Serving Bread

Comment from Tom Pratt October 19, 2006 at 5:20 pm

Just another way to bring division. Protestantism started by breaking away and now we just can’t stop even when it becomes destructive.

Comment from Charles November 13, 2006 at 4:23 am

My take on it is: Christians who use this term to describe themselves or their group want to distinguish themselves from “liberals.” It is a reaction, I think, to the hijacking of their faith which they feel has taken place by liberal theology over the past 100 years or so. The problem is, “Bible-believing” today most often means biblical literalism. Many “Bible-believing-Christians” I read and hear believe less in the what is actually written in their Bibles than in the traditions of whatever groups they were reared in.

Anyone care to pursue the discussion further?

Comment from Eddy E November 13, 2006 at 3:32 pm

Hey Charles–Good thoughts! too bad that this post is almost a month old and buried in the archives. You do bring up a good point in that: 1. It’s a reaction; 2. The term doesn’t mean much apart from a label. However, it’s a darn good term to seperate from anything liberal (whatever that means)

Comment from Charles November 17, 2006 at 5:28 am

While it’s too simplistic construct a box and label it “liberal,” I think it is possible to broadly define “liberalism” when it applies to Theology. Basically it’s the whole school of thought that subscribes to the “historical-critical-method” of interpreting scripture and the tenets of the faith.

Basic assumptions:
1. The supernatural cannot be verified
2. There is a natural, historical, “rational” explanation for the testimony of Christendom and its Bible.

This so-called “higher criticism” tends to reach certain conclusions, namely that divine creation, miracles and resurrection are either
A. Legends and myths purposely cirulated by the apostles or early Church fathers to add religious credibility to their movement
B. Allegorical literature. Falsely understood to be actual events.
C. Testimony which the writers BELIEVED really happened (i.g. Paul’s vision of the exalted Christ) but are purely subjective/psychological phenomenae.

This CAN in turn result in a relativisic moral code which justifies “situational ethics” or pragmatism. In any case, the “gospel” preached will be socially oriented, emphasize tolerance and good will, rather than assert that “there is but one name given to men by which we can be saved” (Peter’s speech in Acts 2).

That evangelicals and other more traditional Christians reject this is understandable. The big problem with “Bible-believing” is that it has taken its place even above “God-believing” in the creeds or “Statements of Faith” in most evangelical churches. Or run this simple test–look up “What we believe,” or “Our Statement of Faith” for a half-dozen evangelical organizations on the internet and you’ll typically find something to the effect that the Bible is “the infallible word of God” placed even before “I believe in God, the eternal creator,” etc. etc. Isn’t that telling?

Sadly, veneration of the scriptures turns out very often to be veneration of mere TRADITIONS (and other misunderstandings). Or am I off in left field?

Trackback from prosource flooring February 3, 2007 at 5:44 am

prosource flooring

SomegifttoME 527765 homepage of prosource flooring