General Full of it!

benadam1974

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2020
753
305
63
The Scriptures are full of arguments, full of polemics…Disapproval of polemics in the Christian Church is a very serious matter. But that is the attitude of the age in which we live. The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the whole basis of ecumenicity....If you hold that view you are criticizing the Apostle Paul, you are saying that he was wrong, and at the same time you are criticizing the Scriptures. The Scriptures argue and debate and dispute; they are full of polemics.
(Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, Atonement and Justification, p. 113)
 

William

William Kuevogah
Staff member
Jul 28, 2020
56
36
18
27
Ghana
The Scriptures are full of arguments, full of polemics…Disapproval of polemics in the Christian Church is a very serious matter. But that is the attitude of the age in which we live. The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the whole basis of ecumenicity....If you hold that view you are criticizing the Apostle Paul, you are saying that he was wrong, and at the same time you are criticizing the Scriptures. The Scriptures argue and debate and dispute; they are full of polemics.
(Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, Atonement and Justification, p. 113)
True, debate is a good thing. Ecumenism, though its ultimate aim is unity, does not preclude polemics or debate. Ecumenical unity, to the extent that it's achievable, is on the other side of dialogue/debate/argument. Passing blithely over points of disagreement, unwillingness to criticise and to be criticised, and a lack of desire to learn from one's dialogue partner(s)—all these attitudes go against the true spirit of ecumenicity, which also includes the belief that, in spite (or even because) of our differences, there's always something we can learn from the Other.
 

benadam1974

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2020
753
305
63
True, debate is a good thing. Ecumenism, though its ultimate aim is unity, does not preclude polemics or debate. Ecumenical unity, to the extent that it's achievable, is on the other side of dialogue/debate/argument. Passing blithely over points of disagreement, unwillingness to criticise and to be criticised, and a lack of desire to learn from one's dialogue partner(s)—all these attitudes go against the true spirit of ecumenicity, which also includes the belief that, in spite (or even because) of our differences, there's always something we can learn from the Other.
KungTruth.jpg
 

LeeB

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2022
1,652
671
113
Amos 3:3 Matthew 17:11 There were two Elijah’s , the first was John the Baptist who restored nothing. The second Elijah is the Holy Spirit that will restore the truth of pure doctrine that was trampled underfoot by Satans ministers. John 16:13 This is the truth that is unchanging even over the passage of time or the changing of society. Progressive Christianity today ignores orthodoxy and relies on carnal thinking that amounts to great swelling words of emptiness. They promise liberty and freedom but are slaves of corruption. Colossians 2:8
 

William

William Kuevogah
Staff member
Jul 28, 2020
56
36
18
27
Ghana
Progressive Christianity today ignores orthodoxy and relies on carnal thinking that amounts to great swelling words of emptiness. They promise liberty and freedom but are slaves of corruption. Colossians 2:8
Are you conversant with any Progressive Christian? Do you know anyone of them in person? Have you actually read anything written by, say, James McGrath or Marcus Borg (thoughtful Progressive Christians)? From your broadsides I can tell that you know nothing about the broader Christian tradition.
Why not try refuting a proper argument instead of attacking straw men and citing proof texts as if that would persuade any critical thinker?
I've run out of patience for your holier-than-thou polemics.
 

LeeB

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2022
1,652
671
113
settings icon


share icon



Bible Questions Answered

Menu icon




Question

Who was Friedrich Schleiermacher?​

Friedrich Schleiermacher
Answer

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834) was an influential philosopher who paved the way for modern theological liberalism. Schleiermacher was born in Breslaw, Germany, and was the son of a Prussian army chaplain who became a Pietist when Friedrich was a young boy. Friedrich was sent to a Moravian boarding school at age 15. During that time, Friedrich began to experience doubts about the Christian faith and felt that the Moravians did not have answers to his questions. He began his university education at the University of Halle, a school that promoted rationalism over Pietism. Here, Schleiermacher became a skeptic and abandoned orthodox Christianity.

In January of 1787, Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote a letter to his parents explaining his position: “I cannot believe that he who called himself the Son of Man was the true eternal God; I cannot believe that his death was a vicarious atonement because he never expressly said so himself; and I cannot believe it to have been necessary, because God, who evidently did not create men for perfection, but for the pursuit of it, cannot possibly intend to punish them eternally because they have not attained it” (The Theology of Schleiermacher: A Condensed Presentation of His Chief Work, “The Christian Faith” by George Cross and Friedrich Schleiermacher, University of Chicago Press, 1911, p. 19).

Although no longer orthodox, Schleiermacher was still interested in religion and religious thought and activity. He went on to become a chaplain at a hospital, a pastor, and a professor of theology and religion. In addition, he was a philosopher who read and lectured widely in psychology, ethics, aesthetics, art, politics, language, interpretation, and translation. His German translation of Plato was in use for 200 years.

In 1799 Schleiermacher published perhaps his best known and most influential work, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers. In this book he attempted to reconcile Enlightenment criticism of Christianity with traditional Protestantism. This attempt has earned Schleiermacher the title “father of modern liberal theology.” In a general sense, the term liberal is usually juxtaposed with the term conservative. While conservatives seek to conserve (preserve, hold to) the positions of the past, liberals are interested in embracing new ideas. Theological conservatives want to embrace and preserve the doctrinal positions that the church has embraced from the beginning (“the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” Jude 1:3). Theological liberals are interested in developing new ideas to replace those that are no longer in fashion. In this way, many liberals hope to “save” Christianity from irrelevance or obscurity. Unfortunately, many of the ideas that are no longer in fashion (whether today or in the 18th century) are the central doctrines of Christianity such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, human depravity, the atonement, and the need for salvation in Christ. In an attempt to save Christianity from its “cultured despisers” (Romantic and Enlightenment skeptics), Schleiermacher argued that many of these core doctrines were not central to Christianity and could be safely jettisoned.

Because of his work in interpretation and translation, Schleiermacher is also known as the “father of modern hermeneutics.” Evangelicals today still hold to a number of the principles he articulated, which he applied to not only the Bible but all written texts. Schleiermacher emphasized the importance of understanding the historical context and sought to interpret within the limitations of the language of the text and in light of the broader context to which a single passage belongs. He also recognized that there are great conceptual differences between the text to be translated and the receptor language. Interpretation and translation are an art as well as a science.

Friedrich Schleiermacher was a brilliant scholar, but unfortunately he could not accept what his intellect and reason could not master. As a result, he rejected true Christianity even as he purported to try to save it. He opened the door for others to question or reject the most basic Christian doctrines while still claiming to be faithful Christians. This trend is still popular today as is the idea that, if Christianity is to survive, it must change with the times.
 

LeeB

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2022
1,652
671
113









The Dangers of Theological Liberalism​


By William Wolfe / Friday, January 13, 2023


“Theological liberalism represents the ‘broad gate’ that ultimately leads to destruction. Why? Because it follows in the footsteps of the serpent, who in the garden planted the deathly seed of doubt in the form of, ‘Did God really say?’ As faithful Christians, we reject this question and confidently claim, ‘Yes, God really did say…’”
WILLIAM WOLFE


We live in an age of great compromise and confusion, especially regarding the Christian faith. In some ways, that means we live in the same sort of day and age that every Christian has lived in since Christ ascended to heaven approximately 2,000 years ago.
The New Testament authors, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the immediate decades following the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ were acutely aware of the need to defend the pure teaching of the faith against those who would undermine its doctrine and application.
In 1 Timothy 4:1, Paul writes that “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.”
God knew what He was doing when He gave the Church such strong warnings.
But while there is no doubt that false teaching and heresies have always plagued the Christian Church, each era has its own battles to fight. In the early Church period, they had to deal with Gnosticism, Christological errors, and confusion about the Holy Spirit.

One particularly pernicious strain of corrupted Christianity is what’s known as “theological liberalism.” The late R.C. Sproul warned that “We are living in a day when liberal theology has made deep inroads in the church.”
Even if you don’t know its name, I’m confident you’ve encountered some of its teachings — like those who deny the reality of the resurrection of Christ. So, to better equip you to spot and counter theological liberalism, let me explain what it is and why it’s dangerous.

What Is Theological Liberalism?


Theological liberalism is a product of liberal theology. That makes sense, right? In his book The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805 – 1900, Gary Dorrien explains,
“The idea of liberal theology is nearly three centuries old. In essence, it is the idea that Christian theology can be genuinely Christian without being based upon external authority. Since the eighteenth century, liberal Christian thinkers have argued that religion should be modern and progressive and that the meaning of Christianity should be interpreted from the standpoint of modern knowledge and experience.”
In other words, the starting point of theological liberalism is that it trades the external, objective, God-given standard of the Bible in matters of faith for an individual’s personal, subjective opinion and experience.
This is an exact inversion of the Christian faith. We know who God is and what He wants from mankind because God speaks — and speaks first. Theological liberalism trades “Thus saith the Lord” for “So saith man.”
Summarizing Dorrien’s book, pastor and theologian Kevin DeYoung provides six other characteristics of theological liberalism along with the rejection of external authority (in addition to the one above). He says it argues that:
  1. “Christianity is a movement of social reconstruction.”
  2. “Christianity must be credible and relevant.”
  3. “Truth can be known only through changing symbols and forms.”
  4. “Theological controversy is about language, not about truth.”
  5. “The historical accuracies of biblical facts and events are not crucial, so long as we meet Jesus in the pages of Scripture.”
  6. “The true religion is the way of Christ, not any particular doctrines about Christ.”

DeYoung concludes that “Liberals believe they are making Christianity relevant, credible, beneficial, and humane. Evangelicals in the line of J. Gresham Machen believe they are making something other than Christianity. That was the dividing line a century ago, and the division persists.”

What does this look like in practice? Theological liberalism denies key doctrines like the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. They deny that the Bible is, in the words of Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, “to be received as the authoritative Word of God” and that “Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit” and serves as the final rule of faith and practice.
Because it denies the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture, it denies the historical creation account, events like the flood, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and often the resurrection of Jesus itself.
In other words, theological liberalism largely rejects the supernatural and miraculous events recorded in the Bible as fact, calling them fiction instead. Furthermore, it denies essential doctrines like original sin and the indwelling sin in all mankind, which makes the sacrifice of Christ on the cross unnecessary.
Finally, in our present moment, theological liberalism is often seen in the rejection of the creation order and biblical sexual morality. Denominations that deny the truthfulness of God’s Word almost always end up rejecting what it teaches about sex and marriage when the world pressures it to compromise. This is why many of the major “mainline denominations,” like the Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUSA), most United Methodist churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, American Baptists, and the Episcopal Church, are all LGBT-affirming.
Make no mistake about it: Once a denomination, church, pastor, or Christian leader adopts the core teachings of liberal theology, progressive (Bible-denying) political positions will be adopted as well.

Why Theological Liberalism Is Dangerous


The main reason theological liberalism is so dangerous is that it destroys the Gospel. What is the Gospel? It is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16), the message that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23-24), and that this salvation is found only in Jesus Christ, the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29).
Liberal theology denies that man is so sinful he needs a savior. It tells us that we can’t trust the Bible as God’s Word and that Jesus might not have been anything more than a good teacher who set an example for moral living. Theological liberalism is a “religious system” that has been constructed to help sinful man feel better about himself, not show him that he is a rebel on the way to Hell and then reveal a gracious, God-sent, God-incarnate savior.
Thus, the danger of theological liberalism is that it sends people to Hell. That’s not an exaggeration, that’s a biblical fact. This is why Paul warns that false teaching is, in fact, the teaching of demons — because it comes from Hell and damns man to Hell in the final judgment.
J. Gresham Machen was a faithful theologian in the 20th century. He wrote a best-selling theology book called Christianity and Liberalism that is still well-known and well-read today. In this book, Machen warned that liberal Christianity isn’t just a compromised form of Christianity, but really another religion altogether — and a false one at that. He argues that “despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.”
In other words, it’s not Christianity — and it’s not even close to being Christian.
Sproul agreed with Machen, warning that “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.”
Jesus warned His followers to “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13).
Theological liberalism represents the “broad gate” that ultimately leads to destruction. Why? Because it follows in the footsteps of the serpent, who, in the garden planted the deathly seed of doubt in the form of “Did God really say?”
As faithful Christians, we reject this question and confidently claim, “Yes, God really did say” — He said we are fallen, Jesus Christ is the savior, the Bible is trustworthy, men are men and women are women, marriage is between a man and woman, Heaven and Hell are real, and the only way to eternal life is to repent of our sins and trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross.
That’s the narrow gate. It might sound fantastic — and it is. But it is the way that leads to life. So, reject theological liberalism, which is no Christianity at all, and, as the Apostle Paul admonishes us, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Timothy 4:16).










Liberty University © 2023 / All Rights Reserved 1971 University Boulevard / Lynchburg, VA 24515 / Non-Discrimination Policy
 

LeeB

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2022
1,652
671
113
Liberal Christianity, also known as Liberal Theology and historically as Christian Modernism (see Catholic modernism and Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy),[1] is a movement that interprets Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge, science and ethics. It emphasizes the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority. Liberal Christians view their theology as an alternative to both atheistic rationalism and theologies based on traditional interpretations of external authority, such as the Bible or sacred tradition.[2][3][4]

Liberal theology grew out of the Enlightenment's rationalism and Romanticism of the 18th and 19th centuries. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was characterized by an acceptance of Darwinian evolution, a utilization of modern biblical criticism and participation in the Social Gospel movement.[5] This was also the period when liberal theology was most dominant within the Protestant churches. Liberal theology's influence declined with the rise of neo-orthodoxy in the 1930s and with liberation theology in the 1960s.[6] Catholic forms of liberal theology emerged in the late 19th century. By the 21st century, liberal Christianity had become an ecumenical tradition, including both Protestants and Catholics.[7]

In the context of theology, liberal does not refer to political liberalism, and it should be distinguished from progressive Christianity.[1]


Liberal Protestantism​

Liberal Protestantism developed in the 19th century out of a need to adapt Christianity to a modern intellectual context. With the acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, some traditional Christian beliefs, such as parts of the Genesis creation narrative, became difficult to defend. Unable to ground faith exclusively in an appeal to scripture or the person of Jesus Christ, liberals, according to theologian and intellectual historian Alister McGrath, "sought to anchor that faith in common human experience, and interpret it in ways that made sense within the modern worldview."[8] Beginning in Germany, liberal theology was influenced by several strands of thought, including the Enlightenment's high view of human reason and Pietism's emphasis on religious experience and interdenominational tolerance.[9]

The sources of religious authority recognized by liberal Protestants differed from conservative Protestants. Traditional Protestants understood the Bible to be uniquely authoritative (sola scriptura); all doctrine, teaching and the church itself derive authority from it.[10] A traditional Protestant could therefore affirm that "what Scripture says, God says."[11] Liberal Christians rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or infallibility,[12] which they saw as the idolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.[13] Instead, liberals sought to understand the Bible through modern biblical criticism, such as historical criticism, that began to be used in the late 1700s to ask if biblical accounts were based on older texts or whether the Gospels recorded the actual words of Jesus.[9] The use of these methods of biblical interpretation led liberals to conclude that "none of the New Testament writings can be said to be apostolic in the sense in which it has been traditionally held to be so".[14] This conclusion made sola scriptura an untenable position. In its place, liberals identified the historical Jesus as the "real canon of the Christian church".[15]

German theologian William Wrede wrote that "Like every other real science, New Testament Theology has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology". Theologian Hermann Gunkel affirmed that "the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".[16] Episcopal bishop Shelby Spong declared that the literal interpretation of the Bible is heresy.[17][18]

The two groups also disagreed on the role of experience in confirming truth claims. Traditional Protestants believed scripture and revelation always confirmed human experience and reason. For liberal Protestants, there were two ultimate sources of religious authority: the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience. In other words, only an appeal to common human reason and experience could confirm the truth claims of Christianity.[19]

In general, liberal Christians are not concerned with the presence of biblical errors or contradictions.[12] Liberals abandoned or reinterpreted traditional doctrines in light of recent knowledge. For example, the traditional doctrine of original sin was rejected for being derived from Augustine of Hippo, whose views on the New Testament were believed to have been distorted by his involvement with Manichaeism. Christology was also reinterpreted. Liberals stressed Christ's humanity, and his divinity became "an affirmation of Jesus exemplifying qualities which humanity as a whole could hope to emulate".[8]

Liberal Christians sought to elevate Jesus' humane teachings as a standard for a world civilization freed from cultic traditions and traces of traditionally pagan types of belief in the supernatural.[20] As a result, liberal Christians placed less emphasis on miraculous events associated with the life of Jesus than on his teachings.[21] The debate over whether a belief in miracles was mere superstition or essential to accepting the divinity of Christ constituted a crisis within the 19th-century church, for which theological compromises were sought.[22][pages needed] Many liberals prefer to read Jesus' miracles as metaphorical narratives for understanding the power of God.[23][better source needed] Not all theologians with liberal inclinations reject the possibility of miracles, but many reject the polemicism that denial or affirmation entails.[24]

Nineteenth-century liberalism had an optimism about the future in which humanity would continue to achieve greater progress.[8] This optimistic view of history was sometimes interpreted as building the kingdom of God in the world.[9]


Development​

The roots of liberal Christianity go back to the 16th century when Christians such as Erasmus and the Deists attempted to remove what they believed were the superstitious elements from Christianity and "leave only its essential teachings (rational love of God and humanity)".[21]

Reformed theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) is often considered the father of liberal Protestantism.[9] In response to Romanticism's disillusionment with Enlightenment rationalism, Schleiermacher argued that God could only be experienced through feeling, not reason. In Schleiermacher's theology, religion is a feeling of absolute dependence on God. Humanity is conscious of its own sin and its need of redemption, which can only be accomplished by Jesus Christ. For Schleiermacher, faith is experienced within a faith community, never in isolation. This meant that theology always reflects a particular religious context, which has opened Schleirmacher to charges of relativism.[25]

Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889) disagreed with Schleiermacher's emphasis on feeling. He thought that religious belief should be based on history, specifically the historical events of the New Testament.[26] When studied as history without regard to miraculous events, Ritschl believed the New Testament affirmed Jesus' divine mission. He rejected doctrines such as the virgin birth of Jesus and the Trinity.[27] The Christian life for Ritschl was devoted to ethical activity and development, so he understood doctrines to be value judgments rather than assertions of facts.[26] Influenced by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, Ritschl viewed "religion as the triumph of the spirit (or moral agent) over humanity’s natural origins and environment."[27] Ritschl's ideas would be taken up by others, and Ritschlianism would remain an important theological school within German Protestantism until World War I. Prominent followers of Ritschl include Wilhelm Herrmann, Julius Kaftan and Adolf von Harnack.[26]


Liberal Catholicism​

Catholic forms of theological liberalism have existed since the 19th century in England, France and Italy.[28] In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a liberal theological movement developed within the Catholic Church known as Catholic modernism.[29] Like liberal Protestantism, Catholic modernism was an attempt to bring Catholicism in line with the Enlightenment. Modernist theologians approved of radical biblical criticism and were willing to question traditional Christian doctrines, especially Christology. They also emphasized the ethical aspects of Christianity over its theological ones. Important modernist writers include Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell.[30] Modernism was condemned as heretical by the leadership of the Catholic Church.[29]

Papal condemnation of modernism and Americanism slowed the development of a liberal Catholic tradition in the United States. Since the Second Vatican Council, however, liberal theology has experienced a resurgence. Liberal Catholic theologians include David Tracy and Francis Schussler Fiorenza.[28]


Influence in the United States​

This section relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Liberal Christianity"news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Liberal Christianity was most influential with Mainline Protestant churches in the early 20th century, when proponents believed the changes it would bring would be the future of the Christian church. Its greatest and most influential manifestation was the Christian Social Gospel, whose most influential spokesman was the American Baptist Walter Rauschenbusch. Rauschenbusch identified four institutionalized spiritual evils in American culture (which he identified as traits of "supra-personal entities", organizations capable of having moral agency): these were individualism, capitalism, nationalism and militarism.[31]

Other subsequent theological movements within the U.S. Protestant mainline included political liberation theology, philosophical forms of postmodern Christianity, and such diverse theological influences as Christian existentialism (originating with Søren Kierkegaard[32] and including other theologians and scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann[33] and Paul Tillich[34]) and even conservative movements such as neo-evangelicalism, neo-orthodoxy, and paleo-orthodoxy. Dean M. Kelley, a liberal sociologist, was commissioned in the early 1970s to study the problem, and he identified a potential reason for the decline of the liberal churches: what was seen by some as excessive politicization of the Gospel, and especially their apparent tying of the Gospel with Left-Democrat/progressive political causes.[35]

The 1990s and 2000s saw a resurgence of non-doctrinal, theological work on biblical exegesis and theology, exemplified by figures such as Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong,[36] Karen Armstrong and Scotty McLennan.


Theologians and authors​

Anglican and Protestant​


Roman Catholic​


Other​


See also​



References​

Citations​

  • Gurrentz, Benjamin T. "Christian Modernism". The Arda. Association of Religion Data Archives. Archived from the original on July 31, 2019.

  • Dorrien (2001, pp. xiii, xxiii): "Liberal Christian theology is a tradition that derives from the late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century Protestant attempt to reconceptualize the meaning of traditional Christian teaching in the light of modern knowledge and modern ethical values. It is not revolutionary but reformist in spirit and substance. Fundamentally it is the idea of a genuine Christianity not based on external authority. Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of traditional Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority."

  • "Theological Liberalism": "Theological liberalism, a form of religious thought that establishes religious inquiry on the basis of a norm other than the authority of tradition. It was an important influence in Protestantism from about the mid-17th century through the 1920s."

  • McGrath (2013, p. 196): "Liberalism's program required a significant degree of flexibility in relation to traditional Christian theology. Its leading writers argued that reconstruction of belief was essential if Christianity were to remain a serious intellectual option in the modern world. For this reason, they demanded a degree of freedom in relation to the doctrinal inheritance of Christianity on the one hand, and traditional methods of biblical interpretation on the other. Where traditional ways of interpreting Scripture, or traditional beliefs, seemed to be compromised by developments in human knowledge, it was imperative that they should be discarded or reinterpreted to bring them into line with what was now known about the world."

  • Dorrien 2001, p. xviii.

  • Dorrien 2001, p. xv.

  • Dorrien 2001, p. xx.

  • McGrath 2013, p. 196.

  • Campbell 1996, p. 128.

  • Ogden 1976, pp. 405–406.

  • Ogden 1976, p. 408.

  • Chryssides, George D. (2010). Christianity Today: An Introduction. Religion Today. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-84706-542-1. Retrieved 30 August 2020.

  • Dorrien, Garry J. (2000). The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology Without Weapons. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-664-22151-5. Retrieved 30 August 2020.

  • Ogden 1976, pp. 408–409.

  • Ogden 1976, p. 409.

  • Lyons, William John (1 July 2002). Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative. A&C Black. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-567-40343-8. On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against Biblical Theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927-31: 1090-91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6).

  • Chellew-Hodge, Candace (24 February 2016). "Why It Is Heresy to Read the Bible Literally: An Interview with John Shelby Spong". Religion Dispatches. Retrieved 19 June 2021.

  • Spong, John Shelby (16 February 2016). "Stating the Problem, Setting the Stage". Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel. HarperOne. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-06-236233-9. To read the gospels properly, I now believe, requires a knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols, Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling. It requires an understanding of what the Jews call 'midrash.' Only those people who were completely unaware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.

  • Ogden 1976, pp. 409–411.

  • Mack 1993, p. 29.

  • Woodhead 2002, pp. 186, 193.

  • The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion 1805–1900, edited by Gary J. Dorrien (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), passim, search miracles.

  • Brandom 2000, p. 76.

  • Dorrien 2003, pp. 233, 413, 436.

  • Tamilio 2002.

  • "Modernism: Christian Modernism".

  • Frei 2018.

  • Dorrien 2002, p. 203.

  • Campbell 1996, p. 74.

  • McGrath 2013, p. 198.

  • Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel, 1917.

  • "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", authored pseudonymously as Johannes Climacus, 1846.

  • History of Synoptic Tradition

  • The Courage to Be.

  • Kelley, Dean M. (1972) Why Conservative Churches are Growing

  • Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism

  • Alister McGrath. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th rev. ed. Wiley, 2011. Look in the index for "Schleiermacher" or "absolute dependence" and see them nearly always juxtaposed.

  • Congdon, David W. (2015). The Mission of Demythologizing: Rudolf Bultmann's Dialectical Theology. Fortress Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-4514-8792-3. [Per Rudolf Bultmann] his February 1924 lecture on the 'latest theological movement'—represented, he says, by Barth, Gogarten, and Thurneysen—when he explicitly contrasts this new movement with Herrmann and Troeltsch as the representatives of liberal theology. Bultmann then states the thesis of his lecture: 'The object [Gegenstand] of theology is God, and the charge against liberal theology is that it has dealt not with God but with human beings.' We see in this piece the maturation of the claim stated in his Eisenach lecture of 1920, namely, that liberal theology fails to reflect on the specific content of Christian faith. In that earlier writing he contrasts the spiritual content of genuine religion with the liberal emphasis on a particular moralistic form.
  1. Peace Action web page accessed at http://www.peace-action.org/history

Sources​


External links​




Categories:






  • Wikimedia Foundation
  • Powered by MediaWiki





 

William

William Kuevogah
Staff member
Jul 28, 2020
56
36
18
27
Ghana
With a few qualifications here and there (the 4th point summarized above, for example), I largely agree with the liberals. I've gone through my own periods of doubt and I've studiously come to those conclusions. Biblical inerrancy? I'll pass, thank you very much. Historical creation account in Genesis? That's eisegesis.
I find myself identifying more with the so-called mainline churches, especially the Anglo-Catholic (Anglican/Episcopal) communion.
I've lost all interest in the Evangelical/biblical inerrancy/conservative/fundamentalist kind of Christianity. Too narrow for me. That ship's sailed for ME.
I also recognize that those forms of Christianity are homes to other Christians, so I don't go about trying to convert those other Christians to my way of thinking. The Christian tradition is broad enough for all of us, God is generous enough to welcome all of us, regardless of others' arguments to the contrary.

This long quotation you've posted reminds me of what the Watchtower society does: mine quotes from other Christians they would otherwise classify as false Christians. The people you're quoting are Evangelicals who believe in the Trinity and other doctrines you constantly denounce. But I suppose this is a case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Perhaps they're as wrong about inerrancy as you believe them to be about the Trinity... Who knows? Think about it.
 

Outcast

Active member
Dec 5, 2023
389
196
43
Holt
OK, I have to present on issue here. When people use orthodoxy, they are placing it up against radical (unorthodox). How many have wondered just what we refer to being Orthodox? Up until Constantine determined himself to be the one to establish the Christian Church, orthodox had to refer to the teachings of the Apostles. I don't think Constantine's version would be well received. What this world need is LESS orthodoxy but not the Greasy Grace version either.
 

LeeB

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2022
1,652
671
113
I have no problem with the word orthodox but I do see it as the teaching of Christ, the Apostles and the Prophets. Check your email for more information about this posting.