Guest Blogger: Jason Helopoulos

In light of Kevin’s series last week on Homosexuality and the RCA, I thought it might be helpful to better understand the mindset of those who accuse Christians of being bigots in the homosexuality discussion. Nancy Pearcey has been very helpful to me in this area.  In her book, Saving Leonardo, she outlines the modern secularist view. I am going to string together a few quotes from her book to help us understand the society we minister in and its objection to the Church’s views on homosexuality.

Our society is greatly influenced by the philosophy of empiricism. Pearcey states, “Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses—what we see, hear, hold, weigh, and measure. Obviously, moral truths cannot be stuffed into a test tube or studied under a microscope. As a result, moral statements were no longer considered truths at all, but merely expressions of emotion” (p.24).

David Hume took this view to a new level. “He split traditional philosophy into two opposing categories. Traditionally, truth had been conceived as a comprehensive whole, covering both the natural order and the moral order. But Hume tore those two things apart. The natural order is something we perceive through the senses, so according to empiricism that qualified as genuine knowledge. But the moral order is not perceived through the senses, so that was reduced to subjective feelings. The great moral principles that people had thought were transcendent truths were not truths after all but only preferences” (p.24).

As Pearcey notes, with the rise of Empiricism, religion was thus reduced to private feelings. This “separation of facts from values,” is in her opinion, “the key to unlocking the history of the modern Western mind” (p.25). She gives this helpful illustration of the two-story concept of truth:

Values

Private, subjective, relative

_________________________________

Facts

Public, objective, universal

 How does this relate to the homosexuality discussion? As she points out, if all religious claims are put in the “upper story,” then our assertions regarding morality are not viewed as truth. They are labeled non facts. Therefore, they are seen as subjective and private. In this light they are merely understood as “ethnic tradition or social glue or ineffable experience” (p.32). She says, “Think of it this way: If something genuinely is a matter of taste or tradition, then it would be wrong to impose it on others” (p. 32).  However, as Christians we believe in a unified whole; values cannot be separated from facts. There is one truth which governs a unified realm. Pearcey rightly notes, “Biblical Christianity refuses to separate historical fact from spiritual meaning” (p.35).

For our purposes, she concludes, “This explains why Christians are often accused of imposing their views, no matter how gentle and polite they may be in person. Christians intend to communicate life-giving, objective truths about the real world. But their statements are interpreted as attempts to impose personal preferences. For the secularist, then, Christians are not merely wrong or mistaken. They are violating the rules of the game in a democratic society. Once we recognize this misunderstanding, the common objections to Christianity become more understandable” (p.32).

As Christians we must understand the secularist mindset and its desire to place religion, morality, and values in a distant upper chamber separated from facts and truth. And armed with such understanding and knowledge, we must stand against this agenda. One must understand that the debate about homosexuality is not tangential. It is not a “mere” moral issue as if it did not bear upon truth. If we give in to the argument that homosexuality is private, personal, and not the business of the church, we have given in to this two-story view where religion, values, and morality are separated from truth. When we lose this argument in the church, we eventually lose the Church.

Print Friendly

Comments:


215 thoughts on “Homosexuality and Christian Bigotry”

  1. Denise says:

    Ron, you state: “My friends, the way some of you pick and analyze reminds me of how the scribes, Pharisees, and Herodians nit-picked and connived with Jesus. The situations are different, but it seems to me the spirit is the same.”

    I’m confused. First you compliment me for taking the time to respond to each objection, and then when I respond to yours I’m suddenly “nit-picking.”

    Let me remind anyone who has been keeping up with this debate. It’s been a debate on whether the Bible endorses homosexuality. Any other objections brought up were ad hominems, straw men, and other fallacies. The point of a debate is to build on each others responses and objections. All I have seen on here by the revisionists were the same arguments reiterated over and over, even after they have been shown to be lacking. If you think that debates are “trappings,” you are mistaken, but you are free to not enter into debate. But once you do, expect your arguments to be analyzed and rebutted.

    You state: “Here is I Corinthians in two translations: “The kingdom of God does not consist of words but in power;” “The Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God’s power.”

    I agree. But God also gave us rational minds to discern wisdom and knowledge and even Jesus tells us to love God with all our minds.

    DRT, you state: “Denise (and TUD), one of the arguments that CTL has made is how the fruit of the spirit is evidenced in loving same sex relationships and how we should consider that to be evidence of their right standing. I endorse this.
    But I also see a problem. I have not seen good evidence that the folks who argue with me on this thread show the fruit of the spirit. If you are not valuing the fruit of the spirit, and at least trying to show it, then you would not consider that a very powerful argument.
    But Jesus is quite explicit. How will you know false teachers? By their fruit.”

    The end of that passage describing the fruits of the Spirit states: Against such things there is no law.” So you are trying to equate some homosexual relationships with keeping with the fruits of the Spirit, but you can’t do that until you show that “against such things there is no law.” And I don’t think it’s a fair assessment for you to be able to present your arguments and then when you get some push back to accuse me of not having the fruit of the Spirit. Also, one of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control, and arguing that a Christian homosexual shouldn’t have to control his desire is itself arguing against the fruit of the Spirit.

    TUD, you state: “Ron Goetz: “Also, there is no “conclusive” argument for anything in the Bible.”

    Building upon Denise’s response to you above, …

    (1) Why is the word conclusive in quotes?

    (2) How do you determine when an argument or position is conclusive?

    (3) Do you personally believe that “there is no “conclusive” argument for anything in the Bible”?”

    I agree with you. An additional comment I would like to make to Ron is that this conclusion of his sounds pretty “conclusive.”

    DRT: “You all are arguing for the sake of argument and I have reached my limit in patience.”

    I’ve clearly shown that you and CTL have not adequately accounted for your views, and at this point you can’t say I’m not paraphrasing properly, etc. because we well know each other’s views, and so I have made an accurate summary.

    CTL, you state: “What is being asked for is room for well-meaning Bible-believing Christians to say that it is possible to arrive at a different conclusion regarding the matter of homosexuality. What Rev. DeYoung is pushing for in his church’s overture is that there be no room, no ‘generous spaciousness,’ for Christians to arrive at different conclusions on this issue.”

    Well of course people can arrive at different conclusions, it doesn’t mean they are all equal and right. You are asking the church to step outside of its comprehensive view of reality and into the postmodern schism of relativism. You’re asking for a lot based on a whole lot of nothing.

    You state: “(although we haven’t introduced the whole panopoly of arguments, but I suspect that won’t change things), but since when must Christians agree on everything?”

    That’s what I’ve been asking for this whole time, more sound arguments in response to my objections. The fact that Christians disagree does not give you leave to avoid dialoguing about this.

    You state: “So, too, with this issue. I know you believe we are worlds apart on this, but I don’t see it that way. I see it more as a matter of degrees rather than fundamental differences. How? Well, we both subscribe to the principles of fidelity, chastity, faithfulness, monogamy, love, commitment, sacrifice, self-denial, patience, kindness, etc. We agree that those are godly principles and standards and that we should strive after them in our lives.”

    So do Mormons. Does that make them right in their views?

    “Where we disagree is how those principles and standards are to be exactly applied. We both agree on fidelity, but you would limit that just to heterosexual relationships. I, on the other hand, would extend that further to homosexual relationships. We agree on the principle, just not the extent of the application of it.”

    You describe a few principles we agree on, but neglect to mention the ones we disagree on, like the Bible’s prohibition of homosexuality.

    You state: “See, I am not calling “good evil and evil good.” We are both affirming the good and decrying the evil. We just have understandings of where these principles apply.”

    But you are. You have failed to show how homosexuality is good. You just assert it.

    You state: “You have said that this “law of love” principle I’ve been advocating is “ethereal.” But it’s not really, because all it is is an application of these underlying principles to a host of scenarios. It is a living out of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is a living out of putting the Lord first in your life and your home, whether that is a traditional home or a non-traditional home. It’s simply the application of the 10 Commandments (which is never a simple thing, but we try anyway).”

    How is one putting the Lord first in their life when they insist on doing something the Bible prohibits?

    “However, I don’t see an explicit prohibition from Scripture as to our ability to create other committed relationships.”

    Of course, there are friendships, family roles, and business partnerships, etc. But you are trying to introduce the erotic element. You have not acknowledged that Jesus only recognized the marriage relationship and celibacy in regards to erotic relationships.

    “I think, for instance, of Abraham. Or Jacob. Or Moses. Or David. And those are just a few. Godly men whose sexual committed relationships went outside the creational norm. And while the Bible upholds the creational norm of one man and one woman, it still made space for those relationships that are outside the norm and yet were still acceptable. Not preferable, but still acceptable. Some of these saints were pre-Mosaic law, some were post-Mosaic law. And one of these saints was the giver of the Mosaic law.”

    There’s a difference between prescription and description. The Bible is full of descriptions of how sinful God’s followers were. It doesn’t justify them and tell you to follow their example in that.

    “I don’t believe, Denise, that you will be convinced by the biblical arguments as to why there can be moral and immoral homosexual relationships and sexual activity. And that is okay. I’m guessing that you have not had to deal with this matter on a personal level (e.g. – your son tells you he’s gay, and he’s met someone), which sometimes is what a person needs to push them to be willing to look at this in a more nuanced way.”

    If you provide more sound arguments than I have presented and show the burdens of proof I’ve asked you to address over and over, then of course I would consider it possible. Introducing the empirical should not overshadow the rational.

    You state: “But I am asking for a ‘generous spaciousness,’ to allow the revisionists room to work through and try living out a biblical understanding of things, as they interpret and apply God’s Word.”

    You’d have to provide some substantial arguments as to why this would be justified. But you can’t because you’re arguing from a subjectivistic standpoint.

  2. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    What Denise just said.

    This question of hers deserves a Gold Medal clap:

    “How is one putting the Lord first in their life when they insist on doing something the Bible prohibits?”

  3. DRT says:

    Denise, you have yet to restate my arguments in a way that I would agree with. Every time you come back you grossly distort my argument.

  4. Denise says:

    That’s not true. As I’ve already stated, this isn’t about misrepresentation anymore. We well know each other’s arguments through the length of time we have spent debating each other. We would never finish debating if each time we had to restate each other’s views. Not that we can’t, it’s just not a requirement every time. Please list the arguments of yours that I’ve misrepresented.

  5. Countrytime Lemonade says:

    @ Denise –

    Since you are obviously looking for more indepth study on these “clobber passages” in Scripture that speak negatively of expressions of “sodomy,” here is a thorough article on Romans 1 that spells out in much greater detail the earlier case I was making about Romans 1 being a passage, not about homosexuality, but against the worship of false gods. It’s not a quick read, but at this stage in the discussion, it shouldn’t be. Please read it, as it addresses (not directly, but indirectly) the issues that someone like Gagnon raises:

    http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html

  6. Countrytime Lemonade says:

    @ Denise –

    You have challenged my assertion regarding the term “eunuchs” when it is used in Scripture and ancient culture as a “catch all” term that referred, not just to those men who had been castrated, but also to gay men (as Jesus said, those who were born as eunuchs).

    Here is an excellent scholarly article where years of research went in to uncovering what the term “eunuch” meant to ancient culture peoples and in biblical times. I think it more than sufficiently details how “eunuchs” were often thought of as a distinct class of people who were sexually different than most because of their same-sex attractions and sometimes more effeminate attributes. Here’s the link:

    http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm

  7. Countrytime Lemonade says:

    @ Denise –

    Here are two different articles outlining the implications of “eunuch” being understood in biblical times as someone who we today refer to as someone who is “gay.” One dealing with the Ethiopian eunuch and his being welcomed in to Christ’s Kingdom, and the other dealing with Jesus’ words of those who are “born eunuchs”.

    http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/early_church.html

    http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

  8. Countrytime Lemonade says:

    @ Denise –

    Here is another article link for you that more specifically addresses the translation of those two Greek words (malakoi and arsenokoitai) found in I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 that are often translated in such a way to speak negatively about homosexuality. This article, too, addresses indirectly the issues raised by one like Gagnon. Here’s the link:

    http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

  9. Countrytime Lemonade says:

    @ Denise –

    Here’s an article link that takes a slightly different approach to what DRT was arguing for in his explanation of what is being talked about culturally in Leviticus 18 & 20. At the heart of the matter was the culture Israel was coming out of (Egypt) and entering into (Canaan), a culture where the worship of false gods was closely tied to male-on-male sex with shrine prostitutes. It’s fascinating how his observations make the conflicts between the Lord and Baal/Asherah come more alive (e.g. – the confrontation between Elijah and the priests of Baal & Asherah on Mt.Carmel…what a sight that would have been!).

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html

  10. Countrytime Lemonade says:

    @ Denise –

    Here’s an interesting article dealing with the passage in Jude which some say is a condemnation of homosexuality. We don’t see the Jude passage used as much as the others, simply because reading homosexuality into it can be a stretch, as even many conservative scholars believe. But I have seen the Jude passage referenced in these discussions as further evidence that God condemns all forms of homosexuality.

    Anyway, here’s the link:

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jude.html

  11. DRT says:

    Denise, here is just the most recent example of how you are contorting and misrepresenting what I said.

    In just in the last comment you rebutted my, and CTL’s “by their fruit” argument.

    Here is what I said.

    “Denise (and TUD), one of the arguments that CTL has made is how the fruit of the spirit is evidenced in loving same sex relationships and how we should consider that to be evidence of their right standing. I endorse this.
    But I also see a problem. I have not seen good evidence that the folks who argue with me on this thread show the fruit of the spirit. If you are not valuing the fruit of the spirit, and at least trying to show it, then you would not consider that a very powerful argument.
    But Jesus is quite explicit. How will you know false teachers? By their fruit.”

    Now it is quite clear that there are a few components to my argument.

    1 – Jesus says that you will know people by their fruit.
    2 – We contend that the fruit of the spirit discussed in the bible is present in loving same sex relationships
    3 – We could consider that evidence for their right standing.
    4 – We should be aware that when we get together and talk about these issues that we should be exemplifying fruits of the spirit
    5 – I am concerned about the conversation we have been having because many of these fruits don’t seem to be present.

    Now, here is the relevant section from Matthew

    7:15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 20 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered 21 from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 22 7:17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad 23 tree bears bad fruit. 7:18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 7:20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.

    And here is one of the occurances in Paul

    8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are 17 the sons of God

    Now, you come back with:

    The end of that passage describing the fruits of the Spirit states: Against such things there is no law.” So you are trying to equate some homosexual relationships with keeping with the fruits of the Spirit, but you can’t do that until you show that “against such things there is no law.” And I don’t think it’s a fair assessment for you to be able to present your arguments and then when you get some push back to accuse me of not having the fruit of the Spirit. Also, one of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control, and arguing that a Christian homosexual shouldn’t have to control his desire is itself arguing against the fruit of the Spirit.

    Denise, that is so far off base I can even begin to tell all the reasons. But let me at least say that you did not make an attempt to restate my argument to show that you had a grasp of it. And then you took it down some other path that I can’t make heads or tails out of.

    That is what I mean when I say Denise, you have yet to restate my arguments in a way that I would agree with. Every time you come back you grossly distort my argument.

  12. Denise says:

    Thank you for referencing this article. It provided an interesting history lesson to ancient views of sexuality that can still be seen today.
    You’re correct that this author did not directly address Gagnon’s burdens of proof, but neither did he indirectly disprove them. In fact, some points support Gagnon’s burdens of proof.
    Here they are for your review:

    “(1)   The more pervasively and consistently a particular position is upheld across the landscape of the canon—at least implicitly and especially across the two Testaments—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.
    “(2)   The more strongly biblical authors hold to a particular position—that is, the more serious a moral issue it was to them, as measured by the intensity of the language employed to describe violators and the stakes or penalties assigned—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.
    “(3)   The more absolutely biblical authors maintained a particular view—that is, the more unlikely it was that they would have permitted any exceptions—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.
      The more the authors of Scripture maintain a position in opposition to broader cultural trends—and thus the greater likelihood that they were not uncritically imbibing rom the conventional cultural well—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.”

    And later:

    “(1)   Paul almost certainly could not have been aware of theories in the ancient world regarding a congenital basis for at least some forms of homoerotic attraction.
    “(2)   Paul did not think sin could be associated with entrenched and exclusive innate desires.
    “(3)   Paul’s primary reason for viewing same-sex intercourse as an egregious wrong had to do with an assumption about homoerotic desire as voluntary and nonexclusive, and homosexual relationships as inevitably exploitative, rather than with any notion about structural incongruity.” 

    The author writes:
    “1) the dubious hypothesis that “gay”/“lesbian”/“straight” existed in this Greco-Roman-Jewish context (which I will not here address directly, since it has been adequately addressed elsewhere);”

    He does not reference as to where it’s been addressed.

    Secondly, as much as we are indebted to Augustine, he himself held the residual influence of Gnosticism, which considered matter as inferior, and therefore saw sex as dirty and only necessary for procreation.

    “…Clement’s concern about sex contrary to nature assumes that sperm is being wasted”

    Not according to the quote he provided by Clement. All Clement said was: “real men discharge semen, not receive it. So therefore his conclusion is wrong that the verse is not referring to two women.

    “It is reasonable to assume that Didymus felt the clarification necessary only if he had no reason to believe Paul’s original female reference was about female homogenitality.”

    Or he was just emphasizing the sinful desire on top of the sinful behavior.

    “He concludes that abandoning the concept of God leads to the “sin list” in the last verses of the chapter (1:29-31).  In this sense, the focus of the chapter is on those who μετ/ήλλαξαν the worship of Yahweh for the worship of physical idols.  Both of the first two parallel passages (1:23-24, 1:25-26a), bracketed by μετ/ήλλαξαν and παρέδωκεν, explicitly describe physical idol worship as it would have been found in the first century.”

    Paul is not describing people who “abandon the concept of God.” In verse 21 it says: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him…” and later: “They did not see fit to acknowledge God…(v.28)” but again, “they knew” Him. While idols may indeed be physical (such as a statue or a picture), they are not only physical. Paul contrasts worship of God to the only other thing it could be wrongly attributed to: his creation.

    Regarding the homosexuality addressed as in a different section than the sin section, he writes: “First, και καθος (“since”, 1:28) takes a causal meaning,[38] separating the previous discussion from the discussion that follows it, making the homogenital behavior listed in 1:26b-28 part of a different clause than the sin list in 1:29-32.  Second, Chamberlain describes ποιεῖν (‘to do’) as the epexegetical infinitive, used here to clarify what precedes it (1:23-27) by way of the example that follows it (1:29-32).”

    The problem is he is anticipating that traditionalists view homosexuality as the only focal point in verses 22-28, but it is not, it is about idolatry in general, of which homosexuality is a part.

    The rest of the paper describes in detail prevalent homosexual practices in ancient times, which supports Gagnon’s burden of proof: “ The more the authors of Scripture maintain a position in opposition to broader cultural trends—and thus the greater likelihood that they were not uncritically imbibing rom the conventional cultural well—the greater the claim is to being a core value and the higher the burden of proof becomes.”

    CTL, you state: “You have challenged my assertion regarding the term “eunuchs” when it is used in Scripture and ancient culture as a “catch all” term that referred, not just to those men who had been castrated, but also to gay men (as Jesus said, those who were born as eunuchs).”
    No, what I challenged was your flawed logic that A-Eunuchs did not marry. B-Eunuchs could be gay. C-Therefore all references to eunuchs in Bible are to gay people. You were inconsistent with this assertion as well because you stated that we don’t know if the eunuchs mentioned in the Bible were gay, but then kept asserting it in your argument.

    I would hardly call the link you provided on this subject as scholarly. He refers to all traditionalists as “homophobes” for not supporting his view point. He never mentions birth defects and that eunuchs were abstinent as I’ve supported in the past. Plus, just because he finds ancient evidence that many eunuchs let their bodies be used sexually does not define eunuchs as such.

    http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/early_church.html This article you provide also downplays any possibility of birth defects. Again, I never claimed that eunuchs do not have homosexual desires, but that eunuch does not equal homosexual.

    “Philip would have immediately known he was dealing with a man who was part of a class commonly associated with homosexual desire.”

    Or a man who was castrated or abstaining for his religion’s sake.

    “Philip did not say, “Let’s talk about Deuteronomy 23:1.” He also did not say, “I realize since you’re a eunuch that you may desire men; can you promise me you’ll never have a sexual relationship with a man?” Instead, operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” We have no way of knowing whether the Ethiopian eunuch was in fact gay. But we do know he was part of a class of people commonly associated with homosexuality and that this fact was completely irrelevant to whether he could become a Christian.”

    I never said a homosexual couldn’t become a Christian. All sinners are invited to become Christians. Also, the author’s hypothetical of what Philip would have said had the eunuch been gay is unrealistic. In no recorded conversion story is there a stopping point of, “umm, you better stop being an alcoholic first.”

    “Rather he lists people born gay alongside another honored class (eunuchs for the kingdom), and accepts them as a natural part of God’s creation order.”

    Again, he is equating the term eunuch with gayness. He minimizes all other possibilities. He does not talk about the fact that eunuchs were meant to be abstinent.

    From this website you referenced: http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html

    “Never in any of the Sodom passages does God or a human author of the Bible link Sodom with homosexuality.”

    Then why would Lot offer up his daughters sexually instead?

    The rest of this passage goes in-depth about shrine prostitutes; it’s irrelevant to our discussion.

    Regarding this site you refer to: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

    This claim contradicts the claims of the rest of the sites you reference regarding the climate and acceptability of homosexuality in ancient times. There definitely were “soft” men that dressed like women and paraded about, just read your first reference.

    And lastly, I never said anything about Jude.

    DRT, I am not “so far off base” because I responded in kind to the points you made originally, and just now again reiterated. There are two claims in your response, that homosexuality can be justified based on your assessment that some same-sex couples exhibit these. It’s an argument yes, but a weak one. One could say that Buddhist monks exemplify the fruit of the Spirit, but that does not justify their religion as true. The second is that you implied that I am not exemplifying the fruits of the Spirit and that I am a false teacher. Those are pretty bold claims. If you will stand by your latest claim: “I am concerned about the conversation we have been having because many of these fruits don’t seem to be present”, which is milder and more humble, then by all means I agree that we should all strive to be more patient with each other, which I guess is your irritation.

  13. Ron Goetz says:

    Countrytime Lemonade, you know where to reach me. Let’s talk.

  14. Simon says:

    I’ve just spent an hour reading the article then going through people’s comments.
    Denise some wonderful scripture-based reasoning. Thanks for your input. It’s made me ask the question – what bias I am bringing to scripture? If I want to hear God’s heart from his word, I need to ensure I’m not misunderstanding the message, interrupting him, nor finishing his sentences!
    For what it’s worth I believe this is a spiritual battle. Satan is a master at deception and as scripture attests, can appear as an angel of light. 2 Cor 11:14
    Unless God opens our eyes to his word and his truth, we are without hope.
    Some have commented that there are christians are judgemental and even un-Christlike. This is true. We are all fallen and that is precisely why we need a savior and desperately need to be forgiven by Jesus. Our sins need to be nailed to the cross with Jesus. We can only do this if we are genuine about repentance. God will not condemn us to hell because we are homosexual, or an idolator, an adulterer, a liar. He will condemn us because we are sinners which includes all of these things and much worse. So many more that there are none worthy of salvation – none, except Christ alone.
    It is not the lack of an anti-venom that will kill a snake bite victim, it is the poison. Brothers and Sisters in Christ, I urge you to seek God’s forgiveness in Jesus and his death and resurrection.
    For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Acts 4v12
    Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you unless, of course, you fail the test? 2 Cor 13:5,6
    The cross of Christ is confronting. It demands Lordship.
    Do you call Jesus “Lord”?
    Many of us will struggle with sexuality, pornography, alcoholism, pride, selfishness and many more issues. Many of us will never overcome them in this life. But keep up the good fight, run the good race. God knows our plight. His reward is eternally worth it!

    Lastly:
    “God doesn’t love me because I am valuable, I am valuable because God loves me” – unknown?

  15. Kevin DeYoung says:

    Do to numerous lengthy comments, the comment section of this blog entry will concluded.

Comments are closed.

Kevin DeYoung


Kevin DeYoung is senior pastor of University Reformed Church (RCA) in East Lansing, Michigan, near Michigan State University. He and his wife Trisha have six young children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books