Progressive Disenchantment Atonement

[Right Divider]

There isn't anyone who knows anything about me or my doctrine who could rightly accuse me of preaching a works-righteousness.

Also, I've never known anyone who articulated your point here who could explain to me the difference inherent in the distinction you are making. The fact is that "Faith is trust, fidelity, and dependence on Christ." is itself a doctrine. A doctrine that I think is basically correct. The question is, trust in what? Responding with, "Trust in Christ." only shifts the goal post. In other words, instead of defining trust, now you have have to define the term "Christ". I'd love to see you do that without diving head first into more doctrine. See the problem?

It's funny how people so often hang themselves by what they say.

It reminds me of "there are no absolutes"... that being an absolute statement.
Or "you shouldn't be dogmatic"... which is also a dogmatic statement.
Or "you shouldn't judge"... which is judgmental.

The list goes on and on.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's funny how people so often hang themselves by what they say.

It reminds me of "there are no absolutes"... that being an absolute statement.
Or "you shouldn't be dogmatic"... which is also a dogmatic statement.
Or "you shouldn't judge"... which is judgmental.

The list goes on and on.

RSR: Best Arguments Against Atheism | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Clete]

It's funny how people so often hang themselves by what they say.

It reminds me of "there are no absolutes"... that being an absolute statement.
Or "you shouldn't be dogmatic"... which is also a dogmatic statement.
Or "you shouldn't judge"... which is judgmental.

The list goes on and on.

It's a common mistake and it's surprisingly easy to miss the fact that you're making it, or at least it is in today's society where people haven't ever really been taught to even look for such things.

It's annoying when people who aught to know better commit this sort of error but I don't think MWinther is in that category. I think he was just articulating that faith has to be real. And to that extent, he's right.

 

[Clete]

RSR: Best Arguments Against Atheism | KGOV.com

kgov.com

"Words have no meaning."

 

[Right Divider]

It's a common mistake and it's surprisingly easy to miss the fact that you're making it, or at least it is in today's society where people haven't ever really been taught to even look for such things.

It's annoying when people who aught to know better commit this sort of error but I don't think MWinther is in that category. I think he was just articulating that faith has to be real. And to that extent, he's right.

While I agree, he has some serious issues like not being able to understand that one cannot have faith in God if one does not even believe that God exists. Some real fundamental problems there.

P.S. That was one of his problems with your excellent list. Even being the first element on your list.

 

[MWinther]

There isn't anyone who knows anything about me or my doctrine who could rightly accuse me of preaching a works-righteousness.

Also, I've never known anyone who articulated your point here who could explain to me the difference inherent in the distinction you are making. The fact is that "Faith is trust, fidelity, and dependence on Christ." is itself a doctrine. A doctrine that I think is basically correct. The question is, trust in what? Responding with, "Trust in Christ." only shifts the goal post. In other words, instead of defining trust, now you have have to define the term "Christ". I'd love to see you do that without diving head first into more doctrine. See the problem?

The divine cannot be reduced to a set of doctrines. Barth is right to warn that Christians often try to construct a ladder of propositions to reach God, as though salvation were something we could secure by assembling the correct system. Doctrines are indispensable, but they are not God; they can never contain Him. Knowing the doctrines is not the same as knowing the living God.

When faith collapses into doctrinal correctness, the door to God effectively closes. Religion becomes a matter of mastering propositions rather than receiving the Spirit. In this sense, certain strands of Protestantism drift towards a rule‑based posture: faith becomes "getting the doctrines right," and divine encounter is replaced by intellectual compliance. But the Holy Spirit is not confined to doctrinal systems. He speaks, disrupts, and calls—always exceeding the formulas meant to secure Him.

It is no wonder that theologians tend to sideline the Holy Spirit; He keeps overturning their systems. He is the divine otherness that refuses to be domesticated. Islam has faced a similar outcome: with the Spirit absent, religion hardens into a doctrinal structure.

 

[Right Divider]

The divine cannot be reduced to a set of doctrines.

Nobody has done that, lie #1

Barth is right to warn that Christians often try to construct a ladder of propositions to reach God, as though salvation were something we could secure by assembling the correct system.

Nobody has done that, lie #2

Doctrines are indispensable, but they are not God; they can never contain Him.

Nobody has done that, lie #3

Knowing the doctrines is not the same as knowing the living God.

Nobody has done that, lie #4

When faith collapses into doctrinal correctness, the door to God effectively closes.

Nobody has done that, lie #5

Religion becomes a matter of mastering propositions rather than receiving the Spirit.

Nobody has done that, lie #6

In this sense, certain strands of Protestantism drift towards a rule‑based posture: faith becomes "getting the doctrines right," and divine encounter is replaced by intellectual compliance.

Nobody has done that, lie #7

But the Holy Spirit is not confined to doctrinal systems. He speaks, disrupts, and calls—always exceeding the formulas meant to secure Him.

Nobody has done that, lie #8

It is no wonder that theologians tend to sideline the Holy Spirit; He keeps overturning their systems. He is the divine otherness that refuses to be domesticated.

You obsess about the Holy Spirit and ignore the Christ of Christianity and His Father.

Islam has faced a similar outcome: with the Spirit absent, religion hardens into a doctrinal structure.

Your ninth (at least) lie in this post alone. You are a disgusting example of a false brethren. Your idea of faith is a vague abstraction without any content whatsoever. You think that you can be a Christian without fundamental Christian doctrine. You are a poser extraordinaire.

 

[MWinther]

...

 

[MWinther]

Nobody has done that, lie #1

Nobody has done that, lie #2

Nobody has done that, lie #3

Nobody has done that, lie #4

Nobody has done that, lie #5

Nobody has done that, lie #6

Nobody has done that, lie #7

Nobody has done that, lie #8

You obsess about the Holy Spirit and ignore the Christ of Christianity and His Father.

Your ninth (at least) lie in this post alone. You are a disgusting example of a false brethren. Your idea of faith is a vague abstraction without any content whatsoever. You think that you can be a Christian without fundamental Christian doctrine. You are a poser extraordinaire.

Oh yes, many have done that and theologians have criticized this reduction of divinity. Fabien Muller argues that modern theology often reduces ideas about God to immanent, social, psychological, or political categories, abandoning the older sense of divine transcendence and mystery. He critiques the cultural forces that pressure theology to renounce "speculative audacity," warning that such reductionism flattens the divine into human conceptual schemes. https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/news/2...ive-theology-why-theorizing-about-god-matters

Finley Lawson's analysis of ontological reductionism warns that attempts to compress divine reality into simplified conceptual models undermine the complexity of doctrines like the Trinity and Incarnation. He argues that reductionist approaches distort the divine mystery by forcing it into overly tidy conceptual categories. https://www.athensjournals.gr/humanities/2019-6-1-5-Lawson.pdf

Theological discourse must remain holistic, resisting the temptation to compress divine complexity into simplified formulas. Doctrines are necessary but not exhaustive; they point toward the divine but cannot contain it. Several historical theologians share this concern. Gregory of Nyssa insisted that God is infinite and incomprehensible, and therefore cannot be contained within conceptual definitions. His apophatic emphasis warned against treating theology as a set of intellectual conclusions rather than a path of spiritual ascent. https://philopedia.org/periods/patristic-philosophy/

Pseudo‑Dionysius argued that all doctrinal statements about God are inadequate and must be negated to preserve divine transcendence. His entire corpus is a protest against reducing God to conceptual categories. https://philopedia.org/periods/patristic-philosophy/

Clement of Alexandria integrated Greek philosophy into Christian thought but emphasized that true knowledge of God is ultimately experiential and moral, not merely doctrinal. He saw doctrine as a guide toward the divine life, not a substitute for it. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/patristic-era-foundations-medieval-thought

Augustine of Hippo repeatedly stressed that God exceeds all human concepts. Doctrines are necessary, but they function as signs pointing beyond themselves. He warned that intellectual mastery of doctrine without love and humility leads to pride and distortion. https://www.apuritansmind.com/histo...ical-theology-the-patristic-period-c-100-450/

 

[Right Divider]

Oh yes, many have done that and theologians have criticized this reduction of divinity.

Dude... I was clearly talking about HERE in these DISCUSSIONS in this FORUM.

Fabien Muller argues that modern theology often reduces ideas about God to immanent, social, psychological, or political categories, abandoning the older sense of divine transcendence and mystery.

You can discuss "modern theology" all that you want... but you were criticizing what WE were telling you and we were not saying ANY of the things that you were complaining about.

You need to learn how to DIALOG with people on an Internet forum. Instead of you come here to preach your nonsensical and irrational philosophy and call it "Christian".

You are just here to impress yourself with your supposed superior knowledge and yet we are NOT impressed and you're not that smart.

Either start interacting with us or get lost. Use sound reason and logic.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Oh yes, many have done that

Nobody you are talking to in this thread is doing any of these things. What is wrong with you?

Gregory of Nyssa insisted that God is .. incomprehensible,

If God is incomprehensible then how could Greg insist he was making an accurate statement about Him?

You say so many things without thinking them through.

Augustine of Hippo repeatedly stressed that God exceeds all human concepts

Ok. Well I think he was wrong. God is either Just or He is not (He is Just). We don't need to imagine that God is super Just or incomprehensibly Just in order for us to know that God is Just.

You either have Justice or you don't. Likewise God either Loves His children or He does not (God is our Father and He Loves us, and He wants us to Love Him! And we do!)

Love, Justice, Patience, Sacrifice are things we grow to understand about God. So many other things too. It would be so sad for someone to not see this. These things are real! We can understand these things about Him because He died for us. There are so many cool posts in this thread made by Clete, JudgeRightly and others. We don't all know each other but we can all tell you that our relationship with Jesus is real! What could possibly ever be more cool than that?

 

[MWinther]

Dude... I was clearly talking about HERE in these DISCUSSIONS in this FORUM.

You can discuss "modern theology" all that you want... but you were criticizing what WE were telling you and we were not saying ANY of the things that you were complaining about.

You need to learn how to DIALOG with people on an Internet forum. Instead of you come here to preach your nonsensical and irrational philosophy and call it "Christian".

You are just here to impress yourself with your supposed superior knowledge and yet we are NOT impressed and you're not that smart.

Either start interacting with us or get lost. Use sound reason and logic.

In fact, I am criticizing the concept of "a list of doctrines one must believe in order to be truly saved as a Christian," which has appeared in this thread. I am also challenging the view of the Bible as an instruction manual that one can simply open and read as straightforward, black‑and‑white truth. It is not an instruction book.

Or are we, for example, instructed to exterminate all the Amalekites?

During the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, Hutus killed an estimated 800,000 people. In a sermon on 1 Samuel 15, a pastor urged his congregation to commit violence. He compared the Tutsis to the Amalekites and proclaimed that those who wished to avoid God's rejection must carry out the task of killing the people God had rejected. "No child, no wife, no old man shall be left alive." The congregation responded, "Amen."

If the Bible is read as an instruction manual, with truths presented in stark black and white, it becomes a genuinely dangerous book. But it is a spiritual text and must not be read as a manual, nor understood in a strictly literal sense. For example, the Flood was not a literal worldwide deluge covering the entire earth; it is a symbolic myth. Jesus himself sought to teach his audience not to think so concretely by speaking in parables.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The rest of your post is a bunch of dangerous nonsense itself, but the only thing worth responding to is this.

the Flood was not a literal worldwide deluge covering the entire earth; it is a symbolic myth.

The evidence for it happening is literally everywhere you look.

"Not a literal worldwide deluge"

"Symbolic myth"

My foot.

I encourage you to get out of your house and go look at the environment you live in.

Spend a while doing that.

Then, when you get back, look into the Hydroplate theory.

 

[Right Divider]

In fact, I am criticizing the concept of "a list of doctrines one must believe in order to be truly saved as a Christian," which has appeared in this thread.

And you are doing so wrongly. As I've said already, you cannot be saved if you don't think that God exists. The scripture (and simple logic) make that quite clear.

I am also challenging the view of the Bible as an instruction manual that one can simply open and read as straightforward, black‑and‑white truth. It is not an instruction book.

"Not an instruction book"? What is hilarious there are TONS of instructions in the Bible. Israel's entire LAW is in that book. Do you not think that those are instructions? The LAW gave Israel rules for every aspect of life!

Rom 10:17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:17) So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.​

Or are we, for example, instructed to exterminate all the Amalekites?

So CONTEXT is a completely foreign concept to you also? NO, WE were not given THAT instruction.

During the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, Hutus killed an estimated 800,000 people. In a sermon on 1 Samuel 15, a pastor urged his congregation to commit violence. He compared the Tutsis to the Amalekites and proclaimed that those who wished to avoid God's rejection must carry out the task of killing the people God had rejected. "No child, no wife, no old man shall be left alive." The congregation responded, "Amen."

So you think that someone wrongly using the Word of God is the fault of the Word of God? Again, you are an illogical and irrational person.

If the Bible is read as an instruction manual, with truths presented in stark black and white, it becomes a genuinely dangerous book.

The Bible is far more than just an "instruction manual"... it is GOD'S WORD.

But it is a spiritual text and must not be read as a manual,

That is another illogical statement. It's BOTH!

nor understood in a strictly literal sense.

We must read the Bible naturally and normally. Some parts of literal, some parts are figurative, some parts poetic. It's not that difficult to discern which is which unless someone comes to the text of the preconceived agenda.

For example, the Flood was not a literal worldwide deluge covering the entire earth;

Hogwash! Of course it was a literal worldwide deluge covering the entire earth. The Bible could not be more clear about it. Again, you are a false brethren.

it is a symbolic myth.

Nonsense.

Jesus himself sought to teach his audience not to think so concretely by speaking in parables.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The parables were specifically designed NOT to be understood.

Matt 13:10-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:10) And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? (13:11) He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (13:12) For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (13:13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (13:14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (13:15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (13:16) But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. (13:17) For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].​

Jesus had to explain the parables to His disciples privately because they were meant to hide information from the general unbelieving public (of Israel).