Monday, September 15, 2008

More on Jonathan Koh the heretic

I was recently asked for some information on my former friend Jonathan Koh over an urgent issue at hand. Besides his heinious embrace of the Hegelian Dialectics, there are two more issues which show just how far this former "Reformed Charismatic" has apostasized from the faith, which I shall reproduce from my prepared letter below.

2) His sympathy towards universalism

In his own words, according to his “theological pilgrimage”,

However, around the middle of 2003, I read Keith DeRose’s article entitled Universalism and the Bible. This was the first time I read an article laying out biblical arguments for Universalism. I had vague ideas about what Universalism was before reading this site. My first reading of this article did clarify some misconceptions as to what Universalism is and how it could be defended. Yet even that didn’t move me much as the idea of Universalism was too offensive to my mind – even as a Christian who was becoming more open to alternative beliefs. A few more readings of the article gradually convinced me that there was a strong case for Universalism in the Bible. …

I’ve still not come to my conclusion concerning Universalism – and probably never will – but I remain a hopeful Universalist.

In Keith DeRose’ article on the Internet which Jonathan referenced, “Christian” universalism is defined as

As I'll use it, "universalism" refers to the position that eventually all human beings will be saved and will enjoy everlasting life with Christ. This is compatible with the view that God will punish many people after death, and many universalists accept that there will be divine retribution, although some may not. What universalism does commit one to is that such punishment won't last forever. Universalism is also incompatible with various views according to which some will be annihilated (after or without first receiving punishment). These views can agree with universalism in that, according to them, punishment isn't everlasting, but they diverge from universalism in that they believe some will be denied everlasting life. Some universalists intend their position to apply animals, and some to fallen angels or even to Satan himself, but in my hands, it will be intended to apply only to human beings. In short, then, it's the position that every human being will, eventually at least, make it to the party.

3) His abominable take on the sin of homosexuality

Jonathan Koh is pro-homosexual. In his own words,

I [Jonathan] do think they [homosexual acts] are sins and less than God’s ideal for us. However, I am not about to condemn such acts like conservative Christians do. I think homosexual relationships are not what God intended for us. But they exist because the world is fallen or “out of wack” as a result of sin entering the world. Because of this, I’m inclined to think that God is tolerant of such acts. The world is complex, the issue is complex and I’m not about to accept easy answers that both conservative and progressive Christians put forward. Most homosexuals are born with such inclinations and try as they may, they probably won’t change. God can change them, but God hasn’t changed many of them. So I will say homosexual acts are wrong but that because the situation is more complex, I think God loves homosexuals and accepts their relationships - if monogamous and faithful. I think it’s cruel and utterly uncompassionate to condemn all forms of homosexual acts the way conservative Christians do. God is a compassionate God and He knows the struggles of homosexuals. I’m sure He understands how difficult or impossible it is for homosexuals to either change their sexual orientation or be chaste their whole life! For every Christian who says that homosexuals ought to change or ought to be chaste - as if it’s so easy to change or remain sexually inactive one’s whole life - my wish for them is that they could spend some time being a homosexual and being on the receiving end of such cruel admonitions.

It is indeed sad to see someone so blind and deluded by the lies spun by the liberal Academy, and refusing to yield his life and doctrine to the Lordship of Christ. What's left now is to hope that the Singaporean churches will realize the threat within their midst and not allow him to join them, for whether he is sincerely deluded or purposely out to deceive, his embrace of postmodernism on the one hand and liberalism on the other, together with his substantial reading and learning, makes him out to be a very dangerous wolf able to deceive many into the soul-damning heresy called "progressive Christianity", which is certainly neither progressive nor Christianity. May God protect His church from those who seek to destroy her. Amen.

No comments: