Not far from the Kingdom?

[Bryce S]

I’m wondering if anyone has any concrete advice or insight for evangelistic interactions with those within the liberal church. I’ve encountered plenty of men in this category in my work, and sometimes find it difficult to discern exactly where they are spiritually. These men aren’t necessarily opposed to the fundamentalist gospel (rationalism seems to have conceded to relativism generally speaking) and will affirm the basic tenets of the faith (sinful nature, grace for those in Christ by faith). They insist that they are Christians, and in one sense seem to live in a way that’s consistent with that profession (they’re respectable and stand-up guys), but there doesn’t seem to be an enthusiastic, experiential joy of forgiveness in Christ or an awe of God’s glory.



I understand the problems of liberal theology in a basic sense. Machen was very helpful for this for me. My question, then, is more about a practical, sensitive approach to evangelism. If they insist they’re Christians, how should I address them in conversation? Should I be trying to discern their spiritual state? How can I avoid becoming judgemental? How should I pray for these people? What are some concrete markers in someone’s testimony that suggest that they are born again (especially if they’re members of a liberal church)? What might suggest that they’re not?

 

[Ploutos]

It's not your job to decide whether they're saved or not, and it's certainly not your job to enlighten them on the matter. Just hold up a faithful gospel message in your conversation and lifestyle and let the sword of the Spirit do that work for you. Most of the time, it will eventually become quite clear, so long as you keep yourself out of the way.

 

[alexanderjames]

I’ve encountered plenty of men in this category in my work

Can be difficult in the workplace. Is that where you would like to have conversations?

but there doesn’t seem to be an enthusiastic, experiential joy of forgiveness in Christ or an awe of God’s glory.

We reformed folk aren't renowned for looking the most enthusiastic and joyful on the outside!

The concern for the spiritual estate of others is a noble one.
In terms of trying to discern where people are, I'd feel most comfortable asking how they came to know the Lord.

You make an excellent point in the need to guard against any kind of judgment which involves looking down at others. The easiest way to do this, as well as to be wary of assuming too much, is to remember from where we have come, and where we would be apart from the sheer grace of God.
"There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford."

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Welcome to Puritan Board, Bryce!

 

[LightBringer]

Welcome to PB.

What a timely thread. One form of liberal theology that I am presently having to deal with on the internet is the Open Theism heresy. It's so bad I can't wrap my mind around it.

 

[Theoretical]

The most basic problem with liberalism is what I'd call the dictionary problem, and this is drawing from Machen and personal experience growing up conservative/moderate mainline.

Sin, grace, righteousness, Resurrection, Christ, the Gospel, you name it, the terms will be used in the same contexts but have different meanings. A liberal or Neo-Orthodox type will likely have a mix of views, some more and others less orthodox, but the common thread will be that you have to define your terms, often in very specific ways. "Ok, what do you mean by the Resurrection?" "Who or what is Christ to you?" and so on.

If I'm speaking English, and someone else is speaking French, it's obvious we're speaking two different languages and need to slow down to find some common way to bridge the gap. With liberal and neo-orthodox types, you could have hours of discussion in the same tongue but be using completely different dictionaries so you're ships passing in the night.

 

[Ploutos]

The most basic problem with liberalism is what I'd call the dictionary problem, and this is drawing from Machen and personal experience growing up conservative/moderate mainline.

Sin, grace, righteousness, Resurrection, Christ, the Gospel, you name it, the terms will be used in the same contexts but have different meanings. A liberal or Neo-Orthodox type will likely have a mix of views, some more and others less orthodox, but the common thread will be that you have to define your terms, often in very specific ways. "Ok, what do you mean by the Resurrection?" "Who or what is Christ to you?" and so on.

If I'm speaking English, and someone else is speaking French, it's obvious we're speaking two different languages and need to slow down to find some common way to bridge the gap. With liberal and neo-orthodox types, you could have hours of discussion in the same tongue but be using completely different dictionaries so you're ships passing in the night.

This may be somewhat OT, but do you see a similar 'dictionary problem' with Roman Catholics? "We believe in salvation by grace alone. We believe in the sufficiency of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice."

 

[Theoretical]

This may be somewhat OT, but do you see a similar 'dictionary problem' with Roman Catholics? "We believe in salvation by grace alone. We believe in the sufficiency of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice."

Yes, on our differences. No on what we share in common. Creedal Catholics (the Hans Kungs or random liberal Catholic of the world are no better than the liberal protestant) share fundamental basic Christian theology such as the Trinity, the Fall, the Resurrection of the Body, a literal heaven and hell, and so on. We have fundamental differences with them as we would with the East, but they and we really truly do share the Nicene Creed as a common language.

That Rome has departed from the Faith in critical ways matters, and on those issues, Catholics tend to be every bit as slippery as liberals, at least in my experience, though my most intense experience was with ex-Reformed converts trying to make me Catholic as well.

Even within liberal influenced figures, there's vast differences between a liberal like Fosdick and a liberal-influenced man like C.S. Lewis, who held many, many heterodox views (in this context those oriented around liberal conceptions about the Old Testament and some of the miraculous) but nonetheless held to basic creedal Christianity in terms of the New Testament and orthodoxy on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. One rejected the faith outright and the other impoverished his faith needlessly by accepting liberal premises and compromises. Such may well be some of those Barthians who actually do believe in Christ but are heavily clouded over and blinded.

The other thing is that you can't assume someone will hold everything liberal to the same degree. Some may have a basically orthodox take on one thing and completely be off base on another. Think also about the variances between the really hardened skeptics of Unitarian ilk vs. those who really thought of themselves as actually being the correct Christians and retained large degrees of seeming orthodoxy while having a rotten core as a comparison.