{"id":233,"date":"2014-12-09T02:22:20","date_gmt":"2014-12-09T02:22:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leadinghorsestowater.net\/?p=233"},"modified":"2014-12-14T02:51:14","modified_gmt":"2014-12-14T02:51:14","slug":"the-social-gospel-is-still-with-us-part-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leadinghorsestowater.net\/?p=233","title":{"rendered":"The Social Gospel Is Still With Us – Part III"},"content":{"rendered":"

We need to be reminded that neo-orthodoxy shares with theological liberalism the bias of unbelief which is manifested by their embrace of higher criticism. \u00a0<\/strong>Higher criticism treats the Bible as a fallible product of man, not as the God-breathed infallible book it claims to be. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

For example: Jesus credits Moses with the writing of the first five books of the Old Testament, but higher criticism assigns their authorship to four different authors designated as J, E, D & P. \u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0The Lord endorses Genesis chapter three as historical and literal, but it is regarded by higher criticism as mythological. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Higher criticism presupposes that no one can miraculously forecast what is to come (not even God), so they alter well established dates in order to have the fulfillment of prophesies occur after the forecast and not before. \u00a0 Although it takes greater faith to believe\u00a0this,\u00a0the universal flood (which covered the mountains), is passed off as a local flood. \u00a0\u00a0In these ways higher\u00a0criticism explains away\u00a0the supernatural and miraculous.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charles Ryrie, in his book on neo-orthodoxy,\u00a0uses the term “destructive criticism” to describe what is referred to here as higher criticism. \u00a0Destructive criticism does exactly that. \u00a0It trys to destroy the credibility of Scripture.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Neo-orthodoxy fully embraces\u00a0the destructive practices of\u00a0higher criticism\u00a0while attempting to construct a theology that has no credibility without the Scripture. \u00a0<\/strong>This is the Barthian’s great bias against the truth of the Bible and yet they fully insist that they are the true advocates of Christianity. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

If the accounts of Scripture and the words of Jesus Christ are not credible facts, what is left to build on? \u00a0The absurdity of neo-orthodoxy is that they have an answer, but by their own admission they have nothing credible to base it on. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The three main voices of neo-orthodoxy are the Protestant theologians Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and Reinhold Niebuhr. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Deitrich Bonhoeffer’s name can hardly be mentioned without including the name of Karl Barth who influenced Bonhoeffer more<\/strong>\u00a0than any other theologian. \u00a0Bonhoeffer was imprisoned by the Nazis for his part in an assassination plot against Hitler. \u00a0He was brutally hanged shortly before the Allies liberated his place of imprisonment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many hail Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a Christian martyr. \u00a0Bonhoeffer was martyred for a cause no doubt, \u00a0but if he was indeed neo-orthodox, that cause was not Bible believing Christianity. <\/strong><\/p>\n