Trying to understand theologically liberal Christians

[HosannaHM]

Hey all,

I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives in the political realm , but more so in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture topic.

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

 

[tampasteve]

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

No, not if one desires to be a full follower. However, it is certainly possible to interpret the passages differently, to also separate some of the cultural requirements and historical prohibitions from the current time and place we live in. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with that point of view, but it is valid to explore.

But on CF we cannot call someone that is liberal theologically or politically "non-Christian" so far as they abide by the rules and agree with the CF Statement of Faith.

 

[Rubiks]

Regardless of your view of inspiration, recent scholarship has highlighted a very human aspect to the composition of the Bible.

The Bible never claims to be innerant, and I find that doctrine to be idolatrous.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

From up top the mountain that seems to be a very dangerous position to put oneself in?

We believe the Word of God from the front page to the backpage in the Bible.

Solid preaching to be of most importance.

Blessed are the preachers of the Word.

M-Bob

 

[Albion]

Hey all,

I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives in the political realm , but more so in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture topic.

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

You would think that it would be impossible, I know.

However, if the intention is to find something in scripture--anything at all to hang an unorthodox belief on--and do so in order to make it seem to support one's already-held political or cultural views...

…it is not difficult to do.

 

[HosannaHM]

Regardless of your view of inspiration, recent scholarship has highlighted a very human aspect to the composition of the Bible.

The Bible never claims to be innerant, and I find that doctrine to be idolatrous.

The Bible never says anything about the Trinity either.
What scholars have claimed this and why should I believe them? How is that idolatry? I honestly just want to understand

 

[HosannaHM]

You would think that it would be impossible, I know.

However, if the intention is to find something in scripture--anything at all to hang an unorthodox belief on--and do so in order to make it seem to support one's already-held political or cultural views...

…it is not difficult to do.

I agree, that does make sense lol

 

[JCFantasy23]

Hey all,

I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives in the political realm , but more so in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture topic.

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

I think the problem in explaining this lies in how you are coming across with the phrasing of the question: "deny certain portions of the inspired Word?"

People interpret differently, but most who have differing views aren't set out to deny and leave out scripture, they're just interpreting it differently.

That in itself isn't the interpretation of Liberal either, since conservatives and fundamentalists can misinterpret.

 

[HosannaHM]

I think the problem in explaining this lies in how you are coming across with the phrasing of the question: "deny certain portions of the inspired Word?"

People interpret differently, but most who have differing views aren't set out to deny and leave out scripture, they're just interpreting it differently.

That in itself isn't the interpretation of Liberal either, since conservatives and fundamentalists can misinterpret.

If my phrasing or question is unclear, I apologize and ask for grace in trying to come up with the right words to make sense of what I’m trying to say.
Basically, I’m not talking about different interpretations such as Soteriology, Calvinism and Arminianism, Believer’s baptism vs Padobaptism, etc. I get that. Both sides are usually using scripture to form their argument. I’m mostly trying to understand how someone can throw out portions of the Bible that are widely accepted. And yes, logically it seems the reason for this is to make their point.
Maybe this will be clearer: if you aren’t going to stick with the authority of the Bible, why believe any of it at all?

 

[Dave G.]

This sounds sort of Inerrant to me:
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. Later it says the word walked among us.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I’m mostly trying to understand how someone can throw out portions of the Bible that are widely accepted.

Basically cultural, upbringing, human error, pride and sin.

But again I think this is a reason for different interpretations of those verses; those Christians aren't generally intending to actually toss our portions of scripture. There's definitely a lot of scriptures people debate about.

 

[Shempster]

Hey all,

I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives in the political realm , but more so in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture topic.

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

I have been accused of being a liberal-minded christian by some people I know. In my case it is not that I deny anything but an interpretation that someone else has. If you are going to take every word in the bible literally then you are simply going to run into all sorts of problems. That's the way I see it.
I can say that because I DID take it all literally for over 20 years, but the problems that arose were much bigger than the system's explanations could deal with.

 

[childeye 2]

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

Like what are they denying?

 

[hedrick]

Actually there's two separate problems: what does the Bible mean, and how accurate is it? There are certainly debates about accuracy, e.g. in creation and details throughout. The question there is what the Bible is. I think it's clear when you look at it objectively, that it's the writings of humans who have experienced God.

But really, the big debates aren't over inerrancy, but over what the Bible actually means. Liberals are committed to approaches that try to avoid reading our own assumptions into the Bible. That's what critical scholarship is. Conservatives, by definition, don't accept those approaches.

 

[Johnny Slick]

Hey all,

I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives in the political realm , but more so in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture topic.

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

Why do you think that someone can't be a Christian if they don't believe certain parts of the Bible such as the creation myth in the Book of Genesis? There isn't any evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old, nor is there any evidence of some wicked antedeluvian civilization that cross-bred with a strange race of demons called the Nephilim. I can still call Jesus savior even if I think the creation narrative in Genesis is mythology.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, I don't consider myself to be a theological liberal, although I find some others do, so take that as a starting disclaimer.

I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture; that it tells us everything we need to know for a saving relationship with God. I don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, nor has that traditionally been a position held in my church.

To me, inspiration means "God is speaking to us through this text." It doesn't mean "This text can be read accurately as a science or history textbook," or even "This text needs to be taken as literal instructions for us today." We need to approach Scriptural texts critically and with an awareness of genre etc. For example, just because I don't believe Jonah or Job were literal historical figures, but rather that those books are more akin to wisdom literature, doesn't mean the books with those names have nothing to teach us!

 

[Radagast]

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

I'm pretty sure that the CF rules forbid a great many people from answering that question, so you might like to rephrase it.

 

[CleanSoul]

Hey all,

I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives in the political realm , but more so in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture topic.

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

This is what happens when non-Catholics all have their own interpretation of scripture.

As Catholics, we have the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 85:

"The task of giving an accurate interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." [47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

"86 Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

The bishops today are successors of the Apostles. The Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter. The Catholic Church is the only Church that can be traced in a successive, unbroken line all the way back to the time of Jesus.

Because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church has been consistent in upholding doctrine from the very beginning.

Compare it to the last 501 years of Protestantism. How many denominations of that are there now? Thousands. All because of self-interpretation. It's all you have.

"My pastor says this about the Bible...", or, "Mr. Televangelist says this verse means this...."

 

[Concord1968]

Then, of course, said Magisterium changes its mind in the mid-1960s and starts contradicting what it taught prior. Not to mention a Pope who, on a regular basis, contradicts previous Popes.

 

[CleanSoul]

Magisterium changes its mind in the mid-1960s and starts contradicting what it taught prior.

You mean the Second Vatican Council in the '60s? The ways we celebrate mass can change.

Popes can disagree and do things differently, they cannot contradict each other when teaching a matter of faith or morals using papal infallibility. Doctrine cannot change, discipline can. For example, we could go back to allowing priests to marry, although it is extremely unlikely.