Black Liberation Theology

That sounds like David Platt's preaching style...like Peter. He is definitely known to stir up conviction.

 

I do not despise education. That is your first lie.
Second, I clearly said "if".
Third, I stand by what I said. There is no corporate, plural, or anything but personal salvation.

 

So the Church is not a corporate body??

 

Why are you so bent on twisting this ?

You know my answer, but I reiterate, salvation is personal, not collective. Nobody IS saved because of a racial lineage. We will not face judgment in groups.

The first statement is a red herring. Rejection of liberalism is not a reason to label someone as unconcerned.

 

- Salvation is personal (Phil. 2:12) AS WELL as corporately as the church (body of believers) (Eph. 5:25-27). Ephesians 1 even teaches corporate election.
- No one here has made the statement that one is saved because of race.
- People will face judgement individually AND corporately (Luke 10:13-14).
- You are free to embrace or reject any theology but a theology that embraces personal salvation without concern for one's neighbor to the point of ignoring his plight (Luke 10:25-37) is more heretical or un-Christian (un-Christ-like) than a theology that does.

 

Is corporate salvation the same thing as collective salvation to you? Some Black Liberal Theologians embrace this. I believe Bro. Curtis is referring to collective salvation. The belief that the church effects the salvation of its members as a whole. Augustine had to fight against this in the Catholic church. Some believed that the whole church would be redeemed. Even the "immoral" members who lacked or lost justification. Islam has a version of this as well. The believers are saved as a group. Through the work of the church all will be redeemed. It has also led to universalism, where everyone eventually goes to Heaven.

I think RT is referring to once the individual believer is saved, he/she is incorporated into the redeemed body(church) of Christ. Is that right RT? I think you guys are using the same term talk about 2 different things. At least I use different terms. I see Bro Curtis talking about collective salvation and RT referring to believers incorporated into Christ after individual salvation. Which I would call corporate salvation.

* some Christians will use 1Corinthians 12 to support collective salvation. The members equal one body. So, the body (church)is saved or lost as a whole.

 

I would have to agree. The Bible refers to the make up of the church being true believers. You can be apart of "a church" be not apart of "the church". Therefore, "the church" will be saved...corporate (and "collective" means the same thing) salvation. A doctrine as old as the book of Ephesians.

 

The idea of collective salvation is heresy. It is ecumenism at its finest. This heresy comes out of the far left Christian social movement. First it is that idea that if one is to be save all are to be saved or none.

Second, it further says that the church must come together in order to rid the world of social injustices. If you are not worried about the greater good for all over individual salvation then you are not saved.

It is nothing but a far left wing political movement within the church. It is ecumenical in nature and distorts the gospel.

 

Many do not see the incorporation of believers, through individual salvation and collective salvation as the same thing. The BLT and Muslims who practice the theological term "collective salvation" believe it to be "a church" is saved by social contributions. So, RT I would be careful using the term corporate salvation. People will assume you are referring to "a church" being able to do works to save its individual members. Which I no is not the case. I see you sperate " a church " and "the church". The Church being the redeemed through Christ. The use of terminology is confusing people. This is do to the "social-gospels" perversion of scripture. You and Bro. Curtis have been debating 2 different things, but using the same term.

 

RT is using the term in away most of us do not. He isn't saying we are saved through a "social gospel". His last post he separates " a church " from the "the church".....the church being made up of individually saved members. Once you read around his use of the words corporate salvation or collective salvation. You see he isn't referring to " social gospel" = collective salvation of a church.

I agree the collective salvation as practiced by some BLT churches and Islamic branches is a dangerous believe. In the case of BLT, they are attempting to replace the redemptive work of Christ with there own redemptive work. James Cone, I dont believe was referring to this in his works, but people have applied it that way.

 

I disagree, it is specifically in line with the "Black Theology" he puts forward on his blog.

 

RT is teaching the social gospel? Where is this blog?

Is his blog the same one as the blog he posted in this thread? Is that his?

 

Well good to know I'm getting traffic. :thumbs:

Looks like McCree nailed it on the head.

1. You obviously didn't read what McCree posted. I don't get how he can understand what i'm saying but you don't (though I think you may and are just exercising the contrary spirit that others including myself have drawn attention to).

2. The church should come together in order to rid the world of social justices (Luke 4) and if you are not worried about the welfare of your "neighbor" (Luke 10) you can't be saved...no matter what your individual confession is (Isaiah 58; Matthew 25).

3. I myself admire BLT's call to social concern, however my religious studies through grad and undergrad have allowed me to carefully examine other theological implications of Black Liberation Theology that need some reformation itself.

4. Revmitchell, you obviously have some difficulties in the reading department considering that my blog talks about Black Theology NOT Black Liberation Theology...which is quite different. If you're gonna be divisive, contrary, and combative, at least have the intelligence to go with that hate...you're even bad at being bad. :laugh:

 

Uh you denied that I was correct then turned right around and showed I was all in the same post.

 

??? Yeah that reading thing...you should probably get to work on it. :laugh:

 

I can only assume you are referring to Christ's teaching about the "greatest commandment," which is in essence paraphrased in Luke 10, though I cannot be certain as you only stated the chapter and not a particular section in the chapter.

That said, making "concern for your neighbor's welfare" a prerequisite for salvation is the same as instituting a works-based salvation. That's wrong, and you know it.

 

CTB - I agree that our faith should bring about works. But what RT is saying in his posts seems to indicate that we have to have works (concern for our neighbor) before we can have salvation. Read it again:

He says that if you are not concerned then you cannot be saved. No where in God's word is there such a restriction placed on people prior to their salvation, as his comment indicates. Otherwise Christ could not have told the thief beside Him no the cross that he would be with Him in Paradise, as that thief certainly wasn't exercising concern for his neighbor's welfare prior to the cross.

That is works-based, no matter how you slice it. If he had said your salvation will bring about a concern for your neighbor, then I would have no problem with his comment.

 

"That's wrong and you know it???" What type of way is that to come at someone?? Especially since you are wrong.

There is no prerequisite for salvation but there is evidence of one's walk with Christ. Salvation isn't works-based but it's fruit-bearing. Jesus said those who do not bear good fruit are cut down and cast into the fire and only those who do the will of the Father will enter heaven (Matt. 7). Grace gets you into heaven but the evidence of those who have received that grace is love for others (1 John 2:3-6; Luke 10:27-28)