Tag Archives: heretic

Liberal theology: Ignorance, wimpiness or deceptiveness?

Chuck Currie, the UCC poster boy for false teaching, was at it again when attacking the Jews for Jesus organization.

Are non-Christians doomed to the fires of hell for their lack of faith in Jesus? No.

That seems rather dogmatic for someone who says the remaining things that Chuck does.  Chuck’s human understanding – which he makes up himself – is that no one goes to Hell (or that it doesn’t exist – I’m not sure of his exact error).  But the word of God teaches that there is a Hell. 

And it is important to get the claim right: Non-Christians are doomed to Hell as the appropriate punishment for their sins against a perfect and Holy God.  Christians are pardoned from their punishment based on their trust in Jesus, whereby our sins were transferred to his account and his perfect righteousness was imputed to ours.

The New Testament is very clear that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and to reject him is to reject God.  Telling Jews otherwise is profoundly unkind and un-Christian.

I can say that Jesus is the truth and the light and feel confident that I’m hearing God’s word.

But why?  He and other liberal theologians dismiss the Bible left and right, so why is it true for him?  Why would the exclusive claims of Christianity be true for one and not another?

However, God is obviously bigger than human understanding and I feel confident that God speaks through many religious traditions. Christians have as much to learn from other faiths as we have to share.

This is just plain ignorance,  wimpiness or lies.  Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt.  What shall we learn from Hindus — that reincarnation is correct instead of that we die once and face judgment?  What shall we learn from Islam — that Jesus was just a prophet and did not die on the cross?  That would change a “few” key Christian doctrines.   What shall we learn from Buddhism — that there is no God?  And so on.

These pluralists reject the essentials of Christianity and disagree with Jesus on all sorts of important issues.  They try to affirm Jesus to please Christians and simultaneously deny him to please the world. 

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world.

If people are too gutless or uninformed to defend the faith, then Christianity may not be their forte (as my friend Ms. Green might say).  Jesus was not a pluralist.  Even the Sermon on the Mount – which Chuck and other liberal theologians claim to agree with – shows Jesus making it very clear that there are spiritual truths and lies, right and wrong ways to give/pray/fast/etc., and an eternal Hell.

Another fan!

Be sure to read the whole post to understand how Chuck Currie is a serial, unrepentant liar.  He falsely accused me of writing things on his blog that I did not write and despite many requests he has never provided documentation.  Why?  Because he lied.

circle-slash.jpgThis is interesting!  I was mentioned (though not by name) in a recent sermon by Chuck Currie titled Who is a Christian?  He actually quoted this post of mine where I pointed out how odd it was for a “Christian” pastor to do a whole sermon on John 14:6 and to conclude that Jesus is not the only way to salvation and that we should find truth in other religions as well. 

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Chuck didn’t even realize that there are 99 other verses supporting that view and that to teach otherwise was profoundly un-Christian.  He considers the Gospel of John to be unreliable but thinks the Gospel of Thomas is authoritative.  And so on.

True to form, though, he mischaracterized my piece and made it sound like I opposed being tolerant to other religions and that I said he was a non-Christian because he was tolerant.  That is a lie, and it is easily demonstrated by reading my post and listening to the audio of Chuck’s sermon.  I am all for tolerance of other religions and other people in general.  Chuck repeated his claim that God speaks to Buddhists and Muslims in their religions, which is false and profoundly un-Biblical.  My original post was spectacularly clear but Chuck took it out of context and played the martyr role.  Maybe I could conference call in to his service some time and clear things up.

Chuck disagrees with Jesus and his word, a lot.  That is why I question his authenticity.

According to his sermon, Chuck’s definition of a Christian is:

A Christian is a person who hears the Sermon on the Mount and says, “Amen.”

That’s it.  Really?  I thought it was more about repenting & believing and trusting in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

I need to do a whole series on this, but Chuck and those like him can’t really like the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).  It portrays Jesus as being very intolerant.  He tells the Pharisees how they are doing everything wrong – worship, giving, praying, fasting, etc.  He upholds every letter and penstroke of the Old Testament.  He spoke of judgment.  He emphatically shows that there are false religions – the very thing that Chuck teaches the opposite of.  He warns strongly against false teachers – people like Chuck Currie!

I’d love for one of these religious pluralists to answer this: If they really believe that all these religions lead to God, shouldn’t they send out reverse missionaries to convert Christians back to their local religions?  Why should Christians in India be suffering so if Hinduism is an equally valid path to God? 

Chuck also played the “we just don’t take the Bible literally” game.  I don’t take it literally, either.  I read it in context.

Here’s another post where I analyzed Chuck’s games, such as using the guilt by association logical fallacy.  And another where he spread lies about Sarah Palin.

He is also pro-gay marriage and pro-legalized abortion.  Shocking.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Lesson learned: False teachers don’t like to be called false teachers.  Maybe next time he’ll quote me in context.  At least he is reading. 

I will give him credit for one thing: His sermon was only 13:22 minutes long.  It was mainly about my comments and those of someone criticizing the UCC (the United Church of Christ, or as Marie would say, Unitarians Considering Christ).  So much for exegesis.

UPDATE: Now the “Reverend” is doubling down.  He deleted at least one of my comments on his blog.  That is no problem, since it is his blog.  I’ve deleted many comments here (though none of his) for what I consider to be good reasons.  If he considered them off topic, or just didn’t like them, I wouldn’t even mention anything. 

But when I pointed out the deletions to him he said it was because they were “racist, sexist, homophobic” and “more.”  That is a another lie.  The total number of examples he offered was zero.  I pressed him to back up his accusations, and I’m saving copies of all my comments now.  It will be interesting to see if he tries to back up his words or even posts my request.

Here is what he wrote on his blog:

The only comments that I block are those that are racist, sexist or homophobic. I also ban some comments because of offensive language. Sorry to say that you’ve done all that and more and I just won’t allow those kinds of remarks on my site.

Here is my response:

I think you are mistaken. How about proving me wrong by posting the comments that you say had all these offensive things in them? You know you have them in your email.

Be a man and prove me wrong and let me respond, or don’t libel me that way.

You have now accused me of the following comments, so if you are an honest man you’ll provide at least one example of each.

– Racist
– Sexist
– Homophobe (An irrational fear of gays? Right.)
– Offensive language
– “More” (whatever that means)

I know you are probably mad because I did the post about how you quoted me out of context in your sermon. An apology would have been nice but I didn’t expect that. But you could at least not dig a deeper hole for yourself.

I’ll be saving copies of all my comments from here on out.

I’m still waiting for him to post my comment.  Is the false teacher lying and libeling again?  Will he back up his claims?

Update: As of Dec. 31, 2008, Chuck has still not apologized for his lies.  Worse yet, when another commenter reminded him of our discussions Chuck deliberately repeated the lies.  Hopefully one of the “Reverend’s” New Year’s resolutions is to stop libeling people and to repent of his lies.