Archive for the ‘Biblical Marriage’ Category

Where’s The Courage?

April 13, 2016

During an ongoing discussion in the Disqus comment section at Matt Walsh’s blog, I ran across a post on my Disqus home page that came from my former Talk Wisdom blog.  It was written during the Carrie Prejean “Miss California” controversy. [Note: scroll down past the Facebook comments at Walsh’s blog to reach the blog comments via Disqus.]

Please read my Talk Wisdom blog post:

What The World Can’t Take Away From Carrie Prejean.

This young woman had the courage of her convictions and stood strong in the Lord through a horrible barrage of attacks and controversy.

People who take the time to read about all the controversy that swirled around Carrie back in 2009 will notice that Prejean is not a ‘perfect Christian’.   But the truth is, none of us are!  That is precisely why we ALL need to repent and accept THE one who is perfect –  Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior!

I had forgotten that it was Donald Trump who ultimately gave the “OK” to have one of his underlings announce the decision to strip Prejean of her Miss California crown because she stood up for her Christian faith in the question and answer portion at the pageant and answered a question where she replied that she believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Hmmm…so is Trump really on the side of traditional, biblically based marriage as created by God? Or is he pro-homosexual faux ‘marriage’ today? Appears that he was siding with the latter ideology back in 2009.

So far, I found this blog post over at the National Organization for Marriage which describes that when asked at a news conference, Trump was noncommittal either way because he refused to answer the question!

I find it disturbing that he refused to answer the question.  If he doesn’t have the courage to answer a simple question, how will he have the courage of conviction in the face of the problems he would face as president?

 

Matt Walsh: Dear Christians, Please, Please Stop Apologizing For Your Faith

February 17, 2016

Matt Walsh is making a request (and case) for Christians. He has written: Dear Christians, Please, Please Stop Apologizing For Your Faith

Excerpt and link to read rest of post:

If I could get every Christian in the country to read just one thing I’ve ever written, it would probably be this. I just want all Believers in this country stop being ashamed of their faith, and I especially want them to stop backing away from their faith when the peanut gallery has a hissy fit about it. Seriously, if you decide to read one of my rambles all the way to the end, make it this.

There’s a reason I’m bringing this up. A prominent athlete was the latest Christian to get beaten into submission because he spoke boldly about the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. In the span of about 36 hours he went from highly respected to roundly despise, all because he revealed himself to be a Christian who actually believes all that stuff in his Holy Book. Imagine that. But then, when faced with the backlash, he apologized. It seems like they always apologize. The progressive hordes almost always get their apology if they stomp their feet loudly enough.

But this is just the most recent example. I’m using it to make a broader point. Overall, it seems we have four types of Christians in this culture: 1) Those who’ve effectively renounced their faith and adopted liberal positions on things like gay “marriage” and abortion, etc. 2) Those who hold to their faith but remain silent for fear of mockery and persecution. 3) Those who speak but then apologize for speaking. 4) Those who stand by their faith publicly and never, ever, ever apologize for it, no matter what happens.

Sadly, I feel like the Christians in category 4 are a small, minuscule, rapidly disappearing minority. But if the Christians in category 2 and 3 would join those in 4, we might just stand a chance. Please read this all the way to the end, and share if you think it warrants it:

CLICK HERE TO READ MY LATEST POST.

My comment at the blog post (not at the Blaze):

Same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to God who created marriage.

Jesus told us that the signs of the end times would be as in the days of Noah and the days of Lot. As Solomon once stated, “there is nothing new under the sun.” The current aberrant acceptance for all things homosexual isn’t new or “progressive” in any way, shape or form. It was sinful, done, and celebrated in the beginning when man was fallen and involved in perversion. Those who teach the opposite of what is good re: sexual relationships today are no different from the ones who taught such abominations thousands of years ago.

Jesus said in Luke 17:26-30, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when Son of man is revealed.”

Jesus being a first century Rabbi, like most Jewish teachers, coupled Sodom with the flood generation as a typical image of evil. His intent was to inform his audience that at His second coming the conditions of the world would mirror Noah’s days and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

As in the Days of Noah

The Midrash Rabbah Genesis is a specific form of rabbinic literature of ancient Judaism commentaries of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is based on the interpretation of the Torah (Old Testament). It speaks about the subject of same-sex marriage during the days of Noah.

The rabbis wrote in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis that the flood in Noah’s day was primarily triggered when males starting writing marriage deeds with other males, and between men and beasts (bestiality). Based on the account of Midrash Rabbah Genesis, same-sex marriages took place during the days of Noah. There was nothing new under the sun and this is stated by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:9. Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah is synonymous with the destruction of the flood generation in Midrash Rabbah Genesis. It states in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis that Lot pleaded all night for mercy for the Sodomites, and that the angels permitted him to plead for them. But once the people said, “… bring them out [the angels] so we may have sex with them,” mercy ran out. The angels told Lot, “for now on you have no right to plead anymore.” Judgment was sent upon Sodom. Flood water was the judgment of God on the people in Noah’s day. Fire and brimstone was the judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah.

The book of Enoch is not inspired, and thus not part of the canon of Scripture, however the book of Jude contains some quotes from it. Enoch is being used by the author as a good reference resource.

The book of Enoch was written before the birth of Christ and although it is not an inspired book, it is a good resource. Parts of it are quoted in Jude 14-15. 2nd Enoch 34-1, 3-4 states, “God convicts the persons who are idol worshipers and sodomite fornicators, and for this reason he brings down the flood upon them. And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities, wickedness and abominable fornications. That is, friend with friend in anus, every other kind of wicked uncleanness which is almost too disgusting to report, and the worship of the evil one. And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth, and shall destroy everything, and the earth itself will collapse in great darkness.” Second Enoch states that perverse homosexual relationships were the main cause of the flood. Both Midrash Rabbah Genesis and the second book of Enoch state that God frowns on homosexuality in cultic prostitution, and in so-called “loving consensual” homosexual relationships. So don’t believe the liberal Christian theologians, gay-affirming churches and inclusionists. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are an abomination in God’s eyesight.

What Does the Bible Say about Same Sex “marriage”?

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Hat tip:
The Matt Walsh Blog

More posts on this issue:

Talk Wisdom: The Days of Noah and Lot

Kim Davis Interviewed by Megyn Kelly

September 24, 2015

Fox News: Exclusive: Kim Davis opens up about faith, threat to freedom

Sep. 23, 2015 – 3:57 – Kentucky clerk discusses the religious freedom controversy, ‘upholding’ the word of God on ‘The Kelly File’

Second portion of interview:

Kim Davis Answers Megyn’s Questions and Opens Up About Her Time in Jail.

Third portion of interview:

Exclusive: Kim Davis responds to her supporters and critics

Sep. 23, 2015 – 3:57 – Clerk at the center of a religious freedom conflict on how she made a difference on ‘The Kelly File’

The main point here is that those who are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, adhere to God’s Word, and desire accommodations when their faith, job, livelihood, and religious freedoms are being threatened; often do not get such accommodations.

Yet, Islamic terrorists at Gitmo get their religious accommodations.

What is wrong with this picture???

Kim Davis Released From Jail

September 8, 2015

“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word.”

Kim Davis has been released. And the two commenters here (who have bashed her personal failings in the comment section of my previous post) should read the true story about this brave woman!

In Perspective: Kim Davis – State Criminal? Church Discipline?

Excerpt:

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE LAW OF THE LAND

The first reason is to confront a legal fallacy. It is commonly believed that the opinions of the Supreme Court are the “law of the land.” This mantra is constantly trumpeted by the media, the pundits, the commentators and the administration of President Obama. Nine unelected, though elevated, justices do not “make the law of the land” in our system of government. The law of the land—the Constitution—is supreme in the United States, not the Supreme Court. And the Constitution can only be changed by the people through elected legislators at the local, state and federal levels, not the judiciary at any level. Governors and Presidents execute the law established through elected legislators. The Supreme Court renders “opinions” on cases it hears, but it does not create law. If this delegation of duties is not observed then the warnings of Thomas Jefferson concerning the inevitable tyranny of the judicial branch will be a reality, as even James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, eventually admitted could happen!

In a word, SCOTUS is an arbiter of the law. To make this clearer, they are umpires. Umpires do not make the rules, they make ruling judgments, which may or may not be right. So it is with SCOTUS. And like any other umpire, they can, and have been wrong. Sometimes with catastrophic effects these nine justices have historically made rulings and issued opinions which were politically shaped, but legally and Constitutionally devastatingly wrong. Thankfully in some cases they were rightly challenged by citizens and elected officials in the history of our country. For brevity’s sake, here are just two politically and culturally shaped, but Constitutionally and devastatingly wrong opinions.

  1. Dred Scott – (Oct. 1857) a slave was less than a person without unalienable rights.
  2. Roe v. Wade – (Jan. 1973) Legalized homicide of a baby in the womb for any reason at any time.

Mrs. Davis is right to challenge the Obergefell wrong ruling/opinion as others challenged such legal fabrications in the past. Many in the North and South as citizens and government officials challenged the Dred Scott opinion. If more had done so, there is a good possibility that 700,000 lives in a fratricidal Civil War might have been avoided, and racial hostilities still plaguing this nation might have been rightly addressed. Although Roe v. Wade eventually has been challenged with legislative, ministerial and civil disobedience initiatives, the fact is 57 million plus annihilated lives might have been saved, if citizens, including elected officials had challenged the Roe. V. Wade ruling/opinion from the outset.

Kim Davis is right not to sign and affirm a so-called law affirming “same-sex marriage” with the devastations, sexual anarchy and relational carnage it will bring. Furthermore, she should be commended for not resigning to go quietly away which many would desire. Then admirably she is willing to suffer the persecution of judicial tyranny, thereby forcing a nation to address the Constitutionality of this issue and professing Christians to address it personally. The First Amendment protecting the free exercise of religion (not just the subset of worship), is not forfeited when you become an elected official. As an elected official, she took an oath to uphold the Constitutions of Kentucky and the United States. The Constitution of the United States does not determine marriage laws. Marriage laws are established by the states and the Constitution of Kentucky is clear and unchanged—marriage is between one man and woman.

Looks like the judge in this wrongful incarceration of Davis finally “blinked” on this one. Perhaps he feared tremendous backlash for his stupidity.

When he sought to punish Davis, he must have had delusions of grandeur; thinking that he’s like the king of England who badgered and suppressed the religious rights of the people in his own country, and then when they left to find religious freedom in the colonies, the oppression by the king didn’t stop. Therefore, the Revolutionary War was fought for the freedoms they were being denied.

Incarcerating this woman was a travesty of justice, and that judge knows it. The upcoming rally on Saturday would have continued to show the judge’s error(s) on this issue, so he “decreed” her release.

At the time that our nation was born, after a long, hard-fought and bloody war against the tyrants from England who sent soldiers over to America to kill the colonists into compliance; Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, “what kind of government have you given us, sir?” He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Our beloved Republic has been on the road to destruction for some time now by the programmed regressives who think their awful policies will lead to some kind of utopia. Their conscientious stupidity, foolish wisdom of the world, anti-God and anti-Christ mindsets, unrepentant hearts, evil intentions, and satanic policies all reveal that they think they know better than God and His Word, the Bible.

One day, they will stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgment and realize how wrong they were. But at that point, it will be too late for them to be redeemed.

How prophetic Franklin was in his answer to that woman during the birth of our nation!

There is still time to turn the tide away from the deceiving spirits of sincere ignorance, sin, evil, death and destruction. I pray that God will continue to see fit to hold us in His loving care during such a time as this.

Hat tip:

In Perspective

Love Also Warns

August 24, 2015

This morning, I read an excellent essay entitled “Love Wins but Love Also Warns” written by Michael Brown over at Charisma News.

I suggest reading the article in its entirety at the link above. However, here are some important excerpts:

Love wins.

Understood rightly, it is gloriously true.

Love won on the cross, when God sent His Son to die for the sins of the world, repaying our evil deeds with the supreme act of sacrificial love.

[Love] will win in the end, as forever and ever, the Father’s family will enjoy His incredible goodness in a world without sin and suffering.

 

[But] love also warns. In fact, love that does not warn is not love at all.

The parent who doesn’t warn a chain-smoking child about the dangers of nicotine is not a loving parent.

The doctor who doesn’t warn a morbidly obese patient about the dangers of overeating is not a loving doctor.

The preacher who doesn’t warn his straying flock about the dangers of spiritual compromise is not a loving pastor.

Love warns with tears.

Love warns with brokenness.

Love warns with longsuffering.

Love warns.

That’s why Jesus wept in public as He warned Jerusalem about the terrible judgment that was at the door (Luke 19:41-45).

That’s why Jeremiah wept in secret when the nation refused to hear his warnings of impending disaster (Jer. 13:17).

[In] the words of the book of Proverbs, “Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. … He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward than he who flatters with the tongue” (Prov. 27:5-6; 28:23).

We are not called to tickle people’s ears and make them feel good. We are called to speak the truth in love, to have hearts of compassion and backbones of steel, to emulate the true prophets not the false prophets, to do the right thing rather than the convenient thing.

Oh that God would deliver us from a crippling, compromising, man-pleasing mentality!

[It] is true that love is patient and kind and is not irritable or rude (1 Cor. 13:4-7).

It is true that love does no harm to its neighbor (Rom. 13:10).

And it is true that, rightly understood, love wins.

But love wins because love warns, and if we walk in true love for God and our neighbor, we will warn.

 

Individuals who are reluctant to commit to any particular worldview often pick and choose what they like about different worldviews. The bad thing about this is that they aren’t really bothered if such ideas contradict each other. The only thing that counts in their own minds is “what works for you.” However, as will be demonstrated in the video below of an encounter between actress Ellen Page (who self-identifies as lesbian) and presidential candidate, Ted Cruz (a Christian), is that “what works for her” is more important; and in her mind obviously trumps,  anything and everything that works for Christian believers like Ted.

People like Page have the notion and belief that “any one system cannot possibly contain all truth.” This is a relativistic worldview which enables a person like Page to ignore, dismiss, hate, and even disparage biblical truth in order to keep her own way of thinking intact. Such attitudes and beliefs stem from secular humanism, postmodernism, and even the New Age movement.

The LGBT agenda movement HAS to attack and disparage the truth of the Bible because the Bible explicitly condemns their behavior – calling them to repent of their sin and  to be saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary.  Once a man or woman commits to Jesus as their Lord and Savior, we want to keep the Commandments of God because we love Him.  To those who refuse to believe in Christ, it is offensive to think that way.

Here is the video of the encounter:

[H/T Pumabydesign for sharing the video.]

What is interesting to me is the fact that at the end of the discussion with Cruz, Page absolutely refuses to ADMIT that they agree on one point regarding 0bama’s silence about ISIS Muslims and radical Islamic Shias in Iran and across the Middle East who are executing and throwing homosexuals off buildings because their  sexual orientation and behavior has been discovered!

My question for readers who are up to the challenge is why was it necessary for her to do that?

Hat tip: Charisma News

The Bible and same sex relationships: A review article.

July 28, 2015

There is a very interesting essay written by Tim Keller at Redeemer Report: The Bible and same sex relationships: A review article.

Keller wrote this report in answer to the two most vocal “gay” Christian authors who have written their own books on the subject.

Excerpt:

Vines, Matthew, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same Sex Relationships, Convergent Books, 2014

Wilson, Ken, A Letter to My Congregation, David Crum Media, 2014.

As Bible-based Christians, we need to be armed with biblical arguments against those (especially “gay Christians!”)  who are trying to create their own  ideological case in support for that which is clearly forbidden in Scripture.

Several weeks ago, I started to listen to a rebuttal against Matthew Vines, whose self-identification label is listed as a “Gay Christian.”

I must admit, this man’s discussion was quite refreshing because he spoke of those who oppose his views with cordial respect.  This is entirely unlike the radical homosexual activists who verbally blast, hatefully abuse, erroneously sue, and viciously disparage Christians (or anyone else) whose deep religious beliefs encourage them to hold to God’s idea of marriage as being between one man and one woman.  The video I was watching was very, very long, and I did not complete it. Perhaps I can locate it again and share a link to it within this post for anyone interested in the back and forth between Vines and the biblical marriage traditionalist.

For now, here at Talk Wisdom I will share some significant excerpts, including the subtopics being discussed at the Redeemer.com site. You can follow the link above to read the entire essay.

Excerpts:

1.  Knowing gay people personally.

In this portion, the idea that homosexuality is a sin that cannot be forgiven by God is shown to be incorrect, (and  THAT incorrect notion could also be considered a form of bigotry) but it can’t be used to say that Scripture approves of homosexual behavior.

So I say good riddance to bigotry. However, the reality of bigotry cannot itself prove that the Bible never forbids homosexuality. We have to look to the text to determine that.

2.  Consulting historical scholarship.

This is highly significant! Read it all at the link, but here is the conclusion based on the evidence:

I urge readers to familiarize themselves with this research. A good place to start is the Kindle book by William Loader Sexuality in the New Testament (2010) or his much larger The New Testament on Sexuality (2012). Loader is the most prominent expert on ancient and biblical views of sexuality, having written five large and two small volumes in his lifetime. It is worth noting that Loader himself does not personally see anything wrong with homosexual relationships; he just — rightly and definitively — proves that you can’t get the Bible itself to give them any support.

Mr. Loader should be commended for his honesty!

3.  Re-categorizing same sex relations.
The following argument is one that is used quite extensively by homosexual activists. However, as you read through the complete section at the link, you will find that the need to “change their interpretations” in today’s era because views changed against slavery is not supported by evidence.

A third line of reasoning in these volumes and others like them involves re-categorization. In the past, homosexuality was categorized by all Christian churches and theology as sin. However, many argue that homosexuality should be put in the same category as slavery and segregation. Vines writes, for example, that the Bible supported slavery and that most Christians used to believe that some form of slavery was condoned by the Bible, but we have now come to see that all slavery is wrong. Therefore, just as Christians interpreted the Bible to support segregation and slavery until times changed, so Christians should change their interpretations about homosexuality as history moves forward.

[But] historians such as Mark Noll (America’s God, 2005 and The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, 2006) have shown the 19th century position some people took that the Bible condoned race-based chattel slavery was highly controversial and never a consensus. Most Protestants in Canada and Britain (and many in the northern U.S. states) condemned it as being wholly against the Scripture.

David L. Chappell in his history of the Civil Rights Movement (A Stone of Hope, 2003) went further. He proves that even before the Supreme Court decisions of the mid-50s, almost no one was promoting the slender and forced biblical justifications for racial superiority and segregation. Even otherwise racist theologians and ministers could not find a basis for white supremacy in the Bible.

So we see the analogy between the church’s view of slavery and its view of homosexuality breaks down. Up until very recently, all Christian churches and theologians unanimously read the Bible as condemning homosexuality. By contrast, there was never any consensus or even a majority of churches that thought slavery and segregation were supported by the Bible.

Wilson, Vines, and many others argue that same-sex relations must now be put into this category. Since we see that there are sincere Christians who disagree over this, it is said, we should “agree to disagree” on this.

However history shows that same-sex relations do not belong in this category, either. Around each of the other items on Wilson’s list there are long-standing and historical divisions within the church. There have always been substantial parts of the church that came to different positions on these issues. But until very, very recently, there had been complete unanimity about homosexuality in the church across all centuries, cultures, and even across major divisions of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions. So homosexuality is categorically different. One has to ask, then, why is it the case that literally no church, theologian, or Christian thinker or movement ever thought that any kind of same sex relationships was allowable until now?

One answer to the question is an ironic one. During the Civil War, British Presbyterian biblical scholars told their southern American colleagues who supported slavery that they were reading the Scriptural texts through cultural blinders. They wanted to find evidence for their views in the Bible and voila — they found it. If no Christian reading the Bible — across diverse cultures and times — ever previously discovered support for same-sex relationships in the Bible until today, it is hard not to wonder if many now have new cultural spectacles on, having a strong predisposition to find in these texts evidence for the views they already hold.

What are those cultural spectacles? The reason that homosexual relationships make so much more sense to people today than in previous times is because they have absorbed late modern western culture’s narratives about the human life. Our society presses its members to believe “you have to be yourself,” that sexual desires are crucial to personal identity, that any curbing of strong sexual desires leads to psychological damage, and that individuals should be free to live as they alone see fit.

These narratives have been well analyzed by scholars such as Robert Bellah and Charles Taylor. They are beliefs about the nature of reality that are not self-evident to most societies and they carry no more empirical proof than any other religious beliefs. They are also filled with inconsistencies and problems. Both Vines and Wilson largely assume these cultural narratives. It is these faith assumptions about identity and freedom that make the straightforward reading of the biblical texts seem so wrong to them. They are the underlying reason for their views, but they are never identified or discussed.

4. Revising biblical authority.

Vines and Wilson claim that they continue to hold to a high view of biblical authority, and that they believe the Bible is completely true, but that they don’t think it teaches all same-sex relations are wrong. Vines argues that while the Levitical code forbids homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) it also forbids eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12). Yet, he says, Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong — so why can’t we change our minds on homosexuality?

This is another very familiar argument.  In fact, several weeks ago a more liberal relative used the old “shellfish” argument with me in order to support homosexuality as now also being exempt from the laws in the Bible.

Tim Keller answers this argument masterfully!

Here Vines is rejecting the New Testament understanding that the ceremonial laws of Moses around the sacrificial system and ritual purity were fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding, but that the moral law of the Old Testament is still in force. Hebrews 10:16, for example, tells us that the Holy Spirit writes “God’s laws” on Christians’ hearts (so they are obviously still in force), even though that same book of the Bible tells us that some of those Mosaic laws — the ceremonial — are no longer in binding on us. This view has been accepted by all branches of the church since New Testament times.

When Vines refuses to accept this ancient distinction between the ceremonial and moral law, he is doing much more than simply giving us an alternative interpretation of the Old Testament — he is radically revising what biblical authority means. When he says “Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong,” and then applies this to homosexuality (though assuming that Leviticus 19:18 — the Golden Rule — is still in force), he is assuming that it is Christians themselves, not the Bible, who have the right to decide which parts of the Bible are essentially now out of date. That decisively shifts the ultimate authority to define right and wrong onto the individual Christian and away from the biblical text.

The traditional view is this: Yes, there are things in the Bible that Christians no longer have to follow but, if the Scripture is our final authority, it is only the Bible itself that can tell us what those things are. The prohibitions against homosexuality are re-stated in the New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) but Jesus himself (Mark 7), as well as the rest of the New Testament, tells us that the clean laws and ceremonial code is no longer in force.

Vines asserts that he maintains a belief in biblical authority, but with arguments like this one he is actually undermining it. This represents a massive shift in historic Christian theology and life.

5. Being on the wrong side of history.

More explicit in Wilson’s volume than Vines’ is the common argument that history is moving toward greater freedom and equality for individuals, and so refusing to accept same-sex relationships is a futile attempt to stop inevitable historical development. Wilson says that the “complex forces” of history showed Christians that they were wrong about slavery and something like that is happening now with homosexuality.

Charles Taylor, however, explains how this idea of inevitable historical progress developed out of the Enlightenment optimism about human nature and reason. It is another place where these writers seem to uncritically adopt background understandings that are foreign to the Bible. If we believe in the Bible’s authority, then shifts in public opinion should not matter. The Christian faith will always be offensive to every culture at some points.

6. Missing the biblical vision.

This section is my favorite part!  Why?  Because it presents a new argument (one that I had not considered until now) regarding God’s design for “complimentary things that [are] made to work together” and how the reason why God made us male and female really do matter – and are designed to work together!

The saddest thing for me as a reader was how, in books on the Bible and sex, Vines and Wilson concentrated almost wholly on the biblical negatives, the prohibitions against homosexual practice, instead of giving sustained attention to the high, (yes) glorious Scriptural vision of sexuality. Both authors rightly say that the Bible calls for mutual loving relationships in marriage, but it points to far more than that.

In Genesis 1 you see pairs of different but complementary things made to work together: heaven and earth, sea and land, even God and humanity. It is part of the brilliance of God’s creation that diverse, unlike things are made to unite and create dynamic wholes which generate more and more life and beauty through their relationships. As N.T. Wright points out, the creation and uniting of male and female at the end of Genesis 2 is the climax of all this.

That means that male and female have unique, non-interchangeable glories — they each see and do things that the other cannot. Sex was created by God to be a way to mingle these strengths and glories within a life-long covenant of marriage. Marriage is the most intense (though not the only) place where this reunion of male and female takes place in human life. Male and female reshape, learn from, and work together.

Therefore, in one of the great ironies of late modern times, when we celebrate diversity in so many other cultural sectors, we have truncated the ultimate unity-in-diversity: inter-gendered marriage.

Without understanding this vision, the sexual prohibitions in the Bible make no sense. Homosexuality does not honor the need for this rich diversity of perspective and gendered humanity in sexual relationships. Same-sex relationships not only cannot provide this for each spouse, they can’t provide children with a deep connection to each half of humanity through a parent of each gender.

This review has been too brief to give these authors the credit they are due for maintaining a respectful and gracious tone throughout. We live in a time in which civility and love in these discussions is fast going away, and I am thankful the authors are not part of the angry, caustic flow. In this regard they are being good examples, but because I think their main points are wrong, I have had to concentrate on them as I have in this review. I hope I have done so with equal civility.

Hat tip:

Redeemer.com

1Co 6:9

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, [fn] nor sodomites,

1Co 6:10

nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Co 6:11

And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Make Calls to Rehear The Marriage Case!

July 6, 2015

Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action Ministries is encouraging all Americans who believe that natural marriage is God given (has always been and should continue to be only the union of one man and one woman) to make phone calls to Attorney General Mike DeWine (800-282-0515 ) and ask to have the case reheard.

Excerpt:

Rehear the Case

July 06, 2015

 

Are you upset about what the Supreme Court did to marriage? Now, there’s something you can do about it.

We can ask the court to rehear the case because two justices violated the federal law which states, “Any justice… of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
[ 28 U.S. Code § 455]

Justices Kagan and Ginsburg both officiated homosexual so-called weddings, which disqualifies them from ruling on the case.

Ask Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to file a motion for rehearing the marriage case at: 800-282-0515 because it was illegally rendered. Ask him to call for a motion for rehearing the case.

Does THIS look like impartiality to you?

Restrain the Judges

“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality may reasonably be questioned.”

–28 US code #455 – Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge

Supreme Court Rule 44 allows a party to file a motion for rehearing within 25 days of the June 26 hearing. That means if Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine files a motion before July 29th, the case can be reheard–without Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.

The dissenting justices didn’t want to risk antagonizing the Justices before the April oral argument, but there is no reason to ignore this now. If you read the dissenting opinions, they are scathing–Justice Scalia calls the decision a “threat to American Democracy”–and he is right. Now there is something you can do about it.

Call the number below with this message:

Please file a motion for rehearing the marriage ruling because Justices Ginsburg and Kagan violated Federal law by not recusing themselves.

Attorney General Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515

*******

It only takes four Justices to accept a case.

We HAVE the Four:

Roberts:  “Just who do we think we are?”  “The Majority’s decision is an act of the will, not legal judgment.  The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or the Court’s precedents.”

Scalia:  “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy…Thus, when the rights of persons are violated, the Constitution requires redress by the courts.

Thomas:  “…to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation:  no social transformation without representation.”

Alito:  “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

Five people should not be able to take away the votes of 50 million Americans.

The Motion for Rehearing could literally protect the voter in nearly 40 states, our state constitutions, the institution of marriage, and our Freedom of Speech and Religion.

Think that is worth a call to Attorney General DeWine?  800-282-0515.

 

Never give up! Please help in this endeavor by sharing it everywhere on social media!

Thank you,

Christine

Hat tip: Faith 2 Action.org

John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell that blow the majority’s opinion out of the water.

June 30, 2015

Charles Krauthammer appeared on the O’Reilly Factor and explained why America is changing so rapidly.  One reason that this decision is seen by at least 40% (if the polls being revealed are correct) of Americans, which is 128 million of us (if, again, the polls are correct) as wrong is that the judiciary, according to the Constitution, does not have the right to create new law.  Those of us that disagree with this ruling do so for several reasons. The biggest one is the fact that many Americans know that the Supreme Court is not supposed to make new law!  That is what the Legislative branch is for, and the legislatures of each state where making such decisions through the voting process within their states. Thirty of our fifty states had passed laws declaring that the thousands of years old definition of marriage (instituted by God) should remain as the union of one man and one woman.  Unfortunately, liberal judges in the courts started to strike down these decisions.  But several states gained court decisions that upheld the We The People decisions that were voted on within their states.  Was it right to just sweep them away as the Extreme Court did?  No.  Of course not!

The second reason why this ruling was wrong is because two judges who performed homosexual marriages should have recused themselves from this decision.  The third reason why is the chief justice’s dissent which explained why this should not have been done the way that it came down.

Near the end of his 29-page dissent, Roberts registered this strongly worded reprimand:

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

In other words, the Constitution was completely ignored in this case!

But that’s not the only reason for Justice Robert’s dissent in this case. The Federalist provides: Here Are The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts’ Gay Marriage Dissent.

Excerpt:

The dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts, however, contains a number of real gems. Here are 11 quotes from John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell that blow the majority’s opinion out of the water.

On the proper role of the federal judiciary:

[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.

Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.

The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.

On the constitutional basis for a right to same-sex marriage:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”

Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

On the natural and historic basis of the institution of marriage:

The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.

On how the majority opinion basically requires legalization of polygamy/plural marriage:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

On what our Founders would think about five unaccountable oligarchs in robes deciding what does and doesn’t constitute marriage:

Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”

You can read the full opinion here.

These eleven points help explain exactly why at least 128 million Americans have the right to also dissent on this decision!  Yet, we are being viciously attacked and demonized by the supposedly “tolerant” leftists on the winning side.  However, two days did not go by before the gay gestapo activists stated their continued goal to destroy our First Amendment freedoms.

When people say “it’s all about marriage equality” or “equal protection” we all should respond with a question regarding that other awful decision on abortion over 30 years ago:

That was another sweeping decision made by the Extreme Court that also took away States rights on protection of babies in the womb.

Back to the topic.

Charles Krauthammer also shared three reasons why America has been in the throes of secularism since Darwin.  He did state that at least our churches are not empty like many churches in Europe.

The secular left realized that it wasn’t going to win in the public square, so they had to go through the culture.  Many parents can no longer resist what is being pushed in the social media, Hollywood, and the rabid progressive push found in non-Christian colleges and universities.

Bill O’Reilly explained why Americans should not be forced to participate in homosexual marriages. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows them to re-define marriage. But that is what they did. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, stated that the ruling was done to provide equality.  But the consequences of this bad decision go much further! Rush Limbaugh explains it very well!

Excerpts:

Now, that debate’s been shut down because Anthony Kennedy and his four renegades rode in, shut off the debate, and determined, “Right here it is! It’s right there in the 14th Amendment, see? See? It’s right there, that people in this country who are not happy ’cause they’re left out of things have a right to be included in those things, and it says it right there in the 14th Amendment.” It does? “Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! It’s right there.” I don’t see it. “Well, you have to be a lawyer and be thinking like we do to see it. But it’s there.”

A-ha. The same thing that happened with abortion. See, there’s gonna… The culture has now, society has now been roiled and the debate is gonna rage on. It’s not over. It isn’t gonna be over, because never forget this. No matter what victories the left, the socialists, the liberals, the Democrats, whatever you want to call ’em — no matter how many victories they have — it is never enough. No matter how much money they get to spend, no matter how much money they get in benefit, no matter what it is that they demand, it is never enough.

Do you know why? Because when Justice Kennedy and the rest of these people talk about dignity and self-esteem. That’s exactly what’s on the table here. I don’t care if it goes gay marriage to Obamacare. I don’t care what the issue is. The Confederate flag? You’ve got people over there who are miserably unhappy about something, and they believe that getting something — taking something away — from other people will make them happy. And it never does. It’s never enough.

And it’s going to be the case with gay marriage. It is not going to make them feel the way they want to feel. It’s not going to erase whatever baggage they have. It never is. This is not specific to gay marriage. It’s specific to liberals, because their targets, their quests or what have you, are rooted in a void, if you will. I think they’re absent God in many cases in their lives. Not just gays. I’m talking about the global warming crowd. Everybody who denies the existence of God in favor of a different god somewhere over here, it’s not enough.

[In] fact you could almost say, if you study leftists — the welfare state, the benefits state, whatever you want to call it — the more they get, the angrier they become. The more they get, the more unhappy they become. This is something that I have noticed, particularly these past six years. Black America’s angrier than it’s ever been. Various special interest groups on the left are angrier, more unhappy than they’ve ever been, while at the same time we are hearing it’s the greatest week for Obama in his presidency last week.

[So] as I was saying, to “fix” that, you have to take other parts of the Constitution that do exist and deemphasize them or ignore them. Freedom of speech and religious liberty. And I’m telling you, it’s a toss-up which is gonna come first. No, it’s not. Religious liberty. The attack on religion is next, on organized religion. There’s already… I got a couple of stories in the Stack about leftists making an immediate concerted move to remove the tax exempt status from all churches if they will not perform homosexual marriages.

It’s not enough for you out there to say, “Okay, well, the court said gay marriage is legal, fine.” That’s not enough. You must actively embrace it. You must actively support it. You may not oppose it. You may not even dis it. In fact, folks, in Kennedy’s opinion… Get this. In Kennedy’s majority opinion, when talking about religious liberty (this is just so big of him), he grants that people of religious disagreement will continue to have the right of dissent.

But he didn’t say anything about the right to practice religious liberty. Not in this decision. They made all kinds of references — a couple/three — that if you are a deeply religious person, a priest or a pastor of a church, you’re free to dissent, meaning you’re free to tell people you disagree. But you are not free to act on it. In other words, “You can’t deny the constitutional right we just ordained. You can argue against it, you can say you don’t like it, and you’ll be okay. But you cannot practice that. You can not!”

Any person with any semblance of logic, reason, and wisdom can plainly see that important decisions like these are being made outside of what is written in the Constitution. Those on the other side of the issue may have the right to their own beliefs, but they don’t have the right to demonize and punish those who disagree! Our belief in natural marriage – as it was instituted by God – has been a life-long personal and religious belief for me and millions of other Christians. We should continue to have the right to follow the Bible, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and our own religious consciences and convictions.

My next post will discuss how and why such moral depravity as this bogus decision is being forced upon Americans and why Bible based Christians recognize such sinful actions as signs of the times pointing towards Christ’s return.

Hat tips to all links.

Same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to God who created marriage.

June 27, 2015

Years ago, I posted a link and excerpt from a blog entitled:

True Discernment: Jesus, The Days of Noah, and Same Sex Marriage

Excerpt:

Jesus said in Luke 17:26-30, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when Son of man is revealed.”

Jesus being a first century Rabbi, like most Jewish teachers, coupled Sodom with the flood generation as a typical image of evil. His intent was to inform his audience that at His second coming the conditions of the world would mirror Noah’s days and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

As in the Days of Noah

The Midrash Rabbah Genesis is a specific form of rabbinic literature of ancient Judaism commentaries of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is based on the interpretation of the Torah (Old Testament). It speaks about the subject of same-sex marriage during the days of Noah.

The rabbis wrote in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis that the flood in Noah’s day was primarily triggered when males starting writing marriage deeds with other males, and between men and beasts (bestiality). Based on the account of Midrash Rabbah Genesis, same-sex marriages took place during the days of Noah. There was nothing new under the sun and this is stated by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:9. Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah is synonymous with the destruction of the flood generation in Midrash Rabbah Genesis. It states in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis that Lot pleaded all night for mercy for the Sodomites, and that the angels permitted him to plead for them. But once the people said, “… bring them out [the angels] so we may have sex with them,” mercy ran out. The angels told Lot, “for now on you have no right to plead anymore.” Judgment was sent upon Sodom. Flood water was the judgment of God on the people in Noah’s day. Fire and brimstone was the judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah.

The blog author explains that the book of Enoch is not inspired, and thus not part of the canon of Scripture, however the book of Jude contains some quotes from it. Enoch is being used by the author as a good reference resource.

Excerpt:

The book of Enoch was written before the birth of Christ and although it is not an inspired book, it is a good resource. Parts of it are quoted in Jude 14-15. 2nd Enoch 34-1, 3-4 states, “God convicts the persons who are idol worshipers and sodomite fornicators, and for this reason he brings down the flood upon them. And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities, wickedness and abominable fornications. That is, friend with friend in anus, every other kind of wicked uncleanness which is almost too disgusting to report, and the worship of the evil one. And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth, and shall destroy everything, and the earth itself will collapse in great darkness.” Second Enoch states that perverse homosexual relationships were the main cause of the flood. Both Midrash Rabbah Genesis and the second book of Enoch state that God frowns on homosexuality in cultic prostitution, and in so-called “loving consensual” homosexual relationships. So don’t believe the liberal Christian theologians, gay-affirming churches and inclusionists. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are an abomination in God’s eyesight.

Today’s post there:

What Does the Bible Say about Same Sex “marriage”?

Excerpt:

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Hat tip: True Discernment

May You and I Be Found Faithful to the Task

June 26, 2015

America is now officially within what Jesus Christ warned about regarding the signs of depravity, sin, and evil which would point towards His return.  Jesus said it would be  As In The Days of Noah and As In The Days of Lot.

Joel C. Rosenberg had written a post back in March, 2015, which is entitled, Three existential threats facing America. (My address to the National Religious Broadcasters convention.)

Rosenberg first discusses Ezekiel chapter 33.  It is about the role of the “Watchman on the Wall.”   Rosenberg (as well as I) believes it is deeply relevant to our times.

Joel writes:

More than 2,500 years ago, the Lord spoke these words to the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel.

  • A man of God
  • Born in Israel
  • Exiled and living in Iraq
  • Amidst grave dangers rising

What was Ezekiel commanded to do? The text is clear.

  • Listen to God
  • Watch for threats
  • Warn the people, come what may

This was a divine calling – an enormous responsibility. And God was clear. Some would listen to Ezekiel’s warnings. Some would not. Ezekiel was not going to be held responsible for the decision others made to obey the Lord or not. He would be held responsible for obeying the Lord, teaching people the Word of God and warning the people when God told him to speak. Fortunately, Ezekiel was faithful to the task.

As followers of Jesus Christ — and as pastors and ministry leaders and religious broadcasters — each of you are, in our modern times, also watchmen on the walls. In many ways, you have the same calling. The same responsibility.

  • To listen to the Word of God, found in the Bible
  • To speak the Word of God — to tell people the bad news and the good news according to the Scriptures
  • To warn people of threats that are rising
  • To speak the truth in love, come what may

God warned Ezekiel — as He warns us today — that if He speaks and we don’t share His Word with others, we will be held to account. What’s more, if we see threats rising, and we do not warn people, we will be held to account.

In the first threat facing America, Rosenberg asks the question:

Threat #1 — What if America is not simply in a season of decline but heading towards collapse, towards implosion?

Within the list of “season of decline” threats we face here in America, he mentions one of the most important factors – the 58 million children in the womb that have been aborted since 1973. That awful Extreme Court decision has wreaked havoc upon the lives of many Americans – especially women! The question is whether or not we, who are called by the name of Jesus Christ will stand in the gap and continue to condemn the evil practice of abortion for the sake of saving this nation from judgment.

Joel writes:

Since 1973, Americans have aborted 58 million babies. Think about that — 58 million. It is a staggering number. And if something doesn’t happen soon to change course, in less than two years we will hit 60 million.

If this happens, we as Americans will have murdered ten times more human beings than the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis.

We know the judgment of God that fell upon Nazi Germany. What do we think is going to happen to a nation that exterminates ten times more people than the Nazis?

The judgment of Almighty God is coming. There is no way out. The souls of 58 million babies are crying out for justice – and they will get it. But for this to happen we need to be pleading with God to have mercy on us. We need to be calling people to prayer, fasting and above all repentance.

At this point in my post I would like to interject another “watchman on the wall” landmark decision which will be coming any day now…perhaps even today, June 26, 2015. The decision on whether or not the Supreme Court of the land will decide to sweep away state’s rights regarding the legality of same-sex “marriage”; and thus change the thousands of years definition that God gave us that marriage is the union of one man and one woman!

Well, the decision has just come down and in a 5-4 vote, the Extreme Court struck down individual state right to ban same-sex “marriage.”

Instinctively, I knew that this would happen. The “deciding” court justice – Kennedy – apparently has a lesbian sister. Who would think that this man would care about the constitutional rights of states to make these decisions? It’s apparently more important to make a decision this huge based on his own personal preferences, rather than what God says in the Bible about marriage; or what our Constitution says about states rights on such decisions.

America is now officially within what Jesus Christ warned about regarding the signs of His return.  Jesus said it would be  As In The Days of Noah and As In The Days of Lot.

Jesus was asked what would be the signs of the times on the earth to indicate his return?

Mat 24:37

“But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luk 17:26

“And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:

Luk 17:27

“They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Luk 17:28

“Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;

Luk 17:29

“but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.

Luk 17:30

“Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Luk 17:31

“In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back.

Luk 17:32

“Remember Lot’s wife.

Luk 17:33

“Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

There was an excellent post in my reader last night that explained the dire consequences of a sweeping same-sex “marriage” ruling for all 50 states here in America. I need to find it again. When I do, I will post it here.

Found it!  Here is a copy in its entirety:

IT IS NOT ABOUT “GAY” MARRIAGE!  IT IS ALL ABOUT DESTROYING THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether or not there is a Constitutionally protected right to ‘gay’ marriage, but this is not what is actually being decided.  What is really being decided is whether or not rights can contradict.  The goal is to establish that rights can contradict because it opens the door for government to decide which rights take precedence over others.  I have already explained why rights cannot contradict and why.  This then begs the question as to why the Courts would even consider this case about ‘gay’ marriage.  The answer is simple: this is not about rights.  That claim is just propaganda aimed at creating an emotional appeal so you will not use reason to examine what is really happening.  However, if you can set the emotion aside and look at what is actually happening, you will quickly see that this is about giving the government a path to destroy the First Amendment!

The process is simple: if there is a ‘right’ to ‘gay’ marriage, then it suddenly becomes a ‘hate’ crime to oppose ‘gay’ marriage in any form.  This opens the door to the destruction of faith-based organizations.  It will not matter whether they are churches or businesses, they will have to comply with the government dictates or be shut down.  But it goes further than that.  If you are a doctor but disagree with homosexuality, you could lose your job.  Same for lawyers, firemen, police officers: anyone who disagrees with homosexuality will be at risk of government persecution.

You see, what the Supreme Court is actually about to rule on is whether or not the government has the authority to define bigotry and then use that as a justification to persecute anyone who has just been declared a bigot.  This is one of the reasons I write so much about language, both here, but especially on my other blog, The OYL.  If the government is allowed to redefine the meaning of words at will, then it does not matter what the law says: it will change according to the whims of the government.  This is the very definition of tyranny.  Yet, this is what the Supreme Court is about to decide: whether or not the government has dictatorial powers.

If you doubt me, consider this: what happens is someone you disagree with politically gets into power?  And once in power, that person reverses the definitions of words?  And hatred is suddenly defined as anyone who opposes Islam?  It may not bother you that Jews and Christians will still be persecuted, but now, so will homosexuals.  Yes, the court and law will still say you cannot ‘discriminate’ because of homosexuality, but the government will have just put the rights of Muslims over those of homosexuals.  So now, where the law will allow homosexuals to claim their rights over those of Christians, it will also support the rights of Muslims to exercise their rights over both homosexuals and Christians.  Now, just in case you do not understand what this means, I’ll explain: it means Christians will have to either convert to Islam, pay a punitive tax or die.  However, homosexuals only have one option — to die!

There are other scenarios that I could use to illustrate how this will work, but the point is this: it is not about ‘gay’ marriage, it is about opening a path to destroy the First Amendment.  It is about destroying the right to conscience, and by extension, freedom of expression. It is about the Supreme Court finally handing the government dictatorial powers as a matter of law.  But understand, if the Court does this, it will actually be destroying the law.  So this ruling is not about ‘gay’ rights: it is about the final destruction of the U.S. Constitution — period!

H/T: The Road to Concord

After reading that post over at “The Road to Concord,” I was reminded of a post I wrote back in 2010. At first, I was confused about the following photo which was taken in a “World Can’t Wait” protest march. The photo and brief excerpt below (written in 2013) describes what (and why) there is this unholy alliance of Islam and Communism.

Notice that the man holding the sign is wearing Muslim terrorist garb.  The man walking next to him is wearing a commie red t-shirt with the image of Che Guevara!

How ironic that the Muslim man is holding that sign (below)!  Here’s a quote from Che Guevara that may explain their union of nefarious ideologies:

“I don’t care if I fall as long as someone else picks up my gun and keeps on shooting.”

Che Guevara

H/T Brainy Quote

I wish that more Americans would heed Ronald Reagan’s advice:

Ronald Reagan

“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

Ronald Reagan

 

What those two men (seen in photo above), marching together, BTW, in an anti-Israel demonstration during the Bush presidential years) represent is the forming of an alliance between radical Islam and Communism!  Also, notice what the sign says:  “Thank You S.F. (San Francisco) Liberals – You Die Last.”  How ANYONE could possibly support either group is beyond any semblance of reason!  Liberals are being USED by both!  Yet they are either complicit in either ideology or just too damn ignorant to realize it!
Only one of these evil and nefarious ideologies will win out (meaning, here on this earth – in a temporary way – while the Lord Jesus Christ tarries) and the bloodbath will be ugly!  With all of this in mind, let’s re-read what  the author at The Road to Concord stated:

You see, what the Supreme Court is actually about to rule on is whether or not the government has the authority to define bigotry and then use that as a justification to persecute anyone who has just been declared a bigot.  This is one of the reasons I write so much about language, both here, but especially on my other blog, The OYL.  If the government is allowed to redefine the meaning of words at will, then it does not matter what the law says: it will change according to the whims of the government.  This is the very definition of tyranny.  Yet, this is what the Supreme Court is about to decide: whether or not the government has dictatorial powers.

If you doubt me, consider this: what happens is someone you disagree with politically gets into power?  And once in power, that person reverses the definitions of words?  And hatred is suddenly defined as anyone who opposes Islam?  It may not bother you that Jews and Christians will still be persecuted, but now, so will homosexuals.  Yes, the court and law will still say you cannot ‘discriminate’ because of homosexuality, but the government will have just put the rights of Muslims over those of homosexuals.  So now, where the law will allow homosexuals to claim their rights over those of Christians, it will also support the rights of Muslims to exercise their rights over both homosexuals and Christians.  Now, just in case you do not understand what this means, I’ll explain: it means Christians will have to either convert to Islam, pay a punitive tax or die.  However, homosexuals only have one option — to die!

There are other scenarios that I could use to illustrate how this will work, but the point is this: it is not about ‘gay’ marriage, it is about opening a path to destroy the First Amendment.  It is about destroying the right to conscience, and by extension, freedom of expression. It is about the Supreme Court finally handing the government dictatorial powers as a matter of law.  But understand, if the Court does this, it will actually be destroying the law.  So this ruling is not about ‘gay’ rights: it is about the final destruction of the U.S. Constitution — period!

Next, go back and read what Joel Rosenberg wrote regarding these two points:

RADICAL ISLAM AND APOCALYPTIC ISLAM

Threat #2 — What if America is not simply at rising risk of attack by Radical Islam but heading towards the risk of annihilation by Apocalyptic Islam?

ISRAEL

Which brings me finally to Threat #3 — What if America is not simply entering a season of strained relations with Israel, but we are heading towards total American abandonment of the Jewish State?

We need to heed Joel Rosenberg’s words:

This is the most dangerous moment in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

What do the next two years hold?

I’m not sure. But this much I know: on top of all America’s national challenges and sins, we dare not also abandon or turn against Israel and the Jewish people. If we do, we will seal our fate with God.

Which brings me back to you — the watchmen on the walls.

Are you warning the nation and the Church of the dangerous road the President has us on vis-à-vis Israel?

Are you mobilizing Christians to love and bless and pray for and stand with Israel and the Jewish people in this critical hour?

CONCLUSION

I am afraid I cannot tell you whether God will grant America a Third Great Awakening and/or raise up a King like Josiah (see 2 Chronicles 34-35) and thus forestall the coming judgment.

I cannot tell you whether the American government will do its job to protect us and our allies from Radical and Apocalyptic Islam before it’s too late.

Or whether the Church will do her job in fulfilling the Great Commission and standing with our persecuted brothers and sisters in the epicenter.

Or whether America and the Church will stand with Israel and bless her and the Jewish people.

All I can tell you is that you and I have been called to be watchmen on the walls.

Our job is to:

  • Listen to and study and know the Word of God
  • Teach the Word of God
  • Watch for threats
  • Warn the people, come what may

We are not going to be held responsible if people do not listen to us or to the Word of God. We will be held to account if we fail to speak and act when the Lord commands us to do so.

Much is hanging in the balance. May you and I be found faithful to the task.

 

We need to heed God’s Word even more!

 

1Pe 3:12

For the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous,
And His ears are open to their prayers;
But the face of the LORD is against those who do evil.” [fn]

1Pe 3:13

And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?

1Pe 3:14

But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” [fn]

1Pe 3:15

But sanctify the Lord God [fn] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

1Pe 3:16

having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

1Pe 3:17

For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

1Pe 3:18

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us [fn] to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

1Pe 3:19

by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,

1Pe 3:20

who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited [fn] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

1Pe 3:21

There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

1Pe 3:22

who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.


The Last Refuge

Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits - Contact Info: TheLastRefuge@reagan.com

Standing in Grace

...this grace in which we now stand. — Rom 5:2

The End Time

Exalting the name of Jesus through Christian essays

Michelle Lesley

Discipleship for Christian Women

The Acceptable Digest

"Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it ..." Song of Solomon 8:7

On the Edge Again

Life happens. I hope to encourage everyone in bad times!

Cooking with Kathy Man

Celebrating delicious and healthy food

Talk Wisdom

Talk Wisdom's goal is to defend the tenets and values of Biblical Christian faith. We defend our Constitutional Republic and Charters of Freedom, especially when speaking out against destructive social and political issues. As followers of our Savior and Lord, we should boldly stand up for Jesus Christ in our present circumstances. He is our Savior, Lord, and King, and His love needs to be shed abroad in our hearts and in our world - now.

WINTERY KNIGHT

...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

pastorwardclinton

Pastor Ward Clinton is a pastor in the Church of The Nazarene and author of a handful of books.

GraceLife Blog

Thoughts About God's Amazing Grace

True Discernment

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Eternity Matters

We look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.

Centinel2012

De Oppresso Liber

The Oil for Your Lamp

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)

Walter Bright

Refining theological understanding. Sharpening ethical rigor. Heightening devotional intensity.

Kingsjester's Blog

Opinions from a Christian American Conservative

As Seen Through the Eyes of Faith

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17) KJV

Daniel B. Wallace

Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

The Master's Table

God honoring, Christ Centered

Truth2Freedom's Blog

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" - George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their tabloid news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting - this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

Citizen WElls

Obama eligibility, Obama news

drkatesview

Thoughts on Our Constitutional Republic

We the People of the United States

Fighting the Culture War, One Skirmish at a Time

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

Be Sure You're RIGHT, Then Go Ahead

"Our threat is from the insidious forces working from within which have already so drastically altered the character of our free institutions — those institutions we proudly called the American way of life. " -- Gen. Douglas MacArthur

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.