Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Theology for Dummies

I caught the end of a local radio show Monday evening, talking about religion. As usual, the hosts came to a battle of wits unarmed. But then the guest experts, some type of ministers I think, were saying that Hell doesn't exist.

I almost drove off the road.

I'm glad I didn't hear the whole program or I would have lost it completely. As a rule, I don't call radio shows. Why try to make a point in fifteen seconds, only to be talked over, misinterpreted, and cut off? I would go on radio if I could be in the studio, but otherwise it's not a level playing field for the exchange of ideas.

But I almost called in. These liberal theology jokers are not speaking for me or for most of historical Christianity when they say that heaven and hell are a state of being here on earth. I wanted to tell the listeners that these guys don't represent Biblical doctrine.

This hogwash is a result of a naturalistic (anti-supernatural) bent that has perverted the Bible's message. It discounts everything from Creation to prophecy, from miracles (up to and including the Resurrection) to the afterlife.

I wanted to call in and ask these charlatans:
  • Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
  • Do you believe that Jesus walked on water or raised the dead back to life?
  • Do you believe the first several chapters of Genesis records actual events (Creation and the Flood)?
  • Do you believe that Jesus died to pay for the sins of humanity?
  • Do you believe the books of the Bible are written by the authors the Church claims?
  • Do you believe Jesus provides the only path to God?
  • Do you agree with most (any?) of the historical doctrinal positions of the Church?

And then I wanted to sit back and hear them admit: "No, not really."

In a nutshell, while Biblical doctrine puts the emphasis on the spiritual and the hereafter, liberal theology, which almost always discounts anything supernatural, puts almost all of its eggs the "here and now" basket. Under that system, social justice and personal enlightenment outweigh forgiveness of sins. Punishment for sin becomes a moot point, because God has become the limp-wristed unjust god of passivity who has no working answer for evil in the world. Jesus didn't die to pay that ransom, he just died to be a good moral example. God isn't God, he's a helpless by-stander. What a pitiful sentiment.

Liberal theology, in short, is a cancer that turns well meaning Christians into empty-headed religious hobbyists. I'm not even sure how (or why) they call themselves Christians.

2 comments:

Tuomo Lindgren said...

Greetings from Finland.
My answers are (sorry about the poor english. I don't write in my mothertongue)

Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus? - Yes I do.

Do you believe that Jesus walked on water or raised the dead back to life? - Yes I do.

Do you believe the first several chapters of Genesis records actual events (Creation and the Flood)? - I believe God created the world but not exactly the way it has been written in book of Moses.

Do you believe that Jesus died to pay for the sins of humanity? - Yes I do.

Do you believe the books of the Bible are written by the authors the Church claims? - Does it really make a difference - if I believe it is word of God and if I know that writings are canonical it does not matter whether letter was written Paul or one of his followers. The scientific research of the Bible is good thing.

Do you believe Jesus provides the only path to God? - Yes I do.

Do you agree with most (any?) of the historical doctrinal positions of the Church? - I do agree the common creed or confession that we use in every sunday service, and in babtism.

Thumper said...

Is it consistent to believe in the miracles of Jesus but reject the miracles of the creation story or prophetic miracles of the Biblical texts?

I believe that the only objections skeptics have to the Bible are the absolute refusal to accept fulfilled prophecy as such (because that would be a miracle) and the desperate need to discredit the authorship (to cast doubt wherever possible).

I believe in a young Earth creation, though I recognize that the Bible doesn't provide a date. Our assumptions about the date therefore could be ill-informed. But only on the order of thousands or maybe tens of thousands of years, not millions or billions. Much of the appearance of age could also be evidence for a global flood and the scientific assumptions are based on uniformitarianism not observation.