Is Liberal Christianity Smug and Arrogant?

by leavingwt 95 Replies latest jw friends

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Perry might want to respond to that one.

    That would be great. I'm still waiting on him to respond to my "speed of light" thread.

    I'll pitch in this little tidbit from the 5th century AD by St. Augustine:

    Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

    "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])
    "With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

    BTS

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    the first followers of Christ were "liberal Christians".

    I'd like to get you and Walter Martin in the same room. (May he rest in peace.)

    PS:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen <------- "Evidently" not a liberal Christian. Ouch.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason

    He was truly ahead of his time. He valued reason above dogma. A real Francis Collins type.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    "Evidently" not a liberal Christian. Ouch.

    Eusebius reported that Origen, following Matthew 19:12 literally, castrated himself.

    Ouch indeed.

    BTS

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    He was truly ahead of his time. He valued reason above dogma. A real Francis Collins type.

    He even elaborated a very primitive idea of evolution.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x215790

    But to quote Darwin, a Life in Science on evolution,

    Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions. He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

    As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

    Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself. God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture. It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.

    In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine's theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.' His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Aquinas simply quoted Augustine's teaching on the subject of the Creation and the interpretation of Genesis; but as he was one of the highest authorities in the Christian Church at the time, and has been one of the most influential since, this amounted to an official seal of approval for the idea that God had set the Universe in motion and then rested.

    http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

    He is my baptismal saint, for this and many other reasons.

    BTS

  • leavingwt
  • Giordano
    Giordano

    I had to look it up: Found this site called http://www.gotquestions.org/liberal-Christian-theology.html whose moto is: got questions? the bible has the answers....we'll find them for you! LOL.

    Answering the question they actually make a case for liberal-Christian-theology: "In “liberal Christian” teaching, which is not Christian at all, man’s reason is stressed and is treated as the final authority. Liberal theologians seek to reconcile Christianity with secular science and “modern thinking.” In doing so, they treat science as all-knowing and the Bible as fable-laden and false. Genesis’ early chapters are reduced to poetry or fantasy, having a message, but not to be taken literally (in spite of Jesus’ having spoken of those early chapters in literal terms). Mankind is not seen as totally depraved, and thus liberal theologians have an optimistic view of the future of mankind. The social gospel is also emphasized, while denying the inability of fallen man to fulfill it. Whether a person is saved from their sin and its penalty in hell is no longer the issue; the main thing is how man treats his fellow man. “Love” of our fellow man becomes the defining issue. As a result of this “reasoning” by liberal theologians, the following doctrines are taught by liberal quasi-Christian theologians: "

    I'll leave it up to readers to pop over for a quick look (my new years resolution is not to quote obsessively from the internet) and see how smug and arrogant really sounds.

  • designs
    designs

    Good ol Walter Martin, he did more to keep Witnesses Witnesses when they wanted to leave the Society than any person I can think of.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Origen was a bit of a, well...freak and he was one of those that had the idea of extremissim as a way to God.

    Not a guy playing with a full deck all the time it seems.

    Augustine was a great theologian, not perfect, but far ahead of his time, sure he kind of nut rode the whole "original sin" thing but no one is perfect.

    Augustine KNEW that when faced with facts that SEEM to contridict scripture, one must reconcile scripture to those facts, not ignore the facts.

    Science is NOT all-knowing, but it has to be addressed and when itis found to be right, then it has to be reconciled with belief.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    It seems to me that this entire discussion is an argument against Fundamentalism.

    Paul Tobin:

    "As for the "take some and leave some" approach to the Bible, the central question remains: if some parts of the Bible are false or unacceptable, what guarantee do we have that the other parts are true, or are of any special value? Thus the moment one admits that some parts of the Bible are untrue or unacceptable, the position of the Bible as the inspired word of God becomes very difficult to objectively defend."

    "...If [a person can] use his own judgment to accept and reject biblical passages, why rely on the Bible at all?"

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit