One of my irritations with liberal theology is that it pretends to be slightly different from orthodox Christianity while it is usually 180 degrees apart on the essentials of the faith. Please note that by “liberal theology” I don’t mean the theology of political liberals. I am referring to people who call themselves Christians but deny the essentials of the historic faith (i.e., the kinds of things countless martyrs died for).
For example, claiming that Jesus is one of many paths to God isn’t a little different than saying He is the only way, it is the opposite. There is either one way or there is not one way.
Claiming that Jesus isn’t God isn’t a little different than saying He is God, it is the opposite. He is either God or He is not God.
Claiming that the original writings of the Bible were not inspired by God isn’t just a little different than saying they were inspired by God, it is the opposite. The Bible is God’s Word or it is not God’s Word. It makes roughly 3,000 claims to speak for God, so if liberal theologians think those are all false then why do they bother with the Book at all?
Claiming that miracles never happen (Virgin birth, loaves & fishes, healings, the physical resurrection, etc.) isn’t just a little different than saying they did happen, it is the opposite.
Claiming that marriage can be for two men or two women isn’t a little different than saying it is between a man and a woman, it is the opposite. It is claiming that marriage is not just between a man and a woman and that “marriage” is now whatever we want to define it to be.
Liberal theology claims the opposite of what historic, orthodox Christianity claims regarding the essentials of the faith. They are entitled to their opinions, of course, but it is disingenuous and misleading for them to call themselves Christians while espousing those beliefs.
They have invented their own religion, which is their right. It would just be less confusing if they would give it a new name. And it would be more intellectually honest to stop taking money from people who do believe in the essentials that those denominations were founded upon.
As Total Transformation would say, they appear to worship a fictional Gandhi-Christ. It appears to me that the most accurate description would be that of a Hindu sect (nothing personal, Hindus!).
Filed under: Apologetics, False teachers, Favorites | Tagged: Bible, God, Politics, religion
Neil – How do you *know* that your way is the only way? This is a serious question. I don’t pretend to be a religious scholar – far from it, but it seems that you made your decision and now have faith that it was the correct decision. I don’t understand how that is any different than Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.
They all, just like you, have faith that their “way” is the only way. I know you are picking on people that really don’t have faith in anything except that there are gullible people out there that will send them money – meaning they don’t really believe in anything but the almighty dollar. At least that’s what I got out of your post. Give the people something to believe in that fits with their lifestyle (so they won’t need any effort to fit in) and they’ll send money…
If that’s not what you were saying then I missed the point.
Another question – How can you respect people of other faiths if you truly believe they will never get to heaven? They believe they will – How does that make them any different than you?
Mark,
Thanks for the thoughtful questions.
My beef here was with those who claim to be Christians but deny what Christians have historically believed in. These people deny the vows they made when they became pastors, yet they didn’t have the integrity to quit and go into another line of work.
Is money their motive? Maybe. I try to stay away from guessing their motives. I’m just pointing out that what they say can’t be reconciled with orthodox Christianity. Again, their views aren’t just a little different, they are the opposite.
You are correct that many people think they are right. The truth claims of various religions are irreconcilable – that is, the essential claims of more than one can’t be right. Either Jesus is God (Christianity) or He isn’t (everything else). He can’t be God and not God. Either we are reincarnated (Hinduism) or we die once and face judgment (Christianity and others), but we can’t do both. I could give lots more examples, but you get the idea.
So what do we do when we disagree on something? We look at the evidence. Instead of shouting louder or threatening to kill people if they don’t convert, we can calmly and rationally share the evidence for what we believe and why we believe it.
In the case of Christianity, I was convinced by the evidence for the reliability of the Bible and for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, among other things. I examined the claims of other religions and found them to be in error.
Does that mean I am right? No, but it does mean my beliefs are based on evidence and not some “blind faith.” I have had pleasant conversations about religion with people from every major world religion and cult plus countless atheists and agnostics.
I respect people with other beliefs because they are humans made in the image of God and I am commanded to love them. I don’t judge them for not believing. I didn’t become a believer due to being smarter or better behaved than anyone else. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. I wasn’t a believer until God opened my eyes to his truth. I pray that many of these people will view the evidence for themselves and choose to repent and believe in Jesus. It is a great place to be.
Sorry for the long answer!
Thanks for the link.
I definitely understand your post.
I think my problem, Neil, with this post is the notion that “they” disagree with orthodox Christianity.
Whose orthodox Christianity? You see, that’s my problem with mainstream churches, too – they depart from Orthodox and orthoprax (right use of that word?) Christianity, as far as I’m concerned. But when I use the terms orthodoxy or orthopraxy, I’m referring to what I perceive to be a more biblically pure and historically accurate vision of Christianity.
I claim the anabaptist theology (although I was raised Baptist), which is one of the groups that sought to embrace the Early Church (as described in the bible) model of Christianity and rejected many of the traditions that had accumulated over the years.
A virgin birth does not receive any great emphasis in the Bibles version of Jesus and the early church. Understand, I DO believe that Mary was a virgin, but I’m saying that I don’t think that elevating a Virgin Birth to the level of “essentials” is, well, essential.
Anabaptists tend to be more about orthopraxy (how we live out what Jesus and the Bible teach us). Therefore, passages such as Matthew 25 (sheep and the goats, “what you do for the least…”), the Sermon on the Mount, the book of James…how we live out the kingdom of God are the more essential elements of our faith as oppoed to a belief in a Triune God, a Virgin birth or a six day creation or even a bunch of talk about taking the Bible “literally.”
So WHOSE orthodoxy and orthopraxy are we talking about when we claim that “liberal theologians” are those who are set against orthodoxy?
“As Total Transformation would say, they appear to worship a fictional Gandhi-Christ.”
Smiling as I write this…you DO know that many of those “liberal theologians” would suggest that many traditionalists appear to worship a fictional Adam Smith/Rambo-Christ…?
Hi Dan,
I thought I gave quite a few examples of what I consider essentials of orthodox Christianity and how the liberal theologians / false teachers believe the opposite. Those who don’t believe the opposite, by definition, wouldn’t be in that camp.
I wouldn’t consider the 6 days view to be a litmus test, as that could depend on interpretations (as Chance pointed out separately).
I do consider the Virgin Birth to be an essential. Otherwise, Jesus would not be God (and thus not a suitable atonement for all of us) and the Bible would have quite a few blatant errors (among other things). More here – http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-12-25
I don’t follow the reasoning where you concluded that the verses about practice are completely reliable but those about miracles are not (perhaps I misunderstood you?). I could make a case that loving your enemies is more miraculous than the Virgin Birth! I tend to ignore claims that I take the Bible too literally until someone brings up a specific passage.
Thanks for the laugh on the Rambo-Christ! That would be a fun debate to have with the liberal theologians sometime.
“Smiling as I write this…you DO know that many of those “liberal theologians” would suggest that many traditionalists appear to worship a fictional Adam Smith/Rambo-Christ…?”
HA! Nice Dan. Good one.
Well, I worship (sort of) Adam Smith. Definitely worship Ayn Rand.
Neil,
Love the graphic.
You correctly point out that those things are 1) in direct opposition to fundamental Christian tenets and 2) unsupported by the Bible. My question, as an atheist, is about the materiality of those differences. Obviously, the divinity of Jesus (and related concepts, i.e. the Virgin Birth) is fundamental to Christianity… otherwise, the name of your religion isn’t even a divine being.
As I recall, though, there is some legitimate theological debate as to what 1st and 2d century writings are “the Bible.” There is also a difference between what Jesus said (i.e. divine Truth) and what his followers said (as they are human and fallible).
There are also parts of the Bible which contradict or limit earlier parts. As I recall, it is read to be internally consistent first (i.e. go with the interpretation that allows both passages to be correct); if such is not possible, the later passage overrules the first passage. Of course, if the first passage is divinely inspired, there is the question of why it is later overruled.
“Obviously, the divinity of Jesus (and related concepts, i.e. the Virgin Birth) is fundamental to Christianity… otherwise, the name of your religion isn’t even a divine being.”
Why? Why is it that the God who created the Universe (if you’re so inclined to believe) could not choose to be born by a woman that’s been around the block a time or two? By a whore? If God is capable of miraculously impregnating a virgin (as I believe), why is God not just as able to miraculously be born of a man and woman?
Just askin’…
I’ll let the Christians give a better answer, but here goes:
He certainly could choose to be born to a whore, but 1) He chose (past tense) to be born to a virgin and 2) Mary’s virginity and purity made her an appropriate vessel (if you will) for the birth of the Saviour.
Point (2) leads into point (1). While humans and God are possessed of free will, all choices are not necessarily appropriate or right. Given that the Bible condemns sexual immorality a few zillion times, it would be hard to imagine God choosing a sexually immoral woman as the mother of His son. A virgin – a woman who lives her life according to Biblical dictates – is an appropriate mother, one who is capable of raising the Son of God.
To analogise: an omnipotent God is certainly capable of having His son born to an illiterate woman who lives on an isolated island. If He did that, though, His son would never be able to spread the word throughout the world, as he would never encounter more than a few dozen people in his lifetime, all of whom are illiterate and incapable of describing the miracle beyond their isolated island. Objectively, it would be quite silly for God to be born to such persons. Likewise, it makes no sense for God to be born to a woman who is the epitome of everything condemned by His word.
How can you logically doubt the nature of the mother God chose for His son while believing in the divinity of His son? If God says, “Here is the girl who is born without sin – who is therefore appropriate for my purposes – who is the mother of my son,” how can you believe the ultimate clause but deny the veracity of the others?
why is God not just as able to miraculously be born of a man and woman?
Because then he wouldn’t be the son of God. He would be the son of a man and a woman, not of God and woman.
Oooh! Provocative questions. I like those.
Bridget, are you sure you’re an atheist?
(Confession: I do pray that one day you’ll go from being my favorite atheist blogger to my favorite new Christian blogger!)
I tend to agree with your analysis. God has an almost predictable pattern of using the least likely person – all the more to show who was really getting things done! In a culture dominated by first born males, he uses Jacob (2nd born), Joseph (11th?), David (8th?), etc. He used Ruth (she got a whole book of the Bible!), one of the despised Moabite clan, as part of Jesus’ family line. The disciples were a rather unimpressive bunch. God redeems the most unlikely people again and again. And on and on.
So God could have used anyone, I suppose, but I’m pretty sure He wanted to make it clear that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Being born of a virgin made things dicey for Joseph and especially Mary, but it made it more clear that Jesus wasn’t “just” human.”
“As I recall, though, there is some legitimate theological debate as to what 1st and 2d century writings are “the Bible.” There is also a difference between what Jesus said (i.e. divine Truth) and what his followers said (as they are human and fallible).”
There is a terrific little book titled, “God Wrote a Book” that explains it better than I can, but most of the New Testament had little debate about it (the Gospels, most of Paul’s writings). There were a few books that hadn’t been as widely distributed that had some debate about them but ultimately received wide support.
The orthodox Christian view is that the whole thing is God’s Word (and that is what the Bible claims), and Jesus quoted liberally (heh) from the Old Testament and explained it as if He had written it. The Bible was written by men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so the original writings are considered to be inerrant and infallible (some debate there among Christians, but I think that is a fair summary of historic Christianity). Yes, men make mistakes, but they don’t always make mistakes. Some things get done perfectly, and if God wanted his Word transmitted perfectly it would have happened.
“There are also parts of the Bible which contradict or limit earlier parts. As I recall, it is read to be internally consistent first (i.e. go with the interpretation that allows both passages to be correct); if such is not possible, the later passage overrules the first passage. Of course, if the first passage is divinely inspired, there is the question of why it is later overruled.”
I am familiar with lots of difficulties but no outright contradictions. You are right that the fair way to read any text is to give it the benefit of the doubt. I’m not aware of many things being overruled other than things like Peter’s vision in Acts 10 where he is told that previously unclean foods could be eaten. But those were ceremonial laws that were no longer needed once Jesus had come.
If you have any specific examples, let me know – sometimes it is makes more sense when we work through those.
I tend to agree with your analysis. God has an almost predictable pattern of using the least likely person – all the more to show who was really getting things done! In a culture dominated by first born males, he uses Jacob (2nd born), Joseph (11th?), David (8th?), etc. He used Ruth (she got a whole book of the Bible!), one of the despised Moabite clan, as part of Jesus’ family line. The disciples were a rather unimpressive bunch. God redeems the most unlikely people again and again. And on and on.
Unlikely in the traditional, cultural snobby sense, not in the sense of the Beatitudes (the meek, the righteous, etc).
I’ll get specific examples for you, eventually. As a general issue, Paul (and his whole celibacy thing) has sort of thrown me: it appears to be in direct contradiction to everything from Genesis onwards that discusses marriage and men and women. (It seems more likely that God would use a virgin for the birth of His son because she has not had extramarital sex and, not being wed, the child is certainly His, than God using a virgin because He exalts virginity above the marital relationship – while the Bible is filled with things like “be fruitful.” After all, if everyone lived as Paul did, the human race would come to a grinding halt in short order.)
I’ll find more sometime.
Bridget, are you sure you’re an atheist?
(Confession: I do pray that one day you’ll go from being my favorite atheist blogger to my favorite new Christian blogger!)
Yes. You and Queen of Swords both…. sigh.
Add me to that list Bridget
Will do…. sigh.
Haha! I was going to ask the same thing of you Bridget! You are always so well spoken and obviously well read and seem to have a wonderful understanding of Scripture. I don’t really know much of you other than the comments I’ve read of yours but I’m curious about why you aren’t a Christian considering some of the things you’ve said. (And I mean no offense by this at all – it’s hard to convey things in writing sometimes and I’m always afraid it will come across wrong!) I pray that you’ll join us one day too!
I almost can’t remember what I was going to say about the original post after reading all the comments, Neil!
I did want to say that I loved the way you worded that and it’s so true – if it’s not the same then it’s the opposite! I’m with you – I also wish they’d just call themselves something other than “Christians” if they are going to disregard Scripture in so many ways.
There are some great discussions going on here! I don’t think I could add anything new so I’ll just say I’m enjoying reading what you’re writing, Neil! You have a wonderful way of answering questions!!
So God wouldn’t use a whore for God’s purposes? As part of Jesus’ lineage – like Rahab, for instance?
As I said, I believe that the Bible says Mary was a virgin and accept it, I just don’t that to be very significant, biblically speaking. That’s one of those things (like the Triune nature of God) that people have looked at the Bible and decided that it is an essential, it’s nothing the Bible itself calls an essential.
Your suppositions (God would have to use a clean vessel, etc, etc) are okay, but there’s nothing biblically compelling to them. In fact, if God uses repeatedly the “least likely person” then certainly a whore would be the way to go…
Again, on the Mary issue, it’s not even that I disagree with the traditional view, I’m just saying that elevating that to an essential is not supported biblically.
How would a whore suit His purposes better than a virgin?
If Jesus is the son of God, there cannot be any doubt that He is born of a woman and of God, not of a woman and a man. A whore or a married woman would leave doubt as to ancestry. I cannot think of a better way to say, “This man is the son of God” than to have him be born of a virgin. Then again, I’m not the most creative of sorts.
If I recall correctly, the miracle of the virgin birth was used to 1) show that God works miracles and 2) let humans know when the Son of God was born into the world (Isaiah 7:14). Jesus’s birth was both miraculous (which serves the purpose of underscoring that this is no ordinary man, but the son of God) and prophesised in the Old Testament.
Whether or not God could have chosen alternate routes is irrelevant*. Surely, He did not need to send His son to earth in order to save humanity. Does that mean that the divinity of Jesus Christ is not a central part of Christianity? Nevertheless, under Christian theology, He did send His Son, who would be known by birth to a virgin, to save humans.
*Nevertheless, as all humans are born with original sin – surely a Biblical tenet! – it is utterly illogical to assume that the Saviour could be the son of someone born with sin. The Bible is big on carrying sin throughout generations – and blessings through generations as well. (As the Queen of Swords likes to say, anyone who messes with the Chosen People goes down in flames.)
Perhaps we disagree on the idea of “centrality” of faith. To me, if Mary wasn’t a virgin, the whole idea of the divinity of Christ collapses. He wasn’t prophesised before His birth; He was born with sin (being the offspring of a woman born with sin); and his birth was not divine (i.e. not certainly, without a doubt, the son of God).
To all ~ it’s really just logic & philosophy.
In fact, if God uses repeatedly the “least likely person” then certainly a whore would be the way to go…
No, not really. He uses those who are socially castigated but full of grace. Hopefully, not being 10 years old and monarchs, we can distinguish between social caste and personal virtue. He uses virtuous people for His purposes, and underscores their virtue (as opposed to their social standing) by taking those who are virtuous but not at the top of the food chain.
The virgin birth did fulfill prophecy. Of course had God chosen to be born of a whore, the prophecy could have been different. However I think watching for a virgin birth is quite a different prophecy for watching for a child born of a whore.
I have to add my name to the list of those who pray for Bridget.
“I’ll get specific examples for you, eventually. As a general issue, Paul (and his whole celibacy thing) has sort of thrown me: it appears to be in direct contradiction to everything from Genesis onwards that discusses marriage and men and women.”
Thanks for the example and let me know if you have more. I read the Paul & marriage thing a little differently.
Paul addresses singleness and marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. It is an interesting passage for several reasons.
First, Paul “the feminist” (in the good way) is at it again – noting that the wife’s body belongs to the husband AND the husband’s body belongs to the wife (not in the sense of “do whatever you want with it” but that they belong to each other, not someone else). This is in radical contrast to the “women as property” view in the Middle East.
I’m probably over-simpifying here, but I read his basic message as this: Marriage is fine and is better than burning with lust, but make sure you marry a Christian. Singleness is good because you have more time to serve the Lord, but don’t have sex.
I tend to think that Paul preferred singleness because of his lifestyle. If there was ever a person on a dangererous mission it was Paul (5 whippings, shipwrecks, stoning, jail, etc. – we’re talking one seriously unpopular guy here).
I do like how Paul gave dignity and worth to singleness (temporary or permanent) in a culture that prized marriage.
BTW, Peter had a wife, and other apostles may have as well. Tradition holds that they were crucified together (I say “tradition” because it isn’t in the Bible, but I tend to think it is true because it was from a reliable source – one of the early church historians, I think.)
I need to do a whole post on this sometime!
“I tend to think that Paul preferred singleness because of his lifestyle.”
Don’t forget that Paul and many other believers thought Christ’s return was imminent and would occur in their lifetime. With such a big event coming and so much evangelism to do, it would make sense to avoid marriage and the arising obligations that might detract from evangelism.
The virgin birth did fulfill prophecy. Of course had God chosen to be born of a whore, the prophecy could have been different. However I think watching for a virgin birth is quite a different prophecy for watching for a child born of a whore.
As usual, SST says it better in about 1/10th as many words.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion…. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
I definitely read that as considering marriage as secondary to chastity. TT’s explanation makes sense (i.e. if Christ is going to return soon, you ought to convert everyone right now and, of course, who has time for marriage and offspring?).
Neil, looking forward to that post.
[...] blogs about people being frustrated with our churches in this country -two of them I read today – 4Simpons Blog and Wit or Wisdom (I’d recommend reading both of [...]
Neil, It is interesting that the Liberals such as Osama Obama claim that we have “hijacked” the Christian faith when the reverse is true. Mark above doesn’t seem to get the point that if you believe something to be true, that you must necessarily believe things in contradiction to it to be untrue. If your belief includes matters of our eternal condition and being lost in need of salvation and others don’t believe that, you automatically believe that they are lost, ipso facto. This is not theology, but logic.
It is equally true that if I believe that you must be re-incarnated 100’s of times to reach your state of perfection (Hinduism). It would be either hypocrisy, ignorance or lack of faith on my part to say that a Christian has a valid path as well.
Sheesh, I think Mark demonstrates a logic on the topic of Faith that has to bypass the concept of faith altogether to get to his own conclusions. He has every reason to be nice and get along with other beliefs as we do, but Mark don’t confuse that with a belief system. …..steve
…who’s Mark and what did he say?
Mark had the first comment above.
Thank you, Neil, I missed that. And thank you, too, for your unflagging grace and welcoming of me, a sinner who sometimes disagrees with you, to your little corner of the world.
My pleasure, Dan. I’m glad you’ve joined. Everyone tends to keep their comments lively but gracious here!
Incredible conversation.
Just to distinguish myself from the “false” Mark, (LOL)
My problem is with those who say the Bible should be taken seriously but not Literally. They are the ones who say they don’t believe certain stories in the Bible, such as The deluge, or Jonah and the Whale, etc. But believe the Bible, “basically”.
My question, which they cannot or will not answer is this:
Who decides which parts of the Bible are true, and which parts are myth? If you can’t believe one part, or even one word of the Bible, you have to toss the whole thing. Any part that can be proven untrue, makes the entire Bible suspect.
[...] of fake Christians. You do your movement no good to have false unity with those who believe the opposite of what you do. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Last Shot – Some People Just [...]
[...] Posted on January 5, 2010 by Neil Chuck Currie claims to be a Christian Reverend but teaches the opposite of what Jesus did on virtually any spiritual topic. I’ve addressed his false [...]
[...] But some are better fakes, in the sense that they have a veneer of Christianity but really oppose Jesus on most important issues. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful [...]