Alisa Childers and the Biblical Errors of Fundamentalism

[@DanielWesleyKCK]

I'm a progressive Christian. We don't cut out the "God" part, but we also don't go around affirming things that almost certainly aren't true, such as the typical evangelical concept of "inerrancy". The name of the game is epistemic humility and accepting scripture for what it actually is, not what we want or need it to be. As NT Wright puts it, "We have the bible God wanted us to have" ... problems and all.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

I've listened to Randal Rauser, nervously dance around dogma for days...can progressive christians actually "affirm" anything....beyond Pride flags?...Christianity is an accepted ancient belief system...not some heretical quasi-leftist political movement, disguised as a nouveau enlightened spirituality...so, just clearly spit out exactly which tenets and principles of that an ancient belief system you reject...

[@ApocalypseHere]

"The Scriptures are not the foundation. Jesus is the foundation; he is the heart, the crux of everything. It is from him that the authority of the Christian flows... The Bible is a testament or a witness to Jesus." Such important words, Randal!

[@Christus-totalis]

The scriptures are the foundation as they pertain to the revelation of Christ

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@ApocalypseHere you are correct... Jesus is our foundation... but He has given us His words.. maintain us until He comes again... this guy here wants to disagree with scripture as well the reason as to why we have scripture.. a Christian... Must have some tenet to follow... if for nothing else ...just to help us to stay focused on Jesus.... Jesus spoke the words of John 5:39 .. Yes... but who was he talking to...? Hypocrites.....! ones who read the scriptures and did NOT do as the scriptures said.to do....or went too far... .. by the time of Jesus there were over 700 Jewish laws that governed how a person should live.. Jesus was trying to point out to them that they needed to follow the scriptures CORRECTLY... not to disregard them totally.... this guy here is mis applying what Jesus said and the reason for it... and trying to use it against the ones who ARE following His words today.. Did Jesus EVER call the Apostles hypocrites? we have to be discerning when we listen to people who talk this rubbish..

[@petervonbergen5364]

@@Christus-totalis Exactly. Scripture is simply the only source we have about who Christ was and what he teached. So if you doubt the Bible, you have nothing left. And I guess thats the motivation behind deconstruction. its unbelievers trying to destroy Christianity and turn it into something that tickles ears.

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

@@petervonbergen5364 said: _''its unbelievers trying to destroy Christianity and turn it into something that tickles ears.''_ Sorry, but ''unbelievers'' (most of them, anyway) like myself, simply don't find the biblical claims convincing enough to warrant believing it. These claims, especially the supernatural ones, are just that: claims. They aren't evidence of anything other than an account of what those people believed and/or what they wanted others to believe. Btw: Being convinced of the truth of it, or not, isn't a matter of choice; I've read it; I know what it says (often better than the believers I've conversed with about it), and it simply didn't/doesn't convince me; something I can't _'just choose'_ differently. That's why the whole notion of punishment for unbelief, as if I could, and should have decided otherwise, makes no sense whatsoever. (which is just one of _many_ examples of the fallacious nature of the whole doctrine) Lastly: the sentence I quoted about unbelievers, aiming for ''the destruction'' of it, smacks very much like the _persecution syndrome_ pathology many believers are expressing. Especially US-believers, cause, the more Christian a country is, the louder they parrot the claim that we unbelievers are out to destroy it. In a country where you have to pretend to be a believer too, when (for instance) applying for a (public) function, let alone professing to be an atheist, it is utterly ridiculous and just one example of the dividing, polarizing nature of these kinds of doctrines.

[@poordoubloon10]

​@Christus-totalis No, they are not the only source. Rather, they are the only norm. The tradition of the church proclaiming Christ from the first apostles until now was a source that preceded even the compilation of the Bible. The Bible stands over the church, but it is also a product of the church.

[@eew8060]

I stand with Childers on this one. Ten toes down

[@colinpurssey9875]

Perhaps one of the most grievously ignorant presumptions of Childers is her proclamation on the redemptive status of progressive Christians . In many of her videos she implicitly or explicitly asserts that they are only nominally Christian , and she infers this from the fact that they don't share her fundamentalist theology , which is of course overwhelmingly derived from her oracular and flawed exegetical understanding of Scripture . Who is she to arrogate what is ultimately the prerogative of God alone ? . I have never myself even tacitly assumed that just because I believe fundamentalists have a radically different and impoverished theology compared to my own , therefore they are either heretics or apostates. Doctrinal beliefs are no criterion of Christian purity .

[@calebklingerman7902]

"Everything is meaningless." -the wisest guy who ever lived, according to the Bible. How on earth would you understand Ecclesiastes if you treat it as literal instructions to follow?

[@petervonbergen5364]

Vain. The word was Vain, not "meaningless". It refers to not giving overwhelming importance to wordly things. Thats good advice for mortals.

[@calebklingerman7902]

​@@petervonbergen5364 Depends on the translation. Meaningless, vain, futile are all common translations. And if you read the book, he says that he searched for meaning in sex, drink, pleasure, work, wealth, etc. Is that good advice to follow?

[@petervonbergen5364]

@@calebklingerman7902 haha. No. That a report of what he did and not advice. The bible directly judges Salomons behaviour. But his direct advice and his sharp understanding of the world is very helpful.

[@Shikuesi]

Hmm... someone forgot "a greater than Solomon is here"

[@MybridWonderful]

As a non-Christian I find arguments like this compelling. I also find the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church argument against sola scriptura equally compelling. If I remember right Catholics believe the clergy, tradition, and scripture are all equal authority. Orthodox Church also includes the church. The Pope is not infallible as a human, the Pope is the last arbiter of clergy, tradition and scripture being used to interpret the Bible. Personally I think Martin Luther boxed in the Protestants when considering new information because the Bible is now fixed for them. I have always thought that at some point either the Orthodox Church or the Catholic church are going start adding new scripture. There is nothing preventing them unlike the Protestants. A Gnostic Gospel could be added to canon or even a new prophet proclaimed to help with modern problems related to technological advancement. My money's on the Catholics.

[@fnjesusfreak]

Some people would go so far as to say the human authors were mere amanuenses, transcribing the very words letter-by-letter as God gives it to them, and in this mindset to question the very words of the Bible in any sense whatsoever is perceived as calling God a liar.

[@homofloridensis]

The large O Orthodox don’t do bibliology either. And even Presbyterians, who ended up giving the world Fundamentalism, overlook the fact that in the Westminster Confession of Faith (I, 10) doesn’t put ultimate authority in the Bible, but in God the Holy Spirit, “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” They didn’t write it that way by accident.

[@robertwheeler1158]

Alisa is simply expressing the Reformation principle of "Sola Scriptura." The question is, how did divine revelation come to us and what is the basis for our faith? I personally do not like to say that "the autographs" are "inerrant." There are minor mistakes and contradictions in the Bibles that we have today. But the way that the Bible describes the process of inspiration is that God has communicated verbally to a variety of prophets and apostles by a variety of ways and means -- visions, the Holy Spirit communicating directly with the inspired author's spirit, etc. The prophet or apostle would then commit to writing the revelation that he had received from God. The thought content, then, all came from God Himself. So what about the imprecatory psalms? There is a progressive nature to revelation, but that doesn't mean that the earlier revelations didn't come from God are were in error. Prior to the coming of Christ, the emphasis of the Old Testament is on the moral law of God, the problem of human evil, and the need for justice. Hence for someone like David, the question is, why doesn't God punish wrongdoing? But this simply lays the moral foundation for the atoning work of Christ in the New Testament. It is all a part of the God's revelation to man, and strictly speaking, none of it is wrong or incorrect. And corporal punishment? Parents have been spanking their children for thousands of years, and the overwhelming majority of those children grew up to be happy, well-adjusted adults. In our modern, progressive society, however, kids are subject to depression and even violence. Take your pick.

[@gregory_bloomfield]

I read Childer’s book on her “deconstruction”.she never deconstructed anything. She questioned her evangelical beliefs but she never changed anything. She went to a progressive church for a Bible study of beliefs. She judged everything according to her Evangelical fundie beliefs. She has no idea what any of who have deconstructed have gone through. Anyway, that was the worse book I read this year. It was terrible.

[@gregory_bloomfield]

She would hate the Eastern Orthodox Church. Lol

[@byrondickens]

​@@gregory_bloomfield Her head would explode in a progressive Episcopal Church. Imagine that mindset being exposed to progressive theology and High Church liturgy simultaneously!

[@gregory_bloomfield]

@@byrondickens lol

[@deepashtray5605]

Fundamentalists, particularly those who are convinced by their ministers there is a specific candidate Jesus wants them to vote for, seldom if ever invoke the teachings of Jesus unless those teachings reinforce their church's political agenda.

[@tighestuart7494]

No hate at all for Childers, she is expressing a point of view that has been at mainstream of protestant Christianity for 500 yrs. Solo scriptura. I know a lot of people, including many I deeply respect, who would agree with her. As I've spent my adult life studying the scriptures, I've come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies and outright contradictions are not just random accidents. There are just too many of them, and they are often about things that are too fundamental and important. I'm beginning to suspect it was the will of God, and the will of the ancient editors and compilers, to contain and even juxtapose those various points of view. And that speaks to one of the basic purposes of scripture: to START conversation, not to end it. I agree with the author of this video that the conservative protestant/ fundamentalist viewpoint ties itself in pretzels trying to make the Bible into something that it was never intended to be.

[@Magnulus76]

Fundamentalists have a positivist view of revelation. It's not that progressives don't believe the Bible contains "God's Word" necessarily, but the Fundamentalist understanding of what that means is actually impossible.

[@Christus-totalis]

Would you agree with a christological interpretation of Genesis ?

[@steverational8615]

Isn’t it sola scriptura doctrine she is referring to as the infallible source of Gods words.

[@DIBBY40]

I find people who propose biblical inerrancy and literalism to be quite cold and intolerant. It's virtually useless talking with them; no matter what you say the default position is that you are wrong, or worse, satanically inspired. Once they dehumanise you and decide you are of the devil genuine conversation is impossible.

[@EnHacore1]

Sister Alisa Childress is a hard core Calvinist and believes that God predestined babies to eternal damnation before the world began. What more can you ask of her? She worships a God that predestined evil.

[@JewandGreek]

She came out of the Calvary Chapel tradition, so I don't think she's a Calvinist even though she does seem to respect many Calvinist writers.

[@Jsmith0819]

I would rather say that our understanding of any scripture needs to be made through the lens of Jesus. That would mean, if something sounds inconsistent with the person or teachings of Jesus we need to interpret it as hyperbole or as a specific style of literature. Joshua is a good example. It follows the patterns of "the conqueror narrative" from the time, which would often talk about "destroying an enemy completely" even when that's not actually what was done. The ancient reader would have understood these things through their own cultural lens and not interpreted them the same way a modern reader, devoid of this knowledge or cultural understanding would. As far as the references to "child abuse", modern readers hear rod and thing of a big stick. However, a shepherd would probably picture the staff they use. If you look up how ancient shepherds used their staff's you find they gently guided sheep with them. They didn't beat the sheep. When you further apply our knowledge that Jesus is the shepherd, well, if you still come away thinking we should beat children it's likely it's because that's the conclusion you want to come to. It's entirely possible for the bible to be inerrant as long as you understand that 1st, your interpretation should be through the lens of Jesus, because 2nd, we are entirely incapable of knowing the entire cultural or textual context of texts written thousands of years ago. I feel like that understanding of scriptural inerrancy leads to proper interpretation of the text without the danger of throwing out things we don't like just because we don't like them, which is a problem with some liberal theologians.

[@funnythat9956]

Biblical inerrancy is a human doctrine. The bible itself does not necessarily teach that. For example, why did god leave Chronicles and Samuel and Kings in the same bible? My sense is that god wanted to demonstrate that the same facts can be collected and interpreted differently by different writers.

[@bman5257]

Origen’s Hexapla is an interesting data point here.

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

We're not presented with any _''facts,''_ though. All we're presented with is stories full of _claims._ And worse: claims that don't align with and/or contradict each other, and when they do align, they do so _verbatim,_ meaning there's only one text, the others were copied from and embellished on. I mean: one would think that the different accounts about Jesus' supposed resurrection would all contain the tale (the _claim)_ of _graves opening and their content walking the streets of Jerusalem,_ right? Or is god trying to teach us that the fish gets bigger, each time the tale of its catch is being told? If so: how could we, those who have to make do with these stories, ever be justified in believing any of it? If god wanted to tell us we're prone to interpret things differently, _and_ make it clear that not all interpretations are equally valid, why not just say so and present the _right_ interpretation, instead of producing texts that are so multi-interpretable that there are over a thousand different denominations of the belief in the US alone, each saying the others got it wrong? Especially if it's indeed an all-knowing, _and_ benevolent god, with the knowledge of the horrible slaughter-parties these texts have lead to, over the ages?

[@DBrown-ig8em]

So is there a claim here that the human role provides some kind of wisdom or insight that is not a consequence of divine inspiration?

[@nathanmarone]

I will never understand this debate. If we say that Jesus is the foundation for eternal life salvation, etc, then fine. But where are we getting our information about Jesus from? The Bible. So, when we construct doctrine and practice, we are almost always using the Bible as our primary source material. Even if you recognize that your understanding of scripture is filtered through a certain tradition within Christianity, the Bible is still viewed as the primary source. Even if you recognize that historical, literary, and other contextual factors impact our interpretations, the Bible is still the primary source. Interpretations of the Bible may differ widely, but the Bible is still the default document. No one is constructing a Christian theology primarily from Plato or Augustine. Even if we think that some Platonic ideas fit scripture, we are still only accepting those Platonic ideas if and when they fit with scripture. Even if our theology is extremely Augustinian, it would be because we think he understood and interpreted scripture correctly! I disagree with Childers on many things, and I honestly have no ideas how the dominoes fall for a church to become progressive. But it is naive to think progressives don't use scripture as a standard. And it is naive for progressive Christians to think they are somehow pure in their default to Jesus as doctrinal standard. The Bible is the book to be reckoned with.

[@timothynelson5684]

Actually, what she said in the first minute of your video is perfectly accurate.

[@byrondickens]

Bibidolotry

[@IamGrimalkin]

Yeah I feel like Rauser is reading a lot of things into what she's saying that she never actually said. She may very well beleive those things but nothing in this clip actually shows that. I get that he thinks she's strawmanning his position and that makes him mad, but then strawmans her back in return.

[@IamGrimalkin]

​@@byrondickens This isn't bible-idolatry even if everything rauser says is correct. Note of this is equivalent with worshipping the bible.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@@byrondickens I happen to agree with Childers... the BIBLE... IS the foundation for all Christian authority... "sola scriptura"... this is what Martin Luther had an issue with as well regarding the Catholic church of his day.. which led to the beginning of "the Reformation" the Catholic hierarchy thought and still thinks this way today that we as humans are too STUPID to read scripture and interpret it for ourselves.. I have proof where this was written in the preface of the New American Bible... circa 1971.. where in this preface it states that.. lay people are Not qualified.. to be interpreters of scripture... the Bible is the Christian's grounds for all faith and practice.. when that deteriorates all else begins to fall..

[@NinjaGirl-x9b]

the bible is not the word of God. its the words of people about their own interpretation of God.

[@petervonbergen5364]

Too many authors for that opinion to be true. They are all consistent with each other. That would not be the case, if everyone had displayed his very own picture and interpretation of God.

[@CafeteriaCatholic]

@@petervonbergen5364 God can lie, he cannot lie, he walks around the earth, iron chariots are to powerful for him, yet he is allpowerful, and omnipresent, he regrets things, he is unchanging, he demands burned offerings, he never wanted burned offerings. He hates Esau, he loves everybody, He wants that everyone suffers according to their own sins, he kills Davids Son for Davids sin. He doesn't want human sacrifices, he accepts Jephtas daughter as a sacrifice. He says Tyre will be destroyed, Tyre isn't destroyed.... The reason you see consistence is because you start with the idea that it has to be.

[@petervonbergen5364]

@@CafeteriaCatholic Nope. The problem is, that you take stuff out of context. And in some cases you just lack historical knowledge. Not only was Tyre destroyed. It was also destroyed in the exact way as described in the prophesy. By Alexander the Great. Just one example. So just dont make things up and the conversation would be much more interesting.

[@CafeteriaCatholic]

Does God regret?

[@petervonbergen5364]

@@CafeteriaCatholic What you read in the bible as "regret" has in the original the meaning of "change my decision". Even today we sometimes use regret in this sense. God has nothing to regret in an ethical sense. See: You were obviously confronted with a lot of criticism about the bible. Usually fundamentalist atheists spread these half-truth and even complete lies all over the internt. Dont just believe it, bc it is in the internet. if it interests you, then do a little research on both sides or just try to read the bible text in question in its context. These atheist critics are hateful and in no way fair.

[@anthonybarber3872]

Jesus Himself said: If you believed Moses, you would believe in Me, for he wrote of Me...John 5:46. Jesus goes on to say that if you don't believe Moses, you will not understand His Words..Moses in this context means The Law, The Tenak...I really feel this is a false dichotomy that Randal is making...Without doctrine we would not even know who Jesus is.

[@anneervin1328]

What he's saying is profoundly sad.

[@docdave9092]

I only listened to the first two minutes of this video… you’re overthinking it. Way overthinking it.

[@semidemiurge]

It's like watching Star Wars groupies and Trekies being deadly serious and arguing with each other, both oblivious to the fact that it is all fiction.

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

Ah, I was wondering when the r/atheism NPC would show up.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

neither one gives a rats about God or the bible.. What trash thus site is..

[@KaijuOfTheOpera]

@@inquisitiveferret5690 Can you prove that hes wrong?

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

​@@KaijuOfTheOpera can he prove that it's all fiction? It's just an assertion and rhetorical point that can be just as easily dismissed as it was asserted. He added nothing relevant to the conversation. Besides. Proof or prove is the wrong term. Evidence is closer to the mark.

[@KaijuOfTheOpera]

@@inquisitiveferret5690 The burden of proof is on you to prove him wrong. You know as well as I do you would take issue with someone saying Allah is God and Muhammad is the last prophet. You can’t prove a Muslim wrong. We have hundreds of thousands of religions, but for some reason yours isn’t fiction? The burden of proof is on you.

[@befast1973-g2f]

I prefer Shakespeare, and I like some of the Bible. Thanks for pushing back against Fundamentalism. It's divisive.

[@unacceptableknottyprofesso7782]

LOL, where do we get the words of Jesus? Your fundamental argument on Fundamentalism is a house of cards that you collapse at the beginning. Jesus used his "bible" in his teaching and preaching from the beginning of his ministry because he saw it as fundamental truth. Sorry, can't get past your first blunder at 3 minutes in.

[@greganderson583]

The Bible is a great and wonderful thing, but I think it suffers from two great ills. Not giving it the credence it deserves at one extreme, and making way too much of it at the other extreme. For me, it boils down to how much of that stuff do I wanna' helicopter outta' that when and where, and make it apply in this here and now.

[@gybx4094]

Do you really believe the Creator of this complex universe would magically reach into Adam, pull out his rib, and magically create Eve? Does that really make sense? No, it doesn't even correlate with "God is Spirit". And don't tell me it was the pre-incarnate Jesus in a body.

[@bignoob1790]

It's a metaphor for the union of marriage.

[@Christus-totalis]

Jesus side was pierced and the church his bride was created by his death

[@corysessler3044]

Jesus is revealed through the Bible. Jesus fulfilled the scriptures written of Him and Jesus says the scriptures cannot be broken (Jn 10:35). In the new testament the Bereans were called more noble than the rest because they searched the scriptures to make sure what Paul told them was true (Acts 17:11). The Bible is authoritative. To say the word of God is not the foundation is antiChrist. It's obvious you do not understand Jesus rebuke to the Pharisees. You are just like the Pharisees of old. Always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Jesus says Thy word (God's word) is Truth (Jn 17:17). 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[@jeffcarlson3269]

I agree ... A curse on this site!!

[@Essex626]

What is Scripture according to 2 Timothy? What does it mean that it is inspired by God?

[@KaijuOfTheOpera]

Whats funny about 2nd Timothy is that it wasnt written by Paul and the forger added that line in to defend his forgery lol.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@@Essex626 are you trying to make a point?... or are you asking a legitimate question...? don't you know what inspiration means?.. just askin' ....cuz I can share some thing with you if you don't know the point of 2 Timothy 3:16 if you don't understand it... BTW the ASV gets this verse wrong... " ]Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction," notice the placement of the little word "IS"...?.. just by doing THAT the ASV is implying that there might be some scripture Not inspired by God... thus there might be some scripture that is NOT profitable... which would be a LIE.. so even the LITTLE things such as placements of words like "is".. are important. . when it comes to scripture..

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@@KaijuOfTheOpera where did you here THAT lie?..

[@anarchorepublican5954]

...me thinks ye protest too much...

[@BibleTalk419]

i respect you and your liberal approach but technically i think mike winger is right. he speaks of how progressives try to put Jesus over the scripture as if jesus contradicts the bible. actually Jesus said that it's impossible for the word of God to be broken i do believe inerrancy. but if the bible did have human error i wouldn't lose faith in God. inerrancy is true but not essential to my beliefs as for now i think we have words that cannot be broken according to my Lord and your Lord. God bless

[@CafeteriaCatholic]

Reading the bible different than Mike Winger or Alisa Childers, is not putting oneself over the bible. It is what the majority of Christians do. And I can assure you, you are a progressive christian in the sense, that you don't hold to believes that were consensus for hundreds of years. The idea that the bible is our highest authority is nowhere taught in scripture.

[@AmazingDuckmeister]

The Word of God is different from the scripture.

[@BibleTalk419]

@@AmazingDuckmeister well if you want to get really technical, the :"word of God" has various definitions. Tjis is a title for Jesus used in the book of revelation. It also is something that can come to prophets like Phillips's daughter's even if the words that God gave them are not in Scripture. The Word of God can also refer to John 1:1 what existed in the beginning. But the words of Scripture are also words of God with a lowercase w, so they are also referenced as God's word in many places. Look let us not quibble over definitions

[@jessman8597]

I'll stick with Alisa. She stands for something. You don't believe in the inerrancy because that allows you to say anything you don't like is in error. In other words, you are the final authority on everything. Where is all your anger coming from? That should indicate there's definitely a spiritual issue going on. Perhaps start dealing with your own issues instead of attacking someone who takes seriously the Scriptures that Jesus himself quoted. You could not possibly be any more wrong than you are.

[@davidgray1060]

I know where you are coming from, but it's not so much about saying things that we do not like are an error -- , it's about trying to reconcile things like Jesus's teaching to "love your enemies" with God seemingly commanding morally problematic things like genocide and the murder of infants in the Old Testament.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

I don't think Progressive Christianity is "biblical"..

[@thedude9941]

It's not

[@byrondickens]

Nevermind that Christianity flourished for almost 400 years before there was a "Bible."

[@CafeteriaCatholic]

Every Christian is a Progressive Christian. As Alisa prooves to us by having the audacity to teach us, as a woman!!!1!!11!!!

[@stevenbatke2475]

@@CafeteriaCatholicI’ve always found that ironic. She’s been benefitting from progressive feminism of the last 60 years, but then has gall to teach men, and complain progressives. Pick a lane, lady.

[@thedude9941]

@@CafeteriaCatholic There is nothing in the Bible that says women preaching is wrong. In the Old Testament you have women prophets, Deborah in Judges 4 and Huldah in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34.