Author Archives: Dan C.

Persecution, A Consequence of Godly Living

Posted by Dan C. on

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.”

“You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

(2 Timothy 3:1-5, 10-13 ESV)

Shortly before his death, in his 2nd letter to young Timothy, the Apostle Paul speaks of the terrible godlessness of the ‘last days’, encouraging the young pastor of the church at Ephesus to remain strong in the faith no matter what trials he might face. After speaking of his own suffering and persecution, he declares:

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” (v. 12)

While we tend to focus on the ‘last days’ and it’s sinfulness, we often gloss over this short passage. Perhaps there a few significant points to ponder.

1. We are told that all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Not some, but ALL.

2. We are told that those who desire to live a godly life will be persecuted. We are not told those who actually life a godly life will be persecuted, but those who desireto do so willsuffer. Is that an indication that those whose desire is to live godly in fact live godly lives? Is it saying something about being able to appear to live godly without a genuine desire to do so, for whatever reason? Perhaps it’s both.

3. We are told that those who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. That speaks to a genuinely godly life – in Christ Jesus – not a tawdry imitation born of selfish reasons. There seems to be noticeable difference between what’s real and what’s Memorex. It’s one thing to not be ‘one of the popular crowd’ because of proud, self-righteous behavior and quite another because your life gives off the aroma of Christ living in you. The former is deserved while the latter is the ‘smell of death’ to those that are perishing in their sin (2 Cor 2:16). The light of Christ always exposes darkness for what it is and convicts those in bondage to their sin, of their sin.

4. Finally we are told that those who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. It’s not a ‘maybe’ thing. A godly life in Christ will always bring suffering and persecution. Call it a ‘natural’ outcome of a vibrant life in Christ. You don’t have to look for it and you won’t be able avoid it unless you are never seen in public.

So what are we to do?

First, realize that persecution from the world is a natural and inevitable consequence of your desire to live a godly life, for genuine desire will bear the fruit of godly living.

Secondly, when suffering and persecution comes at the hand of those who hate you because they hate Christ, follow Paul’s advice to young Timothy:

“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. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” (Emphasis mine)(2 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV)

We ordinary folk might not be pastors or specially gifted evangelists, but we all have the ministry of evangelism – to present Christ to the lost world in which we live! And when real p[persecution comes (We ain’t seen nothin’ yet!) we will be able to say with Paul in prison:

“I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. . . .What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.”

“Yes, and I will rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

(Philippians 1:12-13, 18 – 21 ESV)

‘If I Were the Devil’ by Paul Harvey, 1965

Posted by Dan C. on

“If I were the devil … If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I’d have a third of its real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please.’ “

“To the young, I would whisper that ‘The Bible is a myth.’ I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’ And the old, I would teach to pray, after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’

“And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

“If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

“Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography — soon I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

“If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And what do you bet? I could get whole states to promote gambling as thee way to get rich? I would caution against extremes and hard work, in Patriotism, in moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were the devil I’d just keep right on doing on what he’s doing.

– Paul Harvey, good day.”

 

Christian Athletes and the Olympics

Posted by Dan C. on

I recently read an article concerning Olympic athletes who have acknowledged God in their lives. Here are some examples:

“Jesus is my life, and it’s been cool to experience Him through this sport I have a passion for.”

“I often use the word ‘free’ to remind myself that God wants me to live my life and compete on the court free in him.”

“I know I did not get to where I am by myself. Being able to trust my Lord and have faith that whatever happens is His will, gives me the inner peace that makes me ready for anything.”

“I am a Christian. [The] Bible is the most powerful book I’ve ever read in my life.”

“I really believe God is always wanting to speak to me and reveal secrets to me and tell me what I need to be doing.”

“I listen to a lot of Christian music, and reading my Bible calms me down immensely.”

As an adult, . . .recommitted his life to Christ. “It felt so good, it felt so good for me just to realize that there’s something bigger that I need to be focusing on,” he said.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m thrilled that Olympic athletes spoke about God and their faith in a very public forum! There are many Christians who don’t and won’t. At the same time, I think it instructive what they are saying about God and then ask ourselves a couple of questions.

We’ve been told that God:

  • is cool to experience,
  • wants us to live free in Him,
  • helps us succeed and gives inner peace,
  • has a powerful book that, when read, can calm us down,
  • wants to speak to and tell us what to do, and
  • is something bigger we can feel good about.

Are these true statements? I would say yes, after omitting the bit about God wanting to whisper secrets in our ears from one of our examples. Both Christians and non-Christians can relate to their sentiments. The Christian can even relate each one of them to Jesus in some way. The non-Christian? How might he/she receive these short testimonies?

  • There are a lot’s of ‘cool’ things to experience.
  • I’m free already.
  • Isn’t training more important than religion?
  • There are a lot of easier ways to stay calm that read a book! I have my music!
  • I don’t need others telling me what to do.
  • A bigger paycheck would make me feel great!
  • Well, if I’m not sensing ‘cool’ in my life, not feeling successful, or not at peace with my world, I guess I can ‘try’ God.

Do you see where I’m going with this? We’ve been given God as a ‘life enhancement’ tool. Did those who spoke of their God intend to communicate that? I have no idea, and I do not doubt the sincerity of their testimonies. There is however, a much more important reason to embrace God through His Son, Jesus Christ.

The first, and foremost, reason we need to consider God and His Son is because we are sinners who are by nature ‘children of wrath’ (Eph 2). God is however a merciful God and sent his own Son to suffer the wrath and punishment we justly deserve. All those who realize their condition before a holy and just God, call out to God “Have mercy on me, a sinner!” and trust in Christ will have eternal life (John 3:16).

About those testimonies? They all communicate something true about God, as do so many of the testimonies we hear from other sports figures and celebrities.

At the same time I am reminded that if I want to share the gospel message that brings truly abundant life, on God’s terms, I must get to the bottom line, the main thing:

“Christ died for our sins.”

1 Corinthians 15:3

Share

Eisegesis Unplugged – Mark 13:5-13

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

“But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake..But the one who endures to the end will be saved (Mark 13:5-13 ESV)

These words of Jesus, as well as other similar warning passages in scripture are used to assert that a genuine believer in Jesus Christ, one who has faced his sin, repented and turned to Christ for salvation, can wake up in Hell because he failed to endure to the end, persevere, overcome, et al.. In fact, the above passage was presented to me at a Christian blog venue recently as ironclad proof of same.

It makes no difference that there is no text to support the claim that a believer can be lost for all eternity, the fact that the warning is present is enough to make dogmatic assertion. If a believer could never wake up in Hell, there is no need for the warning. But do these passages really teach a believer could face eternity in Hell? Let’s take a closer look.

What’s the context of the highlighted passage?

In a word, tribulation! We could also further describe the tribulation as happening in the ‘end times’. The exact time of the tribulation spoken of is not important, but the fact of tribulation is very significant. It is tribulation that is being ‘endured’ and tribulation from which those who endure will be saved. We are not told if the ‘saving’ is only from the temporal, or if it also applies to eternal salvation. We can be sure however, no matter what the hidden details might be, that the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Although the obvious conclusion is that those who fail to endure will not be saved, all we are specifically told is that ‘the one who does endure will be saved. Therefore the conclusion that a genuine believer could wake up in Hell must read into the text (eisegesis). It’s a simple matter of words on a page – textual analysis. Even if a true believer could ultimately perish, it is not in this text, nor is it in the other warning passages often used to prove true believers in Christ might still perish. That leaves us with the question:

IS it possible for a person who trusts in Christ for salvation to be lost for any reason?

For the answer we don’t need to trot out a long list of passages that point to the assurance of our salvation, although we certainly could. We only need a few other words of Jesus – the same Jesus who issued the previous warning:

“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. (John 10:27-28 ESV)

The warning and the promise were spoken by the same Jesus. What do we do with that? We go to one of the most basic principles of interpreting the Bible. It two passages seem contradictory use that which is clear to interpret that which is less clear, or that could have alternate meanings. How does that apply here?

Well, there is no rocket science. The words spoken by Jesus that tell us that His sheep will never perish are abundantly clear. ‘Never’ means NEVER. ‘Perish’ has two possible meanings – perish physically or eternally. Since the death rate is still 100%, it can only mean eternally (face judgment, perish, wake up in Hell). Therefore, every other passage that might point to a believer ending up in Hell has a different meaning or purpose in scripture.

What DO the warning passages mean?

Thanks to technology it’s a simple exercise to do an Internet search and obtain various answers to our question. A good summary is provided by American theologian Loraine Boettner (1901-1990):

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.

Dear friends, please know that this short article is in no way an expression of a humanly constructed doctrinal system (I get that a lot). If it can be termed ‘doctrinal’, it is simply Jesus’ doctrine, nothing more, nothing less. Jesus said:

“..the one who endures to the end will be saved.”

AND

“I give them (my sheep) eternal life, and they will never perish”

The only thing I an take from those simple declarations is that His sheep WILL endure to the end.

My friends, be blessed as you walk with Christ today and everyday!

Share

A Logic Bomb?

Posted by Dan C. on

By definition, a logic bomb is a piece of programming code added to the software of an application or operating system that lies dormant until a predetermined period of time (i.e., a period of latency) or event occurs, triggering the code into action. Logic bombs typically are malicious in intent, acting in the same ways as a virus or Trojan horse, once activated.

I actually had to looked up the definition of a ‘logic bomb’ because the term came to mind when in a discussion concerning the purposes of the warning passages in scripture I was trying to explain the importance that words spoken by Jesus might impact the discussion. I wanted to find out if there was such a thing and how it would be defined.

The possible logic bomb:

Point 1 – Jesus said said those who believe in Him (his sheep) will never perish or face condemnation, having passed from death to life. (John 10:28 & John 5:34)

Point 2 – Any losing, forfeiting, throwing away, falling away, jumping out of the Father’s hand etc. means, by default, ‘perishing’.

Point 3 – None of the above ‘perishing’ examples will actually happen, because Jesus says they won’t.

Point 4 – All of the warning passages (which are all true), that seem to say a genuine believer could actually wake up in Hell (for one of the aforementioned subjects of Point 2) must serve another purpose in scripture.

Well, there was an event that triggered it – a discussion with my daughter and son-in-law that for the most part was batting warning scriptures and assurance scriptures back and forth. You can imagine how that was going. During the match, the fact that Jesus said, in plain words that have certain meanings “they (his sheep) shall ‘never perish’ ” exploded into my brain housing group. When that happened, all I could utter to continued warning passages tossed my way was “but didn’t Jesus say. . .?”

I guess you could say that there was a trigger and an explosion, but does that make it a logic bomb? Well, was it malicious in nature?

To me it certainly was not because I had been tossing the ‘assurance’ balls over the net. It might have been to my discussion opponent because it ‘maliciously’ attacked the operating system which asserts dogmatically that salvation, once possessed, could ever be reversed.

What it did do for me was settle the issue in my mind and heart. If Jesus meant what he said, the matter was closed and I never again would need to engage in length debate or animated discussions that don’t go very far. All I need to input into the data stream is “But didn’t Jesus say. . .they will never perish?” and let God take it from there.

So does it qualify as a logic bomb? You be the judge.

Share

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. . .