Theological Liberalism

[redleghunter]

Sola,

If you want an exposition of the history of theological liberalism, see Roger E. Olson, "What is 'theological liberalism'?"
For a short edition of its beliefs, go to, "What is liberal Christian theology?" (Got Questions)

When I think of theological liberalism, I see 2 main influences:

1. The Enlightenment thinking (The Age of Reason), and
2. Secular, contemporary thinking integrated with Scripture.

These are opposed to the authority of Scripture.

Oz

Olson's book is very good.

 

[seeking.IAM]

What is your understanding of the term Biblical inerrancy?

In its broadest sense inerrancy means to me that the Bible is without error or fault in all its teaching and the original manuscripts do not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. That is the Chicago statement definition. To me, it means the Bible has the story correct in its broadest sense. To that I agree.

In its most narrow sense, some would extend the definition to mean word for word or verse for verse is inerrant, that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. I suspect that is impossible given its touch by the hands of man over centuries.

So that is what I meant when I said I can accept inerrancy in the broadest meaning of the term, but not in the narrow.

 

[redleghunter]

In its broadest sense inerrancy means to me that the Bible is without error or fault in all its teaching and the original manuscripts do not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. That is the Chicago statement definition. To me, it means the Bible has the story correct in its broadest sense. To that I agree.

In its most narrow sense, some would extend the definition to mean word for word or verse for verse is inerrant, that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. I suspect that is impossible given its touch by the hands of man over centuries.

So that is what I meant when I said I can accept inerrancy in the broadest meaning of the term, but not in the narrow.

So you accept the Chicago Statement?

 

[seeking.IAM]

So you accept the Chicago Statement?

I said I did. I don't think the text is error free and unaffected by man.

 

[Thedictator]

Well, we don't want to turn this thread into a debate on evolution, but you know that many, many people say you're wrong about the math part.

No your Wrong. Some University studies did computer probability models on Amino Acids becoming proteins by chance without any design whatsoever. The Probability Models ( Math) stated that it would take 0ne Trillion to the One million power for something like this to take place. So if you were to take one atom at a time and move it to the other side of the Universe 1 in / sec. you could move the entire Milky Way Galaxy to the other side of the Universe before an Amino Acid could form into a Protein. Math is not on the side of Evolution. That is why scientist fight so hard to stop any kind of scrutiny of evolution.

 

[seeking.IAM]

So you accept the Chicago Statement?

I said I did. I don't think the text is error free and unaffected by man.

Think of it like a house. It sits on a solid foundation. All the rooms are built exactly according to the blueprint. All the elements are there. Plans say there are four bedrooms and there are. Plans call for a great room and large dining area for people to gather. And, they are there. In short, it really is a house. It is a fine house. There is nothing in the big picture to dispute.

Yet underneath the dry wall, the builder decided to disregard the design calling for studs 16-inch on center as driving up costs and being unnecessary. He made them 18 inches on-center instead. And, in each bathroom the builder added an outlet not called for in the plans because he thought it would be helpful to the eventual owner. There is no doorbell although plans called for it; the builder merely forgot. So in the strictest review the house is not perfect due to additions, deletions, and errors. Still, it is a house with all the essential elements. It is a very nice house.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No your Wrong. Some University studies did computer probability models on Amino Acids becoming proteins by chance without any design whatsoever. The Probability Models ( Math) stated that it would take 0ne Trillion to the One million power for something like this to take place. So if you were to take one atom at a time and move it to the other side of the Universe 1 in / sec. you could move the entire Milky Way Galaxy to the other side of the Universe before an Amino Acid could form into a Protein. Math is not on the side of Evolution. That is why scientist fight so hard to stop any kind of scrutiny of evolution.

If you want to argue that life getting started is inherently improbable, you can do that, but you aren't arguing against evolution. Evolution doesn't start happening until there is some life to evolve. And the origin of life was either divine creation or a relatively probable series of chemical reactions that were NOT based on purely random movement of atoms. So that math calculation is IRRELEVANT. But I'm going to point out the relation of this to the opening post, which is about liberals - what are they?

Liberals are willing to look at new facts and accept them, such as evolution. To those who think being liberal is a sin, they take new facts such as evolution and deny them. The evolution debate is a great example of this phenomenon. So for this reason, the saying got started the reality has a liberal bias.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Only God is goodness. Humanity can possess good and bad traits, but ultimately the "creature" that is good is God. Personally, I came to this conclusion by reading Ecclesiastes with the ESV version.

Well, that is very consistent with the Bible message.

 

[Basil the Great]

The belief that non-Christians will have a chance to go to Heaven is no doubt considered Liberal by all Fundamentalists and many Evangelicals.

 

[lesliedellow]

What's a fundamentalist?

For me it is almost synonymous with young Earth creationist. In that regard their most notable characteristics are obscurantism, falsehood and complete ignorance of the thing they presume to criticise.

My feeling is that they are studiously careeful not to acquaint themselves with what the ToE actually says, for fear of discovering that their house is built on the quicksand they secretly suspect it of being.

 

[mindlight]

What makes a person theologically liberal?

In Jesus day I understand there were 6 main theological groupings and they seem to fit today also.

1) Pharisees- conservative about scripture but self righteous, legalistic and hypocritical in their motivations. Jesus basically agreed with them about doctrines while debunking all the extra safeguards and loopholes they added to interpretation and exposing their black hearts.

2) Saducees - Greek orientated, loved a good debate and considered themselves progressives,but did not know the scriptures properly and wandered outside the biblical limits in their thoughts

3) Herodians- theology articulated convenient doctrines that fitted with the agenda of the political authorities. Much as the Republican right has occasionally done. Turning a blind eye to the kings sins for the sake of influence and power.

4) Zealots- revolutionaries intent on overthrowing establishment. Knew better than everybody and could be violent in support of that. ( IRA were in this group and Puritans under Cromwell)

5) Qumranis- basically the world is corrupt and theology can only be properly conducted outside of its tainted influence. Arguably made theology irrelevant outside their gated communities. A sort of abstract fundamentalism.

6) True Christians- basically were true to God in word and deed. Live in this world but are not of it. Creeds and scripture show what this means doctrinally and in practice.

All but 6) were and are liberals in my view

 

[PhantomGaze]

It seems to me that a Theological Liberal is simply one who knows and holds other doctrines than.

Penal Subsitutionary Atonement.

Dispensationalism

Young Earth Creationism

The Old Testament Apodictic Law is still in effect

(One could reject all the above and might be considered moderate, or liberal depending on who they're talking to.) Rejection of some or all of the above is relatively common, and probably a good idea. Unlike conservativism here, theological liberalism generally seems to be more welcoming of orthodox doctrines from Christianity's past intellectual tradition.

More extreme liberal would be:

Denial of the Deity of Christ

Denial of the Existence of Miracles (although there are a lot of Baptists who are otherwise conservative that deny miracles in our time)

This imho is odd if one is not an atheist though.

Something else that might make one labeled Liberal, is a concern for Social Justice.

 

[PhantomGaze]

All but 6) were and are liberals in my view

So in other words, this is just a long-winded way of saying that you believe Liberals aren't "true" Christians?

 

[JoeP222w]

What makes a person theologically liberal?

The false preservation of man's sovereign autonomous free will.

 

[toLiJC]

There is a narrow way in the Bible that leads to life.

yes, and first of all in the One Who is really the true Lord God

Blessings

 

[SkyWriting]

The leading of the Spirit of God.

Those who lead with love rather than with the law.

 

[SkyWriting]

I believe the original fundamentalist movement addressed many of the "tenents" of liberal theology.

1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions.

2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine.

3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind.

4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.

5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth.

All valid tenets of Christianity are voiced
by multiple authors,
in multiple books,
spread over time.


Some of those listed do not qualify.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

When you cut away all you dislike and disapprove of from the texts of scripture, you end up with a Stepford god.

 

[redleghunter]

I said I did. I don't think the text is error free and unaffected by man.

The Chicago statement is probably the most conservative inerrancy statement.

It does not deny humans wrote in their own style and in learned diction. However, firmly states the text is Holy Spirit inspired Holy Scriptures.

There are known scribal errors in the manuscript copies and inerrancy in this manner extends only to the autographs.

If your point is later manuscripts corrupted doctrine and/or failed to communicate the doctrines of the original inspired autographs, then you would be at odds with the Chicago statement.

 

[redleghunter]

Think of it like a house. It sits on a solid foundation. All the rooms are built exactly according to the blueprint. All the elements are there. Plans say there are four bedrooms and there are. Plans call for a great room and large dining area for people to gather. And, they are there. In short, it really is a house. It is a fine house. There is nothing in the big picture to dispute.

Yet underneath the dry wall, the builder decided to disregard the design calling for studs 16-inch on center as driving up costs and being unnecessary. He made them 18 inches on-center instead. And, in each bathroom the builder added an outlet not called for in the plans because he thought it would be helpful to the eventual owner. There is no doorbell although plans called for it; the builder merely forgot. So in the strictest review the house is not perfect due to additions, deletions, and errors. Still, it is a house with all the essential elements. It is a very nice house.

What is an example we have today in the Holy Scriptures we have before us which equates to "no door bell."