Download Contemporary Theological Philosophies: Liberalism and Existentialism vs. The Bible and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Theology in PDF only on Docsity!
CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE
JOHN H. STOLL
Dean of Education, Calvary Bible College
There are many and varied philosophies to be found in our world today. Many of these have a direct bearing on theology and the Bible. The contemporary philosophies that delve into the field of theology generally seek naturalistic causes or reasons for the Bible. Very few accept the Bible in its original revelation as verbally and plenarily inspired of God, and for this reason these philosophies are constantly changing as man1s ideas change. Thus, in order to keep abreast of the times, one must acquaint himself with both historical as well as contemporary theological variations.
In this study we will note a few of the more prominent contemporary theological philosophies
and compare them with the Bible. It will be our purpose to give a brief outline of each and then
to conclude with a critique.
LIBERALISM
Liberalism was a development of German theology which arose asa protest against the orthodox
views of the Bible. It appeared in America late in the nineteenth century, and became virtually
synonymous with the II socia I gospel,lI It had a four-fold basis: (1) Philosophically, it was grounded
in some form of German philosophical idealism. (2) It placed unreserved trust in the new critical
studies of the Bible, which contained a denial of the historical doctrines of revelation and inspir- ation. (3) It believed that the developing science of the times antiquated much of the Scriptures.
(4) It was rooted in the new learning, and in this sense it is modernistic (preference for the new
over the traditional) and liberal (the right of free criticism of all theological claims).
It altered Christianity to suit its philosophy and reinterpreted all the major doctrines. The
traditional doctrine of the trinity was rejected and replaced by some sort of a functional trinity; the transcendence and wrath of God were replaced by over-emphasized doctrines of divine im- manence and love; the Kingd om of God was regard ed as no longer founded upon the death and resurrection of Christ, but upon the spiritual and ethical quality of the life of Jesus; salvation was no longer seen as freedom from wrath and sin, but from sensuousness or a materialistic or selfish ethic; the division of the saved-or-Iost was denied, and all men were held to possess the same religious potentiality, all men formed the so-called "brotherhood of man, II whose corollary was the "Fatherhood of God"; the purpose of the church was to bring all men under the Christian ethic in every aspect of their lives, and it preached this so-called II socia I gospel. II
The shallow and unrealistic attempts of this philosophy to explain and understand Christian realities, coupled with the wars of the twentieth century and the depression, caused men to turn aside from liberalism, and in its place came existentialism.
EX ISTE N TlA LI SM
Existentialism began with Kierkegaard, a Danish theologian (1813-55). This term is vague
and almost indefinable, for it has many and complex diversities, due in part to the philosophical
28 GRACE JOURNAL
interpretations of its varied adherents. The broadestdefinition is that it isa realist reaction against the shallow optimism and easy rationalism of the nineteenth century liberals. However, it is naively realist and therefore historicist, and in that it adheres to historical methodology, one
might say it is sti II fundamentally liberal. It follows the tradition that says existence is prior to
essence, and indeed all reality is in historical experience, and that essences are only abstract names. There is no real existence beyond history, either in an ideal or mystic sense above history, or in an eschatological sense at the end of histary.
Note how existential theology affects the doctrines of (1) Christology, (2) the Resurrection, (3) the Church, and (4) the Word:
(1) The historical Jesus is the Christ, but not in the traditional sense as the personal Lord whose body was raised from the tomb. Rather, Jesus is the occa$ion for the encounter between the cross and the sinner who makes the decision for the ultimate. Apart from this encounter there is no more
significance to Jesus than any other martyr in history. It is not the Jesus of history that concerns
the existentialist theologian, but the revelation we meet in the moment of decision.
(2) The resurrection is redefined to mean not a future life in an incorruptible body in a new heaven or eternal age, but a regenerate life here and now freed from the frustration of death. Al- though death is inevitable, we do not fear it because we accept it. In other words redemption is not a future vi ctory, but a present adjustment.
(3) The concept of the church is radically changed because of their inwardness of subjectivity.
God is always subject; always II Thoull , never II It II. This divine IIThou ll^ can never be moved, that
is, He can only be spoken to in answer to His call, which comes inwardly. God always treats me as subject too, and never as an object. Thus the relationship between God and man cannot be ap- prehended bya set of propositions noran emotional experience to be realized bya genuine feeling. The relationship is rather one of speaking and responding to God's Word, hence it is one of deci- sion. But no man can make this decision for another. For most existentialists the church as a vis- ible structure only gets in the way of the decisive conversation between the 11111 and the IIThou. 1I There seems to be no place for the church, as the body of Christ.
(4) The same observation can be made in relation to the Living Word and the Scriptures. Th e existentialist finds the written Word to be a troublesome obstacle in the way of a decisive de ci sion. As a result the Living Word is separated from the Written Word, and we are left withaut a rule or norm of authority.
Thus the existentialists separate what they call Christ from Jesus, as well as from the church, from the Scriptures, and from the sacraments.
Existentialism appears in various forms as propounded by its individual adherents. Though th ere are many men associated with this phi losophy, and each has added his own paradoxical twist to that which was originally laid down by Kierkegaard, two main forms of existential thought are c urrently flowing in the theological stream. The first is Neo-orthodoxy, which had its beginnings with Karl Barth when he wrote an exposition of Romans in 1919. The other is Bultmannism, which received its name from Rudolph Bultmann, professor at the University of Marburg, in Germany. Of the two theories of existentialism, Barth's is the more conservative. The basic line of cleavage
30 GRACE JOURNAL
goodness (which is Biblically true). This comes about in the following way: first, man despairs; then out of this comes contrition; out of this faith is conceived; and finally in faith is newness of life and power. Salvation is the shattering or breaking of self, and this may come in a single crisis
experience or in repeated ones. It is significant that Barth's emphasis is on the cross of Christ, and
never on the blood of Christ.
Neo-orthodoxy is an attempt to re-interpret traditional or orthodox Christianity in such a way as to make it more acceptable to the so-called intellectual advance of the day. The critical or liberal approach to the Gospel is modified and synthesized in this system, by an attempt to preach the orthodox truths while building on the liberal approach to the facts. This is an impossible thing to do.
The Theology of Rudolph Bultmann
Bultmann has retreated from the neo-orthodox type of existentialism as propounded by Barth, to an existentialism of his own, in which he attempts to de-mythologize the New Testament. His view is that the gospel accounts are largely mythological in content. Bultmann suggests a de- mythologizing of the New Testament by means of which the mythological elements must be cut away, such as the myth of apocalyptic cataclysm, the myth of the pre-existent Lord, the futuristic myth of Heaven, and the historical myths of angels, demons, miracles, the virgin birth, empty tomb, and resurrection. What he has left is the cross, and the gospel of justification by grace through fai th.
Bultmann contends that the true objective of the gospel message never was to describe super- natural events taking place in space and time, but, rather, that under a mythological garb the story was intended to announce God's coming to man's soul, or self, and to bring about a radical change in a person's existence. When the individual comes to grips with the gospel story he be- comes aware of the misery of his " ex istence", viz., that his self is enslaved by the powers of this world, such as worry, sin, and death, and that he is unable to live a life truly his own. Though the gospel story is a myth, through the individual coming to grips with the truthfulness of its mean- ing, the self is delivered from that tyranny and enabled to live a new life of true spontaneity. That change of " ex istence" is considered as an act of divine grace, and according to Bultmann it is identical with what the New Testament calls redemption. Yet that result is accomplished by means of hearing of the gospel story rather than by any activity of the man Jesus.
This in effect amounts to the el imination of the miraculous or supernatural constituents of the scriptural record, since Bultmann adheres to a view of the world asa firmly closed system, governed by fixed natural law, in which there can be no intervention from outside.
The rejection by Bultmann of the basic concepts of the Bible mutilates the Christianity of the New Testament in so radical a manner, that the cross and the gospel of justification by grace through faith no longer have any authoritative meaning in the Bible. The stature of Jesus is reduced to that of a mere man. According to Bultmann, the linking of our redemption with God's choice of an ordinary mortal individual (Jesus), no different from any other man, and of an event (the crucifixion), in no way miraculous or supernatural, is the real offence of Christianity.
CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE 31
ORTHODOXY
Orthodoxy is that branch of theology whi ch came to prominence in the church during and after
the second century. The preservation of Christianity was seen to require the maintenance of ortho-
doxy against Gnosticism and other trinitarian aberrations. Seventeenth century Protestant theolo-
gians stressed the importance of orthodoxy in relation to the soteriology of the reformation creeds.
The word "orthodoxy" itself, though not Biblical, expresses the idea that certain statements
accurate Iy embody the revealed truth- content of Christianity, and are therefore in their own nature
normative for the universal church. The idea is rooted in the New Testament insistence that the
gospel has a specific factual and theological content (I Corinthians 15: 1-11; Galatians 1:6-9;
I Timothy 6:3; II Timothy 4:3, 4), and that no fellowship exists between those who accept the
apostolic standard of Christological teaching and those who deny it (I John 4: 1-3; II John 7-11).
Contemporary orthodox views, as opposed to those who hold to liberal or existential views,
are seen to be held by two groups in this country known, in a loose sense, as the "Fundamentalists"
and the "Evangelicals. 1I^ These two groups adhere to a set of doctrinal beliefs which are orthodox,
and they differ onlyas to the methods of applying their beliefs to contemporary culture. Adherents
of these groups are not of any particular denominational structure, but cut across denominational
lines, though there are included within both of these elements various denominations.
The basis of this contemporary orthodoxy is embodied in the beliefs of the following "cardinal"
doctrines: (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, (2) the Trinity, (3) the deity and virgin
birth of Christ, (4) the creation and fall of man, (5) the substitutionary atonement of Christ, (6)
the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ, (7) the regeneration of believers, (8) the personal
return of Christ, and (9) the final judgment of all men to eternal blessedness or eternal damnation.
Fundamentalists generally hold toa position of separateness from all groups who would hold to
any other views than those stated above, while Evangelicals, though believing the same, would
take a position of individual preference as to whether or not one should separate from or remain in
affiliation with groups who would not hold these views. Both Fundamentalists and Evangelicals
maintain a strong testimony to their Christian faith and insistence upon orthodox views.
A CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM AND EXISTENTIALISM
liberalism, as such, is dead today because it had within it the seeds of its own decay. When
the quest of the liberal Jesus failed, the liberals did not abandon their historical methodology, and
historicism still dominates the remaining vestiges. The optimism of liberalism collapsed, for it was
exposed by two world wars and the great depression. But out of its collapse there arose a new
spirit of our age, that theory known as "existentialism". In that existentialism adheres to an his-
torical methodology one could say that in some respects it is still in the liberal stream of thinking.
However, it is a chastened form of liberalism. The neo-orthodox (Barthian) stream takes a more
conservative view than the liberal on the Bible and salvation, while Bultmannism exhibits a radical
form of existentialism in its de-mythologizing of the gospel story. Both aspects of existentialism
do violence to the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Both utilize terminology akin to orthodoxy,
but redefine the terms to suit their purposes. Both question the authority of Scripture, and thereby
undermine their own systems of theology, for all that we know about sin, salvation, and eternal
