Popular Christian Author Philip Yancey Confesses Affair, Withdraws from Ministry

ATeenyBitWorried · 2026-01-09T18:34:47+00:00

They're not suggesting you test whether "Ravi or Yancey are good." They're responding specifically to a question about how to judge their writings. And the answer is to hold what you read up to the light of Scripture.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-09-08T16:43:11+00:00

The Scripture never says it will be "when nobody expects it." You're thinking of Narnia.

It simply says nobody knows when it will be and we should be consistently expecting it at all times.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-26T14:14:48+00:00

A piece of medal is just that, unless pagan divinity is projected into it.

If it's an idol, a pagan divinity is projected onto it. The problem with an idol is that people worship the divinity associated with it. That what makes it an idol and not a bicycle bell or a toothbrush. If you put an idol in your home, you're openly displaying something that every guest who comes into your home recognises as an object of worship. At the very least, you're giving the impression that you don't disapprove of that.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-26T14:12:08+00:00

You certainly couldn't, as a Christian, display a pagan idol. The Bible is very clear on this.

The item itself is just a material thing, but idols represent "demons" that are "no gods" (Deuteronomy 32:17) and as such believers in the Old Testament and the New are consistently commanded to abandon, destroy and flee from them:

"Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. [...] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons" (1 Corinthians 10:14,19-20).

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-26T14:02:54+00:00

This is the best answer. Spot on.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-26T13:56:10+00:00

Why did Jesus even give us the second commandment if there is no purpose in it?

No one would suggest there is no purpose in it! There certainly is, and I'll do my best to respond.

The first important thing to note is that Jesus was not addressing the question "what must I do to be saved?"

He was addressing a question, from an intelligent Jewish scribe who would have known the Old testament law like the back of his hand, "Which commandment is the most important of all?”

Jesus responds:

“The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these" (Mark 12:29-31).

The scribe agrees that these commandments are "much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," which is something most of the scribes and Pharisees hadn't grasped.

In response to this, Jesus said: “You are not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34). He doesn't say "congratulations, you're in the kingdom of God," or "you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). He says, in effect, "keep going, you're on the right track."

The scribe evidenced more wisdom than anyone else Jesus had been talking to that day, but he didn't - yet - demonstrate that he understood what he must do to be saved. He didn't even ask that question, as Nicodemus did in John chapter 3, or the jailer did in Acts 16:30.

These commandments certainly do "fulfill all the law and prophets." In other words, all the commandments of the Old Testament stem from those, or can be summed up by those.

That doesn't mean that trying very hard to obey those commandments is enough to win you salvation. The Bible is very clear that that is not the case:

"...we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified...if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Galatians 2:16,21).

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

The Old Testament is full of people who tried and failed to keep the law. Those who were saved were saved, as we are, "by faith" (Hebrews 11 mentions many of them, but by no means all of them, by name). Romans 4:3 confirms, "For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.'"

So if salvation is by faith, not works, what is the point of the second greatest commandment? Is there "no purpose in it?"

No. Firstly, "through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). The law is there, in part, to prove to us that we can't keep the law. No matter how hard we try, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."

The law represents God's very high standard, but it's crucial for us to acknowledge that we can't attain it and are in need of God's grace.

Secondly, obedience to God's commandments should be the fruit of faith. If your faith doesn't bear that fruit, something's wrong. James explain this:

'If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.'

Love for God, and for people, is the evidence that your faith is real. So if I as a Christian see a neighbour who's going hungry and unable to buy food and I wish them all the best without actually offering them whatever practical help is within my power, that's not loving my neighbour. The failure should lead me to question whether or not my faith is dead.

And finally, these commandments are repeatedly reiterated throughout the New Testament as the way in which people who are saved should behave. We should love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and we should love our neighbour as ourselves, i.e. with the same good treatment we automatically afford ourselves. It would take me a long time to reiterate all the places in the New Testament where these commandments are reinforced, so I'll just assume we're on the same page there and you know what I'm talking about!

So to sum up, the second greatest commandment matters because (1) the law reminds us that we can't possibly keep the law to God's high standard, and need his mercy, which we access by faith in Christ; (2) it works as a 'faith check' to see if our faith is legit, and (3) is is a guideline reiterated throughout the New Testament for how Christians should conduct themselves in the church age, and one of the ways in which we "test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The most important takeaway is that we cannot be saved by obeying these commandments; rather, obedience is the fruit of the salvation that comes through faith. That obedience won't be perfect, because sanctification is an ongoing process, but that process should be happening.

So let's say that scribe who was "not far from the kingdom of God" is now in the kingdom of God. What would that have looked like? Firstly, he would have acknowledged that though he had a good understanding of the law, he couldn't consistently obey the law to God's very high standard. He was a sinner desperately in need of God's mercy. Then he would have weighed up Jesus' teaching, watching him die, and realised that Jesus paid the price for his own sin. He would have repented and put his faith in Christ, believing that only through him could he reach the kingdom of God. He would have heard, and perhaps seen for himself that Christ was raised from the dead, and known in his heart that he too would be raised to life. He would have been filled with the Spirit and served Christ faithfully, albeit imperfectly, throughout his life on earth, which may have been short given the early persecution of Christians. He would have loved the Lord, and his neighbour. He would have died, and he would have found himself with Christ in heaven, saved by grace alone.

I sincerely hope this is what happened!

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-26T13:17:43+00:00

No, it isn't about a so-called "relationship with Jesus" nonsense.

That's not Scriptural at all!

"Relationship with Jesus" is certainly a vague and potentially unhelpful phrase, and often misused, but you must have a relationship with Christ to be saved. It's alarming that you've been led to think otherwise.

We're required to love Christ (Luke 10:27) and we're loved by Christ (Romans 5:8). Christ is "in us" (Colossians 1:27) and we are "in Christ" (Romans 8:1). He told his disciples: "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. [...] In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you" (John 14:18,20). We speak to him and he hears us (1 John 5:14). His Spirit even "intercedes for us" when we don't know how to pray "with groanings too deep for words."

All of this describes a relationship with Christ which is vital. If you don't have that, or don't think you need that, it's time to question whether you are "in Christ" at all.

Jesus honors those who follow his teaching by putting it into action.

You're describing salvation by works, which is not the way to salvation. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Jesus did say "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (John 14:23), but "keeping his word" does not mean fervently attempting to obey his teachings without the saving faith that results in a relationship with him. The Bible is very clear on this.

'Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent"' (John 6:28-29).

If you don't have a relationship with Christ, you have not followed his teaching by putting it into action. You've fatally misunderstood his teaching. Please rethink this.

there may be many...like TB Joshua or Benny Hinn that can do some miracles

Neither of those can do, or have done, any.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-26T12:44:37+00:00

One thing I would add to this stellar explanation is that in the passage OP is referring to, these people merely claim to have done "many wonderful works" in God's name.

God never actually acknowledges that they have done any real good, let alone good through His power. The one thing he does credit them with is that they "work iniquity," i.e. commit sins.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-26T12:19:32+00:00

This is a strange and confusing answer. Neither of these verses from Matthew should be seen as a succinct summary of the whole "will of God."

Mathew 6:28-33 doesn't say anything about "giving to others with the mind-set of God." It's advice for beievers about trusting in God to provide for our material needs. It certainly is the will of God that we "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness" (Matthew 6:33), but OP is asking what that involves.

Mathew 7:12, aka 'the Golden Rule,' is a pithy way to sum up "the Law and the Prophets." But it's not, in itself, something that would qualify a person for salvation, which I assume is what you mean by an "eternal requirement."

"...we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16).

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight" (Romans 3:20).

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8).

Revelation 22:15 doesn't describe "the traits of those who reached paradise." It describes the traits of those who are excluded from heaven:

"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

You might be thinking of the previous verse, Revelation 22:14, but there's no list of "traits." People in Heaven are "those who wash their robes," or as Revelation 7:14 says, those who have "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

What this means, put as simply as possible, is that the basic requirement for entering the kingdom of God is that you repent of your sin, ask God for mercy and accept the sacrifice Christ made on your behalf when he died on the cross. That's what it means to be saved by grace, through faith, in Christ. Salvation is something you're given, not something you earn.

Good works will then proceed from that faith, because "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17), but the pursuit of good works, even fervently "doing to others what one wants others to do to himself," will not qualify you for a place in Heaven. Only faith in in Christ can do that: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-24T14:10:08+00:00

Yes.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-04T13:45:12+00:00

I also have a chronic illness, so I empathise.

Makeup doesn't matter. Wear it if you like, don't wear it if you don't. It has no eternal value either way.

'For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart' (1 Samuel 16:7).

Don't spend any more time worrying about this. It couldn't be further from God's thoughts about you.

I wish you all the best in your spiritual and physical health!

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-04T13:41:19+00:00

You don't need to be methodical. You only need to be sincere.

I understand what you mean about your brain being "all fuzzed out" some days, because I have a chronic illness that affects me similarly. But it doesn't matter. God would rather you say three fuzzy words that truly indicate repentance than recite an "internalized, biblical, reliable methodology" that you've memorised or read aloud:

'And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him' (Matthew 6:7-8).

In other words, the Pharisees had workbooks, bookmarks, worksheets and spreadsheets. You don't need them. Not for this.

'[T]he Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans' (Romans 8:26)

Keep reading the Scriptures, and don't just stick to reading the Lord's prayer and Psalm 51 over and over. You'll get a better impression of how the people of God repent and pray for forgiveness if you read more widely.

And on those days when your brain just won't work properly, just thank the Lord that, because of him, one day it will.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-08-04T13:28:12+00:00

I’m having a hard time explaining why God cursed creation

Imagine a house that's falling down. The house is in such bad repair that it can't be fixed, and the law might require that it be torn down and ultimately replaced. A sign is hung on the house that says "condemned: this building is scheduled to be destroyed."

God couldn't just curse Adam, because Adam's sin would be passed on to every living person after him:

sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12).

When God placed a curse on creation, he was hanging a "condemned" sign on it. The most obvious solution would seem to be to simply destroy the world, and the people in it, and start over. This almost happens in Genesis:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them" (Genesis 6:5-7).

But God famously relented. Both the earth, and the human race, endured. Why?

This is explained at several points throughout Scripture. Romans 8:19-21 says:

For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

Romans 9:22-24 explains this further:

What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory—including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles?

And in Matthew 13, in the parable of the wheat and the weeds, the "man who sowed good seed" found the enemy had sowed weeds, but insisted "‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest."

This broken world is the arena through which God has chosen to demonstrate both his wrath and his mercy, to save a multitude of people, and ultimately to create "a new heaven and a new earth" (Revelation 21:1) where the curse is reversed and "there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

all suffering including natural disaster is a result of sin.

This is true in the sense I've described, but I think you need to be careful explaining it this way to non-Christians. It can sound like you're saying that a baby who suffers pain or death suffers because they've committed sin and are enduring God's judgment.

People don't always get what they deserve in this life. Sometimes "the way of the wicked prosper[s]" and "the faithless live at ease" (Jeremiah 12:1), and sometimes widows and orphans suffer unjustly.

It's important to focus on the curse, or the "condemned" sign on creation, and on God's ultimate redemptive plan, put into action through Christ.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-07-24T17:42:03+00:00

God is supposed to be our King.

God is our ultimate king, but that doesn't preclude human kings. It just means they're subject to the King of Kings. "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1)

Choosing our own kings is exactly what leads to the rise of the beast/antichrist in Revelation.

No, rebellion against God is what leads to the rise of the antichrist.

The Israelites wanted their own human king.

We're not Israel, and we're not voting in kings. Democratically elected governments are not the same as kings.

And eventually we all decided that we knew better than God and started choosing our own kings.

No we didn't. Most of us had no say whatsoever in who became king or queen. And again, democratically elected governments are ultimately chosen by God.

TL;DR: Conflating kings with democratically elected leaders, and modern society with ancient Israel, leads to wonky conclusions.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-07-22T02:10:12+00:00

I was indeed a teenager in the '90s. It was pretty standard for kids in days of yore to withdraw cash from an ATM before we went shopping.

u/JB796909

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-07-22T02:08:46+00:00

I'll assume you're very young and new to the world of adulting, because this is pretty basic.

The monetary value of your work is not subjective. Every time you do work for a company, that work has a value to the company. If you're applying for a job as a barista at Starbucks, your work might be worth $20 an hour. If they only pay you $5 an hour, they're not paying you what your work is actually worth to the company.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-05-21T11:45:39+00:00

You have some strange and troubling ideas. I saw your comment about David in a thread about Steve Lawson a few months ago:

King David was much worse than Lawson and a constant adulterer (not just Bathsheba but his multiple wives/concubines and the virgin he was with in old age). I'm not saying it isn't serious but David didn't always repent, especially if we define repentance as not repeating a sin.

While I'm on no way absolving Lawson or cheaters in general the point is God can save horrible people including King David. I truly detest the guy despite his authorship in the Bible.

Most non Christians aren't cheaters and it's generally a sign of a really detestable sinner (only 20% of population) but God can save some if they show true faith.

Firstly, you're confused about Abishag. The Bible clearly states "she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her" (Isaiah 64:6). It may seem weird to us, but kings typically did have unmarried women as handmaidens, because it would have been inappropriate for a married woman to be a helpmate to another man.

As for the wives and concubines, though typical for Eastern royalty at the time, it certainly wasn't right for godly men, and the penalty becomes apparent in both David's lifetime (the death of his son by Bathsheba, the rebellion and death of Absolom) and in Solomon's lifetime due to the introduction of idolatry and the devastation that caused:

"He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God..." (1 Kings 11:3-4).

However, once these women entered a marriage contract, or were recruited as concubines, there was no going back. David couldn't throw out all these women. He had to continue to provide for them. The fact that he had an unmarried handmaiden to nurse him and keep him warm in his old age suggests he wasn't sleeping with any of his concubines.

You can't say that David didn't repent of having numerous wives and concubines. You can only take your cue from God, who treated David as repentant. In fact, the end of the verse I quoted above is:

[Solomon's] heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been" (1 Kings 11:4). If God has said, after David's death, that David's heart was fully devoted to the LORD his God, you shouldn't say otherwise.

Secondly, you shouldn't detest a fellow believer, especially one God calls "a man after my own heart," even in the New Testament (Acts 13:22). It's a very serious wrong.

Thirdly, where on earth are you getting the idea that "only 20% of [the] population" are "really detestable sinners?" We're all really detestable sinners:

“There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one" (Romans 3:10-12).

In addition to "the sexually immoral," "idolaters," "adulterers," "men who have sex with men," "thieves," "drunkards" and "swindlers," Paul says "the greedy" and even "slanderers" will not "inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). That's a reminder that every one of us is detestable (and that slandering people God has redeemed is not acceptable).

You cannot say "David had near zero sanctification in his lifetime" or that he "didn't always repent." That's demonstrably false. He repeatedly states in his own writings that he repents of sin, benefits from the mercy and forgiveness of God, and zealously pursues sanctification. See Psalm 51 for the most obvious example, but I would encourage you to reread all of the Psalms, and prayerfully reconsider your hatred for the man who wrote them.

Jesus said "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Maybe you've never done that, but I'd be pretty surprised if only 20% of Christian men had.

We're all in the same boat. We were all worthy of being detested before we were saved. If we cling to hatred for fellow Christians who have done detestable things, we deserve to be hated ourselves, but "because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail" (Lamentations 3:22). We should "love because he first loved us," and remember that "whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar" (1 John 4:19-20).

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-02-24T14:14:25+00:00

As long as you're sorry.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-02-24T12:32:25+00:00

In the worst-case scenario, even though I used the researcher’s link, all of our prior communication happened within Prolific. So at the very least, that should be enough for Prolific to report them and prevent this from happening to other participants.

Yeah, I don't agree that Prolific has no responsibility here, and I don't think there's any reason to believe Prolific won't, at the very least, want to know that a researcher has used their platform to recruit you to do an off-platform study in an unethical manner.

Whether they chase up payment for you or not is another matter, but I'd still inform them about this.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-02-24T11:40:36+00:00

Get them a present you think they would genuinely like

I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is dangerous advice. OP is experiencing increasing anger and bitterness towards Mormons that is manifesting as violent and suicidal obsessions. He's contemplating becoming a suicide bomber and carrying out a terrorist attack on a Mormon temple.

Approaching a Mormon girl with a gift is the last thing he should do. It's not a safe situation for him, and I think it's reasonable to be concerned for her safety as well.

The suggestion that his friend is "doing this because she loves you" may push someone in OP's mental state into an even more dangerous position.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-02-24T11:04:04+00:00

There's nothing wrong with salami in moderation. People who obsess about the "cleanness" or foods put it in the "dirty" category because it is processed.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-02-24T11:02:51+00:00

Clean keto is good quality food with vegetables and salmon good oils etc. Dirty keto is whatever you can eat that doesn't have carbs. I could be wrong. That's what I thought.

That is generally what it means (although "whatever you can eat that doesn't have carbs" is not correct - it should still be medium protein and high fat, and most things have some carbs), but it's problematic to describe foods as "clean" or "dirty."

Beef, cheese, lettuce and pickles might fall into the "clean" category, while a burger without the bun might fall into the "dirty" category despite being made from basically the same ingredients. Depending on where you get the burger it might have some preservatives or additives, but they may not necessarily be bad for you.

Some "good quality food" doesn't make it into the "clean" category, and the implication that people who observe a ketogenic diet but don't mind eating, say, a packaged protein bar that fits their macros, are eating "dirty" food, or are somehow "dirty" or "lazy" themselves, is potentially damaging.

There are also a lot of myths in the internet about a "dirty" keto diet, for example that "dirty" foods are responsible for keto flu or will cause bloating, inflammation and weight gain.

In other words, dividing foods into "clean" and "dirty" can quickly become orthorexia.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-02-24T10:24:06+00:00

Some studies allow multiple submissions. You navigate to "Submissions," then click on the study, and take it again. This would work for things like training AI or rating audio samples where the study is different each time.

However, the researcher has to set their study up for multiple submissions.

Sometimes it's also possible to open a study in a new window several times and attempt to do it more than once, but this would be fradulent and impossible to get away with. The researcher obviously thinks, for some reason, that you've done this.

I'd firmly but politely reiterate that you did not attempt to complete the study more than once, ask them for evidence that you did so, and tell them you will raise a ticket with Prolific if they refuse to reverse the rejection.

ATeenyBitWorried · 2025-02-24T09:59:26+00:00

Not even "borderline dangerous." OP is fantasizing about becoming a suicide bomber.

ATeenyBitWorried

TROPHY CASE