Difference Between Bible-Believing and Modernist Theology

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I will give a simple example:

If I tell you "Jesus loves you." A Bible-believing Christian will interpret that simple statement one way, and a modernist theologian will interpret it another.

The Bible-believing Christian will accept the statement as referring to the historical Jesus as described in the New Testament Gospels, who came to earth and lived at a particular time in Israel's history for 33 years. Then His crucifixion and resurrection were real-time events in history. So it is a real, living Jesus who loves you.

The modernist theologian does not believe in an historical Jesus, so his "Jesus" is "the christ of faith". It is a fantasy "jesus" made up in the imagination of his own mind. He believes in a "jesus" whom he has decided has characteristics that he has made up for himself. His "jesus" is actually a part of every person, so when he hears, "Jesus loves you", it is not any real Jesus, but the "christ of faith" that resides in the mind and heart of every modernist religious person. The modernist does not believe in a real personal God who is apart from our universe. He believes that 'god' is in everything, therefore the person who loves him is the "christ of faith" that resides in the heart of every person he comes across.

That is the difference between the two. Both of them can use exactly the same religious words, but the meanings of these words are very different and we must not be hoodwinked just because someone uses "god" words. To test any person that does not seem "kosher", the best question to ask him or her, "Did Jesus come as a real person?" (The KJV in 1 John says to test the spirits by asking, "Did Jesus come in the flesh?" If they say no. You can then be sure that whatever spirit they are of, it is certainly not The Holy Spirit.

Try asking Bishop Spong if he believes that Jesus came as a real historical Person. I can predict what his answer will be.

 

[ubicaritas]

Almost all modernist theologians do in fact believe there was an historical Jesus.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Almost all modernist theologians do in fact believe there was an historical Jesus.

Really? I define modernist theologians as those who follow the teachings of Bishop Spong, and he definitely does not believe in a real personal God, nor does he believe in an historical Christ. Their theology is based on "faith in faith" existential humanist theology in which the Bible is full of mistakes, and it is only the religious ideals found in it that are of meaning and should be adopted.

 

[ubicaritas]

Really? I define modernist theologians as those who follow the teachings of Bishop Spong, and he definitely does not believe in a real personal God, nor does he believe in an historical Christ. Their theology is based on "faith in faith" existential humanist theology in which the Bible is full of mistakes, and it is only the religious ideals found in it that are of meaning and should be adopted.

Spong believes Jesus was a real person who actually lived. He even believes his disciples encountered his presence after his death, though he doesn't presume to understand that necessarily in the corporal sense that many other Christians do.

I don't agree with Spong's approach generally but I'd never discount him as a Christian. Some of his lectures on the Gospel of John are very informative, particularly talking about the parallels to Jewish religion. He has a real passion about Jesus, despite his iconclastic tendencies.

Theological modernism is far more broad than just Spong, though Spong is probably the most extreme and outspoken.

I love Spong's saying, "live fully, love wastefully, and be all that you can be". I think that is close to my own understanding of what Christian ethics ultimately means. As Bishop Spong says, being a Christian is not about being right but about being more loving.

 

[redleghunter]

I will give a simple example:

If I tell you "Jesus loves you." A Bible-believing Christian will interpret that simple statement one way, and a modernist theologian will interpret it another.

The Bible-believing Christian will accept the statement as referring to the historical Jesus as described in the New Testament Gospels, who came to earth and lived at a particular time in Israel's history for 33 years. Then His crucifixion and resurrection were real-time events in history. So it is a real, living Jesus who loves you.

The modernist theologian does not believe in an historical Jesus, so his "Jesus" is "the christ of faith". It is a fantasy "jesus" made up in the imagination of his own mind. He believes in a "jesus" whom he has decided has characteristics that he has made up for himself. His "jesus" is actually a part of every person, so when he hears, "Jesus loves you", it is not any real Jesus, but the "christ of faith" that resides in the mind and heart of every modernist religious person. The modernist does not believe in a real personal God who is apart from our universe. He believes that 'god' is in everything, therefore the person who loves him is the "christ of faith" that resides in the heart of every person he comes across.

That is the difference between the two. Both of them can use exactly the same religious words, but the meanings of these words are very different and we must not be hoodwinked just because someone uses "god" words. To test any person that does not seem "kosher", the best question to ask him or her, "Did Jesus come as a real person?" (The KJV in 1 John says to test the spirits by asking, "Did Jesus come in the flesh?" If they say no. You can then be sure that whatever spirit they are of, it is certainly not The Holy Spirit.

Try asking Bishop Spong if he believes that Jesus came as a real historical Person. I can predict what his answer will be.

I would consider Spong among the post modernist theologians.

However, I do believe you make a solid point. As described here as well:

https://albertmohler.com/2008/01/18/christianity-vs-jesusanity-the-postmodern-temptation

 

[redleghunter]

Spong believes Jesus was a real person who actually lived. He even believes his disciples encountered his presence after his death, though he doesn't presume to understand that necessarily in the corporal sense that many other Christians do.

I don't agree with Spong's approach generally but I'd never discount him as a Christian. Some of his lectures on the Gospel of John are very informative, particularly talking about the parallels to Jewish religion. He has a real passion about Jesus, despite his iconclastic tendencies.

Theological modernism is far more broad than just Spong, though Spong is probably the most extreme and outspoken.

I love Spong's saying, "live fully, love wastefully, and be all that you can be". I think that is close to my own understanding of what Christian ethics ultimately means. As Bishop Spong says, being a Christian is not about being right but about being more loving.

Spong denies the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Last I checked believing in a Bodily Resurrection of Christ was a key tenet of the Christian faith.