Feed aggregator

The abandonment of a literal interpretation of the Bible, and especially of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, has turned many professing Christians into atheists. Charles Templeton, pastor for seven years of a successful and growing church in Toronto, Canada, and at one time close friend and co-evangelist with Billy Graham,19 abandoned the faith entirely when he decided he could no longer believe the biblical account of creation. In fact, he confesses that the foundational reason for his years of agnosticism, as it has been for many others, was: “I had always doubted the Genesis account of creation.”

The abandonment of a literal interpretation of the Bible, and especially of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, has turned many professing Christians into atheists. Charles Templeton, pastor for seven years of a successful and growing church in Toronto, Canada, and at one time close friend and co-evangelist with Billy Graham, abandoned the faith entirely when he decided he could no longer believe the biblical account of creation. In fact, he confesses that the foundational reason for his years of agnosticism, as it has been for many others, was: “I had always doubted the Genesis account of creation.”

In his 1923 book Christianity & Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen asserts that liberalism is another religion unto itself, far removed from the biblical Christianity from which it came. We think he makes some good points. In Chapter Two of his book, he takes the liberalism (of his day) to task concerning their public hostility toward doctrine – when, in fact, they had simply created new doctrines that comport with what Machen points out is essentially a new religion. Liberals in Machen’s days didn’t want a test that shows who, as Brian McLaren says, “is in and who is not.” They wanted Jesus to be merely a good moral teacher or a wise sage like Confucius. Liberals kept the name “Christian” for this new religion while stripping from it the biblical historic faith through redefinition and sleight of hand. As Machen often pointed out in his book, the biblical writers didn’t merely record events like Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection but gave particular meaning to those events. The mere recording of those events would be history. The meaning of the events – that Jesus died, was buried, and raised to pay for the sins of the world, and on that basis, people can be saved and enjoy peace with God – is doctrine.

As Machen builds his case, he establishes something that most seem to miss regarding Who Jesus Christ was and is. Machen writes:

In particular, it [Scripture] contains the loftiest possible presentation of Jesus’ own Person. That presentation appears in the strange note of authority which pervades the whole discourse; it appears in the recurrent words, “But I say unto you.” Jesus plainly puts His own words on an equality with what He certainly regarded as the divine words of Scripture; He claimed the right to legislate for the Kingdom of God. Let it not be objected that this note of authority involves merely a prophetic consciousness in Jesus, a mere right to speak in God’s name as God’s Spirit might lead. For what prophet ever spoke in this way? The prophets said, “Thus saith the Lord,” but Jesus said, “I say.”1

For those who missed it, the first time through, Machen points out that as Jesus spoke those five little words, “But I say unto you,” He “puts His own words on an equality” to the word of God – Scripture. To make sure the readers understood the depth of the importance of this Machen wrote, “He claimed the right to legislate for the Kingdom of God.” As Machen points out, this isn’t a simple passing on a divine word from above, a “Thus Saith the Lord,” but something equal in authority to the original Scripture when He uttered, “I say.”

As Machen notes, the same thing occurs in Mathew 7:23-25: “Jesus here represents Himself as seated on the judgment-seat of all the earth, separating whom He will forever from the bliss that is involved in being present with Him. Could anything be further removed than such a Jesus from the humble teacher of righteousness appealed to by modern liberalism?” 2

The lofty language Jesus used of Himself was not lost on the religious leaders when Jesus walked among them in the first century. They never confused Him with someone claiming to be merely a good moral teacher or wise sage. Jesus openly declared that He is the One Who created the test as to “who is in and who is out.” In fact, it is because of these kinds of statements that they viewed Him as a blasphemer:

The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (John:10:31-33 [31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. [32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? [33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
See All... ESV)

Why would liberals go to such great lengths to hide or “reimagine” the Jesus of Scripture? In critiquing The Jesus Seminar with a focus on one of the founding members, John Dominic Crossan, in an article we did some years ago, The Hysterical Search for the Historical Jesus, the answer as to “why” is abundantly clear:

Why did Crossan feel the need to make up his own Jesus? Very simple – he didn’t like the politically incorrect, intolerant [any Jesus going around saying that He is the only way to God is just begging to be reimagined!], hell-fire spouting, judgmental Jesus he found on the pages of Scripture! He prefers the mythical Jesus of the Gnostics because their theology is preferable to him.

Ironically, Liberalism is itself in great danger of being chewed up and spit out by the new ultra-intolerant leftists of our day, who are not “liberal” in any sense of the word. They are creating their own dogma (doctrines), which everyone must get in line with – or else. The new leftists are every day creating new “sins” and new rules, and they loudly proclaim their own “tests of who is in and who is out.” Just say something they do not like, and you’ll soon see how very “out,” or as they say, “canceled” you’ll very quickly be! Sit-com TV shows and stand-up comedy routines, which Liberals enjoyed just fifteen or twenty years ago, are being attacked by the new left as sexist, racist, or whatever-ist. “Free Speech,” once a cardinal virtue of liberalism, is falling by the wayside. The following was once a liberal free speech rallying cry — “I may not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it!” In 1977 the ACLU defended the right of actual Nazis to rally in Skokie, Illinois, based upon this bedrock ideal. Today, Nazism itself has been re-imagined to be, “Any person who sits just slightly to the right of me or uses outlawed language is a bonafide evil Nazi.” Ironically, the evil bedrock anti-semitic component of Nazism has very swiftly gained a new respect and even acceptance on the left, especially among the young. In the next few years, will gross anti-semitism have become an essential dogma of all “TRUE” liberals, without which you can lose your right to call yourself a liberal or Progressive at all? “Oh, you don’t hate Jews? You’re a Nazi!” We fervently hope not, but we could not bet against it.

Free Speech, however, is already a lost ideal among the new leftists. “Speech cannot be free if it disagrees with me” is now the mantra of the far left. Just a few short years ago, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton upheld marriage as being between one man and one woman. Shocking! Let’s be honest – what Liberal would openly say that today? Very few. Will older classical liberals like Alan Dershowitz be able to keep up with the new far-leftist dogma as it mutates from the old liberalism at warp speed? That’s a question that classical liberals should perhaps ask themselves. Will the “old guard” liberals stand up for ideals they devoutly championed just “yesterday?” Or will they just keep their mouths shut and embrace the new – and very dogmatic “religion” of the far-left “Progressives”?

[TBC: For footnotes see:]

https://midwestoutreach.org/2025/02/27/is-progressive-christianity-christian-2/

I recently published an article detailing the pervasive anti-Semitic environment at Sarah Lawrence College (SLC), where I have been a faculty member for the past fifteen years. In it, I presented troubling facts about the rise of anti-Semitism on the New York-based campus and shared my perspective on SLC’s handling of these issues.

Rather than engaging with the facts I presented, however, many members of the SLC community chose to dismiss the evidence and instead attack me for my political views. This response reflects poorly on SLC and undermines public confidence in the integrity of higher education in America, an institution already in steep decline.

As a Jew, writing about anti-Semitism is never easy, but some truths must be shared. It is undeniable that several Jewish Zionist students have left the school or switched to fully remote learning due to—at the very least—their perception that SLC has failed to effectively address a toxic environment of threats, intimidation, and harassment.

Understandably, they worry about their safety and the disruption of their learning environment.

By being forced off campus or leaving the school entirely, these students have been denied the same opportunities to engage and thrive on campus as others, solely because of their faith and heritage.

Finally, SLC has indeed allowed a workplace environment to develop where students can disrupt my teaching and academic work and attack me for my faith and Jewish Zionist heritage.

After presenting these facts, I shared my perspective on SLC’s response to these campus issues—specifically, its decision not to settle the Title VI investigation and its choice of leadership. My views are open to debate and disagreement; thoughtful dialogue is both welcome and essential to a healthy intellectual and academic environment.

However—unsurprisingly—that did not happen.

Instead, when my aforementioned article was posted in an alumni group on Facebook, the first response came from a former student who urged the community to stop discussing me—then proceeded to call me “a right-wing hack” and a “pest” on campus.

This alum couldn’t be bothered to engage with any of the ideas in the article and instead resorted to attacking me—employing a deeply dangerous and horrifying trope once used by the Nazi regime to justify the persecution of Jews and, ultimately, the Holocaust. I’ve been called many things over the years, but it was shocking to be labeled a “pest”—a term historically invoked to justify the extermination of Jews. As the Antisemitism Policy Trust notes, “The pest … is perceived as something which will eat away at society and rot the wood of societal values; it must be eradicated.”

Of course, no one commented on the disgusting use and intention behind the word “pest” as it applied to me.

This alum couldn’t be bothered to engage with any of the ideas in the article and instead resorted to attacking me—employing a deeply dangerous and horrifying trope once used by the Nazi regime to justify the persecution of Jews and, ultimately, the Holocaust. I’ve been called many things over the years, but it was shocking to be labeled a “pest”—a term historically invoked to justify the extermination of Jews. As the Antisemitism Policy Trust notes, “The pest … is perceived as something which will eat away at society and rot the wood of societal values; it must be eradicated.”

Of course, no one commented on the disgusting use and intention behind the word “pest” as it applied to me.

As a social science professor, I have no interest in telling students what to think. I aim to teach them how to think—how to question, establish facts, and critically engage with all ideas. Intellectual progress and societal betterment come from viewpoint diversity and the rigorous scrutiny of ideas. Yet, the reactions to my concerns about Sarah Lawrence College and the real danger of hatred towards its Jewish community members show how the school has devolved into an illiberal environment, where empathy is replaced by hostility and a desire to harm those with differing views and foundational beliefs.

Those numerous alumni who have engaged in anti-Semitic behavior serve as a stark reminder that SLC has not instilled the critical thinking skills necessary to foster a truly open and tolerant society.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/bulletin-board/jewish-professor-called-pest-for-antisemitism-criticism/

The first eleven chapters of Genesis are ignored, mythologized, or given a non-literal meaning by many who nevertheless call themselves Christians. Yet the Genesis account of the origin of the universe and all that is within it, including man, is foundational to everything else the Bible says, including the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. That is, of course, precisely why the Bible begins this way. John M. Cimbala, a mechanical engineer who earned his Ph.D. in Aeronautics at California Institute of Technology, explains the importance of the opening chapters of Genesis:

“I was raised in a Christian home [but] eventually rejected the entire Bible and believed that we descended from lower creatures; there was no afterlife and no purpose in life but to enjoy the short time we have on this earth. My college years at Penn State were spent as an atheist. . . . Fortunately, and by the grace of God, I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation [and] realized that the Bible might actually be true! It wasn’t until I could believe the first page of the Bible that I could believe the rest of it.”

Of course, we would readily admit that there are and always have been bad-actors in the church, and in fact, all of us as human beings, Christian or not, we are seriously flawed. But that is a very poor reason to reject the salvation the Lord provides, the only remedy for our flawed (sinful) condition. Often the unbeliever’s finger pointing at flawed people in the church, sinners all, is used as an excuse to reject what they desperately seek to reject for other reasons — namely their own sinfulness. And we probably all remember the childhood saying that when one finger is pointing at someone else, three fingers are pointing back at the accuser. There is also the tried and true “rubber and glue” adage to keep in mind. So, we posit this convenient rejection is very often motivated more by how someone wants to live than whether Christianity is true.

We must point out that Voltaire and other atheists in the past lambasted Christianity while safely swimming in the cultural pool of the very faith they despised. They did not taste the world that their ideas would create, and never had to suffer the repercussions of their most genial visions. And their ideas have caused massive chaos and suffering in this world.

—Don/Joy Veinot (Founders of Midwest Christian Outreach, Apologists, and authors.)

Rebellion against God is not new. Eve was persuaded to believe God was holding something back from her. She disobeyed Him and partook of the forbidden fruit. Man was commanded to multiply and spread out on the face of the earth , but in Genesis 11, they decided they would prefer to stay where they were and build a monument to ... themselves. Even though they had direct evidence of God, they chose self-worship over the worship of the Creator. The Apostle Paul outlines the process of man's rejection and God's response: 

Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans:1:24-25 [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
See All...)

The process hasn't changed much between then and now, but we have ab updated new and better scheme to persuade others to follow with a view to becoming their own saviors. In "Critical Freedom: Critical Theory and The Messianic Light," Anthony Costelllo writes: 

Karl Marx, the great prophet of liberation for modern man, considered man’s alienation inextricably connected to his labor. For Marx man was, at bottom, homo faber–man, the maker of things. Further, since man was not created by God, he was not only the maker of tools and artifacts, but, in a sense, the maker of himself. Marx didn’t mean man literally creates himself, in the strict metaphysical sense (man, for Marx, is an accident of nature), but he did mean that in the course of history man defines and redefines what he is and what he is to become.

In so doing, man first shapes himself and then subsequently labors to create the world in the way he sees fit. 

The attempt to be your own personal messiah sells well, but sadly, it leads them down the road away from the true Messiah to eternal destruction.  Those they have influenced are a mission field!

https://mailchi.mp/62ba88a928f4/spiritual-politics?e=169825fd77

This is exactly what the Bible declares: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The book of Genesis gives some of the details surrounding the creation of the universe and of man and all living things on Earth, including sin and death and the worldwide flood. That judgment from God through water is verified by worldwide geological evidence today—much of it in the form of marine fossils on the tops of very high mountains.

Logic alone is sufficient to rule out pantheism, the belief that God created the universe out of Himself and it is therefore equal to God. It could not be an extension of or part of Him, or it would not be subject to the law of entropy. By itself, this fact refutes the idea of the “Star Wars Force” or of any other theory that turns God into unthinking, purposeless energy. By claiming that everything is God, pantheism reduces God to matter that is incapable of thought and is helpless in and of itself. If everything and everyone is God, then nothing is God, because the concept of God has lost its meaning. The only sensible conclusion is that God created everything out of nothing and that the cosmos was, is, and always will be separate and distinct from its Creator.