if it isn’t, nothing can and if it is, it doesn’t need to be saved.
Satan: Fer sure!
God: Nope.
LET GOD WRITE ICHABOD OVER THEIR DOORPOST!
In a word, no.
liberal Christianity = oxymoron
Liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all. If it denies that Jesus was God, that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, and belief and trust in Jesus as the risen savior is the ONLY way to heaven, then no, it cannot and should not be saved.
A bigger question is, why is it being touted as Christianity at all? You’d think the libs would come up with something completely different.
The people still going to those churches are, in fact Jesus thought so much of them that he died for them.
The false teachers have some splainin to do though.
Before anyone attends many of today’s Episcopal or Presbyterian churches, they would best review Matthew 7:15.
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)
Only one gospel saves:
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:1,2)
I would venture to say that most liberal christians are in need of hearing the gospel and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ [God]. This is based on witnessing to hundreds of people who attend these liberal churches, as well as examining their doctrines in light of scripture. Granted my experiential base is small, but it is suggestive of what people believe (what they place their confidence in to save them) and whether it is biblically based. Further, I know many other preachers who have knocked on 10s of thousands of doors who have the same testimony as I.
Forgive my asking what may seem a simple question, but isn’t “Liberal Christianity” a textbook example of a contradiction in terms?
If some people can't believe in a literal Heaven and Hell is it better that they have no religious institutions and education at all -- no alternative to amoral materialism?
In place of these tenets, liberal Christianity embraces a series of denials: Christ is not divine, mankind is not inherently sinful, the Scriptures are not authoritative and unchanging, heaven and hell are not literal, morality and theology are not absolute, and social mores do not flow from Scripture, but are an ever-changing product of our evolutionary enlightenment.
I'm not entirely sure that's what the old "mainstream" denominations actually believe, but in any case some of the most influential of the Founding Fathers were "liberal Christians" in the understanding of their era. Their beliefs have been an important influence in American history -- and not an entirely malign one.
They have nothing to live for, nothing to die for, and nothing to work for. For them, church is just another social club, devoid of power because it is not animated by transcendent truth and accountability for living in conformity with that truth. They have no authority for faith or action.
"Life unworthy of life"? A little charity might be in order here.
One of the commenters at Town Hall said that it's not really the case any more that conservative churches are growing as liberal churches decline, saying that both have been having trouble lately, and that if anything is successful, it's a "prosperity gospel" that is neither liberal or conservative.
I don't know if that's true, but if you demand a "real" Christianity stressing total depravity and the rest, a lot of people aren't going to buy it. Some of those who do will do so for the wrong reasons.
Paul has already given us the answer in 2 Tim 3:
1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. 6For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.
... So accurate for having been written nearly 2000 years ago, eh?
Worth a read, if you're not already familiar with it. It was published originally in the twenties. His conclusion, in short, was that Liberalism was a different religion from Christianity.
Do a little digging and you should be able to find a downloadable pdf.
“Is Liberal ‘Christianity’ worth saving?”
No.
And there is no way of saving it.
Christ died for them but they deny Him and His law.
Is that why so many are seeking this?
Liberal C becomes Unitarianism and like Unitarianism, eventually dies...
No, Liberal Christianity is not worth saving. But the liberals in those churches are. Bring them back to the authority of the Bible, preach the authentic gospel, and people will be regenerated.