rachel held evans

discernment, gluttony, homosexuality, not that there's anything wrong with that, rachel held evans

Everyone’s literal about sin until you bring up homosexuality

Posted on December 31, 2013May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

In the crucible of what passes for discussion about the sin of homosexuality, I’ve noticed an insidious acceptance in Christians of one of the conditions that the gay lobby insists we make. This acceptance has crept in and is in fact a double standard. It is akin to the scenes in the old Seinfeld episode “The Outing.” Let me explain.

Twenty years ago, in an episode of the comedy sitcom “Seinfeld,” Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza, lifelong buddies, are mistaken for a homosexual couple, and “strenuously deny that they are gay, conditioning their denials with ‘Not that there’s anything wrong with that.’ The line would soon afterward become a catchphrase. Jason Alexander maintains that it is the most popular to originate from the series. The episode earned a GLAAD award. (source)

In each case when the catchphrase was uttered, the person would shrug, throw up their hands in a mock submission and shake their head. See this 17 second compilation:

In discussing homosexuality today, immediate ire rises from all quarters unless homosexuality is couched in the most glowing of terms. If a person does not give hearty approval to homosexuality, (Romans 1:32), one is immediately scourged. The scourging is fast, immediate, and vicious. Just ask Phil Robertson.

If it were up to the homosexual lobby, no one would ever mention homosexuality as a sin. Evah. Failing that, the double standard now is that we can’t mention homosexuality as a sin unless we also mention all the other sins too, at the same time. To paraphrase many of the other discussions I’ve read, such as Rachel Held Evans’s question, “Why is homosexuality the great biblical debate of this decade and not slavery?” a discussion along those “not that there’s anything wrong with that” lines might go like this-

“Homosexuality is a sin”.
“Wait just a minute, bub. Gossip is a sin, what about that? Or envy, that’s a sin too. And drunkenness. Why single out homosexuality? Hey, bub, there’s lots of sins. Not that there aren’t other sins too!”

We are now supposed to cushion the sting of stating sodomy is a sin by including it in a list of all other sins.

The double standard enters in because the reverse is not true.

“Murder is a sin.”
“Wait just a minute, bub. Homosexuality is a sin, too. What about that? You didn’t mention that one. Or envy, that’s a sin. And drunkenness. Why single out murder? Hey, bub, there’s lots of sins. Why aren’t you talking about them, too?”

“Gluttony is a sin”
“Wait just a minute, bub. Homosexuality is a sin, too. What about that? You didn’t mention that one. Or drunkenness, that’s a sin. And anger. Why single out gluttony? Hey, bub, there’s lots of sins. Why aren’t you talking about them, too?”

We have allowed ourselves to substitute the phrase, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” with “Not that there aren’t any other sins!” And throwing up our hands in a mock submission and shaking our heads, in vain attempts to stave off anger and vicious comebacks.

Don’t fall for it. This is just a temporary compromise to the gay lobby’s ultimate goal: full-on prohibition of any talk of homosexuality being mentioned as a sin at all. (Romans 1:32 again). It’s a diversionary tactic.

It is a given that we understand there are many sins. Lists and lists of them are given in the bible. (Romans 1:29-31, 2 Corinthians 12:20, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Jude 1:16). Committing even one of them disqualifies a person from heaven and Jesus is great enough to forgive them, no matter how many you committed. If a person is talking about the greatness of Jesus in His ability and desire to forgive any and all sins, then by all means, list the bunch of them to illustrate the breadth of His mercy and grace! That’s what Phil Robertson was doing when he mentioned a hearty selection of sins, not just the one that must not be mentioned.

Even then, you see the gay lobby can’t ever be satisfied, because they complained that in mentioning homosexuality together with a bunch of other sins, he was comparing homosexuality to them…you see the pointlessness of caving even an inch to their demands.

But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. (Galatians 2:5)While the discussion may legitimately call for an expanded list of sins, it is not necessary to hide homosexuality within a larger list of sins just to make it palatable to the LGBT lobby. If the discussion is about the sin of gossip, then the discussion will be about gossip. No one will suggest including adultery in the talk because it is in some way perversely fair to all the other sins to mention them too.

So if the discussion arises about homosexuality, it is disingenuous to force an inclusion of all sins along with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a protected class of sins, and it has biblical merit as a discussion point all on its own.

Here is where some, like Rachel Held Evans, make the mistake of selective literalism. The doctrinally ignorant will insist that if we are going to take the bible literally and include homosexuality as a literal sin (all I can picture is Sheldon saying ‘Literally? Literally?’) then we must also wear head coverings and gouge out our eyes if looking lustfully at another woman. Because, let’s be literal. It’s just another diversionary tactic.

Evans wrote: “We may laugh at these examples or dismiss them silly, but the biblical language employed in these contexts is actually pretty strong: eating shellfish is an abomination, a bare head is a disgrace, gossips will not inherit the kingdom of God, careless words are punishable by hell, guys who leer at women should gouge out their eyes.“

Below is a parable of incorrect biblical literalism as acted by the Big Bang Theory’s Zack, posed by Evans above:

Correct use of literally:

So if you’re discussing homosexuality as a literal and factual sin and that is the topic, don’t feel you have to say “Not that there aren’t other sins too!” We don’t bow in subjection to them for even a moment, give not an inch. Here’s why. Going back to the Galatians 2:5 verse above,

“The unyielding stand of Paul and Barnabas and their strong support by the Jerusalem apostles and leaders was to show the Judaizers that from now on, no Judaizer could ever say that Paul deceived you. No Judaizer could ever say that the prominent leaders of Jerusalem agree with us, not him…” (source)

Don’t cave. Stay strong. Speak plainly the truth of the bible, not compromising its truths where and when we are called to proclaim them. Otherwise, all too soon, “Not that there aren’t other sins too!” literally will become, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”

feminist, gay marriage, homosexuality, rachel held evans, repent, sinner

Marriage is to be between a man and a woman, yes, even in this day and age

Posted on December 28, 2013May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

I think Rachel Held Evans, the author of a Year of Biblical Womanhood, has revived an essay she wrote, in which my blog essay mentioning her is linked to. In any case, though the blog entry is months old, I am suddenly receiving a LOT of traffic from and to. The subject is homosexuality.

Given the culture war regarding this particular sin, especially the explosive week regarding the Duck Dynasty controversy, and given that there are many eyes reading or re-reading these essays, I’ll speak to the subject again.

Homosexuality is the last battleground in a culture that is fighting to live or die. In Romans 1, Paul laid out in the inspired word, a process which a culture undergoes when it is rejecting God. It begins with individual’s suppression of the truth in unrighteousness, and continues worse as more and more people in that culture suppress the truth. As they do, God judges them and He judges the society. Eventually, He gives them over to their sin. S. Lewis Johnson wrote in an article re-published 2010,

“The devolution in human history is reflected in the more recent tendency of society to accept the sin of homosexuality and other sexual deviations as a mere sickness and not as sin. … This is God’s temporal judgment which is preliminary to His eternal judgment on a rebellious human race.”

It may surprise some to know that God judges people and societies before they die and go to hell. But He does. God ordains “thus sin shall be punished by sin” said Heinrich Meyer. Homosexuality is the final earthly judgment in the process of traveling away from His holiness into carnal rebelliousness. When the verse says “He gave them over,” it doesn’t mean God threw up His hands saying ‘Kids these days!’ It means a holy, judicial act has occurred.

“He positively gave men over to the judgment of “more intensified and aggravated cultivation of the lusts of their own hearts with the result that they reap for themselves a correspondingly greater toll of retributive vengeance.” (S. Lewis Johnson & John Murray, Epistle to the Romans)

The passage speaking to this is Romans 1:18-32. It is titled in the ESV, “God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness”. Lest you think I am cherry picking, in the NIV the section is titled “God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity.” Even the NLT says “God’s Anger at Sin”.

It begins this way:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” (Romans 1:18)

The wrath of God IS REVEALED. Present tense, and means “uncover, revealing what is hidden”. So? Where is all this wrath? Do we see fire and brimstone coming down on San Francisco as it did to Sodom? Do we see lakes of fire opening up under the NYC Gay Pride Parade? His wrath will be that blatant on His Day, AKA the Tribulation period, but it is being revealed now too. It is being revealed every day since the Garden, when man became cursed with a sin-nature.

Think on this, the first thing Jesus did when He went to Jerusalem at the start of his public ministry – His first public act – was to wrathfully overturn the tables of the merchants at the temple, crying out against their defilement of his temple. As John MacArthur said, Jesus didn’t send an advance committee and make His statutes sound like harps and flowers. Instead, in wrath He cried out against their defilment of His temple.

Jesus casting out the money changers at the temple – Carl Bloch

Today we don’t have a temple, but the temple is our body.

“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” (1 Corinthians 6:19a)

And today the holy wrath against defiling His temple is just as strong!

“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18)

His wrath was revealed in the curse. It was revealed in the Flood. It was revealed in the sacrificial system. It was revealed on the cross. It is revealed as Romans 1 states, when He allows the moral order to collapse.

People today who want to re-define homosexuality as acceptable and gay marriage as normal are usually concerned with two overarching themes. Besides actively participating in the moral collapse of society, one thing they are inordinately concerned with is “love” and the other is “judge.”

Scripture can be used correctly or incorrectly. It is the word of God, breathed from Him to men, inerrant in the original language and profitable for all teaching, correction, and reproof. (2 Timothy 3:16). It is the bread from heaven (John 6:32) and the way we learn about who God is…AND what His standards are. And He’s got standards. We cannot simply clip out of the bible that which displeases us.

Photo by Alexandria Searls, are of the two Bibles from which
Thomas Jefferson clipped text to create
“The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth.” Source Jefferson Library

It is up to each Christian to determine if the things they are being taught are based on a correct understanding of scripture, and to “judge” whether a teaching is valid or not valid. In this way, you reader, too, “judge”. (1 John 4:1-3). And I certainly hope you test what I’ve written against the scriptures in context.

In the bible, God said that He has standards for behavior, morals, language/speech, sexual fidelity, marriage, and etc. He listed specific sins that disqualify one from heaven. He continually reminds us that our default condition as sinner precludes us from heaven. Man tries to writhe out of His standards, but to do so is death to him.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12)

Helping someone who is knowingly or unknowingly struggling under the false conclusion that they are not sinning is not judging them. It is loving them. There are many lists of sins that He hates, (Proverbs 6:16-19,1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 5:11) and one of them in particular, He used as a benchmark of a society’s collapse. Homosexuality. (Romans 1:28-32). Sin is serious!

Not everyone is qualified for marriage. Not everyone is getting into heaven. Not everyone worships acceptably. For example, it is a sin to come to the Lord’s table unrepentant. (1 Corinthians 11:27-2). It is a sin to come to church drunk. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13). Not everyone behaves in a way that pleases God. He has standards. Though the bible is the clear and plain outline of what standards will please Him, some fail the standard. Society hates to hear this.

“Heaven visited me” Creative Commons, by Kevin Dooley

Now, in today’s permissive “tolerant” society, people don’t like that Christians hold to the standards God laid out. They do not like it when Christians tell them that some things are forbidden. They call it “hate.” It IS hate to them, they hate to be told they can’t do what their carnal heart desires! People can redefine judging, hate and love all they want, but those redefinitions to suit their carnal desires will not stand on the day they face THE Judge.

“Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.” (Proverbs 2:4-5)

Homosexual marriage is not a marriage, because it is outside God’s law. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5).

Homosexuals have the “right to love” as much as any sinner! They can choose to love Jesus and His statutes. Or they can choose to hate Jesus and His statutes. But they are not qualified for marriage. And they do not have the right to love one another in a sexual way. Sodomy is not “love” – it is hate against God’s statutes and standards. It is loving to tell them so, in order that they may repent.

Do you approve of sex between a 37 year old man and an 8 year old girl? No? Then you are “judging” aren’t you? Do you approve of relations between a 42 year old man and his German Shepherd dog? No? Then you are “judging.” Do you approve of your spouse having sex with another person while you’re married? No? The bible forbids those acts, by the way, just as much as it forbids sexual acts between same sexes.

Yes, I am intolerant, in the way people want to use the word. I am intolerant of sin, my own especially. I’m intolerant of people who try to change God’s laws to suit their own carnal desires. I try to tell them that they are doing a disservice to Jesus and to their own selves, but some won’t listen. Yet I persist because I love them. I love them in the biblical way: because Jesus first loved us, and came to seek and save sinners. Jesus’s first ministry words were an order, not an invitation and certainly not harps and flowers. He said,

“Repent and believe.” (Mark 1:14-15).

Creative Commons, Art4theGlryOfGod

—————————-

Can we ever know doctrine for certain?

Posted on July 8, 2013 by elizabethprata

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20)

I’ve often written about this passage, showing the process of recognition via the example Jesus gave. In other words, emphasizing the fruit. In this essay I want to focus on one simple thing.

The word will.

In today’s mushy, emergent, false humility-filled, intolerant of certainty world, people say you cannot know doctrine for certain, and to attempt to do so is arrogance. It’s popular to say that “Truth for me means…but I can’t be sure…I’m open to other interpretations…”

It is extremely unpopular to be dogmatic today. Yet if we cannot know good doctrine with any certainty, then that means we can’t know bad doctrine for certain, either. What they are basically saying is that it is never possible to know if a doctrine is false. This is very convenient for the false teachers out there because this would mean that they can never be identified.

But this is not what the bible says.

The verses above tell us that false prophets will come. False prophets (false teachers) bring false teachings. We know that. The word in the verse for false prophet is “pseudoprophētōn” and you notice the ‘pseudo’ right away. The definition of the word is “a false prophet; one who in God’s name teaches what is false.”

So watch out, they will come.

But have no fear, because … and here is the good news … you WILL recognize them. The verse states that plainly. It then sums up with its re-statement that you will recognize them. Jesus is assuring us that we will recognize the ones who come bringing false teachings and if they bring a false teaching then they are false themselves.

It doesn’t say, “You may recognize them.” It doesn’t say “Sometimes, in the right light, you could recognize them.” It doesn’t say “On a good day, it’s possible to recognize them.” It says, “You will recognize them.”

How do we recognize them? By their fruits- their teachings.

No wonder the emergent crowd so longs to bring disrepute to the certainty of understanding what is false and who is false! If all doctrine is potentially valid, then the ones bringing them are also valid, and should be listened to. This gives satan a toehold in your mind to widen that crack of doubt, plant false seeds, and confuse you. When Satan asked Eve, “Hath God said?” in Genesis 3:1, instead of being dogmatic and responding, “Yes, God hath said…” she answered with a confused doctrine that she had added to. Satan ran with that and persuaded her to bite the fruit. The rest is our sad history.

By saying we will recognize them, I don’t think it means that every believer will recognize every false teacher instantly at all times. We are a body. That means we are organic and mutually working together for the glory of God within the scope of each of our gifts the Spirit dispensed.

“Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.” (1 Corinthians 12:12)

Some were given discerning of spirits, others the gift of helps. Where those with discernment cry out that a wolf has infiltrated, others busy helping perk up and take heed. Where those with the gift of helps can earlier identify one who needs support, those who are watching for wolves may be slower to spot the need. We work together for His good and glory through the dispensing of the gifts.

Being dogmatic can be good and it can be bad. By dogmatic, I mean having studied, prayed, and come to a certain knowledge of a certain doctrine. We can never be casually dogmatic, or unintelligently dogmatic. Ever. But a person can be certain of right doctrine and can know when a doctrine is false for sure, too.

I’ll use the doctrine of hell. I mentioned in an earlier post that very early on in my walk I studied all the different interpretations of hell. Some people who teach from the bible, say that we go to hell for a period of time and after a length of punishment, are annihilated, never to exist again and released from their torment. Others who teach from the bible say that unbelievers go to hell and remain there forever enduring the wrath of God. Both use the bible but both cannot be right. One of these stances is contrary to the other.

The bible does not offer confusion nor does it contradict itself. In this way, I know that one of those doctrinal stances is wrong. I prayed for wisdom and studied further and it was a short while after that where I understood that hell is eternal conscious punishment. (Revelation 14:11). Therefore I no longer need to entertain the thought that annihilation is a possibility. I don’t need to be “open.” I know it to be false, because eternal punishment is true. I’m closed on the topic. The bible is black and white like that.

However being dogmatic about your uncertainty is dishonoring to Jesus, because you have entertained a false doctrine and haven’t sought to reconcile them via the Spirit, prayer, and study. Mrs Rachel Held Evans wrote of her ‘evolution’ away from the traditional doctrines of the bible in her book, “Evolving in Monkey Town.” The book describes that she learned “in order for her faith to survive in a postmodern context, it must adapt to change and evolve.” Her evolution was unfortunately away from the traditional biblical doctrines of young earth, eternal hell, and so on. Mrs Evans said to me today that “My point is that Christians disagree on the clarity of the issues you bring up. I think Fudge makes a good case…” She was referring to a well-known theologian Dr. Edward Fudge who teaches an annihilation view on hell.

Of course they make a good case. If they made a bad case we wouldn’t have any discord, but be of one mind and on the same page. Additionally, just the fact that disagreement exists does not mean that all viewpoints are valid nor are they true. It also doesn’t mean we stop seeking clarity, thinking, well, if so many disagree, then there must not be one truth about this.” No, never let it be so!

When teachers use the bible to make a good case but that case is at odds with another good case, stop, study, and pray. It is up to us to recognize that pre-tribulation rapture, mid-tribulation rapture and post-tribulation rapture cannot ALL be true. Traditional view of the Trinity and Modalism both cannot be true. If one refutes the other, it is up to us to seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit. He will guide me into truth. That I don’t seek clarity isn’t even under contention, though some fail at that first step. Once the Spirit delivers the answer, I am grateful and can then ponder the doctrine, think of all the verses that go with it, and better get to know Who my Savior is.

If you allow yourself to exist in a perpetual state of doctrinal confusion, then you will always be confused about who Christ is.

John 8:44 says that satan is the author of lies. As God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) then satan IS the author of confusion and discord. Just because there are lies does not mean we cannot know the truth. Being careful to handle the word rightly, (2 Timothy 2:15) asking for wisdom (James 1:5) and discernment, and through the Holy Spirit, we can have comfort in knowing His truth.

You will recognize them. You will.

“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.” (James 3:17 NASB).

divisive, Hermeneutics of Humility, homosexuality, rachel held evans

Rachel Held Evans asks "What if my son or daughter were gay…" and gets a response from Dr Joel McDurmon

Posted on July 5, 2013December 1, 2023 by elizabethprata

Nine months ago, I wrote about popular Christian author and blogger Rachel Held Evans. I mentioned her in this blog entry here which speaks of the Christian feminist agenda, and also I listed her in an essay about the new Christian feminism.

Evans had written the book of late, “A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master.”

Her book was thoughtfully and instructively critiqued here (negatively), and sternly here (very negatively).

Today I read an essay which is a response to Evans’ piece called “If my son or daughter were gay…” The piece is written by Dr. Joel McDurmon and it’s called “To Rachel Held Evans, RE: “If my son or daughter were gay…”

Sometimes when we write about someone who has a new book which illustrates a slide toward apostasy, it’s good to catch back up with that person later on to see if they have corrected course, indicating a momentary inattention and a repentant drift, or if they have continued that slide (are they are still going out from us?) Is Rachel Held Evans still sliding? Yes. That is the first point of this essay. Examples to come and warning duly given.

Example 1: Over the last year Mrs Evans has been presenting a series of ask and answer questions on her blog. The series is called “Ask A…” in which she asks a prominent person a question and explores all the biblical responses to it. As Kevin Miller says at Patheos, “she’s allowing readers to throw their questions at people who hold to various positions on hell. First up was Edward Fudge, well known advocate of Conditional Immortality and author of The Fire that Consumes. Next up is Robin Parry, author of The Evangelical Universalist.”

Enough said.

In the essay response to Mrs Evans’ ‘If my son or daughter were gay’ piece, Dr McDurmon wrote, “There is a stream of tears dripping from the end of Rachel Held Evans’s recent blog, “If my son or daughter were gay…”. I have to admit: I am crying, too. – … Yes, I am crying, too, but for a different reason. I am weeping over the disgrace to God, the neutered theology, the tortured application of “unconditional love.” – See more here.

I think it is clear that to read Mrs Evans’s blog or her books would not be profitable for the Christian and her works do not honor Jesus.

The second point of my essay here today is to examine the tactic Mrs Evans uses, in the hopes that how satan slyly comes in will be made more apparent to you and you can then be aware in future.

She asks questions.

I am not against questions. Christianity is a thinking religion, demanding in its intellectual and spiritual proposals. After all, the Holy Spirit endeavors to transform our mind. (Romans 12:2). That is one of the ministries He is performs inside us- renewing our mind away from the default of saturated sin and evil toward light and Christlike. (Colossians 3:10). Honest questioning is a good thing. “What did that verse mean? How can I apply that to my life? Is there a biblical example of that I can learn? Where is a parallel verse? What is the context here? What does Jesus mean when He says ‘meek’?” and so on.

Those are honest questions. When a disciple of Jesus comes to the word and honestly seeks to know, and asks the Spirit to answer, this is honest work.

Satan asks dishonest questions.

Let’s look at the dramatic moment in Genesis 3. I keep going back to that moment in many of my blog essays because it is important. Also, we are given insight into not just what the apostles said about satan, but in the very few times satan himself is recorded interacting with man (or Jesus or God) it behooves us to pay attention and learn from it.

We meet satan for the first time in Genesis 3:1. The introduction to him is “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.” That is how the Spirit chose to introduce satan to us. So pay attention.

When you make an introduction to someone you state their name. You say one or two of the best things you can think of to commend that person, to make a good first impression. In the bible’s introduction of satan, his name is left off and the only commendation of him to us is negative. Not one good thing.

In the very next sentence we read, “He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

This is dishonest questioning. Satan had an agenda. He did not approach the woman in earnest, seeking to know what God hath said. He already knew what God hath said. He is all ears. He sees all that God does and with constant and persistent action, seeks to undermine God and accuse humans. (Revelation 12:10). If satan had really wanted to know what God had said, he could have gone to God and asked. No, satan knew the answer but had a different reason for asking. This is dishonesty.

He asked this question of Eve not because he didn’t know the answer. He asked it because he had an agenda. That agenda is to subvert the word of God and to introduce doubt into the recipient.

Rob Bell perfected this art of subversive questioning in his book denying hell’s existence, “Love Wins.”

Dr John MacArthur noted this in his review of Rob Bell’s book, “Rob Bell: “Evangelical and orthodox to the bone? Hardly.”, first quoting a passage from Bell and then making his statement-

Bell: “What if that spring [the virgin birth] were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart? . . . If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?” (26-27)

So on the one hand, in a single sentence, he professes to affirm the virgin birth. On the other hand (and on the very same page), he spends multiple paragraphs calling the truthfulness and importance of that doctrine into question.

Back to Mrs. Evans.

Even Charisma Magazine asked a couple of days ago if Mrs Evans has caved to the culture.
“Evans, who states that she “grew up in a religious environment that vilified LGBT people,” still identifies as an evangelical Christian but has had a change of heart in her viewpoint on homosexuality, just as she had a change of heart on “the age of the Earth, the reality of climate change, the value of women in church leadership, [and] the equal failings of both the Republican and Democratic platforms to embody the teachings of Jesus.” And so, when Exodus International announced it was closing its doors and when the Supreme Court made its momentous, pro-gay activist decisions, she “celebrated” along with her many LGBT friends. …The title of her article is “Not All Religious Convictions Are Written in Stone,” but Evans leaves us wondering if any religious convictions are written in stone.”

Yes, they are written in stone. It is the job of satan to make you believe that they aren’t.

This questioning-seemingly-humble tactic is what John MacArthur called the “Hermeneutics of Humility” in his sermon on 1 John 1:1-4, “The Certainties of the Word of Life, part 2“, writing, ” There’s a new hermeneutics, a new science of interpretation called the Hermeneutics of Humility, and this is serious to the people who espoused this and their Hermeneutics of Humility say, “I’m too humble to think that I could ever know what the Bible really means and so I can only offer my opinion and I certainly can’t say that this is in fact the truth.” They pat themselves on the back congratulating themselves for such intellectual openness.”

It does seem to fool people when we come across someone who seems to be struggling with the larger questions of Christianity, and they are seemingly innocently asking questions in order to resolve their doubt. Who wouldn’t want to come alongside such a person and help them with biblical answers? But we are in the midst of wolves. We must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:16). This calls for discernment. Is a person a wolf who will devour me with their questions, or are they an immature lamb seeking their Shepherd?

As for being a ‘humble seeker,’ you can know. You should know. You will know with certainty. In the sermon on the 1John verses, MacArthur said “I mentioned to you before that 36 times you’re going to find some form of the word “know” here. I know, we know, you know…there is an absoluteness in that.”

I wondered about hell when I was first saved. I studied the bible, read what Jesus had to say about it. The answer became clear. So then I stopped asking. Question asked and answered. To continue to ask questions about a subject once you have learned what the bible says on it is blasphemy because by then you’re not genuinely wondering about your understanding of the topic, you are directly questioning God. To fail to gain clarity on a topic that the bible presents clearly in the first place is also blasphemy. It is all dishonest questioning.

The bible is also clear on the disposition of the unrepentant sinner, including unrepentant homosexuals. It is also clear on the definition of love. A person is not being humble by continuing to ask, they are simply using their blog to introduce doubt and giving a platform to others who are wolves. (I.E. “Ask A… series”).

The bible speaks to these foolish ‘what if’ questions. The bible has the first word and the last word on the questioning tactic, dishonest questioning, that is, ‘If anyone has a morbid interest in controversial questions…’

“If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that religion is a means of gain.” (1 Timothy 6:3-5).

Pulpit Commentary says
“In this morbid love of questionings and disputes of words, they lose sight of all wholesome words and all godly doctrine… surmisings, here in the-New Testament, In classical Greek it means “suspicion,” or any under-thought. The verb occurs three times in the Acts – “to deem, think, or suppose.” Here the “surmisings” are those uncharitable insinuations in which angry controversialists indulge towards one another.”

Be wise, be strong, and study hard. Know what you know, and proclaim it! Satan is coming on like a flood.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~