re: Conservative and Progressive Christianity - Different Faiths

Progressive Christianity is for people who need the emotional and psychological crutch of religion but aren’t committed enough to actually live out the tenants of that religion.

It’s the least respectable form of religious belief.

“Progressive” Christianity has become a lot more mainstream just in the last decade, and it’s not just churchgoers, it’s the leaders. It’s quite frightening

quote:

---

I find it hard to believe someone who identifies as a "Progressive Christian" is actually Christian at all

Amen

---

That's the thing...people can identify as "Christian" or Progressive Christian" all day long. The bottom line is how does Scripture define a Christian. Who does God say is a Christian?

Life would be much improved by just following

Ten Commandments....... Old Testament

New Testament........ Love your neighbor and

.............. Forgive them when they screw up


Of the ten plus two, The council to not bear false witness is where the world needs the most work.






All the rest is for the temple priests to have something to do to justify their existence

quote:

---

- Unsurprisingly, data shows progressive Christians are less likely to hold to orthodox Christian tenets (inerrancy of scripture, Christ as sole path to salvation). Conservative Christians are largely unwavering.

---

That by itself is more than enough to say in no uncertain terms that progressive Christianity, as if there is such a thing, is not Christianity at all, but simply a false gospel and false teaching that Christ Himself warned us would come to deceive many, as did Paul.

quote:

---

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, - 2 Timothy 4:3

---

quote:

---

I guess we can bring back slavery

---

I guess you ignored your gotcha attempt being explained to you...

quote:

---

Many Christians believe that Scripture teaches that only a baptized believer...with belief and repentance preceding baptism...is a true Christian...that just as one is buried in the water and rises from it...symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection...their old life is buried and spiritually they are raised from the dead to live a new life.

---

While it's true that Christ commanded His disciples to make disciples (not just converts, BTW) of the nations and baptize them in Matthew 28, water baptism is not necessary for salvation, as we see an example of with the thief on the cross. It is faith alone in Christ alone that saves, not faith plus any additional works, like submitting ones self to baptism.

quote:

---

Literally every example of baptism in the New Testament follows this pattern. It's a decision made by the believer...not a dedication made by one's parents when they are an infant.

---

I have to disagree with you here. First of all, there are household baptisms that we read about that were done because of the faith of the head or representative of the family (such as Lydia and the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16), but even the examples provided are not conclusive that children were present, nor are they conclusive that children were not present. We are not supposed to base our theology on the narrative passages, but from didactic or teaching passages.

I believe the correct way to interpret the Bible is as one story of redemption of God's people. God has made covenants with His people throughout redemptive history and baptism is the sign of the new covenant which came to replace the old covenant. The old covenant sign was given to Abraham in Gen. 15-17. That sign was circumcision. It was a sign given to Abraham and his children (at 8 days old) based on his faith, not theirs, as a sign that they, too, are partakers of the covenant promises of God. Just as circumcision represented entrance into the covenant community in the old covenant, so too does baptism represent entrance into the covenant community in the new covenant. We see the parallel in Colossians 2:11-12.

The old covenant sign was to be a reminder that if the people were to reject the promises of God, they would be cut off just as their foreskin was cut off. The new covenant sign is to serve as a reminder, as well, that if one has faith in Christ's work on the cross, that they will be washed clean from their sins and have eternal life. The sign of baptism is a seal of God's promises that are received by faith. Baptism by itself does nothing. It is faith that receives the promises of God that baptism points to.

quote:

---

Show me one example from the New Testament of an infant being baptized. Just one.

---

You're asking for the wrong thing. You should be asking what relation does the new covenant have with the old covenant and whether there is continuity or discontinuity.

Recall that the epistles included several instances where divisions and false teachings and practices were being addressed. The Jews, especially, found it difficult to diverge from their Jewish adherence to the law. With all of their traditions and history, there was no mention of the Jewish Christians being upset that after a few thousand years, their children were no longer included in the promises of God. Why is that?

No, the new covenant in Christ's blood is actually more inclusive than the old covenant. The old covenant sign was only given to boys (for obvious reasons), but the new covenant sign is given to both boys and girls. The old covenant sign was given to the people of the physical nation of Israel while the new covenant sign is given to "true Israel", those who have faith in Christ as their messiah, regardless of what physical nation they belong to.