What are Theological Liberalism and Theological Postmodernism?
- Thread starter Mark Corbett
- Start date
- Mar 17, 2015
- 17,184
- 9,196
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
We can all agree that all sorts of diverse Christians from all sorts of viewpoints in fact do charity. We all know that they do, and not only 'liberal' or 'conservative', but really just all sorts. In the charities you mention also, all sorts contributing.
If anything, I hope that we realize the labels themselves, all of them, 'liberal' 'conservative', and all the rest, are often not really helping us to know each other, or to love each other, but at most are only useful for discussion.
As long as we remember that actual real people don't really fit the labels very well pretty often! The person we might think to label 'liberal' in actual reality once we learn all their views having plenty of so-called 'conservative' viewpoints (if we are labeling the specific viewpoints), and vise versa, etc.
I'm suggesting the labels when applied to individual people are most often illusion, our own mistaken guesses, if we presume (as often) that they have some additional set of viewpoints they have not explicitly told us that they have!
From a lot of conservations, I find that individuals have diverse mixes of viewpoints. No individual seems to fit any pigeonhole well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I think my original point is whether or not one sees the ladling of soup as 'the Gospel.'
Upvote
0
Apex
Radical Centrist & Ethicist
- Jan 1, 2017
- 824
- 404
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The question is really one of hermeneutics then. I don't care what theological label a position carries. I just care if it is true.
I read the Bible in a way in which I believe it was intended to be read. All of my positions, liberal or conservative (or whatever), are firmly founded on Scripture.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
I'm sure that some would disagree with my calling the following described Christians as "liberals". But I don't know what else to call them.
Some people pick and choose which scriptures they appeal to based on "feelings and emotions" rather than adopting a well balanced and systematic theology. I have found this to be particularly true in the area of "soteriology" here in the forum.
I will try not to name any particular doctrines concerning salvation here so as to keep from hijacking the thread.
But there are some doctrines which grind at the feelings of fairness for some folks. As a result they even bend what the scriptures say God Himself has done and will do - just to stay away from what offends them.
Any discussion of the "mechanics" of the salvation process will most assuredly bring (what I call theological liberals) to the surface.
But, just to stay a ways away from that controversial subject, I'll refer here to the concept of Hell for an example of "feelings and emotion" based "liberalism".
Some see God's eternal punishment of the damned as grossly unfair to men who are simply caught in the web of this world for no fault of their own. People who feel that way usually ascribe fallen mankind with attributes and inclinations which the scriptures clearly tell us they don't have.
Some folks will twist scripture to an almost unbelievable degree to make the concept of Hell mean something it doesn't mean- just as they do with the salvation process in soteriology.
I call this feeling and emotion based theology "liberalism" because the people engaged in it have drifted far from what I view as really clear statements on the subject by God.
Again - I call it "liberalism" to take an emotion based view of "soteriology" just as I do with a concept like Hell.
I don't know what else to call it but liberalism when clear scriptures must be ignored to hold a view. The "base truth" has been undermined and even jettisoned because it conflicts with what "feels right" to the liberal.
Whether we are talking about sex, politics, or theology - if it feels good believe it has taken root.
In many cases it has progressed farther than simple disagreement with conservatives. Conservatives have become the enemies of the liberals.
Anyone who stands against the courts rewriting the intentions of the writers of the Constitution is the enemy of the liberal.
Anyone who points out the sin of homosexuality, protests against genderless bathrooms, doesn't like the Black Lives Matter organization, and wants to defund Planned Parenthood is the enemy and also a bigot, a mysogynist, and a homophobe.
Anyone who preaches about Hell is a hater. Anyone who preaches about the absolute sovereignty of God is preaching a false view of stoeriology and is a heretic in the view of the theological liberal.
In theology - one does not have to actually say that they reject the authority of scripture to be a liberal. Plenty of theological liberal appeal to scripture to back up their views. But, if they pick and choose which scriptures they will believe just to feel good about their beliefs, they are also liberal IMO.
Only those who will bend their theology to what a thorough and systematic view of scripture teaches - rather than bending the scriptures to what feels good to their emotions - can be called true conservatives.
Just a few thoughts for what they are worth.
Some people pick and choose which scriptures they appeal to based on "feelings and emotions" rather than adopting a well balanced and systematic theology. I have found this to be particularly true in the area of "soteriology" here in the forum.
I will try not to name any particular doctrines concerning salvation here so as to keep from hijacking the thread.
But there are some doctrines which grind at the feelings of fairness for some folks. As a result they even bend what the scriptures say God Himself has done and will do - just to stay away from what offends them.
Any discussion of the "mechanics" of the salvation process will most assuredly bring (what I call theological liberals) to the surface.
But, just to stay a ways away from that controversial subject, I'll refer here to the concept of Hell for an example of "feelings and emotion" based "liberalism".
Some see God's eternal punishment of the damned as grossly unfair to men who are simply caught in the web of this world for no fault of their own. People who feel that way usually ascribe fallen mankind with attributes and inclinations which the scriptures clearly tell us they don't have.
Some folks will twist scripture to an almost unbelievable degree to make the concept of Hell mean something it doesn't mean- just as they do with the salvation process in soteriology.
I call this feeling and emotion based theology "liberalism" because the people engaged in it have drifted far from what I view as really clear statements on the subject by God.
Again - I call it "liberalism" to take an emotion based view of "soteriology" just as I do with a concept like Hell.
I don't know what else to call it but liberalism when clear scriptures must be ignored to hold a view. The "base truth" has been undermined and even jettisoned because it conflicts with what "feels right" to the liberal.
Whether we are talking about sex, politics, or theology - if it feels good believe it has taken root.
In many cases it has progressed farther than simple disagreement with conservatives. Conservatives have become the enemies of the liberals.
Anyone who stands against the courts rewriting the intentions of the writers of the Constitution is the enemy of the liberal.
Anyone who points out the sin of homosexuality, protests against genderless bathrooms, doesn't like the Black Lives Matter organization, and wants to defund Planned Parenthood is the enemy and also a bigot, a mysogynist, and a homophobe.
Anyone who preaches about Hell is a hater. Anyone who preaches about the absolute sovereignty of God is preaching a false view of stoeriology and is a heretic in the view of the theological liberal.
In theology - one does not have to actually say that they reject the authority of scripture to be a liberal. Plenty of theological liberal appeal to scripture to back up their views. But, if they pick and choose which scriptures they will believe just to feel good about their beliefs, they are also liberal IMO.
Only those who will bend their theology to what a thorough and systematic view of scripture teaches - rather than bending the scriptures to what feels good to their emotions - can be called true conservatives.
Just a few thoughts for what they are worth.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 17, 2015
- 17,184
- 9,196
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
There are no sides.
Its only whether we believe or not, and will then love Him and keep His commands.
Its only whether we believe or not, and will then love Him and keep His commands.
Upvote
0
- Jun 1, 2017
- 893
- 744
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
If your positions are truly founded on scripture, I would not consider you to be theologically liberal, even if we disagree on the correct interpretation of some issues. But let's look as two simple concrete examples:
1. Authorship.
I read this verse:
NIV 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
After reading that verse I have no doubt that Paul wrote 1 Timothy. But there are others who say that 1 Timothy was written by someone else using Paul's name. That is an easy to understand example of theological liberalism.
2. Women leading and teaching men in the church.
I read this verse:
NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
I read the context. I see the context is ministry in the church. I don't see any other passages which contradict it. There is nothing in the context limiting this to a particular local issue. So I believe it means exactly what it appears to mean.
I'm not saying that there are not difficult verses and difficult issues. There are. But I'm saying that theological liberalism takes things which actually are quite clear and straightforward in the Bible and they treat them as if the are unclear and they create doubt and confusion about them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sola1517
Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)
- Jun 27, 2016
- 574
- 200
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
They sound like the same thing.
Matthew 25:40, who are your least of these?
So the church is a self serving organization that cares nothing for the people outside. No wonder we haven't preached the gospel to every tribe, tongue, and nation.
They're not all rapists. You can't blame all the rape on Mexican immigrants.
You really think this argument is primarily about feeding people? God is Love, sir. (1 John 4:8)
Keep making exceptions for yourself.
Be careful?
I've read enough I think.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apex
Radical Centrist & Ethicist
- Jan 1, 2017
- 824
- 404
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You seem to be big on authorship. Here is one of my "liberal" positions. I don't think the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew. However, I do believe the other gospels were written by the authors attributed to them.
Why? Well, as you might know, the gospels were anonymously written. The idea that Matthew wrote this gospel is founded purely on a second-hand account found in an extrabiblical source. I have my doubts about this tradition. Instead, I have come to my decision that Matthew didn't write this gospel from a textual and literary study of the gospel itself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,591
- 18,508
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It amounts to that. I mean, even if you don't agree with Protestant liberal theology, why cast it in the most negative light possible? Contrary to what some fundamentalists think, there are conservative Christians that manage to recognize that liberal Christians are... Christian. There is no need to be so polemical about theology.
Rev. Roger Olson is a perfect example of a (relatively) conservative Christian who can transcend the liberal/fundamentalist false dichotomy.
If it were not for so-called "liberal" theology, I would not be a Christian today. I could not in good conscience believe in the certitudes of fundamentalist Protestantism.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
jimmyjimmy said: ↑
What about justice? Is God unjust? Would you protect a rapist from the police?
I see elsewhere that you are what you yourself call a "theistic evolutionist" (a liberal theological position if ever I saw one).
Why doesn't it surprise me that one who is a liberal in theology also tends to be one politically?
The answer is that it's just how liberals roll.
You make your theological arguments based on what keeps you from being looked down on by the majority of society and you make your political arguments the same way.
I'm sorry that these things get a little personal. You are probably a fine Christian brother or sister.
But this just illustrates so well how liberalism seems to play out that it's a good example to illustrate the answer to what the thread is asking.
What about justice? Is God unjust? Would you protect a rapist from the police?
He didn't say anything of the sort.
I see elsewhere that you are what you yourself call a "theistic evolutionist" (a liberal theological position if ever I saw one).
Why doesn't it surprise me that one who is a liberal in theology also tends to be one politically?
The answer is that it's just how liberals roll.
You make your theological arguments based on what keeps you from being looked down on by the majority of society and you make your political arguments the same way.
I'm sorry that these things get a little personal. You are probably a fine Christian brother or sister.
But this just illustrates so well how liberalism seems to play out that it's a good example to illustrate the answer to what the thread is asking.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
