If I invited you for pizza, yet served sandwiches, would you be happy, or feel ripped off?
Then I tell you, it’s just a liberal view of pizza. I didn’t lie or try to deceive you, but we need a more modern view of pizza for the 21st century. Liberal pizza leads to the following question:
Does your pastor reject Christianity as he stands in the pulpit?
As liberal theology infests — and that’s the correct term — the church, it always begins denying the Bible, and ends in illogical inconsistency.
For those claiming the Bible contains the Word of God, but isn’t perfect or error-free, they’ve got some ’splaining to do.
First question, does God lie?
Liberal theology requires God to lie by denying clear Bible statements, thus God lied to you (since liberals are right and God isn’t), and thus you can’t be sure what is true and what isn’t.
Did God Lie to Noah?
Some claim Noah’s flood in Genesis only occurred locally, not globally over the whole earth.
Really? Let’s go to the official’s booth for a review — what does the Bible say?
Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth. (Genesis 9:11 NKJV)
The earth has endured many local (and quite devastating) floods. If liberals deny the global nature of Noah’s flood, God lied to Noah and broke His promise; His Word isn’t worth doggy poo-poo.
You might want to keep that ark around, Noah, another flood could be coming … for those taking a “progressive” view of Genesis.
Did God Lie to Israel?
Next up is replacement theology — the idea the church has replaced Israel — an idea so absurd it’s stunning anyone would accept such nonsense.
Yet many do.
What does the Bible say?
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (Daniel 9:24)
Two things should be immediately obvious in this passage:
- It’s Jewish, not Gentile — speaking to Daniel, thy people (Jews).
- It’s not complete — end of sin, everlasting righteousness, etc.
Without detailing the 70 weeks of Daniel, it’s obvious God still has plans for Israel, thus replacement theology is 100% wrong.
Unless God lies.
Did Paul Lie?
One idea running around liberal/progressive theology involves Easter and the idea Christ didn’t actually resurrect in a body.
First, what does Paul say?
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. (1 Corinthians 15)
And now the progressive doubletalk:
Fundamentalists are quite sure of their truth. On Easter the crucified Jesus, who was laid in the grave as a deceased man on Good Friday, was by the mighty act of God, restored to life on Easter. He had thus broken the power of death for all people. If the body of Jesus was not physically restored to life, the fundamentalists claim, then Easter is fraudulent.
Paul, for example, writing between the years 50 and 64 or some 20 to 34 years after the earthly life of Jesus came to an end, never describes the resurrection of Jesus as a physical body resuscitated after death. There is no hint in the Pauline corpus that one, who had died, later walked out of his grave clothes, emerged from the tomb and was seen by his disciples. [emphasis added]
As a quick side note, notice the first line says “their truth,” a classic post-modern view of relative truth, where you can believe 2+2=4 and I — at the same time — can believe 2+2=5 and we both can hold “truth.”
Truth is not relative, and it changes not.
Again, let’s go to the booth for a review, in this case, what did Paul actually say?
… Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. (1 Corinthians 15)
I’m a simple guy, granted, I’m not a “scholar,” but I see no way to reconcile the first quote with the second.
Progressive theology says Paul never even hints of the physical resurrection, yet Paul says exactly the opposite, in fact begging his readers to check the facts out for themselves.
Paul refers to the apostles seeing Jesus; recall a familiar passage from Luke:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)
I can only guess liberal scholars’ Bibles are missing 1 Corinthians 15 and Luke 24.
And of course, the review booth also notes the words of Jesus Himself (who, after all, ought to know):
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spoke of the temple of his body. (John 2:19–21)
Body in Greek is Strong’s G4983, and it means exactly as it reads: the physical body.
Who is this person offering a contrary view from the Bible? It’s Bishop Spong, whose home page declares:
For those seeking to experience Christianity in a new and vibrant way, Bishop John Shelby Spong offers fresh spiritual ideas. Over the past four decades, he has become one of the definitive voices for progressive Christianity. [emphasis added]
What does Bishop Spong say about Easter, if it’s not the resurrection?
What Paul does suggest is that Easter meant that God had acted to reverse the verdict that the world had pronounced on Jesus by raising Jesus from death into God. It was, therefore, out of God in a transforming kind of heavenly vision that this Jesus then appeared to certain chosen witnesses.
I honestly could testify under oath I have no idea what that means, but then, I’m a simple guy.
Liberalism Fails, not God
The Bible claims all of it is profitable and inspired by God. You can trust all of it … unless God lies. I may be out in left field, but I believe lies aren’t profitable for anything.
What do you think?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)
All means all, that’s all all means.
If liberals are correct, God lied numerous times, and so did Paul to Timothy.
If liberal theology is true, what can you believe from the Bible? Can you pick and choose what to accept and what to reject? Liberal theology allows you to do just that.
Want to cheat on your wife? Just toss out sections on adultery. They’re so confining, and clearly not meant for today’s society when web sites use slogans like “life is short, have an affair,” and providing 7 habits of successful cheaters.
Surely Paul couldn’t imagine modern society, so sections about adultery and immorality don’t apply today. If it feels good, do it.
You’re free to do as you wish, of course, but don’t be deceived thinking the Bible no longer applies, or worse, that God approves of your iniquity, rebellion, and sin when He specifically laid out His views in black and white.
In the end liberal theology runs in contradiction to the Bible. You can believe liberals or the Bible, but not both. Will you allow liberalism to infest the church?
Liberal theology represents open rebellion against God, but lacks the guts to admit it.
It’s important when speaking in strong words about theology to not make the leap it means anything about liberals personally.
They could be the nicest people you want living next door, axe murderers, mother Teresa, or indwelt by Satan himself.
I know nothing about the Bishop’s personal character, however, he has written considerably about his theology, and we can (and should) be Bereans and search the scriptures to see if those things be so (Acts 17:11).
In this case liberal theology drifts away from Christianity, ending in a feel-good religion devoid of any Christian substance.
Since the ideas presented contradict the Bible, you must make a choice — is progressive theology represented by Spong correct, or is the Bible correct? They can’t both be right.
Rejecting the Foundations of Christianity
Consider more from Bishop Spong, as recorded by the diocese of Newark; you’ll quickly notice what Spong proposes bears resemblance to Christianity in name only.
- Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
- Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
- The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
- The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
- The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
- The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
- Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
Once again, I have no idea what “raised into the meaning of God” could possibly mean. As Spong denies a physical resurrection, I can only guess he offers a modern retread of first century Gnosticism.
Let’s look at what his ideas really mean; Spong’s progressive “Christianity”:
- Denies the deity of Christ. (#2)
- Denies the virgin birth. (#4)
- Denies the creation. (#3)
- Denies the inerrancy of the Bible. (#2, #3, #4)
- Denies the atonement of the cross. (#6, #7)
- Denies the physical resurrection. (#7)
Liberals use the same terms as traditional Christians, but it’s obvious if you talked to Bishop Spong, you and he would not be speaking about the same thing, even while using the same words.
That’s why the poison of liberal theology is so dangerous.
A Liberal Pizza
When talking with a liberal, get them to define their terms, and you’ll discover Jesus, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, resurrection, and more do not mean to the liberal what you understand them to be.
Liberal theology re-defines words and can sound completely truthful, all while speaking from the pit of hell, simply because liberal theology does not use language the way everyone else does.
If I say let’s meet at the restaurant for pizza, you know what I mean because we all use restaurant and pizza the same way.
But what if I subtly re-defined pizza to sandwich? You would be confused.
When I said pizza, I didn’t mean literal pizza, but the meaning of pizza. See, your sandwich has tomatoes, bread, cheese, and meat — just like pizza. Your sandwich contains pizza, but it isn’t all pizza.
Exactly as liberals say the Bible contains the Word of God, but isn’t all the Word of God (and they’ll tell you which is which, because, you know, they’re scholars, and you’re not).
In reality, a sandwich could be 95% the same as pizza — but you don’t get to call it pizza because it’s mostly pizza, or pizza-like, and you don’t need to be a food scholar to know what they’re serving isn’t pizza.
Why must you be so narrow on your idea of pizza?
Liberal theology is pizza re-defined to sandwich. Close doesn’t cut it — if your life depends on it (and it does), you’re dead using liberal pizza.
Whenever I hear people make statements I very much like to know what they mean by the words because if they can’t define the words in context they don’t mean anything. (Walter Martin — “The Cult of Liberalism” lecture, emphasis added)
The Wheat and the Tares
Paul warned people would not listen to sound doctrine, but whoever told them what they wanted to hear.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3–4)
Liberal theology tells people what they want to hear, replacing God’s true Word with mythology. Sure, you can ignore parts of the Bible. Paul’s rules for leaders? That was just cultural for his time. Immorality? Nope, we must “modernize” those passages.
Many people chase after teachers telling them what they want to hear, instead of searching for the truth. Yet some prefer living in Fantasyland over truth.
Baptism of Boldness
One of my favorite teachers remains Walter Martin — a guy who said it like it is. As Walter Martin would say, we need a boldness to combat the infestation of liberal theology which denies the Bible and declares God a liar.
Will you make a stand for Biblical truth, or swallow the poison of liberal theology?
You must be polite, yet firm, and challenge liberal theology as it oozes and takes over churches like “The Blob.” Your action plan:
- Force liberals to define terms
- Demand agreement with the Bible
- Be courteous
- Reject double talk