Following are some points made on progressivechristianity.org's website that I thought worthy of comment about; which I fashioned to address the things stated rather than a reflection upon those who made the statements, or those who believe in them. This falls under 'fair use' allowances within the copyright laws of the U.S.
1. We embrace the urgent task of clarifying what it means to follow a “spiritual path” or a “faith” that is Christian in some manner. With this, we know we must increase dialog and exploration between two often-warring camps divided as “conservative” and “liberal.”
The ecumenical 'spirit' of this sentiment is most striking. It obviously is based upon the idea that there exists a path between the two systems of thought and belief whereby one may find some sort of commonality between the two worlds through which to harmonize them into an amalgam resulting in a progressivism that comes anywhere near the level of scriptural integrity.
2. We recognize the updating of religion as a challenging but inevitable process that should be actively engaged. We believe this is sorely needed, among other things, to widen the basis for common ground and common mission among Christians and with other religions.
Updating of religion? That can only happen within false religions....those that are man-made.
Malachi 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
It makes perfect sense that the many gods created by men and women would indeed change with their makers and worshippers. What I would ask the followers of progressive christianity is how their man-made gods can possibly save them. The distinction between their gods and the One TRUE God is well established in the above quoted verse, and in many, many other proofs for differences, thus rendering the idea that we all worship the 'same god' as completely irrelevant and nonsensical.
3. We determine to pay attention to the multi-cultural and social- interest aspects of the foundations of Christian faith, screaming at us from “between the lines” of the New Testament. We pledge to apply insights from there to the current state of Christianity for the purpose of peace-making and effective humanitarian actions.
It is indeed a good practice to be accepting and loving of others no matter their skin color and nationality, but we cannot broaden that narrow path any wider.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
So, all the subjective stuff one may contrive from 'between the lines' of scripture can only be seen as additive to the Bible, not derived FROM the Bible when those items are outside, and oppose, what all those lines are saying throughout the Bible in a systematic sense. The ethic for loving others, no matter their nationality, skin color, economic status, those are well defined within the word of God to us. The idea we must also implement alterations to moral absolutes in order to 'widen the basis for common ground...," that we reject outright:
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Progressive christianity is absolutely calling for conformance of one's theology to the ways and sways of fallen culture and society. We can see that call in the above items they are claiming as their manifesto. Do we join with them in unified fellowship, or do we lovingly correct them from the stability and integrity of scripture? That is a choice each one must make for self.
Now for a most telling feature to their call to the rest of Christianity:
4. We affirm that Jesus can and should remain the central figure of Christian faith (though not the founder of its predominant current form, in our view). At the same time, we admit our views of him reflect at least as much about us as about him and probably more. As Christianity began, so it continues.
Their obvious rejection of the founding values, beliefs and absolutes of Christianity from its inception is without mistake an evident feature in their treatise. At least they are admitting their deviation away from Chris Jesus, while at the same holding Him only as the 'central figure' (whatever that means, given that they reject the absolute, unchanging nature of His established word to us).
Now for the KA-WHAMMY!
5. We believe the sometimes-confusing fictional/historical mix of the Bible, and particularly the Gospels and Acts, is critical to grasp and wrestle with and we have largely avoided it. If some of us are persuaded of Jesus’ miracles or bodily resurrection, it decidedly does not lead automatically or necessarily to the idea of apostolic authority or a “deposit of faith” which dispensed timeless and clear dogma—a serious diversion from the teachings of Jesus.
This article shows to us the absolutely subjective nature of this new, up-coming system of belief. It does a fine job at establishing culture and societal norms as the defining god over their beliefs.
Unity, such as what exists within the body of Christ Jesus (the Church) can only survive as a unified whole by way of the unchanging nature and credible harmony of scripture as written by the men inspired by God. These people have no basis for calling into question the continuity between God and what He inspired to be written through the hands of those men who authored the letters and books combined into the Bible. It's astounding how anyone could think they will find any stability in a system of belief with foundation rooted in the sands of subjectivism.
6. We recognize the importance and pursue understanding of various phenomena not religiously tied and often labeled “spiritual” or “paranormal,” particularly near-death-experiences and their kin. God only knows why churches have so long avoided this, though we do have some ideas. We eagerly support ongoing research into and education about reincarnation and related issues, as they are an integral part of what religion deals with.
No. It's not only God who knows why we reject near-death claims for what they think they saw. Every one of them I have ever heard about has one particular feature about them that renders them of no count to those of us who know the scriptures. The Hollywoodesque imagery I have seen described within each one of them I have encountered has key elements missing that betray their contrived nature.
And reincarnation? Seriously? Herein we see the harmonious rejection of scriptural authority. Their insatiable desire for any and all things that are under their control, and that they can warp and twist to their personal whims, that too is an evident feature of that belief system. Folks, none of this is new at all...it's just becoming more and more accepted, tragically, among those who once sought to follow the One TRUE Christ Jesus. The lure of fleshly subjectivism is a powerful draw upon one's feelings and fleshly desires.
7. We determine to apply the many socially-driven aspects of Christianity to local, nation-wide and even global social organization, legislation and such, knowing that how Christians think and act as citizens affects governance. We believe neither progressive nor conservative Christians are willing to divorce their understanding of the “kingdom” or “commonwealth” of God from issues of earthly life, either personal or communal. Only careful thought and extensive discussion, which we pledge ourselves to, will lead to a deeper understanding which is particularly critical right now.
We now see in their values and beliefs the true underpinnings of liberal thought. When they appeal to 'legislation' of their values and beliefs, that is an enforcement of such against all others who oppose them. If not by 'organization', then by governmental enforcement at the point of a gun through 'legislation'. The enemy is being allowed to prepare the way for the coming man of sin. These points quoted here betray the most ancient of schemes to undermine the absolute and unchanging nature of the very word of God and His moral absolutes.
Thoughts?
MM
1. We embrace the urgent task of clarifying what it means to follow a “spiritual path” or a “faith” that is Christian in some manner. With this, we know we must increase dialog and exploration between two often-warring camps divided as “conservative” and “liberal.”
The ecumenical 'spirit' of this sentiment is most striking. It obviously is based upon the idea that there exists a path between the two systems of thought and belief whereby one may find some sort of commonality between the two worlds through which to harmonize them into an amalgam resulting in a progressivism that comes anywhere near the level of scriptural integrity.
2. We recognize the updating of religion as a challenging but inevitable process that should be actively engaged. We believe this is sorely needed, among other things, to widen the basis for common ground and common mission among Christians and with other religions.
Updating of religion? That can only happen within false religions....those that are man-made.
Malachi 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
It makes perfect sense that the many gods created by men and women would indeed change with their makers and worshippers. What I would ask the followers of progressive christianity is how their man-made gods can possibly save them. The distinction between their gods and the One TRUE God is well established in the above quoted verse, and in many, many other proofs for differences, thus rendering the idea that we all worship the 'same god' as completely irrelevant and nonsensical.
3. We determine to pay attention to the multi-cultural and social- interest aspects of the foundations of Christian faith, screaming at us from “between the lines” of the New Testament. We pledge to apply insights from there to the current state of Christianity for the purpose of peace-making and effective humanitarian actions.
It is indeed a good practice to be accepting and loving of others no matter their skin color and nationality, but we cannot broaden that narrow path any wider.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
So, all the subjective stuff one may contrive from 'between the lines' of scripture can only be seen as additive to the Bible, not derived FROM the Bible when those items are outside, and oppose, what all those lines are saying throughout the Bible in a systematic sense. The ethic for loving others, no matter their nationality, skin color, economic status, those are well defined within the word of God to us. The idea we must also implement alterations to moral absolutes in order to 'widen the basis for common ground...," that we reject outright:
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Progressive christianity is absolutely calling for conformance of one's theology to the ways and sways of fallen culture and society. We can see that call in the above items they are claiming as their manifesto. Do we join with them in unified fellowship, or do we lovingly correct them from the stability and integrity of scripture? That is a choice each one must make for self.
Now for a most telling feature to their call to the rest of Christianity:
4. We affirm that Jesus can and should remain the central figure of Christian faith (though not the founder of its predominant current form, in our view). At the same time, we admit our views of him reflect at least as much about us as about him and probably more. As Christianity began, so it continues.
Their obvious rejection of the founding values, beliefs and absolutes of Christianity from its inception is without mistake an evident feature in their treatise. At least they are admitting their deviation away from Chris Jesus, while at the same holding Him only as the 'central figure' (whatever that means, given that they reject the absolute, unchanging nature of His established word to us).
Now for the KA-WHAMMY!
5. We believe the sometimes-confusing fictional/historical mix of the Bible, and particularly the Gospels and Acts, is critical to grasp and wrestle with and we have largely avoided it. If some of us are persuaded of Jesus’ miracles or bodily resurrection, it decidedly does not lead automatically or necessarily to the idea of apostolic authority or a “deposit of faith” which dispensed timeless and clear dogma—a serious diversion from the teachings of Jesus.
This article shows to us the absolutely subjective nature of this new, up-coming system of belief. It does a fine job at establishing culture and societal norms as the defining god over their beliefs.
Unity, such as what exists within the body of Christ Jesus (the Church) can only survive as a unified whole by way of the unchanging nature and credible harmony of scripture as written by the men inspired by God. These people have no basis for calling into question the continuity between God and what He inspired to be written through the hands of those men who authored the letters and books combined into the Bible. It's astounding how anyone could think they will find any stability in a system of belief with foundation rooted in the sands of subjectivism.
6. We recognize the importance and pursue understanding of various phenomena not religiously tied and often labeled “spiritual” or “paranormal,” particularly near-death-experiences and their kin. God only knows why churches have so long avoided this, though we do have some ideas. We eagerly support ongoing research into and education about reincarnation and related issues, as they are an integral part of what religion deals with.
No. It's not only God who knows why we reject near-death claims for what they think they saw. Every one of them I have ever heard about has one particular feature about them that renders them of no count to those of us who know the scriptures. The Hollywoodesque imagery I have seen described within each one of them I have encountered has key elements missing that betray their contrived nature.
And reincarnation? Seriously? Herein we see the harmonious rejection of scriptural authority. Their insatiable desire for any and all things that are under their control, and that they can warp and twist to their personal whims, that too is an evident feature of that belief system. Folks, none of this is new at all...it's just becoming more and more accepted, tragically, among those who once sought to follow the One TRUE Christ Jesus. The lure of fleshly subjectivism is a powerful draw upon one's feelings and fleshly desires.
7. We determine to apply the many socially-driven aspects of Christianity to local, nation-wide and even global social organization, legislation and such, knowing that how Christians think and act as citizens affects governance. We believe neither progressive nor conservative Christians are willing to divorce their understanding of the “kingdom” or “commonwealth” of God from issues of earthly life, either personal or communal. Only careful thought and extensive discussion, which we pledge ourselves to, will lead to a deeper understanding which is particularly critical right now.
We now see in their values and beliefs the true underpinnings of liberal thought. When they appeal to 'legislation' of their values and beliefs, that is an enforcement of such against all others who oppose them. If not by 'organization', then by governmental enforcement at the point of a gun through 'legislation'. The enemy is being allowed to prepare the way for the coming man of sin. These points quoted here betray the most ancient of schemes to undermine the absolute and unchanging nature of the very word of God and His moral absolutes.
Thoughts?
MM
