Theological Liberalism

[lesliedellow]

Today's hindsight or yesterday's hindsight?

Isn't spelling corrector a marvellous thing?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Yes, there are textual issues. And of course these issues can influence the meaning of a particular verse or passage. But when you look at the whole Bible, there are no textual issues which would change any significant belief or moral issue. Even if it causes a teaching to be missing from one passage, it is present in others where the text is not in doubt.

Looking for a textual variant that says it's ok to cheat on your wife or your taxes? There is none.

How about a variant that says Jesus didn't rise from the dead? No.

Or a variant that teaches that besides the Triune God there are a few other deities you should occasionally worship? No textual variants like that.

Liberals (I'm not saying you are one) often greatly exaggerate the role of textual variants. This is one of the many ways in which they undermine the authority of God's Word.

Yes, that's exactly what I said, although not nearly as eloquently as you. And for that, fundamentalists painted me as a theological liberal.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Yes, that's exactly what I said, although not nearly as eloquently as you. And for that, fundamentalists painted me as a theological liberal.

We do need to be slow and careful about applying a label to others.

 

[lesliedellow]

Liberals (I'm not saying you are one) often greatly exaggerate the role of textual variants. This is one of the many ways in which they undermine the authority of God's Word.

Um no. That's what atheists do.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yes, that's exactly what I said, although not nearly as eloquently as you. And for that, fundamentalists painted me as a theological liberal.

It's likely because your explanation didn't sound like Mark's. BYW, I agree with Mark's post.

Fundamentalists understand that there are transcription errors in the copies; however, we also understand that those small errors, which we can see many of because we have multiple copies, do not change any of the central tenets of the faith.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Liberals (I'm not saying you are one) often greatly exaggerate the role of textual variants. This is one of the many ways in which they undermine the authority of God's Word.

It's one of many ways they use to cast doubt on any and all texts not liked or agreed with. Another is to use "appeal to authority", the logical fallacy. They do this by producing a Yale theologian who has found some new way to interpret a text, such as they have with homosexuality.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's likely because your explanation didn't sound like Mark's. BYW, I agree with Mark's post.

Fundamentalists understand that there are transcription errors in the copies; however, we also understand that those small errors, which we can see many of because we have multiple copies, do not change any of the central tenets of the faith.

How many times have I read fundamentalists crying foul, because some verse or other has been "removed" - meaning that manuscript evidence, far in excess of anything available in 1611, has made it plain that the verse in question wasn't part of the original autograph?

 

[PhantomGaze]

That's easy. Anybody who agrees with mindlight is a true Christian, and everybody else is a false Christian.

That's basically what I got out of what he said.

 

[Kyrilllos el Antony]

Feeling stupid. I think I need to go to seminary just to understand this. Now we have "neo-orthodox," "Tubingen style," and "postmodernity" in a single post. And, I'm still trying to understand "theological liberalism." LOL.

As a traditional Christian from the Antiochian Orthodox church, I have to say, I don't see how well a theological idea weathers "postmodernism" is remotely relevant. To me, postmodernism is a style of art, music and architecture. Modernist theology was an unpleasant development, which I refuse to associate with the beautiful paintings of Mondrian or the architecture of Mies von der Rohe, but, I am not even prepared to concede the legitimate existence of "postmodern theology," let alone its relevance.

As I see it, there is a Patristic theology, and then at different points in history, we have specific movements within this Apostolic faith to respond to heresy, for example, Palamism emerged in the 14th century as a defense against the Barlaamist error.

 

[mindlight]

How do you tell the true from the false?

In the case of theological discussion with creeds and scripture.

Sometimes scripture is absolutely clear and the church has enshrined that clarity into creeds and doctrines shared globally and historically by Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Pentecostals alike. When somebody contradicts what is absolutely clear then there is no doubt they are not being honest to God. Whether that person is a liberal, a heretic or a fool is a secondary discussion.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If Theological Liberalism aka, Protestant Liberalism is what we are discussing in this thread, it has been both defined, and agued against countless times already, and the best case made against it is by J. Gresham Machen in, Christianity and Liberalism. A book which is in the "must read" category.

Here are a couple of quotes from it, to whet the appetite:

“The truth is that the life-purpose of Jesus discovered by modern liberalism is not the life purpose of the real Jesus, but merely represents those elements in the teaching of Jesus--isolated and misinterpreted--which happen to agree with the modern program. It is not Jesus, then, who is the real authority, but the modern principle by which the selection within Jesus' recorded teaching has been made. Certain isolated ethical principles of the Sermon on the Mount are accepted, not at all because they are teachings of Jesus, but because they agree with modern ideas.”
― J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism

“In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend.” ― J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism​

 

[OzSpen]

Olson's book is very good.

To which book are you referring? I particularly enjoyed his, Arminian Theology:Myths and Realities (IVP).

 

[Sola1517]

Are you asking why they are the way they are, or what beliefs, or lack of them, would define theological liberalism?

What beliefs or lack thereof define it?

 

[Sola1517]

Define theologically liberal.

I started this thread to do so.

 

[Sola1517]

I think this quote helps define things:

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

― H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

Hmmm. Interesting.

 

[Sola1517]

It's man-made.

What's man made?

 

[Sola1517]

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.

I'm not sure if I'm a complete Dispensationalist and I'm Theistic Evolutionist. Am I liberal?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm not sure if I'm a complete Dispensationalist and I'm Theistic Evolutionist. Am I liberal?

YES.

A liberal (among other things) is one who bends the clear meaning of the scriptures to what the norm of current society believes- just to fit in with them - rather than standing firm on what God says and taking his lumps (i.e. taking up his cross and following Christ).

Theistic Evolution is textbook liberalism IMO.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

YES.

A liberal (among other things) is one who bends the clear meaning of the scriptures to what the norm of current society believes- just to fit in with them - rather than standing firm on what God says and taking his lumps (i.e. taking up his cross and following Christ).

Theistic Evolution is textbook liberalism IMO.

This is a widely shared opinion. To many, accepting evolution is anathema. But to many others, denying evolution is akin to espousing a flat earth or denying that the sky is usually blue. Just saying, that's they way people think.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

YES.

A liberal (among other things) is one who bends the clear meaning of the scriptures to what the norm of current society believes- just to fit in with them - rather than standing firm on what God says and taking his lumps (i.e. taking up his cross and following Christ).

Theistic Evolution is textbook liberalism IMO.

“In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend.”
― J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism