Trying to understand theologically liberal Christians

[FireDragon76]

Of course the Enlightenment included a variety of groups, some of which were anti-religious. But to me the Enlightenment means that we examine our own traditions with the same care as other peoples' traditions. When I look at the Bible, what I see is a set of documents by different authors, with different (sometimes conflicting, e.g. Paul and James) perspectives, all of whom had witnessed or experienced God and his acts. They don't need to be perfect to show us what God has been doing.

About miracles. It's not that they are impossible, but that in the 1st Cent people reported miracles from people like Jesus. Miracles aren't just present in Christian documents; they're all over the place in pre-modern cultures. Indeed even in modern cultures, people report miraculous healings that don't survive followup investigation. That is enough to make a reasonable person somewhat skeptical. I don't think God is a deist God who just sits back and watches. I think he works in history and in our lives. But I wouldn't bet too much on the accuracy of any one miracle story.

Modern theological liberals are bigger than just Hume style skepticism about miracles. For instance, Marcus Borg believed Jesus was a real faith healer that actually did heal people. But he didn't take alot of the biblical accounts at face value, either.

I consider myself a theological liberal because I think Schleiermacher and Tillich's theology makes the most sense of religious experience in general, moreso than the kind of theology of Protestant scholastics. It has nothing to do with doubting that miracles are possible, quite the contrary. I know there are things that happen that cannot be explained by science, but I'm wary of trying to use miraculous claims as a skyhook for uncritical acceptance of religious traditions.

 

[Davy]

Hey all,

I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives in the political realm , but more so in the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture topic.

How is it possible to be a follower of Christ and deny certain portions of the inspired Word?

The following point is rarely ever mentioned, and is one of the main reasons for intellectual liberal interpretation of The Bible.

In 1958, after Joseph Stalin of Soviet Russia had died, the Communist party devised a long-range plan for takeover of the Christian west without firing a shot. Sixteen year Ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen in 1958 listed these Soviet strategic points in his 1958 book called The Naked Communist.

"27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
(Note: This has been largely accomplished through the communist infiltration of the National Council of Churches, Conservative and Reform Judaism, and the Catholic seminaries.)"

Notice how the idea of "social" religion is linked with the need for "intellectual maturity". That means whatever modern cultural thought ought to be accepted over any literal interpretation of Scripture revealed by The Holy Spirit. One of the best examples of that intellectual movement is with today's Textual Criticism of The Bible manuscripts that originated from the German school. They constantly try to put out new 'modern' Bible versions to work against the 'revealed' Truth in God's Word by The Holy Spirit.

 

[hedrick]

The following point is rarely ever mentioned, and is one of the main reasons for intellectual liberal interpretation of The Bible.

In 1958, after Joseph Stalin of Soviet Russia had died, the Communist party devised a long-range plan for takeover of the Christian west without firing a shot. Sixteen year Ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen in 1958 listed these Soviet strategic points in his 1958 book called The Naked Communist.

"27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
(Note: This has been largely accomplished through the communist infiltration of the National Council of Churches, Conservative and Reform Judaism, and the Catholic seminaries.)"

Notice how the idea of "social" religion is linked with the need for "intellectual maturity". That means whatever modern cultural thought ought to be accepted over any literal interpretation of Scripture revealed by The Holy Spirit. One of the best examples of that intellectual movement is with today's Textual Criticism of The Bible manuscripts that originated from the German school. They constantly try to put out new 'modern' Bible versions to work against the 'revealed' Truth in God's Word by The Holy Spirit.

Really, 1960's red scare attacks?

Sorry, the liberal tradition goes back to the 18th Cent and was common in the US by the start of the 20th Cent. The social gospel is based on Jesus' teachings and the prophets. There's no reason to think that textual criticism has anything to do with what you say, particularly since the best practioners today are evangelicals. This seems to be a smear job with little connection to reality.

I invite people with a serious interest in where the social gospel came from to read Rauschenbush's book by that name.

However it really is true that communists tried to separate care for poor and disadvantaged from Christianity and turn it into political ideology. The answer isn’t to remove those parts of Jesus teachings, but to retain their connection with Jesus. Trying to remove care for others from Christianity does the work of secular ideologues, since given the alternative of a loveless Christianity and a caring political ideology, many will choose the latter.

Incidentally, the quote is from the Naked Communist. "In 1970, [the same author] authored the companion piece to The Naked Communist under the title The Naked Capitalist, in which he argued (in the form of an extended review of Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope) that the Communist conspiracy was a mere tool in the hands of an even bigger conspiracy run by rich capitalists." https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=englishfacpubs I think we're seeing the latter conspiracy playing out now. Or maybe the whole idea of explaining theology by conspiracy theory is a bad one,

 

[Davy]

Really, 1960's red scare attacks?

Sorry, the liberal tradition goes back to the 18th Cent and was common in the US by the start of the 20th Cent. The social gospel is based on Jesus' teachings and the prophets. There's no reason to think that textual criticism has anything to do with what you say, particularly since the best practioners today are evangelicals. This seems to be a smear job with little connection to reality.

I invite people with a serious interest in where the social gospel came from to read Rauschenbush's book by that name.

However it really is true that communists tried to separate care for poor and disadvantaged from Christianity and turn it into political ideology. The answer isn’t to remove those parts of Jesus teachings, but to retain their connection with Jesus. Trying to remove care for others from Christianity does the work of secular ideologues, since given the alternative of a loveless Christianity and a caring political ideology, many will choose the latter.

Incidentally, the quote is from the Naked Communist. "In 1970, [the same author] authored the companion piece to The Naked Communist under the title The Naked Capitalist, in which he argued (in the form of an extended review of Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope) that the Communist conspiracy was a mere tool in the hands of an even bigger conspiracy run by rich capitalists." https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=englishfacpubs I think we're seeing the latter conspiracy playing out now. Or maybe the whole idea of explaining theology by conspiracy theory is a bad one,

Your thinking on that is a bit premature AND late, because the ex-KJV colonel Goliytsn who defected to the U.S. in the 1960's tried to warn the U.S. State Department about the Soviet's 1958 long-range disinformation plan against the west, and they wouldn't listen, so he asked permission to print about it in a book. This he did...

In Golitsyn's book New Lies For Old, written in 1984 (NOTE THE DATE), he covered this matter of Soviet KGB infiltration in the Christian Churches just as Skousen did in his 1958 BOOK! Even the Solidarity movement in Poland involving churches there were involved in this later movement with KGB agents.

Golitsyn even predicted that if the Soviet's were in their THIRD AND FINAL PHASE of their long-range 1958 strategy against the west, they might allow the Berlin Wall to come down. Golitsyn wrote that prediction in 1984. The Soviets allowed the Berlin Wall to come down in 1989.

And ANY TRUE WESTERN CHRISTIAN that reads the REST of those 45 Soviet strategic points that Skousen outlined in his 1958 book The Naked Communist, they will discover some of those points IN THE WORKING TODAY IN THE WEST, and many of them having already come true!

So brethren in Christ Jesus...
... don't pay attention to the Communist agents and spokespersons that hate the facts of how Skousen and Golitsyn revealed a REAL CONSPIRACY against the Christian West! Just some idiot TRYING... to use the word 'conspiracy' as synonymous with the idea of pushing lies ought to reveal how those against these revealings are PART OF THE CONSPIRACY THEMSELVES!

As for Carrol Quigely, Georgetown University history professor, and Bill Clinton's history professor when he went to Georgetown, Quigley HIMSELF revealed in his own.. book, Tragedy and Hope, how he had been allowed to view "the Establishment's" secret records for a period of 2 years! And he ADMITTED that the "Establishment" Insiders often worked with Communism, and had NO problem doing so! Therefore, that is NOT about some fabricated conspiracy, Quigley himself said it! Not only that, but Quigley also said 'they' must have not liked what all he said in that book, because he had to SUE his publishers to find out why they destroyed the publishing plates to his book!!!

Now then, also... about the FACT that 'some' Capitalists SUPPORT COMMUNIST acts, one ought to read Rene A. Wormser's work Foundations: Their Power and Influence which DOCUMENTS the findings of the 1952-1954 Reece Committee findings by the 82 Congress. The FACTS ARE... that some HUGE tax-exempt foundations, like the Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, have been involved in funding SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES in the U.S.A. It is a MINDBLOWER back to 'reality' type of scholarly work by a lawyer who served on the committee...

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

 

[DragonFox91]

I just found this thread. I’ve been trying to research how modernism + higher criticism + secularism + etc. infiltrated churches & seminaries & is rampant across denominations & in the teaching "class". (at least in the US). I posted a thread in the Fundamentalist section on it, but didn’t know this thread was started. I’ll have to read this thread.

Actually liberal theology is more of a modern concept.

Scripture was trusted and believed by Christ and the apostles.

The idea that scripture is not accurate or true, that Jesus didn't say what he said, that the apostles were not inspired etc. Is far more a modern belief as is the idea that pretty much all the OT stuff is just stories or allegorical is more a modern liberal theology.

Most of its designed to make scripture less believable and impactful and less trustworthy. There are some Christians who buy it too, but the vast majority of actual Christian scholars do not subscribe to liberal theology.

Unfortunately it seems most actually do.

 

[DragonFox91]

It sounds like it started well before communism, but I have no doubt the communists / socialists are using it to their advantage b/c it pushes for secularism.

 

[Davy]

I just found this thread. I’ve been trying to research how modernism + higher criticism + secularism + etc. infiltrated churches & seminaries & is rampant across denominations & in the teaching "class". (at least in the US). I posted a thread in the Fundamentalist section on it, but didn’t know this thread was started. I’ll have to read this thread.


Unfortunately it seems most actually do.

It still ultimately boils down to two sides like God's Word shows, the seed that God sowed vs. the seed that the devil sowed (Jesus' parable of the tares in Matthew 13). The children of darkness use many tools, just like Satan has many different titles in God's Word. World Communism is just one tool they use, and believe it or not, as a concept it was devised in the West by western socialists, not in Russia. And it is only an 'outer' working designed to give us something to look at publically. Those individuals hidden behind the scenes that developed it are those like Apostle Paul mentioned...

Eph 6:12
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
KJV

 

[Davy]

It sounds like it started well before communism, but I have no doubt the communists / socialists are using it to their advantage b/c it pushes for secularism.

It's simply part of this present world, Satan and his children have an advantage in this world. That is what Lord Jesus was pointing to in Luke 16...

Luke 16:8
8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
KJV

Those in Christ, truly in Christ, have good works in serving Him, and ashew evil. But the devil's servants use 'evil' to their advantage, and have no problem doing so. This is how Communism works, since it scraps any idea of religion, morality, or belief in a higher being; it believes the means are justified by the end. So whatever they see to do, lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc., if it serves as advantage, they will do it.

And for that reason, the U.S. should have NEVER allowed the House Committee on Un-American Activities to be abolished. The FBI is supposed to have picked up those responsibilities, but Senator Joseph McCarthy would never have seen reason to come forward about Communist infiltration if the FBI had been on top of it.

 

[Davy]

It sounds like it started well before communism, but I have no doubt the communists / socialists are using it to their advantage b/c it pushes for secularism.

See this thread also.

Not a Conspiracy Theory

The ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen, who served the FBI for sixteen years, included in his 1958 book The Naked Communist, 45 Soviet strategic goals for taking over the west. Many of these goals have been completed, some are in action today. Skousen was an officer linked with the FDR's Lend-Lease...

www.christianforums.com

 

[The Liturgist]

You mean the Second Vatican Council in the '60s? The ways we celebrate mass can change.

Popes can disagree and do things differently, they cannot contradict each other when teaching a matter of faith or morals using papal infallibility. Doctrine cannot change, discipline can. For example, we could go back to allowing priests to marry, although it is extremely unlikely.

To my knowledge, it was always the practice of the Roman Rite specifically to maintain celibacy among the presbyters, whereas the Eastern churches such as the Orthodox, the Assyrians, and the majority of Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome have always allowed married presbyters. The same is true of the Anglican Communion.

At the Council of Nicaea I recently read that the two Roman legates proposed a canon that would have required celibacy for all presbyters, but the Greek majority of bishops were not interested in that, despite themselves being celibate and mostly if not entirely unmarried.

Also, historically the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches have required one to be married before being ordained to the rank of Subdeacon, Deacon or Presbyter, so the highest ecclesiastical office one can hold while retaining the right to marry is that of Reader. Furthermore, a priest cannot marry a divorced person or anyone previously married, nor remarry in the event of divorce or the death of a priest’s wife, restrictions the Orthodox do not apply to the laity (permitting up to two marriages, or a third with permission from the bishop, in the case of widows and widowers and those who have received a canonical divorce, which is in some respects easier to obtain than an RC annulmemt was, but carries a penance in some stricter jurisdictions like ROCOR for one or both spouses based on the determination of an ecclesiastical tribunal of who was at fault).