Liberal Theology

Dont forget that homosexuality is a good thing, and shoud be promoted. And trees, the moon and sun and shrubs and mountains should be worshiped because of course the native americans worshipped them, and babies should be killed if they arent wanted.

Yep...ultra liberal theology has soooo much to offer. :tonofbricks:

 

My wife and my mom are from New York; we lived in New York since our marriage.

First, liberalism is not merely a denial of key doctrines, but it is a worldview/thought process related to the enlightenment. You can have people who believe in the sanctity of marriage and are pro-life, but they are still liberal.

I live in a state where the SBCers have two conventions. A liberal convention and a conservative. Not all liberals are raging liberals, most are nice people. However, their worldview is more in the framework of the enlightenment than in the Gospel.

Having said that, Joel Osteen is a liberal.

 

Osteen is a motivational speaker pretending to be a Christian preacher and he attracts weak minded folk. Any strong conservative fundamental Christian easily spots his errors and stays away. We should warn those weak brothers and sisters.

 

The "Emergent" church and "post-traditional theology" rear their ugly heads daily. They say the bible is inaccurate at best if not totally unusable. "Adam was not a real human being and only a story". This is what happens when we use the intellect above revelation by the Holy Spirit. Knowlede can puff up and blind people of simple truths.

 

From my experience Liberal theology, or liberal theology, aren't isolated to a geography or denomination.

 

I resent being put into the same catagory as Osteen. He's a shame to Christianity on the whole. And some of what you have classified as "liberal" theology, isn't Christian at all, but I don't think location has much to do with it as the sinfulness of all mankind does.

Make sure when you accuse one of liberal theology that you aren't lumping a bunch of nonChristians into the bucket with those of us who believe we should be good stewards of our environment, don't believe that person hood is conferred at the moment sperm meets egg, that homosexuals need a heart change that leads to a behavior change and shunning them from the church won't lead to that, or that all mankind has sinned and come short of the glory of God and that is is mankind itself that seeks to make one sin greater than another.

Osteen is an idiot. I'd rather listen to Rob Bell.

 

I’m currently reading a book titled That You May Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John (New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology) by Christopher D. Bass. Bass is reformed in his theology.

In chapter 4 of this work, Bass spends a lot of time and effort trying to make the case that 1 John 2:20, 27 is a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-40 i.e.: the New Covenant. The argument is that John in saying that by being anointed (by the Holy Spirit), believers will know “all things” thus the church fulfills Jer 31:34 and by extension the New Covenant is a present reality (in the church). Bass claims that the church, now in receipt of the New Covenant that was once promised to Israel, has a powerful tool in the quest for assurance of salvation in Christ.

It appears from a quick reading to the NICNT commentary of the general letters of Peter and John that reformed theology allows for this interpretation that the church is in receipt of the New Covenant through the work of Christ at the Cross. As a dispie, I find the argument weak, since Jeremiah ch 31 (and To a lesser extent Ezekiel ch 36) specifically mention the recipients of the New Covenant to be ethnic Israel and will include the land promises in the Abrahamic Covenant.

Bass however takes the reformed position to the logical conclusion in his book and basically states that John (1 John 2:18-19) is saying that true believers today do not need to be taught (by their neighbor) to know God since the Holy Spirit will do this. The statements John makes about those who left the faith are simply for illustration and comparison purposes. Those who are truly born again, according to Bass have all of the information they need to know the Lord and fulfill Jer 31 New Covenant terms and conditions. This SolaSaint, would render moot your assertion that John is teaching believers to warn others of doctrinal error, true believers have the truth and know all things, unbelievers have no claim to security and salvation.

I would of course argue that this is not the case, as a believer in the risen Christ I do not claim to know all things. I do know the essentials for salvation; I take John’s warnings to be diligent to in accessing theology and teachings in light of the Scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

I think if you read my statements, I describe liberalism as a worldview, a way of thinking. For that reason, I think it is safe to call Osteen liberal. (I am assuming you are espousing that you are a liberal. If my assumption is wrong, please correct me).

The form of thinking is the same between various thoughts on liberalism. Not all the outworkings of this thinking is the same, but many presuppositions are shared.

Let me illustrate this to clarify my viewpoint. I would classify myself as a conservative. I would also classify Jerry Falwell as a conservative. However, we differ radically in many areas (he is a fundamentalist and I am reformed), but we share enough presuppositions that I would classify both of us as conservative.

Osteen may differ radically from your liberalism, but you both are liberal. You sound more liberal emergent and Osteen is more classically liberal (as if any real label fits him), but you both are liberal.

I hope that clarifies my position.