What is Liberal Theology

[P31Woman]

This came from gotquestions.org

Do you agree or disagree?

Question: "What is liberal Christian theology?"

Answer: In liberal Christian teaching, which is not Christian at all, man’s reason is stressed and is treated as the final authority. Liberal theologians seek to reconcile Christianity with secular science and modern thinking. In doing so, they treat science as all-knowing and the Bible as fable-laden and false. Genesis’ early chapters are reduced to poetry or fantasy, having a message, but not to be taken literally (in spite of Jesus’ having spoken of those early chapters in literal terms). Mankind is not seen as totally depraved, and thus liberal theologians have an optimistic view of the future of mankind. The social gospel is also emphasized, while the inability of fallen man to fulfill it is denied. Whether a person is saved from his sin and its penalty in hell is no longer the issue; the main thing is how man treats his fellow man. “Love†of our fellow man becomes the defining issue. As a result of this “reasoning†by liberal theologians, the following doctrines are taught by liberal quasi-Christian theologians:

1) The Bible is not “God-breathed†and has errors. Because of this belief, man (the liberal theologians) must determine which teachings are correct and which are not. Belief that the Bible is “inspired†(in that word’s original meaning) by God is only held by simpletons. This directly contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.â€

2) The virgin birth of Christ is a mythological false teaching. This directly contradicts Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 2.

3) Jesus did not rise again from the grave in bodily form. This contradicts the resurrection accounts in all four Gospels and the entire New Testament.

4) Jesus was a good moral teacher, but His followers and their followers have taken liberties with the history of His life (there were no “supernatural†miracles), with the Gospels having been written many years later and merely ascribed to the early disciples in order to give greater weight to their teachings. This contradicts the 2 Timothy passage and the doctrine of the supernatural preservation of the Scriptures by God.

5) Hell is not real. Man is not lost in sin and is not doomed to some future judgment without a relationship with Christ through faith. Man can help himself; no sacrificial death by Christ is necessary since a loving God would not send people to such a place as hell and since man is not born in sin. This contradicts Jesus Himself, who declared Himself to be the Way to God, through His atoning death (John 14:6).

6) Most of the human authors of the Bible are not who they are traditionally believed to be. For instance, they believe that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. The book of Daniel had two authors because there is no way that the detailed “prophecies†of the later chapters could have been known ahead of time; they must have been written after the fact. The same thinking is carried over to the New Testament books. These ideas contradict not only the Scriptures but historical documents which verify the existence of all the people whom the liberals deny.

7) The most important thing for man to do is to “love†his neighbor. What is the loving thing to do in any situation is not what the Bible says is good but what the liberal theologians decide is good. This denies the doctrine of total depravity, which states that man is capable to doing nothing good and loving (Jeremiah 17:9) until He has been redeemed by Christ and given a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17).

There are many pronouncements of Scripture against those who would deny the deity of Christ (2 Peter 2:1)—which liberal Christianity does. Scripture also denounces those who would preach a different gospel from what was preached by the apostles (Galatians 1:8)—which is what the liberal theologians do in denying the necessity of Christ’s atoning death and preaching a social gospel in its place. The Bible condemns those who call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20)—which some liberal churches do by embracing homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle while the Bible repeatedly condemns its practice.

Scripture speaks against those who would cry “peace, peace†when there is no peace (Jeremiah 6:14)—which liberal theologians do by saying that man can attain peace with God apart from Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and that man need not worry about a future judgment before God. The Word of God speaks of a time when men will have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof (2 Timothy 3:5)—which is what liberal theology does in that is says that there is some inner goodness in man that does not require a rebirth by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ. And it speaks against those who would serve idols instead of the one true God (1 Chronicles 16:26)—which liberal Christianity does in that it creates a false god according to its own liking rather than worshiping God as He is described in the whole of the Bible.

 

[Grazer]

Oh go on then I'll bite. Whilst many "liberals" do take the stances outlined in the post, many don't. Liberal is a subjective and relative term. I'm liberal compared to some and conservative compared to others. The article is a perfect demonstration on what happens when you try package people into neat little boxes; when you actually meet one you find they don't fit in the box.

 

[Arch Angle]

the word "balance" comes to mind.

Liberals would can me a conservative and a conservatives would call me a liberal.

Jesus spoke against "literal religion" very strongly. He also made it very clear that we just can'tdo whatever we want. So I think I'llstand with him.

 

[P31Woman]

What comes to mind first for me is The Jesus Seminars, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong.

 

[Danus]

The definition presented is a little too specific to liberal theology, but on the whole it's very correct.

P31Woman, have you ever read any works by Karl Barth?

 

[P31Woman]

The definition presented is a little too specific to liberal theology, but on the whole it's very correct.

P31Woman, have you ever read any works by Karl Barth?

Long time ago.

 

[Danus]

It's also important not to confuse the political terms of liberal & conservative with these terms regarding theology. While they may lead in similar directions its not the same.

 

[Danus]

Long time ago.

What's your favorite?

 

[John 8:32]

Jesus spoke against "literal religion" very strongly.

???

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[P31Woman]

What's your favorite?

The only thing I remember reading is a commentary on Romans. I read Barth's along with one by Moo and FF Bruce. I remember thinking all 3 of these guys have more cards in their deck than I do.

 

[Grazer]

???

Not sure what you mean here.

I think they might be referring to the numerous times Jesus chastised the Pharisees for being obsessed with the letter of the law.....</irony>

 

[P31Woman]

I think they might be referring to the numerous times Jesus chastised the Pharisees for being obsessed with the letter of the law.....</irony>

For example?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Liberal theology cannot be easily categorized (as the "Got Questions" website attempted to do) in a few sentences. In fact, Got Questions completely ignores the fact that the so called "liberal theology" arose in opposition to the Enlightenment, which was an effort by many agnostic scientists and philosophers who were highly critical of dogmatic Protestant orthodoxy, among them Immanuel Kant, who put an end to the Enlightenment's pursuit of knowledge through pure reason. However, he introduced the concept that human knowledge arises from the interplay of incoming sensory data (absorbed through the five senses) and innate categories built into the human mind which process that data and in turn made it “knowledge.”

He further held that reality was to be divided into two realms, the phenomenal (the created order in which we live and which is open for us to experience) and the noumnenal (spiritual, metaphysical reality). Well, at least he acknowledge the created nature of this world, but the rest is what has led us to question God's word as God breathed, literal in meaning within the context of the obvious literal and figurative language, allegory, parable, etc., as well as the validity of the Bible as a message for today.

Friederich D.E. Schleiermacher is considered the father of liberal theology. Building on Kant's postulations, he determined three things: (1) The criticiism of Protestant orthodoxy is valid; (2) Romantic Idealistic philosophy gives a better soil in which to ground the Christian faith than the shallow moralistic rationalism of the Enlightenment, (3) Christian theology can be interpreted in terms of romantic idealism and thus allow mankind to be both Christian and modern while being intellectually honest.

In viewing the neologians’ ("new theologians") critique of orthodoxy as correct and in light of Kant’s perceived destruction of the possibility of a rational knowledge of God, Schleiermacher influenced by Romanticism, found a new seat for religion and theology, one that could not be touched by enlightenment criticism--the Gefuhl (the feeling). This feeling is not to be understood as mere emotion. It is the deep inner sense of man that he exists in a relationship of absolute dependence upon God. It is his “god-consciousness” This is the center of religion and piety, according to him.

Schleiermacher turned the traditional theological method on its head. Rather than starting with any objective revelation, religion was seen at its core as subjective. Experience was seen as giving rise to doctrine rather than doctrine to experience. Theological statements no longer were perceived as describing objective reality, but rather as reflecting the way that the feeling of absolute dependence is related to God. It is this experience which is seen as the final authority in religion rather than the objective revelation of an inerrant Scripture. He said “Christian doctrines are accounts of the Christian religious affections set forth in speech.”

For Scheleiermacher, Jesus Christ was unique. Not that he was the God-man of historic orthodoxy, but rather in that he demonstrated in his life a perfect and uninterrupted God-consciousness,. He displayed the “veritable existence of God in him.” This was the redemption which Jesus accomplished. and brought to mankind. In this understanding the cross is not in a sacrificial atonement, but rather it is an example of Jesus’ willingness to enter into ‘sympathy with misery.’

Redemption was then the inner transformation of the individual from the state of God-forgetfulness to the state of God-consciousness. To put it another way, redemption is that state in which god-consciousness predominates over all else in life. Thus his theology was utterly Christocentric in that it was concerned with the example of Jesus as the perfectly god-conscious one, but it ignored Christ's deity and did away with the cross as the atoning sacrifice that restores our fellowship with God.

It took years for these philosophies to worm their way into so-called "mainstream" theology, which is what many of those churches I call "Liberal" in nature -- Anglican, Episcopalian, United Methodist, and others like them -- believe they are: Mainstream. In reality, it is those denominations that are typically criticized as narrow-minded and static in their beliefs that are the mainstream of Christian thought, because these are the denominations that remain closely aligned to what God's word says. These are the Southern Baptists, Evangelical Free, PCA (not PSUSA), Free Methodist, Disciples of Christ, Reformed, and similar churches.

The former churches in that list are more a follower of Schleiermacher than Christ.

 

[Mike]

When I read the title of this thread, I was thinking of a more general definition that all of the examples in the OP hold to. I'd say liberal theology is that which either adds to scripture theology that is not spoken of or denies the validity of scripture that is. People with a liberal theology can easily become insulted by this term, but if they can dismiss the Inspired Word of God, they should have no problem dismissing someone's description of their theology.

To the article's point, they are choosing to put their own capacity to accept all and only the Word above the Word itself. They can call that what they want. I call it "liberal".

 

[Carolyn]

Oh go on then I'll bite. Whilst many "liberals" do take the stances outlined in the post, many don't. Liberal is a subjective and relative term. I'm liberal compared to some and conservative compared to others. The article is a perfect demonstration on what happens when you try package people into neat little boxes; when you actually meet one you find they don't fit in the box.

s
The subject has more to do with the tenants of a system of belief than the people who may believe all or parts of these tenants. The title was Liberal Theology, not liberals.
I started òut as a liberal, believing some of those tenants. But as I became more açquainted with the Bible and was grounded in the basic tenants of Christianity such as the Trinity and salvation by faith, I grew mòre conservative. But the clincher came when I finally fell at the feet of Jesus, surrendered my life to Him as a bond slave, and He then refilled me with His Holy Spirit to the point of overflowing. It bècame very easy at that point to understand the scriptures, to apply them to my life, and to recognize that God and the Bible are exactly Who and what the conservatives say they are. Many people who are çonservative were raised that way, sent to Bible school and taught dogma. That didn't happen to me. Recentlý I audited 2 Bible school courses but that is the extent of my formal educatìon. Sò what some wòuld call balance, others may call a stage of growth. Some may call it compromise. Perhaps it is different things for different people.
But few people who çall themselves liberal or who speak scornfully about conservatives will say much about the Holý Spirit or about making Jesus the Lord of their lives. This somehow grievès me.

By the way, the Disciples of Christ's web site states that due to recent higher critiçism, they no longer require people to reçeive Christ as their Lord and Savior to become members. I find this puts them into the liberal category. I recongnize that there are more cònservative congregatiòns among the Disciples as well as among the independant Christian Churches related loosly to the Disciples by heritage.

 

[P31Woman]

I think they might be referring to the numerous times Jesus chastised the Pharisees for being obsessed with the letter of the law.....</irony>

If "ONLY" they obsessed about obeying God law rather than man made traditions that allowed them to do away with God's clear instructions.

A Great example is Mark 7. In this passage we see 2 Man Made Traditions being placed in a place of honor above God's Word. (corban and hand washing) The religious leaders "claimed" to honor God's word but their traditons/teachings proved otherwise. Just as liberal theologians/scholars "claim" to honor God's word we need only look into their teachings/traditions to see they are not telling the truth their hearts are far from God.

Mark 7

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

The Traditions of the Elders

7 The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Him. 2 They observed that some of His disciples were eating their bread with unclean—that is, unwashed—hands. 3 (For the Pharisees, in fact all the Jews, will not eat unless they wash their hands ritually, keeping the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they have washed. And there are many other customs they have received and keep, like the washing of cups, jugs, copper utensils, and dining couches.) 5 Then the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why don’t Your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders, instead of eating bread with ritually unclean hands?”
6 He answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written:
These people honor Me with their lips,
but their heart is far from Me.
7 They worship Me in vain,
teaching as doctrines the commands of men.

8 Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men.” 9 He also said to them, “You completely invalidate God’s command in order to maintain your tradition! 10 For Moses said:
Honor your father and your mother; and
Whoever speaks evil of father or mother
must be put to death.

11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or mother: Whatever benefit you might have received from me is Corban’” (that is, a gift committed to the temple), 12 “you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 You revoke God’s word by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many other similar things.” 14 Summoning the crowd again, He told them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 Nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him. [16 If anyone has ears to hear, he should listen!]”

 

[Grazer]

Mark 3:1-6 NIV

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone." Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

This is one example of the Pharisees being more interested in the letter of the law and Jesus slapping them down for it.

 

[P31Woman]

Mark 3:1-6 NIV

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone." Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

This is one example of the Pharisees being more interested in the letter of the law and Jesus slapping them down for it.

There is no law against healing on the sabbath. He was going against their made up beliefs not the Word of God (laws)

The Pharisees and religious leaders knew they could not obey the laws of God. So they made up rules they could follow. They made up their own "righteous standards".

 

[P31Woman]

Grazer,



1 John 5

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)


5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him. 2 This is how we know that we love God’s children when we love God and obey His commands.3 For this is what love for God is: to keep His commands. Now His commands are not a burden, 4 because whatever has been born of God conquers the world. This is the victory that has conquered the world: our faith. 5 And who is the one who conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

The problem with the Pharisees is they loved "their rules" not God and his commands. They used their legalism as a way to be right with God. It does not work. Only God can say what is right and wrong.

 

[Deborah13]

Grazer,Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)


5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him. 2 This is how we know that we love God’s children when we love God and obey His commands.3 For this is what love for God is: to keep His commands. Now His commands are not a burden, 4 because whatever has been born of God conquers the world. This is the victory that has conquered the world: our faith. 5 And who is the one who conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

The problem with the Pharisees is they loved "their rules" not God and his commands. They used their legalism as a way to be right with God. It does not work. Only God can say what is right and wrong.

Luke 13:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

Their arguement reminds me of some of the threads we start. "Is belief works?" - "is healing works?"