Religious Liberalism vs. Historic Christianity

Many are confused by the teachings of both the press and the pulpit in many places concerning true Christianity and the gospel. This is due largely to the widespread acceptance of a rationalistic philosophy brilliantly taught by Immanuel Kant more than two centuries ago.

This rationalistic concept of Christianity was long known as "Modernism." Its current name is "Liberalism." In this study no attempt is made to quote authorities. The author, however, is fair and objective in his summarizations of the liberal viewpoint.

Liberalism and historic Christianity are here contrasted under seven cardinal points of faith and doctrine. Earnest believers will quickly see the importance of this struggle and the issues involved. - Back to the Bible Broadcast

1. Two Views of Sin

Liberalism - Sin is the result of man's failure to live up to his full capacities and possibilities, through either ignorance or indifference. As he develops, however, he will learn to throw off sin's yoke. Sin is largely the product of environment, and therefore, there is little moral responsibility attached.

Historic Christianity - Sin, in its essence, is rebellion against God and disobedience to His laws (Acts 17:30,31). It has brought about the ruin of the world (Rom. 3:9-20), and has permeated every part of society and every phase of the individual's personality (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 2:1-3); rendering man incapable in himself of knowing God or of fulfilling His will (John 14:6; Eph. 2:12).

2. Two Ways of Salvation

Liberalism. - Salvation can be obtained through human effort and through man's good character. If a man lives according to the Golden Rule and does the best he can, a merciful God cannot but overlook his mistakes and honor his intentions; and, if there is a hereafter, he will have nothing to fear.

Historic Christianity - Salvation can be obtained, not as the result of human efforts, but solely through divine grace (Eph. 2:8,9; Gal. 2:16). God has provided a way (Eph. 2:6-10) by which man can be saved from the penalty (Rom. 6:23; Col. 2:14,15), the power (Col.1:13; Gal. 2:20), and finally, from the presence of sin (I John 3:2; Phil. 3:21). This way is through faith in Jesus Christ and His redeeming work (Eph. 1:7; Rev. 1:5).

3. Two Interpretations of the Cross

Liberalism - The death of Jesus may be variously interpreted as one of the great tragedies of history, whereby one of the world's greatest characters, a man who lived far in advance of His time, was wrongfully done to death. It may also be regarded as a revelation or manifestation, for the benefit of mankind, of God's great love toward humanity, of the power of moral integrity, or the wickedness of the human heart when aroused, or of the bitterness of unbridled sin.

Historic Christianity - The death of Jesus Christ on the cross was part of God's predetermined plan (Gal. 4:3-5; Eph. 1:4,5), whereby His Son became a propitiation for sin (I John 2:2; Rom. 3:24), and paid with His own life the penalty which the justice of God demands from all sinners-death (II Cor.5:18-21; I Pet. 2:24). Only as this is recognized and accepted can man receive pardon from all his sins and be reconciled to God (Acts 4:12).

4. Two Estimates of Jesus Christ

Liberalism - Jesus was a good man, probably the best that ever lived. He gave us a beautiful example of how we should and can live if we try sufficiently hard. However, though exemplary and probably sinless, His life and outlook were limited by His being the product of His own day. Much of His teaching, therefore, is no longer of practical worth, and still less is it of binding authority on us now.

Historic Christianity - Jesus Christ was the eternal Son of God, pre-existent and only-begotten (John 1:1,2; 8:58); He entered the world through a supernatural event, the Virgin Birth (Matt. 1:20), and dwelt as God among men. He revealed, not only God's holiness and love (John 14:9) and the possibilities of a life wholly yielded to God (John 4:34), but He died as God, in order to make it possible for men to be made over into His own glorious image (II Cor. 5:17,21).

5. Two Attitudes of Faith in Christ

Liberalism - Faith in Jesus is an acceptance of the "principles and teachings of Jesus" as the world's best code of morals up to date and as a standard by which those who call themselves His disciples seek to govern their lives and to live accordingly.

Historic Christianity - The act of believing on Christ is a definite personal transaction between the sinner and the Lord Jesus (Rom. 5: 1), whereby the sinner, acknowledging his own helplessness, in humble gratitude accepts (I John 5:12,13) the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in his place and thereby receives the divine life of God into his own soul (John 3:5,6; Rom. 6:4,14) ; he begins to live a new life (Rom. 8:2,5,9,11) in the power of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:16,25; I John 3:24), in which Jesus Christ is recognized and honored as the Lord of his life (Gal. 2:20).

6. Two Views of Scripture

Liberalism - The Bible is a collection of writings which represent man's best efforts and strivings after God. Much in them is out of date and useless to us, if not positively harmful. The intelligent man, therefore, culls from them those ideas which he finds helpful and of practical value today, and endeavors to apply them to his life as opportunity offers.

Historic Christianity - The body of Scripture contained in the Old and New Testaments is the infallible and authoritative revelation from God to man (II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:21), in which God reveals Himself (John 14:9,10; Rom. 1:17), His requirements from all men (Mic. 6: 8; Rom. 1:16,17; I Pet. 1:15,16), and the only way in which these requirements can be met, namely through faith in Jesus Christ as the sole way of salvation (John 14:6).

7. Two Future Hopes

Liberalism - The hope of the world lies in the gradual evolution of the human race and the betterment of the world conditions as men increasingly come to realize the necessity of putting into practice, in all phases of life, the teachings of Jesus Christ. The question of the immortality of the soul and of the existence of heaven and hell are things which we cannot know with certainty now, but all who do their best should face the future with calmness and trust for the best, both for themselves and for their friends.

Historic Christianity - The hope of the world lies in the coming again of Jesus Christ as Lord of the universe, to bring to a consummation His redeeming work (I Cor. 15: 51-54) in the complete salvation of all His people (Phil. 3:20,21; I Thess. 4:15-17) and the final destruction of all sin (Rev. 20:10-14). At that day every man shall be judged before God and pass to his eternal destiny (Rev. 20:11-15; 22:4,5,12).

In presenting these two views in this brief way it is realized that of necessity much has been omitted. It should be borne in mind also that the so-called liberal view of Christianity is essentially a variable one, which has no fixed standards and becomes almost entirely a matter of personal opinion for each individual.

The origin of the historic view is in the Scriptures themselves, the Word of God. If the authority of this revelation is denied, at once the ground and certainty of our faith is gone, for not God's Word but the private opinion of sinful man's mind becomes the standard of decision as to what should be believed.

The same thing applies to each of the seven points mentioned above; they all, more or less, stand or fall together. If the scriptural doctrine of sin is denied, the necessity for the death of the Son of God immediately falls with it, for sin in itself becomes neither an insuperable barrier in the way to God, nor that which has corrupted the whole nature of man and has thereby rendered him "dead" and helpless.

If the death of the Lord becomes unnecessary, the supernatural elements in His person, life, and resurrection are all of no great importance, and with them His Deity becomes a question which may be admitted or denied, as one sees fit. In this connection Romans 3:25,26 shows the absolute necessity for the death of Jesus Christ in order to vindicate and uphold the character and justice of God. There was no other way whereby "He might be just, and the justifier" at the same time of sinners who had broken His holy laws.

The death of the Lord was necessary also to show "His (God's) righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God" (Rom. 3:25, R.V.). The covenant of the law required heavy penalties for sins. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4). But God, in His mercy, had spared Israel from the penalties which were due them. He had accepted the animal sacrifices as a temporary measure, looking forward to the Great Sacrifice that was to come. The Lord's words "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17) mean that the purpose of His coming was not merely to keep the law Himself as a perfect Example, but was also to pay the cost on the part of Israel. The shed blood of the countless animals slain and offered up in the courts of the Tabernacle and Temple had not been able to cleanse the consciences of the offerers (Heb. 9:13,14; 10: 2). Those sacrifices were only temporary expedients pointing forward to the Perfect Sacrifice to be made "once for all." The Lord's death represented the payment in full for the broken law on the part of Israel. Only after the law had been thus "fulfilled" could the way be opened for the fulfillment of the glorious messages of the prophets promising redemption and restoration.

Upon the Person of the Lord depends the whole interpretation of the cross. If He were not the eternal Son of God-God-Man-the ; doctrine of His death in the place of sinners is rightfully criticized as a miscarriage of justice and a travesty. No man can justly die in the place of a sinner; still less could one innocent man die in the place of many guilty ones. It is God himself, suffering as God to satisfy the claims of His own just laws, who alone can justly take the place of sinners and pay the penalties which otherwise must rest on them.

If then the cross is not God's gracious provision for sinful man whereby he may obtain pardon for his sins, a new nature and eternal life, but is regarded as the tragic death of a good man who lived before his time, then the only means of salvation is character and good works. The whole hope of the human race then lies in evolution and what it may achieve in the distant future. There is absolutely no assurance of the final triumph of good over evil and the destruction of the latter throughout the world. The destiny of the individual soul becomes a matter of still greater uncertainty and pure conjecture.

The historic faith of the Church, as contained in the Scriptures, is clear, logical, and guaranteed by the character of God himself. There alone are to be found assurance and certainty, and therein alone is to be found the hope of the Church and of the human race.

Religious Liberalism

contrasted with

Historic Christianity

WITHCHRIST.ORG