Steve Harvey Is Wrong About Salvation; Christians Watch Out!

          Millions of people follow Steve Harvey. He is “an American television presenter, comedian, actor, broadcaster, author, game show host and businessman. He hosts The Steve Harvey Morning Show, Family Feud, Celebrity Family Feud and the Miss Universe competition (since 2015)… He is a six-time Daytime Emmy Award winner, two-time Marconi Award winner, and a 14-time NAACP Image Award winner in various categories..”¹

            Recently Steve Harvey alluded to the possibility of many ways to heaven.

            This is so blatantly wrong on so many levels.

            Many think that Steve Harvey is a Christian. Steve Harvey calls himself a man of faith.²

            As a man of faith, he proclaimed there is more than one way to heaven.³ He said, “"There's no one way to Heaven, no one way to paradise,” Harvey declared. “It's like television, now there's [sic] over 800 channels on cable, and they're all pretty entertaining. So I'm pretty sure that to get to Heaven, there's got to be more than one route. Because somebody watching another channel or taking another channel than you, they're still getting entertained, and they probably still getting to Heaven.””⁴

            This blatantly contradicts an essential Historic Christian tenet that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven (John 14:6, Acts 4:12).

            If Steve Harvey is a Christian, does he not know his Bible?

            Alternatively, if Steve Harvey calls himself a Christian, he could be a Progressive Christian.

            Progressive Christians, under the pretext of religious tolerance, believe that all religions lead to heaven. (Hence, those subscribing to Historic Christianity do not believe that progressive Christians would go to heaven.)

            Many people listen to Steve Harvey for his counsel on many matters. If you are one of those, be sure that Steve’s counsel need not be predicated on the Historic Christian tenets. In other words, Steve Harvey’s counsel need not necessarily be based on Biblical principles.

            So be careful when you listen to Steve Harvey.  

            If you wonder why all religions cannot lead us to heaven or God, then please read my blog entitled “Three Reasons Why All Religions Do Not LeadTo God Or Heaven.”⁵

Endnotes:

¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Harvey

²https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5dhOFPlM0&list=WL&index=1&ab_channel=TheOfficialSteveHarvey; 0:26 mins.

³https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5dhOFPlM0&list=WL&index=1&ab_channel=TheOfficialSteveHarvey; 1:40-2:08 mins.

⁴https://www.christianpost.com/news/steve-harvey-says-theres-no-one-way-to-heaven.html

⁵http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2019/01/three-reasons-why-all-religions-do-not.html

Websites last accessed on 6^th February 2021. 

Amen & Awoman! Progressive Christians At Work???

            Did you come upon a Democrat Congressman’s bizarre prayer at the 117^th Congress on 3^rd January 2021? Here’s a summary, “Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), an ordained Methodist pastor, offered some unusual words in the opening prayer for the 117th Congress on Sunday.

            He ended the prayer with, “May the Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon us and give us peace. Peace in our families. Peace across this land and, dare I ask...oh, Lord...peace even in this chamber now and ever more. We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and gods known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and a-woman.”” ¹ [Emphasis Mine].

            This prayer is bizarre for two reasons:

            1. The supposedly Christian prayer mentions various deities of the major religious worldviews.

            2. The prayer closes with a very atypical ‘Amen and Awoman.’

            First, why is there such a backlash against this prayer? This prayer is simply nonsensical from the Historic Christian perspective.

            A progressive Christian² (who may not be a Christian, to begin with) can pray this prayer, but a Christian subscribing to Historic Christianity cannot pray this prayer.

            Why is this prayer wrong?

            First, a Christian subscribing to Historic Christianity would pray his/her prayers in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:13-14). A prayer that is prayed in the name of the gods of this world is not Christian prayer. Period.

            Second, amen is not a gendered word. Amen does not refer to males or females.

            Amen is from the Old Testament, so it has Hebrew origin. Dr. Brown explains by giving a context to this prayer:³

In case you haven’t heard, House Democrats want to remove all gendered language from their legislation, while the prayer to open the 117th Congress ended with, “Amen and A-woman.” I kid you not. Who would make up something so insane?

A PC Prayer

Let’s start with the PC prayer, which has to be seen to be believed. It is offered in “the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and ‘god’ known by many names by many different faiths.” And it concludes with, “Amen and A-woman,” as if the “men” of “Amen” was somehow a gendered term. How patriarchal and bigoted to use the “men” word in prayer!

Of course, “Amen” comes from the common Semitic root ’-m-n, with the word itself meaning, “So be it.” And it is used in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic liturgy, being found in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Arabic (along with English and many other languages)…

Learning New Phrases?

Following the logic of this prayer, we would have to learn new phrases like, “making awomends,” since “making amends” contains the dreaded m- word. Or, we would have to learn to be “awomenable,” lest we allow a male-dominated word like “amenable” to remain on the books. (Go ahead and make up your own list of words containing “men.” This is madness.)

        Amen is thusly not a gendered word. It means ‘so be it.’ Thinking of amen as a gendered word is absolutely insane and nonsensical.

        Do not use the word ‘Awoman’ while you close your prayer, a fortiori amen is sufficient.

        Can a Christian pray in the name of the gods of this world?

        No, most certainly not!

        Why?

        The God of the Bible is ontologically not the same as Allah or Brahma or any other God.

        If we think of God from the realm of metaphysics, God is a maximally great being or the greatest conceivable being. In fact, from an ontic sense, there cannot be two maximally great beings aka God.

        There can only be one maximally great being. That is the innate property of a maximally great being.

        So when we talk about God, it is either the God of the Bible or Allah or Brahman, etc. It cannot be both the God of the Bible and any other God. Neither can the God of the Bible be called Allah nor Brahma etc. for they are ontologically distinct. The one who believes in the God of the Bible would not and cannot believe in any other god, for there cannot be another maximally great being.

        Therefore, a Christian would only pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

        The prayer prayed at the 117^th Congress is absurd.

        Any Christian, who subscribes to Historic Christianity, should only pray in the name of the Lord Jesus and should only say Amen (so be it) at the end of the prayer.

         Amen!

Endnotes:

¹https://www.klove.com/news/faith/opening-prayer-for-congress-uses-amen-and-a-woman--19043

²A progressive Christian does not believe the Bible as God’s Word. He believes all gods are the same. The progressive Christian also believes in the contradicting Scriptures of other religions. A progressive Christian departs from serving the God of the Bible while striving to be politically correct. He/she interprets the Bible to his own subjective inclination to form a cultish Christianity that disobeys the God of the Bible in order to conform to the world and its evolving degenerative ethical system.

³https://stream.org/congress-has-officially-gone-gender-crazy/

Websites cited last accessed on 6^th January 2021.

What Do Some Sincere Christians Ignore When They Approve Homosexuality?

            Some Christians, who cannot be termed progressives, approve of homosexual practices (read LGBTQ). These are rather sincere Christians.

            They believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They believe in the Bible. They do not think that Christianity and other religions are one and the same. If we take their approval of homosexuality out of the picture, these Christians can be termed as faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            But the allure of the material world (through social media) is seemingly so robust that these Christians are influenced strongly by the ideologies of the secular world. Hence, they decide (more so on an emotional basis) that homosexuality is an acceptable practice.

            If they oppose homosexuality, they reckon, they are not showing true love towards their gay friends. So in order to prove their love for their gay brothers and sisters, they approve and endorse homosexual behavior.

            But what about the explicit Bible verses that deem homosexual behavior as sinful (Genesis 19:5-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7)? How do these Christians interpret these verses?

            Although these verses explicitly deem homosexuality as a sin against God, they believe that love is a superseding factor. Very minimally, when it comes to terming gay people as sinners they believe that they would be disobeying the Lord Jesus if they deem gay people as sinners. A couple of reasons could be the causal factor:

            1. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.

            2. The great commandments are predicated on love – to love the Lord God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

            Hence they believe that ‘to love’ is of far greater value than ‘to condemn’ our gay neighbors of their sin.

            They also argue since homosexual practice is consensual and harmless to society, it is okay to practice homosexuality. (Based on these factors would you then endorse Necrophilia? Just asking!)

            Furthermore, Christians supporting LGBTQ practices believe that they are exhibiting greater tolerance by approving gay practices, thus they imagine they are paving way for a peaceful society.

            So they concur with the material / secular world to accept and endorse homosexual behavior.

            This is not only unreasonable reasoning; it embraces faulty hermeneutics and does more damage to society. Superficially, this line of argument seems plausible. But if we dig deeper, it is not, and here’s why:

            First, what is a sin? Sin is an assault against God. A sin is a practice or behavior that offends God. Since God is good and there is no evil in HIM, anything that opposes good or is evil is a sin.

            Second, who classifies a practice as sin? It is ONLY God who can classify a practice as a sin because HE is the Supreme Being – an embodiment of perfection and righteousness. God’s decision is an objective decision. Every action of mankind is to be referred against God and HIS attributes, because man’s sole objective is to worship and glorify God.

            Third, who can declassify a sinful practice to an acceptable practice? If God classified an evil or a wrong practice to be a sin, then it is ONLY God who can declassify that practice from being sinful to acceptable behavior. Man has no role in this whatsoever. Man cannot play God.

            Fourth, why can’t man declassify a sin? Man is imperfect; his knowledge is far from being perfect. Man’s definition of sin is dependent on the mores of his time. It is dependent on the culture of his time and scientific development. The superlative rational thought of a man will always be contaminated by the imperfection hardwired into his essence.

            Significantly, man’s decision will always be subjective and not objective e.g. some cultures accept cannibalism as acceptable behavior, whereas other cultures do not.¹ Furthermore, man’s decision is always vulnerable to evil/corruption.

            Man’s law evolves over a period of time e.g. some countries considered adultery to be a crime but these very countries have decriminalized adultery now. Hence, man’s opinion or judgment changes from time to time. In other words, man’s definition of truth is subjective and not objective, and is subject to change over a period of time.

            So no law imposed by man can remain eternal for the later generations can always supersede the former to either decriminalize the law or perpetually change/erase it.  

            Fifth, what are the repercussions of man declassifying LGBTQ from sinful to acceptable behavior? If we, mere mortals, deem LGBTQ practices as acceptable, in stark contrast to the Bible, especially when the Bible explicitly classifies LGBTQ practices as sinful, then every sin can be [unjustifiably] and thusly declassified. 

            Consider this instance. Adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner) is considered sinful because God classified it as a sin, since it violates the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage between man and a woman.

            But some countries have decriminalized adultery. Adultery, which was once a crime, is no longer a crime in countries such as India (however it remains as a valid ground for divorce).²

            Therefore, it may only be a matter of time when every stigma concerned with adultery may be removed and adultery may be an acceptable practice sooner than later.

            Consider Polyamory - the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all people involved. If gay marriages are deemed acceptable by some Christians, on what grounds would they deem polyamory as sinful? The polyamorous ‘throuple’(a relationship between three people who have all unanimously agreed to be in a romantic, loving, relationship together with the consent of all people involved.) would demand endorsement from the church and the state based on the factors that it is harmless and consensual à la homosexual practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) have already endorsed polyamory as an acceptable behavior: [Emphasis Mine]³

WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.

            So it is only a matter of time when most of the churches would bless polyamorous relationships because the approval of LGBTQ practices is a valid precedent.

            This clearly demonstrates that if man defines a sinful practice by overriding God, and the Bible, then most or every sinful practice could be deemed as acceptable behavior in due time. 

            Those who support LGBTQ practices will be responsible for the endorsement of much more deadly practices that are detrimental to the society such as Polyamory, Pedophilia, and Bestiality etc.

            Significantly, since they oppose God, their salvation could be in jeopardy. They are treading dangerous waters, ““But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea…” (Matthew 18:6, NET).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ranker.com/list/cannibalism-around-the-world/jacob-shelton

²http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1140-decriminalization-of-adultery-in-india.html

³https://www.mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

Websites last accessed on 16^th November 2020.

Cult Watch: The Enemy Within – Progressive Christians!

            Your friendly neighborhood Christian may be friendly and even brotherly but may not be a Christian after all. He is a greater threat to the salvation of a sincere Christian.

            He is the Progressive Christian or a Liberal Christian – the cunning wolf in Christian spiritual attire.

            Progressive or Liberal Christianity cannot be ignored. We cannot label them as non-threatening. They are real and they pose a terrifying challenge to our spiritual wellness.

            Who are progressive Christians? A progressive Christian (or about to be one) would utter the following comments (thanks to Alisa Childers’ blog), which disagree with the core tenets of Historic Christianity:¹

1.      Sin doesn't separate us from God—we are made in His image and He called us good....

2.      God didn't actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms....

3.      We don't really need to preach the gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed and provision to the needy...

4.      God wouldn't punish sinners—He is love....

5.      Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we've misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history...

6.      It's not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it's our job to just love them....

7.      The resurrection of Jesus doesn't have to be factual to speak truth....

8.  The church's historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework...

9.    The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be re-interpreted....

10.  That Bible verse doesn't resonate with me....

11.  I thought homosexuality was a sin until I met and befriended some gay people....

12.  I just can’t believe Jesus would send good people to hell....

13.  I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue...

            Whenever we are in a discussion with our Christian friends, we should red-flag these comments if our friend utters one or more of them because that should remind us that he/she could be a progressive Christian.

            Another way to identify a liberal or a progressive Christian is by observing his loyalties, which would oppose the Historic Christian and align with the Progressive worldview. A progressive Christian would typically believe that:

            1. Jesus is not the only way to heaven.

            2. Jesus will save all mankind (Universalism or Inclusivism).

            3. Jesus will not send people to hell or there is no hell or another variant of this.

            4. LGBTQ practices are legitimate. {They will subsequently approve ‘Polyamory’ (the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all the people involved.) and even Pedophilia!}

            5. Abortion is legit (pro-choice).  

            These are a few examples.

            In essence, the progressive or liberal Christians would hold to a lowered view of the Bible, which means: [Emphasis Mine].²

A. REINTERPRET THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY: Progressivism challenges core doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. The Scriptures teach that Jesus was crucified to atone for our sins, but progressives tend to argue that Jesus’ death was merely a martyrdom. The Scriptures claim that Jesus is divine, but often progressives only emphasize the humanity of Jesus–unitarianism grew up with Western liberalism. The sinfulness of humanity is generally downplayed by progressives, who tend to think that all people are basically good and not really in need of salvation.

B. HISTORIC TERMS ARE REDEFINED: Progressives often are beholden to the ideology of science and to the most recent sentiments of the age, so they constantly reinterpret the Scriptures to keep up with Western sensibilities.

Often progressives use biblical language, but they shift its meaning: the resurrection becomes a metaphor instead of a historic fact, holiness becomes liturgy instead of sexual purity, and the like. Same language, but new meanings.

A big one is “love.” If we allow a 21st century definition of love to be imported back into historic, biblical Christianity, we may end up with something quite different from what the Scriptures mean. “Love” in the Bible means putting the needs of others first, but “love” in 21st century thought means accepting or embracing whatever a person wants you to accept and embrace.

That’s not biblical love.

C. THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL MESSAGE SHIFTS FROM SIN AND REDEMPTION TO SOCIAL JUSTICE: Justice is a central concern of the Scriptures, and it should be a central concern for disciples of Jesus. But “social justice” is a relatively new term — one not found in the Bible. It’s a fine term if it means treating people fairly, fighting racism, standing for life, and the like.

But often the term “social justice” means little more than political ideology that is largely disconnected from biblical justice. Progressives tend to focus on social justice to the exclusion of the Gospel. The Gospel is not about God making paradise of this world, but God raising us into a new heaven and earth. When social justice replaces the Gospel, you won’t get the Gospel, but you also won’t get justice.

            How dangerous is Progressive Christianity? Would a progressive Christian go to hell? This is a significant question. (If progressive Christianity does not have any significant eternal ramifications, then why are we wasting our time striving to refute it?)

            Progressive Christianity believes that Jesus is not the only way to heaven. They do not believe that the Bible is the only book that Christians should believe and follow. They believe in the other religious books as if they are just as valid as the Bible. Sin and redemption are not the essential ingredients to the gospel. Social justice is the crux of their gospel. Progressive Christians believe that other religions are just as valid as Christianity is.

            This version of Christianity is diluted, warped, and distorted. It removes a Christian away from the Bible.

            This is not Christianity.

            Those who believe and subscribe to progressive Christianity may call themselves Christians, but they are not Christians in the biblical sense.

            The final argument for suggesting hell as an eternal destination for progressive Christians is this:

            Progressive or Liberal Christianity alludes to the notion that Christians can sin freely and without any guilt. They are not compelled to believe in Jesus or the Bible.

            Progressive Christianity espouses the notion that people can abuse God until their very last breath, yet not be hellbound. For instance, Richard Dawkins, in his book ‘God Delusion’ abused God as, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

            If Dawkins (if he is to be an Atheist or a Christian - hypothetically speaking) continues to abuse God until his very last breath, progressive Christians would believe that Dawkins will go to heaven or at the very minimum be annihilated (post his death), once and for all.

            A religion that teaches or even allude to the notion that one can abuse God, yet go to heaven, is a false religion that worships a mythical god!

            These beliefs of the progressives are against the core tenets of Historic Christianity.

            So sincere Christians, beware of the enemy within – the progressives!

Endnotes:

¹https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/5-signs-your-church-might-be-heading-toward-progressive-christianity

²https://christianchronicle.org/is-progressive-christianity-dangerous/

Websites last accessed on 11^th November 2020.

The Christianity of Abortion

            Chelsea Clinton, in an interview on September 13, 2018, said that as a deeply religious person, banning abortions would be unchristian to her.¹

            It is one thing to say that banning abortions would be unchristian, for this could be a belief of a naïve Christian. But it’s entirely different to claim that as a deeply religious Christian, she knows for certain that banning abortions is unchristian. This statement presupposes Christianity’s advocacy for abortion, hence the greater significance.

            Chelsea’s utterance on abortion is not new!

            Christian leaders have, in the past, claimed that abortion is a blessing. In her sermon entitled, “Our Work is Not Done,” Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale, president of Episcopal Divinity School (EDS) in Cambridge, MA, said, “When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.

            “And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.”²

            The notion that abortion is a blessing or that banning abortions would be unchristian is not a teaching of the Historic Christianity. Those who subscribe to Historic Christianity believe that abortion is a sin against God.

            Evangelist Franklin Graham slammed Chelsea’s claim, “…Legalizing abortion hasn't added anything to our country, it has only taken away. It has cost this nation more than 60 million lives — lives precious to God…Just think of the contribution these people would have made. There will be another high cost. I believe God will judge America for allowing the heinous murder of our own children in the womb…”³

            A young Christian, who observes both sides of the abortion debate, may wonder whether abortion is Christian or unchristian. So it is pertinent to examine the Christianity of the person who subscribes to abortion. What would such Christianity entail?

            But before we head in that direction, let us, for a moment, recollect a concise argument against abortion:

            1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value.

            2. The developing fetus is a human being from conception.

            3. Abortion is a murder of a human being.

            4. The Bible teaches that the murder of human beings is a sin against God.

            5. Hence, Christians should not abort their fetus.

            Christians who endorse abortion are progressive Christians. They do not subscribe to the tenets of Historic Christianity.

            I covered this theme in an earlier blog post of mine entitled, “Why Do Christians Support Abortion?” Here’s an excerpt from that article:⁴ (Emphasis Mine)

Those who lead the pro-choice group or those who fervently support abortion would subscribe to progressive Christianity. In other words, they would no longer believe the tenets of Historic Christianity. Abandoning the tenets of Historic Christianity allows the individual Christian to do anything that he/she feels is right.

In order to justify their feelings or emotions, these pro-choice leaders would misinterpret the Bible. They assert that the Bible does not condemn abortion, since the word abortion is not present in the Bible as against the 3000 Bible verses that mandate social justice, “…in the New Testament, there is no direct teaching on abortion. Jesus does not address the topic specifically and not one of His parables talks about ending a pregnancy. Neither do any of Paul’s letters mention abortion. Abortion was very prevalent in many of the places Paul visited – we know this from other historical texts, and as he mentions in his letters, these cities were brimming with prostitution and illicit sexual activity. In fact, Paul never had a problem speaking out on any topic he believed followers of Christ should pay attention to! This makes it very interesting that abortion was obviously not a topic of enough priority for Paul to mention…”5

If abortion could be endorsed through this mode of reasoning, then by the same mode of reasoning a whole host of sins could be endorsed. For instance, watching porn or smoking could be endorsed, because pornography and smoking are not explicitly condemned in the Bible.

Rebecca Todd Peters is a Christian who fervently supports abortion. She is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church and professor of religious studies at Elon University. She is also a progressive Christian.6

…Rebecca Todd Peters says, “Progressive Christianity, for me, and for many people, is about focusing on what the social teachings are in the Bible, in the traditions, in the church, that help us think about and address the social problems we see in the world. That’s very different from an evangelical understanding of Christianity, which is about salvation. I actually don’t care that much about salvation. That’s not my primary concern. My primary concern is about the world that we live in, and how we make a more just world. That’s the tradition of the social gospel.” (Emphasis Mine).7

Christians reject Christ if they are not concerned about salvation. The Lord Jesus did not come to preach social justice to the world. HE came to die for our sins so that those who believe in Christ would live forever.

The cross is the central aspect of Christianity.  If Christians claim that they are not concerned about salvation, then they are not really aligned with Christ. If they are not aligned with Christ, then their Christianity could be unequivocally questioned. So would it be accurate and reasonable to conclude that those Christians who support abortion are not Christians, to begin with?

        So Chelsea Clinton may be deeply religious. But she may not be a deeply religious Christian, who subscribes to Historic Christianity.

       If Chelsea endorses abortion, she could also endorse adultery, pornography, prostitution, polyamory etc. She could just about endorse any and every sin because her worldview entitles her to this abominable privilege. This is the entailment of her Christianity.

       Progressive Christians could call themselves Christians – that’s their call. But they are not Christians!

     Matt Walsh, in response to Chelsea’s comments on abortion, termed her as a Satanist:⁵

I sincerely believe she is a satanist and my only regret is that I didn't also call her a heretic. "Satanic heretic" would have been a more apt description. And she is far from the only satanic heretic in our culture.

Pro-abortion "Christians" are heretics because they claim a God who endorses violence against children. Well, I suppose that's blasphemy as well as heresy. Perhaps "blasphemous satanic heretic" is the technically correct term, but after a while it just gets redundant. The point is that Jesus Christ is the Lord of Life. He gives life to our children and commands us to care for the precious gift He has bestowed. It is the most twisted kind of heresy to suggest that God may breathe life into your child and then raise no objection if you crush the child's skull and throw his body in a medical waste dumpster. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you," says the Book of Jeremiah. "Children are a gift from the Lord," says Psalm 127.

… Let us remember, also, that Jesus Christ was Incarnate as an unborn child. He was a "fetus," to use our modern term. A stage of human development cannot be anything less than sacred after the Lord Himself lived through that stage. Christianity is the only religion in the world that believes God Himself was once unborn. For this reason, no religion on Earth is less compatible with abortion than Christianity. You cannot be a pro-abortion Christian. It's like trying to square a circle. It just doesn't work.

Satanism, on the other hand, is deeply compatible with the pro-abortion view. The two go hand-in-hand, a match made in Hell…

It's not hard to see why satanists not only support abortion but consider it sacramental. Through abortion, a woman places her own comfort and convenience above the life of her child. She declares that her child's very humanity is contingent upon, and subordinate to, her desires. Pro-aborts are quite explicit about this. If you ask them when life begins, they'll tell you it begins whenever the mother wants it to begin. They ascribe Godlike power and authority to the individual. What else can we call this but the deification of the self? It is textbook satanism.

            Abortion is predicated on choice – the choice of the mother and maybe even the father. Such people remain in control of their lives, thereby they choose to abort.

            Being a Christian is also predicated on choice. A person chooses to believe in Christ. But in this instance, when a person chooses to believe in Christ, that person willfully surrenders his/her choice or submits his/her life to the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            When the Lord Jesus rules our life, HIS choice becomes our choice. Our choice gets lost in HIS. From this time onwards, a Christian chooses to obey the Lord Jesus and the commands that are taught in the Bible. 

            Christianity is not about having a strong social outlook. Christianity is all about loving God and being obedient to HIM and HIM alone. When we love God, we cannot ignore the social concerns of our world. However, caring for social concerns cannot supersede our obedience to God. Our allegiance is to God and to the sanctity of human life.

            Therefore, the entailment of the true Christianity is to hold a high view of God, obey HIM and HIS commands. Hence, true Christians oppose abortion. Those Christians who support abortion may not be Christians, so their deep religiosity does not matter to us. 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.christianpost.com/news/chelsea-clinton-as-a-deeply-religious-person-banning-abortions-is-unchristian-to-me-227384/

²https://www.str.org/blog/abortion-blessing#.W6ujCnszZhE

³https://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-blasts-chelsea-clintons-claim-60-million-abortions-added-3-5-trillion-to-economy-226877/

⁴http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-do-christians-support-abortion.html

⁵https://www.dailywire.com/news/36056/walsh-people-are-mad-i-called-chelsea-clinton-matt-walsh

Websites last accessed on 28^th September 2018.

After Homosexuality, Christian Churches Will Bless Polyamory

            Heresies disguised as pure doctrines are rampant in Christianity. These days, if we meet a fellow Christian for the very first time, we should legitimately wonder if he/she subscribes to Historic Christianity or a heretical flavor of Christianity - for instance, Progressive Christianity. (Progressive Christianity allows heresies to creep in because of certain innate and fundamental flaws: Progressive Christians can deny the inerrancy of the Bible, they need not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and they need not believe that Christ is the only way to heaven. This would then lead to many serious errors, one of which is discussed in this article.)

            Progressive Christianity endorses the LGBT movement. According to Wikipedia, 131 Christian denominations and another 53 Christian congregations affirm LGBT. These denominations have proclaimed that homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins anymore, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) affirming Christian denominations are Christian denominations that do not consider homosexuality or transgenderism to be sins. They include entire religious denominations, as well as individual churches and congregations.”¹

            Now that many Christian denominations have endorsed homosexuality, those subscribing to, and practicing, polyamory, expect these churches to endorse polyamory because they contend that polyamory is not only about sex. They argue that polyamory excludes swinging, adultery, infidelity (cheating) per se. They also argue that polyamory is not to be confused with polygamy (marriage of one individual to multiple other individuals).²

            Polyamory is defined as “consensually non-monogamous relationships [where] there is an open agreement that one, both, or all individuals involved in a romantic relationship may also have other sexual and/or romantic partners…”³

            So the progressive Christian community is encouraging other gullible Christian denominations to endorse polyamory. Obviously, their primary target is the churches that have already endorsed or approved the LGBT practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches have already endorsed polyamory. In their response to the Nashville Statement, they contend, “Article 7: WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

            WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.”⁴

            The Nashville Statement is an Evangelical Christian statement of faith relating to human sexuality and gender roles authored by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). The statement sets forth the signatories' opposition to LGBT sexuality, same-sex marriage, polygamy, polyamory, adultery, and fornication. (Source: Wikipedia).

            If MCC has endorsed polyamory, then it is only a matter of time before all the other gullible churches approve of polyamory. Sooner than later, polyamory would become an acceptable lifestyle, even in the Christian community. 

            Why do Christians endorse homosexuality or polyamory?

            Endorsement of homosexuality or polyamory is predicated on the reasoning that every human being is free and autonomous. The free and autonomous human beings are then empowered to choose the conditions under which they live. Nancy Pearcey, a leading Christian apologist, says, “What is the worldview that underlies homosexual “marriage”? The idea that marriage can be changed by choice has roots in a political philosophy called social contract theory, founded by Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Social contract theory denies that marriage and family are natural and pre-political. Instead this secular origin myth posits a primordial “state of nature” where humans are autonomous, disconnected individuals. To preserve that original autonomy, the theory proposes to redefine every social institution as a contract — that is, an exchange of goods and services where we define the relationship, we choose the terms, we choose the conditions under which we stay or leave, and so on.

            Where do these ideas lead in practice? A recent article says the ultimate goal is no marriage at all. In the ideal relationship, the author writes, “each member is an autonomous, free individual, who can come or go as she or he pleases.” The author says she treats even her three-year-old daughter as “free and autonomous.””⁵

            Why should Christians oppose polyamory?

            Gotquestions.org elucidates an answer to this question, “The idea that one spouse should consent to the other spouse having sex with other people is absolutely foreign to the Bible. The Bible speaks of sex within marriage as pure (Hebrews 13:4). The Bible speaks of sex outside of marriage as immoral and adulterous (1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 10:8; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3).

            The question is sometimes raised as to whether a polyamorous relationship should be considered adultery if the other spouse allows, approves, or even participates in it. The answer is an unequivocal yes! God is the one who defines what marriage is and what adultery is. God, in His Word, has declared sex outside of marriage to be adultery (Exodus 20:14). A spouse’s giving permission to sin does not overrule God’s Law. We do not have the authority to create exceptions to what God has declared to be sinful.

            Aside from the biblical declarations that they are sin, polyamorous relationships cannot fulfill what the Bible says a marriage is to be. A married couple cannot be “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24) if multiple “fleshes” are involved. A married couple cannot fully love one another if that love is divided among other people. There cannot be true intimacy if what is supposed to be intimate is shared with others. Polyamory is not marriage. In no sense is a marriage supposed to be open to sexual activity outside of the marriage.

            Polyamory is, in reality, “poly-lust-ory.” There is nothing loving about it. This perversion of marriage is confirmation that “every intention of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually,” and that, without God, “everyone does what is right in his own eyes” (see Genesis 6:5 and Judges 21:25).”⁶

            This article strives to enlighten you about another imminent threat to Historic Christianity. This threat pertains not only to Historic Christianity, but it will impact its adherents as well. Your family and friends would also likely be threatened by this development.

            How do we respond to polyamory invading the Christian community?

            First, do not be surprised when your church or the church next door affirms polyamory in the future. The evil one will deceive gullible Christians (cf. Mark 4:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:9), and your church may be led by one of them.

            Second, the command to ‘love your neighbors as yourself’ is not only to love the seemingly righteous, but also the practicing sinner. How else would we minister to the sinners, if we do not love them?

            Third, know the reasons as to why the biblical view of marriage is monogamous (marriage with only one person at a time) and heterosexual (marriage between people of the opposite sex). Be aware as to why God determines polyamory and homosexuality as sins. Thereby, we can graciously and lovingly minister to our erring friends/relatives. 

            Finally, pray without ceasing. Pray that we will stand strong against every flaming arrow that the evil one flings at us and that the mind of the sinning Christians would be fertile to receive instructions from God through you and me.

Endnotes:

¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT#cite_note-4

²http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hippieheretic/2017/09/what-polyamory-is-not.html

³http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hippieheretic/2017/08/its-time-for-the-church-to-talk-about-polyamory.html#kVxUX4bQVRFFYH5L.99

⁴http://mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

⁵http://humanitas.org/?p=3482

⁶https://www.gotquestions.org/open-marriage-polyamory.html

 Websites cited were last accessed on 9^th November 2017.