Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Take It or Leave It

The below quote has been attributed to the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, but is apparently a hoax. Nevertheless, the words and spirit it conveys are true and should be embraced by every English-speaking country. If Muslims want to live in our countries, they should have to abide by our rules just as we would have to do if we wanted to live in their countries.
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT . . .
Take It Or Leave It.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.
This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak mainly ENGLISH; not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact; because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
If you aren’t happy here, then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.”
If we went into these other countries, such as Muslim countries, we would be expected to do things their way. Why, when they come to our countries, do we step aside and allow them to do whatever they want, however they want? If a Hindu moves to Canada and wants to join the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he should have to wear the Mountie hat—not his ridiculous turban! The hat is part of the uniform. If you do not like it, then do not try to become a Canadian Mountie. We give all sorts of freedoms to foreigners and rob our own citizens of their own freedoms.

English-speaking countries claim religious freedom and yet every religion except Christianity has the freedom to do what they want. If a school has a religious day, every religion can decorate their lockers with stuff from their religion except for Christianity. Try and tell me that Christians are not persecuted in their own countries. Try and tell me that the world does not hate Christianity. The reason Christianity is stifled is because people know it deep down in their hearts to be the only true religion, despite their many protests to the contrary.

Sharia Law has no place in English-speaking countries, or any other country for that matter. If Muslims desire Sharia Law, let them return to their own morally and spiritually bankrupt countries and live it out there. Quit trying to enslave the rest of the world with your hate and corruption. The Muslims' agenda is to collapse nations from the inside. When they move into English-speaking countries that are selfish and having very few progeny, the Muslims out-breed them and will eventually receive the vote. Once they do this, they can vote Sharia Law in and destroy and enslave nations. Muslims are not powerful enough to take these nations on head-to-head. They know they will lose. Like the devil himself, Muslims are crafty serpents and will pretend to be your friends until they are in a situation where they have more power than you. That is when they will strike. Do not be fooled by their lies. Islam is not a religion of peace and it is not for freedom of religion. Islam's motto, like ancient Catholicism's, is: "Convert, or die by the sword!"

Every English-speaking country should stand by the above quote. This is our country! Conform to our standards or go back to your own country!

Monday, October 29, 2012

A Letter From God

Dear Friend,

As you got up this morning, I watched you and hoped that you would talk to me, even if it were only a few words: asking my opinion or thanking me for something good that happened in your life yesterday. However, I noticed that you were too busy trying to find the right outfit to wear. As you ran around the house getting ready, I knew that there would be a few minutes for you to stop and say hello, but you were too busy. At one point, you had to wait fifteen minutes with nothing to do except sit in a chair. Then I saw you spring to your feet. I thought you wanted to talk to me, but you ran to the phone and called a friend to get the latest gossip instead. I watched patiently all day long. With each of your activities, I guess you were too busy to say anything to me. I noticed that before lunch, you looked around; maybe you felt embarrassed to talk to me and that is why you did not bow your head. You glanced three or four tables over and noticed some of your friends talking to me briefly before they ate, but you did not. That is okay. There is still more time left, and I hope that you will talk to me yet.

You went home and it seems as if you had many things to do. After a few of them were done, you turned on the TV. I do not know if you like TV or not, but just about anything goes there and you spend a lot of time each day in front of it not thinking about anything, just enjoying the show. I waited patiently again as you watched the TV and ate your meal, but again you did not talk to me. At bedtime, I guess you felt too tired. After you said goodnight to your family, you plopped into bed and fell asleep in no time. That is okay, because you may not realize that I am always here for you. I have patience, more than you will ever know... I even want to teach you how to be patient with others as well. I love you so much that I wait everyday for a nod, prayer or thought, or a thankful part of your heart. It is hard to have a one-sided conversation. Well, you are getting up once again. Once again, I will wait, with nothing but love for you; hoping that today, you will give me some time.

Have a nice day!

Your friend,

GOD


NOTE: This letter is a chain-mail letter I received by e-mail many years ago. While it is not theologically or doctrinally accurate, it nevertheless demonstrates a truthfulness that is often a sad reality in the lives of professing Christians. Let it convict you and draw you to a closer, personal relationship and walk with the Lord Jesus. Stop loving this world and pushing God out of your life by giving priority to everything else in your life that is of little value and significance. God should take the preeminence in your life. If God has no place in your life, you might want to consider the possibility that you will most likely hear the words "I never knew you" when you stand before God.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Athanasian Creed

  1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the universal faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
  2. And the universal faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
  3. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance
  4. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.
  5. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
  6. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.
  7. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
  8. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
  9. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
  10. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
  11. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
  12. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;
  13. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
  14. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
  15. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
  16. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
  17. And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.
  18. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;
  19. so are we forbidden by the universal religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.
  20. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
  21. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
  22. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
  23. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
  24. And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.
  25. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.
  26. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
  27. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
  28. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  29. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
  30. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
  31. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
  32. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
  33. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
  34. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
  35. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
  36. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
  37. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,* rose again the third day from the dead;
  38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
  39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
  40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
  41. And shall give account of their own works.
  42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
  43. This is the universal faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.


*Jesus did not descend into hell. The clause "He descended into Hell" was interpolated into the Apostle's Creed in the sixth century. It was not in the Apostle's Creed in its original form, which read: "Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose again from the dead." The personal and local descent of Christ into hell would have been one of the great cardinal facts connected with the incarnation, falling into the same class with the nativity, the baptism, the passion, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension. Less important facts than these are recorded, but none of the Apostles wrote about Christ's descent into hell? The total silence of the four Gospels is fatal to this false doctrine, which has mythology at its root.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Chalcedonian Creed

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God,* according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


*Mary was not the mother of God, for God existed throughout all eternity long before Mary was ever conceived. Mary was the mother of God in the flesh, the body that God the Father covered God the Son with so that He could bleed and be a sacrifice for our sins.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Apostle's Creed

I believe in God,1 the Father Almighty,
Maker of Heaven and Earth,2

And in Jesus Christ,3
His only Son,4
our Lord,5
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,6
born of the Virgin7 Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,8
was crucified,9
dead10
and buried.11

He descended into Hell.A

The third day12
He arose from the dead,13
He ascended into Heaven14
and is seated at the right hand
of God,15 the Father Almighty.

From thence He shall come
to judge the quick* and the dead.16

I believe in the Holy Spirit,17
the church universal,18
the communion ** of saints,19
the forgiveness of sins,20
the resurrection of the body,21
and life everlasting.22


1Isaiah 44:6; 45:5
2Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3; Acts 14:15
3Luke 2:11; John 20:28
4John 3:16; Proverbs 30:4
5John 20:28
6Luke 1:35
7Luke 1:27
8Luke 23:23-25
9John 19:20; Acts 4:10; all Gospels
101 Corinthians 15:3
111 Corinthians 15:4
A1 Peter 3:18; Luke 23:43 —This clause was not in the Apostle's Creed in its original form, which read: "Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose again from the dead." This clause was introduced into the Apostle's Creed in the sixth century after Christ. Once interpolated into the oldest of creeds, it was then necessary to find support for it in Scripture. The doctrine of the descent into hell has mythology as a stimulant. It then found its way into other creeds later on.
121 Corinthians 15:4
131 Corinthian2 15:4
14Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:11
15Mark 16:19; Hebrews 1:3
162 Timothy 4:1; John 5:22
17John 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14; Acts 13:2
18Galatians 3:26-29
19Revelation 19:14; Hebrews 10:25
20Luke 7:48
211 Thessalonians 4:16; John 6:39
22John 10:28; 17:2-3
*"quick" means "spiritually alive"
**"communion" refers to "coming together" 

Monday, October 22, 2012

Being A Disciple

Every biblical Christian is a disciple, but not every disciple is a Christian! "After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him." John 6:66 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." 1 John 2:19

LUKE 9
Take Up Your Cross and Follow Jesus
(compare Matthew 17:24-28; Mark 8:34-38)
And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and [the glory] of the Father and of the holy angels. But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

The Cost of Following Christ
(compare Matthew 8:18-22)
And as they were going along the road, someone said to Him, "I will follow You wherever You go." And Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." And He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Permit me first to go and bury my father." But He said to him, "Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God." And another also said, "I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home." But Jesus said to him, "No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

LUKE 14
The Cost of Discipleship
(compare Matthew 10:34-39)
Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.* Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.* For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand [men] to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms of peace. So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple* who does not give up all his own possessions."
*cannot be my disciple = cannot be a Christian

MATTHEW 7
I Never Knew You
(compare Luke 6:46)
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"

Read Mark 10:17-31. In verse 26 the disciples ask, "Then who can be saved?" In verse 27, following upon what He said in verses 24-25, Jesus answered them saying, "With man it is impossible! But not with God, for all things are possible with God."
Jesus was telling them, "Guys, you’ve got it right. No one can be saved based on the terms I’m giving! It is impossible with men! But not with God." He had told the rich young man to forsake everything he had and to follow Him. The man loved his sin of covetousness, just as we love our sin of something else. We do not want to give up our sins. We want to continue in our sins and are therefore telling Jesus that we do not want Him to save us from our sins, to redeem us from our sins, to deliver us from our sins.

Paul’s writings consistently state that if we are in Christ, if we are a new creation, we are dead to sin. We need to turn from all sin, repent of it. That means to stop committing it willfully and willingly.

"How shall we who are dead to sin live any longer in it?" Romans 6:2

"For he who is dead is freed from sin." Romans 6:7

"Likewise, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin." Romans 6:11

"Rebuke them that sin before all, that others also may fear." 1 Timothy 5:20

"My little children, these things I write unto you so that you do not sin. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1—If we fall into sin against our wills, we need to confess that sin and forsake it. If we sin in accordance with our wills, then we are not Christians.

"Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:9

A Christian no longer sins willfully or willingly, but if they sin, they sin against their will. To sin against your will is to fall into sin. To sin willingly is to dive into or jump into sin and swim there or live there. If this is how one’s life is characterized, then they are not a Christian! Period! God’s Word is either true or it is full of lies. You can argue based on your personal opinion and feelings all you want, but you cannot argue with Scripture. ‘Nuff said!

Friday, October 19, 2012

Leviticus 18

My friend Jerry and I have been conversing with a Jewish homosexual named Alex, who tries passing himself off as a Christian. In his blog dealing with Leviticus 18, Alex's "context" consisted merely of verses 21-23, with which he declared that "Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones" (It is in green to represent the poison that it is.). However, the full context consists of the entire chapter, which was prohibiting every one of the immoral behaviours listed therein. Let us look at the verses of Alex's focus:
Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
Three of his readers, having caught him with his hand in the cookie jar, made these comments:
"If Leviticus 18:22 forbids sexual intercourse between a male as with a woman only because of its association with idolatry viz. pagan fertility cult ritual, then it would logically follow that Leviticus 18:23 sexual practices with an animal, and Leviticus 18:21 infant child sacrifice are also forbidden only because of their association with pagan idolatry.
Could you show how infant child sacrifice (18:21) and intercourse with animal (18:23) are morally binding today despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not?"

"So, let me get this straight. You say that these prohibitions in Leviticus were referring solely to practices performed as part of the religious belief at that time, and those prohibitions no longer apply. Therefore, according to your logic, it is quite ok for me to burn my children or have sex with animals.
See how shallow and ludicrous your argument is?"

"You have been quite thorough in your interpretive attempt, but your conclusions are absurd. You claim that 'Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones'. Then you must conclude that there is also nothing wrong morally with bestiality or child sacrifice.
You’re right that we should be wary about bringing our own predetermination to the text; unfortunately, it is clear that is exactly what you have done. You are not being honest with the text, and the results are bad exegesis and a wrong interpretation. Without delving too deeply into another subject, I’ll say simply this is the best reason for an interpretive authority."
In order to avert his readers' eyes away from his hand still dangling in the cookie jar, Alex's responses to all three went like this:
"I don’t think your argument is a sound one. In the Leviticus passage’s context these acts are prohibited because of their association with pagan idolatry. However, common sense also tells us that the illegitimate taking of a human life (child sacrifice/Lev 18:21) and the sexual abuse of an animal (bestiality/Lev 18:23) are additionally indisputably exploitive and abusive under ANY context or circumstance, while the same does not hold true for what we know of today as “homosexuality”, which often encompasses a committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership."
As you can see, Alex is guilty of performing pretext, "an effort or strategy intended to conceal something". Alex's argument goes like this: Leviticus 21, 22, and 23 are prohibited for religious reasons while only verses 21 and 23 are prohibited under any circumstances. Alex is reading his own opinions and prejudices into the text (eisegesis). He is performing "frontloading", i.e., reading his own personal, political, and ideological beliefs into the text (eisegesis) and ignoring the plain sense, and the drawing out of the plain sense (exegesis), of the text. The text says what it means and means what it says.

Alex argues that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not apply today to "a committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership" between homosexuals. What about "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership[s]" between a son and his father's wife? a brother and his sister? someone and their dog? everything else prohibited by Leviticus 18 and 20? Whether two males or two females are in "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership[s]" is irrelevant. God has declared it to be wrong and has called it an abomination! It goes against the created order and the mandate to "Be fruitful and multiple". He (and every homosexual like him) wants it to be okay and acceptable because his (their) perverted and sinful practices call for it. But the Bible does not!

Alex is dishonest and self-deceived. His arguments are chock full with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, and conclusions drawn on assumptions. His work is filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. He has lost all credibility.

Homosexuality, by definition, is “a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex”. A homosexual, by definition, is “someone who is sexually attracted to (or sexually active with) people of their own sex”. So, what do you call "a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman"? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "A homosexual" or "Homosexuality". The person who denies this is not being honest. It is borne out in the Hebrew, the Greek, and the English. The text says what it means and means what it says.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Exegeting Homosexuality, Part 4

Continued from last...

TRANSLATIONS
One of the individuals I have conversed with on these issues attempted to tell me that "It is significant that no two English translations of the Bible can agree on what these Greek terms mean", referring to μαλακοι and αρσενοκοιται. Is his statement true? I submit to you that it is not! Below are 10 English translations, a Latin translation, 5 German translations, 5 Spanish translations, 3 French translations, and 2 Russian translations. All-in-all, I would say they are fairly consistent with their translations of these words. Do not let fools who are wise in their own eyes attempt to try and tell you different.
THE WYCLIFF BIBLE (1380):
Whether ye witen not, that wickid men schulen not welde the kyngdom of God? Nyle ye erre; nethir letchours, nether men that seruen mawmetis, nether auouteris, nether letchouris ayen kynde, nether thei that doon letcheri with men, nether theues, nether auerouse men, nethir `ful of drunkenesse, nether curseris, nether rauenours, schulen welde the kyngdom of God.
MODERN ENGLISH:
Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men, neither thieves, neither avaricious men [neither covetous men, or niggards], neither men full of drunkenness, neither cursers, neither raveners, shall wield the kingdom of God.

Letchery: offensive sexual desire; lustfulness
THE TYNDALE BIBLE (1530):
Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde, nether theves nether the coveteous nether dronkardes nether cursed speakers nether pillers shall inheret the kyngdome of God.

THE MATTHEWS BIBLE (1537):
Do ye not remember how that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived. For neither fornicators, neither worshippers of images, neither whoremongers, neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind, neither thieves, neither the covetous, neither drunkards, neither cursed speakers, neither pillers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

GENEVA BIBLE (1560):
Knowe ye not that the vnrighteous shal not inherite the kingdome of GOd? Be not deceiued: nether fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor watons, nor bouggerers, nor theues, nor couetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extorcioners, shal inherite the kingdome of God.

GENEVA BIBLE (1599):
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (♣) wantons, nor (♠) buggerers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(♣) Immoral or unchaste, lewd.
(♠) Someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male.)
KJV (1611):
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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NASB (1971):
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor [the] covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NIV (1978):
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

NKJV (1979):
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

ESV (2001):
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (*), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(*) The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts
LATIN BIBLE (VULGATE):
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt
TRANSLATION:
Do ye not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God is not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor liers with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

GERMAN BIBLE (Luther 1534):
Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder noch die Diebe noch die Geizigen noch die Trunkenbolde noch die Lästerer noch die Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Let not seduce you! Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers [of themselves with mankind], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor are revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (Schlachter 1951):
Wisset ihr denn nicht, daß Ungerechte das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Irret euch nicht: Weder Unzüchtige noch Götzendiener, weder Ehebrecher noch Weichlinge, noch Knabenschänder, weder Diebe noch Habsüchtige, noch Trunkenbolde, noch Lästerer, noch Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (Schlachter 2000):
Wisst ihr denn nicht, dass Ungerechte das Reich Gottes nicht erben werden? Irrt euch nicht: Weder Unzüchtige noch Götzendiener, weder Ehebrecher noch Weichlinge, noch Knabenschänder, weder Diebe noch Habsüchtige, noch Trunkenbolde, noch Lästerer, noch Räuber werden das Reich Gottes erben.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of God is not to be? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (NGU):
Muss ich euch daran erinnern, dass die, die Unrecht tun, keinen Anteil am Reich Gottes bekommen werden, dem Erbe, das Gott für uns bereithält? Macht euch nichts vor: Keiner, der ein unmoralisches Leben führt, Götzen anbetet, die Ehe bricht, homosexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, stiehlt, geldgierig ist, trinkt, Verleumdungen verbreitet oder andere beraubt, wird an Gottes Reich teilhaben.
TRANSLATION:
Must I remind you that those who do wrong, no share in the kingdom of God will receive, the inheritance that God has for us? Never mind before: No one who leads an immoral life, idol worship, adultery, arrives homosexual relationships, stealing, being greedy, drinking, or other spreads slander is robbed, participate in God's kingdom.

GERMAN BIBLE (HOF):
Habt ihr vergessen, dass für Menschen, die Unrecht tun, in Gottes neuer Welt kein Platz sein wird? Täuscht euch nicht: Wer verbotene sexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, andere Götter anbetet, die Ehe bricht, wer sich von seinen Begierden treiben lässt und homosexuell verkehrt, wird nicht in Gottes neue Welt kommen; auch kein Dieb, kein Ausbeuter, kein Trinker, kein Gotteslästerer oder Räuber.
TRANSLATION:
Did you forget that for people who do wrong will be no place in God's new world? Do not be deceived: those who take illicit sexual relationships, worshiping other gods, adultery, who can be driven by his desires and perverted homosexual will not come into God's new world, nor a thief, not a sweatshop, not a drinker, not a blasphemer or robbers.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVR 1960):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No erréis; ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se echan con varones, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVR 1995):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os engañéis: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVA):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no poseerán el reino de Dios? No erréis, que ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se echan con varones, Ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los robadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVC):
¿Acaso no saben que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No se equivoquen: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se acuestan con hombres, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los malhablados, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor those who lie with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor foul-mouthed, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (Traducción en lenguaje actual):
No se dejen engañar. Ustedes bien saben que los que hacen lo malo no participarán en el reino de Dios. Me refiero a los que tienen relaciones sexuales prohibidas, a los que adoran a los ídolos, a los que son infieles en el matrimonio, a los afeminados, a los hombres que tienen relaciones sexuales con otros hombres, a los ladrones, a los que siempre quieren más de lo que tienen, a los borrachos, a los que hablan mal de los demás, y a los tramposos. Ninguno de ellos participará del reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Do not be fooled. You well know that wrongdoers will not participate in the kingdom of God. I mean those who have sex prohibited, those who worship idols, who are unfaithful in marriage, to effeminate, to men who have sex with men, to thieves, who always want more than they have, to drunkards, to those who speak ill of others, and to cheats. Neither of them will participate in the kingdom of God.

FRENCH BIBLE (LOUIS SEGOND):
Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n'hériteront point le royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni les impudiques, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les efféminés, ni les infâmes, ni les voleurs, ni les cupides, ni les ivrognes, ni les outrageux, ni les ravisseurs, n'hériteront le royaume de Dieu.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

FRENCH BIBLE (La Bible du Semeur):
Ne savez-vous pas que ceux qui pratiquent l'injustice n'auront aucune part au *royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: il n'y aura point de part dans l'héritage de ce royaume pour les débauchés, les idolâtres, les adultères, les pervers ou les homosexuels, ni pour les voleurs, les avares, pas plus que pour les ivrognes, les calomniateurs ou les malhonnêtes.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that those who practice injustice will have no part in the kingdom of God? Make no mistake: there will be no share in the inheritance of the kingdom for fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, perverts or homosexuals, nor thieves, covetous, nor for drunkards, slanderers or dishonest.

FRENCH BIBLE (SEGOND 21):
Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n'hériteront pas du royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni ceux qui vivent dans l’immoralité sexuelle, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les travestis, ni les homosexuels, ni les voleurs, ni les hommes toujours désireux de posséder plus, ni les ivrognes, ni les calomniateurs, ni les exploiteurs n'hériteront du royaume de Dieu.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither those who live in sexual immorality, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor transvestites, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the men still want to have more, nor drunkards, nor slanderers nor exploiters will not inherit the kingdom of God.

RUSSIAN BIBLE:
Или не знаете, что неправедные Царства Божия не наследуют? Не обманывайтесь: ни блудники, ни идолослужители, ни прелюбодеи, ни малакии, ни мужеложники, ни воры, ни лихоимцы, ни пьяницы, ни злоречивые, ни хищники--Царства Божия не наследуют.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners - inherit the kingdom of God.

RUSSIAN BIBLE (SZ):
Разве вы не знаете, что неправедные не наследуют Царства Божьего? Смотрите, чтобы вам не обмануться. Никакие развратники, никакие идолопоклонники, нарушители супружеской верности, пассивные и активные гомосексуалисты-мужчины, воры, корыстолюбцы или пьяницы, клеветники или мошенники Царства Божьего не наследуют.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? See that you are not deceived. No sexually immoral, idolaters, no, adulterers, passive and active homosexual men, thieves, drunkards, or covetous, slanderers or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

CONCLUSION
The individual who tries explaining away the various passages in Scripture condemning homosexuality is performing what is called "frontloading"; i.e., reading one's own personal, political, and ideological beliefs back INTO the Bible (eisegesis) instead of reading OUT FROM the Bible (exegesis) what the original text actually had to say. You cannot take modern practices and acceptances and force them onto the biblical text (eisegesis). The biblical text must shape modern practices and acceptances (exegesis). That is the difference between eisegeis and exegesis. One's personal feelings and opinions are not a determiner of truth and/or reality and do not form the basis of exegetical interpretation. Try and weave their eisegesis around these verses as they will, the context clearly, definitively, and conclusively deals with homosexuality.

The interpreter must come to the Bible as open as possible, without any theological bias or presuppositions. It is the interpreter’s job to represent the text, "not the prejudices, feelings, judgments, or concerns of the exegete. To indulge in the latter is to engage in eisegesis, 'a reading into' a text what the reader wants it to say."

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Exegeting Homosexuality, Part 3

Continued from last...

GENESIS 19 & JUDGES 19
Homosexuality Among the Gentiles
"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young (נצר) and old (זקן), all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.' But they said, 'Stand aside.' Furthermore, they said, 'This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.' So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door." (Genesis 19:4-9)

Homosexuality Among the Jews
"While they were making merry, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, 'Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him.' Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, 'No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly. Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such a vile act against this man.'" (Judges 19:22-24)
From the above two passages, via the underlined words, we can see how every argument posed by homosexuals and homosexual advocates is completely and utterly dismantled and destroyed. Regarding the theory that pederasty is in view, the phrase "both young and old" rips it to shreds. Both young men and old men wanted to have sexual relations with the men (not boys) being sheltered. In both instances these men are told "do not act so wickedly". In the one case, these men accuse Lot of being their judge for having spoken such words. A little logic and common sense goes a long way. If hospitality and friendliness were in view here, how would anyone rightly call it wickedness, and why would the people accuse that person of being their judge? Furthermore, why would God destroy a city or nation for wanting to be hospitable and friendly? This theory is asinine and ludicrous. In the other instance, their actions are described as being foolish and vile. The fact that women were offered to these men and they declined, wanting the men instead, demonstrates powerfully the reality that they wanted to have sexual relations with the men. Individuals who try and tell you otherwise are bankrupt morally, mentally, spiritually, and intellectually.

Homosexuals and homosexual advocates have attempted to argue that the Hebrew word for "men" in Genesis 19:4 is inclusive of women: "If you look at the original Hebrew text, and even early Greek translations, the word translated into English as 'men' can be inclusive of the women as well".1 Therefore, they urge, the men and women of the city wanted to "gang rape" the two angels. However, this is false. The first flaw in their argument is with the Hebrew word אנושׁ (enowsh). It is not inclusive of women. It is a masculine noun meaning man. The plural of this word often serves for the plural of אישׁ (iysh), which "does not indicate humankind but the male gender in particular".2 The second flaw in their argument is that the word used for the "men" of the city is also the same word used when demanding Lot to bring out the "men" (v.5). If it is inclusive of women, when Lot offered his daughters, why did they not take advantage of them? The third flaw in their argument is with the Greek word ανηρ in the Septuagint. It is not inclusive of women. This is a masculine noun meaning man or husband. As you can see, homosexuals and homosexual advocates are lying through their teeth yet again, trying to forge support for their perverse behaviour.

What is even more interesting about the Genesis 19 passage in the Septuagint is the usage of the word σοδομιται in verse 4. Homosexuals and homosexual advocates insist that there is no Greek word for "sodomites", yet, here it is; and it is plural masculine. The Greek word for Sodom is Σοδομα. Σοδομιται refers to the inhabitants of Sodom, i.e., the Sodomites. This is precisely what the word meant in biblical times. The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century A.D. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. Nevertheless, despite this word not taking on its primarily sexual meaning until later, Christians earlier than Justinian are also seen to denounce same-sex relations. Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 50 A.D.) and Methodius of Olympus (260-312 A.D.) attributed homosexual relations to Sodom, as did St. Augustine and many others. Thus, "sodomites" refers to homosexuals. Here are some quotes:
"The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind." —Philo (Emphasis mine.)

"As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that men should be wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to cities and families that children should be known to be genuine. He also abhorred men’s lying with their mothers, as one of the greatest crimes; and the like for lying with the father’s wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and sons’ wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie with his wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation: and not to come near brute beasts; nor to approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt after unlawful pleasures on account of beauty. To those who were guilty of such insolent behavior, he ordained death for their punishment." —Flavius Josephus (Emphasis mine.)

"But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination." —Methodius (Emphasis mine.)

"They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion." —St. Basil (Emphasis mine.)

"Can it ever, at any time or place, be unrighteous for a man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbor as himself? Similarly, offenses against nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and should be punished. Such offenses, for example, were those of the Sodomites; and, even if all nations should commit them, they would all be judged guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not made men so that they should ever abuse one another in that way. For the fellowship that should be between God and us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the author is polluted by perverted lust." —St. Augustine (Emphasis mine.)
2 PETER 2:6-8 & JUDE 1:7
"and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds)" (2 Peter 2:6-8)

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)
In 2 Peter 2:7, the Greek word translated as "sensual" is ασελγεια, which means "lasciviousness, debauchery, sexual excess, absence of restraint, insatiable desire for pleasure, wantonness, lustfulness, excessive pleasure, perversion in general". The word translated "conduct" is αναστροφης, which refers to behaviour. The word translated "unprincipled" is αθεσμων, which means "lawless (by implication, criminal), wicked".

In Jude 1:7, the Greek word translated as "indulged in gross immorality" is εκπορνευσασαι, which means "to be utterly unchaste, to give self over to fornication". The phrase translated "strange flesh" is σαρκος ετερας, which has the meaning of going after flesh unnatural to them, i.e., outside the moral law. This is spelled out for us clearly in Genesis 19 and Judges 19. The fact they did not want women but wanted sexual relations with men is revealed in the original Hebrew, the Greek translation of the Septuagint, and our English translations.

Between the Genesis 19 passage, the Judges 19 passage, and these two passages, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are plainly evident and clearly spelled out. The reason homosexuals and homosexual advocates attempt to obscure and/or eliminate these passages is because once they no longer stand in the way of their agendas, then they hope that their screaming consciences will be silenced and not make them feel so guilty about their sin. "Although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:32).

To be continued...


1 Justin R. Cannon, The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality, 12.
2 Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, 46 (see 75-76).

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Exegeting Homosexuality, Part 2

Continued from last...

MALAKOS & ARSENOKOITES
"We know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals (αρσενοκοιταις) and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1 Timothy 1:8-11). "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 (ουτε μαλακοι), nor homosexuals (ουτε αρσενοκοιται), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Figuratively, μαλακοι means "effeminate" (having feminine qualities untypical of a man), such as transvestites (men who make themselves out to be women), or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature. There are those who argue that μαλακοι means "soft" (Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25), but this is without warrant or justification. The former verses join μαλακοις to the word ιματιοις (clothing) in order to modify it. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the phrase appears as ουτε μαλακοι. The word μαλακοι is not joined to any other word, which is what would be required in order to translate it as "soft". The question would arise, "Soft what?" Ergo, we must translate it according to its other meanings:
  1. soft, soft to the touch
  2. metaph. in a bad sense
    1. effeminate
      1. of a catamite
      2. of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
      3. of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
      4. of a male prostitute
The compound Greek word αρσενοκοιται comes from its root or stem words, αρσεν (a male) and κοιτε (a bed), and means "a male bed partner" or "a man who lies in bed with another male—a homosexual, a Sodomite, one who defiles himself with men". There are those who argue that we cannot translate αρσενοκοιται based upon the combined meanings of its root words because "the English word ‘understand’ has nothing to do with either standing or being under". This argument is illogical and lacks any common sense or knowledge of linguistics. In the English language, its compound words largely have nothing to do with their individual root words. However, for words taken directly from other languages, such as amuse, agnostic, atheist, amillennial, etc., they do. "A" is a negative prefix, meaning "no, not, or without". "Muse" means "to think". Ergo, "a-muse" means "not to think", although in our day and age it is used ignorantly and incorrectly as a positive term meaning "funny or entertaining". Amusements clearly involve the lack of active thought. So if fun and entertainment is "amusing", it is without thought. Hence why the television is referred to as an "idiot box".

Regarding the majority of other languages around the world, however, their compound words do have something to do with their individual root words. The Greek word παραλαμβνω means "to receive near". Its root words are παρα (near) and λαμβνω (to take, obtain, receive). Ergo, when the root words are combined, the compound word means "to receive near". This can be demonstrated with hundreds more Greek compound words. Aρσενοκοιται is no different. It means:
  1. one who lies with a male as with a female (male bed partners), bugger, sodomite, homosexual
Some have said, "Aρσενοκοιται has been understood as referring to male-male sexual activity for a long time. 'Homosexual' is a (perhaps unhelpful) attempt to render that in contemporary English." How do you figure? Homosexuality, by definition, is "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex". A homosexual, by definition, is "someone who is sexually attracted to (or sexually active with) people of their own sex". Male-male sexual activity is homosexuality. The most pathetic argument I have ever heard in this debate is the claim that all these verses are prohibiting heterosexual men from engaging in homosexual activities. Whoa! Let's stop and think for a moment here. That argument is completely and utterly illogical, lacking all common sense. A "heterosexual" male engaging in homosexual activity is, by definition, a homosexual. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are either male or female. There are only two genders of humanity: male and female. "Heterosexual" and "homosexual" are adjectives; they describe the character and behaviour of the individual. They only become nouns when the adjective is habitually true of the individual's life practices. Hence, you are born a heterosexual, at some point choose to be a homosexual (whether or not you remember having made that choice is irrelevant; you still made it), and, when you are either saved by the Lord Jesus or your conscience and common sense kick in, revert to a heterosexual once more. How about we throw out these terms, meant to obscure reality and truth, and deal with the words and descriptions contained therein.

There are those who attempt to argue that there is no immediate context with which to interpret μαλακοι and αρσενοκοιται correctly. These individuals are dishonest and lacking any formal knowledge regarding context. When you read the words "You shall not murder", the context is crystal clear. It exists within those words. The specific context of each commandment is different from each of the other commandments. The general context, which is the inclusion of all ten commandments, is different from the individual contexts of each commandment. The book of Proverbs is largely a collection of verses that tend not to be related to the preceding or succeeding verses. The context of each of these lone verses is found within itself. So to say that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 contains no context with which to interpret the words correctly is simply being dishonest and self-deceived.

These words are defining characteristics of habitually practiced sin in one's life. These words not only describe your actions, but they define who you are. One is known to be such a person. Verse 11 states clearly, "Such were some of you". When Jesus saved them from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and the Holy Spirit regenerated them, they were new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17) who had put off the former lifestyles of their old man (Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9). They had repented of and forsaken their previous sins (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Rom. 8:13; 2 Tim. 2:19c) and would now live in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). The context is quite clear, when one is being honest and truthful.

It has been argued that it is not homosexuality that is in view in all these passages, but pederasty. This argument lacks any common sense and/or intelligent thought. Pederasty is sexual activity (esp. anal intercourse) involving a man and a boy. Mαλακοι could be interpreted as "catamite", a boy kept for homosexual practices. Aρσενοκοιται could be interpreted as "sodomite", a man who commits lechery with men, a man who abuses himself with men, a man who defiles himself with men. By arguing that pederasty is in view, homosexuals are completely (and ignorantly) undermining their own stance. Pederasty is a form of homosexuality. It has no affiliation to pedophilia. No matter how you try and dice it, these two words describe the active and passive roles within homosexuality. Interestingly enough, "peder", which is a Croatian word, means "gay, queer, homosexual". Furthermore, Bernadette Brooten (a lesbian New Testament scholar who taught at Harvard Divinity School and currently teaches at Brandeis) wrote:
"If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty."1
To return once more to the structure of Greek compound words, I bring your attention to the Greek paederastia. Its root words are παις (boy) and εραστης (lover). When combined, the compound word means "lover of boys". Here again is an example that flies in the face of the weak argument based on English compound words such as "understand", "butterfly", "honeymoon", "mandate", etc. The English language is not the Greek language, and vice versa. You cannot apply the rules for English grammar to other languages. This is the height of linguistic ignorance.

To be continued...


1 Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 253.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Exegeting Homosexuality, Part 1

Homosexuals and homosexual advocates know no bounds and no shame. I have conversed with individual homosexuals who deceive themselves into thinking they are "Christians". Apparently they failed to read where Jesus says "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12) and where it testifies that "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we [are liars] and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6). While these individuals tend not to hold to the pro-gay ignorance that claims the men of Sodom merely wanted to be hospitable and friendly, they still continue to deny and re-interpret key biblical passages. Their beliefs and interpretations are a form of "collapsing context"; they believe because "everyone is doing it" that it must be true. They conclude that because there seems to be a "global shift" taking place in this debate, that the original writers could not have possibly had homosexual practices in mind. Our external circumstances do not interpret the Bible (eisegesis); it is the Bible that must shape our external circumstances (exegesis). To deny that the Bible teaches a particular truth just because the world largely does not hold to that truth does not negate that truth or alter that truth. Whether or not there occurs a global shift in this debate is irrelevant to the truth. The practices and acceptances of men do not determine truth, morality, or reality. Those standards are set by God!

LEVITICUS 18:22 & 20:13
Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואת‾וכר לא תשׁכּב משׁבּבי אשׁה תוצבההוא"
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν"
Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכּב את‾וכר משׁבּבי אשׁה תּוצבה צשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו"
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν"

וכר = "a male, man, mankind (as opposed to womankind)"
אישׁ = "man, male, husband"
אשׁה = "woman, female, wife"
ישׁכּב ,תשׁכּב = "a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)"
משׁבּבי = "a bed; abstractly, sleep; by euphemism, carnal intercourse"
תּוצבה ,תוצבה = "properly, something disgusting (morally): detestable; abomination"
αρσενος = “male, man, husband”
γυναικος = “female, woman, wife”
κοιτην = “a bed; spoken of the marriage bed, metaphorically for marriage (Heb. 13:4)”
κοιμηθη, κοιμηθηση = “to sleep”
βδελυγμα = “that which is detestable; abomination”

What do you call "a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman"? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "A homosexual." The immediate surrounding context around these verses is in regard to immoralities and vile behaviours that are extremely prohibited by God and are labeled as detestable abominations. The words, grammar, and context of these passages are as crystal clear as the sun is bright. The person who denies this is not being honest.

There are those who try and argue that the word αρσενοκοιτες did not exist in the Roman world outside Paul’s usage of it in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. However, this is false. While it may not have been used as a compound word the way Paul used it, nevertheless the above two passages make use of both root words: αρσεν (male) and κοιτε (bed). We know that there is nothing in these passages about an actual, literal bed. So why did the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek Septuagint use the word κοιτε? Well, κοιτε is used in Hebrews 13:4 to speak of the marriage bed, metaphorically of marriage itself. The fact both words are used in these passages illustrates that, while perhaps not compounded, the term was used in other literature (and prior to Paul’s usage thereof). Also, it shows us that Paul had these passages in mind when he penned 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The Greek translation of these verses weighs in heavily against the false arguments raised by homosexuals and homosexual advocates.

ROMANS 1:26-27
Romans 1:26-27 says, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
In the Greek, it reads: "Δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτος ο Θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες, αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας, εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους, αρσενες εν αρσεσι την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι, και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες."

θηλειαι = "female, woman"
αρσενες, αρσεσι = "male, man"
χρησιν = "employment, i.e. (specially), sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body)"
ορεξει = "excitement of the mind, i.e. longing after: lust"
αρσενες εν αρσεσι = "men with men, i.e. homosexuals"
ασχημοσυνην = "an indecency; by implication, the pudenda: shame"

Xρησιν clearly delineates sexual intercourse. "Women [exchanging] the natural function" speaks of women abandoning natural sexual intercourse for woman-on-woman perversion. This fact can be seen from three evidences: (1) "in the same way" or "likewise", this lets us know there is a comparison taking place; (2) "natural function of the woman", this lets us know that the former was speaking of women abandoning the natural function of the man; and (3) "men with men", this lets us know that women with women is in view. It clearly states these "men abandoned the natural function" of sexual intercourse, "[burning] in their [lust] toward one another". Lust (ορεξει) is sexual desire of the mind. The fact it states αρσενες εν αρσεσι puts the nail in the coffin on the fact it is speaking of man-on-man perversion.

Now, the context is quite clear. "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them" (Rom. 1:24). Then we receive the description of how they were dishonouring their bodies amongst themselves in their lusts (Rom. 1:26-27), which ends stating the fact that they "[receive] in their own persons the due penalty of their error". The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." The Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics states, "God says what He means and means what He says." What are the words saying? What are the words describing?

In his commentary on Romans 1:26-27, St. John Chrysostom wrote:
"ALL these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” …For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical." (Emphasis mine.)
To be continued...

Friday, October 12, 2012

Divine, Physical Healing

CAN YOU DO WITHOUT MEDICAL AID?
This blog entry is designed to teach you what the Bible really has to say in regard to physical healing and illness. The Church of God claims, “His children have the privilege to come to Him in faith for the healing of their bodies—without medical aid. To fully preach Christ is to preach divine healing.” We will examine the claims of the Church of God and see whether they are built upon a solid rock, or upon shifting sand.

The Church of God quotes from Psalm 103:1-4 as their first “proof-text” for “Divine, Physical Healing.” It should be noted that this entire psalm is a psalm of overflowing gratitude to God for His goodness, mercy, and love. Let us look at the context of this portion of Scripture: “Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies; Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's” (Psalm 103:1-5).

The Hebrew word translated “healed” is “rapha” (רפא) and means “to mend, to cure, to heal, to repair, to make whole.” The diseases referred to are either, (1) spiritual diseases, lusts or corruptions, which He subdues and purges out by His grace, as this phrase is used in Psalm 41:4; Isaiah 6:10; and 53:5; or, (2) corporal diseases or miseries of which this word is used in 2 Chronicles 21:18-19; Jeremiah 14:18; and 16:4.

This verse does not support “Divine, Physical Healing” in the least. The writer of the psalm, David, is praising and thanking God because He heals our ailments (whether spiritual or physical). “Bless the LORD, O my soul … who healeth all thy diseases.” It does not claim we should avoid doctors or the aid that God provides through doctors. God uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes. He gave us doctors as a means for healing our physical ailments, though He is the sovereign healer. Strike one, for the Church of God!

The Church of God then quotes from Isaiah 53:4-5 as their second “proof-text” for “Divine, Physical Healing.” Chapter 53 of Isaiah is messianic in nature. It portrays the “Suffering Servant”—Jesus—who gave His life to secure redemption for mankind (see v.5). Let us look at the immediate context of this portion of Scripture: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:4-6).

The Hebrew word translated “stripes” is “chabbuwrah” (חבורה) and means “bruise, hurt, wound.” The Hebrew word translated “healed” is once again “rapha.” By Christ’s sufferings we are saved from our sins and from the dreadful effects thereof. “By His wounds we are made whole.” There is absolutely nothing in this text to indicate, or even assume, it is referring to physical ailments—let alone to avoid medical aid. Such is an eisegesis of the text; a reading into it what is not there. Strike two, for the Church of God!

The Church of God quotes lastly from James 5:14-15 as their final “proof-text” for “Divine, Physical Healing.” Let us examine the full context of this portion of Scripture: “Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:13-16).

The Church of God wants you to believe that this means we are to avoid medical aid. Not so! “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” When we pray, God works—according to His will. God directs and works through the distinctive properties of each created thing so that they bring about the results that we see. For example: A botanist can detail the factors that cause grass to grow, such as sun, moisture, temperature, nutrients in the soil, etc. Yet, Scripture says that God causes the grass to grow. The fact is, God created grass with properties that require it to grow exactly the way we observe it growing, and He sustains those properties so that it continues to grow the way we observe it.

Medical aid is no different. We can observe medicine curing us because God gave it the properties to do such. Sometimes God works entirely independent of doctors and medicine, but does that mean we should tempt God by avoiding something He gave us for our well-being? How foolish! Nine times out of ten, God works in conjunction with doctors and medicine. God is the “primary cause,” whereas doctors and medicine are the “secondary causes.” Our prayer in praying over the sick is our asking Him to have mercy and heal the ailment that is plaguing our brothers or sisters (no pun intended). It is up to God’s sole discretion, according to His will, whether He will do such or not. And if He does, He may work independently of medicine or work in conjunction with medicine. We should not deny medicine out of sheer ignorance. Strike three, for the Church of God!

They're out!

WERE DOCTORS APPROVED OF IN SCRIPTURE?
If Scripture disapproves of medical aid the way the Church of God teaches, why does Jeremiah 8:22 ask for a doctor? “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” Why does Ezekiel 47:12 and Revelation 22:2 speak of using leaves for medicinal purposes? “And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine” (Ezekiel 47:12; cf. Revelation 22:2).

In Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17; and Luke 5:31, Jesus said to the Pharisees, “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.” Jesus explains what He meant by this saying immediately following: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32). His analogy, though indicating that He was the Great Physician, proved that He recognized and advocated doctors and medicine. If He did not, He would not have used such an analogy to portray His purpose. If a person does not believe that a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, that person will not use such an analogy while trying to describe something to someone else because then it undermines that person’s belief.

In Colossians, chapter 4, verses 7 through 14, Paul gives his stamp of approval on all except one of the individuals named—Demas. Paul stated that the others were fellow Christians, simply by the words he used to speak of them. But he says nothing of Demas. He was unsure of Demas, and with good reason. In 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul says of Demas, “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica.” So Demas turned out to be a non-believer, an apostate.

In Colossians 4:14, Paul says, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.” Paul never uses the word “beloved” to refer to non-believers. He always uses it in conjunction with fellow Christians. This Luke is the same who penned the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. He was a physician—a doctor! Paul put his stamp of approval upon this brother—this doctor—in Christ. If we were not supposed to see doctors or use medical aid, or even become doctors ourselves, do you not think that Paul would have addressed this issue? Would he not have put Luke in his place as he did with Peter in the Book of Acts regarding circumcision?

CONCLUSION
“Christians” who tempt God by denying and avoiding doctors and medicine should heed these words: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” (Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12). To fully preach Christ has nothing to do with this false doctrine. To fully preach Christ is to present the clear Gospel message—nothing more, nothing less. God has given us doctors and provided them with the knowledge and the skill to be able to heal. God has given us medicine and has created it with the properties to heal. To deny what our eyes clearly see is to be willingly ignorant. To be willingly ignorant means to be dumb on purpose. Are you being dumb on purpose?

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Signs and Wonders vs Charismata

SIGNS AND WONDERS
The 18 occurrences of the combination of hōthe and mōpheth (“signs and wonders”) in the Old Testament acts as an authentication stamp upon a revelatory message and messenger. Likewise, the 16 occurrences of sāmeion kai tĕrata (“signs and wonders”) in the New Testament function as an authenticating stamp for the messenger with his message. Charismata occurs 17 times in the New Testament. The specific sense is that of “spiritual gifts” (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:4-31).
Distinction in Operation: “Signs and wonders” bridge both testaments. It is used in the Old Testament for Moses and a few others, and in the New Testament for Jesus, the Apostles, and a few others. On the other hand, charismata is strictly a New Testament phenomena that is limited to the church.
Distinction in Distribution: “Signs and wonders” were given to a few select individuals, whereas the manifestation of the charismata is given to every member of the body of Christ.
Distinction in Purpose: “Signs and wonders” is a fixed expression for the divine authentication of a messenger and his message. The charismata is for the edification of the church.
The sign nature of the gift of tongues is to be distinguished from “signs and wonders” on the general distinctions which have already been made. The Apostles are unique in history in that they were divinely authenticated by “signs and wonders,” and that they were part of the body of Christ and were given a manifestation of the charismata. There is a fundamental distinction between “signs and wonders” and charismata, particularly in the lives of the Apostles.

HEALINGS
There are three forms of divine healing: (1) literal, immediate, and miraculous healings performed in connection with the authentication of a messenger of God; (2) charismata healings, which are generally (though not exclusively) and primarily spiritual, emotional, or psychological; and (3) miraculous (though not always immediate) healings in answer to prayer (James 5:14-20).
The understanding that the charismata gift of healings are primarily spiritual, emotional, or psychological fits (1) the original language, (2) the edifying purposes of Charismata, (3) the non-spectacular nature of the other Charismata, (4) the current ministry of many individuals within the church, and (5) the distinction made between “signs and wonders” and charismata.
Miraculous healing is to be sought by prayer (James 5) and emotional, spiritual, and psychological healings (1 Cor. 12:9) is to be sought from an individual who is gifted in that particular area (i.e. a counselor). “Signs and wonders” healing is limited to God’s special authentication of a messenger with his message and is extremely rare, even in Scripture.

MIRACLES
The charismata “gift of miracles” is not a reference to an individual working miracles, but rather to an energizing spiritual strength. “Signs and wonders” miracles, for the most part, seem to be limited to Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and Jesus.
The translation of ĕnĕrgēmata duamĕōn as “gifts of working of miracles” is unfortunate because: (1) The “words deriving from the stem duna- all have the basic meaning of ‘being able,’ or ‘capacity’ in virtue of ability… the stress falls on being able,” not the performance of miracles! (2) the word’s most common usage in secular literature is not connected with miracles but with natural abilities. (3) While the term is used in the New Testament for the working of a miracle, it is more often used for a non-miraculous ability or power. (4) When ĕnĕrgia is used with dunamis, it most often refers to God’s provision of Spiritual strength for the believer.
The phrase would be better translated as “gifts of energizing powers.” The significance being much akin to the “gift of faith.” In other words, just as everyone is given a measure of faith (Rom. 12:3), but not all are given the “gift of faith” (1 Cor. 12:9), so likewise all believers are given spiritual strength (2 Tim. 1:7), but not all are given the “gifts of energizing powers” (1 Cor. 12:10). This understanding is significant in light of Colin Brown’s description of dunamis having a “relative” and “absolute” use. He asserts that this word used “relatively” refers to an inherent ability or capacity to perform a task, and used “absolutely,” it refers to power given to work, or to carry something into effect. The picture becomes clear. This gift is a spiritual capacity given to an individual to work, presumably in some sort of ministry. This understanding of the “gifts of energizing powers fits (1) the original language, (2) the edifying purpose of the Charismata, (3) the non-spectacular nature of the other Charismata, (4) the current ministry of many individuals within the church, and (5) the distinction made between “signs and wonders” and charismata.

The Charismatic movement can benefit from recognizing (1) that the miraculous nature of the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles was unique, and is not normative for today, (2) that physical healing is not to be sought from so-called “faith-healers” or “miracle-workers,” but in confession and prayer, (3) that spiritual gifts are not designated to be made a public spectacle but are divine enablements for edifying and building up the body, (4) that the “gifts of healings” and “gifts of energizing powers” are not necessarily miraculous in nature.
Non-Charismatics can benefit from recognizing (1) that spiritual gifts named in the New Testament are valid today, (2) that poor, or questionable exegesis of a cessation of Charismata, or part of the Charismata, prior to the completion of the church is unnecessary, especially when a proper distinction between “signs and wonders” and the charismata is understood.