Update on Dealing with Progressive Christianity

[Smellin Coffee]

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

I for one believe in the resurrection of Jesus. No doubt in my mind.

I think you are right: "no resurrection...no Christianity". IMHO, Paul founded what we believe as Christianity, not Jesus. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

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

I for one believe in the resurrection of Jesus. No doubt in my mind.

I think you are right: "no resurrection...no Christianity". IMHO, Paul founded what we believe as Christianity, not Jesus. 

Yeah. Peter, James and John didn't have anything to do with it at all....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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. 

And where did Jesus teach in His gospel this historical fact is a mandatory belief for one to follow Jesus?

Blood Atonement

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

Yep. And the Lord's Supper was symbolic of the OT covenant: circumcision.

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.

Again, in the middle of the debate between the Sadducees and Pharisees. No His bodily resurrection in conjunction with the salvation of mankind.

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."

So where in this passage does He introduce His dying and resurrection being a mandated belief for salvation? Or is more being read into this than a simple prophecy?

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.

Contextually, Jesus never presented those elements in His recorded gospel message. Simple as that. They were incorporated later.

 

[rsc2a]

Yup. And the Last Supper wasn't about Passover. /sarcasm

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Yup. And the Last Supper wasn't about Passover. /sarcasm

Of course it was. To partake in the Passover, one must be circumcised:

Exodus 12:48
If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

So Jesus was allowing the New Covenant (via circumcision) to be experienced by those who previously could not. This was reiterated by Peter at the Jerusalem Council:

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.  Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?  But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

So Jesus' New Covenant at the Passover meal was not solely on behalf of the Jews, but the Gentiles as well.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin:
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. 

With all due deference to you and your naïve, simplistic but sincere (I'm sure) approach to 'christian orthodoxy', I say:
"What a crock"!   

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin:
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. 

With all due deference to you and your naïve, simplistic but sincere (I'm sure) approach to 'christian orthodoxy', I say:
"What a crock"!   

That's OK. The Pharisees in the Bible were considered to be "Orthodox" and we see their theology was askew.  (I'm NOT saying Evangelicals are being Pharisaical.)So for me, the endurance of orthodoxy should bear little weight.

 

[rsc2a]

For you, truth in general bears little weight.

 

[praise_yeshua]

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. 

And where did Jesus teach in His gospel this historical fact is a mandatory belief for one to follow Jesus?

Is it the truth? Does Matthew 1:18 declare truth?

Yeah.... Jesus's followers don't have to believe the truth. No. They can believe whatever they want and Jesus will be so proud of them anyway. Jesus is just that way!!!!

Come on SM.....

Yep. And the Lord's Supper was symbolic of the OT covenant: circumcision.

It was? Who was the Mohel? Was Jesus Himself wielding the knife?

No His bodily resurrection in conjunction with the salvation of mankind.

Nah. It didn't mean much of anything. If Jesus would have remained dead everyone would have been happy. You only live once you know. Well.... at least people talk about Him plenty of the time. I imagine IF all these people talk about you.... You know...... you're not really DEAD.....

So where in this passage does He introduce His dying and resurrection being a mandated belief for salvation? Or is more being read into this than a simple prophecy?

Nope. Prophecy is just telling what's going to happen before it happens. It doesn't mean ANYTHING else. What a terrible mistake I made. Please forgive me. I don't know what got into to me.

Again. You don't have to believe God. God LOVES it when people don't believe Him. He's probably in Heaven joking about all those "followers"  that he can't seem to get to believe what He said.

Contextually, Jesus never presented those elements in His recorded gospel message. Simple as that. They were incorporated later.

Okay. Believe what you want. Enjoy your illusion.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

For you, truth in general bears little weight.

Actually, if Jesus IS the truth (which I believe He is), then following a gospel He didn't preach seems that the  truth He didn't leave us "bears little weight", or at least our record of His gospel and teaching was insufficient for future generations.

 

[FSSL]

Distorting what I said above "bears little weight." (whatever that means)

A genuine believer will not deny the virgin birth. He will not deny the deity of Christ. He will not deny the Trinity.

Does a brand new believer understand all of those concepts? Probably not. Fundamentally, he must understand that Christ is God (Jn 10.30). You still defend the UMC pastor on this point.

The question is "Will a believer reject the concepts of the Trinity or virgin birth?" No. If sanctification is at work, these are fundamental doctrines a believer does not reject.

A person who says he believes Christ and then rejects the most basic truths about Christ is absurd. Defending a UMC pastor who is actively engaging people to deny the virgin birth and deity of Christ is absolutely absurd. The other 8 pastors ought to be commended.

 

[rsc2a]

Jesus did claim divinity. He also taught substitutionary blood atonement. He also spoke about wrath. He was quite clear on the Resurrection.

You can claim to follow Jesus all you want but if your Jesus isn't the Jesus of history, the 1st century God-man who was murdered and rose from the dead, you are following a false god.

 

[subllibrm]

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"


Where is the wiggle room on truth in that claim? The Jews didn't go around stoning people for nothing. So what does a "progressive" Christian do with a statement like that?

 

[rsc2a]

That's only someone's interpretation of Jesus...

...or something

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Jesus did claim divinity. He also taught substitutionary blood atonement. He also spoke about wrath. He was quite clear on the Resurrection.

He claimed to be the Son of God, not God the Son.

Whenever He shared the gospel, there is no record of Him mentioning a blood atonement.

He was clear about wrath.

Whenever He shared the gospel, there is no recorded mention of Him associating His resurrection as a necessary part.

You can claim to follow Jesus all you want but if your Jesus isn't the Jesus of history, the 1st century God-man who was murdered and rose from the dead, you are following a false god.

I do believe in the Jesus of the Bible, the one who was crucified and resurrected: self identified as the Son of Man and the Son of God. But viewing Him and His teachings from a perspective (hermeneutic) other than orthodox does not automatically mean one is following a "false god".

 

[rsc2a]

"Before Abraham was, I AM." - Jesus

And your other claims are equally ignorant. But then the Last Supper wasn't about Passover or Passover wasn't about substitutionary blood atonement or something equally absurd.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"


Where is the wiggle room on truth in that claim? The Jews didn't go around stoning people for nothing. So what does a "progressive" Christian do with a statement like that?

Easy. Follow the context.

Right before His statement, He said:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”

Abraham saw Jesus by faith. In the mind of God who is eternal,  and faith of Abraham, Jesus existed. Similarly, Hebrews says that Abraham:

was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Did this city already exist during Abraham's time or did he view it through the eyes of faith? Same with Jesus. So in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was before Abraham. 

Plus the actions of the following verse makes the whole thing seem odd:

At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

So the one who is claiming to be God is running away and hiding from the people he created, afraid to be hit with the stones he created.

Concerning the phrase "I AM" as found in Exodus 3, here is what Wikipedia says about the original text:

I Am that I Am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, ehyeh aÅ¡er ehyeh [ehˈje aˈʃer ehˈje]) is the common English translation (JPS among others) of the response God used in the Hebrew Bible when Moses asked for his name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah. Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I will be" (or "I shall be"), for example, at Exodus 3:14. Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be", with attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Smellin, I agree with you on a lot of points, but lately you've really been going off the deep end.  Is there some crisis in your life right now?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin, I agree with you on a lot of points, but lately you've really been going off the deep end.  Is there some crisis in your life right now?

No, but I really appreciate you asking.

Getting cancer kinda put me in a position to reevaluate life both now and in the hereafter. Even after being medically cleared, I want more than ever to understand and follow what Jesus taught instead of simply applying His quotes to an already-existing belief system.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The progressive Christians probably have this stature of Jesus:

And probably this picture framed and hanging in their church:

And most definitely this one: