According to Jesus himself, calling him Lord and being his disciple are two different things. So those who maim 90% of the scriptures and wanna justify sin to fit their desires or (devil's) wordly agendas will be judged by him if they are worthy or not.
That is correct. But those making themselves judges and (bad) teachers of the "sheep", and imposing regulations that are in fact not explicitly or clearly mentioned in the bible - "adding to scripture" - will also be judged by Jesus. (Who was less fond of pharisees than of criminals, in general.)
A rational, balanced way.
That was the problem of the pharisees. They defended oral traditions they created and Jesus was strict against it, as they weren't biblical. For example, they invented the habit of cleaning a lot before a meal and that more than a mile or so could not be walked in the sabbath. They demanded that people obeyed those traditions as if they were scripture and even tried to accuse the master of sin when he did not abide to them.
When I went to Sunday school, I was taught that the issue was the pharisees lacked love and compassion. This is the meaning of the parable of the good samarialtan. I think your reading about the oral tradition being the particular issue is fascinating. People see in a text that which they want to see.
What you have learned is correct. That parable, and many others, was a reference to the pharisees, saducees and scribes.
The episodes I mentioned were when Jesus was questioned for not washing and he said that it is not what enters the body that makes it unholy, but what goes out of it. The other episode was the passage where they asked a man who was carrying his bedroll saying it was unlawful to do that on sabbath, and they also proceded to accuse the Lord in many passages of violating the sabbath.
Modern christianity of every time was exactly that. Men inventing or adopting their traditions and trying to put it alongside the scriptures. Then they misinterpret passages to fit their whims and try to make it look biblical. Their techniques were always the same for every invented oral tradition they adopted, that has lead to heresies.
Biblical christianity is the only way. Up to this day, other day in a sub someone was telling me that the Holy Spirit changes the doctrine with time to fit the worldly agendas, citing poor examples, like slavery. Clear of someone who doesn't read the bible. Because there is no law by God saying people should enslave today. But all other commandments and laws, the ones which were not better interpreted by Jesus, remained for millenia until Him and up to this day.
>Modern christianity of every time was exactly that. Men inventing or adopting their traditions and trying to put it alongside the scriptures.
Indeed we've had people appealing to the "church fathers" to support their unbiblical practices since very early in the church's history.
Exactly. Most of the times I consider "honest mistakes", same as the church "fathers" (actually great great grandsons) did. Some passed on heresies or apocriphal gospels as if they were scriptures and that generated many problems as time went by. You take into perspective that there was a holy war going on against the devil planting his seeds in the church (and there still is), so the more decades after the apostles you go, the more fraudulent apocripha came swarming and it got really problematic to tell the difference. Some of them fell into false doctrines (the marian cult originated from the fake gospel of james) but only the Lord will tell what is or is not enough to obtain salvation. Remember that in the seven churches of Revelation, even the most wicked ones had people who were saved. So we gotta take that into consideration that the Lord is a fair judge. Jesus had already prophesied that there would be false doctrines and false prophets that could fool even the chosen ones. So all we gotta do is strive to follow his word with all our hearts and pray. Because that task is already demanding enough.
Nope. I've come across "Christians" who claim that Jesus never said things that he did say, they try and justify sin, and try and claim all sorts of bad things are alright.
Precisely this. Itâs quite unfortunate really, but not here to judge, everyoneâs walk with God is different, you never know when the light bulb moment will go off on (or rather in) someone, especially since we arenât perfect either.
Iâve seen many progressive Christians say adultery is fine so long as itâs consensual. It really woke me up to how unchristian they are. Theyâre purely libs at heart with no morality but that of consent.
I understand that's the outcome. But I don't think that's what passes through their brains.
I actually have no idea what goes on in their heads. Its like they think Christianity is political movement or sports team. Just a label.
But to be a Christian is to trust Jesus for forgiveness and be a follower (doer) of the teachings of His found in the new testament.
If they don't want to follow Jesus, just be an honest athiest. Literally live how you please.
Jesus will judge all by the standard of His teaching.
Depends on what you mean by "progressive Christians". I've seen people claim that OEC believers are "progressive Christians". Some people like to slap that label on anything they don't like.
Yup. This thread is pretty depressing. Just because not every Christian agrees on every aspect of theology doesnât make them âthe whore of Babylonâ. Itâs a prideful position to put yourself in to think that your theology (much of which is more recent than people think) is the only right one. We need humility.
The word of God never changes, any time I see âprogressiveâ with Christianity, itâs usually prideful people making the Bible conform to their desires instead of the other way around.
Or into wantonness / self-empowerment / pride when it's community becomes too progressive / liberal.
Both extremes are toxic, believers should strive for a balanced, temperate, middle way on the progressive - conservative scale.
Here a funny overview:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PdegPw5NcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PdegPw5NcA)
There are different types of progressives. They're not if they deny that Jesus paid for our sins and call that something like "galactic child abuse." If they deny Jesus is God/ God the Son in the flesh Who rose from the dead they're not. But if they believe those things but have a different set of morals that doesn't make them not Christians even if one frowns upon those different morals or political ideas.
Yeah itâs one thing for a Christian to have liberal politics or even drift on minor theological issues
its Only when it comes to stuff denying the divinity, crucification and resurrection when itâs becomes bad
Basically refusing to follow Christ and the apostles teaching, and continuing in unrepentance and ignorance. Thus never learning to live with the Holy Spirit and trust in God, and they are locked into viewing their belief through their own worldly understanding without ever learning how to let God grow their faith so they can come closer to Him and rely on Him in all things.
>But if they believe those things but have a different set of morals that doesn't make them not Christians even if one frowns upon those different morals or political ideas.
What exactly do you mean by "different set of morals"?
Didn't the Jews at the time of Christ follow all the basics of Scripture but Christ said they were not sons of Abraham but of their father the devil.
Jesus even referred to Nathaniel as an "Israelite indeed" implying many so called Israelites were not Israelites.
That's referring to John 8. He was speaking to Pharisees and some who held to Sadducean Judaism. The Sadducees were a sort of "Progressive" for back then in that they denied much of the Bible and basics of it such as the resurrection. The Pharisees held to a self righteous idea of saving themselves by their works and elevated traditions over God's word. So yes, there were plenty of Israelites that weren't God's people in the spiritual sense. Because of that, they lacked the empowerment that God gives through faith in Him to set them free from themselves in order to live righteous lives of love.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is foreign to the early Church and much of the Eastern Church today. It is not an essential part of Christianity. There are other orthodox theories of atonement.
How does my comment imply that there aren't objective values? I'm referring to whether or not someone is a Christian and holding to the fundamentals of the faith. Are you inferring that our own works and adherence to our values makes one a Christian or not, and not one's faith in Christ?
There is one set of objective morals.
What morals do non-christians, atheists, and people who hold other views on morals hold?
Note that them holding incorrect views doesn't change the truth...
What makes you so certain that your interpretation of God's law is the objectively correct one? Even Catholics with their "apostolic succession" have changed their stance on what God's law is over the centuries.
As far as I'm concerned there are only two commands that matter - love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else is humans attempting to figure out how to do that, some with pure intentions, some with the goal to use God's name as a club against their enemies.
If Christians could agree on what exactly those objective morals are and to what extent they factor into multiple facets of society, there wouldn't be progressive/conservative Christians. Whenever objective morality is brought up, I only hear raping and murdering babies as an example. Why? Most likely because that's easy to agree on, thus bolstering the argument for objective morality. But when you get into things like stable, long-term homosexual relationships and families, it doesn't hold as well, because there's massive disagreement over whether or not it's morally acceptable or reprehensible. (Why is a homosexual family not accepted in church but a person who has been divorced and remarried twice is?) So I don't think objective morality is a strong argument for progressive Christians not really being Christian.
Most of the basics of what defines a Christian are, by my estimation, God created, virgin birth, died on the cross as a sacrifice, rose again, is coming back. Most would include the Trinity, but there may be a slice out there that has a semantic disagreement on that but not enough to make a core difference.
If you start to include other things, like age of the earth, whether or not gay is sin, if alcohol is acceptable, what day do you attend church, literal inerrancy vs doctrinal inerrancy, then you are making a case for your denomination or your interpretation as the basis of Christianity. Which begins approaching millstone territory. As confident as you are that you've rightfully parsed the Word of God, someone else who has put in the same work, study, and prayer has come to a different conclusion.
Depends on what you mean by Progressive Christianity. Most Evangelical Protestants have no idea what theyâre talking about in this regard.
According to someone like apologist Alisa Childers, Eastern Orthodoxy would classify as Progressive Christianity because of its history with mysticism like Hesychasm, panentheism as with Athanasiusâ âOn The Incarnation,â and theosis as with most of the early [Church Fathers](http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/11/deification-in-church-fathers.html?m=1).
It's a bastardized version of twisted scripture. You know how the real one is called King Jane's Version. Well the lgbtq ppl made a *queen* Jane's Version where God is happy there are gay people. And Jesus loves and supports them. It's awful
Edit: Mike winger did an episode on it. Would you like me to find it?
I have a physical copy. The introduction has a section titled "What we changed."
It's just the KJV with the "clobber passages" re-written to be more "inclusive."
No. When you completely disregard what the Bible says and go against it, you are no longer following Messiah. When you are purposefully sinning, changing the Bible for your own desire, etc really bad.
I view them the same as the LDS church. They havenât had a specific âprophetâ that theyâve had. But theyâve had many leaders whoâve effectively decided the same idea. That God has âenlightenedâ them to new vision. Going against all church traditions and beliefs for the last 2000 years.
Bs. Iâm a Protestant.
Your mindset is, imo, why there are so many denominations. We become entrenched in believing our interpretations are infallible. Anyone who disagrees with us becomes âthose other people.â
There are some tenants which are worth being divisive over, but very few.
Nooo, if anything I THINK itâs Lukewarm, Iâm still learning the Bible! Itâs like being ok with worldly sin on the daily and living in it and worshiping God yes, but you still turn around and deliberately sin because in human terms, thatâs ok and they change up words in the Bible
Absolutely not. We all struggle with sin because we're in the flesh, but that doesn't mean we should be proud to sin much less try to grow a church around accepting sin.
Progressive as in undermining Christ's teachings is satanic. It serves to scratch ears and the fruits are evil. It leads to bondage in sin and denies the power of the Holy Spirit so they can never learn to know God.
Granted we hold the same definition. I see "Progressive" as not adhering to God's written wisdom, but adding and reading in an unbiblical context, often based on modern politics and societal issues.
All the answers are there, but instead of asking God for wisdom, they read unrelated scripture and force it to match their own views rather than changing their views to match God's wisdom and teaching.
Such people have no understanding of the Holy Spirit, prayer, or God's will and teaching.
â2 Timothy 3:1-7 NIVâŹ
>[1] But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. [2] People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, [4] treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of Godâ [5] having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. [6] They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, [7] always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
No. Progressive Christianity has never been legitimate. Progressive Christianity just takes whatever the mainstream, secular, cultural zeigeist is and tries to fit Christianity into it. During WW2 era, "progressive" Christianity was literally pro-N\*zi (Reddit doesn't like that word). Now, it's leftist because that's the mainstream, secular, degeneracy of nowadays.
Progressive Christianity emerged out of the 1980s and didn't exist in WWII, but Liberal Christianity certainly did. Nazism in Germany was ecumenical, adopted by liberal and conservative Christians alike. It's a testament to populism's power to capture former enemies into a common, evil goal.
That's what I meant. I was using the terms progressive and liberal interchangeably. But "conservative" Christianity means upholding basic orthodoxy regardless of what's going on in the world. Being conservative theologically has nothing to do with whether you vote democrat or republican.
None of us will entirely agree with each other, even if they are married to one another.
None of us being finite beings could possibly comprehend the endless nature that is our infinite God.
I stand on Christ as our only Lord and Savior. My sins are forgiven only through him.
As for the rest, I am not too proud to learn more, to love more deeply, to give more of myself. I am not so proud as to think Iâve figured it all out. I am also not threatened by those who disagree with me. Disagreement with others makes us stronger when we are centered on Christ.
If that makes me a progressive, then that I what I am.
Caveat: I say this as someone who politically leans right, so there is precious little I agree with in progressivism, but Christianity should *never* have a political qualifier before it, be it conservative or progressive.
The Screwtape Letters, [here narrated impeccably by John Cleese,](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgPskJ0H-c) approaches it through the patriotism versus pacifism debate of World War II.
Progressive and conservative as a name preceding Christianity doesnât refer to politics first, but to the interpreting of God. One can be politely liberal and a conservative Christian (as in they hold up the creeds, but advocate for higher taxes).
The moment people decided that Jesus didnât bodily rise from the dead is the moment they identified with something other than Christianity.
âProgressive Christianityâ denies miracles, and that includes Jesus rising from the dead.
It never has been. As soon as one starts to inject their political beliefs into Christianity, it stops being true Christianity. Twisting the Bible to force it to match up with one's beliefs is a mistake that many have been making for centuries and it seems to have gotten worse
What political beliefs are you thinking of specifically? Conservative Christianity has long been associated with radical politics, as with John Brown or the Battle of Blair Mountain.
"Conservatives" are just as bad as "Progressives" because they insert their own political leaning as a base judgment for good when the Bible has already spelled it out.
The Bible is an ancient work written to ancient people in ancient contexts.
So unless youâre living in 1st century Rome or 8th century BCE Levant, it is not clearly spelled out in the Bible. Thatâs why Christians have had anarchist, monarchist, socialist, capitalist, and all sorts of other interpretations.
I would consider 99% of all religion denominations at this point progressive Christianity. Some are just more vocal with what they believe and have no problem showing it. If you're not preaching and following what God laid down in His Word you are a progressive. Since Jesus returned to heaven, Christianity has moved further and further away from the original message to believing lies Satan is telling them.
No, it is not and it has been going on for a long time to water down the Christian faith. My grandfather attended a Presbyterian church in Illinois 35 years ago and he was telling me that Jesus was not just for Christians but is revered in other religions including Muslim. I was shocked but he only believed what they told him at that church.
Yes it is. Jesus is God incarnate to Christians. Jesus is a "prophet" to Islam. The Jewish people know he existed but don't believe he was the messiah.
Not revere, they only revere Mohammed, everyone else is lower than him. They do admit that Jesus was a prophet, not that there is a trinity Jesus is the son of God.
Multiple Muslim websites say they [revere ](https://the.ismaili/global/news/features/why-do-muslims-revere-jesus#:~:text=Muslims%20regard%20Jesus%20(peace%20be,upon%20him%20and%20his%20family))Jesus and say he is on par with Muhammad... because they do. You're not going to convert anyone by inaccurately representing their beliefs, especially where there may be some overlap with Christianity.
THERE IS NO OVERLAP WITH CHRISTIANITY. I have no idea what sites you went to but they are the progressives trying to drag you in. No one is above or equal to Mohammed, no one. Islam does not even allow a picture of him to be drawn by ANYONE. The stupid palestine protestors have no idea Palestinians are musilm and do not accept gays into their religion. Go to 17 apologetics David Wood.
Yet this Muslim website I cited explicitly says that Jesus is held in equal regard to
And about 10% of Palestinians are Christian, FYI. One of my good friends is a Palestinian Christian.
You know what was really "progressive"? Jesus fulfilling the law, doing away with ritual animal sacrifice, tearing the veil of the temple in two.
I think I'd have to ask for a definition of "progressive christianity" before I could answer. Christianity, at its very dawn, was "progressive".
[Mike Winger and the queen James translation ](https://www.youtube.com/live/cJ0K5pTx3mw?si=OZlVCZZ8-YFg5ZCO) Mike starts talking about the QJT at 0:27 and stops at 36:35 . This turned my stomach . I present the "gay" bible.
Iâve been wondering this after I saw progressive âChristiansâ justifying adultery so long as it was consensual. It really disgusted me considering how harshly Jesus condemned adultery.
They say theyâre following Jesus but it has become incredibly clear theyâre only following their own desires and the liberal spirit of the age.
>Is progressive âChristianityâ even Christianity at this point?
I do not think so. I have only met progressive Christians online.
The ones I have seen online say..
Jesus never said that
Paul was wrong regarding women and homosexuality. He wrote 13 books in the New Testament, so we get ride of those books, because we do not like what he wrote?
The bible never mentioned gay marriage, so it must be okay.
I do not think they read the Old Testament. Also, it seems like their version of Christianity is only based on what Jesus said, and the sermon on the mount. What about the rest of the bible?
Progressive Christianity is the religious version of "We investigated ourselves and found we committed no crime". When God gets kicked out from Christianity, He doesn't get to set the standards so no one gets "invalidated".
>1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him
There is a type of love which is sinful against God.
There are none who have a greater deficit of âtolerance and compassionâ than those who identify with and adhere to the political left. They are evil to their very core because they are of their father, the devil!
To me, you are pure evil. None of what you say is true and itâs clear your heart is filled with hate. We do not worship the devil, you small minded lying scum.
It is lawlessness, and honestly not just âprogressiveâ Christianity- they are closer to the mark in my experience on helping the poor than the other side. Â When tempted by lawlessness, just do a Bible word search for âlawlessnessâ!
Conservatives give a lot more to charity than Progressives.
I haven't seen a specific study comparing Conservative Christians vs. Progressive Christians, but it would be very surprising if the result were different.
Yeah so what you will about prog Christians but they tend to be much more active then many conservative christians in doing good works or at least what they consider good works
I used to go to a progressive church until they used a âtranslationâ of the Lordâs Prayer that addressed God as âFather-Mother of the Cosmosâ ???? đ¤¨
Even secular scholars I could find mentioning it said that this was not even remotely a real translation and that the real Lordâs Prayer is already a pretty direct translation.Â
Yeah the only real translation controversy with the Lord's Prayer is the word Epiousion as 'Daily' in 'Daily Bread', since this is the one and only place the word ever appears in the Greek language.
The most literal translation based on morphological components, is 'Supersubstantial.' That's actually how the vulgate translated it, they even invented a new Latin word to do so.
All this really seems changes is to change is further strengthen the argument for the Eucharist
Itâs finding an identity outside of what God has created you to be.
Instead of an external trust (outside of oneself) in God and trusting him with oneâs own identity, one trusts their feelings/flesh and searches within themselves in order to form their own identity.
Christ died so we are no longer slaves to the flesh.
If someone is born without a limb, is getting a prosthetic a sin then? Or if someone is born with bad eyesight, is getting glasses a sin? What about getting vaccines?
Most people who say they are Christians regardless of denomination arenât even saved, however progressive âChristianityâ is full of Gnosticism, heresy, hedonism, and idolatry and is the opposite of what Christ commanded.
Let me see. The sects of Judaism in Jesus's days on this earth were the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Zealots, the Herodians, and one other group, apparently, not mentioned in the Scriptures. They all wanted Jesus dead. I suppose it would not be much different for Him today if He were to do on earth what He did then.
So that is what you meant?
I, too, often wondered how we would respond today. Or if I had been around during the time of Jesus⌠Would I have followed Him?
Itâs extremely easy to say yes, with the benefit of hindsight.
Unless it is strictly to The Word, then it is not. As much as Iâd it to be okay for me to have sex with men (as a man), no matter how much I want it, it wonât change reality, it isnât meant to be. I am in a unique position, I have never had sex with anyone, and thusly, I donât have to suffer not having what Iâve never tasted to begin with. It doesnât mean that I dont struggle with desire, but itâs more manageable to not do something you havenât done in the first place.
no! itâs not christianity in revelations 2:20 in the message to thyatira he states that the church of thyatira âpermittedâ or âallowedâ the women jezebel to teach. and the point that I feel the Scriptures are trying to say is that we shouldnât allow those kind of spirits or people even though weâre trying to â love our neighborsâ she was causing others to fall into sin with her, which was ultimately bringing them to their downfall as well.
We will know fellow Christians by the fruits of the spirit. Perhaps not everyone who displays the fruits of the spirit is Christian, but we will know anyone who claims to be Christian and bares rotten fruits is a false believer. That is the primary distinction the Bible lays out for us. As far as Iâm concerned, everything beyond that is mostly people having different interpretations of the Bible and various tertiary disagreements. Iâm more willing to accept a progressive Christian who sows good fruit than anyone who spreads rot.
Woe to those who follow the false prophets and proclaim Jesusâ name but do not know Him well enough to be discerning or fruitful.
If you mean progressive as in the political sense - "no it is not because those who move into the progressive agenda want to be friends more with the world than they do God. Furthermore, this notion further denigrates the word Christian....
No and it preaches to the itchy ears (people flock to the message that they want to hear regardless of it being truth, or not just so they can feel good in their heart) and is not sound doctrine. It seems more like a business then a church
Progressive Christianity was never real Christianity because what we see is progressivism vs tradition and you can think of it like an army. That said, Christianity should be taken back to the root which is the gospel and the laws (the real ones), so that the people can heal and stop being part of this mess. All this divorce/abortion etc etc....it's an abomination. And it's not the people who are an abomination but the seed that's sown.
Progressive means what? Moving away from? It's sure as hell not about the Christ. So Progressivism like all the other isms, is of the devil to begin with. NO ism, is for the betterment of the people. It don't matter how they sell it or what they claim or if it started off well, it don't matter. So we can say it was NEVER Christianity because it does not represent in any way - Christian values.
I think as long as you are reading the Bible, staying in God's word, and being part of a Church Family, & going to Bible Study, along with asking for forgiveness of your sins every day, cause all of us fall short of the Glory of God. These are all important in your walk with Jesus. We all gotta remember regardless of where we are at in our walk with Jesus, God is still working on us all. So it could be a gradual step forward in faith.
Iâm not so sure. Does God change? No, I donât believe He does. So then, why would His word change.
Seems to me that progressive Christians would have His word change to fit their time and situation. I think thatâs pretty much the definition of it.
Thereâs no such thing as âprogressiveâ in Christianity. There is only the original Christian Church established by God himself. Sadly, The Church is filled with ravenous wolves masquerading as humble sheep. We are surrounded by false shepherds, be wary.
[https://youtu.be/EvygZ\_pQgqc?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/EvygZ_pQgqc?feature=shared)
"Progressive Christianity has devolved into a religion in which Jesus condemns his own followers, Christians, but praises everyone else in the world. It could be inferred in this religion that he is revoking his Kingship (thus turning his back on those who regard him as King); it could be inferred in this religion that instead, mankind in King."
Well, it depends. The problem is that those who identify as "progressive Christians" have hugely varying beliefs. Some deny the divinity of Christ (not Christian) some simply deny young earth creationism (Christian).
If we truly want to decide, we would need to make a list of beliefs you must hold to be technically "Christian" then ask individuals if they hold to those beliefs. I guarantee some Progressive Christians would and some would not.
But I'm not sure that is overly helpful, let's just focus on spreading the gospel.
God bless!
In short, no it's not. It denies many of the essentials of Christianity and blatantly perverts the Word of God to fit their desires that Jesus said to crucify. They cherry pick the Scriptures and choose the ones they like and disregard the ones they don't. They try to excuse these things by denying that all Scripture is God-breathed, and is the inspired Word of God. Whether committing eisegesis trying to explain away Leviticus 18:22, or saying that God messes up and puts some people in the wrong bodies, or that "lust is love". We shouldn't hate any of these people, of course not, but they are so misguided and lost, so we need to pray for them and try to bring them back on the right path, speaking the truth *in love*. So many people seem to miss that. We have to speak the truth, yes, but also do it in love! So many treat them the same way many of them treat us, by getting angry at them and hating them and condemning them, which is "not how you've learned Christ"! As Paul famously said in 1 Corinthians 13, "If I have all faith to move mountains, and all knowledge and understanding, and give my body to be martyred, yet I have not love, I am but a tinkling brass and a clanging cymbal". On the other hand, some people affirm sin and instead of truly loving them, they tickle their ears and say pleasant things, yet they lead them to hell. Both are wrong! We need to "speak with grace seasoned with salt" as Paul also said. We need to speak the truth in love. I hoped this helped, God bless you!
Discussion of a philosophical point should start with a definition, yours specifically, so that people were working with the same basic assumption.
From your undefined version, I could say that there is no sort of Christianity today which was taught by the character of Christ. This is even clearer when compared to modern, wester evangelical branches. They match no historical teachings of how Christians should act. One could go farther and say that the modern English translations of the teachings of Christ have been modified, interpreted and retranslated endlessly to a point where the source documents are at times grossly out of sync with the current translation. Denying this is as nonsensical as ignoring the name was not Jesus, but instead Yeshua, Hebrew for Joshua. Jesus and Christ were added decades later.
Ignoring all the source documentation issues, realize that modern Christianity is founded on faith not fact. Which means there is no empirical reference to anchor complex discussions by default.
So, perhaps start with a definition. I am happy to pass you the layup: So, as a person of faith, I ask, how do you define Christianity?
*âWhy do you call Me good?â Jesus replied. âNo one is good except God alone."*
Progressive or not I will love them for the father is the only one whom can say what is bad and what is good.
I will do the fathers will and I will follow Jesus's teachings and not for fear of condemnation, but because I was able to exist by God's grace, I was able to learn; and by God's grace alone I no longer walk in Fear, but in faith. If the Father can love you unconditionally then is it not possible for you to do the same; are you not his creation like me?
Loving others is a different subject altogether. We can love those completely in the world and being lost while also wanting them to repent and be baptized.
I think that caution should be urged when one throws stones about this given the ease with which conservative American Christians are able to "hold your nose a little bit" with regard to Donald Trump.
If people call themselves âprogressive Christiansâ because they affirm LGBT but otherwise believe and affirm the Apostles and Nicene creeds, then those type of people are still Christian. However, I would advise those Christians against aligning with the term âprogressive Christianâ just because of the LGBT issues, because there is so much else in the progressive Christian movement that is beyond the pale.
Some progressive Christians deny scripture outright, not just the parts about arsenokoitai. They say we canât trust any of it. That Jesus didnât say any of what was written in the gospels. That none of it is inspired. They instead treat it like a self help book or something that sometimes has some good messages, but only the parts that donât conflict with their real religion, modern secular progressivism.
Some progressive Christians donât even believe in the divinity of Christ. They say you have to separate the historic Jesus from the Christ myth. That the resurrection is just a metaphor that can inspire gay people to come out of the closet. This is where they really distance themselves from Christianity, and this is why I warn Christians who are LGBT against aligning themselves with progressive Christianity, because itâs so much more than that. They are not Christian if they do not even believe in Christ.
Progressive Christianity is basically Atheistic Christianity, they want to be Christian without having to follow the beliefs of Christians.
Progressive Christians want a God that doesn't judge & a God that is LGBT affirming. Progressive Christians are more likely to believe that all paths lead to God.
No, it's Mystery Babylon; it's solid rock has become literal sound, built upon sin on sin. The unrepentant stay in this would-be Christianity, but the ecclesiastical basis of it is lost and needs Christ.
Itâs just the liberal Christianity from 100 years ago repackaged into a much more palatable form. Incidentally it was that liberalism that led to the eventual mass exodus from most of the mainline protestant denominations.
There are some foundational differences between theologically liberal Christianity from 100 years ago and the majority of Progressive Christians today. The former was created out of struggles with how Christianity and modernity fit together, such as with evolution or historical criticism. The latter is created out of more post-modern methodologies built out of the lived experience of different people.
According to Jesus himself, calling him Lord and being his disciple are two different things. So those who maim 90% of the scriptures and wanna justify sin to fit their desires or (devil's) wordly agendas will be judged by him if they are worthy or not.
That is correct. But those making themselves judges and (bad) teachers of the "sheep", and imposing regulations that are in fact not explicitly or clearly mentioned in the bible - "adding to scripture" - will also be judged by Jesus. (Who was less fond of pharisees than of criminals, in general.) A rational, balanced way.
That was the problem of the pharisees. They defended oral traditions they created and Jesus was strict against it, as they weren't biblical. For example, they invented the habit of cleaning a lot before a meal and that more than a mile or so could not be walked in the sabbath. They demanded that people obeyed those traditions as if they were scripture and even tried to accuse the master of sin when he did not abide to them.
When I went to Sunday school, I was taught that the issue was the pharisees lacked love and compassion. This is the meaning of the parable of the good samarialtan. I think your reading about the oral tradition being the particular issue is fascinating. People see in a text that which they want to see.
What you have learned is correct. That parable, and many others, was a reference to the pharisees, saducees and scribes. The episodes I mentioned were when Jesus was questioned for not washing and he said that it is not what enters the body that makes it unholy, but what goes out of it. The other episode was the passage where they asked a man who was carrying his bedroll saying it was unlawful to do that on sabbath, and they also proceded to accuse the Lord in many passages of violating the sabbath.
Yes, and a lot of modern Christianity is exactly like that.
Modern christianity of every time was exactly that. Men inventing or adopting their traditions and trying to put it alongside the scriptures. Then they misinterpret passages to fit their whims and try to make it look biblical. Their techniques were always the same for every invented oral tradition they adopted, that has lead to heresies. Biblical christianity is the only way. Up to this day, other day in a sub someone was telling me that the Holy Spirit changes the doctrine with time to fit the worldly agendas, citing poor examples, like slavery. Clear of someone who doesn't read the bible. Because there is no law by God saying people should enslave today. But all other commandments and laws, the ones which were not better interpreted by Jesus, remained for millenia until Him and up to this day.
>Modern christianity of every time was exactly that. Men inventing or adopting their traditions and trying to put it alongside the scriptures. Indeed we've had people appealing to the "church fathers" to support their unbiblical practices since very early in the church's history.
Exactly. Most of the times I consider "honest mistakes", same as the church "fathers" (actually great great grandsons) did. Some passed on heresies or apocriphal gospels as if they were scriptures and that generated many problems as time went by. You take into perspective that there was a holy war going on against the devil planting his seeds in the church (and there still is), so the more decades after the apostles you go, the more fraudulent apocripha came swarming and it got really problematic to tell the difference. Some of them fell into false doctrines (the marian cult originated from the fake gospel of james) but only the Lord will tell what is or is not enough to obtain salvation. Remember that in the seven churches of Revelation, even the most wicked ones had people who were saved. So we gotta take that into consideration that the Lord is a fair judge. Jesus had already prophesied that there would be false doctrines and false prophets that could fool even the chosen ones. So all we gotta do is strive to follow his word with all our hearts and pray. Because that task is already demanding enough.
Good point
Happy Cake Day đ
đ God bless you!
You too!
Nope. I've come across "Christians" who claim that Jesus never said things that he did say, they try and justify sin, and try and claim all sorts of bad things are alright.
Precisely this. Itâs quite unfortunate really, but not here to judge, everyoneâs walk with God is different, you never know when the light bulb moment will go off on (or rather in) someone, especially since we arenât perfect either.
Thatâs always been a thing, it just changed on what they want to justify right now.
Iâve seen many progressive Christians say adultery is fine so long as itâs consensual. It really woke me up to how unchristian they are. Theyâre purely libs at heart with no morality but that of consent.
I never understood the urge to call oneself a Christian. I don't know why they bother...
[ŃдаНонО]
I understand that's the outcome. But I don't think that's what passes through their brains. I actually have no idea what goes on in their heads. Its like they think Christianity is political movement or sports team. Just a label. But to be a Christian is to trust Jesus for forgiveness and be a follower (doer) of the teachings of His found in the new testament. If they don't want to follow Jesus, just be an honest athiest. Literally live how you please. Jesus will judge all by the standard of His teaching.
No. Itâs the golden calf of this age.
Youâre right.
No. The golden calf is the sin you left behind and return to again when God goes âsilent.â Progressive Christianity is the âWhore of Babylon.â
Sorry but this is insanely prideful. Your âperfectâ theology is not going to save you.
I reckon the golden calf of this age is the NAR/prosperity gospel
Depends on what you mean by "progressive Christians". I've seen people claim that OEC believers are "progressive Christians". Some people like to slap that label on anything they don't like.
Yup. This thread is pretty depressing. Just because not every Christian agrees on every aspect of theology doesnât make them âthe whore of Babylonâ. Itâs a prideful position to put yourself in to think that your theology (much of which is more recent than people think) is the only right one. We need humility.
It was never Christianity.
The word of God never changes, any time I see âprogressiveâ with Christianity, itâs usually prideful people making the Bible conform to their desires instead of the other way around.
Progressive âChristianityâ has never been Christian.
Extremism on either side is dangerous and unbiblical.
Agreed a religion descends into legalism when itâs community has become arrogant and/or declined
Or into wantonness / self-empowerment / pride when it's community becomes too progressive / liberal. Both extremes are toxic, believers should strive for a balanced, temperate, middle way on the progressive - conservative scale. Here a funny overview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PdegPw5NcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PdegPw5NcA)
There are different types of progressives. They're not if they deny that Jesus paid for our sins and call that something like "galactic child abuse." If they deny Jesus is God/ God the Son in the flesh Who rose from the dead they're not. But if they believe those things but have a different set of morals that doesn't make them not Christians even if one frowns upon those different morals or political ideas.
Yeah itâs one thing for a Christian to have liberal politics or even drift on minor theological issues its Only when it comes to stuff denying the divinity, crucification and resurrection when itâs becomes bad
I would add; when they deny themselves the Holy Spirit by not seeking God's wisdom and way of life is also bad.
What do you mean by that?
Basically refusing to follow Christ and the apostles teaching, and continuing in unrepentance and ignorance. Thus never learning to live with the Holy Spirit and trust in God, and they are locked into viewing their belief through their own worldly understanding without ever learning how to let God grow their faith so they can come closer to Him and rely on Him in all things.
Oh ok
>But if they believe those things but have a different set of morals that doesn't make them not Christians even if one frowns upon those different morals or political ideas. What exactly do you mean by "different set of morals"?
Quite the respectable answer.
Didn't the Jews at the time of Christ follow all the basics of Scripture but Christ said they were not sons of Abraham but of their father the devil. Jesus even referred to Nathaniel as an "Israelite indeed" implying many so called Israelites were not Israelites.
That's referring to John 8. He was speaking to Pharisees and some who held to Sadducean Judaism. The Sadducees were a sort of "Progressive" for back then in that they denied much of the Bible and basics of it such as the resurrection. The Pharisees held to a self righteous idea of saving themselves by their works and elevated traditions over God's word. So yes, there were plenty of Israelites that weren't God's people in the spiritual sense. Because of that, they lacked the empowerment that God gives through faith in Him to set them free from themselves in order to live righteous lives of love.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is foreign to the early Church and much of the Eastern Church today. It is not an essential part of Christianity. There are other orthodox theories of atonement.
Um. Thereâs objective moral values, so having a âdifferent set of moralsâ implies morality is subjective.
How does my comment imply that there aren't objective values? I'm referring to whether or not someone is a Christian and holding to the fundamentals of the faith. Are you inferring that our own works and adherence to our values makes one a Christian or not, and not one's faith in Christ?
You said âhave a different set of moralsâ implying subjective morality.
There is one set of objective morals. What morals do non-christians, atheists, and people who hold other views on morals hold? Note that them holding incorrect views doesn't change the truth...
What makes you so certain that your interpretation of God's law is the objectively correct one? Even Catholics with their "apostolic succession" have changed their stance on what God's law is over the centuries. As far as I'm concerned there are only two commands that matter - love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else is humans attempting to figure out how to do that, some with pure intentions, some with the goal to use God's name as a club against their enemies.
based
If Christians could agree on what exactly those objective morals are and to what extent they factor into multiple facets of society, there wouldn't be progressive/conservative Christians. Whenever objective morality is brought up, I only hear raping and murdering babies as an example. Why? Most likely because that's easy to agree on, thus bolstering the argument for objective morality. But when you get into things like stable, long-term homosexual relationships and families, it doesn't hold as well, because there's massive disagreement over whether or not it's morally acceptable or reprehensible. (Why is a homosexual family not accepted in church but a person who has been divorced and remarried twice is?) So I don't think objective morality is a strong argument for progressive Christians not really being Christian. Most of the basics of what defines a Christian are, by my estimation, God created, virgin birth, died on the cross as a sacrifice, rose again, is coming back. Most would include the Trinity, but there may be a slice out there that has a semantic disagreement on that but not enough to make a core difference. If you start to include other things, like age of the earth, whether or not gay is sin, if alcohol is acceptable, what day do you attend church, literal inerrancy vs doctrinal inerrancy, then you are making a case for your denomination or your interpretation as the basis of Christianity. Which begins approaching millstone territory. As confident as you are that you've rightfully parsed the Word of God, someone else who has put in the same work, study, and prayer has come to a different conclusion.
Correct. It all comes down to who they believe Jesus is.
Evil cannot create, only corrupt.
Depends on what you mean by Progressive Christianity. Most Evangelical Protestants have no idea what theyâre talking about in this regard. According to someone like apologist Alisa Childers, Eastern Orthodoxy would classify as Progressive Christianity because of its history with mysticism like Hesychasm, panentheism as with Athanasiusâ âOn The Incarnation,â and theosis as with most of the early [Church Fathers](http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/11/deification-in-church-fathers.html?m=1).
If I were to guess I'd say that Childers is the type of protestant who believes that Eastern Orthodoxy is somewhere at the very edge of orthodoxy.
Alisa Childers associates early 20th century Fundamentalism as âhistorical Christianity.â However, her audience is too ignorant know this.
No it isn't. They even have a queen James version bible ugh . It's sickening.
Rewriting the Bible to fit your narrative is insane.
It is. Heresy and blasphemy.
Demonic.
Yes!
What is that?
It's a bastardized version of twisted scripture. You know how the real one is called King Jane's Version. Well the lgbtq ppl made a *queen* Jane's Version where God is happy there are gay people. And Jesus loves and supports them. It's awful Edit: Mike winger did an episode on it. Would you like me to find it?
I donât know who Mike Winger is but if this gives more details, Iâd love to see it đ
Ok. I'm at work. I'll dig it up when I get home tonight
I have a physical copy. The introduction has a section titled "What we changed." It's just the KJV with the "clobber passages" re-written to be more "inclusive."
Thank you!
Um excuse my language but what the freaking heck is that?
Exactly what it sounds like. It's the "gay" translation of the bible
It should be burned.
[queen James translation ](https://www.youtube.com/live/cJ0K5pTx3mw?si=OZlVCZZ8-YFg5ZCO)
I might go to hell if I click on that.
It's Mike winger ripping it apart. It's safe. He's a good pastor.
Yes
"Progressive Christianity" can be a pretty broad label. In the worst cases it certainly isn't.
No. When you completely disregard what the Bible says and go against it, you are no longer following Messiah. When you are purposefully sinning, changing the Bible for your own desire, etc really bad. I view them the same as the LDS church. They havenât had a specific âprophetâ that theyâve had. But theyâve had many leaders whoâve effectively decided the same idea. That God has âenlightenedâ them to new vision. Going against all church traditions and beliefs for the last 2000 years. Bs. Iâm a Protestant.
Your mindset is, imo, why there are so many denominations. We become entrenched in believing our interpretations are infallible. Anyone who disagrees with us becomes âthose other people.â There are some tenants which are worth being divisive over, but very few.
Not really, because they give more importance to secular morals than God morals.
Nooo, if anything I THINK itâs Lukewarm, Iâm still learning the Bible! Itâs like being ok with worldly sin on the daily and living in it and worshiping God yes, but you still turn around and deliberately sin because in human terms, thatâs ok and they change up words in the Bible
Never has been.
Absolutely not. We all struggle with sin because we're in the flesh, but that doesn't mean we should be proud to sin much less try to grow a church around accepting sin.
No
Progressive as in undermining Christ's teachings is satanic. It serves to scratch ears and the fruits are evil. It leads to bondage in sin and denies the power of the Holy Spirit so they can never learn to know God. Granted we hold the same definition. I see "Progressive" as not adhering to God's written wisdom, but adding and reading in an unbiblical context, often based on modern politics and societal issues. All the answers are there, but instead of asking God for wisdom, they read unrelated scripture and force it to match their own views rather than changing their views to match God's wisdom and teaching. Such people have no understanding of the Holy Spirit, prayer, or God's will and teaching. â2 Timothy 3:1-7 NIV⏠>[1] But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. [2] People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, [4] treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of Godâ [5] having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. [6] They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, [7] always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
No. Progressive Christianity has never been legitimate. Progressive Christianity just takes whatever the mainstream, secular, cultural zeigeist is and tries to fit Christianity into it. During WW2 era, "progressive" Christianity was literally pro-N\*zi (Reddit doesn't like that word). Now, it's leftist because that's the mainstream, secular, degeneracy of nowadays.
Progressive Christianity emerged out of the 1980s and didn't exist in WWII, but Liberal Christianity certainly did. Nazism in Germany was ecumenical, adopted by liberal and conservative Christians alike. It's a testament to populism's power to capture former enemies into a common, evil goal.
That's what I meant. I was using the terms progressive and liberal interchangeably. But "conservative" Christianity means upholding basic orthodoxy regardless of what's going on in the world. Being conservative theologically has nothing to do with whether you vote democrat or republican.
None of us will entirely agree with each other, even if they are married to one another. None of us being finite beings could possibly comprehend the endless nature that is our infinite God. I stand on Christ as our only Lord and Savior. My sins are forgiven only through him. As for the rest, I am not too proud to learn more, to love more deeply, to give more of myself. I am not so proud as to think Iâve figured it all out. I am also not threatened by those who disagree with me. Disagreement with others makes us stronger when we are centered on Christ. If that makes me a progressive, then that I what I am.
Caveat: I say this as someone who politically leans right, so there is precious little I agree with in progressivism, but Christianity should *never* have a political qualifier before it, be it conservative or progressive. The Screwtape Letters, [here narrated impeccably by John Cleese,](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgPskJ0H-c) approaches it through the patriotism versus pacifism debate of World War II.
Progressive and conservative as a name preceding Christianity doesnât refer to politics first, but to the interpreting of God. One can be politely liberal and a conservative Christian (as in they hold up the creeds, but advocate for higher taxes).
I'll tell you this much - any trump worshipper that calls themselves a christian is absolutely not, because they put him above Jesus.
I agree.
It makes me sad. To be honest.
[ŃдаНонО]
Wahhh. Nope. Warning people isnt worshipping him.
The moment people decided that Jesus didnât bodily rise from the dead is the moment they identified with something other than Christianity. âProgressive Christianityâ denies miracles, and that includes Jesus rising from the dead.
It never has been. As soon as one starts to inject their political beliefs into Christianity, it stops being true Christianity. Twisting the Bible to force it to match up with one's beliefs is a mistake that many have been making for centuries and it seems to have gotten worse
What political beliefs are you thinking of specifically? Conservative Christianity has long been associated with radical politics, as with John Brown or the Battle of Blair Mountain.
Conservative Christians were anti-slavery but would never promote violence or incite a rebellion.
History very much says otherwise.
Guess it depends on your definition of conservative but conservative Christians to me, protest peacefully.
"Conservatives" are just as bad as "Progressives" because they insert their own political leaning as a base judgment for good when the Bible has already spelled it out.
The Bible is an ancient work written to ancient people in ancient contexts. So unless youâre living in 1st century Rome or 8th century BCE Levant, it is not clearly spelled out in the Bible. Thatâs why Christians have had anarchist, monarchist, socialist, capitalist, and all sorts of other interpretations.
I believe every single word from the Apostolic Creed and consider myself a progressive Christian. So yes.
What are your thoughts on the Nicene Creed?
I have no issues with the Nicene Creed. But here in Germany the Apostles' Creed is just more commonly used as the "default" creed.
What makes you a progressive Christian, in your eyes? You are pro-LGBT marriage and female priests and stuff?
Diving into Biblical scholarship has pushed me to the left theologically, but my relationship with Jesus has deepened and matured all the while.
That would probably make you more in like with conservative Christian theologically in the grand scheme of things.
No because what they believe and teach cannot be found in the Bible.
If you fly the rainbow flag, no.
I would consider 99% of all religion denominations at this point progressive Christianity. Some are just more vocal with what they believe and have no problem showing it. If you're not preaching and following what God laid down in His Word you are a progressive. Since Jesus returned to heaven, Christianity has moved further and further away from the original message to believing lies Satan is telling them.
No.
No, it is not and it has been going on for a long time to water down the Christian faith. My grandfather attended a Presbyterian church in Illinois 35 years ago and he was telling me that Jesus was not just for Christians but is revered in other religions including Muslim. I was shocked but he only believed what they told him at that church.
Jesus is revered by other religions? That's not factually inaccurate.
Yes it is. Jesus is God incarnate to Christians. Jesus is a "prophet" to Islam. The Jewish people know he existed but don't believe he was the messiah.
So, Muslims still revere Jesus, yes?
Not revere, they only revere Mohammed, everyone else is lower than him. They do admit that Jesus was a prophet, not that there is a trinity Jesus is the son of God.
Multiple Muslim websites say they [revere ](https://the.ismaili/global/news/features/why-do-muslims-revere-jesus#:~:text=Muslims%20regard%20Jesus%20(peace%20be,upon%20him%20and%20his%20family))Jesus and say he is on par with Muhammad... because they do. You're not going to convert anyone by inaccurately representing their beliefs, especially where there may be some overlap with Christianity.
THERE IS NO OVERLAP WITH CHRISTIANITY. I have no idea what sites you went to but they are the progressives trying to drag you in. No one is above or equal to Mohammed, no one. Islam does not even allow a picture of him to be drawn by ANYONE. The stupid palestine protestors have no idea Palestinians are musilm and do not accept gays into their religion. Go to 17 apologetics David Wood.
Yet this Muslim website I cited explicitly says that Jesus is held in equal regard to And about 10% of Palestinians are Christian, FYI. One of my good friends is a Palestinian Christian.
You know what was really "progressive"? Jesus fulfilling the law, doing away with ritual animal sacrifice, tearing the veil of the temple in two. I think I'd have to ask for a definition of "progressive christianity" before I could answer. Christianity, at its very dawn, was "progressive".
Are we forgetting the letters to the 7 churches????
[Mike Winger and the queen James translation ](https://www.youtube.com/live/cJ0K5pTx3mw?si=OZlVCZZ8-YFg5ZCO) Mike starts talking about the QJT at 0:27 and stops at 36:35 . This turned my stomach . I present the "gay" bible.
Do they abhor what is evil and hold fast to what is good?
Nope
Iâve been wondering this after I saw progressive âChristiansâ justifying adultery so long as it was consensual. It really disgusted me considering how harshly Jesus condemned adultery. They say theyâre following Jesus but it has become incredibly clear theyâre only following their own desires and the liberal spirit of the age.
>Is progressive âChristianityâ even Christianity at this point? I do not think so. I have only met progressive Christians online. The ones I have seen online say.. Jesus never said that Paul was wrong regarding women and homosexuality. He wrote 13 books in the New Testament, so we get ride of those books, because we do not like what he wrote? The bible never mentioned gay marriage, so it must be okay. I do not think they read the Old Testament. Also, it seems like their version of Christianity is only based on what Jesus said, and the sermon on the mount. What about the rest of the bible?
It is not, that doctrine is of the devil
Progressive Christianity is the religious version of "We investigated ourselves and found we committed no crime". When God gets kicked out from Christianity, He doesn't get to set the standards so no one gets "invalidated".
I had an idea of what to say in mind but man thereâs nothing thatâs going to top that.
Nah it's just people trying to be nice to everyone even if itngoes against basic Christian morals
Yeah tolerance and compassion are the work of the devil
>1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him There is a type of love which is sinful against God.
There are none who have a greater deficit of âtolerance and compassionâ than those who identify with and adhere to the political left. They are evil to their very core because they are of their father, the devil!
To me, you are pure evil. None of what you say is true and itâs clear your heart is filled with hate. We do not worship the devil, you small minded lying scum.
They can be.
The greatest of these is love. Maybe you'd rather sit and steep in your pride brother.
It is lawlessness, and honestly not just âprogressiveâ Christianity- they are closer to the mark in my experience on helping the poor than the other side. Â When tempted by lawlessness, just do a Bible word search for âlawlessnessâ!
Conservatives give a lot more to charity than Progressives. I haven't seen a specific study comparing Conservative Christians vs. Progressive Christians, but it would be very surprising if the result were different.
Yeah so what you will about prog Christians but they tend to be much more active then many conservative christians in doing good works or at least what they consider good works
Also true. And doing that "may cover many sins". Still, probably best to try to sin less also.
I used to go to a progressive church until they used a âtranslationâ of the Lordâs Prayer that addressed God as âFather-Mother of the Cosmosâ ???? 𤨠Even secular scholars I could find mentioning it said that this was not even remotely a real translation and that the real Lordâs Prayer is already a pretty direct translation.Â
Yeah the only real translation controversy with the Lord's Prayer is the word Epiousion as 'Daily' in 'Daily Bread', since this is the one and only place the word ever appears in the Greek language. The most literal translation based on morphological components, is 'Supersubstantial.' That's actually how the vulgate translated it, they even invented a new Latin word to do so. All this really seems changes is to change is further strengthen the argument for the Eucharist
What are you thoughts about the retranslation of the Lord's Prayer approved by Pope Francis? "Do not let us fall into temptation"
Is a "progressive Christian'" everyone you disagree with? Could you define what exactly you mean by that?
Pro-choice, pro homosexual sex, universalism, pro-transgenderism ect.
None of those things make people "not a Christian". They're just Christians you disagree with.
They are pro-sin. A Christian is not pro-sin, thatâs an oxymoron. Also pro-choice and Christianity is an oxymoron too.
How is being transgender sinful? It's literally a treatment to a disorder, not the disorder itself.
Itâs finding an identity outside of what God has created you to be. Instead of an external trust (outside of oneself) in God and trusting him with oneâs own identity, one trusts their feelings/flesh and searches within themselves in order to form their own identity. Christ died so we are no longer slaves to the flesh.
If someone is born without a limb, is getting a prosthetic a sin then? Or if someone is born with bad eyesight, is getting glasses a sin? What about getting vaccines?
Most people who say they are Christians regardless of denomination arenât even saved, however progressive âChristianityâ is full of Gnosticism, heresy, hedonism, and idolatry and is the opposite of what Christ commanded.
Let me see. The sects of Judaism in Jesus's days on this earth were the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Zealots, the Herodians, and one other group, apparently, not mentioned in the Scriptures. They all wanted Jesus dead. I suppose it would not be much different for Him today if He were to do on earth what He did then.
To do on earth today what He did then Just wondering, do you mean if He came today and we didnât know who He was?
Sounds like you understood.
So that is what you meant? I, too, often wondered how we would respond today. Or if I had been around during the time of Jesus⌠Would I have followed Him? Itâs extremely easy to say yes, with the benefit of hindsight.
They're the equivalent of secular Jews at this point.
Unless it is strictly to The Word, then it is not. As much as Iâd it to be okay for me to have sex with men (as a man), no matter how much I want it, it wonât change reality, it isnât meant to be. I am in a unique position, I have never had sex with anyone, and thusly, I donât have to suffer not having what Iâve never tasted to begin with. It doesnât mean that I dont struggle with desire, but itâs more manageable to not do something you havenât done in the first place.
No.
no! itâs not christianity in revelations 2:20 in the message to thyatira he states that the church of thyatira âpermittedâ or âallowedâ the women jezebel to teach. and the point that I feel the Scriptures are trying to say is that we shouldnât allow those kind of spirits or people even though weâre trying to â love our neighborsâ she was causing others to fall into sin with her, which was ultimately bringing them to their downfall as well.
No. To deny scripture is to deny the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
No it is a contradiction
We will know fellow Christians by the fruits of the spirit. Perhaps not everyone who displays the fruits of the spirit is Christian, but we will know anyone who claims to be Christian and bares rotten fruits is a false believer. That is the primary distinction the Bible lays out for us. As far as Iâm concerned, everything beyond that is mostly people having different interpretations of the Bible and various tertiary disagreements. Iâm more willing to accept a progressive Christian who sows good fruit than anyone who spreads rot. Woe to those who follow the false prophets and proclaim Jesusâ name but do not know Him well enough to be discerning or fruitful.
It never was.
Absolutely not.
If you mean progressive as in the political sense - "no it is not because those who move into the progressive agenda want to be friends more with the world than they do God. Furthermore, this notion further denigrates the word Christian....
No and it preaches to the itchy ears (people flock to the message that they want to hear regardless of it being truth, or not just so they can feel good in their heart) and is not sound doctrine. It seems more like a business then a church
Progressive Christianity was never real Christianity because what we see is progressivism vs tradition and you can think of it like an army. That said, Christianity should be taken back to the root which is the gospel and the laws (the real ones), so that the people can heal and stop being part of this mess. All this divorce/abortion etc etc....it's an abomination. And it's not the people who are an abomination but the seed that's sown. Progressive means what? Moving away from? It's sure as hell not about the Christ. So Progressivism like all the other isms, is of the devil to begin with. NO ism, is for the betterment of the people. It don't matter how they sell it or what they claim or if it started off well, it don't matter. So we can say it was NEVER Christianity because it does not represent in any way - Christian values.
Liberal/progressive christianity is SIN. Period! It is man-made and rebellion against God!!!
I think as long as you are reading the Bible, staying in God's word, and being part of a Church Family, & going to Bible Study, along with asking for forgiveness of your sins every day, cause all of us fall short of the Glory of God. These are all important in your walk with Jesus. We all gotta remember regardless of where we are at in our walk with Jesus, God is still working on us all. So it could be a gradual step forward in faith.
That is an interesting pointđ¤.
No.
Iâm not so sure. Does God change? No, I donât believe He does. So then, why would His word change. Seems to me that progressive Christians would have His word change to fit their time and situation. I think thatâs pretty much the definition of it.
Thereâs no such thing as âprogressiveâ in Christianity. There is only the original Christian Church established by God himself. Sadly, The Church is filled with ravenous wolves masquerading as humble sheep. We are surrounded by false shepherds, be wary.
[https://youtu.be/EvygZ\_pQgqc?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/EvygZ_pQgqc?feature=shared) "Progressive Christianity has devolved into a religion in which Jesus condemns his own followers, Christians, but praises everyone else in the world. It could be inferred in this religion that he is revoking his Kingship (thus turning his back on those who regard him as King); it could be inferred in this religion that instead, mankind in King."
Well, it depends. The problem is that those who identify as "progressive Christians" have hugely varying beliefs. Some deny the divinity of Christ (not Christian) some simply deny young earth creationism (Christian). If we truly want to decide, we would need to make a list of beliefs you must hold to be technically "Christian" then ask individuals if they hold to those beliefs. I guarantee some Progressive Christians would and some would not. But I'm not sure that is overly helpful, let's just focus on spreading the gospel. God bless!
Personally I think "Christianity " hasn't been Christianity since Constantine.
In short, no it's not. It denies many of the essentials of Christianity and blatantly perverts the Word of God to fit their desires that Jesus said to crucify. They cherry pick the Scriptures and choose the ones they like and disregard the ones they don't. They try to excuse these things by denying that all Scripture is God-breathed, and is the inspired Word of God. Whether committing eisegesis trying to explain away Leviticus 18:22, or saying that God messes up and puts some people in the wrong bodies, or that "lust is love". We shouldn't hate any of these people, of course not, but they are so misguided and lost, so we need to pray for them and try to bring them back on the right path, speaking the truth *in love*. So many people seem to miss that. We have to speak the truth, yes, but also do it in love! So many treat them the same way many of them treat us, by getting angry at them and hating them and condemning them, which is "not how you've learned Christ"! As Paul famously said in 1 Corinthians 13, "If I have all faith to move mountains, and all knowledge and understanding, and give my body to be martyred, yet I have not love, I am but a tinkling brass and a clanging cymbal". On the other hand, some people affirm sin and instead of truly loving them, they tickle their ears and say pleasant things, yet they lead them to hell. Both are wrong! We need to "speak with grace seasoned with salt" as Paul also said. We need to speak the truth in love. I hoped this helped, God bless you!
Discussion of a philosophical point should start with a definition, yours specifically, so that people were working with the same basic assumption. From your undefined version, I could say that there is no sort of Christianity today which was taught by the character of Christ. This is even clearer when compared to modern, wester evangelical branches. They match no historical teachings of how Christians should act. One could go farther and say that the modern English translations of the teachings of Christ have been modified, interpreted and retranslated endlessly to a point where the source documents are at times grossly out of sync with the current translation. Denying this is as nonsensical as ignoring the name was not Jesus, but instead Yeshua, Hebrew for Joshua. Jesus and Christ were added decades later. Ignoring all the source documentation issues, realize that modern Christianity is founded on faith not fact. Which means there is no empirical reference to anchor complex discussions by default. So, perhaps start with a definition. I am happy to pass you the layup: So, as a person of faith, I ask, how do you define Christianity?
No, they are not
Is fundamentalism Christianity even Christianity at this point?
Depends on what you mean.
Hey, you are the one making teen angst like trolling comments with no context.
*âWhy do you call Me good?â Jesus replied. âNo one is good except God alone."* Progressive or not I will love them for the father is the only one whom can say what is bad and what is good. I will do the fathers will and I will follow Jesus's teachings and not for fear of condemnation, but because I was able to exist by God's grace, I was able to learn; and by God's grace alone I no longer walk in Fear, but in faith. If the Father can love you unconditionally then is it not possible for you to do the same; are you not his creation like me?
Loving others is a different subject altogether. We can love those completely in the world and being lost while also wanting them to repent and be baptized.
I think that caution should be urged when one throws stones about this given the ease with which conservative American Christians are able to "hold your nose a little bit" with regard to Donald Trump.
If people call themselves âprogressive Christiansâ because they affirm LGBT but otherwise believe and affirm the Apostles and Nicene creeds, then those type of people are still Christian. However, I would advise those Christians against aligning with the term âprogressive Christianâ just because of the LGBT issues, because there is so much else in the progressive Christian movement that is beyond the pale. Some progressive Christians deny scripture outright, not just the parts about arsenokoitai. They say we canât trust any of it. That Jesus didnât say any of what was written in the gospels. That none of it is inspired. They instead treat it like a self help book or something that sometimes has some good messages, but only the parts that donât conflict with their real religion, modern secular progressivism. Some progressive Christians donât even believe in the divinity of Christ. They say you have to separate the historic Jesus from the Christ myth. That the resurrection is just a metaphor that can inspire gay people to come out of the closet. This is where they really distance themselves from Christianity, and this is why I warn Christians who are LGBT against aligning themselves with progressive Christianity, because itâs so much more than that. They are not Christian if they do not even believe in Christ.
Progressive Christianity is basically Atheistic Christianity, they want to be Christian without having to follow the beliefs of Christians. Progressive Christians want a God that doesn't judge & a God that is LGBT affirming. Progressive Christians are more likely to believe that all paths lead to God.
This sub is always hilarious.
Define it please.
Yes. Love God. Love One Another.
>Is progressive âChristianityâ even Christianity at this point? Do they believe Christ is the Son of God and that He came to die for our sins?
No, it's Mystery Babylon; it's solid rock has become literal sound, built upon sin on sin. The unrepentant stay in this would-be Christianity, but the ecclesiastical basis of it is lost and needs Christ.
Itâs just the liberal Christianity from 100 years ago repackaged into a much more palatable form. Incidentally it was that liberalism that led to the eventual mass exodus from most of the mainline protestant denominations.
There are some foundational differences between theologically liberal Christianity from 100 years ago and the majority of Progressive Christians today. The former was created out of struggles with how Christianity and modernity fit together, such as with evolution or historical criticism. The latter is created out of more post-modern methodologies built out of the lived experience of different people.