Trying to understand theologically liberal Christians

[rjs330]

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.

Actually it's the opposite. Conservatives trust what the Bible has to say. The liberal theologists try to sound enlightened by tossing out what scripture teaches so it fits their own world view.

 

[rjs330]

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!

Perfect example of liberal theology. Do you believe Abraham was a real person?

 

[rjs330]

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.

The problem of that is they base what they do on scripture. I'm not slamming Catholicism. I'm just pointing out that they can change what they believe about scripture and what it teaches.

 

[rjs330]

That's absurd. In no other area of human activity would someone make that kind of claim.

You can make that claim if you are inspired by God to write scripture. God doesn't contradict himself. He is the same yesterday today and forever. He is not a man that he should lie. Therefore we as the READERS are the problem. Not the word of God.

 

[rjs330]

This is a bit abstract; would you like to supply an actual instruction of Jesus as a test case, and we can discuss its application?



The living, Triune God is the final authority in my life.

How do you know about the living triune God?

 

[Paidiske]

Perfect example of liberal theology. Do you believe Abraham was a real person?

Sure.

How do you know about the living triune God?

Scripture, tradition, reason, and my own personal relationship with God, which has transformed and continues to transform my life in fundamental and profound ways.

 

[rjs330]

Sure.



Scripture, tradition, reason, and my own personal relationship with God, which has transformed and continues to transform my life in fundamental and profound ways.

Do you believe the stories of Abraham in the Bible are accurate and true?

Your personal relationship with God does not tell you he is triune. Unless he spoke to you directly about it. You got it from scripture. Traditions most likely we're handed down and they agree with scripture. All is measured by the scriptures.

 

[Paidiske]

Do you believe the stories of Abraham in the Bible are accurate and true?

I believe it's possible that they're not entirely accurate. That doesn't stop me reading them as inspired Scripture, though.

Your personal relationship with God does not tell you he is triune. Unless he spoke to you directly about it. You got it from scripture. Traditions most likely we're handed down and they agree with scripture. All is measured by the scriptures.

Well, actually, God did speak to me about it. I certainly didn't get the Trinity directly from Scripture.

 

[straykat]

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 can only guess that even if they lost the faith, they want to keep their "communities".. or even their jobs (in the case of some professors or scholars). They don't know what else to do with themselves, but by sticking around, they try to destroy everything from within.

 

[hedrick]

I can only guess that even if they lost the faith, they want to keep their "communities".. or even their jobs (in the case of some professors or scholars). They don't know what else to do with themselves, but by sticking around, they try to destroy everything from within.

Why are you unwilling to consider the possibility that they are actual Christians, whose faith is in Jesus, not the inerrancy of the Bible?

 

[straykat]

Why are you unwilling to consider the possibility that they are actual Christians, whose faith is in Jesus, not the inerrancy of the Bible?

I never even used that word. Why are you quoting me? And it depends on what you mean by "inerrancy". Questioning some of it isn't going raise alarms with me (I'll just offer them an alternative proposal), but often, the "questioning" is a holistic point of view where a skeptic is questioning a lot. In which case, I'll answer your question. If they ascribed too much to the "JEPD" authorship theory of the Torah, then what's the point of saying one believes in Jesus? Jesus himself said Moses "wrote of him". Why believe in Jesus when they effectively say he's either wrong or a liar?

Or if one questions the virgin birth, then may as well serve Gandhi. Or some other admirable moral leader. But Jesus isn't just a moral teacher. He's the Son of God. Or he's not. There's no grey area here.

Those are the big things at least.

 

[rjs330]

I believe it's possible that they're not entirely accurate. That doesn't stop me reading them as inspired Scripture, though.



Well, actually, God did speak to me about it. I certainly didn't get the Trinity directly from Scripture.

What parts are not accurate? What parts are and how do you know the difference?

God told you directly that he was triune or Trinity? That's actually quite interesting. Tell us about it.

 

[Paidiske]

What parts are not accurate? What parts are and how do you know the difference?

I don't know. And that's part of the point. But - as I said - none of that stops me reading it as inspired Scripture.

God told you directly that he was triune or Trinity? That's actually quite interesting. Tell us about it.

Not exactly in those words. So, I was raised not going to church, but reading the Bible for myself; and I had formed what would formally be called quite an Arian understanding of Christ etc. And then when I did start going to church as a young adult, I was confronted with ideas of a Trinity etc. which I hadn't encountered before and which didn't make a lot of sense to me, either in terms of my own ability to reason it out, or in terms of what I understood from Scripture. So I took it to God in prayer and felt very clearly, in particular, that the response I got was that Christ was indeed God incarnate (I don't recall that I was, at that point, particularly exercised with the question of the Spirit) and that I could trust and relate to Christ as God.

So in that sense, yes, God directly helped me to grow in understanding God as a Trinity.

 

[Rubiks]

I never even used that word. Why are you quoting me? And it depends on what you mean by "inerrancy". Questioning some of it isn't going raise alarms with me (I'll just offer them an alternative proposal), but often, the "questioning" is a holistic point of view where a skeptic is questioning a lot. In which case, I'll answer your question. If they ascribed too much to the "JEPD" authorship theory of the Torah, then what's the point of saying one believes in Jesus? Jesus himself said Moses "wrote of him". Why believe in Jesus when they effectively say he's either wrong or a liar?

Or if one questions the virgin birth, then may as well serve Gandhi. Or some other admirable moral leader. But Jesus isn't just a moral teacher. He's the Son of God. Or he's not. There's no grey area here.

Those are the big things at least.

the JEPD theory isn't concerned with the history of Moses. It just says that the Penteteuch as we have it today is composed of (usually 4) different sources woven together. When and who wrote those sources varies by scholar and isn't part of the "vanilla" version of the theory.

Just because Jesus said Moses wrote of him, doesn't mean the entirety of the Penteteuch was written by him. Did Moses record his own death?

 

[straykat]

the JEPD theory isn't concerned with the history of Moses.

But it is. The man behind the full formulation (Julius Wellhausen.. but he wasn't the first to propose some sources) proposed a complete theory full of dates. His earliest source (J) only starts in the 900s BC.. The traditional date of Moses is 1440s-1500 BC (this date is attested by the Bible itself, in the book of Kings, where it states Solomon began building the temple 480 years after the Exodus, some 4 years after his reign. This would be around the early 900s). There is a colossal gap of time here. It makes no room for Moses. The whole theory revolves around a gradual development of Israel, where J and E reflected a primitive, "spontaneous" form of religion, and then got taken over by more rigid elements (the Priestly/Levite source). It has nothing to do with God guiding anyone or giving revelation, but looks at it all as nothing more than mundane anthropological development.

I don't deny that there are edits and sources. But these kind of big theories say more about the scholar than they do the Bible. They're all products of the Enlightenment and don't believe in miracles to begin with (some may have believed in God, but not an active one), and they especially despised ritual.. so why wouldn't they make up some "Priestly" source who corrupted the Bible? It's right up their alley and confirms their own biases.

 

[rjs330]

I don't know. And that's part of the point. But - as I said - none of that stops me reading it as inspired Scripture.



Not exactly in those words. So, I was raised not going to church, but reading the Bible for myself; and I had formed what would formally be called quite an Arian understanding of Christ etc. And then when I did start going to church as a young adult, I was confronted with ideas of a Trinity etc. which I hadn't encountered before and which didn't make a lot of sense to me, either in terms of my own ability to reason it out, or in terms of what I understood from Scripture. So I took it to God in prayer and felt very clearly, in particular, that the response I got was that Christ was indeed God incarnate (I don't recall that I was, at that point, particularly exercised with the question of the Spirit) and that I could trust and relate to Christ as God.

So in that sense, yes, God directly helped me to grow in understanding God as a Trinity.

That's a really tough place to be where you can't trust the accuracy of scriptures. I know you take them as inspired, but if they are not true it invalidates what they say about God. It's no more than mythology. If the story of job didn't happen then the lessons taught there about God could he completely inaccurate. The lessons from Jonah as well as anything we learn from Abraham. It's more than mythology as the stories of Zuess. Especially when you take into consideration what Christ and the apostles taught. They did not teach that the stories on the OT were allegories. They taught they we're real. I'm glad you have faith enough to be able to believe regardless. But the issue is you bring to your teaching that they might not be true and therefore support the unbelievers who scoff at the Bible. For if it's not true then the life and teachings of Christ may also be not true. The resurection may not be true. The calling of Paul may not be true. It calls into question everything.

And as far as the teaching of the Trinity is concerned, you had teachers that helped you understand what the scriptures we're saying. That's exactly why God ordained the church to have teachers. They didn't teach you something that wasn't in the scriptures. They helped understand what the Bible says.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't find it a tough place. I find it a very life-giving place; I can allow God to speak through the Scriptures without being obliged to live with intolerable cognitive dissonance.

And I don't see it as "no more than mythology," although it has a mythic aspect. If it's God-breathed it is far more than the stories we tell ourselves to cement our sense of identity and orient ourselves to our reality. And in the end, the evidence for this is in lives transformed by God speaking to our hearts and minds through Scripture.

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that the key points about Christ are not historical; the incarnation happened, the crucifixion happened, the resurrection happened. These are non-negotiable points of Christian faith.

My point about the Trinity, though, was that I didn't get it directly from Scripture, without needing God's help to understand and accept it.

 

[rjs330]

I don't find it a tough place. I find it a very life-giving place; I can allow God to speak through the Scriptures without being obliged to live with intolerable cognitive dissonance.

And I don't see it as "no more than mythology," although it has a mythic aspect. If it's God-breathed it is far more than the stories we tell ourselves to cement our sense of identity and orient ourselves to our reality. And in the end, the evidence for this is in lives transformed by God speaking to our hearts and minds through Scripture.

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that the key points about Christ are not historical; the incarnation happened, the crucifixion happened, the resurrection happened. These are non-negotiable points of Christian faith.

My point about the Trinity, though, was that I didn't get it directly from Scripture, without needing God's help to understand and accept it.

But how do you know they are God breathed? The resurrection is as foolish to believe as is any story told. Same goes for the Virgin birth etc. Absolute foolishness . Unless of course you believe it's true as told in the Bible . There is as much intolerable cognitive dissonance in believe that as anything else. Yet you trust that . I'm trying to understand the basis for disbelieving some stories told whole buying in hook pine a sinker to others. It is completely illogical to say I trust this impossibility but I don't trust this one. Your faith is based upon a human interpretation of scripture and not on the scripture himself . You make yourself the final arbitrator of truth. Truth is nothing more than what you as an individual decides it is. You decided that the Virgin birth is true, and then decide the story of creation isn't. Yet according to science neither is possible. The same for the resurrection. You decide that scripture is inspired while others say it isn't. You have no consistency as you cannot say how you decide what stories to believe as true and what are not. For example you believe in Abraham, so you believe in Adam?

 

[Paidiske]

But how do you know they are God breathed? The resurrection is as foolish to believe as is any story told. Same goes for the Virgin birth etc. Absolute foolishness . Unless of course you believe it's true as told in the Bible . There is as much intolerable cognitive dissonance in believe that as anything else. Yet you trust that . I'm trying to understand the basis for disbelieving some stories told whole buying in hook pine a sinker to others. It is completely illogical to say I trust this impossibility but I don't trust this one. Your faith is based upon a human interpretation of scripture and not on the scripture himself . You make yourself the final arbitrator of truth. Truth is nothing mo

eopletransform themselves all the time without God.

Ultimately, I know the Scriptures are God-breathed because a) I experience the Spirit speaking to me through them, and b) I see the evidence in what these texts work in us. I don't believe humans can genuinely sanctify themselves by good will and hard effort.

It's not a matter of disbelieving some stories while buying in to others. It's more... recognising that not all stories are history, even if they all contain theological truth. Take the parables of Jesus, for example; we get that they're parables, he's not telling stories about a real pearl merchant, a real unjust judge, and so forth; but the truth he illustrates through those stories is true. Well, I can look at the story of Jonah or Job as being like those parables; told by inspired authors to teach us, even though they're not history.

Does that make sense?

And all of us have to interpret what we read. Deciding that Jonah is historical is an interpretive choice.

 

[rjs330]

Ultimately, I know the Scriptures are God-breathed because a) I experience the Spirit speaking to me through them, and b) I see the evidence in what these texts work in us. I don't believe humans can genuinely sanctify themselves by good will and hard effort.

It's not a matter of disbelieving some stories while buying in to others. It's more... recognising that not all stories are history, even if they all contain theological truth. Take the parables of Jesus, for example; we get that they're parables, he's not telling stories about a real pearl merchant, a real unjust judge, and so forth; but the truth he illustrates through those stories is true. Well, I can look at the story of Jonah or Job as being like those parables; told by inspired authors to teach us, even though they're not history.

Does that make sense?

And all of us have to interpret what we read. Deciding that Jonah is historical is an interpretive choice.

I agree that we can't sanctify or make ourselves righteous. We know that because scripture tells us that. But people can change from bad behavior to good without Christ. It doesn't make them righteous by any means. God does work in us for sure. But it's the scripture that claims they are inspired. We believe it. But have no real evidence they are because they are self proclaimed. We trust by faith.

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.

The story of Jonah is another. Some point to the fish and say that's why it's not believable. Yet they have no problem believing in the Virgin birth as a historical fact. They will trust the resurrection as historical fact but refuse to acknowledge Adam as historical. It's completely illogical and puts them as the arbitor of truth. And you know as well as I do how bad an idea that is.