Update on Dealing with Progressive Christianity

[T-Bone]

Christianity Today, the Huffington Post, Patheos have all written about this, now The Christian Post has done an article...by far the most accurate...as they actually asked us some question.  Read and enjoy...continue to pray.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/8-arizona-pastors-create-progressive-christianity-fact-or-fiction-sermon-series-local-progressive-pastor-says-theyre-trying-to-alienate-people-who-dont-interpret-the-bible-literally-139449/

 

[Smellin Coffee]

It seems to me that both sides are at fault in creating divisiveness amongst those who claim to follow Christ. In this case, the Progressives have taken the position of "being the martyr" and appears to be making public spectacle of it. The Conservatives have been publicly advertising their disagreements with Progressive theology in what seems (at least to the Progressives) like an attack. I don't know any of the names that were mentioned in the article but it seems like neither side appears to be willing to sit down with the other, discuss differences and allow the other to follow Christ in the manner each side sees fit within their personal hermeneutic.

In my view, both sides are to blame as it takes two to fight. Neither side seems to be extending grace.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It seems to me that both sides are at fault in creating divisiveness amongst those who claim to follow Christ. In this case, the Progressives have taken the position of "being the martyr" and appears to be making public spectacle of it. The Conservatives have been publicly advertising their disagreements with Progressive theology in what seems (at least to the Progressives) like an attack. I don't know any of the names that were mentioned in the article but it seems like neither side appears to be willing to sit down with the other, discuss differences and allow the other to follow Christ in the manner each side sees fit within their personal hermeneutic.

In my view, both sides are to blame as it takes two to fight. Neither side seems to be extending grace.

"Extending Grace" isn't always the answer.

Question for you. If Jesus didn't always extend Grace during his earthly ministry, then why are you demanding it here?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

It seems to me that both sides are at fault in creating divisiveness amongst those who claim to follow Christ. In this case, the Progressives have taken the position of "being the martyr" and appears to be making public spectacle of it. The Conservatives have been publicly advertising their disagreements with Progressive theology in what seems (at least to the Progressives) like an attack. I don't know any of the names that were mentioned in the article but it seems like neither side appears to be willing to sit down with the other, discuss differences and allow the other to follow Christ in the manner each side sees fit within their personal hermeneutic.

In my view, both sides are to blame as it takes two to fight. Neither side seems to be extending grace.

"Extending Grace" isn't always the answer.

Question for you. If Jesus didn't always extend Grace during his earthly ministry, then why are you demanding it here?

Because it is my choice to do so. I will confront open hypocrisy at times myself.

If I err, I hope I do so on the side of grace. I'm far from successful at it though...

 

[subllibrm]

The only real "news" here is that the eight different churches are agreeing with each other.

 

[FSSL]

A person who denies the Virgin birth and denies that Jesus is God is not a person you can sit down with and agree to disagree. He is not a believer. It is the height of hypocrisy and provides an opportunity for a clear, unequivocal challenge.

That UMC church is poisoning the minds of that community and is having little success since it has led to a coalition of 8 churches to proclaim the truth... and now getting national attention.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It seems to me that both sides are at fault in creating divisiveness amongst those who claim to follow Christ. In this case, the Progressives have taken the position of "being the martyr" and appears to be making public spectacle of it. The Conservatives have been publicly advertising their disagreements with Progressive theology in what seems (at least to the Progressives) like an attack. I don't know any of the names that were mentioned in the article but it seems like neither side appears to be willing to sit down with the other, discuss differences and allow the other to follow Christ in the manner each side sees fit within their personal hermeneutic.

In my view, both sides are to blame as it takes two to fight. Neither side seems to be extending grace.

"Extending Grace" isn't always the answer.

Question for you. If Jesus didn't always extend Grace during his earthly ministry, then why are you demanding it here?

Because it is my choice to do so. I will confront open hypocrisy at times myself.

If I err, I hope I do so on the side of grace. I'm far from successful at it though...

If you "err" on the side of Grace at the wrong time.... then you're in trouble. I try to get it right as much as possible. I don't try to "err" period.

Either way, one group is right and one is wrong. Darkness has no fellowship with Light.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Either way, one group is right and one is wrong. Darkness has no fellowship with Light.

Or perhaps BOTH are wrong.

In Jesus is life and that life is the light of men. Both Progressives and Conservatives can be followers of Jesus and what He taught so they can have fellowship with one another.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

A person who denies the Virgin birth and denies that Jesus is God is not a person you can sit down with and agree to disagree. He is not a believer. It is the height of hypocrisy and provides an opportunity for a clear, unequivocal challenge.

That UMC church is poisoning the minds of that community and is having little success since it has led to a coalition of 8 churches to proclaim the truth... and now getting national attention.

I don't deny the virgin birth but Jesus never taught that as its non-acceptance of Him or as not being "a believer" in Him.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Either way, one group is right and one is wrong. Darkness has no fellowship with Light.

Or perhaps BOTH are wrong.

In Jesus is life and that life is the light of men. Both Progressives and Conservatives can be followers of Jesus and what He taught so they can have fellowship with one another.

They can't agree on what Jesus taught. One is right. One is wrong. Somethings you can over look. Some things you can't.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Either way, one group is right and one is wrong. Darkness has no fellowship with Light.

Or perhaps BOTH are wrong.

In Jesus is life and that life is the light of men. Both Progressives and Conservatives can be followers of Jesus and what He taught so they can have fellowship with one another.

They can't agree on what Jesus taught. One is right. One is wrong. Somethings you can over look. Some things you can't.

Again, both could be wrong. 

But even if one is right and the other wrong, it goes deeper than simply what is written in the Bible about what Jesus said: it gets broken down by personal hermeneutic. One person breaks down Jesus' teaching differently than another because of a relative approach.

In essence then, it isn't the necessity of the teachings of Jesus being argued here but rather the difference in hermeneutic approach. The Jesuit would approach it different than the Mormon who would approach it different than the Muslim who would approach it different than the JW who would approach it different than the Anglican, etc.

To defend Evangelicalism belief is not defending God nor is it even defending "true doctrine" but rather is defending the Evangelical approach to biblical interpretation. The point the Progressives are making is that because their approach (hermeneutic) is different doesn't mean it is any less right or wrong than the Conservatives.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

In essence then, it isn't the necessity of the teachings of Jesus being argued here but rather the difference in hermeneutic approach. The Jesuit would approach it different than the Mormon who would approach it different than the Muslim who would approach it different than the JW who would approach it different than the Anglican, etc.

I'm not going to argue for or against whether these new age people are saved, since Jesus saves, not our doctrines.  However, viewing Jesus as a spiritual teacher who got that way because he had some divine experiences is definitely on the wrong track.  Elevating questions beyond truth, and thereby rejecting absolute truth is so far off track that you can't see the train with a telescope. 

 

[FSSL]

I don't deny the virgin birth but Jesus never taught that as its non-acceptance of Him or as not being "a believer" in Him.

Denying the Virgin birth certainly indicates unbelief. Also, he denies Christ is God. Your point is moot.

I am curious of your defense of this false teacher and why you try to equivocate this situation.

 

[T-Bone]

It seems to me that both sides are at fault in creating divisiveness amongst those who claim to follow Christ. In this case, the Progressives have taken the position of "being the martyr" and appears to be making public spectacle of it. The Conservatives have been publicly advertising their disagreements with Progressive theology in what seems (at least to the Progressives) like an attack. I don't know any of the names that were mentioned in the article but it seems like neither side appears to be willing to sit down with the other, discuss differences and allow the other to follow Christ in the manner each side sees fit within their personal hermeneutic.

In my view, both sides are to blame as it takes two to fight. Neither side seems to be extending grace.

Appreciate your input...I am in the article.  And I will not sit down with & discuss with a group of people who deny God, Jesus, the Scriptures, the Resurrection.  As I said in the article they are apostate and have been given over to a reprobate mind.  That being said, what is true is that the 8 churches are dealing with the growth of the progressive movement in the church...not with one pastor or church.

 

[T-Bone]

The only real "news" here is that the eight different churches are agreeing with each other.

And that is a miracle in it self...together around the Lord and His Word.

 

[T-Bone]

Either way, one group is right and one is wrong. Darkness has no fellowship with Light.

Or perhaps BOTH are wrong.

In Jesus is life and that life is the light of men. Both Progressives and Conservatives can be followers of Jesus and what He taught so they can have fellowship with one another.

They can't agree on what Jesus taught. One is right. One is wrong. Somethings you can over look. Some things you can't.

Again, both could be wrong. 

But even if one is right and the other wrong, it goes deeper than simply what is written in the Bible about what Jesus said: it gets broken down by personal hermeneutic. One person breaks down Jesus' teaching differently than another because of a relative approach.

In essence then, it isn't the necessity of the teachings of Jesus being argued here but rather the difference in hermeneutic approach. The Jesuit would approach it different than the Mormon who would approach it different than the Muslim who would approach it different than the JW who would approach it different than the Anglican, etc.

To defend Evangelicalism belief is not defending God nor is it even defending "true doctrine" but rather is defending the Evangelical approach to biblical interpretation. The point the Progressives are making is that because their approach (hermeneutic) is different doesn't mean it is any less right or wrong than the Conservatives.

Sorry brother you are incorrect in this instance...this is about doctrine, this is about biblical truth, plain and simple.  We are not dealing with disputable things.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Either way, one group is right and one is wrong. Darkness has no fellowship with Light.

Or perhaps BOTH are wrong.

In Jesus is life and that life is the light of men. Both Progressives and Conservatives can be followers of Jesus and what He taught so they can have fellowship with one another.

They can't agree on what Jesus taught. One is right. One is wrong. Somethings you can over look. Some things you can't.

Again, both could be wrong. 

But even if one is right and the other wrong, it goes deeper than simply what is written in the Bible about what Jesus said: it gets broken down by personal hermeneutic. One person breaks down Jesus' teaching differently than another because of a relative approach.

In essence then, it isn't the necessity of the teachings of Jesus being argued here but rather the difference in hermeneutic approach. The Jesuit would approach it different than the Mormon who would approach it different than the Muslim who would approach it different than the JW who would approach it different than the Anglican, etc.

To defend Evangelicalism belief is not defending God nor is it even defending "true doctrine" but rather is defending the Evangelical approach to biblical interpretation. The point the Progressives are making is that because their approach (hermeneutic) is different doesn't mean it is any less right or wrong than the Conservatives.

Sorry brother you are incorrect in this instance...this is about doctrine, this is about biblical truth, plain and simple.  We are not dealing with disputable things.

And this is where we disagree: what you say is "about doctrine" and "biblical truth" is really about your approach (hermeneutic) to "doctrine" and "biblical truth". They disagree with your interpretation of some Scriptures so you say they are wrong. Perhaps your view is right, perhaps not. There is not one provable, 100%-accurate hermeneutic approach to interpreting the Scriptures. The best we can do is trust the Spirit will guide us into all truth as Jesus promised. The thing is, both the Progressives AND Conservatives claim that as their personal approach. I say, follow the teachings of Jesus and let Him separate tares and wheat in His time. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I don't deny the virgin birth but Jesus never taught that as its non-acceptance of Him or as not being "a believer" in Him.

Denying the Virgin birth certainly indicates unbelief. Also, he denies Christ is God. Your point is moot.

I am curious of your defense of this false teacher and why you try to equivocate this situation.

Take the gospel Jesus taught and teach ONLY that gospel to others. No mention of the virgin birth. No mention of blood atonement. No mention of the necessity of the resurrection.

Jesus mentions the gospel (good news) in His very first recorded message:

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth...

 

[rsc2a]

A "Christianity" with no resurrection is no Christianity at all.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't deny the virgin birth but Jesus never taught that as its non-acceptance of Him or as not being "a believer" in Him.

Denying the Virgin birth certainly indicates unbelief. Also, he denies Christ is God. Your point is moot.

I am curious of your defense of this false teacher and why you try to equivocate this situation.

Take the gospel Jesus taught and teach ONLY that gospel to others. No mention of the virgin birth. No mention of blood atonement. No mention of the necessity of the resurrection.

Virgin Birth

Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Blood Atonement

Mat 26:28  for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The Resurrection

Luk 20:37  But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.
Luk 20:38  Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him."
Luk 20:39  Then some of the scribes answered, "Teacher, you have spoken well."
Luk 20:40  For they no longer dared to ask him any question.

Luk_9:22  saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."

I don't know why you insist that everyone focus on what Jesus said and when you really don't know what Jesus said. While there are controversies found in Christianity. The Virgin Birth, The Blood Atonement and the Resurrection of Christ/of the dead isn't one of them.