Progressive Christianity, at this moment, is not proposing to change the Evangelical and Reformed Confessions. It simply ignores them or claims to affirm them while twisting their meaning with interpretive gymnastics. How? By something that places Progressive Christianity like Liberal Christianity as an insidious adversary of Biblical Christianity: Confessional deception. 

Why are venerable Evangelical and Reformed institutions systematically departing from theological fidelity to embrace new mission objectives? It seems to be happening in a similar fashion in churches, colleges, seminaries, publishing houses, para-church organizations, and historically reliable mission agencies. Why is there a steady stream of well-known Evangelical and Reformed leaders either denying the faith “once and for all delivered to the saints” or publicly “deconstructing their faith”? Why are first order Biblical doctrines including the Gospel itself—which is the first of the “first things—being adulterated or abandoned for theological novelties that inevitably result in heresies?Why are professing Evangelical and Reformed ministries embracing, celebrating, and propagating Gospel heresies such as the prosperity gospel, the therapeutic gospel, the pragmatic church growth gospel, and the newly renovated social gospel, etc.? Why are unbiblical and Gospel-denying political and social ideologies being quoted and implemented from pulpit ministries and in discipleship strategies?
       Having spent the last two decades prayerfully attempting to respond biblically and pastorally to this seemingly endless series of theological and ministerial aberrations that have penetrated and permeated Evangelical and Reformed churches, it became obvious that it was past time to pause and reflect on the source of this “poison fruit.” As I’ve taken time for renewal, because of ministry exhaustion, and to reflect, because of increasing ministerial bewilderment, two observations have become obvious, which in turn lead to a decisive conclusion.
       First, the content and focus of the identifiable theological and missional poison fruit was obvious. It consistently manifested itself in the theological and missional adulteration of the Gospel Message and the renovation of the Gospel Mission for Christ’s Church. What was not so obvious was the poisonous root at the source of the poisonous fruit.
       Second, over the last two decades I have found myself increasingly recommending J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity & Liberalism even though no one in the increasingly confused orbit of Evangelical and Reformed Christianity seemed to be promoting the radical 19th century theological renovations now known as classical Liberal Theology. Yet not only was Machen’s Christianity & Liberalism helpful to me in the current context, but it was observably helpful to any and all I recommended it to who actively read and used it in addressing this “present distress.”
       The conclusion, as I contemplated these things, became clear. The poisonous root that has produced theological apostasy beginning with the Gospel itself, and the Missional confusion that follows from that, is the 60-year-old movement that calls itself “Progressive Christianity,” a movement which has been and continues to be aimed at redefining the Mission of the Evangelical and Reformed Church as well as its Message. When Progressive Christianity in its 60-year evolution is held under the microscope, the reason why Machen’s Christianity & Liberalism feels so relevant becomes obvious: even though the doctrinal errors and heresies of Liberal Christianity are distinct from the ever-evolving errors and heresies of Progressive Christianity, it becomes undeniable that Progressive Christianity is “cut from the same bolt of cloth” as Liberal Christianity. Both ultimately embrace the fabric of Theological and Missional renovation and therefore inevitably embrace Theological and Missional apostasy.
       In other words, Progressive Christianity, at its core, is Liberal Christianity 2.0. As I’ve continued to explore this connection, I’ve identified five affirmations that reveal the intrinsic connection between so-called Progressive and Liberal Christianity:
Five Affirmations

Liberal Christianity, as it gained influence in the 19th century, entered the 20th century with its sights set upon the Mainline Protestant Church. In the same fashion, Progressive Christianity, having established its footing in the concluding decades of the 20th century, fixed its sights upon the Evangelical and Reformed churches and institutions in the opening decades of the 21st century.
Just as Liberal Christianity inevitably produced the errors and heresies of Liberal Theology, so Progressive Christianity produces its own errors and heresies in Progressive Theology as it adulterates historical and biblical orthodoxy. It does this—in a method poached from Liberal Christianity—by embracing the novelty of a culture-focused Mission for Christ’s Church as superior to the Word of God. This theological downgrade is not only manifested by a loss of Confessional integrity in general, but by the theological devolution of the Christ-given and Gospel-defined Message and Mission of His Church.
Progressive Christianity as Liberal Christianity is both parasitic and destructive. It does not bring forth—it tears down. It does not develop—it destroys.
Progressive Christianity as a movement, like Liberal Christianity with its theological adulterations and apostasies, promotes unbelief and therefore qualifies as the doctrine of demons. Demonic doctrine means that in the final analysis Progressive Christianity, like Liberal Christianity, is not a subset of Christianity but a virulent adversary of Biblical Christianity. Like so-called Liberal Christianity there may be believers and even faithful churches under its influence for a time. But in the name of Biblical fidelity and Confessional integrity, it must be rejected as a professed movement of Christianity and noted as an adversary because in the final analysis it becomes an instrument of sending the souls of men and women to the judgment of God without the Blessed Hope of the Gospel.
Progressive Christianity shares the same three poisoned threads—Motivation, Mission, and Message—with Liberal Christianity. In light of the decimation wrought by Liberal Christianity in the Mainline Protestant Church of the 20th century, the Evangelical and Reformed Church of the 21st century must examine the Motivation, Mission, and Message of Progressive Christianity and its pervasive, penetrating influence. Let’s examine each thread.

Although separated by 100 years, Progressive Christianity in a real sense is Regressive Christianity revealed as Liberal Christianity 2.0. It shares Liberal Christianity’s same failed motivation, it’s committed to its same failed mission, which ensures an inevitable Theological downgrade of its message, though not necessarily adulterating the same particular doctrines as Liberal Theology did. The theological apostasy of Progressive Christianity will not, for various reasons, necessarily mimic all the apostasies of Liberal Christianity but it will be equally destructive.
Motivations
       The self-confessed motivation of 19th and 20th Century Liberal Christianity was not to destroy Christianity but to save the Mainline Protestant Church from “modernity” and the intimidating sophistication of the “modern mind.” This was obvious in the talking points of Liberal Christianity: “in light of modernity the church must be saved from cultural irrelevance” and “Christianity must be saved from the intellectual dustbin of history” and “if Christianity doesn’t change we will lose the next generation.” Sound familiar?
       Likewise, the Progressive Christianity of the 20th and 21st Century does not originate from a desire to destroy Christianity. This time the desire is not to save the Protestant Mainline Church, but to save the Evangelical and Reformed Church from “cultural irrelevance,” “the dustbin of history” and “the loss of the next generation.” There is no doubt in my mind that very few contemporary Progressives are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” such as those Paul warned the Elders of the Church at Ephesus to alertly guard. In fact, I believe the vast majority of them are actually “sheep in wolves’ clothing.” But make no mistake. As affirmed by its celebrated apologists and preachers, Progressive Christianity is “wolves’ clothing” in that it has the identical motivation as Liberal Christianity, and dare I say that in reality it is an arrogant motivation— to save Christianity and the Church from cultural irrelevance. Today, instead of saving Christianity from the “burgeoning movement of modernity”, Progressive Christianity proposes to save Christianity from the triumphal movement of post-modernity.
Read More
Related Posts:

Jesus clearly represents the seed of the woman who’s crushing the Serpent, and his children are clearly set in opposition to the children of the Serpent. If John is describing the outworking of Genesis 3:15, then he appears to understand the seed of the woman in that verse in both an individual and a collective sense.

The past 30 years have provided something of a renaissance in the interpretation of Genesis 3:15, with many evangelical scholars providing sound exegetical and theological argumentation that this verse explicitly anticipates a future individual offspring of the woman. However, many scholars still strongly affirm the collective understanding of the seed of the woman.
Another view proposes that the expectation of the seed of the woman is both individual and collective. In this interpretation, the verse anticipates (1) an individual coming Deliverer who will be at enmity with and exchange blows with the Serpent and (2) a collective group associated with the individual coming Deliverer who will participate in this enmity against the Serpent and his seed.
Several New Testament passages allude to Genesis 3:15 and demonstrate a collective and individual application of its outworking. Here are seven examples.
1.  Opponents of Jesus as Offspring of the Serpent
The Gospel accounts display an ongoing enmity: Jesus and his followers (seed of the woman) on one side and Satan and his agents (seed of the Serpent) on the other. On several occasions, Jesus identifies his opponents as children or offspring of the Devil. In attributing their spiritual parentage to the Devil, Jesus declares his opponents are thinking and acting like the Devil.
Jesus directly addresses the Pharisees as “serpents” and a “brood of vipers” (Matt. 23:33; cf. 3:7; Luke 3:7). A Jew identifying someone as the offspring of a serpent is, in view of the broader context of the Old Testament, quite possibly alluding to Genesis 3:15 to some degree. These statements don’t necessarily address whether the seed of the woman is individual or collective, but they do suggest Jesus understands his opponents to be representative of the offspring of the Serpent.
In John 8, Jesus identifies the Jewish religious leaders with the offspring of the Serpent in his heated dialogue with “the Jews” (also identified as the Pharisees in v. 13) who insist they’re the offspring (σπέρμα) of Abraham (vv. 33, 39). Though Jesus concedes these “Jews” are offspring of Abraham in a physical sense (v. 37), they’re not truly “Abraham’s children” (τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ) because they don’t do “the works Abraham did” (v. 39).
True offspring of Abraham wouldn’t seek to kill Jesus, a man who speaks God’s truth (vv. 37, 40). Furthermore, God cannot be their father (v. 41) since they’re rejecting Jesus, the One whom God had sent (v. 42). Instead, the Devil is their father, since they fulfill his desires in their opposition to Jesus (v. 44).
Jesus points out the two primary sins of the Devil that solidifies their connection to him: he was a “murderer from the beginning,” and he is “a liar and the father of lies” (v. 44). The Jews’ intent to murder Jesus (vv. 37, 40, 44, 59), their rejection of his truth (vv. 37, 43–47), and their propagation of lies (vv. 41, 48, 52) demonstrate their character reflects the character of the Devil. The Devil, then, is their spiritual father, and they’re his offspring.
Because Jesus is certainly alluding to the Serpent’s actions in Genesis 3 in identifying the Devil as a liar and a murderer, he’s likely thinking of that chapter in referring to the unbelieving Jews as children of the Devil—the offspring of the Serpent.
“Enmity” describes Jesus’s relationship with such offspring of the Serpent. When Jesus confronts the offspring of the Serpent, he doesn’t come peaceably; rather, he engages in a harsh war of words in which he identifies and overcomes the agents of Satan.
This enmity doesn’t end with the Serpent’s seed’s rejection of Jesus; it continues with the offspring of the Serpent persecuting, flogging, killing, and crucifying Jesus’s messengers (Matt. 23:34–35). If these entities are representative of the offspring of the Serpent and if they’re at enmity with the individual Messiah, then these references appear to support the idea of the individual offspring of the woman being fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus presents these as enemies not only of himself but also of his followers. Therefore, throughout Jesus’s ministry, the offspring of the Serpent are at enmity with Jesus and his followers. 
Though Jesus’s followers aren’t specifically identified as “offspring of the woman,” their position of enmity with the offspring of the Serpent assumes this identification. It isn’t necessary for Jesus to say, “You, my disciples, are offspring of the woman” in order to understand that the theme of enmity promised in Genesis 3:15 is being displayed in the Gospels. These conflicts support the idea of enmity between both individual and collective offspring.
2.  John’s Theology of the World (Gospel of John)
John’s theology of the world also reflects the individual and collective enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the Serpent. John presents Satan as the ruler of the world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 1 John 5:19), who works in direct opposition to Jesus. The “world” in this sense in John refers not to the created universe but to the sinful people and the systems that stem from those sinful people (and from their ruler, the Devil).
John positions the world in direct opposition to Jesus. Not only does the world hate Jesus (John 7:7; 15:18–24), but the world also hates believers—those who follow Jesus (John 15:18–24; 17:14; 1 John 3:13).
If Satan is identified as the Serpent from Genesis 3, and those who follow after him are identified as his “seed” or his children (or “the world”), then it seems consistent to understand John’s theology of the world as unfolding the concepts presented in Genesis 3. Satan and the world persist in their enmity toward Jesus and believers. The world “hates” Jesus and his people. Satan and the sinful leaders of this world put Jesus to death (striking his heel), but Jesus ultimately is victorious over the Devil (striking his head) and overcomes the world (John 16:33). Christians participate in this victory as they also overcome the world (1 John 2:13–14; 4:4; 5:4–5).
Though John doesn’t specifically identify believers as “offspring of the woman,” he clearly states they’re at enmity with the Devil and those who follow the Devil.
Read More
Related Posts:

There is much that matters to the Christian life, but nothing more so than our willingness to see what lies ahead through the eyes of the one who made it from before the foundation of the world. Our call to not be anxious or worried about the circumstances of life is born out of our sure and certain hope in the King of all things. 

This past weekend we enjoyed another blessed time of rest and relaxation at our denomination’s camp and conference center, Bonclarken. There are moments where I like to think Paul’s words in Hebrews are speaking of our home in Flat Rock when he says, “But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” I joke, if only slightly.
Bonclarken was born from a contest in which Sallie Miller Brice of Chester, South Carolina submitted the winning name in 1921. It is a combination of two Latin and one Scots word which when placed together means Good, Clear, Vision. There is something to be said for each of those words in the Christian life. Individually taken they illustrate in their own way a part of the reason why we love Jesus. We love Him because He is good to us in more ways than we can count. We love Him because His word to us is clear, without blemish, and always true. We love Him because He provides to the church a purpose, a vision, through which we can awaken every day and know what our reason for being is and know what our future beholds. We are to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever, not merely for what He does for us, but for who He is.
This last one is a thing that we would be wise to take more time to consider. Especially as we face difficulties in the day-to-day. Having a bigger picture of the coming glory found alone in Jesus Christ can be a great help to shout down the attempts of the evil one to cause us to doubt God’s goodness, clarity, and ownership of that which is to come. For today’s prayer and worship help we are going to walk through some of the aspects of how we can change the way we look at things and move to having a certainty of hope in the eternal promises found in Christ.
Imagine if you will what vision means to persons like Simeon and Anna in Luke 2. As they waited for the coming of the Messiah they did so with no real outward benefit, until their was.
Read More
Related Posts: