#Problems with Sola Scriptura

[mindfulldsliving]

A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Divine Revelation

A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Divine Revelation For many Christians, “Sola Scriptura” serves as a central guiding belief, emphasizing scripture as the sole authority. But Latter-day Saint theology offers a different perspective—one that values the Bible deeply while also embracing modern revelation, prophetic authority, and a broader view of God’s work. When…

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Just noticing something: I have seen Calvinists say before that "even babies deserve to go to hell" but I have yet to ever see a Calvinist say that "Yes, there are infants in hell" or "No, there are not infants in hell". (my horrible "reformed" baptist pastor does not count; but he believes in age of accountability)

[mrpagesfrontispiece]

Protestants will literally defend Sola Scriptura and then turn around and say that Galatians 3:28 is less important than their traditions of patriarchy lmao.

To be clear, the Anglican Church did NOT split from the Roman Catholic Church in the Protestant Reformation, so we aren’t Protestant.

[gayleviticus]

i saw a post today on r/openchristian where someone asked if people there believe in the trinity and there was a reply that was like 'how could anyone? have people not read the scholarship?'

and i think it crystallised something about progressive christian spaces that has bugged me - and it's not 'people spout heresy' 'people say things i dont agree with', but rather than i think for progressive christians (esp online) there's a bit of a 'problem of theological method'. and by that i dont even mean like, people are using methods of interpreting scripture i dont agree with.

but i think there's a bit of an issue where, for example, conservative evangelicalism explicitly teaches people to read scripture in a v specific way. inerrancy is a clearly defined doctrine. lots of resources model prooftexting and mustering up the bible as evidence for certain positions. there's lots of apologetics that teaches tactics for deflecting errors or inaccuracies in the text. bart ehrman and his ilk are peddlers of lies.

and i think when people step out of that bubble, there isn't really an obvious alternative method for them to read scripture theologically. and so people might often turn to the kind of secular historical-critical work that was forbidden in evangelicalism and go ham with that.

i don't have anything against secular historical-critical academia; i think at best it deepens our understanding of the human side of the Bible and at worst it makes conjectures that are perfectly reasonable from a purely naturalistic perspective if not from the eyes of faith. but it's not an approach designed to nurture faith or approach the Bible as a theological text; Bart Ehrman is not the arbiter of people's faith.

i think progressive methods of reading scripture theologically certainly exist (whether orthodox or not), but i think compared to say, evangelical inerrancy, they are much more implicit and subtle. they aren't as explicitly defined and taught to people, and people can use similar phrasing to mean quite different things.

and i feel like within progressive christian circles that can sometimes put people talking past each other, because one person is reading scripture totally metaphorically, one person is reading it according to a historian who said the last supper is fictional and Paul never existed, someone else is still using an evangelical inerrancy framework, someone else is interpreting through the ecumenical creeds as filters for the core literal non-negotiables of the christian story (what we could call creedal orthodoxy perhaps).

and in a way i think this can be harder to navigate even than like, catholic vs protestant discourse, bc in those debates there's more meta-language around differences in perspective (e.g. sola fide, sola scriptura). but i feel like progressive christian circles lack this kind of consistent meta-language that can lead to people talking past each other entirely

(heck, even 'progressive christian' is vague - i've always used it as the broadest possible umbrella term for christians w left-leaning politics, and 'liberal christian' more for people who deny supernatural elements of the religion etc. but some people will do the total inverse and swap the terms around)

edit: while i'm making this post i'll plug the podcast 2 feminists annotate the bible, which imo does a great job of modelling (if not explicitly teaching) a good solid progressive approach to the bible that isn't just relentlessly ceding ground to secular scholarship but also genuinely tackling the text while respecting it's value. (probably what we might call an inclusive creedal orthodox approach). i think it's pretty goated

[apilgrimpassingby]

Hi! I'm a fellow young guy in America discerning converting to Orthodoxy from Methodism, and I was wondering if you had any advice pertinent for someone from this tradition. The question is this: I know you said before you dislike Calvinism, but how do you feel about Protestant Arminianism? What do you feel Wesleyan-Arminianism lacks when compared to Orthodoxy theology?

Thanks.

This is a really fun ask, thank you!

I don't know a lot about Methodism and what I do know I like (entire sanctification, giving to the poor and working for social justice, free will), so this will be a more general overview of my problems with Protestantism.

The biggest one - sola scriptura. Specifically, I oppose any idea of there being one authority to which all the others must submit, whether that authority is Holy Scripture (in Protestantism) or the Magisterium (in Roman Catholicism). Rather, what's authoritative is what's part of the received body of teaching and practice of the Church, whether that be Scripture, the Fathers, oral Tradition or the Ecumenical Councils, and none of them need to be "proved" by the others, because the Holy Trinity, not any of Their teaching, is the "final authority".

My other problem with sola scriptura is that they need to argue for a specific version of the text (usually a reconstructed "original text" based primarily on the Masoretic Text) as "the authoritative one", because if Holy Scripture is being used to judge everything else then you need to be very clear what is and isn't Holy Scripture. But that's simply not what I see in Church history - in the Patristic period, Greek Christian communities used the Septuagint, Latin Christian communities used the Vulgate, Syriac Christians used the Peshitta, and so on, without viewing each other as any more or less valid for it. And that's before getting into the issues of different canons or with the Masoretic Text's position as "the original text" being dubious, or the problems with the idea of "the original text" at all (on the last topic, Fr. Stephen DeYoung has a very good article).

On the other big sola (sola gratia, solus Christus and sola Dei gloria would, at least in some form, be affirmed by everyone), sola fide has, to my mind, been effectively discredited by the New Perspective on Paul; if you haven't heard of it, it effectively says that the passages Protestants interpret as teaching sola fide are instead teaching that faithfulness to Christ saves, and Jewish identity markers ("the works of the Law") do not. I think this makes more sense on pretty much all counts. (If you want more on the New Perspective, Fr. Stephen DeYoung's Bible study podcast, The Whole Counsel of God, goes over St. Paul's works from the New Perspective).

One of the most common arguments against Protestantism, and one that I do think is good, is that the New Testament and the Fathers give no mandate for establishing your own church, and indeed, evidence to the contrary. St. Paul never told the Galatians or the Corinthians to split off from the messes that were their churches, and St. Athanasius never tried to found his own church despite being expelled by the Arians multiple times. The standard issue YouTube classical Protestant apologist (if you don't know what I'm talking about, I envy you) will reply that the Reformers agreed, which honestly makes me respect Protestantism less; their position amounts to "schism is always wrong ... except when the Reformers did it!"

Most Protestants don't use typological exegesis, and those who do don't use it as their primary mode of exegesis. Which I vehemently disagree with - St. Peter (1 Peter 3:20-21), St. Paul (Galatians 4:21-31, 1 Corinthians 9:8-12) and Christ Himself (John 3:14) all used it, as did the Fathers from the earliest days (for example, the Epistle of St. Barnabas). Even the Fathers who sometimes get cited as opposed to it, such as St. John Chrysostom, still used it (for example, Homily 27 on Hebrews), they just had reservations about how widely it could be used.

The saints. The beauty of an eternal communion of love and prayer, unbound by time or space, is something not to be underestimated. Particularly the Theotokos; the Theotokos has done so much good for me and brought so much beauty into my life that I don't think I'd tolerate Christianity without her.

Almost every Protestant church in the West is modernist, from Evangelicals going "our traditional theology has rock music and a pastor in jeans!" to mainline Protestants going "our traditional liturgy has social justice and progressive theology!" This is exactly where the standard-issue YouTube Protestant apologist will say #NotAllProtestants. But it's most of them, and almost all of the ones who are culturally visible. Related to this, I think the attraction of the thoroughgoing traditionalism of Orthodoxy isn't solely or even mostly about "retvrn to tradition" (despite what the media and much of internet Orthodoxy says); it's that, in a world supersaturated with people trying to sell us things, a church that makes no effort to attract people is, paradoxically, profoundly attractive.

There's probably more, but that's it for now. Thanks for the ask!

[religious-extremist]

Issues with the KJV; Part II - Veneration of Mary and Saints

Worship and Divine Service

In modern English, the term "worship" (like the term "prayer") has mainly come to mean "an act offered exclusively to God." However, the original and official meaning of this word used to be much broader - as was the case of the Greek word proskyneo (προσκυνέω), which is normally applied to God, but also to human beings.

The idea conveyed by proskyneo is that of "offering obeisance," "making a physical demonstration of veneration and respect," or "prostrating oneself." (To put it extremely casually, like a curtsy.) In contemporary Orthodox terminology, the equivalent of proskyneo is often "venerate."

In the EOB, proskyneo is translated as "to express adoration" while it is often translated in the KJV as "to worship."

On the other hand, the Greek word latreia is exclusively used in reference to God.

In the EOB, latreia (λατρεία) is translated as "offering divine service" while it is translated in the KJV also as "to worship."

The Problem

So there is this issue of the KJV as it is today - with its immeasurable influence upon modern theology, the English language, and the Sola Scriptura doctrine professed by Protestant Christianity (and therefore the world) - combining two different words, proskyneo and latreia, under one translation: "worship."

The point of dissension that now comes up is that when those of the Old Religions, which existed before the King James Version, venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, Protestants often denounce the Old Religions' disposition towards the Blessed Theotokos because their theology relies either wholly or partly on the KJV and the KJV tells them that proskyneo and latreia are the same thing, when historically - as attested to us by the oldest translations of the Bible - veneration and worship have never been the same thing.

To argue that veneration and worship are the same thing is like saying that criticism and insults are the same thing, or complimenting and confessing undying love is the same thing. They are markedly different.

The Old Religions -- the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Church of the East -- don't offer latreia (worship) to the saints but they offer proskyneo (veneration).

As a last exhibit, I will show to you Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8 where Christ quoted the Ten Commandments and said "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (KJV) / "You shall express adoration to the Lord your God, and to Him only shall you offer divine service." (EOB)

For the sake of understanding, I will adapt the KJV to this:

"Thou shalt proskyneisis the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou latreusis."

That said, proskyneia or veneration for humans, saints, was never forbidden, but it is clear to all of us that latreia or worship is offered only to God.

[sapphosremains]

i mean you guys all know about me and my sola scriptura issues (insert scream) but was reading an article by wright (article here thanks Kaleb for the intro to him) and even if you don't agree with the interpretation etc, the incredible amount of context he uses to begin to dissect the verses is INSANE. not even beginning to think about translation etc. once again - the Bible is not one book. it was not written by one person. it was not written by God. it was written by real people in a real time with real things happening around them that they were responding to, and it was also written to real people. whether it's the Gospels and their different audiences (Jews/Gentiles) or Paul writing to different places and Timothy etc, there is SO much context. so no, you cannot just read Holy Scripture and take from it what you will because you will come out with an answer that is fundamentally driven by your own preexisting views (i am just as guilty of this). like not to take an extreme example but if you took my texts w even just one friend and took it as a religious book you'd come out w some crazy rules... for example:

I screenshotted and sent an image: ("OxLOVE to my Cambridge bf, he is better than every oxford man") - okay, well Grace is the authority and her word is the law and she's quoted this image so obviously all cambridge men are better than oxford men

"i'm so funny no one has ever been funnier than me ever" - direct truth.

"google it" - ultimate solution to all problems

it is better to text your friends than it is to put on clothes

the cooking implements we are allowed in my sixth form are the only permissible cooking implements

anyway i'm being ridiculous but you take my point CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT

[henrysglock]

damn i guess i’ll just go to confession next time and use that as my space to vent my feelings about people conflating catholicism and evangelism. which is an ever-growing problem in the public sphere. see: jd vance vs the popes and tiktok catholic “converts” who view catholicism as the most conservative and vocal branch of christianity when that could not be farther from the case—something born and raised catholics understand fairly well across the board, leading to (predominantly white!!) evangelists rebranding as catholics/“converting” to catholicism but continuing to preach evangelism, which muddies and slowly erodes what’s left of the culture surrounding catholicism because evangelists want to re-shape catholicism into a hyper-conservative sola scriptura haven.

[not-so-superheroine]

my friend who's in his 70s makes me feel like some sort of religious fundamentalist.

i'm not. by a long shot.

but we are in two different places. and i think that's okay.

i respect his more than he respects mine, i think. I sent a message to talk about it further that contains much of the things i will put under the cut. he rejects the term "latter day saint" but also claims that the church has with the name change. but i know that thought isn't universal. most of the people around me have no problem with the term "latter day saint."

one of my favorite hymns is "Rejoice, ye Saints of Latter Days." We sing about the heavens being opened and the "Latter Days" a good deal locally. I've given a talk/sermon to an international online congregation, referring to us as Latter Day Saints and talking about Latter Day Saint beliefs and traditions. It had to be approved by the pastor, and the congregation received it really well. And in the way I did it, the sermon also spoke to Latter Day Saints from other traditions who commented to tell me what it meant to them. This sermon stressed kinship with other Latter Day Saints in different sects and the wider Christian body, and not divisiveness, while still maintaining individual uniqueness.

I think I understand some of his “whys". Like, belief in "the great apostasy" flies in the face of no longer believing in "one true church" philosophy. Which World Church is clear about rejecting.

I'd identify as a Latter Day Saint based on tradition alone. However, it does align with my beliefs in a nuanced way. I do believe something was restored to Christianity in "the Restoration."

And in my understanding, that is the spiritual practice of continuing revelation esp. regarding an open canon of scripture. God is dispensing further knowledge to be acknowledged, discerned, recorded, and lived out today. The belief in modern prophets, like those of old, and modern prophecy, while I'm sure those were existent in different forms elsewhere, in the Restoration, it was brought forward in a major way.

Protestants are generally hard set against that, so I see that as something being lost from Christianity for a long while (Catholics do something different than Protestants. Not new scripture though, and not quite what I am talking about). I wouldn't call "sola scriptura" and/or lack of elements of my understanding of Continuing Revelation in itself apostasy. I don't think it's apostasy to be "missing" something I think is important and of God. They think otherwise (as in thinking that they are not missing that/not needing that), and we both know God through Christ, and therefore we have more in common, faith-wise than not. I can accept differences in beliefs without thinking other Christians are apostates.

I agree that "one true church" is a haughty (and untrue) stance to take, and a great apostasy would affirm that stance. I also believe what is restored to the Gospel is to be shared widely. And Community of Christ has a unique divine calling in that.

Being that I believe in a type of literal restoration, the term "latter day saint" label follows in a sense. Since we are in the days after/during said Restoration and are awaiting Christ, who some early Saints thought Christ's arrival was imminent, like the early Christians did. I also think Christ's coming is imminent, but also that Christ is here, and has been here.

I find historical roots sacred, so I am not against the premise of having the title out of tradition. But for as my personal beliefs, I do believe in a Restoration of the Gospel in the early 1800s through Prophet-President Joseph Smith Jr and these being the latter days, in a rather nuanced, and admittedly also historically informed, way. My relationships with members of other Latter Day Saint sects benefit from that shared commonality, and I like to think I have a good impact on these general Latter Day Saints spaces, as they have had a good impact on me, too.

Like the Olive tree in the book of Jacob, we must find new ways to be one after our scattering and schisming (and do it with mutual respect).

[alephskoteinos]

It's very funny how people get into arguments about how the Bible "doesn't mean what you think it does" and how the things Christians establish as basic to Christianity are not in the Bible and not come away taking it as evidence that Christianity is a fucking absurd mess. Or, alternatively, that you cannot be Protestant because Protestantism is already dead in the water.

If you take Protestantism seriously, it operates on the reduction of the morals and dogma of Christianity to the text of the Bible, and nothing afterwards. Sola Scriptura. So if you follow that to the end, you have Christianity, already incoherent, restricted to the contradiction of the Bible. Sola Scriptura means scripture alone, but you can't resolve the contradictions of scripture. But the attempt to do so also is probably the original basis of evangelical Christianity. Evangelicals "believe in the totality of the Bible", which is basically an attempt to justify Sola Scriptura. I would almost think of Protestantism as kind of the Bruno Bauer of Christianities, except Bauer makes some of the same arguments the proto-Catholic church fathers do.

I'd say there is only one reason to be a Catholic if you're going to be a Christian and it's because Protestanism is boring and collapses in on itself and Orthodoxy, other than the theosis mysticism, is kind of just contrarian. But that leaves you stuck with the Pope and the Vatican hierarchy/authority, and you simply do not ever want to be beholden to it. That very problem is sort of the only reason Protestantism has any weight within Christianity, because historically you'd have people going to Protestantism for the sole purpose of being able to still be Christians without needing the Pope, because they can't just not be Christian.

Don't even get me started on Gnosticism.

Just don't be Christian, folks. Destroy Christianity and set yourself free.

[jurakan]

"The Catholic Church does not enforce a literal reading of all parts of the Bible. The Scriptures have many types of texts: prayers (Psalms), visions (Revelation), debates (Job), parables (parts of the Gospels), letters (St. Paul), and, of course, historical reports (Acts). But not everything in the Bible is a historical report. Writing more than a century ago, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) used a quote of St. Augustine when he said:

The sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation." Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science.

So why do a number of Catholics still have a serious problem with evolution? Most likely, some Protestant groups have persuaded them that they should have a problem. When Scripture is the one and only authority--sola Scriptura (see chapter 3)--then Scripture is seen to be completely infallible if taken literally. Years ago, many Catholics in the pews understood that evolution of the human body was somehow acceptable in Church teaching. What has changed recently is not Church teaching, nor science, but the fact that non-Catholic fundamentalists and Evangelicals now have an enormous impact on our culture, especially in North America--and so has their rejection of evolution, making Catholics feel as if they must be suspicious of evolution if they want to be 'faithful' in their religion.

As a result of this, the theory of evolution has become highly suspect, even among some Catholics. Lost in this debate is the profound Catholic truth, affirmed by popes and theologians from the earliest Church until today, that science can never conflict with the truths of faith--not even evolution (see chapter 29). There is just no room in modern society for a "King James Version" of science textbooks. In schools, we should teach science, not preach it! Pope John Paul II said it right: "Scientific culture requires Christians to have a mature faith."

-Forty Anti-Catholic Lies by Dr. Gerard Verschuuren

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

"One of the problems created by the anesthetic of sentimentalism is that it abandons sola scriptura (Scripture alone) for solus sentimetalismi (sentimentalism alone)." — Virgil Walker

[darkmaga-returns]

Keys to a Stronger Movement Going Forward

The online wars involving the emerging New Christian Right (NCR) do not seem to be letting up. Skirmishes take place seemingly multiple times every week over various aspects of Christian nationalism, spicy tweets and memes from younger pastors that tick off older generations of faithful Christians, Trinitarian doctrine, natural law, and the traditional understanding of sola scriptura. The conference circuit is in full swing, with NCR critics launching critiques that tend to be more strawman than steelman. Recriminations are flying, and sometimes long-standing relationships end over a single social media post.

As we transition away from a Christian practice and theology that was constructed for the positive world and dive headlong into the digital age, it was inevitable that cracks would emerge between various Christian camps. Expanding retrieval projects into areas that violate the modern liberal consensus and building battle-hardened institutions that can withstand the shockwaves of our age were always going to upset those who have been at the helm of various Christian legacy institutions. And major differences between how each different generation uses and understands social media was always going to exacerbate these divisions. 

Realizing that much of what has passed for conservative theology was actually an incoherent amalgamation borne not of the Reformers but the 20th century, the Reformed contingent of the New Christian Right is justly going back to the sources, looking to draw on old wisdom to help solve the deep-seated problems we face today. This theological realignment is just a bit behind the political realignment that began in 2015—which indicates that, at least in principle, these debates are somehow related to the very future of the United States.

[biblenewsprophecy]

Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism

Author: Dr. Bob Thiel. Narrator: James Martenet.

Listen on Spotify.

What is a Protestant?

Are all professing Christian churches other than the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics Protestant?

What is a real Christian?

What are many of the doctrines that early Christians held that Protestants do not?

What are important teachings related to the Godhead and salvation that Protestantism does not understand?

BOOK REVIEW:

This book looks into the stated beliefs of these organizations.  Calvinists claim very few of all the human being ever born will be saved.  Followers of Martin Luther claim to believe in "sola Scriptura" - Scripture alone, the Continuing Church of God claims to follow the actions of the Apostles as commanded by Jesus Christ.

But do they?  Do Martin Luther's own words prove he truly believed in "sola Scriptura"?  Does the Bible back up John Calvin's claim that very few humans will ever attain salvation?  Do the actions of the Continuing Church of God truly mirror the actions of the early Apostles?

Dr. Thiel has done exhaustive research into the doctrines and origins of the Protestant faiths and provides the reader with provable, verifiable end notes that allow the serious student of foundations of the Protestant faiths to gain an invaluable understanding of their beliefs.

If you are already a believer in Jesus Christ or just starting to seek the Truth, this book provides excellent insight into the beliefs of Protestantism and the beliefs of the Continuing Church of God.

Why does it matter?  What's the big deal if Martin Luther claims "sola Scriptura" but doesn't really believe it.  Or, what's the problem if Calvinists believe most of humanity will be lost forever, but that's not true either?

Well, isn't that the whole point of believing in God the Father and God the Son in the first place?  Do we want to believe a lie, or do we want to believe the truth?  Whatever the truth turns out to be, isn't that our goal.  Do we want to continue to belong to a faith that isn't faithful?  What would Jesus do?

LATEST AUDIO BOOKS

Here is a link to read our free online book: Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism.

Click here to read free online books in the English lanaguage.

[apilgrimpassingby]

hey! saw in a post you made that the Orthodox church doesn’t have the same concept of canonicity as western Christianity - could you elaborate on that? i’m a convert to Orthodoxy from Protestantism but the difference in Scriptural canon wasn’t central to my conversion process so i’ve never heard of this before and am very curious :)

Basically, the Western conception of canon ("the authoritative, divinely inspired books") presupposes sola scriptura, since it relegates divine inspiration to a certain list of texts. Notably, the Roman Catholic canon was only issued at Trent, in response to the Reformation. Us Orthodox reject sola scriptura, and so we must have a different definition.

Hence, in the Orthodox world, canonical texts are the ones with a tradition of being read liturgically. Non-canonical texts, called apocrypha, are by this definition not necessarily uninspired or bad, just not read liturgically - some examples of New Testament Apocrypha would be 1 Clement, the Didache, the Infancy Gospel of St. James, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter. There's usually a reason they're not read liturgically, such as only ever being written with clergy in mind (like the Didache) or just being really weird (like the Apocalypse of Peter), but to call them non-canonical isn't to cast doubt on their inspiration or goodness.

For some knock-on effects, this means that canon varies slightly throughout the Orthodox world - for example, 2 Esdras is canonical in the Slavic tradition but not in the Greek tradition, and 4 Maccabees is canonical in the Greek tradition but not in the Slavic tradition - without any problems, since calling a book canonical or non-canonical isn't a debate about its inspiration or value.

To argue for this view, I'd say two things:

This is the position taken by ancient canon lists, such as the Muratorian Fragment (late 2nd century) and St. Athanasius' Festal Letter (mid 4th century): instead of a canon/not canon binary, they have the three categories of reading publicly, reading privately and not reading (for heretical writings).

It was the practical situation for most churches for most of Christian history. Before the invention of the printing press, it would have been too expensive for each parish to have it's own Bible, so for all practical purposes, your Bible was whatever your parish lectionary included and being outside of it was no proof of not being scripture.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Hi, as a professed progressive Christian (I use that phrase even tho I do have problems with it), I think you’re ignoring the theology behind such claims and just making a blanket statement about people who disagree with you. The idea that one shouldn’t call themself by their sexual identity didn’t just come sola scriptura out of thin air: it takes a particularly Augustinian and reformed interpretation of sin, desire, concupiscence, and original sin. Meanwhile, the opposing argument (I’ll still with side b since side a is more complicated) comes from a Roman Catholic view of sin, desire, nature, and eroticism (Catholicism has a very deep and detailed view of eros that I am reading about right now). Not blaming you for not knowing this (I only know this because I’m doing lots of research into it atm) but you did tag this progressive Christianity and it bears saying. At it’s heart, this is the same debates and arguments that took place 400 years ago: the reformation vs catholic philosophy.

The progressive Christians who recite the mantra of “Be different! Be yourself! Don’t conform! God made you *insert sexual identity*” are the very ones refusing to own the fact that they are a new creation in Christ, different from the world, holy and set apart for God. Be different. Be yourself, that is, who you are in Christ, a child of God.