Trying to understand theologically liberal Christians

[Paidiske]

I don't really want to debate it. I'm happy to try to explain my position to others, but when you start accusing me of being illogical or whatever, then I'm done.

My hermeneutic supports a vibrant and living faith. That's enough for me.

 

[hedrick]

They're all products of the Enlightenment and don't believe in miracles to begin with

Of course the Enlightenment included a variety of groups, some of which were anti-religious. But to me the Enlightenment means that we examine our own traditions with the same care as other peoples' traditions. When I look at the Bible, what I see is a set of documents by different authors, with different (sometimes conflicting, e.g. Paul and James) perspectives, all of whom had witnessed or experienced God and his acts. They don't need to be perfect to show us what God has been doing.

About miracles. It's not that they are impossible, but that in the 1st Cent people reported miracles from people like Jesus. Miracles aren't just present in Christian documents; they're all over the place in pre-modern cultures. Indeed even in modern cultures, people report miraculous healings that don't survive followup investigation. That is enough to make a reasonable person somewhat skeptical. I don't think God is a deist God who just sits back and watches. I think he works in history and in our lives. But I wouldn't bet too much on the accuracy of any one miracle story.

 

[PloverWing]

You still don't have an answer to what stories are history and what stories aren't and how you know which are which. We know Jesus tells stories because either he or the writer is pretty clear they are not real incidents but are stories told to provide us a truth. However the other stories told in the Bible are not told in that fashion. They are given to us as history. It is us who choose to not see them as such. Not because someone has told us they are allegories or fables to present a point. In fact Genesis is a great example. Folks that don't believe it as history cannot explain textually how they know what stories are historical and which ones aren't. They can't really describe how they know. They just believe it.

I acknowledge the epistemological problem: In some places it is difficult to discern which stories are intended as history and which stories are some other genre of literature. However, that doesn't make it true that "They are given to us as history." We do not know that they are being presented as history. What we do know is that they are given to us as stories that ancient Jews and Christians thought were very important, and that expressed their experiences of God. We're left with the difficult task of sorting out which passages are which type of literature. Assuming it's all history is one way to simplify the task, but we don't know that that assumption is actually true.

My copy of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe does not contain any statement that it is a work of fiction. But a modern reader picking it up knows what kind of literature it is, without being told. Similarly, a modern reader knows that a political cartoon is not a photograph, but is intended to convey ideas through certain kinds of caricatured drawings. Perhaps the ancients thought it obvious what kind of story or sermon they were writing down, and didn't label them, because they didn't think ahead to foreigners 2000-3000 years into the future having to interpret what they were writing. And now we're left making the best guesses we can.

 

[YeshuaFan]

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?

One can do that and still be saved , but would be not very consistent, as how would they be able to determine if the passages on Jesus and how to be saved were inspired than or not to us?

 

[YeshuaFan]

Of course the Enlightenment included a variety of groups, some of which were anti-religious. But to me the Enlightenment means that we examine our own traditions with the same care as other peoples' traditions. When I look at the Bible, what I see is a set of documents by different authors, with different (sometimes conflicting, e.g. Paul and James) perspectives, all of whom had witnessed or experienced God and his acts. They don't need to be perfect to show us what God has been doing.

About miracles. It's not that they are impossible, but that in the 1st Cent people reported miracles from people like Jesus. Miracles aren't just present in Christian documents; they're all over the place in pre-modern cultures. Indeed even in modern cultures, people report miraculous healings that don't survive followup investigation. That is enough to make a reasonable person somewhat skeptical. I don't think God is a deist God who just sits back and watches. I think he works in history and in our lives. But I wouldn't bet too much on the accuracy of any one miracle story.

IF one can accept that God became a Man in Jesus, then any and all miracles are self explainable!

 

[hedrick]

IF one can accept that God became a Man in Jesus, then any and all miracles are self explainable!

There's a difference between saying that miracles are possible and saying that one specific miracle actually happened.

 

[YeshuaFan]

There's a difference between saying that miracles are possible and saying that one specific miracle actually happened.

The resurrection of Jesus is really the only miracle that needs to be true though!

 

[hedrick]

The resurrection of Jesus is really the only miracle that needs to be true though!

I accept N T Wright's argument that given 1st Cent Jewish ideas, this was not the type of miracle that would likely have become attached to Jesus' life, unlike most of the miracles during his ministry.

I'm not actually saying that there were no others, just that it's hard to be sure.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I accept N T Wright's argument that given 1st Cent Jewish ideas, this was not the type of miracle that would likely have become attached to Jesus' life, unlike most of the miracles during his ministry.

I'm not actually saying that there were no others, just that it's hard to be sure.

So you do accept the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as true?

 

[hedrick]

So you do accept the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as true?

Sure.

 

[straykat]

Of course the Enlightenment included a variety of groups, some of which were anti-religious. But to me the Enlightenment means that we examine our own traditions with the same care as other peoples' traditions. When I look at the Bible, what I see is a set of documents by different authors, with different (sometimes conflicting, e.g. Paul and James) perspectives, all of whom had witnessed or experienced God and his acts. They don't need to be perfect to show us what God has been doing.

About miracles. It's not that they are impossible, but that in the 1st Cent people reported miracles from people like Jesus. Miracles aren't just present in Christian documents; they're all over the place in pre-modern cultures. Indeed even in modern cultures, people report miraculous healings that don't survive followup investigation. That is enough to make a reasonable person somewhat skeptical. I don't think God is a deist God who just sits back and watches. I think he works in history and in our lives. But I wouldn't bet too much on the accuracy of any one miracle story.

Sorry, for not replying sooner. I don't think Paul and James were conflicting at all. Paul never diminished the idea of morality/ethical requirements - the bulk of his letters are about this.. be it in his rebukes on the ways of the world or his exhortations to those in the church. When he talks about doing away with works, he's talking about works of the "law/Torah". Specific covenant signs. Works that separated Jews and Gentiles (circumcision, diet). In this sense, he and James are in agreement.

 

[rjs330]

I don't really want to debate it. I'm happy to try to explain my position to others, but when you start accusing me of being illogical or whatever, then I'm done.

My hermeneutic supports a vibrant and living faith. That's enough for me.

I'm referring to the thought process of accepting some impossibilities while rejecting others. A vibrant living faith believes what the word of God tells you. That's why it's called faith. You whole heartedly believe in the Virgin birth by faith b cause you know that's impossible. Yet that same faith is rejected when it comes to Jonah or Adam and Eve? Why? Yet we know that with God ALL things are possible. There is a principle there. Faith is at the heart of all this.

There Bible is full of impossibilities. But they are only impossible in the human mind. You are a woman of faith. Why doesn't that faith sustain what the word says?

 

[Paidiske]

I'm referring to the thought process of accepting some impossibilities while rejecting others. A vibrant living faith believes what the word of God tells you. That's why it's called faith. You whole heartedly believe in the Virgin birth by faith b cause you know that's impossible. Yet that same faith is rejected when it comes to Jonah or Adam and Eve? Why? Yet we know that with God ALL things are possible. There is a principle there. Faith is at the heart of all this.

There Bible is full of impossibilities. But they are only impossible in the human mind. You are a woman of faith. Why doesn't that faith sustain what the word says?

Well, first, I don't think of them as impossibilities (since God is involved), and the "impossibility" isn't the criterion by which I assess the historicity of a text. I think you're making a false premise about my thought process there.

This is more about an assessment of genre. It's not that I "reject faith" when it comes to Jonah, it's that my assessment of the genre of the work (based on the best scholarship to which I have access) is that it's satirical. It's wisdom literature making a very barbed point about the attitudes of the Israelites of the day. I accept that point by faith.

By the way, I don't know if you realise quite how insulting the way you wrote the above post is. It comes across as an accusation of lack of faith, and quite possibly lack of intelligence. It would be both helpful and kind if you could avoid such an accusatory tone.

 

[rjs330]

Well, first, I don't think of them as impossibilities (since God is involved), and the "impossibility" isn't the criterion by which I assess the historicity of a text. I think you're making a false premise about my thought process there.

This is more about an assessment of genre. It's not that I "reject faith" when it comes to Jonah, it's that my assessment of the genre of the work (based on the best scholarship to which I have access) is that it's satirical. It's wisdom literature making a very barbed point about the attitudes of the Israelites of the day. I accept that point by faith.

By the way, I don't know if you realise quite how insulting the way you wrote the above post is. It comes across as an accusation of lack of faith, and quite possibly lack of intelligence. It would be both helpful and kind if you could avoid such an accusatory tone.

I totally apologize for my tone. That's a real problem with internet posts. They often come across worse than intended. I merely am asking you to use the faith you obviously have and apply to all the scriptures in trusting what they say.

I have a degree in Biblical literature. So I have a great understanding of of genre. Liberal theology often uses the genre argument, but they apply their own ideas into the text. So often the real reason behind these applications are not the literature itself, but the "impossibilities" contained in the texts. Jonah is not satire. It is history. I've read some of these so called scholarly ideas and they love to pontificate about the fish and Jonah. Yet they have no real evidence that it didn't happen exactly as stated. In fact much of the OT is looked at through the lense of "couldnt really have happened" or there is no "evidence that it happened" therefore it didnt happen thus the literature must be allegorical or satire or whatever. Yet the actual text doesn't really indicate that.

 

[Paidiske]

I have a degree in Biblical literature. So I have a great understanding of of genre. Liberal theology often uses the genre argument, but they apply their own ideas into the text. So often the real reason behind these applications are not the literature itself, but the "impossibilities" contained in the texts. Jonah is not satire. It is history. I've read some of these so called scholarly ideas and they love to pontificate about the fish and Jonah. Yet they have no real evidence that it didn't happen exactly as stated. In fact much of the OT is looked at through the lense of "couldnt really have happened" or there is no "evidence that it happened" therefore it didnt happen thus the literature must be allegorical or satire or whatever. Yet the actual text doesn't really indicate that.

Again, you're missing the point. My assessment of Jonah is not based on the big fish, or any supposed impossibility. It's based on the style and content of the book as a whole; the way Jonah is presented and the way his message and the response to it is recorded, and so forth.

And of course the text doesn't start with: "Disclaimer: this book is satire." It didn't need to when it was written, just as Voltaire didn't need to for us to read him that way. But millennia from now could someone pick up a copy of Candide and mistake it for history?

 

[rjs330]

Again, you're missing the point. My assessment of Jonah is not based on the big fish, or any supposed impossibility. It's based on the style and content of the book as a whole; the way Jonah is presented and the way his message and the response to it is recorded, and so forth.

And of course the text doesn't start with: "Disclaimer: this book is satire." It didn't need to when it was written, just as Voltaire didn't need to for us to read him that way. But millennia from now could someone pick up a copy of Candide and mistake it for history?

It's not about Jonah specifically. It about liberal theology dismissing the history of the scriptures. Whether it's Jonah, Moses, Abraham or Job. It's all true and there is nothing in scripture or the way things are written to indicate otherwise.

A millennia from now could someone read Moby Dick and think it's history? What could happen is irrelevant. All the people in the OT are presented the second way. Jonah's message is no different than any of the other messages sent by God to people who are facing his judgement. There is nothing inconsistent with Jonah and the rest of the OT. But I digress. It's not about Jonah specifically. It's about liberal theology that is completely inconsistent with what they accept as history and what they dismiss.

Especially when Jesus Himself affirmed Jonah as history. He called him prophet and referred to the whole story. There is NOTHING in Jesus words to indicate anything but a real event.
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet:for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. - Matthew 12:39-41 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 12:39-41 - American Standard Version

 

[FireDragon76]

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!

In the American context, that makes you a liberal in certain peoples eyes. Even though the Wesleyan and Anglican traditions have never taken strong stands in favor of biblical inerrantism, which was more of an American Reformed distinctive that came out of Princeton in the late 19th century.

The reality is, for much of the rest of the world, there is no sharp distinction between conservative or liberal theology. What many American Christians think of as "conservative Christian" is so insular and sectarian, it is popularly called "un culte" in a country like France, in distinction to actual historic French Protestant churches, which typically are broad churches that have a variety of theological perspectives.

 

[rjs330]

In the American context, that makes you a liberal in certain peoples eyes. Even though the Wesleyan and Anglican traditions have never taken strong stands in favor of biblical inerrantism, which was more of an American Reformed distinctive that came out of Princeton in the late 19th century.

The reality is, for much of the rest of the world, there is no sharp distinction between conservative or liberal theology. What many American Christians think of as "conservative Christian" is so insular and sectarian, it is popularly called "un culte" in a country like France, in distinction to actual historic French Protestant churches, which typically are broad churches that have a variety of theological perspectives.

Actually liberal theology is more of a modern concept.

Scripture was trusted and believed by Christ and the apostles.

The idea that scripture is not accurate or true, that Jesus didn't say what he said, that the apostles were not inspired etc. Is far more a modern belief as is the idea that pretty much all the OT stuff is just stories or allegorical is more a modern liberal theology.

Most of its designed to make scripture less believable and impactful and less trustworthy. There are some Christians who buy it too, but the vast majority of actual Christian scholars do not subscribe to liberal theology.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually liberal theology is more of a modern concept.

The concept of biblical inerrancy and verbal inspiration in any real form only dates to 16th century Protestant Scholastic theology.

 

[FireDragon76]

Again, you're missing the point. My assessment of Jonah is not based on the big fish, or any supposed impossibility. It's based on the style and content of the book as a whole; the way Jonah is presented and the way his message and the response to it is recorded, and so forth.

And of course the text doesn't start with: "Disclaimer: this book is satire." It didn't need to when it was written, just as Voltaire didn't need to for us to read him that way. But millennia from now could someone pick up a copy of Candide and mistake it for history?

The Chinese did this with their historical novels. They even worship a figure in one of their historical novels in their popular religion: Sun Wukong, the Monkey King, appearing as a figure in the classical Chinese novel, The Journey to the West. A Buddhist-influenced morality tale of high adventure. Many Chinese people weren't aware the story was actually fictional, and a cult started around him centuries ago.