The Christian Research Institute has a good online Perspective regarding the false-church of Christian Liberalism, which in my view, is another religion posing as “Christian,” inside the church.
Want to know how those who claim to be “Christian” can come to conclusions that clearly contridict Scripture? Here’s a good place to start:
What’s Wrong With Christian Liberalism?
They’re in our schools and in our churches! People who profess to be Christian, yet deny the authority of Scripture, and compromise essential doctrines. What is Christian liberalism?
Christian liberalism blossomed in the 19th century. In order to adapt to modern trends, certain scholars began to apply anti-supernatural ideas and Darwinian evolution to Scripture. The miracles of the Bible were now considered myths. The deity of Christ was replaced by a Jesus who was martyred for his humanitarian efforts, and who did not literally rise from the dead.
In fact, Liberals have an extremely optimistic view of man. Mankind is evolving religiously. World peace is man’s ultimate goal in which the “Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man” reigns supreme. Salvation is for the society rather than individuals.
However, evolutionism and the denial of miracles are diametrically opposed to what the Scriptures teach. Although Christians can adopt modern thinking, they should not let the “spirit of the age” become their ultimate authority, especially when these thoughts contradict the Bible.
Man was created by God, not by accident, as evolutionists teach (Gen. 1,2). And if we deny miracles, we must also deny Christ’s physical resurrection. But Scripture says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). Without a literal resurrection, there can be no salvation.Liberal scholars, like the Jesus Seminar committee, eliminate many of the words of Jesus to mere legends. But in doing so, they’ve reduced Him to a non-controversial figure instead of the unique Son of God. Why was He crucified if He didn’t offend anyone? If His disciples were the ones who created many of the famous sayings of Jesus, liberals ought to worship them instead of Christ!
Ultimately, liberalism builds its house upon the shifting sands of sinful men, but Christianity is built upon the rock of God’s Word.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
We recommend the book entitled Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen. This resource is available through CRI. For shipping and handling information, please call CRI or refer to our Resource Listing. To place a credit card order, call toll-free (888) 7000-CRI. To receive a free copy of our Resource Listing, fax us at (949) 858-6111 or write us with your request at PO Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000.
Here is an interesting quote Al Mohler made once regarding this issue of the problem with the misunderstanding of how we are to apply the Bible in the public square today:
They cite the love of God and the love of Christ, and of course, we must embrace those as fundamental Biblical truths. Telling the truth is the first act of love. Ignoring what God says in His own word is not an act of love; it is an act of evasion. The end result of that is we not tell people the truth, we tell them a lie. – Albert Mohler
Filed under: Apologetics, Church Life, Creation vs. Evolution, Emergent Church, Homosexuality, Methodists, PCUSA, Politics, Pro-Life
Tony, I read Machen’s book last year. Machen says that liberalism is an entirely different religion from othodox Christianity. It is primarily religious humanism. It fails to recognize the intrinsic evil in human beings and has a tendency to adopt the agenda of secular culture in order to be considered relevant. You can see very clearly today that secular progressive thinking totally sets the agenda for religous liberals, i.e. gay rights, environmentalism, abortion and the war on terrorism. I think it is interesting how the liberals condemn evangelicals, accusing them of being in the hip pocket of the Republican Party, hey, they have adopted the Democratic political platform and radical ideas of Moveon.org as the basic of their theology.
You are right Craig, good point. I agree with Machen that it is an entirely different religion. I just wish they’d be intellectually honest about it and not claim it is “Christian.”
tr
Of course these days its fashionable for conservativesto argue that liberal Christians deny the deity of Christ or the authority of Scripture. And, of course, it is also true that some far left folks do indeed do that. But the majority of Christians on the left hold completely orthodox understandings of the deity of Christ, the authority of Scripture, etc., just as the majority of Christians on the right do. Not every liberal is a Shelby Spong, just as not every conservative is a Fred Phelps. These sorts of overgeneralizations really aren’t very useful. Though I suppose they’re happy stories that some conservatives like to tell to other conservatives.
In the same way, some liberal Christians like to tell similar stories about conservatives. But in their stories the conservatives are typically backward, uneducated simpletons. Again, those stories are probably true about a small number on the extreme right, but they’re unfair characterizations of the majority of conservative Christians.
I think these stories are popular because they give simple answers to really tough questions. That is, let’s say a conservative Christian disagrees with a liberal Christian about something. It is easier to simply deny that liberal even is a Christian than admit that they approach God and God’s Word with exactly the same reverence that you do. And if you look hard enough and go through enough acrobatics, one can probably find some proof-text to demonstrate that liberal never was a Christian to begin with!
For the liberal, it is easier to admit that the conservative is just a rube than actually admit that they’ve got just as many God-given brains as you do. And, there are probably proof-texts to back that up too, if one looks hard enough.
Thus in these stories, neither the conservative nor the liberal actually have to confront the the fact that they might be wrong, they don’t have to confront the idea that they need to pray and study in order to discern the truth (in fact, they might both be wrong!). Instead, just discount, ignore and move on. Simple. Simple and also quite arrogant.
Alan,
I don’t actually disagree with the extremes of both sides as you describe them, however, I don’t exactly agree with the part where you say “It is easier to simply deny that liberal even is a Christian…” When you put it that way it seems you are saying that this is used as a defense mechanism to avoid a rational argument over the issue. I am not saying that doesn’t happen, but that is not common.
The issue isn’t over whether the two opposing sides have “the same reverence” over God’s Word. It comes down to which hermeneutic has arrived at the right conclusion.
When someone says that they believe the Bible is a book of stories which contains errors, or that it is “infallible but not inerrant,” there is a clear difference in the worldview the two sides are coming from.
It isn’t a matter of just slinging around the “you ain’t a Christian” as a last resort to win an argument. It is a matter of recognizing that the Scriptures mean something particular where doctrines are concerned, and they have meant that “something” for 2000 years. Defending that meaning against those that come along 1830 years later and want to change it is a justified defense with Biblical authority (Jude 3).
When a liberal confesses that they disagree with an orthodox historical doctrine, it isn’t judgmental or intellectual forfeiture to call that person’s view heretical and “not Christian.” I agree with you though, that were this is done on non-essential doctrines clouds the water of its relevance when the division is indeed properly made.
tr
“When you put it that way it seems you are saying that this is used as a defense mechanism to avoid a rational argument over the issue. I am not saying that doesn’t happen, but that is not common.”
I think this is probably a perception issue. I feel that it’s used more often than not, unfortunately.
You’ve made a distinction here that I wish the original author had made, and it would have made the article more accurate. As it is, the author seems to be overgeneralizing. Discussing the conclusions that both sides reach is useful, I think, but simply dismissing each other and name calling isn’t. You’ve made that point well, but I don’t think the original article did a good job with that.
Unfortunately the rhetoric between liberal and conservative Christians has reached such a point where often neither side is willing to at least show the other a little respect: “OK, I disagree with you, but I believe you’re trying to be faithful to the Word and trying to understand it in using reasonable methods, we just come to different conclusions based on the same evidence…” That’s not the same as some sort of nonsense relativistic position that “your truth is your truth and my truth is mine.” Instead, it’s an understanding that both sides are seeking the Truth. That sort of acknowledgment by both sides would go a long way toward increasing dialogue, I think. The author’s approach seems to be designed (intentionally or not) to shut down that kind of dialogue.
Hey Sarge,
As you know Dr. Walter Martin spent the last few years battling the cult of liberalism. It’s now resurfaced in a reimagined form as the Emergent Church.
I think this quote from Paul Washer hits the root:
So whenever I stand before a group of people saying that I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and I believe that He’s the Truth, the Way and the Life, I know I’m going to get various reactions. I know that if I walk out on a university platform and I say, “I am a seeker of the truth,” everyone will stand up and applaud me.
But after they sit down if I say, “And I have found the Truth”; they’ll boo me off the platform. Because we live in a culture that prides itself in wanting to know what the truth is, even though no one’s really investigating. And then if someone says they have found it, he’s labeled an ignorant fool, or an arrogant man.
I agree that not every liberal is a Shelby Spong and not every conserative is a Fred Phelps. But that dismisses the breadth and impact of liberal theology a little too quickly.
I don’t know a single person who agrees with Fred Phelps. Oh, I’m sure there are some out there, but they don’t lead any denominations that I’m aware of. Fred Phelps doesn’t write any books (at least they aren’t on Amazon), let alone popular ones.
I do know lots of people who believer like Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Katherine Jeffords-Shori and other false teachers do. Those guys sell plenty of books and/or lead major denominations.
Check out the “leaders” of mainline denominations (Bishops and the like). Many of them gained their positions by professing adherence to the core beliefs of their denominations. They either lied at their ordinations or changed their minds later. Check out http://www.ird-renew.org/ for plenty of examples.
Ken – Great quotes about seeking/finding the truth. I have a post set to publish next Monday with something just like that regarding postmodernism.
Fred Phelps? No. James Dobson? Yes. If you’re going to make the leap from the far far left to leaders of the mainline, Neil, then it’s at least as appropriate to include Dobson, Perkins, et. al. in there. You don’t really agree with their heretical fundamentalism, right? Their heresies may run in a different stream than the liberals you dislike, but they’re still fundamentalist and/or dispensationalist heresies, nonetheless. There version of Christianity is just as far from the Wesley and Calvin that you and I line up with as any of the liberals you mention.
Do they deny the deity of Christ? The atonement? The exclusivity? Inerrancy and authority of scripture?
“Do they deny the deity of Christ? The atonement? The exclusivity? Inerrancy and authority of scripture?”
Already answered Neil… “Their heresies may run in a different stream than the liberals you dislike, but they’re still fundamentalist and/or dispensationalist heresies…”
Perhaps I’m mistaken and Wesleyans don’t see dispensationalism a heresy? We Calvinists certainly do. We also consider most fundamentalism to be nothing but idolatry — setting up belief in the 5 fundamentals as more important than belief in God through Christ seems like classic “golden calf” kinda stuff to me and is completely opposed to traditional, orthodox Calvinist beliefs…but perhaps not Wesleyan?
I suppose it depends on what one counts as essentials vs. non-essentials. I listen to Dobson regularly and don’t hear anything heretical on his shows (not that he is my source of theology). Again, to imply that he somehow balances out the heresies of the left is off the mark.
“Again, to imply that he somehow balances out the heresies of the left is off the mark.”
Your perception, of course. I didn’t imply that he alone balances out the “heresies” of the left. Frankly Neil you’re not being very honest in your reading of what I write. First you suggest that I’m only talking about Phelps, then when I give other examples to illustrate my point about the whole far, far right, you suggest that I’m only talking about Dobson. He’s an example, I can give many, many more: Perkins, Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, etc., etc., etc. Most of these guys are pelagians, semi-pelagians and dispensationalists.
“I suppose it depends on what one counts as essentials vs. non-essentials.”
Again, perhaps you don’t see pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, and dispensationalism as heretical theologies, but historically that’s exactly how they’ve been viewed by traditional, orthodox Christians.
There aren’t, as far as I’m concerned, levels of heresy. I don’t believe one should excuse some heresies simply because the heretics happen to agree with you on some social issues.
My point remains that these folks are not the majority of mainstream evangelical Christian, just as your examples of people you don’t like are not the majority of mainstream progressive Christians. Fact is, just as I am proof positive that one can be progressive and not a heretic (though Tony would disagree), you are also proof positive that one can be an evangelical and not a heretic. Neither of us, I suspect would want to hold ourselves up as examples for an entire wing of Christianity. However, I think we can also admit that there are many, many more people like us, than are like the heretics of the far extremes of either of these views.
The author of the original post makes it sound like it is impossible to be a liberal Christian and not be a heretic. Obviously that’s false. One might protest, “Oh, he’s not talking about *everyone*, don’t take it so personally!” I’d accept that if this weren’t the billionth article I’ve read by a conservative demonizing liberal Christians, apparently without exception. It seems to be a pass-time of some folks. How many of these same articles have I read here before? How many have I read on your blog Neil and we’ve had the same discussion. Can we at least agree that after a while it becomes clear that many conservatives are either unwilling or unable to be charitable to people who truly see the Bible as authoritative yet arrive at different conclusions than they do? Instead, it becomes apparent that these writers are interested only in demonizing an entire group based on the extremes.
Frankly, after reading the same thing over and over and over from many different sources, it becomes easier to believe that he means exactly what he says.
[...] 27th, 2007 I just read a terrific article tonight posted on galatiansc4v16 regarding liberalism in our churches today. For those who need a wonderful way to explain this [...]
Liberal Christians are often more concerned with following the life and teachings of Jesus than with adhering to the mainstream of orthodox christian theology. Being a Christian means, primarily, being a follower of Jesus Christ, not one who believes such and such about the Bible. Even Jesus focused around abstract meta-issues such as love. Remember, often he said very liberal things like, “you have heard it said thus..(quoting scripture), but I tell you this..(contradicting and superseeding scripture! ah! what a crazy liberal nut who cares nothing about orthodox judaism! This is our Jesus, he was not a fundamentalist, he was not conservative in very many ways – he was a radical. He was with the least, the outcasts, not whispering in the ears of the political leaders of the day. Anyway, I’ve gotten all worked up.
I just wish that people would rethink their accessment of christian liberals as humanists. Does God not care about humans?! Is it against God’s will to care for God’s people? For most christian liberals it is their faith that drives them to support social issues – if you take someone who is not a Westerner who grew up in the church and have them read some of the Gospels, they will tell you that Jesus was about the poor, the outcast, was a healer, and more than anything wanted people to know that the FAther loved him and that the Father loved them.
The orthodox stuff came down the pike much later. If it is the unquestionable center of your faith, then please stop refering to yourself as a follower of Christ and take on a more appropriate moniker such as a ‘follower of christianity’ or Westminster.
peace
Craig, Jesus never contradicted scripture. He expounded on it and explained it to those who did not understand.
Craig,
What Jim has said is true. Jesus did not contridict scripture. Your view of Scripture reveals your presuppositions. You are the one my friend that needs to rethink your position on these things.
tr
Of course, that’s exactly what creationists do, especially when they try to dismiss the Second Testament of God as “evolutionism” and claim to know “creationism” is correct, though God’s creation denies it. Right?
God’s creation denies “creationism?” Typically Ed, I believe that “Word mean things,” but in your case, not always so… ??? I have no idea what you are saying here.
tr
We Christians believe God to be the creator, and that therefore creation is another testament of God — infallible in its way. Creationists completely disregard creation as a source of information about creation, about how God created, or about God. For example, rather than say “I don’t know everything; God’s creation plainly evidences evolution,” you dismiss science, reason, and God’s testament as “evolutionism,” as if by labeling God’s creation something other than from God directly you can impugn its integrity.
I believe you when you say you don’t know what I’m talking about. You don’t know what you’re talking about either. I’ll wager you can’t explain evolution in any rational and accurate way.
Ed,
This comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever:
Let me ask you a question Ed. The Bible says that death came into existence because of sin. Evolution says that there was billions of deaths which eventually led to the existence of man. How do you reconcile the two?
tr