Proclaimed Christians Aren’t All Christ Followers

One of the interesting things I’ve been following in recent days is the reaction to a post that NYCPastor put up entitled 10 Women Christian Men Shouldn’t Marry. In some respects, I found this post a complete surprise given what I expected from a graduate of the SBTS by Albert Mohler’s writings.

While I could strain some gnats on the post, Dr. Kim does a fantastic job in the course of counseling men on the choice of a woman to marry.

The more interesting and instructive thing is the reaction the post got. I noted this originally in that it is hard to escape that there is a prominent disconnect within Christianity as it is practiced in the United States. Dr. Kim points this out himself:

The case, however, is different for the self-proclaiming Christian man/woman. The Christian is called to believe in the inerrancy, sufficiency, authority, and infallibility of the Bible. For if we don’t believe in the Bible, we have no Christianity to speak of. This much is elementary.
. . .
If I’m an extreme radical for simply quoting the Bible verbatim, then I am afraid to see what “normative” Christianity looks like. Yet, sadly, this woman’s comment represents so many of the vitriolic responses that came from the “evangelical Christian community.” Which brings us to the conclusion that instead of changing the world, the Church–by and large–is becoming very much like the world. The Word of God is too narrow a road to follow in this age of gay-marriage and unwed motherhood (seems like the homosexuals are the only ones interested in getting married nowadays).

The interesting part out of all of this is that Dr. Kim is probably just discovering how the typical church really is in how it has departed from the real Jesus of Nazareth. Some lessons to be taken from those comments:

1. Women and a great number of men as well are not Christians even though they believe themselves to be. Rather the women follow The High Holy Hamster in the person of the Personal Jesus. To that end, the Hamster’s machinations guide her every thought and action, to the point that the will of “Jesus” is hers. It can best be thought of as the perfect romance where “Jesus” affirms her in every thought and every action. Those sins are gone, including all the consequences, and everyone else better recognize it.

How do you like me now that you know me, Dr. Kim?
How do you like me now that you know me, Dr. Kim?

This should not be mistaken to be anything but a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-10). Such is what you get with the typical false gospel that’s been going around. One that doesn’t focus on the insufficiency of men before God, but one that emphasizes connectedness (hearkening both to Gnosticism and the Goddess Cult) instead. Such is the Personal Jesus, the one that you have a personal relationship with.

2. Men are to listen to the women as if they speak the very word of God Himself – this is their function of following the Personal Jesus. This was NYC Pastor’s sin that drew all the responses. He didn’t know his place as a “good man” recognizing his need for absolution for being born a man. His proper function was to affirm women in all their thoughts and actions, and he failed in doing that by bringing the real Jesus into play. This constant affirmation of women despite their sins leads to the very thought in the modern church that women are without sin, which plays out constantly in the realm of marriage counseling and from the pulpit where mothers, even fornicating single mothers, are constantly affirmed, and fathers and husbands are constantly torn down for things they didn’t even do.

3. This is reflected in hearing them talk about “love” and “grace”, instead of matters of discipleship, or loving Jesus. Love, instead of being something one does in view of the truth of God becomes “feeling loved”. In other words, when they say “Jesus loves me”, they really mean “Jesus makes me feel loved”. Love is about feelings instead of deed and truth. Grace is along the same lines. Grace means “I can do whatever I want and no consequences shall come to me.” This refrain is all too common from women.

Therein, Jesus proclaims his friends as those who “do whatsoever I command you” (John 15:14) and those that love him “keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and puts the premium on hearing his sayings and doing them (Matthew 7:24-27). John furthermore lays doctrine as the measure (2 John 9) of whether you have Jesus, and Paul lays out that if you have grace to cease sinning (Romans 6). This is warped by the Personal Jesus (as they never accepted the real one in the first place) into self-esteem and personal affirmation. Therefore women are without sin and are not broken or failed. Most of the commenters affirmed that they hate Jesus.

4. Therefore, since women are without sin (and therefore have absolute authority as the Vicars of Christ) and men are base depraved creatures who are incapable of nothing but sin, they have the authority to both approve the standards that they have on men as husbands, and the standards by which men may judge women as wives. This was the major affront (i.e. unbiblical) in the minds of most of the commenters that posted as self-professed Christians. Since they are without sin, they get the right to pick and choose what is “biblical”. They do not follow Christ, but rather their own selves.

5. This is rank naked truthful feminism we are witnessing in action in the comment section – in other words female-supremacist hatred. Most are blind to it for numerous reasons (namely it’s coming from a moral stance), and deceptions (namely that it has to do with “equality”). But in other words, it’s pure naked rebellion against the Father on full display. The sad state of the Church as illustrated in so many places puts Matthew 7:21-23 in full view. There will be those that will cry “Lord Lord” and he will say “away from me evildoer, I never knew you”.

6. Given the haughty nature of most Christian women, as illustrated through feminism, women do not have to consider what they have to offer when dealing with men. Other women, men, and society at large enable them in doing this. They don’t have anything to offer, and furthermore don’t even conceive that they have to offer anything to a man in order for him to wife him up. In fact, her mere Glorious Presence is enough. Again the church and society supports them in this thinking. Women have rights, men have responsibilities. This explains the disproportionate response Dr. Kim received to his article addressing the men about their wives, compared to the one addressing women about their husbands. As Dr. Mohler teaches us himself, you’re supposed to leave the women alone in their sin, but you’re supposed to sock it to the men, no matter whether the men are at fault or not.

As Dr. Kim states, it’s a sad testimony that the atheists are the ones that get what is going on the most right in the responses he received:

Now, granted, I know what these sly atheists are trying to do. However, I couldn’t help but notice the sad irony in all this. Whereas I was receiving false charges by “Christians” that I was misinterpreting the Bible to falsely make my case, it was the atheist who saw through all that nonsense and correctly saw that I was simply and accurately just repeating what the Bible plainly said.

The sad testimony of the church today, is simply that: It’s supposed to stand for something, namely transmitting and enforcing the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth, but in seeking to please the feminist doctrine, it has fallen to the point that it stands for nothing but rank hypocrisy. Sick sad world isn’t it, when the atheists are against Christianity for what the Bible says, and the “Christians” are against Christianity because they don’t know and won’t accept what the Bible says.

Being in a church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car. There are those that will appropriate the name but will have nothing to do with the real Jesus of Nazareth. Do not expect that He will have anything to do with you, if this is the case.

And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:7-8)

19 thoughts on “Proclaimed Christians Aren’t All Christ Followers”

  1. Hot Read. I must go over there and read everything NYCPastor put down. Sadly I’m with him about getting jumped by people that claim to be Christian, I found myself having biblical discussion with Atheist and didn’t know it lately. I found this really sad.

    Like

  2. I earlier pointed out Women had to behave better because the consequences (of unwed pregnancy) were severe. Men could engage in promiscuity and pornography, and it was “boys will be boys”. Perhaps not explicitly or universally, but there was not so much emphasis on purity for men.

    Today it is reversed – and I need to state that clearly. Men have to behave because they bear the consequences – child support, rape accusations, etc. Since technology has allowed women to be sluts, men must be the ones to hold themselves to the highest standard, and then hold women to it.

    The Sermon on the Mount says “If a man looks at a woman with Lust, he has already committed adultery”. We can argue if that applies to a woman, but it clearly applies to a man.

    I don’t see much talk about the standard of remaining a virgin until marriage – especially men. The secular manosphere derisively calls this man an “incel” (Involuntary Celibacy). But that is what the Bible and our Lord requires.

    No sex outside marriage. No porn. Even if the spouse dies, you won’t be a virgin but you are required to be celibate. That is what Men have to do to set the standard. The Disciples said “Then it is better not to Marry” (Matt 19). Our Lord himself by prohibiting divorce implied marriage is going to be hard. These words in red don’t disappear even in proper Christian Marriage. So it is going to be permanent, so the choice of a wife is even more important.

    If you don’t want to become a father, or the potential wife a mother, what is the point of marriage? And is it Biblical to do so? If you are going to wait until it is convenient to have children, then why can’t you (and your bride) wait to marry until that time?

    I find it hard to criticize people for claiming themselves “Christian” and not following one or more dogmas – From the original split of the Eastern Orthodox from Rome, then the Reformation diaspora, no two denominations agree on many critical issues. Even today, they “grew over time”. In 1930, the Anglicans were the first to allow birth control, only in extreme situations – before that the Protestant world was unanimous. See “The Bible and Birth Control” – Charles Provan, most of it is online. As well as giving the traditional biblical exegesis, he gives hundreds of examples of sermons, writings, etc. to show it was unanimous. And remember “The Comstock Laws” banning contraceptives were passed by Protestants and it wasn’t controversial at the time.

    Yet even in the Christian Manosphere, it is either not talked about, or an item “we can agree to disagree about”. But 100 years ago, it was not so. And if one can do a 180 on contraception and still be orthodox, what can’t be interpreted away? It is an important issue as to what “Marriage 1.0” acutally is.

    Marriage 2.0 might just be one step from a Marriage 1.99 where contraception is accepted – where fertility is controlled not by God (Gen 30:22), but by man. Marriage 1.0 (from before Christ until 1930) was to be fruitful. Men liked 1.99 – they could have sex and not worry about a baby, and took that excuse away from the wife (there are many posts by men that the wife should not deny the husband sex, but never mentions the possibility of another child).

    Men must now become the sex that demands purity and upholds the ancient standards of what Marriage is. They must become righteous again because they are now the ones at risk from unrighteousness. They must retake Marriage and become Fathers and raise a generation of holy sons and daughters.

    Like

  3. tz said: “If you don’t want to become a father, or the potential wife a mother, what is the point of marriage?”

    How about love? How quaint, I know. Not everyone can (or should) become a parent. I know I’m not fit to be a parent. Should a couple who love each other deny themselves (and each other) that love and companionship just because they don’t want kids (or maybe they just don’t want them YET, due to not being able to afford to support them at that time?)?

    I’d rather stay single all my life than be stuck in a relationship or marriage in which I felt obligated to have kids just to make society and/or God happy (which would be a form of legalism, which is unscriptural) and my whole purpose in life was just to give a woman money and babies (preferably in that order). No thanks. If that’s the case, I’ll just stay single and happy.

    Like

  4. ‘I know I’m not fit to be a parent.’

    Then you most likely not fit to be married either. Not every marriage results with children due to infertility issues but being open to children is a requirement. It’s a very real display that you are open to love.

    Stay single if you feel this way.

    Like

  5. The more that I read about these “Churchian” women and their interpretation of Jesus, the more that it appears to me that their ‘Personal Jesus’ stepped out of the pages of a Harlequin Romance novel.
    And the more that their ‘High Holy Hamster’ resembles the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog, the fierce rabbit-looking beast that lived in the Cave of Caerbannog from “Monty Python and The Holy Grail”.

    (“I warned ye!…” — Tim the Enchanter)

    Like

  6. “Men must now become the sex that demands purity and upholds the ancient standards of what Marriage is.”

    We did that for quite some time, but your Feminist counterparts – or perhaps allies – demanded that traditional gender roles be abolished. They wanted to be part of the workforce and the right to be promiscous, and they got it.

    And yes, Christ’s words about lust apply to you too, just as His words about divorce being acceptable in the case of adultery applies to both men and women.

    Like

  7. The women were also LURED into the workforce by oligarchical clans like the Rockefellers in order that the other 50% of the population could be TAXED and call it being “liberated,” Chris.
    Search: Youtube, Aaron Russo, Rockefellers.
    There is a reason that all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto have already been installed in the U.S.
    And before we even go there i will head it off at the pass: The only people who kneejerkedly use the pejorative phrase “conspiracy theories” without doing any real investigation into the matter are signaling their level of brainwashing to those of us who have. Some things are theory, yes; but a tremendous amount of what is irrationally and lazily smeared as “conspiracy theory” by propagandists and their propagandized masses is actual fact that has been memory-holed.
    Anyone who actually does their factual homework on the history of the Rockefellers, via suppressed, out of print books as i have, then Russo’s claims are more than confirmed.

    Like

  8. TZ said: “Men must now become the sex that demands purity and upholds the ancient standards of what Marriage is. They must become righteous again because they are now the ones at risk from unrighteousness. They must retake Marriage and become Fathers and raise a generation of holy sons and daughters.”

    I will agree up to a point. This cultural disaster, in society and the Church, is a failure of Men in the spirit of Adam. Women made wicked demands and Men shrugged and went along with them. Men allowed this to happen and it will be Men who will have to suffer the burden of setting things right (if it is ever set right). It will take generations of Patriarchs washing their children in the Word of God and proactively containing the “Will of Eve” to rebel against God’s natural order.

    Like

  9. You can tell who the women of God were and the women of the world were in the comments section of “10 Women Christian Men Wouldn’t Marry”.

    The Bitter Clingers of the Uterus (read:Godless Women) seeing their relationships with men as nothing more than a pragmatic exchange of services were screeching with fear at the notion of giving up the only leverage they have over men, their sex.

    Like

  10. Earl said:

    “Then you (are) most likely not fit to be married either.”

    Wow, that seems like a pretty condescending thing to say about someone you know nothing about.

    “Not every marriage results with children due to infertility issues but being open to children is a requirement. It’s a very real display that you are open to love.”

    Since when is it a requirement? And who is requiring it? Who gets to decide these things?

    “Stay single if you feel this way.”

    No, I’ll decide whether to remain single or not on my terms, not yours, thank you very little. But the way things are going these days, I’m probably best off staying single anyway. I’d rather be single than wish I was.

    Like

  11. One of the comments over on the OP list of 10 really good ideas is “This is why people believe that this is no longer relevant in today’s world.” Or something very similar. There are several persons who put forth such comments.

    I think the comment has merit.

    Christianity was always irrelevant when compared to the secular life of the day. In conjunction, Christianity is not really concerned with being relevant. A Christian’s focus is on the afterlife – the eternal life spoken of in the scriptures. While we have to live on this Earth for a season, and having a heart to see men saved, spread the Gospel as we can, it is not to make life better here though we do desire to live this life as Jesus would have us live. This Godly life would, of course, include a Godly marriage.

    It is also telling that while the world does not want our advice, the world continues to comment on Christian blogs in an effort for us to accept theirs. See Scott above.

    Like

  12. ‘Wow, that seems like a pretty condescending thing to say about someone you know nothing about.’

    Well if you are not fit to be a parent what makes you think you are fit to be a husband? Both require a lot of responsibility.

    ‘Since when is it a requirement? And who is requiring it? Who gets to decide these things?’

    It is one of the requirements for a Catholic church wedding…and God decided it very explicitly when He said ‘there are no longer two but one flesh’. The physical manifestation of that is the fruit of sex…children.

    Like

  13. Earl said:

    “Well if you are not fit to be a parent what makes you think you are fit to be a husband? Both require a lot of responsibility.”

    Fair enough, but they’re not the same thing. I would argue that being a parent is a bit more of a responsibility than being a husband. But I’ve never been a parent and most likely never will be, so I’ll have to defer to those who are parents on this one.

    Re: it being a requirement for a Catholic wedding, good thing I’m not Catholic, then. And the “two becoming one flesh” doesn’t necessarily mean you have to reproduce. I don’t remember ever reading anywhere in Scripture where God said, “You HAVE to have kids if you’re married, or else you’re somehow evil in My sight.” Sounds to me like traditions of men. Truth is, we’re ALL evil in God’s sight; that’s where the gospel comes in.

    Ensigma said:

    “It is also telling that while the world does not want our advice, the world continues to comment on Christian blogs in an effort to get us to accept theirs. See Scott above.”

    That’s an awful lot of assumptions you’re making about me there. Isn’t this what blogs are for? To comment and share ideas (hopefully in a polite and civilized manner, even if we disagree?) And I wasn’t offering any advice; frankly I don’t care if you accept my opinion or not. If I’m truly in the wrong on anything, then may the Holy Spirit convict me on it and set me straight. He’s done it before and I’m sure He can do it again if need be.

    In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things love.

    I think I just remembered why I’ve been a fan of this blog for years, and yet I’ve deliberately avoided commenting in here all this time (same reason I normally avoid discussing religion/theology and politics anymore, as it just leads to pointless arguments and is not edifying to anyone). Thank you guys for reminding me. Peace out.

    Like

  14. Churchian women are asking for an adulterous union with Christ since he’s already married to the Church. If they are willing to insult the son of God in such a manner committing adultery against a human husband is a small step.

    Like

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.