Christianity and Liberalism

[JM]

Lately we have seen an increase of liberal ideology being represented in SR, everything from words do not have meaning kind of threads to posts that reinterpret the Confessions outside of their historical moorings.

J. Gresham Machen's work is ever helpful.

Machen quotes:

...a large part of the New Testament is polemic; the enunciation of evangelical truth was occasioned by the errors which had arisen in the churches...At the present time, when the opponents of the gospel are almost in control of our churches, the slightest avoidance of the defense of the gospel is just sheer unfaithfulness to the Lord. There have been previous great crises in the history of the Church, crises almost comparable to this. One appeared in the second century, when the very life of Christendom was threatened by the Gnostics. Another came in the Middle Ages when the gospel of God's grace seemed forgotten. In such times of crisis, God has always saved the Church. But he has always saved it not by theological pacifists, but by sturdy contenders for the truth.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, p. 174

They (the liberal preachers) speak with disgust of those who believe 'that the blood of our Lord, shed in substitutionary death, placates an alienated deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner'. Against the doctrine of the cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling on human hearts.
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p.120
According to Christian belief, Jesus is our Saviour, not by virtue of what he said, not even by virtue of what he was, but by what he did. He is our Saviour, not because he inspired us to live the same kind of life that he lived, but because he took upon himself the dreadful guilt of our sins and bore it instead of us on the cross. Such is the Christian conception of the Cross of Christ. It is ridiculed as being a "subtle theory of the atonement." In reality, it is the plain teaching of the word of God; we know absolutely nothing about an atonement that is not a vicarious atonement, for that is the only atonement of which the New Testament speaks. And this Bible doctrine is not intricate or subtle.

On the contrary, though it involves mysteries, it is itself so simple that a child can understand it. "We deserved eternal death, but the Lord Jesus, because he loved us, died instead of us on the cross"--surely there is nothing very intricate about that. It is not the Bible doctrine of the atonement which is difficult to understand--what are really incomprehensible are the elaborate modern efforts to get rid of the Bible doctrine in the interests of human pride.

Modern liberal preachers do indeed sometimes speak of the "atonement." But they speak of it just as seldom as they possibly can, and one can see plainly that their hearts are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, at this point, as at many others, one has the feeling that traditional language is being strained to become the expression of totally alien ideas.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, p. 118-9
Christianity & Liberalism

 

[JM]

Machen, warts and all.

J. Gresham Machen's Response toÂ[bless and do not curse]Modernism 1993 Bethlehem Conference for Pastors - Desiring God

"Beneath the surface of life lies a world of spirit. Philosophers have attempted to explore it. Christianity has revealed its wonders to the simple soul. There lie the springs of the Church’s power. But that spiritual realm cannot be entered without controversy. And now the Church is shrinking from the conflict. Driven from the spiritual realm by the current of modern thought, she is consoling herself with things about which there is no dispute. If she favours better housing for the poor, she need fear no contradiction… The twentieth century, in theory, is agreed on social betterment. But sin, and death, and salvation, and life, and God – about these things there is debate.


You can avoid the debate if you choose. You need only drift with the current… The great questions may easily be avoided. Many preachers are avoiding them. And many preachers are preaching to the air. The Church is waiting for men of another type. Men to fight her battles and solve her problems. The hope of finding them is the one great inspiration of a Seminary’s life. They need not all be men of conspicuous attainments. But they must all be men of thought. They must fight hard against spiritual and intellectual indolence. Their thinking may be confined to narrow limits. But it must be their own. To them theology must be something more than a task. It must be a matter of inquiry. It must lead not to successful memorizing, but to genuine convictions." – J. Gresham Machen
​

 

[The Conductor]

I think you meant to say liberal ideology is being represented, but resentment is happening just as much.

2 Timothy 4: 3-4
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Galatians 1:7
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

 

[JM]

I think you meant to say liberal ideology is being represented, but resentment is happening just as much.

thanks Conductor.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It seems to me, that at the heart of liberal theology, is the old question "what is truth"? And the answer and method which liberal theology has embraced is a pure relativism. By pure, I mean entailing a complete denial of absolute truth. The concept of absolute objective truth seems to have never come under attack so much as it has the past one hundred or so years. Where rationalism once championed, now irrationalism champions, society as a whole shifting from one extreme to another.

 

[hedrick]

It seems to me, that at the heart of liberal theology, is the old question "what is truth"? And the answer and method which liberal theology has embraced is a pure relativism. By pure, I mean entailing a complete denial of absolute truth. The concept of absolute objective truth seems to have never come under attack so much as it has the past one hundred or so years. Where rationalism once championed, now irrationalism champions, society as a whole shifting from one extreme to another.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Liberal theology is the child of Kant and of critical scholarship. It's not so much that objective truth doesn't exist or that we're uninterested in it, as that we don't know it completely. It's called humility. Jesus recommended it. From our point of view, conservatives' belief that they know all of it contradicts the evidence. The core commitment of liberalism is honesty about evidence.

I will say that at the popular level, lots of our members are probably more skeptical than I am. I've belonged to mainline churches my whole life. A lot of our members have pretty much given up on theology. But they are still serious about following Jesus, both putting his teachings into practice and praying and reading the Bible. Very few of them think it doesn't matter what we believe or do.

 

[Iosias]

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Liberal theology is the child of Kant and of critical scholarship. It's not so much that objective truth doesn't exist or that we're uninterested in it, as that we don't know it completely. It's called humility. Jesus recommended it. From our point of view, conservatives' belief that they know all of it contradicts the evidence. The core commitment of liberalism is honesty about evidence.

I will say that at the popular level, lots of our members are probably more skeptical than I am. I've belonged to mainline churches my whole life. A lot of our members have pretty much given up on theology. But they are still serious about following Jesus, both putting his teachings into practice and praying and reading the Bible. Very few of them think it doesn't matter what we believe or do.

 

[jdbrown]

The liberal agenda has gained almost total control of the mainline denominations and has made its influence felt strongly within evangelical circles. Within evangelicalism itself, we have seen a serious erosion of biblical authority, a willingness to negotiate the biblical Gospel itself, and a widespread rejection of doctrine as being unimportant and in no way foundational to the Christian faith. Liberalism stands in every generation as a flat rejection of the faith. It must not be viewed as a simple subset or denominational impulse of Christianity; it must be seen for what it is — the antithesis of Christianity based on a complete rejection of the biblical Christ and His Gospel. ~ R.C. Sproul

Bottom-line: Liberalism = Unbelief

 

[prov1810]

words do not have meaning kind of threads

Conservative evangelicalism frolics in postmodern playfulness with zingers like these:

Atheism is a religion
Islam is not a religion
"Tolerance" is intolerant

...And logic died.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

I think it is, for example, the so called "higher" biblical criticism is one of the stepchildren of liberal theology.

Liberal theology is the child of Kant and of critical scholarship.

On what basis do you propose liberal theology as the child of Kant? You'll have to be more specific as to what you mean by "critical scholarship".

It's not so much that objective truth doesn't exist or that we're uninterested in it, as that we don't know it completely.

Another stepchild of liberal theology, years ago the "language debate", and those advocating an inadequacy of language to convey meaning, which coincides with (literary) decontructionism, the post-modern destruction of any ability to know the meaning of any text not written by self!

That you qualified your proposition with "completely" does make it difficult to disagree, since we agree though knowable to the extent He reveals Himself, that we cannot know God completely. However, it is more the notion of "absolute truth" that liberal theology has a problem with.

It's called humility. Jesus recommended it.

It's called skepticism, Jesus questioned and frowned on it.

From our point of view, conservatives' belief that they know all of it contradicts the evidence. The core commitment of liberalism is honesty about evidence.

Liberalism is a position of "guilty until proven innocent", one which tries to investigate hidden motives, without evidence, where there is none. So far is evidences are concerned, are they 'objective', outside of our existence? Autonomous interpretation of evidence is no ladder to Theonomous interpretation.

I will say that at the popular level, lots of our members are probably more skeptical than I am. I've belonged to mainline churches my whole life. A lot of our members have pretty much given up on theology. But they are still serious about following Jesus, both putting his teachings into practice and praying and reading the Bible. Very few of them think it doesn't matter what we believe or do.

Sure, there are varying degrees of liberal, just as there are varying degrees of conservative, but that's not a concern here. The concern here is the underlying principals which liberal theology rests.

 

[gord44]

Bottom-line: Liberalism = Unbelief

What a foolish comment.

 

[JM]

It seems to me, that at the heart of liberal theology, is the old question "what is truth"? And the answer and method which liberal theology has embraced is a pure relativism. By pure, I mean entailing a complete denial of absolute truth. The concept of absolute objective truth seems to have never come under attack so much as it has the past one hundred or so years. Where rationalism once championed, now irrationalism champions, society as a whole shifting from one extreme to another.

Bottom-line: Liberalism = Unbelief

I think both comments are helpful but I would rephrase jdbrowns comment to Liberalism = skepticism and skepticism that seeks material evidence or seeks to ascertain knowledge by way of logical positivism leads to unbelief.

What a foolish comment.

At the heart of it brother, I don't think he is too far off the mark...

Conservative evangelicalism frolics in postmodern playfulness...

Another good comment. Most evangelicals that wear the conservative badge are a product of their culture and not biblically minded at all.

jm

 

[Osage Bluestem]

The inspiration of the bible is n question in liberalism. They believe our canon includes writings of human origin that are simply not the word of God. However, they don't give a clear definition of which ones. They need to call an ecumenical synod and declare their own canon in order to eliminate confusion.

They are Protestants against Protestantism, as well as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and evangelicalism. So really they are a new spin on Christianity created by the skepticism of the age and have drastically deviated from the faith as we received it. It's Christian skepticism basically. They make their own rules that fit their feelings of what they think should be right.

 

[gord44]

At the heart of it brother, I don't think he is too far off the mark...

I just despise generalizations. Who can judge true belief? Being conservative and being able to quote the bible inside out while having a solid grasp of Reformed theology doesn't mean one has belief any greater then anyone else.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I just despise generalizations. Who can judge true belief? Being conservative and being able to quote the bible inside out while having a solid grasp of Reformed theology doesn't mean one has belief any greater then anyone else.

"My sheep hear my voice"

Gods people receive and believe God's word because of God's grace. Unbelief is of the flesh. Belief is of the Spirit.

 

[JM]

I just despise generalizations.

Would you deny that Liberalism (and or conservationism) have certain characteristics or identifiers which would allow us to use the label of Liberalism?

 

[Iosias]

What a foolish comment.

Agreed, such sentiments tell us more about the one making the statement than anything else.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I just despise generalizations.

I know what you mean, but even God uses generalizations at times, read the God breathed book of Proverbs, many are there. I still understand where you're coming from, trust me.

Who can judge true belief?

Ultimately God, but what does Christ say about fruit? Paul advises us to examine ourselves, to test the Spirits, etc.

Being conservative and being able to quote the bible inside out while having a solid grasp of Reformed theology doesn't mean one has belief any greater then anyone else.

At first blush I think you have a good point here, however where does the notion of "greater belief" come from? It's not a matter of lesser or greater belief we're concerned with here regarding liberal theology, it's a matter of doubt, skepticism, lack of belief, etc.

 

[JM]

James White mentioned in a recent podcast that we must remember that orthodox Christians are in the minority and we should get use to that idea.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Tayla]

It seems to me, that at the heart of liberal theology, is the old question "what is truth"? And the answer and method which liberal theology has embraced is a pure relativism.

I doubt if it is relativism driving them. Probably just embracing science and noticing the contradictions everyone has in their interpretations of the Bible and their unwillingness to pick a side.