The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Hello all, I have just finished session 7 in the introduction to Theology course. Everything I have learned up to this point has come togeather and I have been able to understand with little to no confusion. That was up until the subject of sub-traditions came into play. In order for me to process and learn something I have to beable to fully understand and be able to put it into my words so here goes, I invite any and all feed back.

Reformed tradition: Mans free will is limited by his own ability and his own ability doesn't include being able to chose GOD.
GOD has to intervene in order for man to have GOD in his life.

Roman Catholic: Mans free will is not limited and after baptism and orginal sin removed, man does have the ability on
his own to chose GOD. Man has to work through a process for his salvation by means of obedience to
scripture through sacrements. Another words work for his salvation.

Liberal tradition: The scriptures are not important. The Bible is just a good book to read, it's not the truth. They deny
that there is even a GOD. They belive in evoulation.

Fundamentalist tradition: They hold the Bible as the truth, they don't seprate the essentials from the non essentials for
salvation. Live by many black and white so to speak rules and push culture aside.

Charismatic tradition: Just deal with the Holy Spirt and the gifts of the Holy Spirt.

Evangelical tradition: GOD gave man free will to chose to belive or not belive in him, salvation by faith, essentials have a
have a comon unity, and are open-minded (more liberal) about the non-essentials.

Postmodern tradition: Still under construction.


My questions from what I have explained is that right, or what's right and wrong. I feel very confussed and will not be able to go any further until I am sure I have a full understanding of these sub-traditions. Any and all feed back will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you and GODS Blessings to all
Kandi

From my understanding of the subject, I'd say you pretty well nailed it.

I'm not sure of your characterization of fundamentalism. Your description would be similar to what I might expect from someone on the far left of the theological spectrum or perhaps someone from secular culture. I think we have to be careful to remember that each of these terms is somewhat culturally bound by the views of the one who is making the description. What I mean is, the secular press would characterize fundamentalists in the way you did, but someone who has very conservative views of the role of scripture would describe fundamentalists very differently. I am an evangelical protestant and have always, more or less, considered myself a fundamentalist. Yet I have never had a problem with the way Paul explained the difference between those things that are essential and non-essential to salvation (in his letter to the Romans).
Similarly, you characterize fundamentalists as people who see many things as "black and white." Maybe this is accurate, but the way you put it seems somehow critical of this characteristic. Another way of looking at this, is to remember that many evangelicals see our culture as gradually drifting toward a profound moral relativism. Fundamentalist (and I hope Evangelicals in general) see the lack of moral absolutes as clear evidence of the accuracy of Paul's predictions in Romans 1.
Anyway, I hope you are enjoying this course as much as I am and I also hope these comments are of some value to you. God bless you as you continue your studies.

I winced at that one originally also, but then after some consideration, I came to the conclusion that fundamentalists do see things black and white, and in a secular society, yes, this would be a negative. However, I find it a breath of fresh air. I can at times, find myself in the fundamentalist camp. I find the relativism of today's society frustrating at best. In the religious evangelical sense, I find fundamentalism not such a negative.

i might have to look into the "Theology Course" that you speak of. i was a little confused by your confusion, though (now, isn't THAT confusing?) and why you "cannot go on" until you get some things settled. first, did the course differentiate between "traditions" and "sub-traditions"? i only ask because i had never heard of "sub-traditions", but am assuming that the faith traditions you listed are considered to be the "sub-traditions"? if so, then what are the "traditions" themselves?

also, i'm sure you are aware that regardless of which person or group you are learning these things will have their own slant as to the definition and description of the other groups (sub-traditions), but for the most part, the short definitions you offered seem somewhat accurate (i say "somewhat" because some of the defintions are quite typical of how forum from this tradition would view some of the other traditions).

anyway, what is it that you feel you need to settle before "moving on"? what is it that you don't "fully understand" about these sub-traditions? just curious if there are any specifics...

_________________
in Christ,

bp

warncokk, maybe part of the problem is that these sub-tradition labels are just that - labels. They summarise and generalise about theological/ philosophical positions but individual believers may not fit in one or other tightly - we are all complicated beings! A person can also be labeled because of one view ... which he/she said ... but overall, they fit better somewhere else, or no label really describes them - they are all over the place in their views. I would say it is useful to use such labels to describe teachings and positions, but be wary of applying them to individual people.

It is helpful to have some more or less agreed definition when you are in discussion or doing a course though, so every one knows what you mean when you use such a label. I think your definitions probably suit your purpose quite well and if you come across instances when they seem to need some polishing - they are your working definition - change them. If in doubt, you can always use your definition instead of the abel e.g. "Joe Blow, who just deals with the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, says ...." Instead of saying: "Joe Blow, who is Charismatic, says ..."

For your course, a long as you understand what the teacher means and anyone discussing with you knows what you mean, all should be well.

Don't let it stop you moving on with your studies!

_________________
Avid Reader

“Lord, in my zeal for love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” - Thomas Aquinas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs