Monthly Archives: July 2012

Gay Is Not the New Black

Posted by Dan C. on

Posted By Voddie Baucham

It’s hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it’s difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it’s especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

clip_image002The idea that same-sex “marriage” is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual “marriage” and civil rights is Michael Gross’s article in The Advocate [2], in which he coins the now-popular phrase “Gay is the new black.”1 Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.”2

Nor is this kind of thinking exclusive to the political left. When asked by GQ magazine if he thought homosexuality was a choice, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, replied [3]:

Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”3

Even the California Supreme Court bought in to this line of reasoning. In a February 2008 decision they reasoned:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.4 (emphasis added)

The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn’t take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

Unidentifiable Minority

The first problem with the idea of conflating “sexual orientation” and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person’s claims regarding sexual orientation.5

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label “homosexual” on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. “Pedophiles are not homosexuals!” is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment.6

Hence, it seems same-sex attraction alone isn’t enough to identify a person as a homosexual. And what about LUGS7 in college, or same-sex relationships in prison? Are these people homosexual? How about men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it’s impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed? Should a man who isn’t a homosexual (assuming we could determine such a thing) but tries to enter a same-sex union be treated the same as a woman who isn’t Native American but tries to claim it to win sympathy, or casino rights, or votes?

But this isn’t the only problem with the civil rights angle.

Unalterable Definition

An additional problem with the “gay is the new black” argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex “marriage” and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means “the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types.” Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot “interbreed” shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?8

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means “the union of a man and a woman.” Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn’t exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a “fundamental right” rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain “races” of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex “marriage” advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven’t had the right to redefine marriage. But don’t take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex “marriage”: “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex.”

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven’t been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like “gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship” tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, “I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don’t really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight.”

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. “[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.”

Unsustainable Precedent

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the civil rights argument is logical unsustainability. If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what’s to stop the “bisexual” from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his “orientation” is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question. In fact, they are adept at avoiding it (and are rarely pressed on the point). However, the further legal implications of court decisions about same-sex marriage are inevitable. Nowhere is this clearer than in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws. In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy cited his 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.12

I have no legal training, and I recognize the limits of my ability to fully evaluate the implications of such a decision. However, I do take notice when Justice Scalia responds to this assertion by stating:

I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law.13 (emphasis added)

Inescapable Confrontation

It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex “marriage” to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. While the design of the family promotes human thriving (Gen 1:27-28), the testimony points people to their only hope in this life and the next. As a result, silence on this issue is not an option.

Unfortunately (and quite ironically), many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. “Oppose us and you’re no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!” is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we’re not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex “marriage.” In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I’ve only provided a few.

1 Michael Joseph Gross, “Gay is the New Black,” The Advocate, November 16, 2008 (available online at http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid65744.asp [2]).

2 Ertha Melzer, “NAACP chair says ‘gay rights are civil rights,'” Washington Blade, April 8, 2005. It should also be noted that the NAACP recently endorsed same-sex marriage (http://graftedthemovie.blogspot.com/p/watch-grafted.html [4])—significant since the organization exists for the “Advancement of ‘Colored’ People.”

3 Micheal Steele interview in “The Reconstructionist,” by Lisa Paulo, GQ (March 2009), available at http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2009/03/-the-reconstructionist-michael-steele.html [3].

4 http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF [5]

5 Even if brain studies, twin studies, etc., provided conclusive links (which they do not), one would still be left with the fact that while blackness and maleness are attributes one cannot deny, homosexual behavior is not. Thus, even if there were a genetic connection, it would be insufficient to propel sexual orientation into the same category as race or sex.

6 http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201111170008 [6]

7 The term “Lesbian Until Graduation” refers to young women who participate in lesbian relationships only during the duration of their college life.

8 It is important to note that this is a categorical distinction, and not a determination based on fertility. Otherwise, the same could be said about men and women beyond child-bearing years, or those with defects preventing conception.

9 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pocahontas-marries-john-rolfe [7]. Though it is commonly thought that Pocahontas married John Smith, it was actually English tobacco farmer John Rolfe whom she married on April 5, 1614, in Jamestown, Virginia.

10 See Elizabeth Emens’s February 2003 Chicago Law School White paper, MONOGAMY’S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE, available at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/58-monogamy.pdf [8].

11 North American Man/Boy Love Association. Their motto is “Eight is Too Late.” http://www.nambla.org [9]

12 Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion [10], “John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners V. Texas ” in 539 U. S. (2003), ed. Supreme Court of the United States (2003).

13 Antonin Scalia Dissenting Opinion [11], “John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners V. Texas ” in 539 U. S. (2003), ed. Supreme Court of the United States (2003).

Article printed from The Gospel Coalition Blog: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc

URL to article: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/voddie-baucham-3/

[2] article in The Advocate: http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid65744.asp

[3] replied: http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2009/03/-the-reconstructionist-michael-steele.html

[4] http://graftedthemovie.blogspot.com/p/watch-grafted.html: http://graftedthemovie.blogspot.com/p/watch-grafted.html

[5] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

[6] http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201111170008: http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201111170008

[7] http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pocahontas-marries-john-rolfe: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pocahontas-marries-john-rolfe

[8] http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/58-monogamy.pdf: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/58-monogamy.pdf

[9] http://www.nambla.org: http://www.nambla.org

[10] Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html

[11] Antonin Scalia Dissenting Opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

Share

PURPOSE OF THE SCRIPTURE WARNINGS AGAINST APOSTASY

Posted by Dan C. on

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrews 6:1-5a ESV)

Some will assert that the above warnings against apostasy or falling away, are addressed to believers, and imply a possibility of their falling away, or committing apostasy. Those who believe that ‘he who began a good work will bring it to completion at the day of the Lord’ (Phil 1:6), offer other purposes for the above warnings.

There is, of course, a sense in which it is possible for believers to fall away, — when they are viewed simply in themselves, with reference to their own powers and capacities, and apart from God’s purpose or design with respect to them. And it is admitted by all that believers can fall into sin temporarily.

The primary purpose of these passages, however, is to induce men to co-operate willingly with God for the accomplishment of His purposes. They are inducements which produce constant humility, watchfulness, and diligence. In the same way a parent, in order to get the willing co-operation of a child, may tell it to stay out of the way of an approaching automobile, when all the time the parent has no intention of ever letting the child get into a position where it would be injured. When God plies a soul with fears of falling it is by no means a proof that God in His secret purpose intends to permit him to fall. These fears may be the very means which God has designed to keep him from falling.

Secondly, God’s exhortations to duty are perfectly consistent with His purpose to give sufficient grace for the performance of these duties. In one place we are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart; in another, God says, “I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.” Now either these must be consistent with each other, or the Holy Spirit must contradict Himself. Plainly it is not the latter.

Thirdly, these warnings are, even for believers, incitements to greater faith and prayer.

Fourthly, they are designed to show man his duty rather than his ability, and his weakness rather than his strength.

Fifthly, they convince men of their want of holiness and of their dependence upon God.

Sixthly, they serve as restraints on unbelievers, and leave them without excuse.

Loraine Boettner

I would agree that left to our own devices and natural abilities & desires, we would probably be just like the Israelites who had a track record of making promises and falling away again and again and again. However, as mentioned above, spoken by the prophet Ezekiel, God had a plan. . .

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:26-27 ESV)

Assuming the above to be true, solely because of God’s work in the human heart, why would we want to believe that a true Christian could fall away?

Share

The Dark Night in Denver: Groping for Answers

Posted by Dan C. on

Albert Mohler , 20 July 2012

The news hit the airwaves like a sudden onslaught, and the truth began to sink in. It has happened again. This time, 50 people shot while attending the midnight premier of the last in the Batman sequence, The Dark Knight Rises. According to press reports, a 24-year-old man burst into the crowded theater, wearing a gas mask and carrying an arsenal. After deploying what is believed to be tear gas, he opened fire with a shotgun, a rifle, and two hand guns. At least 12 people are dead, and dozens are injured, many critically.

Over 100 police officers responded to the scene in Aurora, just a few miles from Columbine High School, where in 1999 two high school students killed 12 fellow students and one teacher in a rampage that also injured 21 other students. That school massacre became a milestone in the nation’s legacy of violence. Now, yet another Denver suburb joins that tragic list.

The inevitable media swarm focuses on the data first — the who, what, when, and where questions. Then they, along with the public at large, begin to ask the why question. That is always the hard one.

The same vexing but inescapable question comes every time a Columbine happens or an Anders Behring Breivik attempts to justify his mass homicide. How could such a thing happen? How could a human being do such a thing?

There is no easy answer to this question. The easy answers are never satisfying, and they are often based in the confused moral calculus of popular culture. We assume there must have been a political motivation, a psychiatric disturbance, a sociological pressure … anything that will offer a satisfying explanation that will assure us. Wave after wave of analysis is offered, and sometimes some horrifying clues emerge. But the moral madness of mass homicide can never be truly explained.

Christians are driven by instinct to think in biblical and theological terms. But, how should that instinct be guided?

The Reality of Human Evil

First, Christians know that the human heart is capable of great evil. Human history includes a catalog of human horrors. The 20th century, described by historian Eric Hobsbawm as the century of “megadeath,” included a list of names such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Charles Manson. But those murderers did their killing from a distance, at least usually. Those who carry out the murders themselves are even more haunting to us. The young man arrested in this case, 24-year-old James Holmes, looks disarmingly normal.

The Fall released human moral evil into the cosmos, and every single human being is a sinner, tempted by a full range of sinfulness. When someone does something as seemingly unthinkable as this, we often question how anyone could do such a thing. The prophet Jeremiah spoke to this when he lamented, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick, who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)

Human beings are capable of unspeakable moral evil. We are shocked by such atrocities, but only because we have some distance from the last one. We cannot afford to be shocked when humans commit grotesque moral evil. It tells us the truth about unbridled human sin.

The Grace of Moral Restraint

Second, we must be thankful for restraints on moral evil. Christians must not underestimate the potential of any human being — ourselves included — to commit moral horror. We know ourselves to be sinners, and we know ourselves to be capable of sins we do not actually commit. Why do we not commit them?

God restrains human sinfulness. If the fullness of human sin was set loose, humanity would destroy itself. God restrains human evil by several means. First, he has created us in his image, and at least part of this image is what we call conscience. The moral conscience is a powerful restraint on human evil, and for this we must be exceedingly thankful. At the same time, the human conscience is also warped by the Fall and no longer fully trustworthy. We have developed the capacity to ignore the conscience, torture the conscience, and even misdirect the conscience by moral rationalization. Nevertheless, the restraint of the conscience is fundamental, and for that we must be very thankful.

God has also established institutions and orders that restrain human evil. As the Apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 13, God gave us the institution of government in order to restrain evil and to punish the evildoer. He has also given us the institution of marriage and the family and the larger order of society in order to restrain evil. We are surrounded by a complex of laws and statutes and social expectations and civic associations. All these function to restrain evil.

At the foundation of these restraints is the fear of God, which, even in an increasingly secular society, still retains a more powerful force than is often acknowledged.

Evil Answered at the Cross

Third, we must admit that there will be no fully satisfying answer to these questions in this life. Christians know that God is sovereign, and that nothing is outside of his control. We also now that he allows evil to exist, and human beings to commit moral atrocities. We cannot deny the sovereignty of God to be denied and evil allowed its independent existence, and yet we cannot deny the reality of evil and the horror of its threat to be lessened. We are reminded that evil can be answered only by a cross.

Theologian Henri Blocher explains this truth vividly in these words:

“Evil is conquered as evil because God turns it back upon itself. He makes the supreme crime, the murder of the only righteous person, the very operation that abolishes sin. The maneuver is utterly unprecedented. No more complete victory could be imagined. God responds in the indirect way that is perfectly suited to the ambiguity of evil. He entraps the deceiver in his own wiles. Evil, like a judoist, takes advantage of the power of good, which it perverts; the Lord, like a supreme champion, replies by using the very grip of the opponent.”

We must grieve with those who grieve. We must pray for Gospel churches in the Denver area who will be called upon for urgent ministry. We must pray for our nation and communities. And we must pray that God will guard ourselves from evil — especially our own evil. And we must point to the cross. What other answer can we give?

Reference: Henri Blocher, Evil and the Cross (Kregel, 2005).

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Share

The Foreknowledge of God

Posted by Dan C. on

NOTE: Many times, when the topics of God’s predestination and election are discussed it turns to the topic of the God’s foreknowledge. The following, taken from a larger A.W. Pink work that can be read here, is provided for your consideration.

What controversies have been engendered by this subject in the past! But what truth of Holy Scripture is there which has not been made the occasion of theological and ecclesiastical battles? The deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His atoning death, His second advent; the believer’s justification, sanctification, security; the church, its organization, officers, discipline; baptism, the Lord’s supper, and a score of other precious truths might be mentioned. Yet, the controversies which have been waged over them did not close the mouths of God’s faithful servants; why, then, should we avoid the vexed question of God’s Foreknowledge, because, forsooth, there are some who will charge us with fomenting strife? Let others contend if they will, our duty is to bear witness according to the light vouchsafed us.

. . .

There are two things concerning the Foreknowledge of God about which many are in ignorance: the meaning of the term, its Scriptural scope.

. . .

When the solemn and blessed subject of Divine foreordination is expounded, when God’s eternal choice of certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son is set forth, the Enemy sends along some man to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God, and this “foreknowledge” is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones would be more pliable than others, that they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit, and that because God knew they would believe, He, accordingly, predestinated them unto salvation.

. . .

Scripture affirms that God, in His high sovereignty, singled out certain ones to be recipients of His distinguishing favors (Acts 13:48), and therefore He determined to bestow upon them the gift of faith.

. . .

What is meant by “foreknowledge?” “To know beforehand,” is the ready reply of many. But we must not jump at conclusions, nor must we turn to Webster’s dictionary as the final court of appeal, for it is not a matter of the etymology of the term employed. What is needed is to find out how the word is used in Scripture.

. . .

. The word “foreknowledge” is not found in the Old Testament. But know occurs there frequently. When that term is used in connection with God, it often signifies to regard with favour, denoting not mere cognition but an affection for the object in view. “I know thee by name” (Ex. 33:17). “Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you” (Deut. 9:24). “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jer. 1:5). “They have made princes and I knew it not” (Hos. 8:4). “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). In these passages knew signifies either loved or appointed.

In like manner, the word “know” is frequently used in the New Testament, in the same sense as in the Old Testament.

. . .

The fact is that “foreknowledge” is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always has reference to persons.

. . .

The first occurrence is in Acts 2:23. There we read, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” If careful attention is paid to the wording of this verse it will be seen that the apostle was not there speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: “Him (Christ) being delivered by,” etc.

The second occurrence is in Romans 8;29,30. “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image, of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called,” etc. Weigh well the pronoun that is used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did.

. . .

“God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew” (Rom. 11:2). Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only.

The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father? The previous verse tells us: the reference is to the “strangers scattered” i.e. the Diaspora, the Dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.

. . .

“God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew” (Rom. 11:2). Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only.

The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father? The previous verse tells us: the reference is to the “strangers scattered” i.e. the Diaspora, the Dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.

___________________

The above excerpts are from an A.W. Pink work which can be read in its entirety here.

Share

Once Saved, Always Saved?

Posted by Dan C. on

I had a great discussion concerning the above on a recent Sunday evening that lasted way past my normal bedtime when I have to work the following day. The discussion began while talking about the morning sermon at a local church from Hebrews 6.

While not a debate, on one side was the opinion that genuine salvation begins at the moment of belief and will carry the believer safely into eternity no matter what might come to pass in between. On the other side was the thought that salvation can be forfeited essentially because of human will. You can readily imagine some of the passages of scripture that were brought up and tossed about.

The personal challenge for this old guy was trying to arrive at the simplest way to support the position that genuine salvation will never be lost, forfeited, or rejected once received. Are there passages of scripture that should settle the matter no matter how convincing passages suggesting otherwise appear? Perhaps there are, in the very words of Jesus:

At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:22-30 ESV)

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. (John 5:24 ESV)

Aside from the sometimes hotly debated meaning of ‘snatch’ in the John 10 passage, we have two statements.

1. John 10:28 tells us that Christ gives eternal life to his sheep, his true followers, and they shall never perish. Exactly when does he give them eternal life? There are only two options; in this life or at the judgment seat. Jesus answers that also.

2. From the moment a person hears the message of the gospel, repents of sin and believes the message that Christ died for our sins,  he/she has passed from death to life.

Do those two passages, John 10:28 & John 5:24 settle the matter? Well, if they mean exactly what they say, all the other passages that seem to indicate salvation can somehow be reversed, must mean something else.

Think about it. . .

"How should a Christian respond to persecution?"

Posted by Dan C. on

There’s no doubt that persecution is a stark reality of living the Christian life. The apostle Paul warned us that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). Jesus told us to expect persecution from the world because if they persecuted Him, they will persecute His followers also. Jesus has made it very clear to us that those of the world will hate us because they hate Him. If Christians were like the world—vain, earthly, sensual, and given to pleasure, wealth, and ambition—the world would not oppose us. But Christians do not belong to the world which is why they hate and persecute us (John 15:18-19). Christians are, or should be, influenced by different principles from those of the world. We are motivated by the love of God and holiness, while the world is driven by the love of sin. It is our very separation from the world that arouses the world’s animosity toward us. The world would prefer that we were like them; since we are not, they hate us (1 Peter 4:3-4).

 
As faithful Christians, we must learn to recognize the value of persecution and even to rejoice in it, not in an ostentatious way, but quietly and humbly because persecution has great spiritual value. First, persecution allows us to share in a unique fellowship with our Lord. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul outlined a number of things he surrendered for the cause of Christ. Such losses, however, he viewed as “rubbish” (Philippians 3:8), or “dung” (KJV), that he might share in the “fellowship of [Christ’s] sufferings” (Philippians 3:10). The noble apostle even counted his chains as a grace (favor) which God had bestowed upon him (Philippians 1:7).

Second, in all truth, persecution is good for us. James argues that trials test our faith, work or develop (endurance) in our lives, and help develop maturity (James 1:2-4). For as steel is tempered in the flames of the forge, trials and persecution serve to hone down those rough edges that tarnish our character. Yielding graciously to persecution allows one to demonstrate that he is of a superior quality than his adversaries. It’s easy to be hateful, but an ugly disposition throws a light upon our human weakness. It is much more Christ-like to remain calm and to respond in kindness in the face of evil opposition. Without question this is a tremendous challenge, but we have the power of the Holy Spirit within us and the wonderful example of the Lord to encourage us. Peter says of Jesus, “When they hurled their insults at Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats. Instead, He entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).

Third, persecution enables us to value the support of true friends. Conflict sometimes brings faithful children of God together in an encouraging and supportive way they might not have known otherwise. Hardship can stimulate the Lord’s people toward a greater resolve to love and comfort one another and lift one another to the throne of grace in prayer. There’s nothing like an unpleasant incident to help the more mature rise toward a greater level of brotherly love.

 
So, when we think about it seriously, we can move ourselves forward, even in the face of antagonism, whether from the world or within the church, and press on. We can thank God for His grace and for His patience with us. We can express gratitude for those whom we love in the Lord and who stand with us in times of distress. And we can pray for those who would accuse, misuse, or abuse us (2 Corinthians 11:24; Romans 10:1).

Recommended Resource: Foxe’s Book of Martyrs by John Foxe.

Online Article Source

Eisegesis Unplugged – Matthew 7:1

Posted by Dan C. on

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

The Passage

“Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1 ESV)

Christians are often accused of “judging” others whenever they speak out against a sinful activity. The ‘Don’t judge me!’ reaction might be justified when a personally judgmental attitude accompanies the revelation of ‘sin’. Most of us have probably been on the receiving end of such ‘revelations’, at one time or another. At the same time, some of us have probably been guilty of communicating a ‘You’re going to hell if you don’t change your ways.’ attitude.

In the spirit of ‘unplugging eisegesis’, we need to ask ourselves, does Matthew 1:7 passage really prohibit speaking out against that which God calls sinful, or is it teaching something else entirely? So following the first rules of biblical interpretation (context, context, context) let’s see if we can answer the question.

1Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5 ESV)

When Jesus told us not to judge (Matthew 7:1-2), He was telling us not to judge hypocritically. The same way we judge others we will be judged. Jesus was talking about how to judge, not prohibiting judgment concerning sin.

In Matthew 7:3-5, Jesus warns against judging someone else for his sin when you yourself are guilty of worse sins (think specks and planks). That’s the kind of judging Jesus prohibits.

What sort of judging is permissible?

If a believer sees another believer sinning, it is his Christian duty to lovingly and respectfully confront the person with his sin (Matthew 18:15-17). This is not judging, but rather pointing out the truth with the hope and goal of bringing repentance in the other person (James 5:20) while maintaining and/or restoring fellowship.

We are told in Ephesians 4:15 to speak the truth in love. That applies to our relationships with both believers and non-believers. We should never shy away from bringing God’s truth to any situation or topic of discussion. Our duty is to speak truth in love and stay out of God’s way.

The Apostle Paul counseled young Timothy to preach God’s word whether or not it’s popular or welcomed by the hearers:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:1-2 ESV)

How are we doing?

That’s the question we must ask ourselves, the one I must often ask myself. Am I a ‘sin hunter‘ who intentionally looks for opportunities to pass judgment? I certainly hope not.

At the other end of the spectrum, do I avoid taking a stand for truth when the lie is being proclaimed from the roof tops? The current cultural environment concerning the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage might just be a glaring example. I certainly hope I do not.

Do I back down from speaking God’s truth to a situation or issue because I am labeled a judgmental ‘hater’ or one of a growing variety of ‘…..phobes’? (You fill it the blank.) I certainly hope not.

Sadly, we see Christians all around us who seem to be weakening and sometimes caving to ‘cultural’ pressure concerning issues that are clearly set forth in scripture. Dear friends, let us not join their ranks!

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. – (Ephesians 6:10-17 ESV)

Share

THE NOT SO SECRET RAPTURE?

Posted by Dan C. on

 THE NOT SO SECRET RAPTURE

 Revised

By W. Fred Rice

  (ThM, Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary

Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.

What exactly is the secret rapture teaching? It is the teaching that the Christian Church will be secretly removed from the world, and that the unbelievers who are left behind will not be certain where vast multitudes have gone. These unbelievers will be left on the earth to endure seven years of tribulation, which will be initiated by the Antichrist, who will be revealed only after the rapture has taken place. The prophecies of the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls of the book of Revelation will be fulfilled during this tribulation.

Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are the authors of Left Behind and four other books in a series that delineates this theory in popular fiction. So popular is this series that 4.5 million copies of the books and audio tapes have been sold. It has its own extensive web site, postcards, and a separate Left Behind Series for Kids, and a movie is being made based on the first two books, Left Behind and Tribulation Force. In Tim LaHaye’s book Left Behind, the first in this series, Rayford Steele, pilot for Pan-Continental Airlines is making a flight from Chicago to London when he is informed by Hattie, his head flight attendant, that many of their passengers have disappeared mid-flight. Their clothes are the only evidence remaining of their former presence. As Rayford contacts other airliners he finds that they have experienced the same phenomenon. Upon his forced return to Chicago he finds total chaos, as aircraft and vehicles, suddenly without operators, have collided and crashed all over the city. After reaching his home with considerable difficulty, he finds that his own wife and son have disappeared. Actually, this is what he had expected, since his wife was a Christian who had spoken regularly about the imminent secret rapture of the Church, and he finds this the only reasonable explanation for what has happened. The majority of people, however, seek to find some other reason, such as capture by aliens or an unexplained scientific phenomenon. Rayford calls the church where his wife was a member, and the visitation pastor Bruce Barnes answers the phone! Rayford meets with Bruce in an effort to get some answers, and Bruce confesses that he was never a true Christian, and was not surprised to be left behind. But Bruce has become a Christian since the rapture, and is anxious to share his faith with others. Rayford and many others are converted. Two witnesses, Moishe and Eli, appear out of nowhere and begin witnessing in the city of Jerusalem. We are informed that through their witness 144,000 Jews will be converted. Meanwhile, Nicolae Carpathia, a brilliant and eloquent Romanian, rises quickly to power, becoming the head of the United Nations. At the end of the book it is evident that he is either the Antichrist or the False Prophet, and that his professed humanitarianism is totalitarianism in disguise. We are left hanging on the edge of a literary cliff, and will have to read the succeeding books of the series to learn the final outcome. But those of us acquainted with dispensational theology have a fairly good idea of what will happen.

So what is wrong with the perspective of these novels and other books which promote this theory in a fictional or non-fictional fashion? After all, such books accurately represent the popular theory of the rapture as taught in the majority of evangelical, Bible believing churches in the United States today. But do they truly represent the teachings of Scripture? The majority of Reformed people have always answered this question in the negative.

What, then, does the Bible teach? At the time of Christ’s ascension, the disciples were told that “this same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). His ascension was visible and physical; his second coming will be visible and physical as well. Dispensationalists seek to explain this by saying that the second coming is divided into two parts, the coming of Christ for his saints (the secret rapture), and the coming of Christ with his saints (the revelation), and that it is only at his revelation that he will appear visibly. But this in reality postulates a second and a third coming.[1]

Additionally, there is simply no hint of a secret rapture in Scripture. The coming of Christ is consistently described as a visible and noisy event, which is also accompanied by the resurrection of the dead. I Thessalonians 4:16 contains one of the most vivid descriptions of the second coming. We are told that “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.” The same connection of the sound of the trumpet with the resurrection is also made in I Cor. 15:51-52.

Matthew 24:21-311[2] teaches that the coming of Christ will be “as the lightning” (v. 27), that “all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet . . ..” (vv. 30-31). In addition to describing this event as noisy and clearly visible by all the inhabitants of the earth, this passage also warns us against belief in a secret coming of Christ: “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it” (v. 23); and, ” . . . if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it” (v. 26). There will be absolutely no question about what has happened after Christ has come. People left behind will not be dreaming up explanations – they will be mourning because their judgment has come.

Also going against this theory is II Thess. 2:1-10, which teaches that two events will occur prior to the coming of Christ: (1) “the falling away” (or “rebellion,” NIV, or, literally, “apostasy”); (2) the revelation of “the man of lawlessness.” Now whether we understand the Antichrist as nothing more than the spirit of Antichrist, or as a particular individual, one thing is clear: this revelation of the Antichrist will be prior to Christ’s coming, not afterwards.

Scripture teaches that the coming of Christ will be sudden and unexpected, especially to unbelievers. This is the teaching of Paul in I Thess. 5:1-10. But to say that it will be sudden and unexpected is not to say that it will be secret.

The passage that is most frequently used to substantiate a secret rapture and unbelievers being left behind is Luke 17:31-37, which speaks of “two in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left.” It is perfectly true that this passage teaches that unbelievers will be left behind. But there is nothing here to indicate the imaginative dispensational scenario of the one being taken away secretly. Comparing Scripture with Scripture we must conclude that those left behind are left behind to suffer judgment. II Thess. 1:3-10 speaks of the Lord Jesus “in flaming fire taking vengeance” when he is revealed from heaven. Unbelievers will not be left behind to go through a seven year tribulation and have a second chance to accept the Lord during that time. This idea of a second chance is emphasized again and again in Left Behind, and yet this is an idea which is foreign to Scripture.

Concerning the Left Behind books, can anything positive be said? First, they are well written and engaging. Second, the plan of salvation is, on the whole, accurately represented: it is clear that conversion is much more than a bare profession of faith, but is accompanied by repentance and followed by a changed life. Third, these books certainly impress upon people the reality of the return of Christ, even if the details regarding it are misrepresented. 

__________
[1]Titus 2:13 is often used to support this. The argument is that “the blessed hope” is the rapture and the “glorious appearing” is the revelation. But the Greek grammatical construction for “the blessed hope and glorious appearing” (one article precedes two nouns which are joined by the conjunction kai) makes it as likely that the terms are being used to describe one event as two.

[2]It seems to me that many preterists dilute the meaning of this passage almost as much as dispensationalists do, by referring it to an unseen coming of Christ in 70 A.D. John Murray, Collected Writings, Volume II, pp. 387ff., by contrast, supports the prevailing interpretation that this refers to the second coming of Christ. But at least preterists would agree that Scripture does not teach a secret rapture.  

Doug Wilson vs. Pro-Gay Activists at IU in Bloomington

Posted by Dan C. on

Pastor Doug Wilson, from Moscow Idaho, went to the campus of Indiana University back in April to do some talks on sexuality (link to complete lectures and Q&A). About half the room that showed up were there to yell, ridicule, heckle, and completely disrespect him based on his stance that homosexuality is a sin, all while yelling at him about love and tolerance.

I love Wilson’s quote: “The diversity crowd has two fundamental tenets: the first is that they have an absolute commitment to free speech, and the second tenet is, ‘Shut up.'” (Immediately followed by a heckler yelling, “Yeah, shut up!” – Seriously, the irony would be funny if it weren’t so sad.)

Denny Burk has some good observations about this whole thing:

1. The gay activists shouting for “tolerance” are the most shrill, intolerant personalities in the room. The irony seems to be completely lost on the protesters and naysayers who are quite disrespectful and cruel to Doug Wilson throughout his presentations. They demanded Wilson to give them logic and respect, but they gave him none in return.

2. Thanks be to God for Doug Wilson who rose to the task and answered their questions biblically and with good humor! He actually looks like he enjoys the sparring. That kind of winsomeness goes farther than winning every argument (though he also seems to win every argument too). Christians, take note. When reviled, do not revile in return (1 Pet. 2:23). Instead, bless those who curse you (Luke 6:28). Sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness (Prov. 16:21). A gentle answer turns away wrath, and the tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable (Prov. 15:1-2).

3. Post-modern gobbledygook thinking is on massive display here. The students aren’t interested in attacking the reliability of the Bible on scientific or historical grounds. Traditional apologetics would have been useless here. Almost to a man, they were concerned with judging the morality of the Bible. They deconstructed the Bible and manipulated texts to their own ends but then also stood in judgment over the Bible where it didn’t fit their views. In everything, their intuitions and feelings about the nature of reality defined everything.

4. It is not difficult to see how the hostility on display in this video might be turned into open persecution of Christians. I do not mean to be an alarmist, but it is hard to ignore the level of vitriol that more and more seems to be directed toward Christians for their views on homosexuality. This encounter with Wilson is just a single instance of a disdain that is becoming more widespread in the culture. What will be the public implications of that disdain in the next 10, 20, or even 30 years? It seems to me that the vitriol on display in this video is on its way to becoming the majority view. For Christians, this is not likely to get any easier for us going forward.

5. The Lord’s arm is not too short to save (Is. 59:1). Our culture’s spiritual decline is not inevitable. Who knows what God might do if we bear witness faithfully to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Let’s do that, and pray for God to have mercy on us and our neighbors.

Share

How Precious Is Your Steadfast Love

Posted by Dan C. on

[TO THE CHOIRMASTER. OF DAVID, THE SERVANT OF THE LORD.]

            Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes.

            For he flatters himself in his own eyes that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated.

            The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.

            He plots trouble while on his bed; he sets himself in a way that is not good; he does not reject evil.

            Your steadfast love, O LORD, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds.

            Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; your judgments are like the great deep; man and beast you save, O LORD.

            How precious is your steadfast love, O God!

            The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings.

            They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights.

            For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light.

            Oh, continue your steadfast love to those who know you, and your righteousness to the upright of heart!

            Let not the foot of arrogance come upon me, nor the hand of the wicked drive me away.

            There the evildoers lie fallen; they are thrust down, unable to rise.

(Psalm 36 ESV)