In my humble estimation, many don’t grasp this one significant point about Christianity:
Christianity is a message, not just a way of life.
The message of Christianity is not a message that is a-historical. In other words, it’s a message that was just discovered.
Christianity is an objective, historical message that has been passed down and refined over the last 2,000 years. This means that Christianity is not what we want or believe it to be. It is a message that must be essentially believed.
Anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet denies the essential, historical teachings of Christianity is not a Christian. They can call themselves what they want, but calling themselves a Christian is deceitful and wrong. Compared to non-Christian religions, these people and groups are arguably the most destructive because they use the same lingo that actual Christians use.
It is for this reason that people must use a high-level of discernment when opening themselves up to the teachings of self-identified Christians, even myself. All of us must be people of the message, which is derived from the Bible, so that we can search out what others are saying to see if it is true (Acts 17.11).
What I’m saying is nothing new. What I’m saying has already been said, and expressed must more eloquently than myself.
Consider these words from J. Gresham Machen in Christianity and Liberalism. Although they were written in the early 20th century, they bear great significance today.
J. Gresham Machen
In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which me are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are things about which men will fight.
In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called “modernism” or “liberalism” (pgs. 1-2)
As a matter of fact, however, it may appear that the figure which has just been used is altogether misleading; it may appear that what the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category. It may appear further that the fears of the modern man as to Christianity were entirely ungrounded, and that in abandoning the embattled walls of the city of God he has fled in needless panic into he open plains of a vague natural religion only to fall an easy victim to the enemy who ever lies in ambush there.
Modern liberalism may be criticized:
- On the ground that it is unchristian, and
- On the ground that it is unscientific
We shall concern ourselves here chiefly with the former line of criticism; traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions. But in showing that the liberal attempt at rescuing Christianity is false we are not showing that there is no way of rescuing Christianity at all; on the contrary, it may appear incidental, even in the present little book, that it is not the Christianity of the New Testament which is in conflict with science, but the suppose Christianity of the modern liberal Church, and that the real city of God, and that city alone, has defenses which are capable of warding off the assaults of modern unbelief.
However, our immediate concern is with the other side of the problem; our principal concern just now is to show that the liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene. In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy of those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend. Here as in may other departments of life it appears that the things that re sometimes thought to be hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending (pgs. 5-6).
Enjoy this post? Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

