Modernism

It is quite nausiating to hear so many persons condemning a very vaguely defined (by the pharisaic condemners) approach to theology. What has not been addressed is how one can escape what is being condemned. It is impossible to not use reason to approach scripture in the formation of theological positions. The facts that the bible does not speak univocally on all matters and (to even further variability) that the interpretation of it is bound to the human being standing before it is unconditionally proven in nearly every forum on this board.

It is very easy to show faults with any approach, but unless your approach answers the questions raised, then you are in no better position than the one condemned. In fact, your blind condemnation fails to see something that a "modernist" (I think this is a very historically ignorant word because explicitly philosophical approaches to the bible go back to even the 3rd century) approach does perceive--the questions are not easily answered and ignoring the obvious does nothing to provide for a theology that can say something about God today.

Most of the persons that are blithering against the "modernists" are caught in theological debates from 4 centuries ago and simply turn a deaf ear to the cries of the society that they actually live in. I would hope that these logically falacious, piously uninformed, and absolutely irrelevant views stay far away from the pulpits that anyone within sight of this board stands behind, because the good news is that Jesus changes everything--not that He doesn't allow us to change the way we approach Him.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

To me, modernism is another way of saying "friendship with this world".

James 4
4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

1 John 2
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Colossians 2
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

HankD

 

Modernism is a philosophy Mark O. It is currently (and rapidly) being displaced by post-modernism as the prevailing philosophy of our society.

Like any other philosophy, modernism has its extremes as well as many neutral characteristics. Modernism overemphasizes reason and materialistic proofs... that does not mean that those things are now to be discarded from Christian use. Saddam built roads in Iraq. Does that mean we should kill all of the Iraqi Civil Engineers?

Textual criticism and even a critical approach to Bible doctrines is a healthy thing for Christians to engage in. We should know why we believe what we believe. The fact that some would take this to an extreme and begin denying biblical truths does not invalidate the practice.

 

"Modernist" approaches to the scriptures are not attempting to hurt God (even if this were true, I'm sure he can take care of Himself--if the scriptures are true then they can withstand the test); they are attempting to attack the naive understandings of the scriptures and the One to whom the scriptures point. The belief that you construct out of the scriptures or about the scriptures is not the same as the scriptures--and it is obsurd to think that your theological positions are the same as God.

You still haven't dealt with the question that I posed above--how can you claim that your approach to the scriptures and theology are not bound to your philosophical context?

Grace and Peace, Danny

BTW, I do love Jesus, and I think that my quest to better understand him through every possible means at my disposal is congruent with his command to "search." You may question my approach to theology, but you can rest assured that my spiritual journey is guided by a personal relationship that is ever deepened the more I am willing to ask myself the difficult questions without settling for quick and shallow answers. I apologize for my "nausiating" quip above, but I did not attack the quality of your spirituality. I think that doing so is not in the spirit of this theological dialogue.

 

Mark,

I agree about seperating from modernists churches and leaders. But having said that I do not believe all modernists could be classed as unbelievers.

While modernism does including rejecting Biblical inerrancy, it is more than that.

Just because someone does not believe the 66 books of the Old and New Testament are not inerrant does not make them not a Christian.(I do hold to inerrancy though -so don't come after me!)

Martin Luther doubted the authority of James,Hebrews Jude and Revelation. In fact he called James "the staw man epistle". Other great theologians who most of us would consider Christians in centuries past had some problems with some books of the Bible.

William Tyndale(a great admirer of Luther) followed Luther's lead and in his translation did not assign Roman Numerals to Hebrews,James, Jude or Revelation but placed them at the back of his translation.

That does not make them right - but it does not make them unbelievers either.

Some modernists still believe in the deity of Christ and the trinity - they believe Jesus is the only way -but they reject other fundamentals of the faith such as inerrancy and creation. These modernists while in error(and we should seperate from them) are still believers.

You would be correct in saying that the modernists who reject Christ as God in the flesh or the atonement or Christ alone for salvation are unbelievers.

IFBReformer

 

Might it be more accurate to say that they are heretics than "unbelievers." At least that is the original name they were given. Heretics believe, but are in error and your historical grounds for separation would be strengthened for that is exactly how the church dealt with the issue.

BTW, if one should separate, does that mean that you shouldn't be "fellowshipping" with us by being a member of this board?

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Might it be more accurate to say that they are heretics than "unbelievers." At least that is the original name they were given. Heretics believe, but are in error and your historical grounds for separation would be strengthened for that is exactly how the church dealt with the issue.

BTW, if one should separate, does that mean that you shouldn't be "fellowshipping" with us by being a member of this board?

Grace and Peace, Danny </font>[/QUOTE]Danny,

This board is for exchange of ideas(not that we will agree with one anothers ideas) and information. Not for evangelistic effort. So that is where the difference is.

The following is a re-post of a reply I did on another thread but I think it is applicable here. I have added few things for this discussion:

It is really scary to me to realize how much error is out there concerning the core doctrine of our faith - that of salvation.

The way I see it there are critical errors and non-critial errors when it comes to the Gospel.

The critical errors cause someone to think they are saved when they are not - we need to seperate from ministries that teach these errors.

The non-criticals errors in the presentation of the Gospel can still contain the heart of the Gospel - but they are in error when it comes to things before or after salvation. Some of these
non-critical errors, while not affecting salvation still demand that we seperate.

Here goes a brief summary of what I see going on:


How a person comes to the point of salvation:

Correct View
Unconditional election(Calvinist leaning)
Holy Spirit draws only the elect of God.
Person comes to Christ because they are regenerated by the spirit and drawn irresitably to the point of accepting Christ as savior.

Non-Critical Error
Conditional election(Arminian leaning)
Holy Spirit draws all men - some reject, some accept.
Person comes to Christ completely of their own free will and then they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

What happens at the point of salvation:

Correct View
A person must repent of their sins and accept Christ as Lord(not in the Lordship salvation sense)-but accept Christ as God and Savior. They must trust in the finished work of the shed blood of Christ on the cross believing that he died and rose again the third day and that none of their works before or after salvation can merit their salvation.

Critical Error
We are saved by Jesus but he was not God in the flesh. The Godhead is not revealed in three eternally distinct persons God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit(rejection of the trinity).

Critical Error
A person does not need to accept Christ as savior - they are just saved because they are elect.

Critical Error
Our good works actually help to merit our salvation.(Christ's sacrifice was not the total payment for sins).

Critical Error
Jesus is "A WAY" not "THE WAY".

Critical Error
We accept Jesus as Savior but he did not
rise from the dead physically - only spiritually.

Critical Error
Jesus was not conceived of the Holy Spirit
and was not born of a virgin, but by natural
processes.

What happens after salvation:

Correct View(Calvinist Leaning)
Eternal Security or Perseverance of the Saints:
Person may or may not produce much fruit. They may or may not be baptized or join a local church. They may never build(do good works,become more and more righteous) much on their "foundation" which is Christ. Their salvation does not depend on any effort of their own exerted before or after Salvation. In this case "perseverance" is continuing to trust in Christ for their eternal salvation. Only rewards can be won and lost - not salvation in this view.

Non-Critical Error(Calvinist Leaning)
A variation on the Perseverance of the Saints sometimes called Lordship Salvation:
Person who is truly saved must do good works after salvation - not for salvation but as an evidence of salvation. Those who persevere(do good works,grow more righteous) prove they are the elect of God. Those who do not do good works and grow more and more righteous prove they were never saved.

Non-Critical Error(Arminian Leaning)
Person must do good works after being truly saved to maintain their salvation such as leading a holy life and church attendance and baptism. If they do not they then a truly saved(regenerate) person could loose the salvation.


When it comes to Creation:

Correct View
Young Earth Creationism
God created in the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days
as is described in the Genesis account. Evolution
did not take place.

Non-Critical Error(Seperation might take place)
Old Earth Creationism
God created the earth in 6 periods(old earth creationism). Evolution did not take place.

Non-Critical Error(Seperation should take place)
Theistic Evolution - God started the process of evolution(like God caused the big bang and then everything evolved from there or variations of this).

When it comes to Biblical inerrancy:

Correct View
The Bible consists of the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testaments. The writers of these books were verbally inspired of God. In the original autographs they are the very Word of God. Copies and translations of those originals are inerrant as they reflect the originals.

Non-Critical Error(Seperation might occur)
The Bible consists of the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testaments. The writers of these books were verbally inspired of God. The 7 edition of the 9th translation of the Bible in English(The KJV) is the preservered Word of God by which all other translations(or editions of translations),Greek and Hebrew manuscripts must be judged as to their authenticity.

Non-Critical Error(Seperation must occur)
Anything less than verbal inspiration in the original autographs.

I know I may have left out some things but you get the general idea. And I know if you are arminian or KJV only you will want to flip a few around.


IFBReformer

[ April 15, 2003, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: IfbReformer ]

 

Mark,

I guess by your estimation Luther and Tyndale are rotting in hell.(What I said is historic fact - look up the history of the english Bible from many sources).

Accepting the 66 books of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God does not save you. Accepting Jesus Christ as Lord(God) and Savior and accepting his death on the cross as full payment for your sins does.

Here is a straight Gospel presentation with all critical issues addressed:

THE FULL GOSPEL
"Do you accept Jesus as the Christ(Messiah, God clothed in flesh, born of virgin) and his death on the cross as the full atonement for your sins?
Do you accept that he rose bodily on the third day?"

ADDITIONS TO THE GOSPEL
"...And do you accept the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament as the inspired Word of God in the original autographs?"

"...which are preserved in only the 7 edition of the 9th translation of the Bible in English(the KJV)?"

"...and that the world was created in 6 literal days"

"...and that baptism must be by immersion and follow true conversion"

"...and that churches are to made up of only saved indivduals"

AND THE LIST COULD GN AND ON....

I guess with what you are thinking a lot of people would not have been saved when the Bible was still be copied and distributed because they did not have all 27 books yet?

I believe in inerrancy - but inerrancy does not save me, the finished work of Christ on the cross does.

Not all modernists believe what you are saying - therefore not all modernists are unbelievers.

IFBReformer

 

Mark,

First off you are misapplying Revelation 22:18-19(NIV):

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

"this book" that John is speaking of is the book of Revelation. I understand that the principle could be applied to the rest of Scripture based on other warnings in the Old and New Testament - but that is its context.

Wow - you would send Martin Luther and Tyndale(two of the greatest Gospel preachers in the last 500 years) to hell? Think about that one tonight while you are in bed.

So here's what I "make of it":

I do not believe a true believer could purposefully add or take away from the written Word of God. Having said that, a true believer(like Tyndale or Luther) could be deceived into thinking that a certain portion of scripture was not true or authoritative.

Just like true believers can be deceived into many false doctrines like Wesley was deceived by Arminiansim - yet he was still a Christian.

Mark - a huge portion of the Bible is history(inerrant history) but history none the less. This tells us something about God - he likes us to know the whole picture, to understand where we came from.

So many Baptists(especially Fundamental Baptists which I am) reject the need to look at church history. They refuse to learn anything from it.

Just like you did not know about Luther and Tyndale as I did not until a few years ago. We must come out our little world of what we presuppose things to be.

God values history and I follow his lead.

IFBReformer

 

Mark,

One other thing of interest, it seems to me that you do not know how to distinguish between critical doctrines(those that determine whether you are saved) and lesser but still important doctrines like inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Are we saved by grace through faith in the blood of Christ Jesus AND believing correct doctrine on every issue?

I have think the safest and most biblical rule is this - if there is an 'AND' after Jesus in the Gospel it must be wrong.


IFBReformer

 

IFBReformer,

Did you read what I said? I said that this passage applies at least to the book of Revelation which is the very book you said Martin Luther denied. If the Lord pronounced a curse on a man for taking away from the book of Revelation how much more for taking away the whole book of Revelation!!!!!

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark,

Sorry I was not paying attention - got you on that it may only be applying to Revelation.

Luther was not taking away from or adding to the Book of Revelation. He was questioning its authority as a New Testament book.

You must understand that historical setting of Luther and Tyndales time.

The Bible after being locked away for centuries(many priests had never even read the Bible - only select portions) Luther and the other reformers were getting their first exposure to the Bible as whole.

The Catholic Bible included the apocrapha and they dismissed those non-canolitical. Luther was not sure that they were right in adding Hebrews,James, Jude and Revelation.

Luther especially had problems with the book of James because he thought it directly contradicted the book of Romans and justifaction by faith alone and not by works.

He had not "arrived" yet as we have today, so I think we cut him and Tyndale little slack.

There were many throughout history who questioned Revelation because they did not understand it. This not make them unbelievers.

Like I said and you did not address - there is a difference between someone purposefully adding or taking away from what they know to be the Word of God and being deceived into thinking portions are
not authentic or valid.

I know you and I could go round and round on this so this will be my last post on this thread.

I will leave it saying on this - We are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ alone - Not by Jesus AND believing correctly on every other doctrine or issue.

IFBReformer

 

Just jumping in to make a point. John began Revelation by saying he was writing letters. The Spirit moved him to pen the final letter that made up the whole book, the Bible.

 

My friend, the posters on this board differ from each other profoundly on various topics. Calvinists vs Armenians, Premilliniests against amillniests, KJV only folk agains NIV acceptors, and many of them remain oppossed all their lives.

Your statement here, carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that the majority are insincere, incomplete seekers except, possibly, a very few who happen to have hit just the right collection of perfect doctrines!

I think we all need to give each other a little more credit than that!

 

IfbReformer,

I'm sorry, but the center of the Christian faith is not salvation. It is God revealed in Jesus Christ as a historical figure. Otherwise, your construction of salvation is only a projection of your inner needs and not as a result of what Jesus actually did. Soteriology is important, but the concepts of Trinity and Christology are more important.

BTW, your Christology from above is heretical--"clothed in human flesh". God was united with human flesh in the incarnation; he didn't put it on like a wet-suit. You should be careful to get first things in place before you spout about what is secondary. This seems to be symptomatic of many fundamentalists, because they never look at the ineffability of God as a serious matter. Instead they want to skip the part where their knowledge of God is limited so they can quickly jump to deciding who they, oops, I mean God will allow into heaven.

Grace and Peace, Danny