"God's wounds cure, sin's kisses kill."
William Gurnall
Sunday, August 31, 2008
# 39: Andrew Murray on the Power of Sin
"One great power of sin is that it blinds men so that they do not recognize its true character."
# 38: Henry on Repentance
“Some people do not like to hear much of repentance; but I think it is so necessary that if I should die in the pulpit, I would desire to die preaching repentance, and if out of the pulpit I would desire to die practicing it.”
# 37: Oswald Chambers
"Beware of reasoning about God's Word - obey It."
"The golden rule for understanding in spiritual matters is not intellect, but obedience."
Oswald Chambers
"The golden rule for understanding in spiritual matters is not intellect, but obedience."
Oswald Chambers
Saturday, August 30, 2008
# 36: James 1
Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
# 35: Charles Colson on the Bible
Simply put, the Bible is the rock on which the Church stands or falls. The texts were written with meticulous care, based on manuscripts accumulated over the centuries before Christ—and then, by faithfully recording the apostles' teaching. Archeological discoveries are mounting, supporting the Bible's historicity.
No book has ever been so challenged nor found so reliable.
For 2,000 years, the Bible, often unaided by any human intervention, has transformed—often dramatically—the lives of those who read it: St. Augustine, St. Anthony of Egypt, Martin Luther, to name a just a few. And I have known thousands, including hardened criminals, who have read the Bible and been transformed for good.
No book has ever been so challenged nor found so reliable.
For 2,000 years, the Bible, often unaided by any human intervention, has transformed—often dramatically—the lives of those who read it: St. Augustine, St. Anthony of Egypt, Martin Luther, to name a just a few. And I have known thousands, including hardened criminals, who have read the Bible and been transformed for good.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
# 34: Déjà Vu
Advanced Thinkers
SOME animals make up for their natural weakness by their activity and audacity; they are typical of a certain order of men. Assumption goes a long way with many, and, when pretensions are vociferously made and incessantly intruded, they always secure a measure of belief. Men who affect to be of dignified rank, and superior family, and who, therefore, hold their heads high above the canaille, manage to secure a measure of homage from those who cannot see beneath the surface. There has by degrees risen up in this country a coterie, more than ordinarily pretentious, whose favorite cant is made up of such terms as these: "liberal views," "men of high culture," "persons of enlarged minds and cultivated intellects," "bonds of dogmatism and the slavery of creeds," "modern thought," and so on. That these gentlemen are not so thoroughly educated as they fancy themselves to be, is clear from their incessant boasts of their culture; that they are not free, is shrewdly guessed from their loud brags of liberty; and that they are not liberal, but intolerant to the last degree, is evident, from their superciliousness towards those poor simpletons who abide by the old faith. Jews in old times called Gentiles dogs, and Mahometans cursed unbelievers roundly; but we question whether any men, in any age, have manifested such contempt of others as is constantly evidenced towards the orthodox by the modern school of "cultured intellects." Let half a word of protest be uttered by a man who believes firmly in something, and holds by a defined doctrine, and the thunders of liberality bellow forth against the bigot. Steeped up to their very throats in that bigotry for liberality, which, of all others, is the most ferocious form of intolerance, they sneer with the contempt of affected learning at the idiots who contend for "a narrow Puritanism," and express a patronizing hope that the benighted adherents of "a half-enlightened creed" may learn more of "that charity which thinketh no evil." To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is to them an offense against the enlightenment of the nineteenth century; but, to vamp old, worn-out heresies, and pass them off for deep thinking, is to secure a high position among minds "emancipated from the fetters of traditional beliefs."
Manliness and moral courage are the attributes in which they consider themselves to excel, and they are constantly asserting that hundreds of ministers see with them, but dare not enunciate their views, and so continue to preach one thing and believe another. It may be so here and there, and the more is the cause for sorrow; but we are not sure of the statement, for the accusers themselves may, after all, fancy that they see in others what is really in themselves. The glass in their own houses should forbid their throwing stones. If they were straightforward themselves, they might call others to account; but, in too many cases, their own policy savors of the serpent in a very high degree. The charge could not be fairly brought against all, but it can be proven against many, that they have fought the battles of liberality, not with the broad sword of honest men, but with the cloak and dagger of assassins. They have occupied positions which could not be reconciled with their beliefs, and have clung to them with all the tenacity with which limpets adhere to rocks. Their testimony has, in some cases, been rendered evidently worthless, from the fact that with all their outcry against orthodoxy, they did their best to eat the bread of the orthodox, and would still have continued to profess, and yet to assail, orthodox opinions had they been permitted to do so. Whether this is honest is doubtful: that it is not manly is certain.
These gentlemen of culture have certainly adopted peculiar tactics. The misbelievers and unbelievers of former ages withdrew themselves from churches as soon as they found out they could not honestly endorse their fundamental articles; but these abide by the stuff, and great is their indignation at the creeds which render their position morally dubious. Churches have no right to believe anything; comprehensiveness is the only virtue of a denomination; precise definitions are a sin, and fundamental doctrines are a myth: this is the notion of "our foremost men." For earnest people to band themselves together to propagate what they hold to be the very truth of God, is in their eyes the miserable endeavor of bigots to stem the torrent of modern thought; for zealous Christians to contribute of their substance for the erection of a house, in which only the truths most surely believed among them shall be inculcated, is a treason against liberality; while the attempt to secure our pulpits against downright error, is a mischievous piece of persecution to be resented by all "intellectual" men. The proper course, according to their "broad views," would be to leave doctrines for the dunces who care for them. Truths there are none, but only opinions; and, therefore, cultivated ministers should be left free to trample on the most cherished beliefs, to insult convictions, no matter how long experience may have matured them, and to teach anything, everything, or nothing, as their own culture, or the current of enlightened thought may direct them. If certain old fogies object to this, let them turn out of the buildings they have erected, or subside into silence under a due sense of their inferiority.
It appears to be, now-a-days, a doubtful question whether Christian men have a right to be quite sure of anything. The Jesuit argument that some learned doctor or other has taught a certain doctrine, and that, therefore, it has some probability, is now practically prevalent. He who teaches an extravagant error is a fine, generous spirit: and, therefore, to condemn his teaching is perilous, and will certainly produce an outcry against your bigotry. Where the atonement is virtually denied, it is said that a preacher is a very clever man, and exceedingly good; and, therefore, even to whisper that he is unsound is libelous: we are assured that it would be far better to honor him for his courage in scorning to be hampered by conventional expressions. Besides, it is only his way of putting it, and the radical idea is discoverable by cultured minds. As to other doctrines, they are regarded as too trivial to be worthy of controversy, the most of them being superseded by the advancement of science and other forms of progressive enlightenment.
The right to doubt is claimed clamorously, but the right to believe is not conceded. The modern gospel runs thus: "He that believes nothing and doubts everything shall be saved." Room must be provided for every form of skepticism; but, for old-fashioned faith, a manger in a stable is too commodious. Magnified greatly is the so-called "honest doubter," but the man who holds tenaciously by ancient forms of faith is among "men of culture" voted by acclamation a fool. Hence, it becomes a sacred duty of the advanced thinker to sneer at the man of the creed, a duty which is in most cases fully discharged; and, moreover, it is equally imperative upon him to enter the synagogue of bigots, as though he were of their way of thinking, and in their very midst inveigh against their superstition, their ignorant contentedness with worm-eaten dogmas, and generally to disturb and overturn their order of things. What if they have confessions of faith? They have no right to accept them, and, therefore, let them be held up to ridicule. Men, now-a-days, occupy pulpits with the tacit understanding that they will uphold certain doctrines, and from those very pulpits they assail the faith they are pledged to defend. The plan is not to secede, but to operate from within, to worry, to insinuate, to infect. Within the walls of Troy, one Greek is worth half Agamemnon's host; let, then, the wooden horse of liberality be introduced by force or art, as best may serve the occasion. Talking evermore right boastfully of their candor and hatred of the hollowness of creeds, etc., they will remain members of churches long after they have renounced the basis of union upon which these churches are constituted. Yes, and worse; the moment they are reminded of their inconsistency they whine about being persecuted, and imagine themselves to be martyrs. If a person, holding radical sentiments, insisted upon being a member of a Conservative club, he would meet with small sympathy if the members would not allow him to remain among them, and use their organization as a means for overthrowing their cherished principles. It is a flagrant violation of liberty of conscience when a man intrudes himself into a church with which he does not agree, and demands to be allowed to remain there, and undermine its principles. Conscience he evidently has none himself; or he would not ignore his own principles by becoming an integral part of a body holding tenets which he despises; but he ought to have some honor in him as a man, and act honestly, even to the bigots whom he so greatly pities, by warring with them in fair and open battle. If a Calvinist should join a community like the Wesleyans, and should claim a right to teach Calvinism from their platforms, his expulsion would be a vindication, and not a violation, of liberty. If it be demanded that in such matters we respect the man's independence of thought, we reply that we respect it so much that we would not allow him to fetter it by a false profession, but we do not respect it, to such a degree that we would permit him to ride rough shod over all others, and render the very existence of organized Christianity impossible. We would not limit the rights of the lowest ruffian, but if he claims to enter our bed-chamber the case is altered; by his summary expulsion we may injure his highly-cultured feelings and damage his broad views, but we claim in his ejection to be advocating, rather than abridging, the rights of man. Conscience, indeed! What means it in the mouth of a man who attacks the creed of a church and yet persists in continuing in it? He would blush to use the term conscience if he had any, for he is insulting the conscience of all the true members by his impertinent intrusion. Our pity is reserved for the honest people who have the pain and trouble of ejecting the disturber with the ejected one, we have no sympathy; he had no business there, and, had he been a true man, he would not have desired to remain, nor would he even have submitted to do so had he been solicited.
This is most illiberal talk in the judgment of our liberal friends, and they will rail at it in their usual liberal manner; it is, however, plain common sense, as all can see but those who are willfully blind. While we are upon the point, it may be well to inquire into the character of the liberality which is, now-a-days, so much vaunted. What is it that these men would have us handle so liberally? Is it something which is our own, and left at our disposal? If so, let generosity be the rule. But no, it is God's truth which we are thus to deal with, the gospel which he has put us in trust with, and for which we shall have to render account. The steward who defrauded his lord was liberal; so was the thief who shared the plunder with his accomplice; and so were those in the Proverbs, who said, "let us all have one purse." If truth were ours, absolutely; if we created it, and had no responsibilities in reference to it, we might consider broad-church proposals; but, the gospel is the Lord's own, and we are only stewards of the manifold grace of God, and of stewards it is not so much required that they be liberal, but that they be found faithful. Moreover, this form of charity is both useless and dangerous. Useless, evidently, because all the agreements and unions and compromises beneath the moon can never make an error a truth, nor shift the boundary-line of God's gospel a single inch. If we basely merge one part of Scriptural teaching for the sake of charity, it is not, therefore, really merged, it will bide its time, and demand its due with terrible reprisals for our injustice towards it; for half the sorrows of the church arise from smothered truths. False doctrine is not rendered innocuous by its being winked at. God hates it whatever glosses we may put upon it; no lie is of the truth, and no charity can make it so. Either a dogma is right or wrong, it cannot be indifferent. Conferences have been held of late between Baptists and Paedobaptists, in which there has been most oily talk of mutual concessions, one is to give up this and the other that. The fit description of such transactions is mutual, or rather united, treason to God. Will the word of God shift as these conspirators give and take? Are we, after all, our own law-makers; and is there no rule of Christ extant? Is every man to do as seemeth good in his own eyes? If we, on the one side, set up immersion on our own authority, and they, on the other side, bring forward the infant on their own account, we may both very wisely drop our peculiarities, for they are of man only, and, therefore, of superstition. But, if either side can find support in God's word, woe to it if it plays false to the will of the Great Head. We quote this merely as an illustration; and, as it concerns minor matters, it the more clearly sets forth the emphatic stress which we would lay upon loyalty to truth in the weightier matters of our great Master's law. The rule of Christians is not the flickering glimmer of opinion, but the fixed law of the statute book; it is rebellion, black as the sin of witchcraft, for a man to know the law, and talk of conceding the point. In the name of the Eternal King, who is this liberal conceder, or, rather, this profane defrauder of the Lord, that he should even imagine such a thing in his heart?
Nor is it less important to remember that trifling with truth is to the last degree dangerous. No error can be imbibed without injury, nor propagated without sin. The utmost charity cannot convert another gospel into the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor deprive it of its deluding and destroying influence. There is no ground for imagining that an untruth, honestly believed, is in the least changed in its character by the sincerity of the receiver; nor may we dream that the highest culture renders a departure from revealed truth less evil in the sight of God. If you give the sick man a deadly poison instead of a healing medicine, neither your broad views of chemistry, nor his enlightened judgment upon anatomy, will prevent the drug from acting after its own nature. It may be said that the parallel does not hold, and that error is not deadly, but here we yield not, no, not for an hour. Paul pronounced a curse upon any man or angel who should preach another gospel, and he would not have done so, if other gospels were harmless. It is not so long ago that men need forget it, that the blight of Unitarian and other lax opinions withered the very soul of the Dissenting Churches; and that spirit has only to be again rampant, to repeat its mischief. Instances, grievous to our inmost heart, rise up before our memory at the moment of men seduced from their first love, and drawn aside from their fathers' gospel, who only meant to gather one tempting flower upon the brink of the precipice of error, but fell, never to be restored. No fiction do we write, as we bear record of those we have known, who first forsook the good old paths of doctrine, then the ways of evangelic usefulness, and then the enclosures of morality. In all cases, the poison has not so openly developed itself, but we fear the inner ruin has been quite as complete. In the case of public teachers, cases are not hard to find where little by little men have advanced beyond their "honest doubt," into utter blasphemy. One notorious instance will occur to all of a man, who, having ignored the creed of his church, and, indeed, all lines of fixed belief, has become the very beacon of Christendom, from the astounding nature of the blasphemy which he pours forth. In him, as a caricature of advanced thought, it is probable that we have a more telling likeness of the real evil, than we could by any other means have obtained. It may be that Providence has allowed him to proceed to the utmost lengths, that the church might see whereunto the much-vaunted intellectual school would carry us.
We are not believers in stereotyped phraseology, nor do we desire to see the reign of a stagnant uniformity; but, at this present, the perils of the church lie in another direction. The stringency of little Bethel, whatever may have been its faults, has no power to work the mischief which is now engendered by the confusion of the latitudinarian Babel. To us, at any rate, the signs of the times portend no danger greater than that which can arise from landmarks removed, ramparts thrown down, foundations shaken, and doctrinal chaos paramount.
We have written this much, because silence is reckoned as consent, and pride unrebuked lifts up its horn on high, and becomes more insolent still. Let our opponents cease, if they can, to sneer at Puritans whose learning and piety were incomparably superior to their own; and, let them remember that the names, which have adorned the school of orthodoxy, are illustrious enough to render scorn of their opinions, rather a mark of imbecility than of intellect. To differ is one thing, but to despise is another. If they will not be right, at least, let them be civil, if they prefer to be neither, let them not imagine that the whole world is gone after them. Their forces are not so potent as they dream, the old faith is rooted deep in the minds of tens of thousands, and it will renew its youth, when the present phase of error shall be only a memory, and barely that.
by C. H. SpurgeonFrom the November 1871 Sword and Trowel
SOME animals make up for their natural weakness by their activity and audacity; they are typical of a certain order of men. Assumption goes a long way with many, and, when pretensions are vociferously made and incessantly intruded, they always secure a measure of belief. Men who affect to be of dignified rank, and superior family, and who, therefore, hold their heads high above the canaille, manage to secure a measure of homage from those who cannot see beneath the surface. There has by degrees risen up in this country a coterie, more than ordinarily pretentious, whose favorite cant is made up of such terms as these: "liberal views," "men of high culture," "persons of enlarged minds and cultivated intellects," "bonds of dogmatism and the slavery of creeds," "modern thought," and so on. That these gentlemen are not so thoroughly educated as they fancy themselves to be, is clear from their incessant boasts of their culture; that they are not free, is shrewdly guessed from their loud brags of liberty; and that they are not liberal, but intolerant to the last degree, is evident, from their superciliousness towards those poor simpletons who abide by the old faith. Jews in old times called Gentiles dogs, and Mahometans cursed unbelievers roundly; but we question whether any men, in any age, have manifested such contempt of others as is constantly evidenced towards the orthodox by the modern school of "cultured intellects." Let half a word of protest be uttered by a man who believes firmly in something, and holds by a defined doctrine, and the thunders of liberality bellow forth against the bigot. Steeped up to their very throats in that bigotry for liberality, which, of all others, is the most ferocious form of intolerance, they sneer with the contempt of affected learning at the idiots who contend for "a narrow Puritanism," and express a patronizing hope that the benighted adherents of "a half-enlightened creed" may learn more of "that charity which thinketh no evil." To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is to them an offense against the enlightenment of the nineteenth century; but, to vamp old, worn-out heresies, and pass them off for deep thinking, is to secure a high position among minds "emancipated from the fetters of traditional beliefs."
Manliness and moral courage are the attributes in which they consider themselves to excel, and they are constantly asserting that hundreds of ministers see with them, but dare not enunciate their views, and so continue to preach one thing and believe another. It may be so here and there, and the more is the cause for sorrow; but we are not sure of the statement, for the accusers themselves may, after all, fancy that they see in others what is really in themselves. The glass in their own houses should forbid their throwing stones. If they were straightforward themselves, they might call others to account; but, in too many cases, their own policy savors of the serpent in a very high degree. The charge could not be fairly brought against all, but it can be proven against many, that they have fought the battles of liberality, not with the broad sword of honest men, but with the cloak and dagger of assassins. They have occupied positions which could not be reconciled with their beliefs, and have clung to them with all the tenacity with which limpets adhere to rocks. Their testimony has, in some cases, been rendered evidently worthless, from the fact that with all their outcry against orthodoxy, they did their best to eat the bread of the orthodox, and would still have continued to profess, and yet to assail, orthodox opinions had they been permitted to do so. Whether this is honest is doubtful: that it is not manly is certain.
These gentlemen of culture have certainly adopted peculiar tactics. The misbelievers and unbelievers of former ages withdrew themselves from churches as soon as they found out they could not honestly endorse their fundamental articles; but these abide by the stuff, and great is their indignation at the creeds which render their position morally dubious. Churches have no right to believe anything; comprehensiveness is the only virtue of a denomination; precise definitions are a sin, and fundamental doctrines are a myth: this is the notion of "our foremost men." For earnest people to band themselves together to propagate what they hold to be the very truth of God, is in their eyes the miserable endeavor of bigots to stem the torrent of modern thought; for zealous Christians to contribute of their substance for the erection of a house, in which only the truths most surely believed among them shall be inculcated, is a treason against liberality; while the attempt to secure our pulpits against downright error, is a mischievous piece of persecution to be resented by all "intellectual" men. The proper course, according to their "broad views," would be to leave doctrines for the dunces who care for them. Truths there are none, but only opinions; and, therefore, cultivated ministers should be left free to trample on the most cherished beliefs, to insult convictions, no matter how long experience may have matured them, and to teach anything, everything, or nothing, as their own culture, or the current of enlightened thought may direct them. If certain old fogies object to this, let them turn out of the buildings they have erected, or subside into silence under a due sense of their inferiority.
It appears to be, now-a-days, a doubtful question whether Christian men have a right to be quite sure of anything. The Jesuit argument that some learned doctor or other has taught a certain doctrine, and that, therefore, it has some probability, is now practically prevalent. He who teaches an extravagant error is a fine, generous spirit: and, therefore, to condemn his teaching is perilous, and will certainly produce an outcry against your bigotry. Where the atonement is virtually denied, it is said that a preacher is a very clever man, and exceedingly good; and, therefore, even to whisper that he is unsound is libelous: we are assured that it would be far better to honor him for his courage in scorning to be hampered by conventional expressions. Besides, it is only his way of putting it, and the radical idea is discoverable by cultured minds. As to other doctrines, they are regarded as too trivial to be worthy of controversy, the most of them being superseded by the advancement of science and other forms of progressive enlightenment.
The right to doubt is claimed clamorously, but the right to believe is not conceded. The modern gospel runs thus: "He that believes nothing and doubts everything shall be saved." Room must be provided for every form of skepticism; but, for old-fashioned faith, a manger in a stable is too commodious. Magnified greatly is the so-called "honest doubter," but the man who holds tenaciously by ancient forms of faith is among "men of culture" voted by acclamation a fool. Hence, it becomes a sacred duty of the advanced thinker to sneer at the man of the creed, a duty which is in most cases fully discharged; and, moreover, it is equally imperative upon him to enter the synagogue of bigots, as though he were of their way of thinking, and in their very midst inveigh against their superstition, their ignorant contentedness with worm-eaten dogmas, and generally to disturb and overturn their order of things. What if they have confessions of faith? They have no right to accept them, and, therefore, let them be held up to ridicule. Men, now-a-days, occupy pulpits with the tacit understanding that they will uphold certain doctrines, and from those very pulpits they assail the faith they are pledged to defend. The plan is not to secede, but to operate from within, to worry, to insinuate, to infect. Within the walls of Troy, one Greek is worth half Agamemnon's host; let, then, the wooden horse of liberality be introduced by force or art, as best may serve the occasion. Talking evermore right boastfully of their candor and hatred of the hollowness of creeds, etc., they will remain members of churches long after they have renounced the basis of union upon which these churches are constituted. Yes, and worse; the moment they are reminded of their inconsistency they whine about being persecuted, and imagine themselves to be martyrs. If a person, holding radical sentiments, insisted upon being a member of a Conservative club, he would meet with small sympathy if the members would not allow him to remain among them, and use their organization as a means for overthrowing their cherished principles. It is a flagrant violation of liberty of conscience when a man intrudes himself into a church with which he does not agree, and demands to be allowed to remain there, and undermine its principles. Conscience he evidently has none himself; or he would not ignore his own principles by becoming an integral part of a body holding tenets which he despises; but he ought to have some honor in him as a man, and act honestly, even to the bigots whom he so greatly pities, by warring with them in fair and open battle. If a Calvinist should join a community like the Wesleyans, and should claim a right to teach Calvinism from their platforms, his expulsion would be a vindication, and not a violation, of liberty. If it be demanded that in such matters we respect the man's independence of thought, we reply that we respect it so much that we would not allow him to fetter it by a false profession, but we do not respect it, to such a degree that we would permit him to ride rough shod over all others, and render the very existence of organized Christianity impossible. We would not limit the rights of the lowest ruffian, but if he claims to enter our bed-chamber the case is altered; by his summary expulsion we may injure his highly-cultured feelings and damage his broad views, but we claim in his ejection to be advocating, rather than abridging, the rights of man. Conscience, indeed! What means it in the mouth of a man who attacks the creed of a church and yet persists in continuing in it? He would blush to use the term conscience if he had any, for he is insulting the conscience of all the true members by his impertinent intrusion. Our pity is reserved for the honest people who have the pain and trouble of ejecting the disturber with the ejected one, we have no sympathy; he had no business there, and, had he been a true man, he would not have desired to remain, nor would he even have submitted to do so had he been solicited.
This is most illiberal talk in the judgment of our liberal friends, and they will rail at it in their usual liberal manner; it is, however, plain common sense, as all can see but those who are willfully blind. While we are upon the point, it may be well to inquire into the character of the liberality which is, now-a-days, so much vaunted. What is it that these men would have us handle so liberally? Is it something which is our own, and left at our disposal? If so, let generosity be the rule. But no, it is God's truth which we are thus to deal with, the gospel which he has put us in trust with, and for which we shall have to render account. The steward who defrauded his lord was liberal; so was the thief who shared the plunder with his accomplice; and so were those in the Proverbs, who said, "let us all have one purse." If truth were ours, absolutely; if we created it, and had no responsibilities in reference to it, we might consider broad-church proposals; but, the gospel is the Lord's own, and we are only stewards of the manifold grace of God, and of stewards it is not so much required that they be liberal, but that they be found faithful. Moreover, this form of charity is both useless and dangerous. Useless, evidently, because all the agreements and unions and compromises beneath the moon can never make an error a truth, nor shift the boundary-line of God's gospel a single inch. If we basely merge one part of Scriptural teaching for the sake of charity, it is not, therefore, really merged, it will bide its time, and demand its due with terrible reprisals for our injustice towards it; for half the sorrows of the church arise from smothered truths. False doctrine is not rendered innocuous by its being winked at. God hates it whatever glosses we may put upon it; no lie is of the truth, and no charity can make it so. Either a dogma is right or wrong, it cannot be indifferent. Conferences have been held of late between Baptists and Paedobaptists, in which there has been most oily talk of mutual concessions, one is to give up this and the other that. The fit description of such transactions is mutual, or rather united, treason to God. Will the word of God shift as these conspirators give and take? Are we, after all, our own law-makers; and is there no rule of Christ extant? Is every man to do as seemeth good in his own eyes? If we, on the one side, set up immersion on our own authority, and they, on the other side, bring forward the infant on their own account, we may both very wisely drop our peculiarities, for they are of man only, and, therefore, of superstition. But, if either side can find support in God's word, woe to it if it plays false to the will of the Great Head. We quote this merely as an illustration; and, as it concerns minor matters, it the more clearly sets forth the emphatic stress which we would lay upon loyalty to truth in the weightier matters of our great Master's law. The rule of Christians is not the flickering glimmer of opinion, but the fixed law of the statute book; it is rebellion, black as the sin of witchcraft, for a man to know the law, and talk of conceding the point. In the name of the Eternal King, who is this liberal conceder, or, rather, this profane defrauder of the Lord, that he should even imagine such a thing in his heart?
Nor is it less important to remember that trifling with truth is to the last degree dangerous. No error can be imbibed without injury, nor propagated without sin. The utmost charity cannot convert another gospel into the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor deprive it of its deluding and destroying influence. There is no ground for imagining that an untruth, honestly believed, is in the least changed in its character by the sincerity of the receiver; nor may we dream that the highest culture renders a departure from revealed truth less evil in the sight of God. If you give the sick man a deadly poison instead of a healing medicine, neither your broad views of chemistry, nor his enlightened judgment upon anatomy, will prevent the drug from acting after its own nature. It may be said that the parallel does not hold, and that error is not deadly, but here we yield not, no, not for an hour. Paul pronounced a curse upon any man or angel who should preach another gospel, and he would not have done so, if other gospels were harmless. It is not so long ago that men need forget it, that the blight of Unitarian and other lax opinions withered the very soul of the Dissenting Churches; and that spirit has only to be again rampant, to repeat its mischief. Instances, grievous to our inmost heart, rise up before our memory at the moment of men seduced from their first love, and drawn aside from their fathers' gospel, who only meant to gather one tempting flower upon the brink of the precipice of error, but fell, never to be restored. No fiction do we write, as we bear record of those we have known, who first forsook the good old paths of doctrine, then the ways of evangelic usefulness, and then the enclosures of morality. In all cases, the poison has not so openly developed itself, but we fear the inner ruin has been quite as complete. In the case of public teachers, cases are not hard to find where little by little men have advanced beyond their "honest doubt," into utter blasphemy. One notorious instance will occur to all of a man, who, having ignored the creed of his church, and, indeed, all lines of fixed belief, has become the very beacon of Christendom, from the astounding nature of the blasphemy which he pours forth. In him, as a caricature of advanced thought, it is probable that we have a more telling likeness of the real evil, than we could by any other means have obtained. It may be that Providence has allowed him to proceed to the utmost lengths, that the church might see whereunto the much-vaunted intellectual school would carry us.
We are not believers in stereotyped phraseology, nor do we desire to see the reign of a stagnant uniformity; but, at this present, the perils of the church lie in another direction. The stringency of little Bethel, whatever may have been its faults, has no power to work the mischief which is now engendered by the confusion of the latitudinarian Babel. To us, at any rate, the signs of the times portend no danger greater than that which can arise from landmarks removed, ramparts thrown down, foundations shaken, and doctrinal chaos paramount.
We have written this much, because silence is reckoned as consent, and pride unrebuked lifts up its horn on high, and becomes more insolent still. Let our opponents cease, if they can, to sneer at Puritans whose learning and piety were incomparably superior to their own; and, let them remember that the names, which have adorned the school of orthodoxy, are illustrious enough to render scorn of their opinions, rather a mark of imbecility than of intellect. To differ is one thing, but to despise is another. If they will not be right, at least, let them be civil, if they prefer to be neither, let them not imagine that the whole world is gone after them. Their forces are not so potent as they dream, the old faith is rooted deep in the minds of tens of thousands, and it will renew its youth, when the present phase of error shall be only a memory, and barely that.
by C. H. SpurgeonFrom the November 1871 Sword and Trowel
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
# 33: Augustine of Hippo
Let us therefore yield ourselves and bow to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which can neither err nor deceive.
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine of Hippo
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
# 32: A Turning Point
We have come to a turning point in the road. If we turn to the right mayhap our children and our children's children will go that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and to His Word.
Charles Spurgeon
# 31: Jesus Didn't Go To The Brothel
Much is made of the acceptance and welcome Jesus offered to tax collectors and sinners, prostitutes and the like. The 100 revs would like to draw a direct link between this and their proudly marching at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
But we don't have to ask what would Jesus do? We can ask what did Jesus do?
Jesus never visited a brothel. Jesus never joined in an orgy. Jesus never went to a Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. It is obscene to suggest that Jesus would have gone.
Let's have a look at the verses that are trotted out to invoke "Jesus' compassion" as a motive for attending the Mardi Gras and promoting homosexuality and promiscuity.
Matthew 11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions."
Matthew 9:10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples.
- Notice that in Matthew 11 Jesus is quoting his critics. This is what they say about him.
- In the previous verse, Jesus also quotes the critics of John the Baptist who found him as too ascetic, they said he had a demon.
- In this contrast Jesus is making the point that neither is actually true, but is only the false perception of his critics.
- It is sadly ironic that today the ones who hold this false perception of the libertine Jesus are actually claiming to be his followers.
- In the second verse we see Jesus was in Matthew's house after he obeyed Jesus call to discipleship. Further, the tax collectors and sinners came to him, while he was at Matthew's house. he welcomed them, but he did not go to their orgy.
Jesus was not just a friend of tax collectors and prostitutes, he called tax collectors and prostitutes to repentance.
But lest we be accused of drawing distinctions where none exist. The fact that Jesus was quoting his critics and that the tax collectors came to him is may be regarded by the liberals as fine points that feel unconvincing. It's called considering the context, but it happens so rarely these days. Let's take a survey, then, to get a more objective understanding of what happened when Jesus met sinners.
| Levi the Tax Collector | Repented - gave back his money |
| The woman in Adultery | Jesus called her to repent "leave your life of sin" |
| Matthew in his Booth | Jesus called him to "follow me" and he did |
| The woman at the well | Jesus confronted her about her promiscuity" |
If you are still not convinced. As your self what was the theme of Jesus' message? What did Jesus talk about most of all? If your answer is not repentance, go back and read your Bible again.
Back to Matthew 11:19-20 to finish of the quotation:
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions."
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.
# 30: Spurgeon
"Better that Demas should forsake us, than that he should abide with us, and import the world into the church"
(Charles Spurgeon, An All-Round Ministry, p. 295).
(Charles Spurgeon, An All-Round Ministry, p. 295).
# 29: Imitating the World (3 John 1)
If everyone in the world thought homosexuality was healthy and happy, would that make a difference to a Christian?
3 John 1:11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.
No. A Christian does not imitate evil.
And this verse forces us to ask if 'Christians' who practice homosexuality, who say homosexuality is healthy, happy and normal and teach others the same are really believers at all.
Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.
3 John 1:11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.
No. A Christian does not imitate evil.
And this verse forces us to ask if 'Christians' who practice homosexuality, who say homosexuality is healthy, happy and normal and teach others the same are really believers at all.
Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.
# 28: Drowning
Some Christians might read the 100 revs apology and find it a little difficult to see what the problem is.
Let me help you see what is wrong.
Some thirty of the clergy who signed statement also marched at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Is that what Christians should do?
This is what Christians should do:
1Thessalonians 5:22 Avoid every kind of evil.
Can these verses below describe a minister who marches at a Gay and Lesbian Mardis Gras?
1Peter 4:1-4 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.
Let me help you see what is wrong.
Some thirty of the clergy who signed statement also marched at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Is that what Christians should do?
This is what Christians should do:
1Thessalonians 5:22 Avoid every kind of evil.
Can these verses below describe a minister who marches at a Gay and Lesbian Mardis Gras?
1Peter 4:1-4 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.
Or does this verse come too late:
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
# 27: Another Apology
As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, is rapidly becoming a place of no support for Christians struggling with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) issues. Indeed the church is becoming profoundly unhelpful in transforming GLBT to godliness. For these things we apologise, whatever the distinctive of our Christian position on the role of man in his sanctification – to which we remain committed. We are deeply sorry and ask for the forgiveness of those with GLBT issues. We long that the church would be a place of faithfulness for all people and commit ourselves to pursuing and teaching godliness in all aspects of life.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical relation between justification and sanctification.
We ARE recognising the lack of teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness that the churches have offered the gay and lesbian community in recent times.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical relation between justification and sanctification.
We ARE recognising the lack of teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness that the churches have offered the gay and lesbian community in recent times.
# 26: Another Apology
As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, are not in agreement with our statement. Indeed the church has always held profoundly different views to our own. For these things we apologise, whatever the pastoral concerns that led to this colossal blunder – to which pastoral concerns we remain committed. We are deeply sorry and ask for the forgiveness of the church community. We long that the church would be a place of robust thought by all Christians and commit ourselves to eliminating feel-good statements that compromise the church's holiness.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on church discipline.
We ARE recognising the lack of forethought, Biblical responsibility, and Christian orthodoxy that went into the apology to the gay and lesbian community.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on church discipline.
We ARE recognising the lack of forethought, Biblical responsibility, and Christian orthodoxy that went into the apology to the gay and lesbian community.
# 25: An Apology
As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, have not always been places of welcome for the word of God (Bible). Indeed the church has often been profoundly hardhearted to the Bible's message. For these things we apologise, whatever the distinctive of our Christian position on human responsibility – to which we remain committed. We are deeply sorry and ask for the forgiveness of God himself. We long that the church would be a place of welcome for God's word and commit ourselves to pursuing faithful obedience.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on biblical authority.
We ARE recognising the lack of honesty, integrity and obedience with which the churches have handled the revealed word of God.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on biblical authority.
We ARE recognising the lack of honesty, integrity and obedience with which the churches have handled the revealed word of God.
Friday, August 22, 2008
# 24: Go the Saints (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8)
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
1 Thessalonians 4:3-8
Notice a few things:
Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
1 Thessalonians 4:3-8
Notice a few things:
- It is plain that Christians are to avoid sexual immorality.
- We are to control our bodies (not other way around)
- We are not to be like the heathen (unbelievers) who do not know God.
- Passionate lust like that of the heathen has no place in our lives.
- The Christian is called to live a holy life not to be impure.
- Men will be punished fro such sins (like cheating others and sexual immorality)
- If you reject the Bible' teaching on sexual immorality you actually reject God.
Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
# 23: Galatians 5:16-31
Galatians 5:16-31
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
#22 Romans 1 says it right -
"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."
This type of perversion was already described and predicted. Yes, it is a perversion! It is unnatural, it is lustful, it is indecent and it will not go unpunished.
If it was so clear then, says it clearly now (in every translation), why is it so hard to understand? Why do we have to try and ignore the clear Biblical view on this issue?
We certainly have the wolves amongst us!
This type of perversion was already described and predicted. Yes, it is a perversion! It is unnatural, it is lustful, it is indecent and it will not go unpunished.
If it was so clear then, says it clearly now (in every translation), why is it so hard to understand? Why do we have to try and ignore the clear Biblical view on this issue?
We certainly have the wolves amongst us!
no. 21 Has God changed his mind?
Hebrews 13:4-8
4Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."[a] 6So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"[b]
7Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
For some strange reason we think that God has changed his mind on the issue of Homosexuality. According to this passage, Jesus never changes, and it is also in the context of immorality. Note that it upholds the concept of marriage, keeping pure because God will judge the immoral. To try and change the understanding of Scripture based on modern philosophy is a highly dangerous manouvre. God does not change, what he hated back then he hates even now, now matter how much we try and reason it away. We are not permitted to change the Word of God - we do not have any idea what ramifications that will have. James 3:1 says, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more severely than others." When we choose to twist God's word, we bring extra shame on ourselves and we also bring shame on the whole church.
4Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."[a] 6So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"[b]
7Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
For some strange reason we think that God has changed his mind on the issue of Homosexuality. According to this passage, Jesus never changes, and it is also in the context of immorality. Note that it upholds the concept of marriage, keeping pure because God will judge the immoral. To try and change the understanding of Scripture based on modern philosophy is a highly dangerous manouvre. God does not change, what he hated back then he hates even now, now matter how much we try and reason it away. We are not permitted to change the Word of God - we do not have any idea what ramifications that will have. James 3:1 says, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more severely than others." When we choose to twist God's word, we bring extra shame on ourselves and we also bring shame on the whole church.
Monday, August 18, 2008
#20: Mythological Translations
A comment on the 100 revs blog responds to a previous quote of 1 Corinthians 6:9 with this:
Natasha, have a read of different translations of that verse of 1 Corinthians, and the majority of them won't mention 'homosexuals' because most translators don't agree that's what the original Greek word means.
This is very very bad work. There are a very few modern dissenters who do not think the text refers to homosexuals. They all come from the gay lobby, or sympathise.
It doesn't matter what the majority of translators think, what matters is sound translation principles. Studying the word in it's context, it's root, its usage. Arriving at a reasonable and defensible translation.
Homosexual is the reasonable, defensible translation. In fact it is demanded by the usage of the word. It is well attested and clearly understood.
Trevor (who wrote the comment) is engaging in wishful thinking scholarship. It goes like this:
Natasha, have a read of different translations of that verse of 1 Corinthians, and the majority of them won't mention 'homosexuals' because most translators don't agree that's what the original Greek word means.
This is very very bad work. There are a very few modern dissenters who do not think the text refers to homosexuals. They all come from the gay lobby, or sympathise.
It doesn't matter what the majority of translators think, what matters is sound translation principles. Studying the word in it's context, it's root, its usage. Arriving at a reasonable and defensible translation.
Homosexual is the reasonable, defensible translation. In fact it is demanded by the usage of the word. It is well attested and clearly understood.
Trevor (who wrote the comment) is engaging in wishful thinking scholarship. It goes like this:
Step 1: An insignificant number of people with an agenda develop an alternative proposal through hand waving and blindfold exegesis.
Step 2: They promote this interpretation with friends with a sympathetic view.
Step 3: This unjustifiable translation circulates through the sympathetic community who do not check to see that it has been disproved and debunked by serious (independent) scholars.
Step 4: All of a sudden there is "debate among the scholars" and "most translators don't agree" etc etc etc.
For the sake of thoroughness, however, lets have a look at a few translations.
American Standard Version
1Co 6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
Darby Bible
1Co 6:9 Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
New Living Translation
1Co 6:9 Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
New American Standard Bible
1CO 6:9 Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,
New Revised Standard Version
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,
Amplified Bible
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
King James Version (Authorised)
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
New International Version
1Co 6:9 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
Not a lot to that argument was there.
For the sake of thoroughness, however, lets have a look at a few translations.
American Standard Version
1Co 6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
Darby Bible
1Co 6:9 Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
New Living Translation
1Co 6:9 Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
New American Standard Bible
1CO 6:9 Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,
New Revised Standard Version
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,
Amplified Bible
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
King James Version (Authorised)
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
New International Version
1Co 6:9 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
Not a lot to that argument was there.
It's either homosexual, sodomite (a blunt and derogatory word for homosexual) or abuser of self with men (a more polite way of saying homosexual).
Different ways of putting homosexual does not indicate that there is dispute over whether it means homosexual.
Different ways of putting homosexual does not indicate that there is dispute over whether it means homosexual.
#19: Leviticus 18:22
‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'
This command lies in a whole section of law related to sexual and relational conduct.
It lies amidst prohibitions on sex with close relatives and sex with animals, and offering children to Molech.
The unifying theme is that this kind of conduct is what the former residents of the land used to get up to. This is not what Israel are to be like. They are not to be like this because they belong to God. Anyone who engages in these practices has no place in the people of Israel.
Christians also belong to God.
The context has changed. But the nature of these practices has not. New Testament Scriptures confirm that these practices remain detestable to the holy people of God.
There is no place for someone who engages in homosexual practices in the church
This command lies in a whole section of law related to sexual and relational conduct.
It lies amidst prohibitions on sex with close relatives and sex with animals, and offering children to Molech.
The unifying theme is that this kind of conduct is what the former residents of the land used to get up to. This is not what Israel are to be like. They are not to be like this because they belong to God. Anyone who engages in these practices has no place in the people of Israel.
Christians also belong to God.
The context has changed. But the nature of these practices has not. New Testament Scriptures confirm that these practices remain detestable to the holy people of God.
There is no place for someone who engages in homosexual practices in the church
#18: Arsenokoitai
The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is arsenokoitai. Some will try to say that this doesn't mean homosexual.
There's nothing else it can mean.
Look at the word,
Arsen - which means man. Plain clear.
Koite - bed (the marriage bed in particular) and sexual intercourse
arsenokoitai means a man who engages in man-sex.
So that Bauer's lexicon reads, "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite."
The person who practices homosexual activity has no place in the kingdom of heaven.
There's nothing else it can mean.
Look at the word,
Arsen - which means man. Plain clear.
Koite - bed (the marriage bed in particular) and sexual intercourse
arsenokoitai means a man who engages in man-sex.
So that Bauer's lexicon reads, "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite."
The person who practices homosexual activity has no place in the kingdom of heaven.
#17: The Battle Of The Bulge
Sometimes people will ask, "Why do Christians get so upset about homosexuality?" This may be contrasted with the sin of adultery, Christians don't go on as much about that do they?
This criticism may come in the form of a statement, "I'm not as concerned about what goes on between consenting adults, I think there's enough to worry about with all the poverty and injustice in the world."
So why are right thinking Biblical Christians causing so much of a fuss over this issue. Is it just our homophobia?
No.
This is just where the battle is.
It didn't make sense for the Americans to fight the Germans on such a wide front in the second world war. The Battle of the Bulge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge) was difficult and bloody, but it was where the Germans were pressing the attack so it is where the Allies had to stand and fight.
The argument over homosexuality in the church is really a battle about the Bible. The conservatives are fighting over the principle that the Bible is the final authority over doctrine and practice. That is, the Bible tells you what to do and and what to believe.
One of the things the Bible says quite clearly, emphatically and consistently is that homosexuality is wrong.
So when a Christians claims that homosexual activity is alright, they are departing from the Bible, blatantly. This is something Christians cannot do and remain true to their calling. So that is why Bible believing Christians oppose the homosexual lobby in the church.
Martin Luther is quoted as saying,
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." Weimar Ausgabe Briefwechsel 3, 81f.
In my opinion, adultery is probably a greater issue in the church (in terms of frequency of occurrence) but there is nobody who seriously stands up and says adultery is OK. (Yet!)
But there are plenty of voices calling for the acceptance of homosexuality in the church.
This is just where the church is leaving the rails, so this is where we have to try to get it back on track.
This criticism may come in the form of a statement, "I'm not as concerned about what goes on between consenting adults, I think there's enough to worry about with all the poverty and injustice in the world."
So why are right thinking Biblical Christians causing so much of a fuss over this issue. Is it just our homophobia?
No.
This is just where the battle is.
It didn't make sense for the Americans to fight the Germans on such a wide front in the second world war. The Battle of the Bulge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge) was difficult and bloody, but it was where the Germans were pressing the attack so it is where the Allies had to stand and fight.
The argument over homosexuality in the church is really a battle about the Bible. The conservatives are fighting over the principle that the Bible is the final authority over doctrine and practice. That is, the Bible tells you what to do and and what to believe.
One of the things the Bible says quite clearly, emphatically and consistently is that homosexuality is wrong.
So when a Christians claims that homosexual activity is alright, they are departing from the Bible, blatantly. This is something Christians cannot do and remain true to their calling. So that is why Bible believing Christians oppose the homosexual lobby in the church.
Martin Luther is quoted as saying,
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." Weimar Ausgabe Briefwechsel 3, 81f.
In my opinion, adultery is probably a greater issue in the church (in terms of frequency of occurrence) but there is nobody who seriously stands up and says adultery is OK. (Yet!)
But there are plenty of voices calling for the acceptance of homosexuality in the church.
This is just where the church is leaving the rails, so this is where we have to try to get it back on track.
Jude : 3-7
The sin and doom of Godless men
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
The 100 revs have also forgotten how seriously the writer of Jude speaks against all forms of immorality that will secretly slip in amongst us - but specifically mentions the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. We all know that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and other immoral acts - but this is a direct reference to the result of this - punishment by eternal fire. The passage also warns us that people will try and get some form of licence to practice their immorality in the church by changing the grace of God..... yep that would be right! The 100 revs seem to think that God's grace allows sexual immorality into church. Sorry, not so! God is very careful to tell us to keep ourselves pure.
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
The 100 revs have also forgotten how seriously the writer of Jude speaks against all forms of immorality that will secretly slip in amongst us - but specifically mentions the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. We all know that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and other immoral acts - but this is a direct reference to the result of this - punishment by eternal fire. The passage also warns us that people will try and get some form of licence to practice their immorality in the church by changing the grace of God..... yep that would be right! The 100 revs seem to think that God's grace allows sexual immorality into church. Sorry, not so! God is very careful to tell us to keep ourselves pure.
#16: Sincere Love (Romans 12:9)
They say, "Where is the love? How can these conservative Christians be so unloving? Where is the love of Jesus in their harsh words?"
How do you love?
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Romans 12:9
Did you notice that? Love does not contrast with hate. The Bible exhorts us to love and hate and cling, all in the same verse. But we are specifically told what we are to hate.
Hate evil.
Cling to Good.
It is not the conservatives who do not love. In fact, it is the libertines who cannot love. If you hate good and cling to what is evil, you cannot love.
How do you love?
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Romans 12:9
Did you notice that? Love does not contrast with hate. The Bible exhorts us to love and hate and cling, all in the same verse. But we are specifically told what we are to hate.
Hate evil.
Cling to Good.
It is not the conservatives who do not love. In fact, it is the libertines who cannot love. If you hate good and cling to what is evil, you cannot love.
But hating evil, calling it what it is, clinging to good and exhorting others to the same, that is when you are able to express true brotherly love.
If you hate Narcan (for example), but cling to Heroin, how can you love the addict?
If you hate heroin, and cling to Narcan, then you can love the addict.
If you hate homosexuality, and stick to faithfulness and chastity, then you can love the homosexual.
If you hate heroin, and cling to Narcan, then you can love the addict.
If you hate homosexuality, and stick to faithfulness and chastity, then you can love the homosexual.
#15: Romans 12:1-2
Romans 12:1-2
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
We are not to be shaped by the world. We do not think as the world thinks, we do not act as the world acts.
Our world is currently redefining homosexuality as normal. Our world actively promotes homosexuality as normal. Our world promotes homosexuality as healthy and happy.
That should have no influence whatsoever on our thinking. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world.
Our understanding of sin, our definition of wrong, our ideas of acceptable behaviour are to come from the Scriptures, which clearly state that homosexual practice is a sin.
As homosexuality is a sin (as is adultery, idolatry etc) how are we to act?
"offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God"
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
We are not to be shaped by the world. We do not think as the world thinks, we do not act as the world acts.
Our world is currently redefining homosexuality as normal. Our world actively promotes homosexuality as normal. Our world promotes homosexuality as healthy and happy.
That should have no influence whatsoever on our thinking. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world.
Our understanding of sin, our definition of wrong, our ideas of acceptable behaviour are to come from the Scriptures, which clearly state that homosexual practice is a sin.
As homosexuality is a sin (as is adultery, idolatry etc) how are we to act?
"offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God"
#14: Romans 6
Romans 6:1-4
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
We become dead to sin by repenting of sin, not by redefining it. There is no place for sin, for the way of the former life, for the way of the world in the Christians life.
We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
We become dead to sin by repenting of sin, not by redefining it. There is no place for sin, for the way of the former life, for the way of the world in the Christians life.
We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
#13 Romans 1
Romans 1:26-17 are pretty clear.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 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.
Homosexual acts are:
shameful,
unnatural,
products of lust,
indecent,
a fruit of perversion and
receive judgement.
But why do these things happen? What is the root of this kind of behaviour? God explains why these thing happen in verse 25:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Now Paul is probably referring to idol worship and false religion- imagine Buddhas and things like that. But doesn't our western culture (at it's worst) worship the created thing - human body, human pleasure, human wisdom - rather than the creator.
The 100 revs have (or are in extreme danger of doing so) exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
The Bible clearly states that homosexual activity is a sin. The 100 revs wish to redefine it as acceptable in the church. I fear for the consequence that may be the judgement on that particular example of exchanging the truth of God for a lie.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 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.
Homosexual acts are:
shameful,
unnatural,
products of lust,
indecent,
a fruit of perversion and
receive judgement.
But why do these things happen? What is the root of this kind of behaviour? God explains why these thing happen in verse 25:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Now Paul is probably referring to idol worship and false religion- imagine Buddhas and things like that. But doesn't our western culture (at it's worst) worship the created thing - human body, human pleasure, human wisdom - rather than the creator.
The 100 revs have (or are in extreme danger of doing so) exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
The Bible clearly states that homosexual activity is a sin. The 100 revs wish to redefine it as acceptable in the church. I fear for the consequence that may be the judgement on that particular example of exchanging the truth of God for a lie.
Friday, August 15, 2008
#12: The Leaning Theology of Pisa
The 100 revs have tried to protect their theological integrity.
They have added clauses to their apology that reserve the right for each of them to hold their distinctive theologies and that seek to distance themselves from any particular Biblical interpretation.
So perhaps some signatories think of themsleves as orthodox.
Some of the signiatories have their roots in orthodox protestant denominations, some might even regard themselves as evangelical.
But when you see a place for homosexual behaviour in the church. When you feel the church has to apologise to the homosexual community for not accepting homosexuals as is, your theology is leaning so far over that it is in grave danger of leaving contact with its foundations.
It may feel like it's standing now, but it's just a matter of time. And as ministers they should be thinking about who their theology is going to land on and who it might drag with them when it collapses.
They have added clauses to their apology that reserve the right for each of them to hold their distinctive theologies and that seek to distance themselves from any particular Biblical interpretation.
So perhaps some signatories think of themsleves as orthodox.
Some of the signiatories have their roots in orthodox protestant denominations, some might even regard themselves as evangelical.
But when you see a place for homosexual behaviour in the church. When you feel the church has to apologise to the homosexual community for not accepting homosexuals as is, your theology is leaning so far over that it is in grave danger of leaving contact with its foundations.
It may feel like it's standing now, but it's just a matter of time. And as ministers they should be thinking about who their theology is going to land on and who it might drag with them when it collapses.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
#11: A Couple of Words
A couple of words would have made all the difference in the 100 revs statement.
If they had put in a couple of phrases like:
former,
struggling with,
repenting from.
If they had put in a couple of phrases like:
former,
struggling with,
repenting from.
Their statement would have been fine if they could have said something like:
As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, have not been places of welcome for people struggling with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) issues.
Indeed the church has often been profoundly unloving toward former members of the GLBT community.
You see, I'm not saying the church doesn't have any rednecks in it. I'm not saying the church has always been sensitive on this issue. And I do want the church to welcome people who struggle with homosexuality (much as it welcomes gossips, adulterers and thieves who are genuinely struggling toward godliness).
But as long as people remain committed to a homosexual lifestyle, or remain part of a homosexual community, or insist on calling evil good, then what has the church to offer but correction.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
#10: What is Love Anyway?
That guy sang that song in the eighties, "What is low-ow-ow-wuv, anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd3liL13CgM&feature=related
The answer is something about a second hand emotion. Was that Tina Turner who sang that? No it was the 100 revs. This is what they say,
Indeed the church has often been profoundly unloving toward the GLBT community.
The 100 revs don't want love they want a second hand emotion. Acceptance, approval, something like that. How exactly do they think the church has been unloving? By not allowing practicing homosexuals to worship freely in our congregations? By standing up against the gay lobby? By refusing to allow homosexuality to be delisted as a sin because our deeply troubled society has allowed the homosexual lobby to redefine homosexuality as normal and happy? By insisting any person who comes to church be challenged about their sin whatever form it may take?
Love does what's best for someone. Even when they don't like it.
Why does a parent discipline a child?
Why does a friend pour an alcoholic's grog down the sink?
Why does a mate tell you to pull your head in at a party?
Why does the church correct homosexuals?
LOVE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd3liL13CgM&feature=related
The answer is something about a second hand emotion. Was that Tina Turner who sang that? No it was the 100 revs. This is what they say,
Indeed the church has often been profoundly unloving toward the GLBT community.
The 100 revs don't want love they want a second hand emotion. Acceptance, approval, something like that. How exactly do they think the church has been unloving? By not allowing practicing homosexuals to worship freely in our congregations? By standing up against the gay lobby? By refusing to allow homosexuality to be delisted as a sin because our deeply troubled society has allowed the homosexual lobby to redefine homosexuality as normal and happy? By insisting any person who comes to church be challenged about their sin whatever form it may take?
Love does what's best for someone. Even when they don't like it.
Why does a parent discipline a child?
Why does a friend pour an alcoholic's grog down the sink?
Why does a mate tell you to pull your head in at a party?
Why does the church correct homosexuals?
LOVE.
# 9: The Dr Patels of the Church
The church is a hospital, right. it's not there for the well but for the sick. That's what Jesus said, more or less.
The Church treats spiritual sickness: rebellion against God, heresy, moral confusion, sin. That kind of stuff.
Well, what do we think of a doctor who doesn't believe in germs, "I don't get germs." A doctor who doesn't wash his hands. A doctor who spreads infection from one patient to another and botches surgery left, right and centre. People die. What kind of doctor is he?
That's right, the go to gaol kind of doctor.
What do you think of a reverend who doesn't believe in sin, "That's OK, just be a nice person." A pastor who won't teach the Bible. A pastor who spreads the sin from one patient to another and invites sin into his church. Who leaves the disease of sin active in his patients and let's them face God with no warning. What kind of minister is he?
The Church treats spiritual sickness: rebellion against God, heresy, moral confusion, sin. That kind of stuff.
Well, what do we think of a doctor who doesn't believe in germs, "I don't get germs." A doctor who doesn't wash his hands. A doctor who spreads infection from one patient to another and botches surgery left, right and centre. People die. What kind of doctor is he?
That's right, the go to gaol kind of doctor.
What do you think of a reverend who doesn't believe in sin, "That's OK, just be a nice person." A pastor who won't teach the Bible. A pastor who spreads the sin from one patient to another and invites sin into his church. Who leaves the disease of sin active in his patients and let's them face God with no warning. What kind of minister is he?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
# 8: Adam, Steve, Charli and Lola
You can just hear the old time fundamentalist preacher thundering out,
"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve..."
Simplistic, we think. Rhetorical nonsense. Dramatic posturing with no substance.
But it's not that at all.
There is a growing number of people calling themselves Christians who are finding homosexuality to be theologically acceptable. 1 Corinthians 6:9 is explained as an obscure reference to pagan temple prostitution, In Romans 1:27 the emphasis is placed on natural relations, and an appeal is made to modern pseudo-psychology that it's natural for people with a gay 'orientation' to be gay. All the Old testament is abrogated - we eat prawns now don't we? And it goes on.
Genesis 1 and 2 is a clear corrective of this trend of misinterpretation and theological conniving.
When the conservative quotes Leviticus, or Corinthians, or Romans, he is accused of proof texting. Picking the verses that suit him. Yet Genesis 1 and 2 show that these texts are embedded within a cohesive Biblical framework of heterosexual male-femaleness of creation.
Let's read it again.
So God created man in his own image
In the image of God he created him,
Male and female he created them.
It is significant that it is male and female. This is a pattern of the created order. Adam and Eve is not just an incidental particular, it is a pattern of humanity.
It is not Adam, Steve, Charli and Lola.
it is not "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender he created them."
Throughout the Bible from front to back, cover to cover, homosexuality is shown to be a dysfunction and a sin. It is this because it is a deviation from the created blessing of male femaleness and heterosexual faithful relationship.
"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve..."
Simplistic, we think. Rhetorical nonsense. Dramatic posturing with no substance.
But it's not that at all.
There is a growing number of people calling themselves Christians who are finding homosexuality to be theologically acceptable. 1 Corinthians 6:9 is explained as an obscure reference to pagan temple prostitution, In Romans 1:27 the emphasis is placed on natural relations, and an appeal is made to modern pseudo-psychology that it's natural for people with a gay 'orientation' to be gay. All the Old testament is abrogated - we eat prawns now don't we? And it goes on.
Genesis 1 and 2 is a clear corrective of this trend of misinterpretation and theological conniving.
When the conservative quotes Leviticus, or Corinthians, or Romans, he is accused of proof texting. Picking the verses that suit him. Yet Genesis 1 and 2 show that these texts are embedded within a cohesive Biblical framework of heterosexual male-femaleness of creation.
Let's read it again.
So God created man in his own image
In the image of God he created him,
Male and female he created them.
It is significant that it is male and female. This is a pattern of the created order. Adam and Eve is not just an incidental particular, it is a pattern of humanity.
It is not Adam, Steve, Charli and Lola.
it is not "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender he created them."
Throughout the Bible from front to back, cover to cover, homosexuality is shown to be a dysfunction and a sin. It is this because it is a deviation from the created blessing of male femaleness and heterosexual faithful relationship.
Monday, August 11, 2008
# 7: Why So Discriminatory
I want to ask the 100 revs why they are so discriminatory?
Why they are so hard hearted as to exclude others from Christian fellowship. To welcome some and exclude others is a great crime. Where is the real apology.
A real apology would not be so exclusive
This is how their apology should read:
As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, have not been places of welcome for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, male prostitute, adulterous, polygamist, animist, pagan, promiscuous, prostitute and porn star (GLBTMPAPAPFPPS) people. Indeed the church has often been profoundly unloving toward the GLBTMPAPAPFPPS community. For these things we apologise, whatever the distinctive of our Christian position on human sexuality – to which we remain committed. We are deeply sorry and ask for the forgiveness of the GLBTMPAPAPFPPS community. We long that the church would be a place of welcome for all people and commit ourselves to pursuing this goal.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on gay and lesbian, male prostitute, adulterous, idolatrous or sexually immoral relationships.
We ARE recognising the lack of hospitality, care and welcome that the churches have offered the gay and lesbian, male prostitute, adulterous, idolatrous and sexually immoral community.
Why they are so hard hearted as to exclude others from Christian fellowship. To welcome some and exclude others is a great crime. Where is the real apology.
A real apology would not be so exclusive
This is how their apology should read:
As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, have not been places of welcome for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, male prostitute, adulterous, polygamist, animist, pagan, promiscuous, prostitute and porn star (GLBTMPAPAPFPPS) people. Indeed the church has often been profoundly unloving toward the GLBTMPAPAPFPPS community. For these things we apologise, whatever the distinctive of our Christian position on human sexuality – to which we remain committed. We are deeply sorry and ask for the forgiveness of the GLBTMPAPAPFPPS community. We long that the church would be a place of welcome for all people and commit ourselves to pursuing this goal.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on gay and lesbian, male prostitute, adulterous, idolatrous or sexually immoral relationships.
We ARE recognising the lack of hospitality, care and welcome that the churches have offered the gay and lesbian, male prostitute, adulterous, idolatrous and sexually immoral community.
# 6: Condemning, Condoning or Calling (John 8:11)
Jesus said,
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
John 8:11.
Many cite Jesus' interaction with the woman caught in adultery and her accusers and then point nasty judgemental fingers at the modern conservatives and say, "See, Jesus didn't condemn." But that only holds true if you stop there and make sure you don't finish the verse.
Does Jesus condemn those in sin? No. Does Jesus Condone those in sin? No.
Jesus calls them out of sin.
Go now and leave your life of sin.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
John 8:11.
Many cite Jesus' interaction with the woman caught in adultery and her accusers and then point nasty judgemental fingers at the modern conservatives and say, "See, Jesus didn't condemn." But that only holds true if you stop there and make sure you don't finish the verse.
Does Jesus condemn those in sin? No. Does Jesus Condone those in sin? No.
Jesus calls them out of sin.
Go now and leave your life of sin.
Number 5: The Warning of The Millstone
"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck."
Mark 9:42
You really want to make sure you are not encouraging others to engage in sin don't you. As a teacher, a reverend, you need to be careful that you always encourage others toward godliness.
You would want to make sure you don't explicitly or implicitly condone a clearly sinful lifestyle.
An alcoholic dribbles an "I can't help it" over your knee, you don't really want to pat him on the head and say, it's Ok. You want to pat him on the shoulder and say, "yes you can, God can help you, I will help you."
A wife-basher says "It's her fault for making me so angry." You really have to say, "Pull your head in before I report you to the police."
A person engaging in homosexual activity says, "I think I was born this way, can't you just accept me for who I am?" You really don't want to say, "Yes. I'm sorry I haven't been accepting and encouraging you as you are. Go and enjoy a life of sin, as long as you're happy, that's what matters to me."
Also, in the light of this verse
You would want to make sure your mental image of Jesus wasn't all soft and squashy, like your own plasticine idol, but actually was firm and solid and looked like the historical Jesus of the New Testament, a Jesus that showed love and mercy and remarkable spiritual insight and an abiding hatred of sin, hypocrisy and faithlessness.
That's what I would have thought.
Mark 9:42
You really want to make sure you are not encouraging others to engage in sin don't you. As a teacher, a reverend, you need to be careful that you always encourage others toward godliness.
You would want to make sure you don't explicitly or implicitly condone a clearly sinful lifestyle.
An alcoholic dribbles an "I can't help it" over your knee, you don't really want to pat him on the head and say, it's Ok. You want to pat him on the shoulder and say, "yes you can, God can help you, I will help you."
A wife-basher says "It's her fault for making me so angry." You really have to say, "Pull your head in before I report you to the police."
A person engaging in homosexual activity says, "I think I was born this way, can't you just accept me for who I am?" You really don't want to say, "Yes. I'm sorry I haven't been accepting and encouraging you as you are. Go and enjoy a life of sin, as long as you're happy, that's what matters to me."
Also, in the light of this verse
You would want to make sure your mental image of Jesus wasn't all soft and squashy, like your own plasticine idol, but actually was firm and solid and looked like the historical Jesus of the New Testament, a Jesus that showed love and mercy and remarkable spiritual insight and an abiding hatred of sin, hypocrisy and faithlessness.
That's what I would have thought.
Number 4: The Claytons Reassurance
The Claytons reassurance is the reassurance you give when you're not giving any reassurance.
The 100 revs state:
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on gay and lesbian relationships.
Sorry, but you are.
I guess that part of the statement is meant to reassure conservative reactionaries like myself. But it doesn't work because no amount of winking and grinning can make the 100 revs statement kosher.
Anything a Christian knowingly, intentionally does reflects their position on the Bible. It shows their interpretation and understanding of the Bible. When a divorced person seeks to enter ministry, it reveals a particular understanding (or neglect) of Matthew 19 and 1 Timothy 3:2,12. When person stands there in church without singing it reveals a particular understanding (or misunderstanding) of Ephesians 5.
The 100 hot heads reveal a particular position on the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. You cannot talk about something the Bible talks about so comprehensively without revealing your position on what the Bible says. The apology statement is not an interpretation free statement, but is founded on understandings of homosexuality and the Bible and endorses positions on homosexuality. Attitudes to homosexuality that are at odds with the Bible.
Acknowledging and using the nice neat acronym, GLBT, a self designation of homosexual and other peoples is buying into their understanding.
It is clear that the 100 revs have (intentionally or otherwise, knowingly or otherwise) bought into the notion that being gay is not a choice, "I was born that way". This is a position that comes from the gay lobby and not from reading the Bible. Neither is it supported by scientific evidence.
100 revs, you are making a statement on the place of the Bible in your theology and practice what you say is that it doesn't matter what the Bible says. I'll ignore it or find a way around it, and I will encourage others to as well.
The 100 revs state:
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on gay and lesbian relationships.
Sorry, but you are.
I guess that part of the statement is meant to reassure conservative reactionaries like myself. But it doesn't work because no amount of winking and grinning can make the 100 revs statement kosher.
Anything a Christian knowingly, intentionally does reflects their position on the Bible. It shows their interpretation and understanding of the Bible. When a divorced person seeks to enter ministry, it reveals a particular understanding (or neglect) of Matthew 19 and 1 Timothy 3:2,12. When person stands there in church without singing it reveals a particular understanding (or misunderstanding) of Ephesians 5.
The 100 hot heads reveal a particular position on the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. You cannot talk about something the Bible talks about so comprehensively without revealing your position on what the Bible says. The apology statement is not an interpretation free statement, but is founded on understandings of homosexuality and the Bible and endorses positions on homosexuality. Attitudes to homosexuality that are at odds with the Bible.
Acknowledging and using the nice neat acronym, GLBT, a self designation of homosexual and other peoples is buying into their understanding.
It is clear that the 100 revs have (intentionally or otherwise, knowingly or otherwise) bought into the notion that being gay is not a choice, "I was born that way". This is a position that comes from the gay lobby and not from reading the Bible. Neither is it supported by scientific evidence.
100 revs, you are making a statement on the place of the Bible in your theology and practice what you say is that it doesn't matter what the Bible says. I'll ignore it or find a way around it, and I will encourage others to as well.
#3 100 revs dont have Corinthians in their Bibles
"18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."1Corinthians 6:18-20 (NIV)
It should be obvious to us that sexual sin has no place in the church because it has a deeply spiritual nature as well - we are the temples of the Holy Spirit. We cannot serve two masters at the same time. The Holy Spirit within us would not abide something which God sees as an abomination. Sexual sin cannot be condoned within the church. That i the problem with our modern humanist and secular mindset. We have tried to change the Scriptures.
It should be obvious to us that sexual sin has no place in the church because it has a deeply spiritual nature as well - we are the temples of the Holy Spirit. We cannot serve two masters at the same time. The Holy Spirit within us would not abide something which God sees as an abomination. Sexual sin cannot be condoned within the church. That i the problem with our modern humanist and secular mindset. We have tried to change the Scriptures.
# 2 100 revs got it wrong - again
The "church" is the bride of Christ and is only accessed once one is born again. This requires repentence from sin. Without repentence, there is no forgiveness and therefore one cannot be born again. A practicing homosexual is not forgiven because he/she has not repented and according to 1 Cor 5, must be expelled from the church, not welcomed into it. The 100 revs have embarrassed themselves and their churches and worst of all, their Lord. What a sad day! We have allowed the logic of the world to overule the Scriptures.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Number 1: 1 Corinthians 6:9
We read in 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 verse 9
"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"
Do those who have no place in the kingdom of heaven have any place in the church?
The church has always welcomed repentant sinners. The church is full of reformed sinners, in fact the church is made up of repentant sionners, that's what it is. But there is no place in the church for unrepentant sinners.
100 Responses to the 100 revs
100 revs have splashed across the news. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-saying-sorry-is-a-risk/2008/08/08/1218139081310.html
100 clergy from various denominations have put their names to an apology to the homosexual community. The apology can be read at http://100revs.blogspot.com/2008/02/100revs-statement.html
Basically the 100 revs see themselves as apologising on behalf of the churches for not being welcoming toward the homosexual community.
The apology is presented as being untheological and neutral. It is far from this.
This blog aims to gather 100 responses to the 100 revs to contribute some clear thinking and Biblical guidance on this subject.
100 clergy from various denominations have put their names to an apology to the homosexual community. The apology can be read at http://100revs.blogspot.com/2008/02/100revs-statement.html
Basically the 100 revs see themselves as apologising on behalf of the churches for not being welcoming toward the homosexual community.
The apology is presented as being untheological and neutral. It is far from this.
This blog aims to gather 100 responses to the 100 revs to contribute some clear thinking and Biblical guidance on this subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)