Hi, I have read criticism of liberal theology occasionally from fundamentalists, and I am here to see what some liberals (theologically) actually do believe, if that is ok?
This may help you to get started on answering your question.Hi, I have read criticism of liberal theology occasionally from fundamentalists, and I am here to see what some liberals (theologically) actually do believe, if that is ok?
Haven't the powers already been destroyed?But in the end Christ will defeat the powers that hold humanity in slavery
Look around you. As with so many other things there's a present and a future. The powers have been defeated in principle, because Christ is already here. But that defeat won't be fully effective until the end.Haven't the powers already been destroyed?
Look around you. As with so many other things there's a present and a future. The powers have been defeated in principle, because Christ is already here. But that defeat won't be fully effective until the end.
The original list of 5 fundamentals is still a big deal. One of them is penal substitution. Liberals generally reject it on moral grounds, though we could just as well use Biblical grounds. There's interest in Christus Victor, Christ as example, and other models. Most would say that the NT uses a number of different way to talk about Christ's death, and we don't need to choose just one. Some element of substitution is certainly acceptable.I don't understand why some conservative christians rail so much at liberal christians, while there have not been many replies you don't seem to differ that much in what you say from christians of a more conservative cast. But I suppose there are a variety or spectrum of views within liberal theology?
The underlying problem seems to be certainty. Christians historically have wanted certainty. The Catholic tradition got it from the concept that the Church is inerrant. Protestants got it from an inerrant Bible, combined with a set of traditional interpretations that were understood as being "literal". But in both cases, there's an underlying expectation that truth can't change, and if we truly know the truth, theology can't change either. I think the real objection to liberal theology is that our theology changed as we understood the 1st Cent background better and made continuing progress separating out Biblical ideas from traditional Christian reinterpretation. And our ethics continues to change in some areas based on the results of social science, and a reexamination of traditional exegesis in areas that it affects. Unfortunately, you can't get unchanging certainty out of this approach. My claim would be that there's nothing in Scripture or our experience of God that should lead to think we actually have that kind of unchanging truth.
There is a general concern that traditional theology makes God look like a big man in the sky. There are at least two problems: (1) he's not a human, (2) the idea of someone on the outside looking in and occasionally interviewing with miracles seems inconsistent with being present everywhere, and with the presence of the Holy Spirit.Here is a criticism of liberalism I have read (from Gresham Machen, who btw never fully embraced fundamentalism either), as it is from a book written in the early part of the twentieth century, it may not take into account more recent developments in liberal theology. The criticism is that liberal theology doesn't make a distinction of Creature and Creator. God's transcendence is not acknowledged, and God is identified with a world process. Is this true of all liberal theology, if not of what theologians could this be said to be true of?
Certainly the priority of grace is Augustinian. But Augustine also had a commitment to predestination that Ottati doesn't exactly share. However the major characteristic of the book is that it reviews the major alternatives on issues, criticizes all of them, and adopts a set of statements that he thinks are well justified, rather than any of the specific theories that he reviews. This is the sort of approach that was taken by Nicea, which didn't define a complete theology of the Trinity, but adopted a set of statements that set boundaries within which discussion should occur. Even Chalcedon should probably be understand as that kind of thing applied to the Incarnation. (However from a historical point of view it was less successful, because there were other reasonable ways to talk about the Incarnation, and the Church was never able to manage the conflict with people holding those views.)The writer Hedrick mentioned Doug Ottati I looked up his books on Amazon, where the summary of one said it is Augustinian.
A two-volume work by Douglas Ottati, Theology for Liberal Protestants presents a comprehensive theology for Christians who are willing to rethink and revise traditional doctrines in face of contemporary challenges. It is Augustinian, claiming that we belong to the God of grace who creates, judges, and renews. It is Protestant, affirming the priority of the Bible and the fallibility of church teaching. It is liberal, recognizing the importance of critical arguments and scientific inquiries, a deeply historical consciousness, and a commitment to social criticism and engagement.
I think panentheism would be considered liberal in the West, though there are tendencies in the East. To my knowledge anything other than a super powerful person-like thing is considered non-traditional here.
There is a general concern that traditional theology makes God look like a big man in the sky. There are at least two problems: (1) he's not a human, (2) the idea of someone on the outside looking in and occasionally interviewing with miracles seems inconsistent with being present everywhere, and with the presence of the Holy Spirit."
The alternative is typically some sort of panentheism. I've read several presentations of that, and I'm still not sure whether it's sort of an intuition, or a more specific concept of God. Since the Christian tradition has never claimed that we understand God's nature, perhaps an intuition or an analogy is all we can reasonably expect.
Given when Maachen wrote, a lot of the writing on panentheism hadn't been done yet. So I wonder if he's thinking of Tillich. Reading Tillich one sometimes wonders whether this God is anything other than some kind of psychology. There are a few things he wrote that make me think Tillich has something more in mind, but someone who is hostile to the whole scheme of rethinking theology (which Maachen definitely was) could well say so. The recent things I've read on panentheism definitely see God as more than creation, and at least logically (and probably chronologically) prior to it. But you really need a philosopher to deal with this well.
God as a human-like agent.Sorry I am not following - what would Panentheism be an alternative too?
In the Trinitarian context, you'll often see the statement that we can't know God's nature. I've never been entirely clear what the acknowledged limits really are, since the same people who say we can't know his nature but only make negative statements are the ones very insistent on precise definitions of ousia and hypostasis.What do you refer to when you say 'christian tradition'?
You say christian tradition has never claimed that we understand God's nature - I suppose so, but is it claiming to understand God's Nature to delineate the Attributes of God?
Neo-orthodox would seem odd. No idea what neo-Protestant is. My suspicion is that what he was after is roughly what theologians are now calling panentheism, but when I read him I didn't find the description as clear. (Of course I was 16 at the time, so maybe part of it was me.) Not that current descriptions of panentheism are that clear, but they're probably as clear as we can reasonably expect.Tillich I have seen variously described as Neo-protestant, Neo-orthodox and Existentialist
Neo-orthodox would seem odd. No idea what neo-Protestant is. My suspicion is that what he was after is roughly what theologians are now calling panentheism, but when I read him I didn't find the description as clear. (Of course I was 16 at the time, so maybe part of it was me.) Not that current descriptions of panentheism are that clear, but they're probably as clear as we can reasonably expect.