Theological Liberalism

[Malachi]

There was another thread which tried to bring up this subject, but went in the direction of political liberalism vs political conservatism. Theopedia summarizes theological liberalism thus:

Theological liberalism, sometimes known as Protestant Liberalism, is a theological movement rooted in the early 19th century German Enlightenment, notably in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and the religious views of Friedrich Schleiermacher. It is an attempt to incorporate modern thinking and developments, especially in the sciences, into the Christian faith. Liberalism tends to emphasize ethics over doctrine and experience over Scriptural authority. While essentially a 19th century movement, theological liberalism came to dominate the American mainline churches in the early 20th century. Liberal Christian scholars embraced and encouraged the higher biblical criticism of modern Biblical scholarship.
Protestant liberal thought in its most traditional incarnations emphasized the universal Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the infinite value of the human soul, the example of Jesus, and the establishment of the moral-ethical Kingdom of God on Earth. It has often been relativistic, pluralistic, and non-doctrinal.
Liberalism birthed other movements with varying emphases. Among these movements have been the Social Gospel, theological Feminism, Liberation theology, Process theology, and the Jesus Seminar. One product of these movements is the heretical Myth of Christian Origins which denies the divinity of Christ and the authority of scripture.

In brief, theological liberalism is an attack on the Bible, on all Bible Truth, and on the Person and Finished Work of Christ. It is essentially an attack on the Gospel by Satan so that souls will be damned eternally. "Neo-Orthodoxy" (Barthianism) claimed to return to orthodox Christianity, but that was also a deception, using "double-speak" to hide unbelief and introduce human philosophy.

What is the surest weapon against unbelief and attacks on Bible Truth? The Bible itself (Heb 4:12,13).

 

[Kathi]

I think I posted on the other thread and went towards theological as my comments.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Theological Liberalism has nothing whatever to do with the Bible. It's a philosophy, that for the most part isn't even Christian, except in name only. Ergo, it's not an attack on the Bible. Or even against Christianity for that matter. It's its own thing. It's a philosophy that includes certain Christian elements. For some Liberals, not all, it's a form of religion. an all inclusive religion. A Christian version of the Bahai religion (an offshoot of Islam). When they practice their version of the Lord's Table, it's very inclusive. Anyone can participate. No matter their philosophy or religion. Gay "Christians" will often gravitate toward Liberalism. The more Conservative ones will do what any Christian will do. Interpret the Bible and then believe the interpretations.

 

[smaller]

There was another thread which tried to bring up this subject, but went in the direction of political liberalism vs political conservatism. Theopedia summarizes theological liberalism thus:

In brief, theological liberalism is an attack on the Bible, on all Bible Truth, and on the Person and Finished Work of Christ. It is essentially an attack on the Gospel by Satan so that souls will be damned eternally. "Neo-Orthodoxy" (Barthianism) claimed to return to orthodox Christianity, but that was also a deception, using "double-speak" to hide unbelief and introduce human philosophy.

What is the surest weapon against unbelief and attacks on Bible Truth? The Bible itself (Heb 4:12,13).

Barth took a lot of heat from some camps and was highly respected by other camps. He was an exceptional theologian and clear thinker on many levels.

Certainly no enemy of the Gospel and I wouldn't put him in the same camp as theological liberals by any stretch. Barth was extremely respectful of historical christian groundings.

 

[Willie T]

I like one of Karl Barth's simplest quotes: "Religion is unbelief".

 

[smaller]

Barth was in the Reformed camp and many consider him the father of new Reformed, so it is natural for those not of that camp to dislike what he has to say. There are doctors of theology today who wrote their doctoral thesis about Barth's work and received their doctorates on such. So, yeah, he's kind of a big deal in scholarly circles.

I'd consider him to be the first modern escapee of the historical critical methods and restraints that were carried in Protestantism from early orthodoxy, which is extremely important to Protestantism.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Theological conservatives are quick to draw the exact border lines of the faith, and are quick to disqualify others they disagree with as not possibly being saved.

I'm somewhat "liberal," in that I agree to some extent with what Christian Liberals have to say, but also have conservative in some beliefs. I try not to get so worked up about the differences in what we all believe, I like to study them and formulate my own opinions, but I don't really deal with discounting people as not Christian. That's God's job.

 

[Sinthesis]

Theological conservatives are quick to draw the exact border lines of the faith, and are quick to disqualify others they disagree with as not possibly being saved.

I'm somewhat "liberal," in that I agree to some extent with what Christian Liberals have to say, but also have conservative in some beliefs. I try not to get so worked up about the differences in what we all believe, I like to study them and formulate my own opinions, but I don't really deal with discounting people as not Christian. That's God's job.

 

[Malachi]

Theological Liberalism has nothing whatever to do with the Bible.

Really? How could anyone arrive at this conclusion after examining the attacks on the Bible and on Christianity by theological liberals? To (1) deny the inspiration of the Bible, (2) undermine its authority, (3) explain away its teachings, and (4) above all to invent another "Jesus" is clearly an attack on the Gospel, and ultimately on the souls of men.

And theological liberals stand self-condemned. Anyone who rejects the Deity of Christ, the truth of the trinue Godhead, and salvation by grace through faith in the Person and Finished Work of Christ is ALREADY condemned. No one has to say anything anymore.

Unless you can prove that theological liberalism has nothing to do with the Bible, it would help you to dig a little deeper and examine what liberals teach and write. It is pure unbelief.

Here's what Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar has to say:

The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed. A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible. The notion that he will return at the end of time and sit in cosmic judgment is equally incredible. We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus.

 

[Malachi]

I'd consider him to be the first modern escapee of the historical critical methods and restraints that were carried in Protestantism from early orthodoxy, which is extremely important to Protestantism.

Perhaps you should read this article: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/06/karl-barths-failure
"Karl Barth was the greatest theologian since the Reformation, and his work is today a dead letter."

Why? Because he failed to liberate theology from modernity's captivity. "He could not properly and consistently distinguish God’s nature from his actions in the history of salvation...".

 

[smaller]

Perhaps you should read this article: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/06/karl-barths-failure
"Karl Barth was the greatest theologian since the Reformation, and his work is today a dead letter."

Why? Because he failed to liberate theology from modernity's captivity. "He could not properly and consistently distinguish God’s nature from his actions in the history of salvation...".

I've read a LOT of Barth and his critics. Certainly wouldn't frame Barth as a liberal theologian of any sort whatsoever.

It might be important to keep in mind that a lot of Protestant theologian time has been spent discounting the authority constructs of Roman orthodoxy, and over time that transcribed into a wildly liberal subsect that I wouldn't even term christian of any sorts, and you rightfully criticize that field.

But to put Barth anywhere close to the Jesus Seminar people is actually laughable.

 

[smaller]

The article you linked to is a very poor analysis of Barth's work. If you want to see some real 'christian' advancements of what Barth initiated you might try this read, which is a brilliant shining light on the basis of understanding that Barth fostered.
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Hermeneutics-Gerhard-Maier/dp/0891077677
Barth initiated a genuine foundational critique against historical critical/classical theological approaches. Maier sticks a profoundly acceptable fork in that matter, which was initiated by Barth, and both men raise christian theology studies to much better superior ground imho. And NOT in the direction either the author of your link seems to understand or appreciate or the liberal camps you are attempting to frame Barth with by associations (p.s. I wrote the brief review of the Maier book on Amazon in 1999.)

 

[elijah23]

There was another thread which tried to bring up this subject, but went in the direction of political liberalism vs political conservatism. Theopedia summarizes theological liberalism thus:


In brief, theological liberalism is an attack on the Bible, on all Bible Truth, and on the Person and Finished Work of Christ. It is essentially an attack on the Gospel by Satan so that souls will be damned eternally. "Neo-Orthodoxy" (Barthianism) claimed to return to orthodox Christianity, but that was also a deception, using "double-speak" to hide unbelief and introduce human philosophy.

What is the surest weapon against unbelief and attacks on Bible Truth? The Bible itself (Heb 4:12,13).

I don't believe in liberalism or conservatism. I believe in obeying the Lord's commandments.

 

[Kathi]

I don't believe in liberalism or conservatism. I believe in obeying the Lord's commandments.

I would rather be a conservative fundamentalist than liberal.

 

[Willie T]

I've read a LOT of Barth and his critics. Certainly wouldn't frame Barth as a liberal theologian of any sort whatsoever.

It might be important to keep in mind that a lot of Protestant theologian time has been spent discounting the authority constructs of Roman orthodoxy, and over time that transcribed into a wildly liberal subsect that I wouldn't even term christian of any sorts, and you rightfully criticize that field.

But to put Barth anywhere close to the Jesus Seminar people is actually laughable.

Oh, oh! I love colored beads. Can I play, too?