Why is there a dislike of Traditional Theology?

David Cabrera said:

It is a fact that most liberal Protestant churches are more traditional than conservative Protestant ones.

Click to expand...

I've been inside Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican (liberal and conservative), Presbyterian (liberal and conservative), Lutheran (liberal and conservative), Baptist (liberal and conservative), and a bunch of other churches, and I assure you that you are completely incorrect.

Conservative Protestant churches are traditional precisely because they conservatively adhere to traditional theology.

Here, by the way, is a random conservative Protestant church (Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, PA). Perhaps you can explain why it's not "traditional":

David Cabrera said:

It is a fact that most liberal Protestant churches are more traditional than conservative Protestant ones.

Click to expand...

This statement confuses me. How are we defining "traditional" here? And "conservative"?

Because like Radagast, I'd have thought that in general, as one became less conservative, one would also be willing to sit more lightly to tradition.

I’d consider a traditional church as being liturgical, sacramental (Presbyterian being an exception) and creedal where conservative and liberal is more to do with scriptural interpretation.

And they’re more likely to use avatars of men with beards wearing robes. Just sayin’.

Daniel9v9 said:

I think modern individualism has a lot to do with the indifference and opposition to orthodox doctrines. Instead of looking at what the Church has taught for 2000 years, many in our day have a habit of flipping up their Bible and go: "Hmmmm. What does this verse mean to me?" *Ignores the context*

Click to expand...

Yep, a lot of folks today what their cake and to eat it to. They don't see salvation as a transformation but a transaction. They see religion as a set of rules and regulations.

Tigger45 said:

I ‘d consider a traditional church as being liturgical, sacramental (Presbyterian being an exception) and creedal

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "Presbyterian being an exception" means.

Tigger45 said:

where conservative and liberal is more to do with scriptural interpretation.

Click to expand...

Even if you take "traditional" as meaning something like "having a set liturgy and a theology that sees Baptism and the Eucharist as sacramental," then "conservative Protestant traditional" is going to include at least:

• conservative/Evangelical Anglicans
• conservative/Evangelical Presbyterians
• conservative/Evangelical Lutherans
• conservative/Evangelical continental Reformed groups

If you take "traditional" as meaning "creedal," the list will be longer.

David Cabrera said:

Not really, a lot of non-denominational who might be conservative dislike the idea of religion and traditions.

Click to expand...

And, based on a small minority of American Evangelical Protestants, you're making the general observation "It is a fact that most liberal Protestant churches are more traditional than conservative Protestant ones"?

Radagast said:

I'm not sure what "Presbyterian being an exception" means.

Click to expand...

I might be wrong but I thought Presbyterians didn’t teach that the sacraments were a means of grace making them ordinances or is that just the other reformed denominations?

And I wasn’t excluding denominations based on their being conservative or liberal.

David Cabrera said:

I see it a lot in these forums and in real life. What do you think is the motive?

Click to expand...

I really don’t know of a nice way to say this but I’m going to try to sugar coat it as much as possible. I think most people don’t know the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately the RCC has a rather bad reputation and since most people associate the EOC as also being Catholic they don’t know the difference and they don’t know that the EOC had no part in the actions of the RCC that were deemed “unchristian-like” conduct. Bottom line is most people don’t know their history and the RCC gave the Catholic Church a bad name. Sorry I just don’t know how to put any more sugar on it without not saying it at all.

dzheremi said:

Because everyone is an idiot.

That's my theory.

Click to expand...

Careful friend

“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ' You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:22‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Tigger45 said:

I might be wrong but I thought Presbyterians didn’t teach that the sacraments were a means of grace making them ordinances or is that just the other reformed denominations?

Click to expand...

In general, all Reformed denominations see Baptism and the Eucharist as sacramental, denying Transubstantiation, but accepting a spiritual version of the Real Presence. This is the Presbyterian view (Westminster Confession):

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

The phrase "means of Grace" is traditional in Presbyterian and other Reformed circles. It refers to both the preaching and the Sacraments (and, in the Westminster Larger Catechism, to prayer):

The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.

Tigger45 said:

And I wasn’t excluding denominations based on their being conservative or liberal.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you were. I was saying that, whichever way you define "traditional" and "conservative," there's a lot of people in the "conservative Protestant traditional" bucket.

David Cabrera said:

Can you counter argue my point?

Click to expand...

1. You never answered my question about Tenth Presbyterian Church. What's not "traditional" about them?

2. To draw a conclusion about conservative/Evangelical Protestants in general, based on a tiny proportion of American Evangelical Protestants, is just silly, it seems to me.

3. You don't seem to have a point, as far as I can see. You made a general statement that's obviously ridiculous, and you provided no evidence or argument for it.

I believe and particularly here at CF in the Traditional Theology forum’s Please Review: New Statement of Purpose both the Episcopal (liberal) and Continuing Anglican (conservative) also ELCA (liberal) and LCMS (conservative) churches are traditional yet still liberal or conservative examples.

One more reason I would say is because many people just don’t want to pick up their cross and be conformed to the image of Christ. They don’t want to be born again as a child of God becoming a new creation. Many prefer to go to church, listen to a pastor talk for 45 minutes and go about their normal daily life with no change at all. Just believe and your all set. That stuff about abiding in Christ and bearing fruit is just optional.

Tigger45 said:

I believe and particularly here at CF in the Traditional Theology forum’s Please Review: New Statement of Purpose both the Episcopal (liberal) and Continuing Anglican (conservative) also ELCA (liberal) and LCMS (conservative) churches are traditional yet still liberal or conservative examples.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

And I would think you can add Presbyterian and Reformed liberal and conservative denominations to that list as well, at least on my reading of the SoP.

Conversely, I can think of at least two large Mainline Protestant denominations in the US (American Baptist Churches USA and the United Church of Christ) that don't seem to me to fit the definition of "traditional" (unless you broaden it so much that it includes everybody).

Tigger45 said:

I’d consider a traditional church as being liturgical, sacramental (Presbyterian being an exception) and creedal where conservative and liberal is more to do with scriptural interpretation.

And they’re more likely to use avatars of men with beards wearing robes. Just sayin’.

Click to expand...

That kind of makes sense, but I don't think it lines up that neatly in my head. I'd say one can be conservative or liberal in one's liturgical practice, for example.

David Cabrera said:

Not really, a lot of non-denominational who might be conservative dislike the idea of religion and traditions.

Click to expand...

I suspect that both Radagast and I (whom, I note, both hail from outside the USA), are reading the words "conservative" and "liberal" with slightly different freight than the way some folks in America seem to use them. Because here I think you mean "conservative" as perhaps applies to social issues?

Paidiske said:

That kind of makes sense, but I don't think it lines up that neatly in my head. I'd say one can be conservative or liberal in one's liturgical practice, for example.

Click to expand...

And politically in at least two different ways, so it's tricky.

Paidiske said:

I suspect that both Radagast and I (whom, I note, both hail from outside the USA), are reading the words "conservative" and "liberal" with slightly different freight than the way some folks in America seem to use them.

Click to expand...

Posts #3 and #41 together seemed to equate "liberal" with "Mainline," and "conservative" with its opposite, which I presume is "Evangelical."

Now the Mainline/Evangelical divide in the US is fairly clear. Pew forum, as part of their extensive surveys, have actually classified every US denomination.

David Cabrera said:

I see it a lot in these forums and in real life. What do you think is the motive?

Click to expand...

you give people knowledge and they will inevitably challenge the old knowledge.

the printing press gave us cheap abundant knowledge (the reformation couldn't have happened without the printing press). the internet is the 21st-century printing press and it's cheaper and more abundant and so causes neo-reformations.

if there is another advance that increases the spread of knowledge then you will see this happening again, and again, and again.