What are Theological Liberalism and Theological Postmodernism?

[mkgal1]

Maybe you do on the internet. Do you actually know someone who is like this? I can count maybe two crazy uncles and one cousin.

Unfortunately.....yes, I know far too many in real life (and have friends that have had backs turned on their genuine needs by them).

 

[Marvin Knox]

That is not my motivation, or the motivation of people I know. That's your psychological projection. Most of us are not nearly so insecure.

For one to read the account of the creation and the fall of mankind, just for one example of liberal compromise, and then subscribe to theistic evolution means either one of two things as I see it.

One is either subscribing to what the majority of western society believes in order to fit in. Or they have to have suffered some sort of trauma to the brain or developmental mental problems which keeps them from reading words clearly.

Perhaps there could be a bunch of other reasons why a person could read what God says about homosexual activity, just for one more example of liberal compromise, and then condone homosexual activity. But I can't really think of any but those two and maybe one or two others, if I tried real hard.

I'm going with them doing a calculated compromise of their theology in order to fit it in with what society is believing at the time - as the reason.

Frankly if the reason is anything other that diminished ability to read and think clearly - it's an overt sin to teach such liberal theology in my opinion.

Nice strawmen you have made there, particularly the bolded bit.

Not at all.

Not believing in the literal resurrection of Christ is a typical if extreme example of liberal theology. I have named others here as well for you. None of them are done to "better love God and your neighbor" as you charged.

You just said our motivation amounts to winning popularity contests and fitting in at the expense of truth. That's hardly something that leads to martyrdom.

He was martyred for what he was martyred for and it was not for his liberal beliefs. No one said that He was martyred for his liberal beliefs.

There are many serious Christians that do not agree with your narrow theology.

I have no doubt. I encounter liberal Christians all the time. Particularly so in this forum.

It happens on this forum, from time to time, and out in the world. In the last decade there has been a resurgence of appreciation for Bonhoeffer among American evangelicals.

Yes, I know. Many conservatives appreciate what Bonhoeffer did just as they appreciate what Albert Schweitzer did. I don't see your point.

No one said liberals don't do good or even moved by the Spirit to do so.

That's usually the implication, that we are not real Christians.

The usual implication drawn from liberal theology is that the person involved in it is either not a Bible believer and or is a lousy theologian.

That may well indicate that he lacks the Spirit of God - since the Spirit is said to lead believers into truth.

But I know of no one, here at least, who has said that someone (again, for a typical liberal example) who believes in evolution in spite of the clear teaching of the scriptures is not saved.

Any true Bible believer has to wonder sometimes why it is that a person who possesses the Spirit of God can't understand what the Spirit of God has written. But that's usually as far as things go so far as any dogmatic judgment goes.

 

[FireDragon76]

Wow! Here's a false dichotomy:
You either live without confidence in God's grace OR you believe accounts the Bible presents as historical are myths.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Though a literal interpretation of Genesis might contribute to that, it doesn't necessarily follow.

Red's whole hermeneutic towards the Bible is insufficiently Christocentric. He prefers to see the Bible as bastion of unassailable truths in a fearful world full of complexity. Christ doesn't have much to do with his particular interpretation of Genesis 3. Jesus does not free him to look for the most generous interpretations possible, only the ones that reinforce his prejudices: we "liberals" might be out as wolves in sheep's clothing, because we do not have such a fear-based and control-driven hermeneutic.

That sort of fear and skepticism in our own abilities to find truth, that we need some external, infallible authority, such as his own conservative evangelical opinions on the Bible, shows a deficiency of confidence in God's grace.

I'm absolutely sure Jesus died for my sins and rose again.
I'm sure He absolutely wants me to serve the cause of the Great Commission.
I believe these things enough that by His grace I'm willing to make sacrifices and face dangers to live according to them.

Good for you, but that's not what I mean by absolutism. By absolutism, I mean the idea that unless you believe in the resurrection the way I do, or the virgin birth the way I do, that you cannot be a "real" Christian. That's absolutism.

 

[FireDragon76]

We've had a couple thousand years for the church to do that work---and it seems to me the "cheerful hearts to help the poor" aren't in abundance.

That approach has been a failure for the most part. Treating the poor as objects of pity and patronage is also not the only theme in the Christian tradition. St. Basil said the excess food in our pantry is the poor's by right. In some ways, the Social Gospel movement was the attempt to get unstuck from the western obsession with individual salvation, to set Christianity back on a surer footing that actually has something to do with the ethic of Jesus.

 

[Mark Corbett]

There are aspects of what you write where I see echoes of God's truth, and other parts of what you write which appear, to me, to be out of touch with God's Word (at least as I understand you).

. . . Treating the poor as objects of pity and patronage is also not the only theme in the Christian tradition. St. Basil said the excess food in our pantry is the poor's by right.

There is a sense in which this is right. We have a moral obligation before God to help those in need. This is taught throughout the Bible. One relevant passage is this one:

Isaiah 58:6 "Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
8 Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
9 Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; you shall cry, and he will say, 'Here I am.' If you take away the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,
10 if you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday.​

God help us, we so often fall so short of this.

However, I feel your diagnosis of the problem, or part of it, is wrong:

In some ways, the Social Gospel movement was the attempt to get unstuck from the western obsession with individual salvation, to set Christianity back on a surer footing that actually has something to do with the ethic of Jesus.

Individual salvation is absolutely essential and is a major focus of the Bible. True salvation will lead to a heart that loves God and loves people. This leads to being generous and pouring ourselves out for the hungry. When it doesn't, something is wrong. And yes, I'm aware that a lot is wrong. But the problem is not "obsession with individual salvation", but a lack of true individual salvation in Christ.

Sin is the deep problem which causes poverty and greed.
We can only be set free from the power of sin by salvation in Christ.
And, yes, this salvation involves people hearing and believing the Good News that Jesus died for our sins and then becoming His disciples and being transformed into His image.

It is a terrible error to set individual salvation from sin against helping the poor. Either without the other is unbiblical.

 

[Mark Corbett]

. . . . By absolutism, I mean the idea that unless you believe in the resurrection the way I do, or the virgin birth the way I do, that you cannot be a "real" Christian. That's absolutism.

Actually, teaching the wrong type of resurrection is like gangrene:

2 Timothy 2: 16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

It can also lead to a useless faith:

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

 

[redleghunter]

Red's whole hermeneutic towards the Bible is insufficiently Christocentric.

Guess you are speaking of me. Usually it is thread etiquette to ping someone if you speak of them.

All I have to say is you do well in building me with the same straw you reserve for your misconceptions of what the original fundamentals sought out to accomplish.

As far of Christ centered theology, it is in Genesis 3 where we have the first messianic prophecy. Also the first the depiction of how God provides all the necessary means of salvation by providing the animal skins for Adam and Eve, as the fig leaves they fashioned on their own were not acceptable to cover their nakedness.

Now if we cashier Genesis 3 to the realm of child storytelling legend, we miss out on a most important encounter YHWH has with His most important creation.

Lastly, I will note "Red's" interpretation of Genesis 3 is actually what the Church has taught since the Apostles walked the earth. Jesus made use of Genesis in a literal fashion as well when He teaches God's design for marriage was from the beginning (quoting directly from Genesis 2).

I do not subscribe to the Tubingen and postmodern Jesus presented in your posts.

 

[redleghunter]

Good for you, but that's not what I mean by absolutism. By absolutism, I mean the idea that unless you believe in the resurrection the way I do, or the virgin birth the way I do, that you cannot be a "real" Christian. That's absolutism.

Once again you try to present others creating an artificial "absolutism."

The absolute you reject is the plain teachings of Scriptures.

Luke records the Virgin birth.
All 4 Gospel accounts record the eyewitness testimony of the Bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It has been Church belief since 33 AD that both are true. So much both are recorded in church creeds and taught in every ancient catechism.

 

[FireDragon76]

Once again you try to present others creating an artificial "absolutism."

The absolute you reject is the plain teachings of Scriptures.

This is a good example of the perniciousness of fundamentalism. I have never said I reject the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus. I accept the right of others to understand the Scriptures on their own terms. That does not mean I reject the Scriptures.

However, in the end, my faith is centered on a Person, not a Book. It would be foolish for me to make a narrow orthodoxy the litmus test for the Christian faith.

 

[Mark Corbett]

In a strange way I agree with some of what you wrote. And yet it appears to be an example of the postmodern and/or liberal theology I described in the OP.

I have never said I reject the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus.

I recognize, and said so in the OP, that there are a wide range of views within liberalism. But I also pointed out how a lack of clarity is often a trademark of liberal writing, especially when interacting with evangelicals. So, what do you believe about the virgin birth and the resurrection? Are they literal? If so, why do you believe so? Why is it important to you, or not important to you? You certainly are under no obligation to answer these questions, but doing so would help clarify your view.

I accept the right of others to understand the Scriptures on their own terms.

So do I! In fact, I even accept the right for others to completely reject the Scriptures and Christianity and to turn their back on their Creator and reject their only hope of salvation. It breaks my heart to see people do so. I cry out to God in prayer daily asking God to help them and I try to reach them with love and truth and patient outreach. But I do recognize their right.

However, in the end, my faith is centered on a Person, not a Book.

Yes, our faith is centered in Jesus. But we know about Him through a Book. In the Bible we learn Who He is and what He did. We learn what true love is. He teaches us how to live through His words recorded in that Book and the words He inspired His apostles and prophets to write. Without that Book, we would not know Jesus.

It would be foolish for me to make a narrow orthodoxy the litmus test for the Christian faith.

Yes, it would be foolish for you or me or anyone to think we get to define Christianity. Christianity is not defined by us. It is defined by Christ.

Does He have a narrow or wide view?

In some ways it is VERY wide. Any person, regardless of nationality, race, sex, age, health, or status is invited in. They are welcome no matter how dark their past and how terrible their sins. His grace is sufficient.

But the only path He offers them to come into His Kingdom is indeed a narrow one:

ESV Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

ESV John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Once again you try to present others creating an artificial "absolutism."

The absolute you reject is the plain teachings of Scriptures.

Luke records the Virgin birth.
All 4 Gospel accounts record the eyewitness testimony of the Bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It has been Church belief since 33 AD that both are true. So much both are recorded in church creeds and taught in every ancient catechism.

We know Protestant Liberalism is wrong by one test it fails. It has never been, nor ever would be, persecuted by the world.

 

[Sola1517]

I'm not talking about philosophical details, I'm talking about practical out workings.

Okay.

 

[FireDragon76]

So, what do you believe about the virgin birth and the resurrection?

We recite the Apostles or Nicene Creed every Sunday.

I have no particular concern how the resurrection happened, and I do not wish to break fellowship with those who hold different interpretations. If that is too vague for you, well, vagueness is part of my beliefs. I believe the Christian faith must embrace a certain amount of mystery.

Yes, our faith is centered in Jesus. But we know about Him through a Book.

In my church, while the Bible is the basis for all dogma, we encounter Jesus through preaching and the sacraments. It is not merely learning about God or Jesus that is important.

without that Book, we would not know Jesus.

But the early church had no Bible, and yet they had a very real faith.

 

[redleghunter]

This is a good example of the perniciousness of fundamentalism. I have never said I reject the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus. I accept the right of others to understand the Scriptures on their own terms. That does not mean I reject the Scriptures.

However, in the end, my faith is centered on a Person, not a Book. It would be foolish for me to make a narrow orthodoxy the litmus test for the Christian faith.

We know of The Person from the "book."

It is the "person" others fashion with their own minds and absent in Scriptures we should be wary of. This goes for a "person" incompletely fashioned as well.

 

[redleghunter]

But the early church had no Bible, and yet they had a very real faith.

Sure they did. The apostles and early church theologians quoted extensively from the Scriptures.

The epistle of Polycarp we have today shows this as well as the great work of Irenaeus Against Heresies.

Not to mention the extensive use of TaNaKh by Christ and the apostles.

 

[mkgal1]

Individual salvation is absolutely essential and is a major focus of the Bible.

Can you show me where Jesus talked about this *individual salvation*?

 

[Mark Corbett]

Can you show me where Jesus talked about this *individual salvation*?

Gladly:

NIV John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[mkgal1]

Gladly:

NIV John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

What I meant was recorded words of Jesus (like we have in the Sermon on the Mount) of His emphasis on "individual salvation". ISTM that if that's the "end game" that He came for (specifically *individual salvation*) He would have spoken about it and we'd have it recorded as a theme running through the Gospels.

 

[Mark Corbett]

What I meant was recorded words of Jesus (like we have in the Sermon on the Mount) of His emphasis on "individual salvation". ISTM that if that's the "end game" that He came for (specifically *individual salvation*) He would have spoken about it and we'd have it recorded as a theme running through the Gospels.

From the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[mkgal1]

The way "salvation" is presented in the modern Protestant church is different than the Orthodox church teaches --this is a good illustration of the difference: