As I’ve blogged about many and sundry topics I, by necessity, have stated opinions and drawn conclusions. Certainly there have been cases in which I wasn’t correct. Being a fallen man, I’m far more sensitive to those occasions in which new evidence appears to confirm rather than contradict past ideas. Three of these confirmations come to mind that rise to the level of sharing.
Jesus Christ as a Progressive Avatar
Early in this blog’s life I focused on the theological issues that appeared to be the primary sources of the PC(USA)’s movement into open apostasy. One of the primary conclusions of this study was that Progressive Christianity had replaced Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture with one of their own making. I discussed this idea in a February 2, 2015 blog titled “Jesus Christ Avatar.” At that time I was using the term “postmodern Christian,” which I have come to consider as a subset of the larger group of Progressive Christians. My statement of the issue was:
I contend that through the incessant repetition of these misleading statements postmodern Christians have emptied Jesus Christ of who He is and refilled him with who they would like him to be. They have turned him into an avatar whose purpose is to act as an embodiment of their philosophy. He has been turned into “that guy who surely agrees with whatever I decide is good and true” as opposed to the objectively real incarnation of God who said and did specific things that are authoritative in defining our Christian understanding of faith and it’s playing out in our lives.
The fascinating aspect of the associated confirmation experience was that what I had imagined to be a relatively recent development was actually at the very least decades old. For, in a May 16, 2016 post titled “A Brief Excursion into PCUSA Heresy” I reported on the words of Dr. Van Til in an essay on the Confession of 1967 (emphasis added).
Though we concede that the new creed and its new theology speak highly of both Christ and the Bible, we nevertheless contend that new meanings have been attached to old, familiar words. The whole question, accordingly, is one of reinterpretation. One may take a milk bottle and fill it with a poisonous white liquid and call it milk, but this does not guarantee that the poisonous liquid is milk. It may well be some thing that is highly dangerous to man. …
Though the twentieth-century church has been informed by the new theology that it can have no objective or conceptual knowledge of God and of Christ, this same theology still continues to speak about God and Christ in eloquent terms. But, as we have already noted, these terms have new definitions. The God and the Christ of this contemporary theology have very little in common with the God and the Christ of historic Christianity. There is good reason to believe that the new theology has virtually manufactured a new Christ, a person who is essentially different from the Savior of the Scriptures.
Is not this text, written fifty years ago, describing Jesus Christ the Avatar, but in more precise and theologically sound terms? I say yes.
I have no wounded pride that my supposed “insight” was predated by at least fifty years. No, I’m simply thankful that someone of greater wisdom than myself was able to see where the PC(USA) was heading. You might rather say that I confirmed Dr. Van Til’s brilliant foresight. I’m certain that, were he still with us, this would be a matter of sorrow as opposed to pride.