people are not, but that will NOT be an excuse in the end. No one will be able to stand before God and say "I didn't believe because I didn't like your morality." You know why? Because they will all bow before the majesty of God and acknowledge him as God and Jesus Christ as Lord. There will not be any excuses then.

rjs330 said:

Yes we have freedom to chose to obey or not obey. But we do not have the freedom to choose our consequences. God is the authority. It's his way or the highway.

Click to expand...

If that were true, no one would be saved, since every human being fails to live up to God's standards.

God loves ys and knows the the final outcome of our rejection if his son and his way. He doesn't want any to perish but all to come to repentance.

He wants us to be controlled by the Holy Spirit. He wants us to have the mind of Christ. He wants us to discipline ourselves and in necessary cases discipline others in the church.
.

Click to expand...

History has shown that Christians are bad judges of character and have done some horrific things in the name of righteousness. Doubling down on church discipline won't change that.

rjs330 said:

But quite frankly I don't think we need to try and minimize anything. God does not deal in "morality" as humans view it. He deals in law and obedience. He deals with things from HIS point of view, not ours.

Click to expand...

Some of this stems from liberal theologians embracing Process Theology.

Theopedia
Process theology

Process Theology departs from traditional Christian beliefs mainly because of its view of the nature of God and His relationship to the universe. Many critics relate this deviance to the low view of Scripture held by Process Theologians who by and large deny the divine inspiration of the Bible. Others critique Process Theology as panentheism which says that God is to the world as a soul is to a body. It is believed that God is not the universe as in pantheism, but that God is apart from the universe, yet also in it. As the world is in the process of changing, so is God, and he is in the process of becoming all that he can be.

Process theology and God
In Process theology, God has two poles:

1. A primordial pole - this pole is eternal, unchanging, and not of this world.
2. And a consequent pole - this pole is temporal, changing, and of this world.

The primordial pole is what God could be, or what his potential is. Thus, the consequent pole is what God is at this very moment. This means that God is not perfect, and in order for him to become perfect he needs our help. Because God is limited within his consequent pole, he is notomnipotent (he does not know everything). Thus he cannot control evil and cannot guarantee that it will ever be conquered. Once again, this leaves God relying on humans to help him with his creation.


https://www.theopedia.com/process-theology

Ironically, I think it has more to do with the rationalistic tendencies within the Reformed tradition itself (and not so much process theism). Hedrick's viewpoint is just the liberal side of the continuum.

redleghunter said:

Some of this stems from liberal theologians embracing Process Theology.

Theopedia
Process theology

Process Theology departs from traditional Christian beliefs mainly because of its view of the nature of God and His relationship to the universe. Many critics relate this deviance to the low view of Scripture held by Process Theologians who by and large deny the divine inspiration of the Bible. Others critique Process Theology as panentheism which says that God is to the world as a soul is to a body. It is believed that God is not the universe as in pantheism, but that God is apart from the universe, yet also in it. As the world is in the process of changing, so is God, and he is in the process of becoming all that he can be.

Process theology and God
In Process theology, God has two poles:

1. A primordial pole - this pole is eternal, unchanging, and not of this world.
2. And a consequent pole - this pole is temporal, changing, and of this world.

The primordial pole is what God could be, or what his potential is. Thus, the consequent pole is what God is at this very moment. This means that God is not perfect, and in order for him to become perfect he needs our help. Because God is limited within his consequent pole, he is notomnipotent (he does not know everything). Thus he cannot control evil and cannot guarantee that it will ever be conquered. Once again, this leaves God relying on humans to help him with his creation.


https://www.theopedia.com/process-theology

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with Process Theology.

redleghunter said:

Some of this stems from liberal theologians embracing Process Theology.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily in the form you describe it. That's really just one guy. But it's true that liberal theologians in general understand Scripture as saying that God is involved in time, and has something analogous to emotional reactions to us. That is a rejection of some of the more extreme concepts of God as impassible. But not necessarily Whitehead.

There's another concern. Classical theology, particularly in the East, would say that we can't understand God's nature. Rather than opposing concepts like impassibility with something else, I would be inclined to say that there's been a tendency of speculative theology to claim to know things about God that we can't know. The Biblical descriptions are largely anthropomorphic. But no one thinks he actually has a strong right arm.

I checked this with the most detailed theology associated with my own denomination, which is Douglas Ottati's systematic theology (of which only one volume has been published). He tries to formulate classical concepts such as creator in a way that makes it clear both the the world does really depend upon him, but that we don't claim a type of understanding that we can't have, nor take anthropomorphic language about him too literally.

The problem with Whitehead is that it's largely a philosophical approach. That's not a direction most mainline theologians would take, because we tend to look more at concrete such as Scripture and Christian experience and less at speculation. Indeed one characteristic of the Enlightenment is extreme skepticism of metaphysics. That would include Whitehead as much as some of the traditional speculation on God's nature.

Here's a typical statement from another of our theologians, B. A. Gerrish: "Our primary dogmatic task requires us to give an account of the language current in the, or a, Christian community, but the hermeneutical rule we borrowed from Thomas, that religious language is “a mean between pure equivocation and simple univocation,” must be followed here— as everywhere else. If we ask not “Is the Creator a person?” but “Is there something about experience of the Creator God that invites personal language?” our answer lies in what we have determined concerning the world as creation." (Christian Faith: Dogmatics in Outline)

In answer to FireDragon: I definitely wouldn't approach God in a rationalistic way. However history is a different matter. We make historical judgements using historical method, while we make theological judgements as people of faith. I don't mean to imply a complete separation between the two. Obviously we do everything as people of faith. But if we don't try to use scientific and scholarly methods to the extent that they apply, we're more likely to end up misleading ourselves.

In my opinion the Enlightenment has helped us understand the nature of Scripture better. Certain parts of the Protestant community ended up understanding Scripture in a way that contradicts its actual form. They did this because they wanted an inerrant authority with which to oppose the Catholic concept of an inerrant Church. In fact this could have been seen to be wrong based purely on Scripture itself. But it took the critical methods of the Enlightenment to make people realize what had been going on.

hedrick said:

I've been doing further checking. The most recent critical commentary I could find on the Pastorals is by Marshall. While allusions in the early writers are by their nature ambiguous, he thinks it's very likely that Polycarp knew the Pastoral Epistles, but that Ignatius is less likely. However that doesn't solve the question of authorship, since Polycarp doesn't comment on authorship, and we also don't know how good his information is. It does, however make some late dates implausible. As of when Marshall wrote, he said there's a substantial minority that accept the Pastorals as Pauline (though often with a collaborator), but the majority of critical scholars don't accept it.

I should note that there's one author, Kenneth Berding, who argues that the location of the quotations in Polycarp is with others from Paul, so there's an implication that he thinks Paul wrote it. This seems like a reasonable claim, although there are possible allusions to non-Pauline material in the clusters of Pauline material. [I read a paper by Berding, and the relevant section of a commentary on Polycarp's letter edited by Paul Hartog.]

Communications during that time period wasn't great. Just because someone lived within a few decades of when the letters were written doesn't know they knew the circumstances. This is in contrast with Mark and other books, where there is early tradition about the authorship. There's evidence that Polycarp included quotations he had heard. I.e. he didn't necessarily have 1 Timothy in front of him, and his degree of knowledge might not have been high.

Click to expand...

If you would like to lay out your argument against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals I'd be interested in viewing and responding to them. You state your objections but really did not flesh them out.

Thanks.

kiwimac said:

Nothing wrong with Process Theology.

Click to expand...

In what way does the CF statement of beliefs support Process theology?

There is more to Christianity than the CF statement of beliefs.

You are right I think. I appreciate CF being bought by catholics, I think it is awesome. Whether that has happened of not, how can I say? Truth is good. Truth is God. Hopefully doesn't offend any, me saying that.

Would Jesus be accepted under Nicene creed forced upon Him? I don't think so. To each it's own.

The Holy Bible is good. Regardless of human.