The Spirit of Christ and Liberalism

As a result of an article I wrote in the past, I was accused of lacking the spirit of Christ in that I opposed adulterous marriages and gay marriage, and the accuser surmised correctly that I also opposed freedom of choice for women as pertains to abortion. It was implied that I was intolerant, unloving, and lacked the spirit of Christ. I determined then to write an article dealing with the spirit of Christ.

There are many people in America today who have built their own Christ. He bears only a vague resemblance to the Christ of the Bible, although those who built him refuse to see it that way. Building one's own God does have its advantage in that you can design him as you desire and make his character and nature out as best suits your fancy and your own concept of sin and righteousness. The only problem is the obvious one—it is all a facade. A manmade Christ can no more save than could Jeroboam's two golden calves (see 1 Kings 18:25-30).

It is said Christ loved all people, even those from the worst class of sinners, and that he associated with all. Well, who has ever denied that? Not me. But the idea is, from those who have built a Christ after their own fancy, that with Christ it is okay to continue on in sin as long as you believe in him, love him, and love your fellowman. Christ would and will forgive you anyway, and did not then or now demand repentance and reformation of life. He, it is supposed, just accepted people as they were in their sinful state. Really!

Matthew says Jesus began his preaching career preaching repentance. "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV) In Matt. 11:20 we read, "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent." (Matt. 11:20 NKJV) Furthermore, in the next few verses, he warns those cities of what lies ahead on the Day of Judgment for them. To give one example, he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for Capernaum, which he says "will be brought down to Hades." (Matt. 11:23 NKJV)

When Jesus sent the 12 out to preach, what were they sent to preach? Mark says, "So they went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12 NKJV) Jesus himself said, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (NKJV) He says this twice, in Luke 13:3 and then in Luke 13:5. Don't let anyone tell you that the spirit of Christ was such that he so loved people to such an extent that he would save them while they continued on in an impenitent state, unwilling to repent and render obedience to God the Father.

In the very first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, as soon as the crowd was convicted in their hearts, by Peter's preaching, that Jesus was indeed the Christ, they asked, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV) The first word out of Peter's mouth in reply was "repent." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) At Athens, Luke records Paul's preaching there, saying "God…now commands all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30 NKJV)

But one must beware of this crowd of people who have made a Jesus who does not require repentance but allows one to live on in sin and yet be saved. Some of them want to make Paul out to be a renegade, a rebel against Christ who preached a different theology, a different gospel than Christ taught. The idea they have is that you can live a life based on what Jesus said and did in the gospel accounts and pay no heed to Paul who was out there just doing his own thing—so they say and believe.

For them to be right about Paul, several things have to be proven true. (1) It must be proven Paul was a liar—a liar about his conversion experience (see Acts 9, 22, 26), a liar about how he received the gospel (Gal. 1:11-12), a liar about having the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.2:13, compare Eph. 3:5 with 1 Cor. 15:9 and 2 Cor. 11:5) and not just that he lied about having the Holy Spirit but that Ananias also lied about Paul receiving it (Acts 9:17).

(2) If Paul was uninspired and a rebel against God and Christ, just a man who had his own theology, then it destroys the book of Acts written by Luke for the reason that Luke would then become an unreliable historian, a man no one could believe, because he writes about Paul's conversion three times as historical fact and mentions that one of the purposes of Ananias' visit to Paul was that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) which would be untrue. Paul's miracles, recorded by Luke, then come into question. If the book of Acts is unreliable history, then what about the book of Luke itself? Why should it be considered reliable? The same man wrote both books.

(3) If Paul was not a Holy Spirit inspired man but only a rebel against Christ with his own theology what does this say about Peter who wrote of Paul saying, "Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16 NKJV) Peter says Paul's writings are scripture—"as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

If Paul's writings are not from the Holy Spirit, then please tell us how one could twist his writings to their own destruction. If he was uninspired you could twist his words a thousand different ways and it would have no bearing whatsoever on your salvation. Paul had the spirit of Christ, his detractors to the contrary notwithstanding.

Those who want to pit Paul against Christ and claim that Paul's teaching was not of Christ will need to delete Luke's writings from their Bibles, as well as Peter's and all of Paul's, and I hope to soon show that they need to get rid of John's writings also. How?

Have you ever read Gal. 2:9, Paul speaking? "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (NKJV) If John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, a man who taught falsely about the commands of God, what does that say about John and his writings? If Paul deceived John, how can we believe the things John wrote, for he might have been deceived about those things as well.

Furthermore, if this James, who is mentioned in Gal. 2:9, is, as scholars think, the James who wrote the book of James, then he too was deluded in giving Paul the right hand of fellowship and his writings, as well as John's, then come into question. I guess, of course, one could say Paul was lying about this since he wrote the book of Galatians, but the book of Acts teaches that Paul was in good standing with the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.

You do see, do you not, where all of this business leads about Paul having his own doctrine separate and apart from the Lord's? You end up having to delete every book of the New Testament Paul wrote, that Luke wrote, that John wrote, that Peter wrote, and that James wrote. That leaves but little of the New Testament. Only a liberal could believe it.

This liberal crowd that wants to make Christ out as a God made after their own image err in another way as well. They define love for God the way they so desire rather than the way God has defined it. Here is God's definition, the definition that they will not accept. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:2-3 NKJV)

Their desire is to override any concern about keeping the commandments of God, thus keeping the door open for continuing on in adulterous marriages, homosexuality, open the door for gay marriage, and keep it open for abortion. This was not the spirit of John the Baptist, "For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.'" (Mark 6:17-18 NKJV) There had been a divorce and remarriage but God did not recognize it for he said through John that Herodias was still Philip's wife. John was going to break up an adulterous marriage. No need to worry about that among those who have made their own Christ, for their Christ does not demand repentance and reformation of life for salvation.

Their claim is that God is satisfied with adulterous marriages, homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, etc., because it would be intolerant not to be, and it is an act of love to accept those things in people, accept them without repentance. Passages like 1 Cor. 6:9-10 mean nothing to them (Paul wrote it after all). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV) They do not believe what their eyes read. They claim Christ is on their side, and Paul was a renegade and a rebel. Who do you think had the spirit of Christ? Was it Paul or the modern-day liberal?

Now, how about the spirit of Christ in his own being? Did Christ have the spirit of obedience to the Father or the spirit of disobedience? First, let it be known that Christ was assuredly under commandment from God just as much as you and I are. Jesus said, "This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:18 NKJV) "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49 NKJV) "As the Father gave Me commandment, so I do." (John 14:31 NKJV) "I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." (John 15:10 NKJV)

Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38 NKJV) "I always do those things that please Him." (John 8:29 NKJV) "I do know Him and keep His word." (John 8:55 NKJV) Finally, in Rom. 5:19, Paul speaking of Jesus said, "So also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." (NKJV) One cannot obey unless one has something to obey, a commandment.

Now I ask again, after quoting these passages, was the spirit of Christ one of obedience to God's commandments or one of disobedience? Let my liberal friends answer. Let them answer this question also—who gave them the right to decide what commands of God love can override? Are not all of God's commandments based on love? When a man says this command can be overlooked or ignored (disobeyed), is he not saying that the commandment lacks love? Is he not saying God gave a commandment here that has no love in it, that is, in fact, unloving? Does he really want to stick his neck out on the chopping block like that?

Why does not Mark 7:9 apply to those who so approach the Bible as do these liberals? "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (NKJV) As long as I think I know more about sin and righteousness than God does, as long as I believe my love and my way of showing love is purer than God's way, just that long do I prove myself, not Paul the apostle but myself, the true rebel against God. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

King Saul--As Long As It Glorifies God

We read in Rom. 15:4, “For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (NKJV)  The NIV translates the first part of that verse as follows, “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us.”

Paul, the writer, had reference to the writings found in the Old Testament when he made that statement.  As we read the Old Testament we need to be thinking what is in this passage or account that I am reading that is a lesson for me today?  What is in it for my learning?  We should never read the Old Testament just as history but rather as history that is meant to teach and leave lessons for those of us today.

Every Bible student who has been a student any length of time is aware of Samuel’s encounter with King Saul as Saul returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites.  Saul had been commanded by God through Samuel to go and put to death every living Amalekite and to destroy everything they had. (1 Sam. 15:3)  He disobeyed sparing the life of King Agag, king of the Amalekites, and the best of the livestock bringing them back to Israel. (1 Sam. 15:9)  Samuel in his meeting with Saul utters the famous statement I here quote:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?  Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.  Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he also has rejected you from being king.” (1 Sam. 15:22-23 NKJV)

The word “stubbornness” found in the NKJV here is an interesting word.  In the ESV and NET translations the Greek word is translated as “presumption,” as “insolence” in the LITV, “insubordination” in the NAS, and “arrogance” in the NIV.  The meaning seems to be that Saul was determined to do his will rather than God’s.  Would he dare do it?  He did but why?  Surely he had some fear of God.

It seems Saul had the same idea many men have today who believe they are pleasing God all the while being disobedient to his word.  They consider themselves godly men and would defend themselves as Saul did before Samuel; at least he did as long as he could. (1 Sam. 15:20-21)  The idea is prevalent today that we can do whatever we want to in our Christian work and worship just so we give glory to God, or as some might say as long as God receives the glory.

That was exactly the case with King Saul.  God said to destroy all these animals but Saul’s thinking is we will take the best back and sacrifice them to God back in Israel.  He will receive glory in our doing so; he will be pleased.  There is arrogance, presumption, insolence, call it what you will, in that kind of thinking.  We will disobey God to please him.  Sounds ridiculous does it not but that is the way much of Christendom thinks today, just like King Saul.

The Bible could not be any clearer than it is on the subject of homosexuality as all know but we presume to know more than God about it and think he will be pleased when we condone it and receive into fellowship the unrepentant individual practicing it as long as we say “he is in a committed relationship.”  We see ourselves as showing love and thus God must surely be pleased with our actions.  Since our motivation is good, as was Saul’s, we can disobey God and he will be pleased.

Paul’s teaching on women preachers and leaders of the church again is as clear as can be.  Read 1 Cor. 14:34-37.  Paul closes that section by saying, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 14:37 NKJV)  Read also 1 Tim. 2:12-13.  But we are like Saul.  We will do our own thing and presume a little, be a little arrogant, be a little insolent.  We will give God glory in the way we see fit--through women preaching and being church leaders.

I never have figured out how a woman is going to be an elder, a bishop, a pastor, in view of the fact that the qualification for such is that the individual must be “the husband of one wife.” (1 Tim. 3:2 NKJV)  But when we are like Saul and make our own rules anything goes and anything does go today in the religious world, even among those mankind calls Christians whether they be that or not.

Whatever we want to do we can justify ourselves as King Saul justified himself before Samuel.  We can justify ourselves and get by with it today for we have no prophets around, no apostles, no inspired men to rebuke us.  However, we will get by for only so long for “all things are naked and open to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Heb. 4:13 NKJV)

Samuel said this stubbornness, arrogance, presumption (depending on your translation) was as iniquity and idolatry.  Why would he say that?  The Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament in dealing with this verse makes an excellent point.  I quote, “All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God.”  I see no way around that conclusion.

Saul’s sin was in actuality rebellion against God.  There was a new god in Israel--King Saul.  That was his sin and it is our sin when we decide that for all practical purposes we are going to make the Bible mean what we want it to mean despite what it says.  We will explain all of those old troublesome passages away to fit modern-day culture, our woke society.  We will make the Bible into a living document (a document that grows and changes as suits us to go along with the changing culture).  Why?  Because we are not satisfied with it the way it is.

God today speaks to us through his inspired word.  When we take it and play around with it foot loose and fancy free we do not honor him.  One cannot honor God nor give him glory by doing the opposite of what he has said to do.  Have we learned the lesson from that which was written “aforetime” (Rom. 15:4 KJV) as it pertains to the lesson we should have learned from King Saul’s experience?  I fear we have not.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

  

The Real Motive Behind the Indiana RFRA Protests

The state of Indiana has been in the national news spotlight in recent days over the protests of Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.   The protest began in earnest this past Saturday, March 28, 2015, with a march in Indianapolis and has since spread nationwide with businesses threatening to pull out of Indiana and/or boycott the state.

The law attempts to provide some degree of protection to Christians, in particular Christians who run businesses, who due to religious beliefs do not want to be forced by law into taking part in things that would violate their conscience, things like gay marriage.  The protestors claim the law gives a license to discriminate against gays by refusing them services that a business would provide to others.

The truth is no Christian who reads the New Testament and actually believes what it says (there is some who no longer believe) is going to be willing to aid and assist anyone determined to commit sin when he realizes that is what is happening.  The sin does not matter.  It could be homosexuality, adultery, theft, deception, whatever the sin might be.

If the homosexual is discriminated against because the Christian will not help him sin, if that is your definition of discrimination, then by the same standard of reasoning the adulterer, the thief, the deceiver, and all others are likewise discriminated against by the Christian who lives his faith.  The Christian faith does not allow facilitating sin.

A Christian who aids and abets one determined to sin is little better than Balaam who Jesus said, “Taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.” (Rev. 2:14 NKJV)  Balaam was going to help Israel commit sin via Balak. 

The agenda, the real motive behind the protests, is to drive Christian faith into silence and out of the public sphere, to marginalize it and make it as insignificant a part of American life as possible.  There have already been a few instances nationwide where small Christian businesses have been sued successfully for their failure to provide services for those gay couples planning weddings.  When court costs, fines, etc. are figured into the equation such suits essentially destroy the tiny family-owned business and threaten even the financial survival of the family that owns it.  

This is really a matter of vengeance against those of faith.  How hard is it to get a wedding cake made or a photographer in to have pictures taken?  Would not the loving thing be to just take the wrong and go on?  It would if they were Christians which they are obviously not.  “Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong?” (1 Cor. 6:7 NKJV)  Of course, this is not to say the one who refuses to bake the cake for a gay wedding ceremony is in the wrong but only that the Christian thing to do is to refrain from suing.  But, there is no Christianity in gay marriage. 

Those who oppose this Indiana law on the basis that they think it discriminates against gays feel that such discrimination would be wrong—in their eyes sinful, evil.  That is strange, almost inexplicable, coming as it does from those who have rejected God’s word on the subject of sin.  How do they define sin if they are not going to use the Bible to do it?  How do I know what is sinful and what is not apart from God’s word?

If it had not been for the Bible the word sin would never have been in man’s vocabulary.  The word “sin” is first used in Gen. 4:7 where God is speaking to Cain although sin itself was first committed by Adam and Eve.  John the apostle defined sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 KJV), the law being the law of God.    

The gay lobbyists have rejected Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Tim. 1:9-10, and Jude 6-7 so I am sure they are not willing to take the Bible’s word for what constitutes sin nor are they willing to let God define love.  “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3 NKJV)  If they do not like what a passage teaches they just put it into a category like foot washing, confine it to the first century, or make it figurative.  They cannot endure a literal interpretation of the word.

It is not that hard to reject God’s word, if you are so inclined, and still claim Christianity which is the very thing many of the non-atheists among them do.  Of course, many among them are outright atheists and none will accept the word of God as is.  You will hear much about love from them but be aware and be certain they will get to define it, not God.

It is a smorgasbord man-made religion that supports these protests but the kind of religion a secular world desires if they must endure religion at all.  If this group believed God meant what he said and believed it was applicable today they would have no part of Christianity, declare God the sinner, and become God-haters.  Their Bible has been made flexible so it’s meaning changes with the changing cultural seasons of society.  They alone will decide what is sin?

So what is the standard that man uses to determine right from wrong, righteousness from unrighteousness, when one has rejected literal New Testament texts on sin?  If the word of Christ is not reliable, where is the text that is reliable, that provides a standard for judging right from wrong?  Without a standard who dares make himself God and declare for all men what is righteous?  The answer is the gay lobbyists, at least on this and related subjects.

[This article can be downloaded or printed out by clicking here.]

 

 

More Troubling Than Gay Marriage

Today is June 24, 2014.  As everyone knows federal judges all over the country are declaring state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.  It happened here in Indiana this week and I believe also in the state of Utah.  One other thing happened this week related to this issue that should cause embarrassment and concern to all who believe the scriptures. 

The Presbyterian Church U.S.A., which was in 2011 the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country, voted to redefine marriage and allow its pastors to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.  It now joins the United Church of Christ in its support of same-sex marriage.  

In doing some follow-up reading on this event I ran across an article by a pastor of the denomination, a man by the name of Sheldon Steen.  Let me quote a little of what Mr. Steen had to say about the changes that were made.  He said, "My deepest prayer is that this moment will become for us like Peter’s rooftop experience in Acts 10. That we will all be able to affirm together the words of God to Peter, 'What God has made clean, you must not call profane.'” 

One wonders when and where God made clean homosexual marriage.  Where is the scripture that teaches that? 

But this brings up an issue more troubling than gay marriage—how does one exegete (interpret) scripture correctly?  Listen to what the New Testament says about homosexuality: 

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."  (Rom. 1:24-27 NKJV) 

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."  (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NKJV) 

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."  (1 Tim. 1:9-10 NKJV) 

"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."  (Jude v. 6-7 NKJV) 

(The underlining was done by me for emphasis—DS.) 

Jude speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah saying they were an example.  The "strange flesh" Jude speaks of that the people of those cities went after was without doubt that of a homosexual nature.  When two angels who appeared as men came to Lot in the city of Sodom the men of the city surrounded Lot's house, "And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.'" (Gen. 19:5 NKJV)  Go back to the OT account in Genesis 18:16-19:29 and read it, then read again also Rom. 1:24-27.  

When you read the words of Jesus in the New Testament you will hear him speak of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Why?  They were as Jude, speaking by the Holy Spirit, says—examples of wrongdoing and God's punishment.  One will note in reading what Jesus had to say that no one questions him about it.  It was a well-known fact among all the Jews what had happened to both Sodom and Gomorrah and why.  They became a sort of standard for evil and God's judgment against it.  No explanation was needed.  All knew about it.  For passages where Jesus mentions either or both Sodom and Gomorrah see Matt. 10:15, 11:23, 11:24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29.  

Now how can Mr. Steen in view of these passages say God has made clean homosexual relationships?  How does one exegete scripture to come up with that conclusion?  This is the more troubling side issue of the gay marriage controversy. 

I know the emphasis today in religious circles is on grace and God's love, not on obedience.  Jesus said, however, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." (John 15:10 NKJV)  What if one does not keep Jesus' commandments?  What if one willfully and knowingly breaks his commandments and that is his/her practice throughout life?  I am not speaking of occasional lapses into sin for all sin in one way or another from time to time (no human being is perfect) but rather I am speaking of living a life of sin such as is the case in gay marriage. 

If it is possible for a person to read plain unambiguous texts from scripture and yet reject them and declare God has changed his mind (is this not what pastor Steen has done?) then what good at all is the Bible as a guide?  I am as serious as can be.  In such a scenario we cannot know what it is telling us.  It does not mean what it clearly states.  Where does that leave us? 

I suspect the answer to those who would respond would run something like this, "the Spirit leads us."  Leads us to what is my question?  Does it lead us to reject the scripture the Spirit gave us?  If that is the case we have the Spirit in conflict with himself.  Seems to me we need to try the Spirits and see which comes from God.  "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1 NKJV)  The only way I know how to do that is by the word of God.  What does it say? 

One ought to read again 1 Cor. 6:9-10 which I quoted above.  I have a question to ask about it and you might want to give it a shot and try and answer it.  That passage gives a list of those who cannot inherit the kingdom of God.  If homosexuals can now inherit the kingdom of God, I am talking practicing homosexuals, then why not fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc., also mentioned in that passage? 

Some think a legal (according to the law of the land) marriage ceremony would make a homosexual relationship holy.  If a homosexual marriage is acceptable to God so is an adulterous one.  "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt. 19:9 NKJV)  One can live in homosexuality just as much as in adultery and neither is scriptural.  

God never condemned a sexual union between a man and a woman but he did regulate it and make it dependent upon being married with both parties to the marriage being scripturally eligible for such a marriage.  Such cannot be said of a sexual union of two people of the same sex.  In fact, God declared such a union an abomination (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13).  We no longer live under the Law of Moses and no one is advocating putting to death practicing homosexuals but the Leviticus passages do show us how God has felt about homosexual unions in the past.  Combine that with the passages I have quoted from the New Testament above and one sees, who is willing to see, God's view of the matter. 

Those who desire to please God are going to have to make a choice.  Are they going to be guided by the word of God or by the opinions of men?  I would say to Mr. Steen who implies that God has cleansed the homosexual marriage relationship to prove it from the scriptures.  Tell me why the scriptures I have quoted are of no account. 

Every day it is becoming harder for men to stand up for the written word of God.  People no longer hold it in the high esteem they once did.  It is not uncommon to hear not just the word of God but God himself being attacked and Christians are being accused of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance. 

We live in a world where the goal seems to be no boundaries of behavior, no moral judgments.  On judgment day we will not be judged based on society's standards or based on what a federal judge has decided.  The real judge will set on the bench that day.

[To download this article and or print it out click here.]

The Modern Day American Mindset

Fewer and fewer people believe in absolute truth today (a postmodernism effect), believe the Bible is verbally inspired and without error, or that man must submit to its dictates or suffer the consequences if he does not.  Sin is now generally accepted, and no attempt is made any longer to hide it as long as the law of the land will allow it.  We abort babies (a holocaust), commit fornication (taken for granted these days), and become adulterers thinking God wants me to be happy or else we do not care at all what he thinks or, for that matter, even believe in him.  One of the things that have amazed me recently in my own neck of the woods is the push for gay marriage among groups of people whom you would have thought never would do such a thing which illustrates the state of mind of many who confess to be believers today.  (Let the reader note that this article was originally written before gay marriage became the law of the land.)

 

One man was quoted in a local paper as saying that there was no scriptural justification for denying gays the right to marry.  I just could not believe that a person who knew anything at all about the Bible could say such a thing as that.  Another wrote that he was a born again Christian and he was a supporter of gay marriage.  Please tell me how a person can read 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and get that we ought to support gay marriage.  "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor. 6:9-11 ESV, my underlining for emphasis)  There is a footnote in the ESV for the phrase "men who practice homosexuality" which reads as follows:  "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts." 

 

Now I ask should we Christians be in the business of helping people sin by giving our consent to it and striving to pass laws to promote it.  If the passage above is not enough for you about God's will in this matter try Jude 6-7, Rom. 1:24-27, and 1 Tim. 1:9-10.  When I wrote on the subject, which I did, one lady wrote in telling me Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.  Is that right?  Did Jesus ever mention Sodom?  Check out Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:23, Matt. 11:24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29.  In most of these passages, Jesus is saying with regards to a specific city that it will be more tolerable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than it will be for that city.  But I ask the question why does he use Sodom as a standard for comparison?  Was it not because it was infamous?  Had not all the Jewish people heard of what was done to Sodom and Gomorrah and why?

 

No doubt he used Sodom as a basis for comparison because all were aware of how evil it was and the consequences it reaped as a result.  Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah were to serve as an example "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 6 NKJV)  He gives the reason as well saying they had "given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh." (Jude 6 NKJV)  So don't tell me Jesus never talked about homosexuality.  When you talk about Sodom you are talking about homosexuality.  

 

Yes, I oppose the whole manmade concept of gay marriage and I do so on scriptural grounds but the thing that is even more troubling to me is the loss of faith in the word of God by those who call themselves Christian and yet opinionate that God approves what he has clearly condemned.  In the Old Testament, he even calls the homosexual act an abomination (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).  Where is the faith in statements of scripture that cannot possibly be misunderstood?

 

The words of the Bible seem to no longer have meaning among a certain class of people that would like for others to think they are God-fearing.  They speak of love and grace as though the commandments of the Bible can be tossed aside as of no consequence and God be mocked in doing so.  If they decide among men that an act is holy and righteous that overrides everything the Bible has to say about the matter.  Jesus spoke of just such a group when he said, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8 NKJV)  I don't think any gay marriage advocate will ever have the gall to say that gay marriage is from God but if it is not from God where is it from?  Whose tradition is it?  To ask is to answer.

 

Eve had trouble accepting the word of God when presented with another option.  Today's generation ought to learn from history or do people ever learn from history?  Sometimes it seems we do not.  Eve set aside God's commandment on the say-so of another that it would be okay.  Are we not being told to do the same today?  We are when we deny the words from the passages I have quoted.  Read 1 Cor. 6:9-11 again and then take on the role of the serpent and tell people it will not matter.  Tell them like the serpent told Eve, "You will not surely die." (Gen. 3:4 NKJV) 

 

For those advocating gay marriage based on love the Bible says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3 NKJV)  You and I as mere men do not have a right to define love when God has already done so.  What are you going to do, are you going to override God?

 

To endorse gay marriage is a violation of the golden rule and of love.  "Just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise." (Luke 7:31 NKJV)  I do not want any man to encourage me to sin.  To do that to me is to sin against me and it carries a consequence.  "Jesus said to his disciples: 'Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come.'" (Luke 17:1 NIV)  Those who are presently encouraging gay marriage are encouraging people to sin and there will be a consequence. 

 

For those who think the homosexual act is sinful outside marriage, just as fornication is, but would be acceptable to God in a marriage relationship they need to give that a second thought.  There is a difference.  God has never condemned the sexual act between a man and woman as sinful in its own right.  In fact, God said to Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply." (Gen. 1:28 NKJV)  "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." (Heb. 13:4 NKJV)   But note the sexual act outside of marriage, fornication, is condemned so it depends on the relationship between a man and a woman, are they married or not?

 

That cannot be said of the homosexual act between man and man.  That act God has declared to be sinful in itself and that is the big, big difference.  As for marriage, the Bible refers to Eve as Adam's wife and thus a marriage designed by God.  Nowhere in scripture will you find God making a marriage between man and man.  Thus such a thing is an invention of men, and of men, not of God.

 

Postmodernism would say there is no absolute truth thus all my quoting of scripture amounts to nothing with a postmodernist.  That my friends is the day and age we live in and the mindset that seems to have captured so many of our people.  Let the Bible as the inspired word of God take a hike.  That is depressing to me to know we have come to that state of affairs.  Faith is now the invention of man, each making his/her own faith, making their own truth, thinking all the while that all is A-okay.  We will see.  We will see.  

 [To download this article or print it out click here.]

Rebellion Against the Word of God in America

 A couple of items in the news recently, the year 2013, caught my attention.  In New Jersey, Gov. Christie signed a bill "barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight."  If you want to read the article it is still online as I update this article here in 2022 under the title "Christie Signs Bill Banning Gay Conversion Therapy in New Jersey."  You can do a copy and paste and Google it.

I quote from the article I read, "The Republican governor also said the health risks of trying to change a child's sexual orientation . . . outweigh concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice."  Also quoting from the same article, "Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin."  California also has a similar law.

It ought to be obvious to anyone who knows the Bible and can read that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes.  Here is what the Bible says, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.   Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NKJV, my underlining)  Does Christie get to trump God in deciding what is and what is not sin?

In Romans 1 we read the following:

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, . . .  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Rom. 1:24, 26-27 NKJV)  Does Gov. Christie believe this passage teaches that homosexuality is not a sin?

Note from the passage just quoted that God gave these people up to uncleanness.  Now I ask you what was this uncleanness associated with?  Was it not with homosexual acts?  A homosexual act in God's eyes is uncleanness.  I do not mean to imply that homosexual acts would be the only kind of acts that fit into the category of uncleanness but certainly, they are included if this passage is to have any meaning.

Here are a couple of New Testament passages that associate uncleanness with sexual sin in addition to the one above.

Paul speaking, "Lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced." (2 Cor. 12:21 NKJV)  The word is clearly used in the context of speech about sexual sin.

Paul speaking again in Gal. 5:19 says, "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness." (NKJV)  Here again, uncleanness is in a list of sexual sins and we already know that while homosexual acts are not the only acts of uncleanness they are nonetheless one type of such acts based on Rom. 1:24, 26-27.  Do Gov. Christie and the lawmakers in New Jersey as well as those in California think the unclean will inherit God's blessing?  But then do some of them even believe there is a God?  If they do, do they believe the Bible is the word of God?  If so do they believe he meant what he said or is he wishy-washy?

But I want to mention one other thing in the news just this morning, Sept. 4, 2013, which I saw on Fox News.  It seems in the state of Oregon a lady by the name of Melissa Klein had a bakery and cake decorating business.  When a lesbian couple planning on marrying came in asking her to make a wedding cake for them she refused.  What happened?  It got in the news and on social media and she was besieged by demonstrators and protestors carrying signs in front of her store forcing her to close her business (she moved it into her home).

She refused to make the cake for the couple out of her Christian faith.  Did she do what was right according to scripture?  Hear Paul, "Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure." (1 Tim. 5:22 NKJV, my underlining)  "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." (Eph. 5:11 NKJV, my underlining)

Now hear John, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ (teaching of Christ-ESV), hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ (teaching-ESV), he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 1:9-11 KJV)  Would helping one commit sin be a thing God would look favorably on?

Solomon said, "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil." (Prov. 8:13 NKJV)  So I guess the lady was to hate evil by making the cake and profiting off it and by helping out those who were engaging in it?  Is that right?  She did what was right and separated herself from any association with the sins of others.  She did not help others sin by assisting them in doing it.

The main point I wanted to get at in this article is the fact that Christianity and the Bible and even God himself are under attack in America today.  I have never seen a time like this where it has been so pervasive all throughout society and throughout our government.  People simply no longer care what the Bible says.  They are no longer willing to accept it nor want anything to do with it.  They are writing their own bibles, that is to say they are guiding their lives by the rules they have set up for themselves irrespective of any religion.

They are like Gov. Christie who is supposed to be a Catholic but does not care what his church teaches or what the Bible says and will not allow parents of homosexual children to get professional help under threat of law for those who provide the help.  I truly believe Christians in America are headed for persecution both by the government (by law) and by a people, fellow Americans, who have rejected the word of God and decided like the children of Israel to go their own way without God.

(All underlining was done by me for emphasis.)

[If you would like to download or print out this article click here.]