A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing - Theological Liberalism: The Classic Collection with R.C. Sproul

Summary

The speaker discusses the concept of liberalism, distinguishing between its broad cultural use and its specific theological meaning as a 19th-century movement. He critiques liberal theology for reducing Christianity to ethical teachings and misinterpreting foundational concepts like 'Father' and 'brotherhood.' The talk also examines the reaction to liberalism, known as fundamentalism, and highlights the resurgence of biblical Christianity in contrast to the decline of liberal churches.

Takeaways

• 📚 The speaker discusses the broad concept of liberalism, emphasizing the need to understand such categories due to their frequent and often loose use in culture.
• 🔍 The suffix –ism in 'liberalism' indicates a comprehensive set of ideas, suggesting a foundational philosophy or worldview.
• 🌱 The root 'liber' in liberalism is derived from Latin, meaning 'free,' highlighting the idea of being free thinkers, especially in the context of pursuing truth without being confined by human conventions.
• 🙏 The speaker asserts that true liberalism should not declare independence from God's authority but should seek truth with a zeal for discovering God's truth wherever it may be found.
• 🤔 The speaker criticizes a naive liberalism that fails to critically examine ideas and refuses to form convictions, referencing Erasmus and Luther's debate on skepticism and the certainty of divine truths.
• 🏛 In theology, 'liberalism' refers to a specific 19th-century movement with a defined agenda, distinct from general cultural uses of the term.
• 🌐 The 19th century saw the emergence of comparative religion, leading to an effort to find a common essence in all religions, which liberal theology attempted to identify and emphasize.
• 📉 The speaker argues that 19th-century liberal theology reduced Christianity to ethical teachings, dismissing supernatural elements as non-essential, leading to a loss of the unique aspects of Christian doctrine.
• 🛑 The speaker contends that liberalism in theology is not just a different perspective but is fundamentally anti-Christian, as it rejects the foundational principles of Christianity.
• 📉 The script describes a reaction to liberalism known as fundamentalism, which sought to preserve the essential core of Christianity against liberal reductionism.
• 🌟 The speaker concludes with optimism about the decline of liberalism and the resurgence of biblical Christianity, noting a shift towards conservative and evangelical seminaries and churches.

Q & A

What was the main topic of the lecture given by the speaker at the Episcopalian church in Charleston?

The main topic of the lecture was 'What is liberalism?', which the speaker had to address after being asked to lecture to the adult Sunday school class.

What does the suffix '-ism' attached to a word signify in terms of worldview or philosophy?

The suffix '-ism' signifies a whole cargo of ideas attached to the root, indicating a life and worldview, or a foundational philosophy, suggesting a systematic way of thinking.

What is the Latin root of the word 'liberal' and what does it mean?

The Latin root of the word 'liberal' is 'liber', which means 'free'.

How does the speaker define 'liberal' in the context of being free from human conventions and traditions?

The speaker defines 'liberal' as being able to think critically and being free from the trappings of all human conventions and traditions, with the aim of pursuing truth under the authority of God.

What is the historical definition of 'liberalism' in theology according to the speaker?

In theology, 'liberalism' refers to a specific movement with a defined agenda and theology that occurred in the 19th century in Europe, known as 19th-century liberal theology.

What was the emerging field of study in the 19th century that contributed to the development of liberal theology?

The emerging field of study was the science of comparative religion, which involved the examination of different world religions to find a common essence.

What was the essence of Christianity according to Adolph R. Harnack's popular book 'What is Christianity?'?

According to Harnack, the essence of Christianity could be reduced to two foundational concepts: the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.

What is the speaker's critique of the concepts of 'universal fatherhood of God' and 'universal brotherhood of man'?

The speaker critiques these concepts as being a reduction of Christianity and not actually found in biblical Christianity, arguing that they obscure the unique concepts of adoption and neighborhood as taught in the Bible.

What was the reaction to 19th-century liberal theology known as 'fundamentalism'?

Fundamentalism was a strenuous reaction against liberalism, emphasizing the essential core and non-negotiables of Christianity, and was initially a response of classical Christian scholarship.

How does the speaker describe the current state of theology in relation to 19th-century liberalism?

The speaker describes the current state as the age of neo-liberalism, where the central points of 19th-century theology have triumphed in many circles, institutions, and denominations.

What is the speaker's conclusion about the impact of liberalism on Christianity and the current trend in religious institutions?

The speaker concludes that liberalism is anti-Christian at its core and has provoked a crisis in the church. However, there is a positive trend of decline in liberalism and a reemergence of biblical Christianity in growing conservative and evangelical seminaries and churches.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Defining Liberalism and Its Philosophical Implications

The speaker begins by recounting his experience lecturing on liberalism in a Charleston church, highlighting the challenge of defining such a broad term. He emphasizes the importance of understanding general categories like liberalism, which are often used loosely in culture. The speaker dissects the term, noting its suffix '-ism', which denotes a systematic worldview, and the root 'liber', meaning 'free'. He contrasts the Dutch words 'rechtzinnig' (orthodoxy) and 'vrijzinnig' (liberalism), explaining that while orthodoxy implies correct thinking, liberalism suggests freethinking, critical thinking unfettered by human conventions and traditions. The speaker advocates for a liberalism that respects God's authority while pursuing truth, differentiating this from a liberalism that lacks conviction or critical examination.

05:03

🧐 The Pursuit of Truth and the Critique of Liberalism

The speaker discusses the historical concept of a 'true liberal' as someone eager to pursue truth without being confined by human conventions, contrasting this with a modern misuse of the term that implies a lack of conviction. He criticizes the idea of being open to any idea without critical examination, referencing the debate between Erasmus and Luther, where Erasmus preferred skepticism and academic detachment, while Luther argued for the certainty of divine truths revealed by the Holy Spirit. The speaker asserts that Christianity is built on convictions and affirmations, not on indefinite learning without reaching truth. He also introduces the narrower definition of 'liberalism' in theology, specifically 19th-century liberal theology, which emerged in a context of global awareness and cultural blending, challenging traditional religious beliefs.

10:05

🌏 The Impact of Globalization on 19th Century Theological Liberalism

The speaker explores how the 19th century's increased global awareness and the emergence of comparative religion as an academic field influenced the development of theological liberalism. With the world becoming more interconnected, Western European scholars began to study and compare various world religions, seeking a common essence or 'Wesen'. This quest led to the identification of ethics and values as the core of all religions, with miracles and supernatural elements considered peripheral. The speaker mentions Adolph R. Harnack's work 'What is Christianity?' as an example of this movement, which aimed to distill Christianity to its fundamental ethical teachings, specifically the Sermon on the Mount, rather than its supernatural claims.

15:08

🔍 The Essence of Christianity: A Critique of Liberal Reductionism

The speaker challenges the liberal reduction of Christianity to the concepts of universal fatherhood of God and universal brotherhood of man, arguing that these ideas are not foundational to biblical Christianity. He points out the irony that these core liberal concepts are not actually taught in the Bible. The speaker emphasizes that the Bible teaches a more specific and exclusive concept of fatherhood, reserved for those who address God as 'Father' through faith in Christ, a radical departure from traditional Jewish practice. The speaker also discusses the unique Christian concept of sonship and daughterhood through adoption into God's family, which is obscured by the liberal emphasis on universal brotherhood.

20:09

👨‍👧‍👦 The Biblical View of Brotherhood and Neighborhood

The speaker clarifies the biblical teachings on brotherhood and neighborhood, asserting that the Bible does not support the idea of universal brotherhood of man but rather a universal neighborhood. He explains that while Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ, non-Christians are still neighbors to be treated with dignity and justice. The speaker uses the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate Jesus' teaching that everyone is our neighbor, and the great commandment to love God and one's neighbor as oneself emphasizes this universal obligation. The speaker also discusses the reaction to 19th-century liberalism, known as fundamentalism, which sought to uphold the essential core of Christianity against liberal reductionism.

25:11

🛡️ The Fundamentalist Response to Liberal Theology

The speaker describes the fundamentalist movement as a response to the perceived anti-Christian tendencies of 19th-century liberal theology. Fundamentalists aimed to identify and defend the non-negotiable principles of Christianity, such as the resurrection of Christ, against liberal reinterpretations. The speaker notes that while there are many theological issues open for discussion among Christians, there are foundational beliefs that define the essence of Christianity. He cites Benjamin Warfield's assertion that liberals rejected not just peripheral matters but foundational principles, making the conflict between liberalism and fundamentalism a critical one for the identity and future of the Christian church.

30:13

🏛️ The Triumph of Neo-Liberalism and Its Challenges to Christianity

The speaker warns that the central tenets of 19th-century liberalism are not only still present but have gained significant influence in modern theology, a period he refers to as the age of neo-liberalism. He criticizes contemporary theologians and scholars for their hostility towards traditional Christian doctrines and for promoting a reinterpretation of Christianity that aligns with modern philosophical systems. The speaker mentions Rudolph Bultmann's view that the supernatural elements of Christianity are incompatible with modern living and must be recast, and Emil Brunner's assessment that the driving force behind liberal theology is essentially 'unbelief'. The speaker calls for honesty and integrity in recognizing the anti-Christian nature of this theology.

35:16

📉 The Decline of Liberal Churches and the Rise of Biblical Christianity

The speaker concludes by observing a cultural and religious shift away from liberalism and towards a re-embracing of biblical Christianity. He notes the decline of liberal churches and the growth of conservative and evangelical seminaries and churches. The speaker emphasizes that the battle against liberalism is a fight for the very essence of biblical Christianity and expresses hope that Christians will recognize and resist the threat posed by liberal theology. He highlights the importance of preaching and living out the teachings of Scripture and maintaining the core beliefs of Christianity in the face of liberal reinterpretations.

Keywords

💡Liberalism

Liberalism in the script is discussed as both a broad philosophical concept and a specific theological stance. Defined as a foundational philosophy or worldview, it is associated with the Latin root 'liber,' meaning 'free.' The speaker contrasts this with the narrower definition of 19th-century liberal theology, which is fundamentally anti-supernatural and focused on ethical teachings rather than the supernatural elements of Christianity. The script critiques this form of liberalism as reducing Christianity to a set of ethical principles, thus stripping it of its core beliefs.

💡Essentialism

Essentialism in the script refers to the search for the fundamental essence or core of a belief system, particularly in the context of 19th-century liberal theology. The script mentions the German word 'Wesen,' meaning 'being or essence,' to illustrate this pursuit. The speaker argues that liberal theologians attempted to distill Christianity to its most basic ethical principles, ignoring its supernatural aspects, which the speaker believes is a misrepresentation of the faith.

💡Anti-supernatural

Anti-supernatural is a term used in the script to describe the orientation of 19th-century liberal theology. It suggests a rejection of supernatural elements such as miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection in favor of a focus on ethics and human values. The speaker criticizes this approach as an attempt to rationalize Christianity in a way that aligns with modern skepticism of the supernatural, thereby diluting its message.

💡Adoption

In the script, 'adoption' is a theological concept that describes the believer's relationship with God as children through faith in Christ. The speaker emphasizes that this concept of sonship and daughterhood is rooted in adoption, contrasting it with the broader and less specific idea of the 'universal fatherhood of God' proposed by liberal theologians. The script argues that the concept of adoption is central to understanding the unique relationship believers have with God, which is lost in liberal interpretations.

💡Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism, as discussed in the script, is a reaction to 19th-century liberal theology. It is initially presented as a defense of classical Christian scholarship and the essential doctrines of Christianity against the perceived reductionism of liberal theology. The speaker notes that fundamentalism originally sought to define the non-negotiable precepts of Christianity, such as the resurrection of Christ, in contrast to the liberal tendency to reinterpret or dismiss these foundational beliefs.

💡Neo-liberalism

Neo-liberalism in the script refers to a resurgence or modern continuation of 19th-century liberal theology. The speaker suggests that the core principles of liberalism have not only persisted but have gained significant influence in contemporary theological circles. This term is used to describe the ongoing presence of liberal ideas in modern interpretations of Christianity, which the speaker views as a threat to traditional Christian beliefs.

💡Antinomian

Antinomian is used in the script to describe a stance that is hostile to the law of God, particularly in reference to liberal theology. The speaker argues that liberal theology, by focusing on ethics and downplaying or dismissing supernatural elements of faith, inherently opposes the biblical law. This term is used to highlight the perceived conflict between liberal interpretations and the scriptural teachings of Christianity.

💡Pelagianism

Pelagianism, mentioned in the script, refers to a hereetical doctrine that suggests humans can achieve salvation without divine grace, which was opposed by St. Augustine. The speaker uses this term to illustrate one of the three generic types of theologies, positioning 19th-century liberal theology as akin to Pelagianism in its denial of core Christian beliefs about salvation and the necessity of Christ's atonement.

💡Atonement

Atonement is a central Christian doctrine discussed in the script, referring to the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for the redemption of humanity's sins. The speaker criticizes liberal theology for its rejection or downplaying of the atonement, arguing that this undermines the core message of Christianity. The script presents the atonement as a non-negotiable element of Christian belief that is essential to understanding the faith.

💡Scriptural Authority

Scriptural Authority in the script represents the belief in the Bible as the ultimate source of divine revelation and moral guidance. The speaker argues that liberal theology undermines this authority by reinterpreting or dismissing biblical teachings that do not align with modern sensibilities. This term is used to emphasize the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings as a foundation of Christian faith.

💡Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism, while not explicitly named in the script, is implied in the discussion of how liberal theology adapts to modern culture and philosophical systems. The speaker suggests that liberal theologians may be influenced by a cultural relativism that leads them to question or reinterpret biblical teachings in light of contemporary values and beliefs, which the speaker views as a departure from the timeless truths of Christianity.

Highlights

Liberalism defined as a broad and foundational philosophy with a systematic approach to thinking.

The suffix –ism indicates a whole framework of ideas and worldview attached to the root word.

The Latin root 'liber' signifies 'free', suggesting the essence of liberalism is about freedom of thought.

Authentic liberalism is described as the pursuit of truth without being constrained by human conventions.

The contrast between 'liberal' and 'conservative', and the desire for correct thinking (rechtzinnig) over mere orthodoxy.

19th-century liberalism in theology is characterized by an anti-supernatural orientation and a focus on ethics.

The emergence of comparative religion as a science, leading to the search for a common essence in all religions.

Adolph R. Harnack's reduction of Christianity to the concepts of universal fatherhood of God and universal brotherhood of man.

The critique of Harnack's reductionism, pointing out the irony that the two core concepts are not found in biblical Christianity.

The biblical concept of God as Father is rooted in adoption through Christ, not in the natural creation of humanity.

The New Testament teaches a universal neighborhood, not a universal brotherhood, emphasizing the dignity and treatment of all people.

Fundamentalism as a reaction to liberalism, emphasizing the non-negotiable precepts and principles of Christianity.

The historical debate between Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, and Augustinianism as the three generic forms of theology.

The claim that 19th-century liberalism is not just unchristian but anti-Christian, and its current resurgence in neo-liberalism.

The shift in seminary education from liberal to conservative and evangelical, reflecting a cultural and religious awakening to liberalism's shortcomings.

The decline of liberal churches and the growth of biblical Christianity, indicating a reemergence of traditional values and teachings.

The final point that liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all, and the importance of recognizing and fighting against its teachings.

Transcripts

Recently, I made a trip to Charleston, South Carolina and had the opportunity to speak

in an Episcopalian church there in downtown Charleston, and when I got to the church they

asked me if I would lecture to the adult Sunday school class there, on the question, what

is liberalism?

That's kind of a strange question because it's so broad in its makeup.

And, I had to scramble for a while to try to get specific about answering a question

as almost hopelessly broad as that question is, what is liberalism?

And, I do think it's important that we understand some of these general categories because they're

used so frequently and sometimes quite loosely in our culture.

So let's take the word and put it here on the board, liberalism.

Let me start at the end rather than the beginning, and notice the last three letters of the word

–ism.

Anytime we see that suffix attached to a word, we know that that suffix –ism, means that

a whole cargo of ideas is attached to the root, that an -ism is a life and worldview,

a foundational philosophy.

It's one thing to believe in human existence; it's another thing to believe in existentialism.

We all are humans, that doesn't mean we all embrace humanism.

So, as soon as we put that those three letters –ism, we're talking now about a philosophy

or a system, a systematic way of thinking.

So, there is such a thing as a whole framework with an -ism attached to it that is called

liberalism.

Now, to understand the –ism, we have to go now and look at the root.

There is another word contained in here.

The root word is the word, liber.

If you know your Latin, you know that that word means, or meant originally simply "free."

You get the word, liber arbitrium, which means "free will" in Latin.

You have the word libertas, which is the word from which we get the English word liberty.

All of these words come from this Latin root liber, which means "free."

I remember when I was studying in Europe and trying to learn with great difficulty the

Dutch language, that a couple of words that I had to learn for my studies were the following

two words, one of those words was the word rechtzinnig, which means "orthodoxy."

And, literally rechtzinnig means "right or correct thinking."

And another word that I had to learn was the word vrijzinnig, and vrijzinnig means "liberal

or free thinking."

Now, please be careful here, I don't mean this contrast.

Usually we contrast the word "liberal" with the word "conservative."

And, I just gave you two different words, one that was the word for "orthodox" and the

other one for the word for "liberal."

And what I liked about the Dutch word for "orthodox" was that the meaning of the term

was "right thinking."

And I hope and trust that whether we are conservative or classify ourselves as liberals or moderates

or whatever we are, that we all want to be rechtzinnig, that is, we all want to be correct

in our thinking and proper in our thinking.

Now, to be liberal, however, in that sense, of the language, in the Germanic sense, is

as the Latin sense implies, to be, quote, "a freethinker."

Well, free from what?

Well, I think in its most noble and virtuous sense to be liberal is to be able to think

critically, in the sense of being free from the trappings of all human convention and

human tradition.

I think that our thinking should be under the authority of God and according to His

categories.

And I never want to be so liberal that I declare my independence from the authority of God.

But I do want to be liberal in the sense of having a positive zeal to discover the truth

of God, wherever it may be found.

And so, the authentic liberal, historically, is the one who is eager to pursue truth as

freely as possible without being enslaved by human conventions.

That, I believe, is a noble enterprise and a noble word, and I hope that in the sense

in which I'm defining "liberal" there, that every Christian, I

hope that no Christian is a liberal in that sense, because that's not a rigorous pursuit

of truth wherever it may be found.

That's simply being silly, intellectually silly, to be wide open to any harebrained

scheme that comes down without examining it critically and never allowing the coming to

convictions.

I remember, of course, when Erasmus of Rotterdam was engaged in that rigorous debate with Luther

that they carried on with the pen, Erasmus wrote the diatribe.

Luther responded with his classic work on the bondage of the will.

And one of the criticisms that Erasmus had made of Luther was that Luther had come to

some conclusions in his thinking.

And he said to Luther, he said, I prefer to remain skeptical on these matters and to be

a pure academic, and to hold my decisions forever in abeyance."

And, Luther responded with vehement Germanic passion, you know, typical Teutonic Luther.

He said to Erasmus, "Away with the skeptics, away with the academicians."

At this point he said, Spiritus sanctus non est scepticus, the Holy Spirit is not a skeptic,

and the truths that He has revealed are more certain than life itself."

Don't be mesmerized or intoxicated by those who seem to find some virtue in always learning

and never coming to a knowledge of truth.

Christianity is a religion.

It is a faith that is built on the foundation of convictions, and of affirmations.

Luther again said to Erasmus, "You don't want to take, you don't want to make assertions."

He said, "The making of assertions is the very market of the Christian.

Take away assertions and you take away Christianity.

And I think it's important that we understand that.

So that we don't want to be liberal in the sense of free-floating and never landing on

any kind of truth.

Now, apart from these generic views of what we call liberal and conservative, and the

like, in theology, the term liberalism has a much narrower definition conceptually than

the way the term liberal is used just in normal casual ordinary language.

The term "liberalism" in theology refers to a specific movement with a specific agenda

and with a defined theology that occurred on the theological scene in the 19th century

in Europe.

So, when a theologian speaks about liberalism, he's usually speaking about what we call 19th-century

liberalism, 19th-century liberal theology.

And, as I said, it has a definite portrait with a definite agenda and so on.

Now, in the 19th century, one of the experiences of Western civilization was a growing awareness

of the shrinking of the globe.

Travel was, by modern technology, was increasing, and cultures were beginning to blend together

and mix together in heretofore unprecedented ways.

And the world was becoming a melting pot, and to use to the vernacular, the world was

shrinking, getting smaller and smaller.

Just this morning, somebody said to me, "I bumped into the guy for the second time in

two days that I hadn't seen in a couple years, two different places, I ran into the same

guy."

And he looked at me, and he said, "Boy, R.C., it's a small world."

Then he paused for a second, and he said, "But I sure wouldn't want to have to paint

it."

It's small in one perspective, but large from another perspective.

What happened in the 19th century was an increasing awareness, particularly of European, Western

European thinkers of things and ideas that were going on in other parts of the world,

in the Orient, among Islamic religions and so on.

And, a new science emerged on the sphere of the academic world, and it was the science

of comparative religion.

So, the students of religion in Western Europe were not content simply to study Christianity

or compare it with Judaism.

Now they wanted to study Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, and so on, and

look at all the different religions in the world.

And what came out of this new science of comparative religion was an effort in examining all the

different world religions, is a liberal.

Now, sometimes in our culture, the term "liberal" means something else.

It means completely open to any novel idea, to be open-minded to a degree as to have no

convictions, to be always learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth, if that's

what we mean by liberal or liberalism, at discovering the essential core that could

be found running through in various ways and stripes and threads in all these different

various religions in the world.

In German scholarship, for example, there was one word in German that began to appear

again and again in scholarly publications in books and journal articles and so on.

It became almost a buzzword in the theologian's playground of the 19th century, and it was

the German word Wesen.

Now, if you know any German, you know that the word Wesen comes from the German participle

form of the verb "to be."

It simply means "being or essence."

And so, you kept seeing books that were examining the essence of religion, or the essence of

Christianity.

And one of most popular books coming out of Germany in the 19th-century was written by

the great church historian, a great historian of dogma , Adolph R. Harnack, who wrote a

little book for popular consumption called, What is Christianity?

That is, what is its essence?

What is its being?

Now, this whole movement in German theology, in liberal theology, had certain basic commitments

philosophically and theologically.

The one that is most obvious and most evident of 19th-century liberal theology in its basic

thrust, it was fundamentally anti-supernatural in its orientation, that is, in seeking to

discern the essence of religion, it was seeking to get beyond myths, legends, sagas, that

sort of stuff that is contained in religious stories and cultic practices in various faiths

of the world, to get beyond miracle stories and angels and virgin births and dying and

rising gods and all that kind of stuff, and get to the stuff that you find in Islam in

Buddhism and Taoism and so on.

And the conclusion they came to was that at the core of all religions was basically a

concern for ethics, for values, that all the trappings of prayer and the symbols of redemption

and the liturgy of salvation, and all of those things are really the externals, the negotiable

peripheral matters that aren't of the essence.

"The virgin birth is not the essence of Christianity, the resurrection isn't of the essence of Christian,

the atonement of Jesus is of the essence of Christianity.

These things are part of the primitive trappings of religion, but the essence of Christianity

is found in the ethical teaching of Jesus, for example, on the Sermon on the Mount."

And, Harnack came to this conclusion; he said that we can reduce Christianity to its core,

its two foundational concepts being the universal fatherhood of God, and the universal brotherhood

of man.

Universal fatherhood of God, universal brotherhood of man.

Now, one of the strange dimensions of that reduction of Christianity, and I would have

to say that's what it was, a reductionism, you know, an inexcusable reduction of the

core of Christianity to this simplest common denominator, is the irony of it, is that the

two core concepts are two concepts that aren't even found in

biblical Christianity.

Now, in light of the place where we are in American culture, it may be shocking for an

American to hear me say that the Bible does not teach the universal fatherhood of God,

and maybe even more shocking to hear me suggest to you that the Bible does not teach the universal

brotherhood of man.

I mean, how many thousands of times in your lifetime have you heard that said?

Universal fatherhood of God, universal brotherhood of man, we're all brothers and sisters and

so on.

It's not the language of Scripture.

I will admit that on rare occasions, there are allusions to God as the supreme progenitor

of the human race, and is in the sense that He is the progenitor, the creator of everyone.

There is a sense in which in that regard He could be called the Father of all people.

When Paul says to the Greeks skeptics, in the Areopagus, in Mars Hill in Athens, he

said, "As some of your own poets have said, we are all His offspring."

The Apostle Paul there acknowledges a link with that, that sentiment, but ascribes the

sentiment to a pagan philosopher, not to Moses.

Now, the reason I labor the point is this, that in the Scripture, when the Bible normally

speaks of the Fatherhood of God, it is speaking of a concept far more narrow, far more distinctive

and far more precious than merely being a creature living on planet Earth.

Go with a group of Christians, listen to them pray in a home prayer meeting or Bible study,

and invariably, as Christians pray out loud one after another will address God, how?

They'll start their prayer by saying, "Father," or "our heavenly Father."

It's the most common expression that we as Christians use to address God.

And why, why not?

When our Lord taught us to pray, He said, "When you pray," say what?

"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name."

What could be more basic to Christianity than to address God as Father?

Joachim Jeremias.

the German New Testament scholar has done research on the prayers of the ancient Israelite

people, and it is his conclusion that there is not a single example anywhere in the extant

Jewish literature, including the Old Testament, the Talmud, the Targums and so on, until the

10th century A.D., where a Jewish person addresses God directly as "Father."

That it simply wasn't done.

People would speak of the Fatherhood of God among the Jewish people, but no one would

address Him directly, "Father."

Jeremias says, you don't find it until the 10th century A.D. in Italy.

Yet in the New Testament, we have the record of a Jew, a Jewish rabbi, who has many, many

prayers recorded for posterity, and then in every prayer that he prayed, save one, He

directly addressed God as "Father," and that's Jesus of Nazareth.

And what Jeremias demonstrates is that Jesus' use of the term "Father" for God was a radical

innovation, completely unheard of in Jewish liturgy.

And what He did in His radical departure from convention, He invited His followers to be

involved with.

Because what Jesus teaches about the human race is that by nature we are not the children

of God.

This was the dispute our Lord had with the Pharisees, who thought that just because they

were born Jewish, that they were children of Abraham, that they were therefore the children

of God.

Jesus said, "You are of your father, the devil.

God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones."

Because, what Jesus does is defines sonship in terms of obedience to God.

And because we are not by nature obedient to God, we are by nature children of wrath,

the New Testament teaches us, and not universally children of the Father.

The only way we ever have the right to call God "Father," to cry, "Abba" in His presence

is because we have been adopted.

And the biblical message of sonship and daughterhood in the body of Christ, is rooted and grounded

in this concept of adoption, that only Christ is the natural Son of God, and only if you

are in Christ do you become a member of the household of God.

It is the church in the New Testament that is called the family of God.

It is the church in the New Testament that is called the household of God.

And that unique concept of redemption through adoption is completely obscured when we talk

about the universal Fatherhood of God.

Do you see that?

Even more so is this concept that Harnack talked of, the universal brotherhood of man.

The Bible doesn't teach the universal brotherhood of man.

Again, The New Testament sees the brotherhood as something distinctive, restrictive and

special to those who are in Christ.

That there is a brotherhood of all of those who have fellowship in the Beloved, who are

invited to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, who are marked by the sign of baptism, and

who are in the family of God.

Outside of the fellowship of the church, that brotherhood does not extend.

Now, what does the Bible teach?

The Bible doesn't teach the universal brotherhood of man; it teaches the universal neighborhood

of man.

Biblically, all men are not my brothers.

If you are a Christian you are my brother or my sister.

If you are not, you're not my brother or my sister in the New Testament sense.

But whether you're my brother or my sister, theologically and biblically in that sense,

you are my neighbor.

This is the point that Jesus hammered home.

You know that the Pharisees wanted to limit the neighborhood and the command to treat

every person in the world, to love my neighbor as myself, to those simply who live close

to me.

And they came to Jesus with the question, "Who is my neighbor?"

And you know how He answered that.

He said, "A man went down from Jericho, and he fell among thieves.

And he was ignored by the clergy.

And a despised Samaritan came along and ministered to that man, bound his wounds, reached into

his pocket, paid for his physical care and well-being."

Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan to communicate the point that everybody is

my neighbor.

And the great commandment, to love God with all of my mind, soul, heart and strength and

everything, and my neighbor as myself, means that I am to treat everybody in this world

with dignity, with justice, with righteousness, with charity.

And, in that sense, there is a universal obligation toward everybody in the world, but it's neighborhood,

not brotherhood.

You see what I mean?

Now, the second thing I want to say about 19th century liberalism is that it provoked

a strenuous reaction in church history, particularly in the United States, and the reaction was

called fundamentalism.

And originally, the fundamentalist response to liberalism was a response of classical

Christian scholarship.

Today in our culture, and in religious jargon, fundamentalism tends to communicate the idea

of that which is anti-intellectual, legalistic, simplistic and primitive.

But historically, in the debate between liberalism and fundamentalism, the fundamentalists were

so-called not because they wanted to reduce Christianity to five or six fundamental points,

but they said, "Look, there are lots of issues in theology that are open for discussion,

that we can differ among ourselves in theology in a wide diversity of ways and of points."

Lutherans disagree with Baptists, and Baptists disagree with Presbyterians, and Presbyterians

disagree with Episcopalians and all of that, but that there is an essential, there is a

Wesen to Christianity.

There is an essential core.

There is a sine qua non to historic Christianity.

There are certain foundational precepts that are so fundamental to historic Christianity

that if you deny those, you have denied the very essence of biblical Christianity.

And what fundamentalism sought to do at the end of the 19th century, in the beginning

of the 20th century, was to spell out certain cardinal precepts and principles that are

the non-negotiables of Christianity.

Such statements as the resurrection of Christ.

You deny the resurrection of Christ as a supernatural event, you have denied Christianity.

If you seek to construct Christianity without the resurrection, you have a religion, if

you will.

You may have an interesting ethical system, but what you have is neither historic nor

biblical Christianity.

You see what I'm saying at this point.

That was the message of the so-called fundamentalist, or the conservative scholar at the turn of

the century.

Benjamin Warfield from Princeton at that time said that the liberals of 19th century liberal

theology did not reject mere peripheral matters, but foundational principles, such as the incarnation,

the atonement and the resurrection.

And Warfield said if you negotiate resurrection, you negotiate Christianity.

And so, this was a to-the-death issue.

One of the most significant splits in the history of the struggle of the Christian church,

the war between historic Christianity and 19th-century liberalism as a movement.

What was at stake was the authority of Scripture and the very basic creeds of the church.

Let me say that it's been said by church historians that historically there are only really three

generic types of theologies.

There are various sectarian distinctives and the like, but three generic forms of theology,

one we would call Pelagianism, the second we would call semi- Pelagian, and in the third

we would call Augustinian.

This goes back to a debate that raged in the fourth century between a monk by the name

of Pelagius, who believed that the atonement of Christ was not necessary for human redemption,

and the great theologian Augustine.

And, semi-Pelagianism, of course, refers to sort of the compromise position in between.

This church historian that I mentioned says that the debate between semi-Pelagianism and

Augustinianism is a debate that has been going on for 2000 years and will continue to divide

Christians until Christ comes.

It's basically the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism.

But it is a debate among Christians.

It is a debate of important matters, but matters that are not essential, not the Wesen of the

church, not of the esse of the church, the essence of the church.

Certainly, issues like your view of predestination will influence what we would call the bene

esse, that is, the well-being of the church, but don't necessarily touch the very essence

of Christianity.

You can differ on these things and still be a Christian.

But what this church historian was saying is that Pelagianism is fundamentally not only

on unchristian, but anti-Christian.

And he would have put 19th century liberal theology in that category of anti-Christian

and unchristian theology.

Now I keep talking about 19th century liberalism, I would like to be able to say to you that

19th-century liberalism lived its hour upon the stage, made a splash in the pan in the

scene of history, a blip on the radar scope of time in the 19th century, and the church

came to its good senses and, and defeated it roundly and soundly at the turn-of-the-century,

and that it's just a matter of historical interest now.

I would say that the greatest heyday of 19th century theology in the most foundational

precepts that it taught and embraced is right now.

We are living in what contemporary theologians call the age of neo-liberalism, or basically

the central and cardinal points of 19th century theology have in many circles, in many institutions,

and in many denominations, not simply made inroads, ladies and gentlemen, but have, in

fact, triumphed, have gained control.

And where in the seminaries and in many cases, so-called Christian colleges, there is an

attitude of outward hostility to classical Christianity for the doctrine of the atonement

of Christ is openly ridiculed.

We've been watching the events in time magazine of this group of scholars, of New Testament

scholars who have have decided that 95% of the statements attributed to Jesus by the

New Testament writers are sheer fabrics of their creative imagination.

You've seen that, you've read that.

Rudolph Bultmann, who's one of the most important New Testament scholars of the 20th century

and has been described often as a neo-liberal, wrote in his little book Kerygma and Myth,

that nobody can live in the 20th century and make use of modern conveniences like electricity,

the light bulb, the phonograph, the television, modern medicine, modern technology, atomic

energy and still believe in a world where angels appear to virgins and talk about babies

being born without sexual intercourse, and where a corpse that goes into a grave comes

back alive three days later.

If New Testament Christianity is going to speak to modern man, according to Bultmann,

it must be recast, it must be revised.

We must come to the Bible with what he calls a certain Vorverständnis, a prior understanding,

where we take modern philosophical systems, such as those from the German Heidegger, and

we come to the text of Scripture 2000 years ago, and ask existential questions and get

existential answers to help us in our modern quest, but we don't seriously believe in the

truth claims of Holy Scripture.

Emil Brunner, the Swiss theologian, who was by no means orthodox, wrote a book that was

important in this debate, in the 20th century version of it, entitled Der Mittler or in

English, The Mediator, in which he gave a technical and scholarly examination of the

mediatorial work of Jesus according to the New Testament.

And in this work, Professor Brunner canvassed the teaching of liberal theology.

And he was very candid in his evaluation.

He said that he could, that is, Brunner, could reduce the driving force of 19th and 20th

century liberal theology to one word, "unbelief."

The hostility to Scripture, the hostility to the core teaching of the New Testament

of the person and work of Christ cannot be seen as a mere difference of opinion on negotiable

issues of biblical Christianity.

I think Brunner hit the nail right on the head.

This is unbelief, and why don't people have the integrity and the honesty to say so.

You see, a crisis came to pass that all of a sudden a generation of ministers were educated

in 19th-century liberalism, and they had no biblical gospel to preach.

They didn't believe it.

It's that simple, but they had to justify their jobs, they had to justify their professions.

And so, they've tried to substitute for biblical Christianity, this 19th century concept of

the universal fatherhood of God and the social agenda program.

It's not that the Christian church doesn't have a social action agenda; it should.

But the point was, they said all that we have left are the ethical issues to be involved

with.

That's the reason for the church's existence, not for questions of personal redemption.

They had enormous investment in property and money in buildings called churches and institutions.

What are they going to do?

Are the ministry and the clergy going to stand up and say, "Oh, by the way, we don't believe

this anymore, and so we're going to turn our churches into museums."

That's what happened in Europe, by the way.

In Scotland, 4% right now of the people in Scotland, the home of the Scottish Reformation,

4% of the people of Scotland are members of churches, and 95% of that 4% attend liberal

churches.

How do you know whether the church has embraced this theology of liberalism?

Look at the statements that makes, for example, with respect to the ethics that they teach.

The newspaper is filled daily with denominations wrestling with such basal principles as whether

it is ethical for people to be engaged in sexual activities outside of the sanctity

of marriage.

When in the history of the Christian church has such a question even been debated?

Before people would say, "I just don't agree with the ethic of Jesus and of Jesus' teaching

that the sanctity of marriage.

I think He's nuts.

I don't want to have anything to do with it."

But, when did anybody ever had the audacity in the past to try to make church law say

that premarital and extramarital sexual relationships are within the allowance and the permission

of the law of God.

You see, liberal theology is not only anti-supernatural and anti-personal redemption, it is at its

core, antinomian, that is, it is openly manifestly hostile to the law of God.

And at that point, it provokes conflict, conflict with orthodox Christianity.

Ladies and gentlemen, if no one has ever called you narrow-minded, you may wonder about the

state of your soul in this day and age, because if you take the slightest stance for the Word

of God in this time and in this generation, somebody is going to call you a Puritan or

Victorian or uptight, reactionary, conservative or something of that sort.

But let's not make a mistake, that liberalism in theology has not come to mean a simple,

honest, rigorous pursuit for truth, where it may be found.

It does not simply mean that we are free in our thinking from human conventions.

Away with conservatism that is mere reactionaryism.

Pharisees were conservatives.

The Pharisees exalted the conventions and the traditions of mankind.

That kind of conservatism should always be suspect in the church.

The only kind of conservatism that God wants is the passion to conserve the truth that

He has delivered through His work, and that it is our obligation to conserve, and not

to negotiate because the particular brand of liberalism that has become pervasive in

the Western church is at bottom, I'm convinced, anti-Christianity, and it has provoked the

crisis that I think Christians should be willing to die to fight against, because what liberalism

does, is it doesn't simply redefine Christ, it takes away Christ, His person and His work

are removed.

I went to a seminary where the doctrine of the atonement was received with outward open

hostility by the faculty.

When I would try to tell people in the church, they simply wouldn't believe me.

They said, "Those men are theologians.

They're ministers.

You're not really going to tell us that ministers don't believe."

And, I wanted to shake people by the throat and say, "Who killed Jesus in the first place?"

What is it that makes people so naïve to think that ministers automatically believe

what they profess to believe?

One of the most strongest motivations that people have when they are in college and in

the university to study religion, and to study theology is to disprove it.

We should be aware of that.

And people are being ordained every day who are openly hostile to biblical Christianity.

19th century and 20th century liberalism claims a link to historic Christianity, but the historic

Christianity to which it claims its link is fundamentally denied.

I don't know a nice way to say that, but I say that liberal Christianity is not Christianity

at all.

That liberalism in its attempt to be Christian, I believe is the greatest threat to biblical

Christianity in this world.

It's a lot easier to deal with paganism, because paganism declares itself for what it is.

But the problem with liberalism in the church is that it claims to be Christian.

It seeks to persuade people that what it is teaching is in fact Christianity when it is

the antithesis of Christianity.

And if we haven't seen that by now, I wonder if we will ever become aware of it.

The good news is, and the point with which I'll close, is that I think culturally, nationally

and internationally, the world is waking up to the bankruptcy of liberalism.

When I was a seminary student, the five largest seminaries in United States, in terms of student

enrollment were all liberal seminaries.

Today, the five largest seminaries in the United States are all conservative and evangelical

seminaries.

When I was as a student in seminary, the fastest growing churches were liberal churches where

the evangelical churches were struggling to survive.

The liberal churches in the last 20 years, however, have been losing in some cases a

100,000 members a year per denomination, scrambling to have one merger after another just to keep

alive, while the churches that are growing in leaps and bounds are the churches where

the Scriptures are being preached, and where classical Christianity is embraced and proclaimed.

And we've seen a whole switch.

We're seeing the decline of liberalism and the reemergence of biblical Christianity.

And I hope that we will understand that this crisis is a battle for nothing less than the

very being of biblical Christianity.