Liberal Theology

Changes Old to New Testament Home Changes Between the Old and New Testament Changes Regarding the Land  Changes Regarding the Use of the Sword Changes Regarding the Temple God’s Plan for Reaching the Nations Contrasts: OT Nation and NT Communities Slavery The Paradigm Shift Liberal Theology Life on the Land Helpful Links Contact Page Statement of Faith ....... Documents & Images to Download Download God's Word ///// God Wants to Strengthen You Restoring Your Relationship with God Daily Exercises for Spiritual Renewal The Cure of Evil-Speaking, by John Wesley Half-Hearted Lovers Changes Regarding the Use of the Sword

LIBERAL THEOLOGY

 

“...The influence of liberal theology has been extremely flawed and inaccurate in the modern era. When we discuss liberal theology, what is meant here is the humanistic tendency to attack the reliability of the ancient Old Testament and New Testament texts through the influence of skepticism, speculation, and selective rationalism. The worldview of liberal scholars usually includes denials that God has intervened supernaturally in history in various events recorded in the Bible. So the scholars’ previously adopted worldview is the main source of their skepticism.”

“In regard to the OT (Old Testament) biblical texts, modern liberal theologians have attempted to go “behind” these OT documents, to tell us how they “really” developed, where these works “really” came from, what imaginary documents might have provided the sources for these current documents, and so on. In doing this, liberal theology has fallen into a deep chasm of flawed methodologies. This can be illustrated by the Documentary Hypothesis, a theory about the development of the Old Testament that was put forward by Julius Wellhausen and some other writers, and became influential beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s (you read that correctly—this is an old theory).”

“The Documentary Hypothesis identified four supposedly earlier documents that were the source of the Torah: the J document, the E document, the P document, and the D document. The J document is said to be based on the predominance of the word “Yahweh” (the letter j comes from the fact that the Hebrew word for “Yahweh” was transliterated into English as “Jehovah” in earlier translations of the OT, whence the j is taken). The E document is said to be based on the predominance of the Hebrew word Elohim for God. The P document is said to include portions of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, based on a priestly influence. The D documents is largely identified with the book of Deuteronomy.”

“The most glaring and insurmountable problem for this theory is that a J document (or any ancient copy of it) has never been found, a distinct P document has never been found, and the E document (or any ancient copy of it) has never been found anywhere. This means that the entire theory has been based on speculation concerning documents that have never even been historically demonstrated to exist in the first place! This is a tragic flaw and completely undermines the whole theory. And this speculation has gone on, not for just a few years but for over a century. Now, even increasing numbers of liberal scholars have been turning away from this theory—finally, after it has been kicked around for over a century! And will these earlier liberal scholars be remembered, for all their speculations based on a flawed theory? No, their works are rapidly being forgotten and will be swept into the dustbin of history.”

“This flawed liberal methodology in the Documentary Hypothesis graphically illustrates the ongoing and massive problem of speculation and anti-biblical skepticism: after these supposed J, E, and P documents were presented in this theory, enough scholars bought into it to make it a viable “theory” in the academic world. Eventually it became the dominant theory followed by liberals, and it even persuaded some evangelical scholars to abandon the reliability of the OT texts in favor of this speculative theory.”

“The Documentary Hypothesis became a dogma of the academy, and it corrupted many seminaries in mainline Protestant denominations with unbelief and skepticism. A key word here is “speculation.” No ancient J, P, or E document (or ancient copy of such a document) has ever been found. There is no historical proof, because rather than actual documents, the theory is based on blatant speculation. While falsely claiming to follow historical science or the “historical method,” these scholars cannot produce any ancient copies (or copies of copies) of a J document, a P document, or an E document.”

“This cannot be held to be an “historical method” that is being followed, since no historical E, J, or P document (or copies of them) have ever been produced. And the D document is held to be nearly (or completely) identical to the book of Deuteronomy, so this produces no additional evidence for the theory either. Yet, scholars supporting this theory claim to be following the “historical-critical” method!”

“Since the J, P, and E documents are based on speculation, scholars have differed in numerous cases on the “finer” points of the theory—and it should be noted that “opinions about the dates of composition of its various parts differ by more than five hundred years.” 3  T. D. Alexander notes that “while proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis still exist . . . there is an ever growing unease that it fails to provide the best explanation for the composition of the Pentateuch.” 4  Another current assessment is that “many scholars today have abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis, agreeing that it is based on a faulty understanding of ancient Near Eastern literature and that it contributes nothing helpful to our understanding of the Pentateuch.” 5 After more than a century, the flaws and inconsistencies of this theory have become more and more obvious.”

“Even though liberal scholars are increasingly abandoning the Documentary Hypothesis, they continue to promote such unreliable theories. K. A. Kitchen, Old Testament scholar and Egyptologist, notes, “In the last few years increasingly extreme views about the Old Testament writings have been trumpeted loudly and proclaimed ever more widely and stridently; in the service of these views, all manner of gross misinterpretations of original, firsthand documentary data from the ancient Near East itself are now being shot forth in turn, to prop up these extreme stances on the Old Testament, regardless of the real facts of the case.”” 6  

“Another point to be aware of is that the Documentary Hypothesis is an example of the influence of skepticism and rationalism in the West—primarily in European and American theological circles. The Western dominance of biblical theology is now decreasing worldwide because of the growing influence of Christianity in the Global South and other parts of the world, in areas such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These new and growing faith communities in other parts of the world need not, and indeed should not, follow the corrupted liberal theologies of the West, which are based on skepticism and rationalism. The Africa Bible Commentary, written by seventy African scholars, dismisses liberal theories about the composition of the Pentateuch based on names for God in different sections and reaffirms general Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch at various points.” 7

 

Selections above are from Erickson, M. A.. Key Connections: Understanding the Changes from the Old to New Testament (p. 211-213).  Wipf and Stock Publishers (Dec. 2023).

 

For more from this chapter, and other topics, see Key Connections: Understanding the Changes from the Old to New Testament, by M. A. Erickson (Dec. 2023, Wipf & Stock). Available on Amazon in Kindle, or print, at:

 

Key Connections: Understanding the Changes from the Old to New Testament

 

 

Footnotes:

 

  1. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch, 12–13, as cited in Alexander, “Authorship of the Pentateuch,” 62, In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 61–72. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.
  2. Alexander, “Authorship of the Pentateuch,” 62. In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 61–72.
  3. Kaiser and Garrett, NIV Archaeological Study Bible, 106.
  4. Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, xiv.
  5. In Abate et al., Africa Bible Commentary, see Abel Ndjerareou, “Introduction to the Pentateuch,” 7; Barnabe Assohoto and Samuel Ngewa, “Genesis,” 9; Abel Ndjerareou, “Exodus,” 85; Luciano C. Chianeque and Samuel Ngewa, “Deuteronomy,” 209; and David Oginde, “Joshua,” 259.

 

 

 **Concerning Key Connections: Understanding the Changes from the Old to New Testament, Dr. Roger Cotton, professor of Old Testament for many years at Evangel University / AGTS, wrote the following recommendation (from the back cover of the book):



“M. A. Erickson has written the best exposition I have seen of the changes and the continuity between the Old Testament and the New. He expresses it in very similar ways to mine so that this is the book I wish I could have written. He deals very well with difficult issues like the use of the sword in the OT but no longer by the communities of faith in Christ. All Christians, especially teachers, should read this book.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the dissertation research that provided the background work for Key Connections: Understanding the Changes From the Old to New Testament, see the book:

 Freely Gathered Communities of Faith and the Changes between the Testaments by M. A. Erickson (Wipf & Stock, 2019)  available at Amazon in Kindle and Print, at:

 

 Freely Gathered Communities of Faith and the Changes between the Testaments

 

 Recommendation for Freely Gathered Communities of Faith, and the Changes between the Testaments (Wipf & Stock, 2019):

 

L. John Bueno (1938-2024), former Executive Director, Assemblies of God World Missions, wrote the following (taken from the back cover of the book):

 

“It has always been an intriguing study to try and explain the fusion of the Old and New Testaments. By choosing three segments of this subject, Mark Erickson has brought much clarity and understanding to the entire process as he uses the land, the sword, and the Temple for illustration. This well-researched work is extremely helpful in understanding the plan of God for the redemption of humankind. I have personally benefitted from this excellent work.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Flag counter added to site, June 19, 2008