Dangers of Liberal Theology in the Church

[GadFly]

I would disagree with the thought that "liberal thinking when its used correctly opens your eyes to God Word".

There is too many parts of liberal theology that completely contradicts the Scriptures. If you find yourself in disagreeing with any part of scripture then the entire Bible has to come into serious question.

I find that the reason that most people like to question parts of the Bible is to cover up the sin in their own lives. The Bible was given to us to set a road map to Heaven and no place that I have read between its covers are we given the right to pick and choose the parts we want to accept and reject the parts that fits our theology.

What we were trying to explain is that philosophical Christian liberalism uses a different premise than orthodox Christian reasoning. The use of "liberal" as an adjective such as giving love liberally to our brothers and sisters is just fine. But to use the phenomenological definition as a premise for reasoning is definitely to oppose Christ because Christ is the premise for all ontological reasoning. It is going to be interesting to see how the liberals are going to explain this fact away in defense of their liberalism. The first time they change the use of "liberal" from an adjective to a premise, they are finished and exposed.

 

[StudentofScripture55]

Biblical fundamentalism is a rather recent American political movement, and has little to do with Jesus' actual teachings.

Its popularity in America, I suspect, has more to do with it conforming to the personal prejudices of many Americans than anything else .

 

[GadFly]

Biblical fundamentalism is a rather recent American political movement, and has little to do with Jesus' actual teachings.

Its popularity in America, I suspect, has more to do with it conforming to the personal prejudices of many Americans than anything else .

Welcome friend to the WP. The definition the OP uses of fundamentalism is simple. We try to discover in the Scriptures exactly what Christ said for us to believe and do and then stick to the philosophy of Christ. In this respect the greatest historical .fundamentalist movement began with the initiation of Protestantism, whenever that was. The popularity of fundamentalism in America could be just another sectarian fling since you say it began with prejudice. Fundamentalism is first a search for truth and then adherence to that truth and it is an individual thing. It is a liberal search for the truth but it is always with in Jesus Christ, the logos, the one ontological being in the universe.

 

[GadFly]

Truth like God is what it is. Truth does not change. We do have words with which we use to explain the truth. We use words to say the truth the best we can, if we are honest Christians. If we are not honest, our pride of life thing will seek out words to justify our selfish beliefs that are designed to make us look to be intellectually superior to others. For this reason semantics used in theology can be very dangerous. For this reason, it is a good thing to continue to define the terms you use to explain your truth.

I have learned much from the discussion of liberalism about how people view liberalism. There seems to be a fact here that goes unnoticed. Very few people agree on what liberism means. Here is a very good approach to understanding what liberalism is and as it turns out liberalism can mean many things and there needs to a sing method of determining how we use the word liberal.. Here it is.

Citing the modern day definition of liberalism is a word study in any dictionary. However, what liberalism means to us is identifiable by the premises we use to describe liberal. If your premise is Christ, you are a Christian liberal. If it is some type of phenomenology, you are a secular liberal. That definition will hold up in any philosophical discussion such as the one we are having here.

In effect, the same criteria used to determine the meaning of all words should be used to determine the meaning of liberalism. This will eliminate the shell game and semantics secular liberals are so fond of using in their efforts to remove God from the American culture and eliminating God as the national premise of reasoning. This eliminating God from the reasoning process is the point at which the ungodly phenomenological theory of learning, called humanism, is substituted for our national premise of God, for our premise of learning and reasoning.

Therefore, secular liberalism is a subtle attempt to remove God from the culture and must be considered a very dangerous philosophy.

 

[StudentofScripture55]

Truth like God is what it is. Truth does not change. We do have words with which we use to explain the truth. We use words to say the truth the best we can, if we are honest Christians. If we are not honest, our pride of life thing will seek out words to justify our selfish beliefs that are designed to make us look to be intellectually superior to others. For this reason semantics used in theology can be very dangerous. For this reason, it is a good thing to continue to define the terms you use to explain your truth.

I have learned much from the discussion of liberalism about how people view liberalism. There seems to be a fact here that goes unnoticed. Very few people agree on what liberism means. Here is a very good approach to understanding what liberalism is and as it turns out liberalism can mean many things and there needs to a sing method of determining how we use the word liberal.. Here it is.

Citing the modern day definition of liberalism is a word study in any dictionary. However, what liberalism means to us is identifiable by the premises we use to describe liberal. If your premise is Christ, you are a Christian liberal. If it is some type of phenomenology, you are a secular liberal. That definition will hold up in any philosophical discussion such as the one we are having here.

In effect, the same criteria used to determine the meaning of all words should be used to determine the meaning of liberalism. This will eliminate the shell game and semantics secular liberals are so fond of using in their efforts to remove God from the American culture and eliminating God as the national premise of reasoning. This eliminating God from the reasoning process is the point at which the ungodly phenomenological theory of learning, called humanism, is substituted for our national premise of God, for our premise of learning and reasoning.

Therefore, secular liberalism is a subtle attempt to remove God from the culture and must be considered a very dangerous philosophy.

I agree with much of what you say in theory, but what does this look like in practice? That is, how do we practice the unselfish nature of Christianity among selfish people (including ourselves)?

 

[GraceSeeker]

This eliminating God from the reasoning process is the point at which the ungodly phenomenological theory of learning, called humanism, is substituted for our national premise of God, for our premise of learning and reasoning.

</p>
This sentence contains many statements that are assumed to be true, but that needed to be independently established. I want to examine just one of them -- "our national premise of God".

Does a "national premise of God" even exist? If so, what does it mean?
The language of our nation's foundational documents do make mention of God. So, it appears that the existence of God is not just assumed, but also recognized. However, what this means is not entirely clear to me.

Gadfly, you have expressed yourself much regarding the meaning of one having a premise of God, do you hold that your understanding of a premise of God is identifical to this national premise of God? If so, could you show how they are the same?

I note that in Iran, Pakistan, and Malaysia there is also a national premise of God written into their respective constitutions, but I don't think that you would identify them as having same understanding of what that means as you do. So, in what why is the national premise of God in the USA preferable to the national premise of God that one finds elsewhere?

 

[GadFly]

</p>
This sentence contains many statements that are assumed to be true, but that needed to be independently established. I want to examine just one of them -- "our national premise of God".

Does a "national premise of God" even exist? If so, what does it mean?
The language of our nation's foundational documents do make mention of God. So, it appears that the existence of God is not just assumed, but also recognized. However, what this means is not entirely clear to me.

Gadfly, you have expressed yourself much regarding the meaning of one having a premise of God, do you hold that your understanding of a premise of God is identifical to this national premise of God? If so, could you show how they are the same?

I note that in Iran, Pakistan, and Malaysia there is also a national premise of God written into their respective constitutions, but I don't think that you would identify them as having same understanding of what that means as you do. So, in what why is the national premise of God in the USA preferable to the national premise of God that one finds elsewhere?

The God in the Declaration and supported by the Constitution is the same dabar and logos found in the scriptures. That should be self evident to all Christians IMHO.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The God in the Declaration and supported by the Constitution is the same dabar and logos found in the scriptures. That should be self evident to all Christians IMHO.

"God" is mentioned exactly once in the Declaration of Independence: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...." When the diestic Thomas Jefferson writes about "nature's God" I hardly consider that akin to the logos of John 1:1.


The Constitution is even less solid, for apart from the 1st amendment, the only religious reference in the entire document is found in the line used to date it "in the year of our Lord" which appears to be merely a convention.

I accept as true that most of the leaders were Christians, George Washington an ardently strong man of faith, but I think it is a stretch to say that there is a national premise of God that equates to the Christan concept. I think pain was taken to NOT write that in.

 

[GadFly]

"God" is mentioned exactly once in the Declaration of Independence: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...." When the diestic Thomas Jefferson writes about "nature's God" I hardly consider that akin to the logos of John 1:1.


The Constitution is even less solid, for apart from the 1st amendment, the only religious reference in the entire document is found in the line used to date it "in the year of our Lord" which appears to be merely a convention.

I accept as true that most of the leaders were Christians, George Washington an ardently strong man of faith, but I think it is a stretch to say that there is a national premise of God that equates to the Christan concept. I think pain was taken to NOT write that in.

Your take on the the national premise fits in well with those who do not favor the theory "in God we trust" and would rather put God in the background behind humanism. So far it seems that many of your tenets are at least true to the premises you use but I suppose everybody is untitled to their opinion.

 

[sent one]

Well, I am have not read through every post. I am quite conservative in my view of Scripture and theology and yet pretty liberal in my politics. Are some saying this is not possible?

Roger Williams was a great Christian Hero and one of the early founding fathers who laid the foundation of very important ideas towards what this Nation was to become! And, I agree with His views completely on Religion and Government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29

It seems from my reading of the United Methodist Church's view on Government and protection of religious freedom, http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6384 ,they do as well?

 

[sent one]

I am someone, with my current occupation, that has to be pretty much an expert on the founding of this nation and the events that brought it about, and, it is true that quite a few (but not all) of the founding Fathers of this nation, (those involved with the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution) were in fact more Deist than Christian. I will not name specifically who they were, but I could give many first hand letters and journal accounts that would prove this. But because I know it is very controversial for some, I will refrain and let it be.

Roger Williams, who was an earlier influence, was a great thinker for his time. I am grateful for the protection we have, and for the protection others have in this country as far as religious practice. Grateful for the protection we have from Government imposing and the protection we have from allowing others to impose their beliefs on me/us in the public sphere. We have this freedom today in our Constitution because of Roger Williams' inspired idea that led to the radical and absolutely needed call for separation of Church and State!

 

[sent one]

I again emphasize, that I am pretty conservative/orthodox in my views of Scripture and the Christian faith and yet, I could not, in light of the teachings of Christ, go against my conscious and vote Republican. Yet, It seems some on here would question my orthodoxy because of this? Really? Or am I (hopefully) misunderstanding the posts by the OPer on this thread?

 

[Jeffersonian]

i find Liberal theology to be the source of must of the issues we have to face in church. it was the moment we wanted to be at the edge of cultural thinking, when our message became different from the truth. So sad to see people preaching Christ to make man happy, instead of preaching Christ as our only way to glorify God. so sad...

 

[GraceSeeker]

i find Liberal theology to be the source of must of the issues we have to face in church. it was the moment we wanted to be at the edge of cultural thinking, when our message became different from the truth. So sad to see people preaching Christ to make man happy, instead of preaching Christ as our only way to glorify God. so sad...

I find that there is a pendulum that swings back and forth, errors from one side and then a reaction to it with errors on the other. I believe we would be better off if, instead of reacting against things, we could find something to be for. I suggest that the cause of Christ and the kingdom of God as envisioned in Matthew 5-7 would be a pretty good place to start. Paul's letters aren't bad either, but Paul always needs to be read through the lens of Jesus' gospel, rather than Jesus read through the lens of Paul.

 

[sent one]

The Sermon on the Mount! I believe Jesus said it and He meant it! Build on the Rock or on sand? His words that apply and challenge! Amen! There are many that try to water them down but those who build on this rock will not have this water bring them to ruin.

 

[Lee52]

Originally Posted by GraceSeeker

"God" is mentioned exactly once in the Declaration of Independence: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...." When the diestic Thomas Jefferson writes about "nature's God" I hardly consider that akin to the logos of John 1:1.


The Constitution is even less solid, for apart from the 1st amendment, the only religious reference in the entire document is found in the line used to date it "in the year of our Lord" which appears to be merely a convention.

I accept as true that most of the leaders were Christians, George Washington an ardently strong man of faith, but I think it is a stretch to say that there is a national premise of God that equates to the Christan concept. I think pain was taken to NOT write that in.
​

Your take on the the national premise fits in well with those who do not favor the theory "in God we trust" and would rather put God in the background behind humanism. So far it seems that many of your tenets are at least true to the premises you use but I suppose everybody is untitled to their opinion.

I hold to and totally believe that all Christians must be totally honest, all of the time. Just because GraceSeeker states the honest facts of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, does not make him subscribe to the notion that GOD must be placed in the background behind humanism in the USA.

We were and are a secularly governed nation founded upon the principles of freedom and liberty for ALL. Our heritage comes from those in England seeking to have religious freedom from the King's church in England, but we did not declare independence for that reason. We declared independence from England for purely financial reasons.

We like to say that the first US Civil War was fought to free slaves, when in fact, it was fought for purely financial reasons.

I am grateful that we have a secular government which allows all to worship in liberty. Theocracies are the most dictatorial and brutal forms of government on this earth. If allowed to govern the entire nation, there is not one denomination that I would want to see doing so. Total power corrupts totally. Things done in the name of god are not to be in the realm of politics. Within our own Wesley's Parrish, there are items of disagreement on a scale from conservative legalism to liberal anarchy. Can you imagine that on a national political scale ruling Americans? Perish the thought!!

Conservatives politically border on facism vis-a-vis Cheney neoconservatives. They would have cameras in our homes watching us to protect us from terrorists to be able to react quickly to mitigate the threat from spreading beyond our bathrooms and bedrooms.

Liberals politically border on communism of the "nanny society" the few know what is best for the masses and enact all sorts of nanny laws restricting the freedoms of Americans for their/our own good because we are just too stupid to know what is best. They would put cameras in our homes to keep us from falling down and hurting ourselves in the normal course of living our lives under their, watchful-helpful-for-our-own-good, eyes.

No, neither US political party offers anyone that I can in good conscience vote for (from a theological-Christian stance). That is why I am a member of the Constitution Party and vote accordingly for either their candidates, or Libertarian candidates. Today, the USA needs financial planners and successful business men and women in all levels of elected office, REGARDLESS of their religious dogma, faith, beliefs. We need to vote ALL lawyer-politicians OUT.

Political candidates in the USA from R&D party are flip sides to the same coin. They are politicians and pander to Christians to get elected. They will, and do, compromise on all things to hold power and money. christianity in their lives is a mantra to garner votes, nothing more. Perhaps there are some born-again Christians in politics in the USA, that is a judgement that only GOD can make. From my arm-chair, inspecting fruits, I am not seeing it on the delivery side of US politicians claiming that status.

"By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16).

Show me some fruit.

Be blessed,
Lee52

 

[GadFly]

I hold to and totally believe that all Christians must be totally honest, all of the time. Just because GraceSeeker states the honest facts of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, does not make him subscribe to the notion that GOD must be placed in the background behind humanism in the USA.

That is so true as I do not think GC chooses humanism over Christianity. That is not what I said either. Humanism, however, was definitely not a premise of the Declaration or the Constitution, both of which stress self evident truths which only come from God. My argument is that many Christians are duped into following the tenets of humanism rather than truths given to us by God. Many good Christians are misled in this manner.

We were and are a secularly governed nation founded upon the principles of freedom and liberty for ALL. Our heritage comes from those in England seeking to have religious freedom from the King's church in England, but we did not declare independence for that reason. We declared independence from England for purely financial reasons.

the error in your statement here is that most colonist were common farmers with more religious convictions than we appear to have today. The few aristocratic giants who did international commerce could have never won independence without the support of all these very religious followers who had separated from the Church of England. It was not purly commerce but only one factor.

We like to say that the first US Civil War was fought to free slaves, when in fact, it was fought for purely financial reasons.

But slavery was a major factor. Real Christians have always known that there is only one race - the human race!

I am grateful that we have a secular government which allows all to worship in liberty. Theocracies are the most dictatorial and brutal forms of government on this earth. If allowed to govern the entire nation, there is not one denomination that I would want to see doing so. Total power corrupts totally. Things done in the name of god are not to be in the realm of politics. Within our own Wesley's Parrish, there are items of disagreement on a scale from conservative legalism to liberal anarchy. Can you imagine that on a national political scale ruling Americans? Perish the thought!!

"Not one denomination" is the key but whereas in the Constitution we make no laws for a specific church or denomination, we do keep all human rights and self evident truths that came from God, The whole'complete Constitution withe the Bill of Rights confirms self evident truths and their source. Nowhere in these national documents or in the Articles of Confederation did human and self evident truths depend on human consensus (that would be atheistic humanism and moral relativity). We the people did chose to be ruled by God and nowhere in these documents is God denounced although "humanism" is rejected often even on our currency we declare "in God we trust." No where does it say we trust in man's opinion or consensus for truth. For a Christian he must never say truth is relative because it is God.

Conservatives politically border on facism vis-a-vis Cheney neoconservatives. They would have cameras in our homes watching us to protect us from terrorists to be able to react quickly to mitigate the threat from spreading beyond our bathrooms and bedrooms.

Now, you making a liberal political argument! I beg you not to disrupt this thread with political argument. Some of us happen to like Cheney and are offended by such references.

Liberals politically border on communism of the "nanny society" the few know what is best for the masses and enact all sorts of nanny laws restricting the freedoms of Americans for their/our own good because we are just too stupid to know what is best. They would put cameras in our homes to keep us from falling down and hurting ourselves in the normal course of living our lives under their, watchful-helpful-for-our-own-good, eyes.

This statement may be true but it has little to do with liberal theology and can misdirect what this thread is about.

No, neither US political party offers anyone that I can in good conscience vote for (from a theological-Christian stance). That is why I am a member of the Constitution Party and vote accordingly for either their candidates, or Libertarian candidates. Today, the USA needs financial planners and successful business men and women in all levels of elected office, REGARDLESS of their religious dogma, faith, beliefs. We need to vote ALL lawyer-politicians OUT.

Always vote and then pray for the candidate that best represents your Christian philosophy.

Political candidates in the USA from R&D party are flip sides to the same coin. They are politicians and pander to Christians to get elected. They will, and do, compromise on all things to hold power and money. christianity in their lives is a mantra to garner votes, nothing more. Perhaps there are some born-again Christians in politics in the USA, that is a judgement that only GOD can make. From my arm-chair, inspecting fruits, I am not seeing it on the delivery side of US politicians claiming that status.

"By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16).

Show me some fruit.

GW Bush claimed to be a born again Christian but I have feeling that you do not like he and Cheney very much.

Be blessed,
Lee52

Same to you my brother.

 

[rturner76]

GW Bush claimed to be a born again Christian but I have feeling that you do not like he and Cheney very much.

Same to you my brother.

When these people were in power. By that I mean whoever they work for. It was the first time I believed the End-Times could happen in my lifetime.

The Bush/Saudi faction of protected companies all sell the government all it's goods and the government will be the only ones buying anything and it will all be on credit. Gas, medical supplies, clean water, all at a price for the common man. no $$ no doctor, no $$ no education. Some states are allowed to bring back a form of indentured servitude and chain gang labor to add to the prison slave labor complex. No more schools in the hood, just Juvenal detentions and prisons. The rich run the stock market all the rest better hustle with that degree your parents bought you. We finally kill so many people that there would be countries uniting against the US. The US team gets smaller but more brutal. police departments and FBI get more searcj and phone tapping rights. Account freezing. IRS games.

I'm so happy they are gone. they took a country that was paying all it;s bills on time and ran it into the ground.

Claiming to be Christian Crusaiders they have killed more Muslims than anybody in Histiry so I guess that's an accomplishment.

I do my best to love everyone. Loving those two men and the men that they work for, I feel like my blood id curdling when I am loving them but I must love them on a base line, I just think they did a terrible job and a lot of people have died that did not need to die.

 

[GadFly]

When these people were in power. By that I mean whoever they work for. It was the first time I believed the End-Times could happen in my lifetime.

The Bush/Saudi faction of protected companies all sell the government all it's goods and the government will be the only ones buying anything and it will all be on credit. Gas, medical supplies, clean water, all at a price for the common man. no $$ no doctor, no $$ no education. Some states are allowed to bring back a form of indentured servitude and chain gang labor to add to the prison slave labor complex. No more schools in the hood, just Juvenal detentions and prisons. The rich run the stock market all the rest better hustle with that degree your parents bought you. We finally kill so many people that there would be countries uniting against the US. The US team gets smaller but more brutal. police departments and FBI get more searcj and phone tapping rights. Account freezing. IRS games.

I'm so happy they are gone. they took a country that was paying all it;s bills on time and ran it into the ground.

Claiming to be Christian Crusaiders they have killed more Muslims than anybody in Histiry so I guess that's an accomplishment.

I do my best to love everyone. Loving those two men and the men that they work for, I feel like my blood id curdling when I am loving them but I must love them on a base line, I just think they did a terrible job and a lot of people have died that did not need to die.

Christ taught that no matter who the political forces were in this world that there would be wars and rumors of wars until the end of time. Both major political parties prove this to be be true equally well when these politicians do not trust in God. A true liberal Christian never gives up on trusting God and a secular politician regardless of his political party is on the verge of denying God IMHO. God is the source of human rights and self evident truths according to the Constitution and our national philosophy. Don't you believe this fact?

 

[sent one]

A flip side post to the title of the OP.

I have seen a danger very much alive in the Church in the USA. "Nationalism" and the belief that America was and can and should be a "Christian nation" This to me is doing more damage to the message of Christ in this nation than humanism in the church ever could. The Myth Of a Christian Nation is doing more harm to the cause of Christ than all of our PC and humanistic threats put together.