Posts

Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part Two

/in , /by

Is Homosexuality sinful?

This is Part II of a five part series that attempts to answer that question.

Objection: The New Testament doesn’t specifically refer to homosexuality, rather it addresses male prostitution and promiscuity. As far as Paul’s commentary on the issue, he also said that women are to remain silent and never assume authority over a man. Those notions are obviously antiquated and have no place in contemporary society, therefore his views on homosexuality should likewise be discarded.

Overruled: The New Testament does reference homosexuality specifically in Romans 1:27. While other passages elaborate on sexual perversion in more general terms, to imply that homosexuality isn’t included in those verses is to turn a deaf ear to the obvious verdict that God vocalizes throughout the Bible. In addition, the Bible tasks men with being the spiritual leader in the home as well as the spiritual leaders in the church. But to say that that Bible commands women to be silent and that they are never to occupy positions of authority is incorrect. The Bible contains several examples of women who wielded significant authority and influence over men. Their role in the home and in the church is subordinate to the role of their husband, but both sexes are equal in Christ and considered qualified to occupy leadership positions.

Homosexuality is Specifically Referenced in the New Testament Romans 1:27 specifically references men having sex with one another, which is homosexuality. While promiscuity and male prostitution could be categorized as, “shameless acts” and other translations differ in their specifically mentioning homosexuality as opposed to, “pervert” or, “effeminate,” the bottom line is that the degradation of man often shows up in the way he deviates from the healthy and holy sexual relationship God intended to exist between a husband and wife.

Anything contrary to that is sin and that includes same sex relationships. So the New Testament does specify homosexuality and it also lumps it in with any one of a number of perverse expressions of man’s inclination to rebel against God (see also 1 for 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10.)

Women as Leaders and Subordinates As far as women never being allowed to have authority over a man, that is true but only in the context of a worship service and in the way a wife is to interact with her husband.

After the Fall, God established a hierarchy as far as the relationship that would exist between a man and his wife:

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

You see that reiterated in Ephesians 5:22:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. (Eph 5:22)

By no means does this give the husband to take advantage of his wife in any way in that he is to love his wife as Christ loved the church:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph 5:25 [see also verse 28, 33])

Bear in mind that Christ loved the church by dying for her, so in order for a husband to be consistent with the Biblical model for the way in which he is to love his bride, he needs to subordinate himself to her welfare to the extent that he would be willing to lay down his life for her. You see Paul elaborate on that imagery throughout this particular text.

But while a wife is commanded to submit to a loving husband who is completely devoted to her, that doesn’t mean women cannot occupy positions of authority and influence over men.

Deborah is a great example of that as she was a judge over the nation of Israel as seen in Judges 4. Huldah, the prophetess in 2 Kings 22:14 as well as Philip’s daughters in Acts 21:8-9 and Phoebe, the deaconess in Romans 16:1 are all examples of women who wielded authority and power. Deborah was married as was Huldah and Phoebe. While they occupied roles characterized by civic and judicial authority, they were still subordinate to their husbands in their respective homes and would’ve yielded to the authority of the spiritual leaders in their lives when it came to worship and discipleship.

So, women do have the capacity to lead and to teach. But, in church it is different. Men, and only men, are to fill the role of pastor and teacher. The foundation for that hierarchy was established first in Genesis, not just in the context of the Fall of Man, but also in the order that male and female were created.

Men and Women as Equals

It should be noted that when God said that it was, “not good” that the man be alone, He was not implying that what He had created was less than perfect, as much as He was looking to the perfection that would be accomplished once man and woman were created and until then, it was, “not good.” The woman was created from the man and created to help the man.

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (1 Cor 11:8-9)

That doesn’t speak to woman’s insufficiency as much as it points to man’s inadequacy. Mankind, as an institution, cannot flourish without both sexes working side by side. From that perspective, both genders are equal, and that can be seen in Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28)

Paul elaborates on that further in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12:

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (1 Cor 11:11-12)

The Distinctive Roles of Men and Women

But while they are the same in spiritual essence and worth, they are nevertheless assigned different roles in worship and in the home. This is seen throughout Scripture:

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. (1 Cor 14:34)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:11-12 [1 Tim 2 pertains to orderly worship. Also, 1 Timothy 3 lists the qualifications of a church leader and there is no reference to women at all])

Paul’s commentary on the role of women can be categorized under two headings: Distractions and Discrepancies. In verses like First Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:1-12, you see the issue of, “distraction” being addressed in that people were talking over themselves, specifically women speaking out of turn, which was leading to an improper climate for a worship service.

Reminding them of their submissive role before God and their husbands was an appropriate admonishment in that it went beyond simply asking them to be courteous, rather it framed what their conduct needed to be according to the Absolutes articulated in Scripture.

The, “discrepancy” dynamic is covered in the way Paul states how it’s not appropriate for a woman to have authority over a man. Again, in every instance where Paul makes this statement, the context is orderly worship. Men are to be the spiritual leaders in their home and in the church. When a woman proves herself to be more qualified to teach and lead in the sanctuary, while her spiritual maturity is to be applauded, it is ultimately an indictment against those men she would hypothetically instruct in that they should be capable of teaching her rather than the other way around.

Godly women who have the gift of teaching and leadership are extraordinary people that God uses in a variety of ways – Business women, artists, Conference Leaders, Principals and the list goes on and on. In church, they can be seen as teachers and lay leaders, but not in those instances where they are leading or teaching men.

Those who process the Biblical way in which authoritative roles are designated in Scripture with a feeling of either resignation or resistance are forgetting verses like Psalm 37:4 where it’s made clear that the amount of fulfillment you experience in your life is in direct proportion to the degree of obedience you deploy in response to God’s Instructions. As a woman you are not held accountable for the spiritual health of your husband, nor are you tasked with having to teach other men. If you insist on taking that responsibility upon yourself, despite the fact that God has made it clear that it isn’t your job, your efforts will fall short of God’s Ideal if for no other reason in that you’re standing in the place that has been reserved by God for someone else.

Moreover, the sort of leadership and submission that is being commanded in Scripture is not the assignment of the qualified over the unqualified. Rather, it is an infrastructure that is established first for the sake of promoting the proper regard for God and then to foster the kind of Divinely empowered productivity that can only occur when each person is subordinating themselves to the authority that has been placed over them, much like a team of all stars has a captain who they follow as well as a coach that they all answer to.

So, while men and women are equal in Christ, they do have different roles and that is a good thing. By attempting to discredit the way in which Scripture has assigned authority in the home and in the church by insinuating that women are prohibited from occupying any position of authority is incorrect and indicative of a very limited knowledge of God’s Word. God’s commands are freeing in that they open up the path that leads to success. To perceive them as limiting or inaccurate is to buy into a lie that ultimately leads to a world of unrealized expectations that, left unchecked, will culminate in a very dark and spiritually destitute demise.

Therefore, as far as those who would insist that the Biblical template for the way in which women are to fulfill their role as wives and leaders is obsolete, thus making the New Testament commentary on homosexuality something that can be ignored in a similar fashion – they are wrong in both instances and are denying themselves the advantages that go along with being receptive and obedient to the Word of God.

To proceed to Part III click here…

Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part I

/in , , , /by

There’s a graphic floating around Facebook that’s entitled, “So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” and it goes on to use a flowchart to suggest that it’s both logical and sensible to embrace Homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Biblical standpoint (see image to the right).

The first red flag is that it doesn’t reference any specific chapter or verse. Beyond that, there’s some stuff there that sounds plausible, but after you pop the hood and do some digging, you discover that it’s not credible at all.

Here we go:

Objection:  Jesus Never Uttered a Word About Same Sex Relationships.

Overruled: Jesus endorsed the Law as being valid and in so doing established homosexuality as being a sin. In addition, Jesus was God in the flesh and in light of the fact that God dictated the whole of Scripture, it is therefore nonsensical to claim that Christ had nothing to say on the matter.

Jesus Endorsed the Old Testament as Being Valid Correct. Jesus never taught on the subject, but Jesus endorsed Old Testament Law as being valid in Matthew 5:17 and that would include God’s specific outlawing of homosexuality. Take a look:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Lev 18:22 [see also Lev 20:13])

Homosexuality is Referenced as a Sin Throughout Scripture In addition, it’s referenced in the New Testament which demonstrates that this is a moral sin that rates a special emphasis in God’s mind in that it shows up throughout Scripture and not just in the New Testament.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (1 Cor 6:9)

We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers,[a] liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching (1 Tim 1:9-10)

Jesus is God Another thing to consider is that Jesus is God in the flesh:

I and the Father are one. (Jn 10:30 [see also John 1:1-2; 5:17-18;Heb 1:3])

When Jesus says, “I and the Father are One,” He’s saying that He and God are the same thing. The Greek word means “one and the same,” not “one person, “ but akin to two different names for the same thing. That’s why Calvary worked because it was God Himself Who was paying the penalty for our sins and not just a noble substitute. So if Jesus is God and vice versa, then to suggest that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality is pointless. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says the entire Bible is God-breathed so Jesus’ perspective on the subject is well represented throughout the Bible in that it is God’s Word and Jesus is God.

Objection: The OT also says it’s sinful to eat shellfish, to wear clothes woven with different fabrics and to eat pork? Should we still live by OT laws?

Overruled: God’s condemning of homosexuality is not limited to the Old Testament Law as has already been mentioned. In addition, the portion of the law that is being referenced here is the judicial law which was fulfilled in Christ. The moral law, however, endures and that includes the condemnation of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is Referenced Throughout Scripture Two things: First off, homosexuality is condemned throughout Scripture so to limit one’s scope to the Old Testament alone and attempt to justify homosexuality by saying it’s an Old Testament law and therefore obsolete is to ignore the way in which it is addressed in the New Testament:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:8-10)

We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:9-10 [HCSB])

While the Old Testament Law Pertaining to Ceremonial and Judicial Specifics Were Fulfilled in Christ, the Moral Law Still Applies In addition, it’s important to realize that while the ceremonial and judicial aspects of Old Testament Law having been fulfilled, the moral law still applies. Here are the OT passages that are deal with the wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics and the eating of shellfish:

Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. (Lev 11:9-10)

Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. (Lev 19:19)

And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. (Lev 11:7-8)

Why God prohibited the consumption of some animals or the wearing of certain types of clothing is speculative. But there are a couple of things about what was going on historically that allow these directives to make some sense.

Israel was surrounded by pagan nations whose practices included the combining of fabrics and different types of seed as part of religious rituals. Moses Maimonides (1135 – 1204) wrote that: “the heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal materials, while they held in their hand a seal of mineral. This you will find written in their books.”1

So there’s good reason to believe that one of the reasons that God directed the Israelites to not mix seed or fabrics or different kinds of animals is because by doing so you were engaging in behaviors that were recognized as idolatrous.

As far as why you were to not eat marine life lacking in fins or scales, again it’s possible that due to the diet of the typical pagan, which included shellfish, God was putting up some guard rails that would make it difficult to even eat with those who despised the Lord.2

The point that’s being made the “So You Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” crowd is that if all of these instructions were valid in antiquity, yet not relevant in today’s world then why should God’s command pertaining to homosexuality be any different? If we no longer concern ourselves with combining different types of fabric or abstaining from eating certain types of food, why should homosexuality be an issue?

In the New Testament, Jesus addressed the dietary restrictions that had been established through Moses by saying that it wasn’t what went into a man that made him unclean, rather it was what came out of him that reflected the true condition of his heart. Consider the following:

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”) (Mk 7:17-20 [see also 1 Tim 4:3-5])

Jesus often qualified the Law by quoting it and then elaborating on it in order for people to get beyond the letter of the Law and instead obey the spirit and the original intent of the Law. That’s what he was getting at in Matthew 5:17:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matt 5:17)

Some will mistakenly interpret Jesus’ quoting the Law as His having a disdain for what He had Moses document centuries before in that He would often add some commentary to what was on the books. Here’s the thing: The word, “fulfill” doesn’t mean to fill out, as in to add something that was lacking. Rather, it means to fill up. In other words, the law was perfect in its content and purpose which was to identify sin. Paul states that in Romans 7:12 when he refers to the law as holy, righteous and good. Without the law, we wouldn’t recognize sin for what it is nor could we appreciate the need for a Savior and that was the ultimate purpose of the law.

When Jesus said that He wasn’t seeking to abolish the law, He was highlighting the fact that He was the Savior that law had been pointing to since its conception. He says in Matthew 5:18:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matt 5:18)

In this one verse, you have an amazing collection of Truths that represent the substance of the gospel. When Jesus died on the cross, the ceremonial part of the Law was fulfilled in that no sacrifices would ever be needed again to atone for sin because Jesus was God’s one time, sacrifice for sin. You see that in 1 Peter 3:18:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Pet 3:18)

The judicial aspect of the law was the way in which God uniquely dealt with Israel (Lev 26:46; Ps 147:19). It’s in the context of this law that you find the dietary restrictions and instructions pertaining to apparel. But when Israel rejected the Messiah and put Him to death, that was the end of Israel’s distinction as “God’s people” and the beginning of the church which was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. Hence the abrogation of judicial law, not that it was destroyed but fulfilled in Christ.

Take a look at some of what John MacArthur offers in the way of commentary on this issue:

Look at it this way; this is thrilling. Look at the judicial law and all the various rules that governed the behavior of Israel, all their legal codes, all the things they were supposed to do. Leviticus 26:46, “The statutes and ordinances and laws which the LORD made between Himself and the children of Israel.”

God made special laws with Israel. In Psalm 147:19, “He declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation.” In other words, God had peculiar laws for Israel; this is His judicial law which set them apart. They had certain dietary laws, certail laws of dress, of agriculture, laws within their relationships with certain things they had to do. These set them apart.

You say, “How did Jesus fulfill that?” When Jesus died on the cross, that was the final, full rejection by Israel of her Messiah, right? That was it. And that was the end of God dealing with that nation as a nation. The judicial law that He gave to Israel passed away when God no longer dealt with them as a nation anymore and Jesus built His church. Praise God, someday He will go back and redeem that nation again and deal with them again as a nation. But for this time, when Jesus died on the cross, the judicial law came to a screetching halt. There was no more national people of God. There would be a new man, cut out of Jews and Gentiles, that would be called the church. The judicial law came to an end. That’s why Matthew 21:43 says, “Therefore I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken from you.” (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2209/christ-and-the-law-part-1)

The one aspect of God’s Law that still applies, however, is His moral law. Not that we need to concern ourselves with the penalty that comes when you disobey His moral law, but as far as how it defines what is right and what is wrong – that aspect of God’s moral law is still binding. John MacArthur elaborates on that point when he says:

The same thing is said in Romans 6:14, and we could spend forever on this principle. “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law.” What does he mean, that you don’t have to do anything any more? Do you not have to live a moral life or obey God? No! What he means is that you are no longer under the power of the penalty of the law. It can’t kill you anymore; you can only die once. That’s all, only once. Christ died on the Cross, and you, by faith, died in Him. That pays the penalty, so in that sense, you are no longer under the law. That is, the law has no power to slay you. The law had a penalty, the wages of sin is death, and Christ took the penalty. (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2211/christ-and-the-law-part-3)

The whole judicial system was only good as long as Israel was God’s people. When that was over, the system was over. The ceremonial system was only good until the final sacrifice came, and when it came, then the system was done away. That only leaves one element of God’s law abiding still, and what is that? The moral law. That’s what undergirded everything. That will be with us until we see Him face to face. (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2209/christ-and-the-law-part-1)

So to imply that the Old Testament laws which no longer apply to the New Testament church include God’s ruling against homosexuality is neither Biblical let alone logical.

Proceed to Part II by clicking here…

Who Makes the Rules?

/in , , , /by

So, here’s what happened: The “Gay Pride” Club at Independence High School built a float that was featured as part of the Homecoming parade that drove around the High School, down 31 and then made a lap around Heritage Elementary and Heritage Middle School.

It’s a big tradition and the Kindergarteners along with the Grade Schoolers are allowed to sit outside and watch what amounts to a big parade coming close enough to where those who are on the floats can throw candy and wave hello. But at one point, two of the individuals on the “Gay Pride” float kissed…

Some saw that and felt an overwhelming sense of disgust and threw a fit. Others saw it as a sign of the times and, while they don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, accept it as a hill that’s not worth dying on because, after all, everyone has the, “…right to be happy.”

You can watch the clip and read the article by clicking here. It’s a volatile discussion, but there’s a key element that often gets overlooked that’s worth considering because in the end, there’s a lot more at stake than a person’s right to be happy. The real question is: Who Makes the Rules?

I) It’s a Strategy

First of all, the manner in which the Homosexual Agenda is advanced is done according to a strategy that’s characteristic of someone who has something to hide more than they have something to say. The moment you hear elements of that strategy being deployed, you can rest assured that what you’re hearing is not meant to champion the truth as much as it’s intended to distract from it.

Typically the Homosexual Activist positions themselves as a victim of a cruel and intolerant society that’s determined to prevent them from being able to exercise their right to be happy. However that may or may not be the case, the fact that you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled as insensitive and inappropriate is a handy tool in the hands of someone who needs to avoid those questions that have the potential to reveal their argument as being weak apart from a controlled collection of polls, pictures and personalities.

In this case, the issue isn’t whether or not the Homosexual has the right to be happy as much as they have the authority to redefine Moral Absolutes. That’s the question on the table. And that’s why it’s necessary to frame the entire conversation around the “victim,” because otherwise it becomes too obvious that there’s a resolve to either manipulate or dismiss the Bible in a way that’s neither accurate let alone appropriate. That’s why characterizing those who have a problem with Homosexuality as being guilty of “fear and hate” can be so effective because now you can divert attention away from what the real issue is: Who Makes the Rules?

click here to watch Frank Peretti’s
“God’s Way or My Way”

II) Who Makes the Rules

You’ve got one of two options: Man or God. Granted, for some, there’s a lot to unpack there. But the point is this: It’s not about a person’s “right to be happy.” You can conceivably assert that as a way to justify almost whatever you want to do. The question is, “Who Makes the Rules?” And while that’s not a question people want to entertain in the context of a Homecoming Parade, that’s the other piece of this that makes this whole campaign so diabolical. By positioning their agenda in the context of something that is traditionally processed as healthy, patriotic or philanthropic, they compel those who would otherwise object to be silent because of the way any criticism will come across as inappropriate given the obvious noble nature of the event. But if the issue isn’t so much about one’s rights as much as it’s about what’s True… …then regardless of the event or the situation, we’re now looking at a completely different issue. Who Makes the Rules?

A) It’s What You Do Believe

However passionate or dogmatic a person may be in insisting that God has no place in a civilized conversation pertaining to morality, it’s not about what you don’t believe… …it’s what you do believe. There is a “god” in this equation – there is someone who’s calling the shots and defining the standard that you deem acceptable. And it’s one of two people. It’s either the God Who created the heavens and the earth and validated His Identity by dying and coming back to life, or… …the person who’s staring back at you in the mirror every morning when you wake up.

B) There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist

Atheists want to be perceived as having an impartial approach to the various faiths represented by the American population by insisting on a “religion-less” perspective on morality. But there is no such thing as a “religion-less” approach to anything, let alone morality. From a purely philosophical standpoint, “religion” is the way in which you answer four basic questions:

  • Origin – how did the universe come to be?
  • Destiny – what happens when you die?
  • Morality – how are you supposed to behave while you’re here?
  • Purpose – what’s the point of your existence?

These are not lofty, theological issues or advanced, philosophical themes that only academic types bother to engage. The way you process yourself and the world around you on a daily basis is based on the way you answer these questions and from that standpoint, you are a “religious” person regardless of how often you go to church, if you go at all. And from that standpoint, there’s no such thing as an atheist. You’re simply your own god – you’ve established yourself as your own religion. So, when you hear critics of Christianity or social activists insist that they represent a more judicious approach to moral issues and social tensions by removing the Bible from the conversation, they’re not leveling the playing field as much as they’re giving priority to that “religious” school of thought that establishes the individual as his own deity.

C) Not All Religions are the Same

And before you allow yourself to think that there is more than one “god” to choose from, bear in mind that Christianity is the only faith where man cannot facilitate his own salvation let alone merit the favor of his chosen deity. Every other religion, be it Islam where you’ve got the option of Jihad, or as a Buddhist you have the pursuit of Nirvana or as a Hindu, you have Moksha – every other doctrine, save what’s represented by the gospel, positions the individual as the one who can achieve their own redemption. In other words, you don’t need a god to achieve the highest good or obtain a perfect existence. You can rise above the limitations of humanity simply by being, “better.” Christ, on the other hand, says there’s no amount of noble activity or disciplined sacrifice that can alter the fact that your capacity to sin translates to a perpetual willingness to rebel against the One Who created you to begin with. Solomon says as much in Ecclesiastes 7:20:

Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. (Ecc 7:20)

And Paul reiterates the same thing in Romans 3:10-18:

10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” 14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:10-18)

In short, you are a spiritual corpse (Eph 2:1-7) and it’s God and God alone that makes you alive. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that made it necessary (Jn 6:65).

D) There is No Comparison

So, no, not every religion is the same and although a person can sound articulate and even compelling as they elaborate on what it is that they don’t believe, it’s when they start elaborating on what they do believe in that the temporary and relative dynamics they they subscribe to are revealed as the veiled attempt to make mathematical absurdities, philosophical train wrecks and moral disasters sound fulfilling. Not only is not fulfilling, it isn’t even logical.

But you can’t expect anything more from a spiritual paradigm based on the limited and corrupt perspective that defines the human condition. On one hand, I have the option of believing I’m a lucky accident desperately trying to explain and validate my existence before my expiration date…

or…

I’ve been created with a purpose by an all-Powerful God Who loved me enough to sacrifice Himself in order to ensure a life that’s worth living.

There is no comparison.

I’ll take the option that defines me as an intentional creation that doesn’t depend on a human mechanism to grant me meaning, value and love.

III) Breakdown and Conclusion

So, while on the surface this issue appears to be whether or not a certain people group has the right to be happy, the real issue is whether or not they have the Authority to redefine Moral Absolutes.

Initially, that response doesn’t work because Moral Absolutes do not exist in the minds of those who maintain themselves as their own bottom line and to try and convince them otherwise is virtually impossible because of the way they frame their argument in the context of a victim. You can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain, let alone the person who’s trying to help without immediately be labeled as cruel and intolerant which gives the Homosexual Activist the ability to champion their platform without ever having to substantiate it.

But in order for your argument to resonate as compelling, you have to be able to base your reasoning on something other than personal preferences because if you don’t believe in God and the Moral Absolutes that He has established, then you’ve replaced every bottom line you would use to validate your perspective with a temporary and transient commodity that has no credibility apart from whatever substance you assign to it.

That may sound reasonable, but if everything is relative, than you yourself are relative and everything is therefore inconclusive. In short, you don’t have an argument, only a preferred alternative rooted in a self absorbed mindset that has no chance of being validated because of the way it attempts to make itself it’s own philosophical foundation. And not only is it an epic fail from a logical standpoint, the end result of a resolve to establish one’s self as their own god is an empty and altogether pointless existence compared to the Compassion and Intentional Design represented by the Message of the Gospel and the Power of God.

The Homosexual Platform is not a demand for equal rights or an innocent desire to simply be happy as much as it’s an instance of an individual going up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and telling Him to get out of their chair. They’re basically asserting themselves as the answer to the question, “Who makes the rules?” And when they do that, they’re ignoring what God has said, Who God is and who we are in relation to Him.

Half Truths and Loaded Questions

/in , , /by

I) Intro – If You Ask the Wrong Questions…

If you ask the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions and the accuracy of your answers is in direct proportion to the accuracy of your perspective.

To the right you see a series of accusations coming from the mindset of an indignant unbeliever. On the surface, one might stumble a little bit as they attempt to articulate a response. After all, some people who professed Christ as their Savior have justified some heinous acts and perspectives according to a quasi biblical sounding rationale. How do you respond and is it possible to effectively refute the indictments leveled against Christ by unbelievers who are looking to justify their lack of reverence for God?

Absolutely.

Everyone of these questions / indictments can easily be dismantled by recognizing that they’re all designed to shift the burden of responsibility from man to God and in that way insist that God is to be held accountable for the sinful actions of the persons involved.

This is a technique that is fairly common. You see it in other scenarios as well. They’re not legitimate objections as much as they are clever strategies. Consider the following:

Question: How can a loving God send someone to hell?

Answer: How can a rational person say “No” to a loving God?

Question: How can God wipe out an entire people group including women and children?

Answer: How vile was that community that they would warrant God’s wrath to that degree?

Question: Do you think you’re better than me?

Answer: It’s not whether or not I’m a better human being, it’s about whether or not your current situation could be dramatically improved by making different choices.

Question: Doesn’t the Bible say you’re not supposed to judge?

Answer: Doesn’t the Bible say that what you’re doing is wrong?

Question: Do I not have the right to be happy?

Answer: Do you not have the responsibility to be moral?

In each instance you have a tactic being deployed where the focus is redirected from the person being evaluated – be it their character or their actions – to the person doing the evaluation. It’s a brilliant scheme in that, not only are you able to minimize the substance of the offense, but by judiciously selecting your verbiage the accused is now the victim and everyone else that would be critical is now the villain.

This is where you get the intellectual sounding justification for the phrase “hate speech.” This is how unbelievers seek to, not only justify their atheism, but diminish the Presence of God in the marketplace in general. This is how the critics of the gospel are able to remove prayer from schools, manger scenes from public spaces, and our nation’s Christian heritage from academic textbooks.

What makes this issue so crucial is that even the most casual Christian has as their philosophical starting point a respect for the reality and the necessity of Absolutes: The rule of law, a respect for a person’s office, an approach to morality that’s founded on something that transcends cultural norms…

The very essence of our country is based on the fact that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable, human rights.” We justified our independence by appealing to the Absolute of the Divine Imprint that is stamped on each one of us as individuals. When you remove God from the equation, the only absolute that remains is the notion that there are no absolutes and therefore no moral barrier to stand between you and your definition of what is best and reasonable.

There are only two religions in this world: Either God is God or man is god. While it’s possible for a person to be moral apart from God, it is nevertheless their definition of morality that they subscribe to and it is their choice whether they abide by it or not. In short, they are their own absolute.

Political Foundations…

Not all Republicans are born again and not all Democrats are unbelievers. But 69% of atheists identify themselves as Democrats which makes sense given some of the talking points that are championed by the Democrat party:

While some want to insist that this is a purely legislative contest, it’s more than that. This is about the philosophical foundation upon which one builds their convictions pertaining to morality, government, finances – the human experience in general.

When you pop the hood on the debates, the protests, the headlines and the political rhetoric that shapes our culture, it is one’s regard for Divine Absolutes that forms the basis for a person’s convictions.

According to the Pew Research Center, the number of atheists in this country has doubled since 2014. When you look at:

  • the legislation that is being passed
  • the godless practices that are being promoted as acts of moral heroism
  • the increasing amount of violent protesters who force speaking engagements to be cancelled
  • the murder of those who march beneath the Republican banner
  • the public figures who “jokingly” advocate the assassination of the President of the United States

…this is more than just a discussion of one’s metaphysical temperament. This is a contest between those who would retool the moral and spiritual fabric of our country and those who seek to preserve the spiritual foundation upon which we’re built.

And it’s no longer a conversation characterized by respectful dialogue nor is it limited to Executive Orders and the federal government. It is a war between those who insist that man is God and those who maintain that God is God. Either God is the Absolute Who we look to for both policy and salvation or man is the bottom line for this life and the next.

Never before has the tension been more palpable and rarely has the sense of urgency surrounding the ability to defend one’s faith been more intense. This is article will look at some of the half truths and loaded questions circulated by atheists in an attempt to undermine the substance and the advantages represented by the Gospel.

While we will look at the questions in the introductory graphic, let’s start with one question that is often heard: “Why does God allow the innocent to suffer?”

II) Why Does God Allow the Innocent to Suffer?

According to the image you see to the right, God is cruel and indifferent. While He has the ability to step in and protect children who are being beaten by abusive fathers, He doesn’t. Instead, He ignores their pleas and allows them to be emotionally scarred and physically damaged. If God exists at all, He is worse than a joke, He’s despicable.

Going back to the observations made in the Introduction, while it’s a clever strategy it is nevertheless a pointless tactic to try and shift the blame from man to God when it comes to the sinful and heinous acts of humanity. The first question should not be, “Where is God?” The first question should be why is Timmy’s dad beating his son to begin with.

It’s Timmy’s father that needs to be held accountable for what’s happening in the home and not God. Beyond that, however, C.S. Lewis once said, “There is nothing so self defeating as a question that is not fully understood when it is fully posed.” This is an example of a question that is not fully understood in that you’re saying that unless God prevents Timmy’s father from abusing his son, then God is not the Just and Powerful Deity that the Bible proclaims Him to be. He is Just and He is Powerful, but it’s up to mankind to acknowledge Him as such.

God does not force man to comply, He gives him the ability to choose and it’s that freedom of choice that defines the human paradigm. God is not oblivious to Timmy’s situation (Matt 10:29-31) and Timmy’s father will have to answer for the way in which he has treated his son (Ps 94:23; Heb 4:13).

Secondly, while Timmy is obviously being hurt, ultimately the One Who Timmy’s father is sinning against is God (Ps 51:4; Lk 15:18). Here is where the question being asked is revealed as something that goes beyond Timmy’s welfare.

As a human being, Timmy’s dad has the ability to choose whether to honor God or to rebel. It is his job to love and protect his son (Eph 6:4). It is also his choice (Josh 24:15; Gal 5:13). Protecting Timmy, in this instance, means more than God simply preventing Timmy from being hit. It means that He has to alter the terms of the contract that He has made with every human being as far as giving them the option of either loving Him or despising Him. And that’s not going to happen (Gen 2:16-17).

On the surface, that is not an entirely satisfactory answer. Timmy still has scars. It would be great if God stepped in every time something heinous was about to occur:

  • prevent that doctor from performing that abortion
  • stop that individual from getting drunk before he gets into his car
  • change the minds of those two “consenting adults” before they commit adultery

Now you have a situation where some will attempt to qualify when God asserts Himself, but you can’t have it both ways. You’re either a human being with the ability to choose, or you’re a programed organism that’s obligated to comply.

The great thing about having an option is that when you choose to love God, it is love and the things that God designed to occur within the context of that voluntary relationship between Himself and His Creation can happen (Jn 10:10). But if it’s nothing more than a prearranged commitment, it isn’t love. There’s no relationship, there’s no interaction – there’s no pulse.

But on the other hand, in order for love to be possible, indifference and even hatred have to be viable alternatives. And the greater the distance between you and God, the more likely the thoughts and actions of one who perceives himself as his own absolute stand to become more sinister and damaging.

III) Conclusion

It’s not God’s fault that man chooses to rebel against Him. The questions atheists ask in an attempt to discredit God intentionally sidesteps the human element that is to be held accountable. And even if God were to assert Himself in order to prevent the sinful actions of humanity from occurring, He would have to alter the contract He’s made with the human race that allows love to occur in the context of a choice.

Having that option, while necessary, also allows for the antithesis of reverence and obedience to flourish. In the end, it’s not, “Why doesn’t God do something?” It’s, “Why does mankind choose to loathe his Creator, his Redeemer and his King?” If your evaluation of God assumes the presence of human flaws, then His Actions can never fully resonate as Holy let alone, Just.