All right, so last week, which was approximately three weeks ago, we had a little break, a long break, but anyway, so the last time we met, we began looking at our study as we're continuing looking through a little Christianity, and we began the book, Michael Kruger's The Ten Commandments of Progressive Christianity, in which he wrote as a response to a devotional, which was also derived from a book that was called If the Church Were Christian, Rediscovering the Values of Jesus by Philip Gulley. Of course, as we had set forth this book, and therefore the devotional, sets forth what is considered 10 principles, and not really commandments. This is Michael Kruger's title of calling it the 10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity, because commandments is too harsh a term, right? It's too authoritative, and so, but this is really the 10 principles that they kind of lay out as the modern confessional statement of modern liberal progressive Christianity. But as Kruger pointed out, that each of these 10 commandments contain half-truths, and that's why progressive Christianity is such a great threat to the truth. Like the lies of Satan, these progressive commandments are weaved with truth, so they will sound genuine, like they're Christian. And as we begin, looking last week at the first commandment, commandment number one, Jesus is a model for living more than an object for worship. Now at its heart, liberalism denies Christ divinity. They like the idea of Jesus as being a good example, but hate a Jesus who is divine because that means that there's a level of accountability, that saying Jesus is God, right? As Kruger points out, first and foremost, worship then must be due him if he is God. And this is proven by Gulley's statement. He says in his book, the church's worship of Jesus is something he would not have favored. But as Kruger asks, if Christianity stands, if Christ did not claim to be God, is it a viable religion if Jesus did not claim to be God? Now last time we laid out that not only did Jesus claim the divine name, I am, Right? But also claimed equality with God. But he also forgave sin, something only God could do. He controlled the weather, something only God can do. He raised the dead by his own power and authority, something only God could do. And he accepted worship from men and angels, right? Something only one claiming to be God could do. Right. That's right. That's right, just by him saying the name. Again, he was reasserting that he wasn't going to be taken because they wanted him to be taken, but rather he was giving himself up. As he said, only he has the authority to lay down his life and then take it up again. And so he was reiterating that very fact. That's exactly right. But then Kruger would make a great point in saying that Jesus' moral example is only binding if Jesus is Lord. And that really is true. Because why should we care to look to Jesus as a merely moral example if he was merely a man? Right? Why then does his example more than say the bum living on the street? Right? But more than that, liberals are infamous for saying that morality is relative and ever so changing. But let's just say that we accept Jesus as merely a good example and moral teacher. You have to ask yourself this question, which morals of Jesus would you accept? And do you accept them all? For example, In Matthew 19, Jesus defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Will they accept Jesus' moral standard here? Or how about in John 14, where he describes himself as the only way to salvation? Will they agree to that morality as well? But then as we close with the first tenet or the first commandment, last week Kruger concludes by saying, By removing the person of Jesus from the equation as an object of worship, it essentially makes Christianity a religion of moralism. What matters most, we are told, is not doctrine or theology, but behavior, deeds over creeds. And this is gonna be something, as we go along with the commandments, you're going to see. This is why this is set up as the first commandment of progressive Christianity. And then we looked at commandment number two last time as well. Affirming people's potential is more important than reminding them of their brokenness. Now, besides denying Christ's deity, perhaps no other issue separates progressive Christians from real ones more than what Machen pointed out 100 years ago. At the very root of modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin. So this second tenet begs the question, are people sinners? And if so, is it really that big of a deal? Do they really even need to know that they're sinners? And lastly, does sin affect their potential as images of God? Now again, like all the other commandments, as we will see, there's a partial truth here. The Christian doctrine of sin is not just about our sin and brokenness. Christ does not just save us from our sin, but he does more than that, doesn't he? We are saved to live differently. to no longer sin. That's the process of sanctification, which begins to take place within those who God has saved from sin. So in this way, you could say, this is how people have potential. But the difference lies with the progressive Christian, is the progressive message that potential resides within everybody. And so you don't necessarily need to be a Christian to arrive at that potential. This is Pelagian at its core. That is, that every human they believe can achieve perfection without the aid of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. But as Kruger argues, no, we as Christians must affirm both our deep depravity and the amazing potential we have as God's image bearers. But the two belong together. You cannot separate the two. In order to reach your potential, you must be saved by the Holy Spirit, right? By the work of Christ. Because that change must take place. Because at the fall, we are marred as images. We are marred images of God. We couldn't fully reach our potential until we are restored by the work of the Holy Spirit. And so it's not an either or proposition. We must both acknowledge sin and change can only take place if the Holy Spirit grants repentance. Now, as we looked at last time as well, progressives acknowledge brokenness in the world, but reject the doctrine of original sin. Now, they don't have a hard time rejecting original sin, because guess what? They don't believe the fall actually happened anyway. Instead, as Goley argues, that we should stop viewing ourselves as wretched sinners deserving of damnation. But behind the progressive Christian's rejection of sin lies an even more heinous one. That is the denial that Jesus came and died for our sins. But instead, Gully asks us to consider this. He says, what if we believe salvation was our lifelong journey toward maturity, love, and wholeness? Were that the case, Jesus would not be the one who saves humanity by a sacrifice of blood, but the one who exemplifies this maturity love and wholeness, the one to whom Christians can look and say, we can be like him. So the Christian faith is reduced to moralism. And our goal is nothing more to do good to others, the golden rule, right? But is this the historical Christian faith, once for all delivered to the saints? No, it's not, is it? No. The faith once for all delivered to the saints is one that acknowledges that we are sinners in need of salvation. Not just some motivational talk, right? We can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. So this week we'll continue and look at commandment number three. As he says, the work of reconciliation should be valued over making judgments. Now one of progressive Christian's core commitments is to emphasize people's relationships with one another as opposed to focusing on our relationship to God. So instead of telling people how they sinned against God, we should focus more on how they've sinned against others and try to mend that brokenness. Now, we must recognize that the Orthodox Christian view is that we should pursue peace and reconciliation with our brothers and sisters, right? That is a given. But where the Orthodox Christian deviates from the progressive is how we think that reconciliation takes place, right? Golie says, and other progressives, that we should stop making judgments and abandon what he calls either or thinking. Now, to be fair, some Christians have been guilty of not being particularly charitable, right? Merely pointing out people's sins can make us seem holier than thou. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't call out sin, right? As Kruger lays out, there are significant problems with this sort of thinking. First, Jesus and among others in the New Testament, what do they tell us? Like in Matthew 18, if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, right? So Jesus is saying to approach the person who offends us, What is progressive saying? Well, hey, guess what? I'm a sinner too. Who am I to say anything to anyone, right? And that's true, we are all sinners, but the Bible doesn't require you to be sinless before you can call out sin. For if you did, no one can call out anyone for anything at any time, right? Because we're all sinners. But to the progressive's dismay, This would also keep them from condemning others for calling out other sinners too, wouldn't it? Because they're saying that what we're doing by calling out sin is a sin, and they're calling out our sin. So you can see how this is a self-defeating argument. They can't really do that either. They should just keep their mouth shut, right? David? Jordan, in doing that, I realized this a long time ago when I was working at the mission. In doing that, you recognize your own faults. Absolutely. Absolutely. But what does Jesus say? What does Jesus say? He said, get the plank out of your own eye before you remove the speck. But guess what? If you don't suffer with that particular sin, guess what? You are free to then, with a free conscience, be able to call it, but it's not in a in a condemning way, right? But in a loving way, a instructive way, a corrective way, it's in the way that you do it, right? But again, but for the liberal progressive, there is no constructive way to do that, is there? It's only just judgment, it's bad all of the time. But also the progressive is inconsistent here. For as Kruger notes, Progressive demonstrate selective outrage, don't they? That condemns judging others on the basis of sexual preference or identity, for example. However, they are very quick to call out racism, environmental abuse, and other things like that, right? But really the heart of the issue is that the progressive fails to see that the reason why we believe something is wrong is because what? God tells us it's wrong, right? But there are other consequences for rejecting God's standard. For one, the process of reconciliation between people is not really possible if you don't acknowledge that it is first a sin against God, right? Because if you reject God's standard, each man becomes his own standard. So then how can you say that you've done something that requires reconciliation when it's only really a matter of opinion? It's really not my opinion that I send against you, so why should I ask for forgiveness and seek reconciliation? Can you see? There's no standard by which to go about this. Then commandment number four, gracious behavior is more important than right belief. Now for the progressive, it's not what we believe, but how we behave. Now on the surface, this can sound appealing, right? Christians ought to be concerned how they behave towards their fellow man, right? And there are plenty examples of Christians that have said all the right things, but have acted contrary to what they say, right? And this is the very definition of hypocrisy. Right, saying that you should do one thing, but in fact, you never do that thing yourself, right? But here's the point. Just because one holds to a core set of doctrines and beliefs, this doesn't automatically make them a hypocrite, right? However, this is how progressives like Gulley try to paint those who hold to these convictions, right? These orthodox convictions, what the Bible says. He paints conservatives as having, as he says, a fixation on orthodoxy, who are on a misguided quest for theological purity. In other words, you're a Pharisee, right? But Kruger, this is a very interesting statement that he makes in response. Jesus never said the problem with the Pharisees is that they are too concerned with orthodoxy. The problem with the Pharisees was legalism, putting man-made laws ahead of God's, and hypocrisy, saying one thing and doing another. And the two often went together. It wasn't that they cared too much about good theology, it's but they cared too little about it, right? Their theology was a mess. It glorified man, twisted God's own priorities, and selectively followed God's law. And it really is true. So good theology is the solution, not the problem, as the liberal says. Because as Jesus said, bad theology is what leads to heavy burdens, hard to bear. And what do the Pharisees do with that? They lay them on the people's shoulders, but they themselves were not willing to move them with their finger, right? Again, it's the hypocrisy of it. the hypocrisy of it, and then man-made theology. They were promoting a false theology, a theology that made them look good, and at the same time led them astray. So Pharisees weren't about good theology, they're about self-promoting theology, a theology that made them look good. But then Kruger takes issue with progressive thinking that good behavior, is better than being theologically correct because it makes a false dichotomy between belief and behavior. Why are the two, why do they have to be separated, right, is what he's arguing. Like we mentioned before in the previous commandment, we cannot be reconciled unto others if we don't understand how the universal standard of what sin is. Which, where does that come from? That knowledge of what sin is, it comes from God. Right? God tells us what sin is. So likewise, how can we determine what good behavior is unless God's standard, which is biblical doctrine, orthodox doctrine, is given for us to follow? Why, for example, is opening the door for someone else considered good? Well, because God tells us in his word to consider others as better than ourselves, right? So we are to serve others. That is a good thing, but who tells us that? God does, right? Therefore, we can't know what good behavior is unless God tells us what it is. So all that the progressives are left with is solely focusing on good behavior itself and being, quote, gracious, right? Yeah, it seems like, This is an a la carte buffet for them. And the things that offend them that God has declared and commanded, they toss out. But the things they agree with, they keep and they elevate and worship. Like love, be gracious to one another. That's what it's all about. Niceness, right? Niceness. But again, that's selective, right? Because if someone disagrees with their standard of that, then that's when the things come out, right? Well, yeah. Can you imagine someone, two parties subscribing to progressive theology, and one saying, you've offended me, and the other saying, no, no, no, no, no, you shouldn't be offended, because I don't subscribe to that doctrine of your perspective, so you don't need to be offended. Don't worry about it. That's right. Right, and again, it's just like the whole argument with atheists. They spend so much time arguing it's someone who does not exist. Why? Why do they do that? It makes absolutely no sense. If God does not exist, why not let these pointed head little Christians believe what they wanna believe, right? Right? If we're such ignoramuses, just let us live in our fantasy. What is to you? But yet, the reason why they go after God is because they know he's real. If they're suppressing the truth, same thing here. For the progressive, if it's so, If really there's not really a standard of good, then why are they looking at us, right? Why are they calling us out continuously? I guess something's going on out there. I hope it's not coming here. That's right, I paid my ticket, that's right. There's no more warrants for my arrest, right? That's right. So what the progressives are left with is solely focusing on good behavior and being gracious. And they believe that somehow, miraculously, without being shown an objective standard of what is good and right, they'll somehow still do what is good, right? Well, let's see how far that gets us in society, right? Well, guess what? Not very far, right? Because if there's not an objective standard telling what's right and wrong, we will degrade and destroy one another, right? Because men are wicked by nature and will not seek to be gracious. We will not invent new ways of doing good, but rather we are shown, as Paul says, to be inventors of evil by nature, right? We seek to do evil all of the time because that is what we are by nature unless the Holy Spirit works upon us. And so as Kruger concludes this point, if we really want to become people who are more gracious, the answer is not to focus on our behavior and try harder. Instead, the answer is to focus on Jesus Christ, the son of God who gave his life to pay the debt of our sins and empowers us by the spirit to live a new life. It is then that we can really love others selflessly. Again, God tells us what it means to love our neighbor, right? We don't know what it means to love our neighbor because why? By nature, we love ourselves first and foremost. So you can't truly be gracious to someone else unless you subject yourself to God's standard, right? Commandment number five. This last one we'll look at this evening. Inviting questions is more valuable than supplying answers. Yeah, Barry? Yeah. Right, they do. They do. And see, as we'll look at, this is a very postmodern thing. It's all about the journey. It's not so much about the destination, kind of junk, to put it nicely. You'd be tempted to say something else because that's what it is. But it is, it is, it is malarkey is what it is. Yes, yeah, exactly. That is the spirit of rebellion, exactly right. Because progressives have long accused the church of being a propaganda machine instead of engaging in what Gully says, a vigorous exploration of the truth. Now that's kind of cute, isn't it? Because again, to be postmodern is not to really seek the truth, is it? It's seeking your truth specifically, not the truth. Now, to be fair, There have been some Christian traditions that have opposed its followers from asking questions. We know that to be true, right? And the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church often suppressed their people, right, from seeking the truth. Don't read your Bible, right? Stay in darkness so we can control you. And again, this is how they pose all Christians. Also too, we know in some fundamentalist movements, circles, they have been known to promote a sort of anti-intellectualism, right? Yeah, you can tell that this perspective presumes that the whole church is blind. That's exactly right. Yeah, that's the problem. That's the problem. It's not the majority report, though. It's not the majority report. That is not what the greater testimony of Scripture is. We know that, like, for example, it started with the Old Testament peoples of God. Who were the most educated in the ancient world? It was the Jews, right? Why? There was a purpose to that. so that they could know what the word of God said. And that tradition continues in the Christian world. The most educated people in the first century onward, up until the past couple of centuries, have been Christians, right? Yeah, in fact, the saying was in university, right, is, Theology was the queen of the sciences, and philosophy was her handmaiden. And they were used to pursue the truth of God in all of creation. Right. Particularly even in the physical sciences. Yeah, sciences, period. It was to discover more about God's world. Because if you think about it, what true motivation does the materialist scientist have? Just their own curiosity? I mean, is that it? There's no purpose behind them studying the universe, is there? There's not really. It just didn't, well, you know, I'm just kind of curious how this works. Well, I mean, that only gets you so far, right? And if you've noticed, over the past 100 years, there has been very little scientific innovation. It has stalled, and there's a reason why. There's a reason why, is because no longer is there that true motivation, true driving force of wanting to pursue God and knowing about God. Some of the technological advances were, I mean, if you think about it, in the first part of the 20th century, at the turn of the 20th century, we were still driving horse carriages, right? But what happens by the middle? We're on the moon, right? What a great advance, but then you start seeing that's where secularism starts to take hold. and academia, it takes a hold in the workplace and in culture, and we've kind of stagnated quite a bit, haven't we? And there's a reason why. It's because we have not pursued excellence, because who gives us that drive for excellence? Ultimately, it's God, right? I think it was Augustine that said, all truth is God's truth. That's right, all truth is God's truth. So again, Christian, more than anyone, has the motivation to pursue those things, right? Again, for the glory of God, do all that you do to the glory of God, as Paul says, right? But if this claim is false, that this is not the majority report that Christians are not seeking to keep people in ignorance, why do progressives say this? Well, Kruger suspects that this may be because progressives think that it's intellectually irresponsible to make any truth claims, let alone any claims made by Christians. And this is where the postmodern influence can be seen. For this is a wholesale rejection that any truth can be known at a universal level. Truth for the progressive is merely at the individual level. You do you, right? Again, like I said, if I hear that one more time from someone, I might, you know, get in a fist fight or something, you know. That's right. So, for the progressive, the only safe thing to say then is, you know what, I don't know. I don't know. But when you perhaps point out to them, there are historical facts that no one denies. Like, for instance, I haven't heard anyone deny that George Washington was the first president of the United States, right? But were any of us there? No. Right? But they fired back by saying that this is a false comparison because they said, well, we can actually know that from credible historical documents, this to be true. But something they say like Jesus rising from the dead, well, it's something we simply can't know. But the problem goes back then to the issue of the authority of scripture. And it really always does, doesn't it? Always does. Is the Bible the actual inspired word of God? And this is where the whole argument hinges between progressives and orthodox Christians. But if you acknowledge that the word of God is the actual inspired word of God, then we can actually be more assured that Jesus rose from the dead than a historical event that no one's disputed, like George Washington's presidency, right? Why? Because if you believe this to be an inspired word of God, what more trustworthy word can you have, right? Theologians or academics, those that have studied the scriptures and its authenticity, with all the manuscripts and copies, they have this thing called the apparatus, which is all the references and accuracy of how the scripture became canonized, and the level of accuracy that a mathematician put together is like 99. ten nines of accuracy, and if you look at the works of Shakespeare, right, nobody disputes his works necessarily, but the level of copies of old manuscripts and originals and reproductions and its accuracy is nowhere near the amount of copies and manuscripts we have that make the Bible that go in our hands. But that's questioned all day long. It is, it is. And again, it goes back to the fact that again, they're having to suppress the truth and unrighteousness so hard. They really are. And again, I love R.C. Sproul's analogy in Romans chapter one. I use it all the time. It's like that child in a pool who has this huge beach ball and he is jumping on top of it, trying to push it down with all of his might. And he may be able to do it for a short time, but eventually, guess what? That beach ball is going to push it up and he will not be able to suppress it any longer, right? And again, that's what they're doing, despite all the evidences that are there, that they're going to say that this is suspect and likely not true. But here's the problem, in order for them to make that claim, not only if it didn't deny what you're talking about, that Christ didn't rise from the dead, but the problem is, is they can't say that with absolute certainty, can they? They cannot say that with absolute certainty because it's absolutely unknowable whether or not it occurred. So for something they say that's unknowable with such certainty as if it did not occur, right? They're stating the negative even though they're trying to get around that. Does that make sense? They're saying, by saying, well, we can't really know it so don't believe it. Right, right, so. So they're not saying that they definitively know that something else happened. Right. It's not knowable. It's not knowable. They know that it happened. Right, and exactly in David Hume's case, we can't, we just have to discount it and throw it out, right? You can see how the Enlightenment, again, has continued to influence liberal thinking. It's saying that anything that we cannot see with our eyes, we will discount immediately. Of course, as we know, as Jesus said of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, even if Jesus Christ appeared to them in the flesh, they still wouldn't believe, right? Because that is spiritual blindness. That's something, that blindness can only be rectified if they are gifted the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't deter men like Gully from holding on to the path of uncertainty. But what's disingenuous about his stance is that while he claims that we should pursue uncertainty, he seems pretty certain about his claims, and is quick to attack those who oppose his. For example, in his book, in one instance, he calls another's perspective a childish point of view, and not really theologically tenable. But I thought we're supposed to be holding to uncertainty, so again, Again, like we were saying a moment ago about like the atheists, why they spend so much time arguing it, they said we're supposed to be uncertain about these things and questioning everything, but yet at the same time, they seem so certain about their views, right? It's hypocritical, isn't it, right? But as Kruger says, Goli is not alone in this tactic, as many progressives who are quick to condemn all sorts of behavior they see in the world around them, while insisting that Bible-believing Christians are wrong when they do so, right? So it's okay for them to call on others, but we can't do it, right? It's amazing, it's consistent. Barry? I was just gonna comment, in Romans, it makes sense only when you read his word, because he gives them over to their minds. That's right. And you wanna see it? Go ahead. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. So, for example, on the issue of same-sex marriage, you don't hear progressives say, well, we really don't know what to say about it. That's not what they say, is it? What do they do? They praise it from the rooftops. It is virtuous to be in a homosexual relationship or a queer relationship, right? And not only that, but the weirder it is, the better it is, right? I mean, that's what we're seeing today. The more virtuous you are, the more weird you are, right? And so this is really the bizarre nature of it. And so as Kruger concludes, one gets the impression that the real issue is not about certainty at all. It is what one is certain about. Progressives have simply swapped one set of certain beliefs for another. Make no mistake, while progressives deny up and down the existence of certainty, They're sure about something, aren't they, right? We're all sure about something. So the question, again, hinges on whether or not you view scripture as the basis of your certainty, or will you do like they do, like the progressive doves, succumb to the desires of your fleshly heart, right? What say ye of Christ, right? What say ye of what he says, right? Again, as he says, if you love me, keep my commandments. That's something set in stone that you cannot change, right? Even though the progressive seeks to do so. Any more comments or questions this evening before we close? Yeah, Jesse. We believe that God's Word is the infallible Word of God, the Bible. It's because Jesus, before the foundation of the world, chose us to be his children, to be children of God. And after he died on the cross and was buried, and he resurrected on the third day, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, he told us he was going to send the Holy Spirit upon us. That's right. To guide us, that we would not be alone. And through the Holy Spirit, that's why we believe what we believe. That's exactly right. That's right. That's what Jesus said. He's going to be sent to bring to remembrance all of these things, right? Because we're dull, aren't we, Jesse? We're very dull. We forget so easily, right? We forget so easily for two things, because our minds are susceptible to aging and all these other things, and they're imperfect, but also, too, we suppress the truth and unrighteousness too, don't we? We don't wanna bring those things to remembrance, but guess what? The Holy Spirit is gonna be there prodding at us, reminding us every day of what God expects of us, doesn't he? Amen, Steve? Yeah, I was gonna say that very time with you before class started, we just finished as a family reading the Gospels and hearing your sermon on the road to Emmaus, and then hearing also the resurrection accounts and rereading those, There's so many times where you read in the scripture that He opened the scriptures to them. He opened the scriptures to them. He brought it back to mind, like they recalled what He said, and then they understood, because the Spirit, like Jesse was saying also, was given them, and they were now understanding. So it's just incredible to see that over and over again, that He opened the scriptures to them, and that the Spirit reminded them, Absolutely. Absolutely. And really that's what we need to be praying for these people too, the progressives out there. That the Lord would send his Holy Spirit to give them understanding. Showing that their view of what is good and right is not good at all, but it's evil. And as we mentioned last time, again, that's calling evil good, right? And there is a greater level of condemnation for those who claim the name of Christ and give these evil commandments, so to speak, as we're looking at. All these things are the byproduct of Satan's lies rehashed, right? Barry? Yes. That's right. And that's why it's a lifelong pursuit, right? Because, again, I see this every year as I go through my annual Bible reading. Every time, I see a new angle on many readings, right? Things I didn't see. You asked that question. How could I not see that before? Well, because sin still dwells in our members, right, as Paul says. That affects us in so many ways. We don't think about all the ways it affects us. Even in our pursuit of righteousness, it affects it, right? We can't pursue righteousness fully because sin still dwells in our members, right? The things that we're supposed to do, we do imperfectly. But again, that's why, thank God, we are not accepted based on our works, right? But on the work of Christ, which is perfect, right?