Charismaticism

Roughly 1/3 of professing Christians around the world associate themselves with the Charismatic Movement (Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, etc.). Sadly, many of these individuals are greatly deceived into believing lies. These people are very emotional and allow their emotions to govern them and interpret Scripture for them, which is a very dangerous place to find oneself. Many of these individuals attempt to defend the ungodly activity that takes place within their churches and attempt to attach the name of Christ to it, attributing this nonsense to the Holy Spirit. What we have is a lack of discernment on the part of these individuals. I have no doubt that a few of them are genuine Christians, but unfortunately the majority of them are not.

Demon Possession

Individuals belonging to the Charismatic Movement will argue with you about this. Their argument will resemble something like, "Obviously you've never spent much time in other countries, because casting out of demons happens a lot. But demon possession happens in America, too." Yes, demon possession is a real thing. However, it is impossible for a Christian to be possessed by a demon, let alone multiple demons (as many Charismatic churches erroneously practice and teach). Open your Bible and provide me a single example of a Christian being possessed by a demon.

These churches also falsely teach and encourage people to "bind" these various demons, as if you somehow have control over them. Look what happened to Eve when she tried to stand toe-to-toe with Satan and match wits with him. Satan is wiser and stronger than you are. Michael the archangel, who is also wiser and stronger than you are, answered Satan, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9). The Bible tells us to "Resist the devil" (James 4:7b)—not to try and go toe-to-toe with him... because you will lose! You need that verse in its entire context: "Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." The second part of that verse only occurs when you are in entire submission to God.

The Bible nowhere commands you to contend with Satan or to "bind" him. If you are going to attempt to refer to Matthew 16:19 for your proof-text concerning "binding," I suggest you compare Scripture with Scripture by reading Matthew 18:15-20 and John 20:22-23. This is what the binding has to do with. This is just one of the examples of the Charismatic Movement's erroneous and egregious interpretations of Scripture.

Miraculous Healings

Individuals belonging to the Charismatic Movement will argue with you about this, too. Their argument will resemble something like, "I have seen them happen inside my own church. I can even provide video tapes of these healings." Is it not amazing how most of these so-called "healings" that happen in Charismatic churches tend to involve unverifiable things like "carpal tunnel" or "back pain"? When was the last time someone had a rod in their spine and you laid hands on them and the doctors verified that the rod they put in has since been replaced by a real spine and the scars from their surgery are gone? When was the last time someone was visibly missing a limb and you laid hands on them and the doctors (and everybody who knew this person) verified they now have all their limbs? When was the last time someone had a severe mental disorder (even to the point of being unable to communicate or even fully acknowledge your presence) and you laid hands on them and they were fully restored to the kind of mental health you and I enjoy?

If you want people to believe your claims, then provide verifiable evidence thereof. Jesus, when He performed His ministry, did not hide inside a building and claim He was doing miraculous healings. He was out in the world performing them so everybody could see. He did not put on a show to scam people and get money for Himself. You claim you have the gift of healing? Then walk into a hospital or psychiatric ward and start healing and casting out the demons that affect these poor, sick, and needy people. You cannot? Dispute settled! You are a charlatan and a fraud.

Study the difference between "signs and wonders" and "charismata" in the Bible. Charismata healings are generally (though not exclusively) and primarily spiritual, emotional, or psychological in nature. Miraculous healing is to be sought by prayer (James 5) and emotional, spiritual, and psychological healing (1 Cor. 12:9) is to be sought from an individual who is gifted in that particular area (e.g., 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.

Tongues

Individuals belonging to the Charismatic Movement will argue with you about this, as well. Their argument will resemble something like, "I've spoken in tongues on many occasions, therefore it is true. Tongues is the initial sign that one is a Christian." Funny, I am not aware of a single verse that informs me that my experiences dictate and determine what is true or not. In fact, Scripture would seem to warn against it.

According to what we find in the book of Acts, the tongues that occurred there were natural human languages. No doubt the apostles thought they were speaking in their own language, but Scripture informs us that they "began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit was giving them ability to speak out" (Acts 2:4). Three times we are informed they were natural human languages, as can be seen from (1) "each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language" (Acts 2:6); (2) "how is it that we each hear them in our own language in which we were born?" (Acts 2:8); and (3) "we hear them in our own languages" (Acts 2:11).

According to what we see in 1 Corinthians, tongues does not edify the church, but only serves to edify the individual (1 Cor. 14:4). The Corinthian church, just like the Charismatic Movement, is seeking the showy gift, so they may pretend they are more spiritual than they really are. They would do well to pay close attention to Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14:6-10. A language that is unintelligible to the hearer has no benefits! Hence why tongues has no place inside the church. "Tongues are a sign, not to those who believe [the church] but to unbelievers" (1 Cor. 14:22), because "Jews require a sign" (1 Cor. 1:22). Paul made it clear that if we are zealous for spiritual gifts, we should "seek to abound for the edification of the church" (1 Cor. 14:12). Something tongues does not do (1 Cor. 14:4).

Those inside the Charismatic Movement are guilty of ignoring context. In 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul said, "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." Charismatics read it as "I speak with the tongues of men and angels," and stop there. The key word here is IF. He is making an argument. IF I can speak every known language, and IF I possess all the spiritual gifts, and IF I do many good works, but I do not have love, then it all profits me absolutely nothing! In 1 Corinthians 14:18, Paul says, "I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all." The Charismatics fail to realize and understand that Paul could speak in four languages fluently, and thus this statement explains itself.

The fact the Charismatic Movement has people who travel around to various churches in order to teach others how to "speak in tongues" demonstrates powerfully that this is not from God. Something that is a gift from God happens on its own without teaching and without enticement or coaxing. Those of you who claim you have this gift and have spoken in tongues, what purpose did it serve? Whose language were you speaking in and to whom were you witnessing the Gospel? The apostles, while speaking in other languages, thought they were speaking in their own language. The understood exactly what they were saying. What were you saying? Unless it is something that occurred in private and was the utterance of your soul to God (1 Cor. 14:2), then all you did was babble and it was not the biblical gift of tongues nor did it come from God. If you claim to have spoken in tongues, what was the purpose thereof. God does not give gifts without a specific purpose in mind for their use.

One Cuban woman who came to the USA in 1959 and was saved in 1972 said, "The next morning as I knelt to pray, I asked the Lord to give me the gift of tongues if He wanted. To my surprise, I started to speak in so many different languages it took by breath away." Okay, and which languages did you start speaking in? What was the purpose in you receiving this gift? To whom were you speaking that they understood these "many different languages"? Unless you have a reason for asking, such as being able to communicate the Gospel to a tribe whose language is unknown, there is no sense in praying for the gift of tongues. It will serve you absolutely no purpose.

Other Foolishness

Individuals belonging to the Charismatic Movement will argue with you that there are many godly individuals doing many wonderful things in the power of the Holy Spirit. Yeah..., and I suppose you think "snorting Bible lines" (where you hold the Bible up and snort your nose across it as if you were doing cocaine), "toking the cross" (putting a cross in your mouth and pretending your toking on a joint), playing "spin the Bible" (where you open the Bible after spinning it, point to a random verse and then try to "claim" it—entirely out of context—for yourself),  acting like you are "high on the Spirit" (staring off into nowhere and forcing drool out your mouth and down your chin), and one hundred other foolish nonsense like this, is somehow attributed to the Holy Spirit? These kinds of things are demonic and illustrate the fact that these individuals do not know the Holy Spirit in the least.

Open your Bible and provide a single verse reference to this nonsense known as being "slain in the Spirit." Show me one instance of someone in the Bible shivering, shaking, quaking, and writhing on the ground in receipt of the Holy Spirit. No? I can demonstrate hundreds of cases where demon possession demonstrates these exact characteristics, including Voodoo.

Furthermore, gold dust appearing on people, or gems appearing in people's hands, or gold fillings appearing in people's mouths are not evidence of the Holy Spirit being there. Try reading your Bible seeing the things the Spirit is responsible for and the kinds of things He will see to when He is present. None of it has anything to do with this kind of superstitious nonsense.  Show me where any of this kind of thing happened in Scripture. Show me where any prophet or apostle of God had to beg for money from you and lie to you, telling you that if you give $100 or $1000 that God will return it to you ten-fold or one hundred-fold. When people were in need of healing, or in need of money, the prophets did not scam them for money, they provided what that individual needed. When you write these Charismatic frauds and share your struggles and poverty with them, if they were genuine men sent from God, they would not write you back repeatedly begging for you to give them money (when you clearly have none); they would provide a miracle and give you the money you need.

How many people have been duped into giving these charlatans every penny they have and yet they have never received answer to any of their prayers. They are in a worse financial state than when they began, and yet they still believe these frauds are men of God. If you reached out and touched your TV screen, you clearly had enough faith, otherwise you would not have done it. Remember, faith as small as a mustard seed. The fact you were not healed (or whatever else was promised) is evidence enough this Charismatic preacher is a liar!

John MacArthur does an excellent job exposing the false and demonic components of the Charismatic Movement; however, in trying to answer the fraudulent things these people attribute to the Holy Spirit, he errs by putting God in a box and denying that God could do such things if He so desired. In answering the Charismatic errors on one end of the pendulum, MacArthur swings to the other side of the pendulum in error. The balance is in the middle.

The fact is, there are genuine cases of these sorts of things happening (according to what we see in Scripture), but they are rare! The fact that counterfeit stuff exists is evidence that the genuine must exist, otherwise why attempt to counterfeit it? If America did away with paper bills, why would anyone counterfeit them any more seeing as how everyone would recognize them as being fake? Regardless of whether it was crooks (cults) or banks (Christians) doing the counterfeiting.

The biggest problem with the Charismatic Movement is their failure to examine the context of the random, isolated verses they quote in attempt to back their false teachings. I have no doubt there are some genuine Christians stuck inside this movement, but the majority of them do not know Christ, nor does He know them. The other problem is that the members are open to hypnotic suggestion, which has been testified to and documented on a number of cases, including by those who once used to stand in those pulpits and proclaim those lies.

Years ago I decided to have a bit of fun, so I wrote Peter Popoff (better known as Peter Ripoff), one of the Charismatic Movement's greatest frauds. Every letter I received back over the course of the next year included a new form of superstition that I was supposed to enact upon while also sending him money. The verses he quoted were entirely ripped out of their immediate context and applied in order to claim that I would become rich if I sowed my "seed gifts." After receiving several of his letters, I sent him a letter back correcting him on his eisegetical misuse of Scripture and demonstrated what Scripture actually taught on the matter. I quoted to him several cases from Scripture where people came to the prophets/apostles and their prayers were answered without paying "seed gifts" that are supposedly meant to get God to move on your behalf. Funny, last time I checked Scripture never taught any such things. I never received a single letter from him ever again.

Church Discipline

It simply amazes me with the height of ignorance possessed by many professing "Christians." Trying to act "holier than thou," putting on an air of spirituality (something they otherwise are not concerned with except when talking to other Christians), they commit the great sin of tolerance in the name of "grace" and "love."

For example, consider my previous blog entry of Darren Wiebe's Open Letter to Mark Driscoll. After having read the eye-witness account of someone who was there, and seeing the video clip(s), how can any honest Christian sit back and say, "I can't say one way or another who was wrong in this situation"? To say, "I can't judge the situation," is to be entirely dishonest with yourself and proclaim your ignorance of not only the situation, but also of Scripture. God has given you everything you need with which to accurately judge it, so do not misquote and misrepresent Jesus by twisting His words: "Judge not..." Do yourself a favour and read this blog entry: Judge Not....

People who respond this way are weak-willed spineless cowards. They feign "love" and "grace" in an attempt to look more spiritual than they actually are, without understanding a single thing about love and grace. They argue that we should never discipline someone who is called a brother/sister publicly, but that we should always go to them privately to confront them and resolve the issue. Excuse me, Mr. Jellyfish Christian (if indeed you are a Christian), but I suggest you blow that dust off of your Bible, open it up, and read it for once in your entire life. Jesus confronted the Pharisees publicly on many occasions. Peter confronted Ananias and Sapphira publicly concerning their lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-11). Paul confronted Peter publicly concerning his hypocrisy "in the presence of all" who were present (Gal. 2:11-14). And you somehow find it "offensive" to follow their example? Discipline must be as public as the sin! Mark Driscoll's sin was entirely public, messaging half a million people or more and speaking lies. Therefore, the privacy option is off the table.

These wish-washy individuals try to argue that they do not know what Mark Driscoll's motives actually were. Really?!? So he always just happens to have a reporter and a photographer with him? He just happened to show up as the first segment of the conference came to a close and people were exiting? Grow up and get a clue! You so-called "Christians" are an embarrassment to the name of Christ.

The ironic thing here is that at the same time all this took place, Driscoll was enrolled to speak at a conference called Act Like Men.

Here is a bit of wisdom for you jellyfish "Christians" out there: tolerating someone's sin(s) is neither "loving" nor "graceful." It is spineless and cowardly because you have no back-bone to confront them about it and are afraid of what they might think of you for doing so. And you pretend to be a "loving" Christian? I suggest you study the subject "love" throughout the entire Bible, because you are under some extremely misguided information concerning what it means to love. You might do yourself a favour and read what the book of Proverbs has to say about wisdom and the wise in contrast to complete and utter fools.

1 Corinthians 5:1-13 illustrates precisely how seriously we ought to be taking sin—especially sins of a public nature, as was the case in this passage. Paul's instructions demonstrate that the discipline must be as public as the sin itself. The Corinthians thought they were being "holy" and "loving" (as many professing "Christians" do today) because they overlooked, and said nothing of, this man's sin; but Paul condemned their behaviour as condoning the man's sin and making excuse for it. Paul said they had "become arrogant" (v.2) and were "boasting" (v.6) when they should have "mourned" (v.2) over this man's sin. His public sin was mocking Christ, Christianity and the church.

Many of these professing "Christians" cry out, "Matthew 18!!! Matthew 18!!!" Have you actually read Matthew 18? Matthew 18:15-20 is the full process of church discipline, while 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 is the final step. 1 Timothy 5:20 is in full accord with Matthew 18:17. The degree with which the sin is committed will determine the response required for it. Matthew 18:15-20 is the general response to sin we see in the lives of other believers. However, if their sin is so blatantly public, none of that applies. With regard to verses 18 and 19 of this passage, see this blog entry: The Keys of the Kingdom.

1 Timothy 5:20 informs us that "Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning." This passage carries with it the need for and weight of accountability. It causes "the rest" to either live more holy, God-honouring lives, or to learn how to hide their sin better (a demonstration of the fact they do not belong to Christ in the first place).

These sin-tolerating hypocrisy-filled "Christians" like to rip verses from their context in order to force them to agree with their emotional manipulation of the text. Apart from Matthew 18, they will almost always turn to Galatians 6:1 and 2 Thessalonians 3:13-15, as if they somehow teach something contrary and contradictory to the whole of what Scripture has to say concerning church discipline. They know how to quote the verses regarding restoration, but they deliberately and purposefully ignore and reject the verses regarding actual discipline. They have bought into the lie that any and all forms of discipline are bad.

Romans 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; etc., all demonstrate discipline in action. This kind of discipline will produce godly sorrow (see 2 Cor. 7:10-11) in the individual for his/her sin(s), which will result in the person's repentance and reconciliation: "[Correct] a wise man and he will love you" (Prov. 9:8b). If it produces something that drives them away from the Saviour's arms, they were likely never saved to begin with; their pride means more to them than their confession and repentance of their sin(s): "He who ignores [correction] goes astray" (Prov. 10:17b).

Many godly women have confessed their dismay at the fact there are far too many "girly" men inside the church today. Is this the kind of sniveling coward-of-a-man you want to be: "If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go" (Judg. 4:8; Barak to Deborah)? The men ought to be out on the front lines, giving the women someone godly whom they can look up to and follow—not the other way around! Men should not be cowering behind women. Men are supposed to be leaders within the church and within their homes. When you see a brother/sister caught in sin, be a man and approach him/her about it. Looking the other way and saying nothing is not demonstrating Christian love for him/her, nor is it showing him/her grace. Contrary to what many seem to believe these days, you are your brother's keeper. We are not islands unto ourselves.

Church discipline is needful and necessary. If Christian A is attempting to discipline Christian B, do not wave your ignorance around and attempt to undermine Christian A. If Christian A's disciplinary methods are not being performed completely out of love, approach Christian A privately and help to correct these methods so that discipline can be administered properly. But if Christian A's methods are biblically sound and are calling Christian B out—in love—to be held accountable, then do not undermine Christian A's attempt to discipline Christian B. How would you like it if another parent undermined your parenting in front of your children and basically let your children off the hook? You are doing nobody any favours by interfering with needful disciplinary actions and accountability. Pretending to be "holier than thou" and putting on an air of spirituality while interfering with discipline and accountability makes you look like a complete and utter ignorant fool. Nobody needs your help to compound the issue and make excuses for Christian B's sins. If you are not going to help discipline Christian B and hold him/her accountable for the purposes of repentance, restoration and reconciliation, then keep your mouth shut! There is nothing worse than one fool—or a set of fools—providing excuse for another's sin(s) by committing the great sin of tolerance in the name of "grace" and "love."

ADDENDUM:
In our day and age, because of the many churches and denominations that exist in an area, if an individual is under church discipline, they will simply switch churches. Firstly, this is demonstrative of the fact that this individual has no godly sorrow over their sin and refuses to repent thereof, which is most likely an indication that this individual has never received salvation in the first place. Secondly, if an individual is under church discipline, it is the home church's duty and responsibility to inform the other churches in the area of this so that, if they are God-fearing, they may deny this individual entrance while under church discipline. The church that ignores this and brings him in is guilty of sin because they undermined the disciplinary process, providing acceptance for the individual's sin and allowing occasion to continue in that sin.

Yes, "love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Pet. 4:8; cf. James 5:20), but not by tolerating, overlooking, or ignoring those sins. That is a false "love" that does not demonstrate in the least the grace of our Lord Jesus. Look up every passage pertaining to church discipline. Notice how they do not provide excuse for those sins? Rather, they call them to be confronted and addressed. It is unloving to cover sin by tolerating, overlooking, or ignoring it in the false names of "grace" and "love." By doing so, not only are you committing sin of your own, but you are also taking part in the sin of others.

Born This Way 2 [Song]

from the 2014 album Frustrated Christian by Curt Kennedy

V1
Even as a kid I knew that I was different,
Don't know what it is, but I know what it isn't.
I was never one, to be the soft type,
When they would play with toys I would play with knives.
My momma always said, she was scared for me,
But I would say, "Momma, this is who I be.
I can't change that," and she would say, "I know," but society,
Would never let it go. So in grade school, I really tried to hide,
But the violent streak never stayed inside.
I would ask momma if she would pray for me,
Cuz the preacher said its not how I should be.
But I always knew, this is who I am,
That I was always violent so when I killed a man,
I told the judge, "Yeah, it's what I did,
Cuz I was born this way and knew it as a kid."

Hook
It's not really fair to say, that only they are born this way,
It's not really fair to do, when I was born this way too,
You can't claim that what they do is alright,
When I have felt this way my entire life.

V2
I thought it was a phase, when I was five,
They told me tell the truth but I loved to lie.
It felt more natural, to not tell the truth,
Even though they said, it's not what you should do.
And I understood what they was trying to say,
But I can't change, I was born this way.
I told my parents that, about when I was nine,
So we went to church, to try to change my mind.
For a while it did, but it was really hard,
To hear the Bible say, that if I worship God,
I have to stop lying, but I was like, "Why?
If God made me this way why even try?"
God loves me, if I don't tell the truth,
So saying I should change, is really just for you.
Some say the Bible is wrong about being gay,
So we got to re-examine everything it says, hey!

Hook
It's not really fair to say, that only they are born this way,
That's not really fair to do, when I was born this way too,
You can't claim that what they do is alright,
When I have felt this way my entire life.

V3
I always thought, I had enough love,
For more than one person, it came from above.
I love a few women, and they love me,
And we wanna marry, and have a family.
But society says that this is wrong,
That I can only marry one, I can't have them all.
And I don't think it's fair, cuz even in the Bible,
They had many wives, and God seemed fine
To let it happen, so why do you judge me,
And create laws, like polygamy.
Restricting me, from who I know I am,
Imposing your interpretation like I give a damn.
If I love them, and they love me,
And we ain't doing harm, why can't we marry?
Cuz it's against the law? Don't even bother me,
Cuz not too long ago so was sodomy.

Hook
It's not really fair to say, that only they are born this way,
That's not really fair to do, when I was born this way too,
You can't claim that what they do is alright,
When I have felt this way my entire life.

Spoken
Hear what I'm not saying, because this is the future.

Temptations: The Truth Behind Homosexuality

Temptations toward lying, stealing, rape, murder, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc., do not make you a liar, a thief, a rapist, a murderer, a homosexual, or a pedophile. These sorts of temptations come upon everyone to varying degrees; although every person is not going to experience the same temptations or even experience them to the same degree as others. Temptations press upon us every day. If I shared with you all the temptations I have had growing up, you would avoid me like the plague. But before you look down your nose at me and try to judge me based on information you do not know, understand that the same is also true for you—and you know it. If we were to broadcast every thought that has ever entered into your mind, you would go into hiding for the rest of your life.

I will give you one example: When I was an adolescent, while cutting up some vegetable or other, the strangest temptation entered my mind and told me to cut my wrists. My immediate thought was, Why would I want to hurt myself in this way? I dismissed the temptation and carried on with what I was doing. Why would such a temptation enter my mind? I have never had the desire to hurt myself, nor do I have such a desire now; and that temptation has never returned.

Many people are tempted with homosexual thoughts at varying times in life, but having such temptations—even strong temptations—does not make you homosexual nor does it mean you were born that way. To give in to those temptations and act upon them makes you homosexual, just as giving in to and acting upon the temptations to lie make you a liar and giving in to and acting upon the temptations to murder make you a murderer. Those who profess to be homosexual and/or bi-sexual, because of having these temptations—perhaps strongly and/or frequently—falsely conclude, Well, I have these desires, so therefore I must be gay/bi-sexual. If you have the temptation or the urge to have sex with an animal, and if that temptation or urge occurs frequently and/or strongly, it does not mean you were born with an orientation toward bestiality, nor does it mean you ought to go ahead and have sex with animals.

Temptations, no matter how frequent or how strong, do not determine what is true, right, moral, or natural. A child may have temptations to kill animals, and as he/she grows older those temptations may increase toward the point of killing a person. Yes, you were born in sin, but no, you were not born a murderer, let alone a homosexual. You became that when you committed the act, and you can become part of the "such were some of you" (1 Cor. 6:11) if you renounce and forsake that behaviour and repent and trust in the Lord. Temptations are not sin. When you entertain those temptations in your mind, or you act out upon those temptations physically, then you are guilty of sin because the intention of your heart is made known.

Do not equate temptations, urges, or desires with who you supposedly are!

---

Let's be honest... If you were raised in an isolated environment with other boys and girls, without receiving any knowledge one way or the other in regard to heterosexuality or homosexuality, the very first time in your life that you see a gay couple holding hands or kissing, something inside you would cringe and innately inform you that what you were seeing is unnatural and wrong; simply because it has been intrinsically imprinted upon your heart by the Maker. Conscience, logic, and common sense inform us that it is unnatural and wrong.

Does the Bible Forbid Homosexual Behaviour and Not Homosexuality?

William Lane Craig, a renowned apologist, had this to say:

[I]f the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.

I’ve emphasized this point because it’s so foreign to what a lot of people in our society think today. Today so many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of fact, but as matters of taste. For example, there isn’t any objective fact that broccoli tastes good. It tastes good to some people, but tastes bad to others. It may taste bad to you, but it tastes good to me! People think it’s the same with moral values. Something may seem wrong to you, but right to me. There isn’t any real right or wrong. It’s just a matter of opinion.

Now if there is no God, then I think these people are absolutely correct. In the absence of God everything becomes relative. Right and wrong become relative to different cultures and societies. Without God who is to say that one culture’s values are better than another’s? Who’s to say who is right and who is wrong? Where do right and wrong come from? Richard Taylor, who is a prominent American philosopher—and not a Christian, by the way—, makes this point very forcefully. Look carefully at what he says:

The idea of . . . moral obligation is clear enough, provided that reference to some lawmaker higher . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense?¹

He says the answer is “No.” I quote: “The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.”²

He goes on to say:

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.³

Do you catch what even this non-Christian philosopher is saying? If there is no God, no divine lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no real right and wrong. Right and wrong are just human customs and laws that vary from society to society. Even if they all agree, they’re still just human inventions.

He continues with this argument:

Does the Bible in fact forbid homosexual behavior? Now notice how I put that question. I did not ask, does the Bible forbid homosexuality, but rather does the Bible forbid homosexual behavior? This is an important distinction. Being homosexual is a state or an orientation; a person who has a homosexual orientation might not ever express that orientation in actions. By contrast, a person could engage in homosexual acts even if he has a heterosexual orientation. Now what the Bible condemns is homosexual actions or behavior, not having a homosexual orientation. The idea of a person’s being a homosexual by orientation is a feature of modern psychology and may have been unknown to people in the ancient world. What they were familiar with was homosexual acts, and this is what the Bible forbids.

Now this has enormous implications. For one thing, it means that the whole debate about whether homosexuality is something you were born with or is a result of how you were raised really doesn’t matter in the end. The important thing is not how you got your orientation, but what you do with it. Some defenders of homosexuality are very anxious to prove that your genes, not your upbringing, determine if you’re homosexual because then homosexual behavior is normal and right. But this conclusion doesn’t follow at all. Just because you’re genetically disposed to some behavior doesn’t mean that behavior is morally right. To give an example, some researchers suspect there may be a gene which predisposes some people to alcoholism. Does that mean that it’s all right for someone with such predisposition to go ahead and drink to his heart’s content and become an alcoholic? Obviously not! If anything, it ought to alert him to abstain from alcohol so as to prevent this from happening. Now the sober truth of the matter is that we don’t fully understand the roles of heredity and environment in producing homosexuality. But that doesn’t really matter. Even if homosexuality were completely genetic, that fact alone still wouldn’t make it any different than a birth defect, like a cleft palate or epilepsy. That doesn’t mean it’s normal and that we shouldn’t try to correct it.

. . .

So, once more, the question is: Does the Bible forbid homosexual behavior? Well, I’ve already said that it does. The Bible is so realistic! You might not expect it to mention a topic like homosexual behavior, but in fact there are six places in the Bible—three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament—where this issue is directly addressed—not to mention all the passages dealing with marriage and sexuality which have implications for this issue. In all six of these passages homosexual acts are unequivocally condemned.

He is, of course, partially wrong. His words make one point while completing missing another point: homosexuality and homosexual behaviour are one and the same. To argue and say that you were "born this way" is to admit that you were born in sin! Being born in sin does not make what we do or desire right or normal by any means. Nevertheless, let us use his above argument to prove our case against homosexuality.

Since the Bible merely condemns the acts of homosexuality (according to the argument above), and not the homosexual himself, then, likewise, the Bible merely condemns the acts of lying, stealing, murdering, etc., and not the liar, thief, or murderer themselves. I am sure you can already see the problem with this line of reasoning, but let us continue.

If a person is born a liar and the Bible says that "You shall not [lie]" (Ex. 20:16), and informs us that "all liars will have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8) because liars "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11), what ought we to conclude? If this person is born a liar, they looooove their lying. Since the Bible condemns lying behaviour, and tells us not to lie, that means the liar has to renounce and forsake his lying ways and live in a manner that is honouring to God. But notice how the text does not say "practicing liars" or "those who engage in lying behaviour" will have their part in the Lake of Fire. It says "all liars." Again, you can see the problem with this line of reasoning.

Likewise, if a person is born a homosexual, the Bible informs them that "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22). In like manner, it means that all homosexuals "will have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8) because "homosexuals...will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Since the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27), that means the homosexual has to renounce and forsake his homosexual ways and live in a manner that is honouring to God. In other words, regardless of their desires, they are to abstain from and exclude same-sex relationships because that behaviour is strictly prohibited in and by Scripture. To do otherwise is to be in rebellion against God's standards and created order.

Since the Bible says "such were some of you" (1 Cor. 6:11), indicating not only behaviour or acts, but also the intentions of the heart (Jesus made everything about the intentions of the heart), it implies changes that took place in these individuals—by renouncing and forsaking their behaviours—to make them different from what they once were and/or once practiced.  Since God's standard is truth, lying behaviour must be condemned. Since God's standard is heterosexuality—one man and one woman united together for life, homosexual behaviour must be condemned. The argument above still supports the fact that homosexuality—not just homosexual behaviour—is condemned by Scripture. If the behaviour alone is condemned, the person committing that behaviour, in order to find favour with God, has to live a life contrary to their desires. If they desire to lie, steal, or murder, they have to fight those urges and live contrary to their desires. The same is true for homosexuals. For someone who desires to be saved, this is precisely what they need to do, and then Christ Jesus will change them and remove the sinful desires from them, conforming them to His image. Many ex-gays have confessed this precise point.

The problem with the above argument, as I am sure you have noticed, is that in order to renounce and forsake something, that means you have to be doing it in the first place. Otherwise, how do you come to the point of "such were some of you" (1 Cor. 6:11)? To say you can be a liar without ever committing the act of lying, or that you can be a murderer without ever committing the act of murder, or that you can be a homosexual without ever committing the act of homosexuality, is ludicrous and ridiculous. It is sheer nonsense. If you fight the urge to lie, because your natural disposition loves to lie, how can you be called a liar if you have never committed the behaviour of lying? If you fight the urge to murder, because your natural disposition loves to hurt people, how can you be called a murderer if you have never committed the behaviour of murder? Likewise, if you fight the urge to commit homosexuality, because your natural disposition loves to lust after people of the same sex, how can you be called a homosexual if you have never committed the behaviour of homosexuality?

If some people have a natural orientation toward the same sex, then so too (according to the argument above) do some people have a natural orientation toward children, beasts, etc. So too do some people have natural orientations toward rape and murder. So too do some people have natural orientations toward lying and stealing. Modern psychology is a joke; telling people whatever they want to hear just so they can milk you for your money. You might want to read this: http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517. Whether or not you have a natural orientation toward anything does not make it right or natural. You cannot argue that one is natural while the others are not, especially when conscience, logic, and common sense inform us that they are all unnatural; you know, those little things God instilled in us that inform us something is wrong regardless of our attempts at convincing ourselves otherwise. Furthermore, orientation has to do with direction. Directions can change. Have you ever heard someone say, "Let me get my orientation"? Or "I'm feeling disoriented"? Homosexuals might want to learn a thing or two from that...

The Bible does not merely condemn the behaviour alone, but the practitioner of that behaviour also. "You shall not [lie]" (Ex. 20:16) because liars "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11) and "all liars will have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8). Likewise, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female" (Lev. 18:22) because "homosexuals...will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11) and all homosexuals "will have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8). The Bible does not just condemn the behaviour, but those who commit that behaviour. Homosexuality is homosexual behaviour.

---

¹ Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason, 83-84.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid, 2-3.

If You Go To Hell...

by Curtis Allen

If you go to hell, the only thing that will be worse than the fact that you are there, is that you'll remember that you didn't have to go. One of the most tormenting parts of hell will be the reality that your memory is in tact. And if the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, that Jesus told in Luke 16, has any true descriptions of hell, one terrifying aspect will be that you will remember the life you had on earth, and how it made a place for you in hell. 

The Rich Man and Lazarus Luke 16:19-31

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house-28 for I have five brothers-so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

In verse 23, the scripture tell us that the rich man was in hell and was being tormented. He asks Abraham for some relief (v.24), which gives us a picture into his torment which verse 23 doesn't tell us. His agony consists of flames and immeasurable heat, so he asks that a drop of cool water be placed on his tongue. That means it must be really hot in hell if the tip of Abraham's finger would be some sort of relief. Wow!

But Abraham's first words in response  are "remember." He tells the Rich man to remember that in his life he had everything and the poor man had nothing. This is an important realization about the place of eternal punishment. And one in which I think is extremely important. This idea of remembering  goes even further. In verses 27-28, the rich man remembers his family. He remembers their spiritual condition and begs Abraham to send someone to rescue them from the punishment that he is experiencing. Notice that he doesn't disagree with Abraham. For, implicit in Abraham's statement to him is a rejection of God for the riches he acquired in this life. He knows Abraham is right because he remembers. His cognitive abilities remain fully intact in the after life. And that adds to the torment. 

To me, this reality of hell can be easily forgotten. But it's one that should be soberly remembered, especially by those who have grown up in the church. In a day, where a good portion of the people that we'll try to disciple, were at one time disciples (used to be believers), but have walked away from the faith, the reality of memory is a scary one. In other words, people will remember all of the times that God provided them chances to repent but they chose the pleasures of this life instead. And while that may not be the main point of the Rich Man and Lazarus story, it is still a point worth considering.

I Will Be Happy Tomorrow

from Wretched Newsletter November 2013

When I am married, then I will be happy.  Until you tie the knot.

When I have children, then I will be happy.  Until you have kids.

When my children are more self-sufficient, then I will be happy.  Until they are out of diapers.

When my children are in school, then I will be happy.  Until they ride off on the bus.

When my children leave the home, then I will be happy.  Until you are an empty nester.

When I retire, then I will be happy.  Until you don’t have to wake up to your alarm clock.

A Syllogism
Here is a syllogism that is trustworthy and true: Satan is a liar and the father of lies.  Satan is in control of the world system.  Therefore, the world system is a lie.

The world system tells you that happiness lies just around the corner.  Happiness is not where you are, but where you think you should be.  Happiness is anything but this.  That is a lie.

Perhaps you have purchased the lie.  Perhaps you are in a funk because you are not living this God ordained moment with joy.  Perhaps you have worked yourself into a state of frustration because today is not tomorrow.  You need a Biblical re-orientation.

“This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it." (Ps.118:24) So how do we do that?

Good Theology
Once again, our worries, problems, anxieties, frustrations and confusions have a solution in good theology.

1. The doctrine of sovereignty reminds you that the day you are living is exactly the day that God has ordained for you.  (Ps.37:23).  You are supposed to be in the season you are in.  You will NEVER be content with any season until you realize that you are in the season that God has pre-arranged for you.
   
   
2. The two verses before Ps. 118:24 give us our reason to be glad today, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone.  This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.” (Ps.118:23,24)  Knowing that we have a Savior allows us to rejoice today, not tomorrow when we perceive that things will be easier or better.

If you have grown discontent because you perpetually long for tomorrow, re-orient your thinking.  Today is the day God wants you to live, and He wants you to live it for Him because He has provided a cornerstone for you.

Greek, Latin, and Hebrew!

by Alexander Smellie

"And an inscription was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS!" Luke 23:38

Over His head they set up His accusation written, This is Jesus the King of the Jews. In Greek, Latin and Hebrew they wrote it, and "God," as George Herbert says, "God held their hands while they wrote!" For this title was a little gospel, told out in the three great languages of the earth.

If, like the Greeks, I prize beauty and wisdom above everything beside, it says, "Here is Jesus your King!" He, He alone, can create beauty within your soul, can banish its ugliness and make it lovely! He, He alone, can teach you the truest wisdom—the wisdom which answers all your questions and gives you peace.

If, like the Latins, (or Romans) I prize law and government and empire most of all, it says to me, "Here is Jesus your King!" He will bring you under the best law, the most beneficial law, the most gracious law. He will teach you how to govern yourself. He will win for you the empire over my own heart here and now—an empire over all things before very long!

If, like the Hebrews, I prize righteousness far above every other blessing, it says to me, "Here is Jesus your King!" There is none but He who can clothe you in a spotless righteousness, who can cancel your hideous guilt, who can justify you at God's bar, who can lift you into a new realm of pardon and purity!

His enemies meant it for evil—but God meant it for good! He is King of the human heart! And I, too, will bring forth the royal diadem, and will crown Him Lord of all!

The Keys of the Kingdom

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19

What is meant by this passage? Have you ever read it and remained baffled, asking yourself what these keys are and what is meant by the binding and loosing? Are they physical keys? Does it have to do with the binding and loosing of persons and demons? In order to bring a little more clarity to what is meant by this passage, we need to be good students of the Word and compare Scripture with Scripture. We find the second part of Matthew 16:19 repeated in Matthew 18:18. The context here should shed some light on precisely what was meant by these allegorical keys that were given to Peter.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matthew 18:15-20

Does that help you? Have some things been clarified for you? If you still have not understood what Jesus is saying, then perhaps it is time we looked at a clearer passage that leaves no doubt as to what is meant.

"...[Jesus] breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.'" John 20:22-23

These keys are not literal, physical keys. They are symbolic. The binding and loosing has nothing to do with persons or demons, contrary to some of the many false teachings that come from the Charismatic movement. John Cotton put it this way: "Whatsoever you bind on earth, is as much as whose sins soever you retain on earth; and whatsoever you loose on earth, is as much as whose sins soever you loose on earth." He went on to say this:

"Now this binding and loosing of whatsoever sins, in whosoever commit them, is partly in the conscience of the sinner, and partly in his outward estate in the Church, which is wont to be expressed in other terms, either in foro interiori, or in foro exteriori. As when in the dispensation of the Ordinances of God, a sinner is convinced to lie under the guilt of sin, then his sin is retained, his conscience is bound under the guilt of it, and himself bound under some Church-censure, according to the quality and desert of his offense; and if his sin be the more heinous, himself is shut out from the communion of the Church: But when a sinner repents of his sin, and confesses it before the Lord, and (if it be known) before his people also, and then in the ministry of the Doctrine and Disciple of the Gospel, his sin is remitted, and his conscience loosed from the guilt of it, and himself hath open and free entrance, both unto the promise of the Gospel, and into the gates of the holy communion of the Church."

As Matthew Henry notes:

"He doth not say, "I have given them," or "I do not;" but "I will do it," meaning after his resurrection; when he ascended on high, he gave those gifts, Ephes. 4:8; then this power was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the rest, ch. 28:19, 20; John 20:21. He doth not say, The keys shall be given, but, I will give them; for ministers derive their authority from Christ, and all their power is to be used in his name, 1 Cor. 5:4."

What are these keys? John Cotton believes them to be "the Ordinances which Christ has instituted, to be administered in his Church; as the preaching of the Word, (which is the opening and applying of it)." Matthew Henry believes them to be the "key of doctrine" and the "key of discipline." Matthew Poole refers to "the key of knowledge and doctrine" used by the apostle's preaching to open the kingdom of heaven to men, and "the key of discipline." Whatever is exactly included by these keys, we can be sure of the fact that this passage is expounded more clearly by John 20:22-23.

Was Peter the Rock?

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." Matthew 16:18

What is this "rock" upon which Jesus would build His church? The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is the rock upon which the church would be built. Their argument is that if you take this verse literally, you can come to no alternative interpretation. Is this what the text teaches us? Are they correct in their beliefs and teachings? I submit to you that they are not correct. Here is the verse in Greek:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω, ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Anyone who knows anything of the Greek language, or of languages such as Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish, knows that if the object is masculine, everything pertaining to that object will be masculine also. If the object is plural, everything pertaining to that object will be plural also. In English, the singular "the red car" would simply become "the red cars" in the plural. But in Spanish, for example, the singular "el coche rojo" becomes "los coches rojos" in the plural.

In the verse in question, the Greek word Πέτρος for "Peter" is masculine. However, the Greek word ταύτῃ for "this" is feminine, as is the Greek word πέτρᾳ for "rock." If this was a reference to Peter, it would have been masculine. However, it has nothing to do with Peter whatsoever. Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" (Matt. 16:15). Peter responded, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). According to 1 Corinthians 3:11, Christ Jesus is the "Rock" upon which the church is built: "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Peter believed that Jesus was the Christ. All true believers throughout the centuries have also believed that Jesus is the Christ. This is the "rock" in question. It refers back to Peter's testimony concerning Jesus. It is upon this testimony—"You are the Christ"—that the church would be built. The testimony points to Jesus. Jesus is the Rock, the foundation upon which the church is built. All those built upon this foundation will have this testimony: "[Jesus] is the Christ."

Jesus starts out by saying, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona" (Matt. 16:17), and ends by saying, "I also say to you that you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). Just as with Abraham and Sarah before him, and Paul after him, Jesus was giving him a new name. His receiving a new name has nothing to do with the actual conversation. After Peter's confession, Jesus tells him that "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), to which He could have left out the renaming and immediately followed with, "upon this rock [upon this confession, upon your confession] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matt. 16:18).

Contrary to the erroneous teachings and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, Peter was not the rock upon which the church would be built. If one looks at the Old Testament, one will see that Jesus is the Rock in question in several passages. Jesus is the foundation of the entire church—not Peter.

Judge Not...

Far too frequently, the world—and, sadly, many Christians—misrepresents Jesus' words, where He says, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you" (Matt. 7:1-2; cf. Luke 6:37). They deliberately ignore where Jesus also said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24). They even ignore the Apostle Paul's words, where he says, "For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present" (1 Cor. 5:3), and, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves" (1 Cor. 5:12-13). Paul also poses these questions, "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? . . . Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" (1 Cor. 6:2-3).

These people also deliberately ignore the English language and the fact that the word "judge" has more than one definition, other than the definition they are attempting to force upon it to suit their egregious misquoting of Jesus' words. In all the above verses (with the exception of the second occurrence of the word "judge" found in 1 Corinthians 6:2), the Greek word is exactly the same: krino (κρινω). It means "to separate, distinguish, discriminate between good and evil, select, choose out the good, to judge, to form or give an opinion after separating and considering the particulars of a case." What Jesus meant by what He said in Matthew 7:1-2 is that we are not to judge in an absolute sense, that is, to condemn a person in the legal sense. But we are supposed to judge, and He extols the manner with which we ought to do so in John 7:24.

The Apostle Paul judged a man whose actions were being overlooked within the church, and tells us that we are to judge those inside the church. Not with a self-righteous judgment of condemnation in the absolute sense, but in distinguishing right from wrong, good from evil, fruit bearing from fruit barren. Jesus' own words agree: "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16, 20). When looking at new or young Christians, it may be difficult to distinguish between babes in Christ and false converts. But someone who claims to have been a Christian for 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years, if they do not demonstrate the fruit thereof, then they have never been saved to begin with. Just as it is impossible to remain a physical infant forever, it is also impossible to remain a spiritual infant forever. If the Spirit of God is within you, there will be growth. It is impossible to be spiritually stagnant.

Below, you will find each Greek word translated as "judge," "judged," "judges," "judgest," "judgeth," and "judging" found within the New Testament of the King James Bible.

350. ανακρινω anakrino: to discern, to judge, to examine or question in order to pass a judicial sentence, to examine accurately or carefully, to inquire, or ask questions in general. (1 Cor. 4:3 as "judge"; 1 Cor. 2:14 as "discerned"; 1 Cor. 2:15, 4:4 as "judgeth"; 1 Cor. 2:15, 4:3, 14:24 as "judged")

1252. διακρινω diakrino: to distinguish, To make a distinction, to decide, to judge, to separate oneself from. (1 Cor. 6:5; 11:31; 14:29)

1348 δικαστης dikastes: to give judgment, to give justice. (Luke 12:14; Acts 7:27, 35)

2233 ηγεομαι hegeomai: metaphorically; to lead out before the mind, to esteem of persons, to hold or esteem an individual in a particular light. (Heb. 11:11)

2523 καθιζω kathizo: to cause to sit down, to set as judges. (1 Cor. 6:4)

2919 κρινω krino: to separate, distinguish, discriminate between good and evil, select, choose out the good, to judge, to form or give an opinion after separating and considering the particulars of a case. (This is the word used the majority of the time throughout the New Testament, and can be found translated as "judge," "judged," "judgest," "judgeth," and "judging.")

2922 κριτηριον kriterion: a judge, judgment, the art, act, or authority of judging or determining. (1 Cor. 6:2)

2923 κριτης krites: to judge, he who decides, a judge. (Matt. 5:25; 12:58; 18:2, 6; Acts 10:42; 18:15; 24:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; Heb. 12:23; James 4:11; 5:9; Matt. 12:27, Luke 11:19, Acts 13:20, James 2:4 as "judges")

Law vs. Grace

Millions of people walk around and they think they will get into heaven by leading what they think is a good life, and they are in for a big shock because it is not enough. If God did not lower His standard for even His Son, what makes you think He will do so for us?

I think every Christian struggles with being under the law or under grace, and in so doing they tend to go too far one way or the other while missing grace entirely. If you lean too far the one way, you become legalistic and think you can earn favour from God by the way you live. If you lean too far the other way, you turn grace into a license to sin and think you can live any way you want to. The truth of the matter is that it has to be a balance of both. You see, the Christian needs to remember that there is nothing he/she can do to earn favour with God; he/she simply needs to trust in the person and work of Christ Jesus on the cross at Calvary. But at the same time he/she needs to remember that the Bible commands a certain way of living from the Christian that is different from the rest of the world. We should strive to live this way not because it will merit us favour with God, because it will not, but because we love Jesus and it is our righteous calling. If we examine the New Testament carefully, we will find it laced with more commandments to the Christian than we find in the Old Testament. The only way we can live these commandments out is through the Holy Spirit: "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16). Do we believe it?

Old vs. New: Authors, Preachers, Theologians

"The reading of good sermons is the most underrated kind of Christian literature on the market today. In former centuries, the reading of sermons was the bulk of the mature Christian's reading diet. Most Puritan books, for example, are sermons edited for print. Sermon reading keeps believers in the Word, matures the soul, and whets the appetite for good preaching. It promotes Christ-centered thinking, healthy self-examination, and godly piety in every sphere of life. Though nothing can replace the Word preached, sermon reading has one advantage over preaching—the sermons that made it into print are usually the minister's best! Tolle Lege—'pick up and read' great sermon books, especially those of past centuries that are packed with spiritual meat." —Joel Beeke

Have you ever noticed the vast difference between books of old and modern-day books?  Have you ever noticed the difference between devotionals by people such as Charles Spurgeon and those put out by The Daily Bread? The difference is meat versus pablum; depth versus shallowness; soul filling versus soul hungering. Compare any of the works of any of the Puritans to the works of people like Max Lucado. The old writings were Christ-centered, written by men in touch with God, bringing you to the cross. The new writings focus too much on self. If there is one bit of advice I might be able to pass off to you, it would be this: Go old!

They Are Both Religions

by Eric Hovind

Many people think that religion and science do not go together. Often, they compartmentalize each into completely separate places in their lives. Science, after all, is based upon observation and testing—unquestionable facts. Right? Religion, on the other hand, is based upon thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Science is material; religion is immaterial. Science gives answers; religion causes problems. Isn’t this the basic attitude towards the two?

Ultimately, anything that is untestable is put into the realm of religion. We can observe the law of gravity. We can test the law of inertia. Of course, these would not be considered religious. We cannot, however, observe the Big Bang, nor can we test it. We have not witnessed a star form. We have not seen life emerge from non-life.

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious. If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

Unscientific Assertions: Gold

It is said:

• The ocean holds nearly 20 million tons of gold. While most of the gold is diluted (each liter of sea water contains about 13 billionths of a gram), there is enough undissolved gold on the sea floor to put 9 pounds in every pocket on Earth.
• 99% of the Earth's gold is in its core.
• There is enough gold in the Earth's core to coat its surface in 1.5 feet of the stuff.

The only piece of information in the above statements that has any scientific credibility to it is this: "Each liter of sea water contains about 13 billionths of a gram." This statement can be tested and observed in order to draw an accurate conclusion. We can verify whether or not it is true. The rest of the above statements are nothing but pure speculation and imagination.

Since nobody has ever seen what comes after the Earth's crust, and nobody has seen the Earth's core, it is ludicrous and unscientific to make claims that the core holds 99% of Earth's gold. Likewise, unless you collected all the supposed gold in the Earth's core, you cannot make ludicrous and unscientific statements that there is enough gold there to cover the Earth's surface 1.5 feet thick. There is no model you can use to accurately predict such a thing, and predictions are not science.

It is just as ludicrous to state that the ocean holds enough gold to put 9 pounds in every pocket on Earth. Unless one has collected all that gold, weighed it and then divided it by the number of people on the Earth, the statement is made foolishly. There is nothing scientific about it.

If I say, "There is no gold in China," I would have to know everything about every square inch of China, and every person living in China, in order to say that with any genuine scientific accuracy. I would have to know that the land absolutely and positively contains no gold whatsoever, and I would have to know that nobody has a gold filling inside their mouth. It is the same with the above statements.

Most of our so-called "scientists" need to go back to school and learn what science really is. Science is the examination and observation of things in order to provide accurate, verifiable facts. Models and predictions are not science. If it is not testable, observable, and verifiable, it is not science. Scientists can argue that point all they want; they will still be in the wrong.

Science is what tells me my car needs gasoline in order to run, instead of chocolate milk. Science is what tells me all the properties of an apple and how one apple differs from another. Science is what tells me the distance from the Earth to the moon. Science is what tells me what things to combine in order to make salt. If science is not about conclusions, facts, and truth, things we can test, observe, and verify, as some of these fools try to assert, then it is untrustworthy and not science at all.

I am not talking about proof. The only field wherein you get proof in the strict sense is mathematics. In every other field, including science, you cannot speak of proof, but you can speak of evidence. For those who fail to grasp it, science is limited. Science has absolutely nothing to do with, and is not equated with, rationality. The things that are beyond science are not necessarily "irrational," as some erroneously believe. Science cannot tell us whether a poem, a work of literature, a work of art, or music is good or beautiful. Science can, however, tell us that putting strychnine into someone's tea will kill them. But science cannot tell us whether it is morally right to do so. You can easily see the limitations of science because it cannot answer the elementary questions of a child: Who am I? Where did I come from? What is the purpose of my existence? Where am I going?

Our encyclopedias and textbooks need to be re-written containing only the information that is verifiable, and that can be tested at later dates to see if they provide the same results or not. Putting "millions" or "billions" of years in these books is unscientific. Stating they only grow to be a certain size is also unscientific, considering the fact that snakes, squids, turtles, etc., have been found that are larger than our encyclopedias and textbooks assure us regarding their maximum size. If the largest your people have ever found was, say, 36 feet (in the case of the Anaconda), then state that! "The largest anaconda we have ever found was 36 feet." That is a scientific statement. "Anacondas grow to a length of 36 feet," or even, "Anacondas grow to an average length of 36 feet." That is arrogant pride thinking your data is absolute and infallible, just like the foolish statements above pertaining to gold.

The "Catholic" Church

The first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), which means "universal, complete, or whole," is attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote around A.D. 107, while being taken to Rome for execution. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.

The other location where we encounter the term catholic is in The Apostle's Creed; the version we are familiar with having been written somewhere between A.D. 710 and A.D. 714.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried,
He descended into Hell, the third day He arose from the dead,
He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty,
from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

The term catholic is used to refer to the true and living church in its universality, but it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Roman Catholic Church. The two are worlds apart. There is a vast difference between the catholic church—that is, the universal church, and the Roman Catholic Church, which is a complete and utter oxymoron. The catholic (universal) church is spiritual and invisible, made up of every true and genuine believer around the world. The Roman Catholic Church is physical and visible, made up of those who follow the traditions of men and elevate fallible men to positions of godhood.

Every true and genuine believer belongs to the true catholic (universal) church, whereas the Roman Catholic Church is largely filled with religious frauds and hypocrites on a one-way trip to Hell. It is the Roman Catholic Church who kept the world in darkness—known as the Dark Ages—concerning the light of Christ Jesus. It was various members of the true catholic (universal) church who finally set the church free from its grasp.

Just some of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings refuted by the ultimate authority, Scripture:

• Peter had a wife (Matt. 8:14).
• You cannot pay for the dead or for the sins of the dead (Acts 8:20).
• There is one mediator between God and men—not the Pope, a priest, or Mary (1 Tim. 2:5-6).
• Forbidding marriage is wrong (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
• There is no purgatory (Heb. 9:27).

The Roman Catholic Church, centered around the worship of Mary—the "queen" of heaven, is a superstitious religious cult that has assimilated elements from just about every other religious cult into itself (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). It makes a mockery out of biblical Christianity, keeping people dead in their sins while the wrath of God abides on them still.

The Roman Catholic Church is blasphemous, in that it:

1. claims to have the power to forgive sins, which only God can do (Mark 2:7),
2. makes a man out to be God, which is only true of Christ Jesus (John 10:33), and
3. persecuted the church in the name of God, as history reveals to us (1 Tim. 1:12-13).

There are only two kinds of religion: works-based, which encompasses every world religion outside of biblical Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church; and grace-based, which is a free gift, where your works are the result of your salvation and not a means of attempting to earn it.

The term catholic was originally used to describe the invisible church because it is universal in its scope. However, eventually the term became corrupted by the application of it to the Roman Catholic Church. It seems to me that they stole the entire wording from the Apostle's Creed, calling themselves the "Holy Catholic Church," when there is nothing holy about them in the least. The term catholic—universal—is used to describe the true church, but the Roman Catholic Church is not that church.

True Israel

Below is a set of premises and a conclusion that Dispensationalist Michael J. Vlach has attributed to non-Dispensationalists. Let us look at them and then see why they are true.

Premise 1: Israel was God's chosen nation and servant in the Old Testament.

Premise 2: Jesus now fulfills Israel and is the true Israel.

Premise 3: As the true Israel, Jesus assumes and fulfills national Israel's mediatorial role.

Premise 4: All who are in the true Israel—Christ Jesus, are also Israel.

Conclusion: There is no future role for national Israel in the plan of God.

According to Michael J. Vlach, the Dispensationalist who came up with the above, he says that Dispensationalists agree with the first two premises. Because of this, we will only address them briefly. But the rest we will look at a little more closely. As Justin Taylor said, "The New Testament authors understood Jesus to be the culmination of the Old Testament. He is the Last Adam, true Israel, the suffering servant, the son of David, the faithful remnant, the ultimate prophet, the reigning king, the final priest."

Premise 1: Israel Was God's Chosen Nation and Servant in the Old Testament

This premise needs no addressing as, from as far as I can tell, everyone agrees to this fact. So I'm not going to waste any space demonstrating what can be seen from a simple reading of the Old Testament.

Premise 2: Jesus Now Fulfills Israel and is the True Israel.

Matthew 2:15 quotes from Hosea 11 in the Old Testament, calling this a fulfillment found in Christ: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When we turn to Hosea 11 and read, there is nothing prophetic or predictive about this chapter. It is not talking about Christ Jesus, because Jesus never sinned, but about national Israel. After verse 1—"Out of Egypt I called my son"—it goes on to tell us all the ways in which national Israel had sinner. So how can this possibly be a fulfillment of Christ? I do not know. What I do know is that my Bible quotes it as a fulfillment found in Jesus.

When national Israel was wandering around in the desert for 40 years, they were supposed to learn that "man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 8:3), which they never did. Jesus, after spending 40 days in the desert, quoted this passage to Satan (Matt. 4:4). Just like Adam, Israel failed at what they were called to do. Just as Jesus is the Last Adam, He is also the True Israel. Since Dispensationalists agree with this, we will not say too much more on it.

Premise 3: As the True Israel, Jesus Assumes and Fulfills National Israel's Mediatorial Role

With regard to this premise, Michael J. Vlach has said, "this position is not supported by Scripture." Excuse me?!? I suggest you pay better attention to your reading of the Bible, sir, because this position is fully supported by Scripture. He claims "It is assumed more than proven." His declaration is far from the truth.

"And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all will know me, from the least to the greatest of them" (Heb. 8:11; cf. Jer. 31:34). The only thing different pertaining to the "new" covenant is this verse. Something is going to cease that pertains to teaching and the knowledge of the Lord. It has to do with a form of teaching that occurred among the covenant people of the Lord. The passage is stated negatively: "They shall not." In the Old Testament, it was the Levitical priests who had a unique relationship with the Lord. It was their duty to teach their fellow citizen and brother: "... So the Levites shall be Mine" (Num. 3:12); "And of Levi he said, . . . They shall teach Thine ordinances to Jacob, and Thy law to Israel. They shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt offerings on Thine altar" (Deut. 33:8, 10); "True instruction was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts" (Mal. 2:6-7). Something changed.

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Christ Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. It is not Mary, it is not the Pope, it is not a priest, and it is not—nor will it ever be—Israel! The role used to belong to Israel, but since they failed as mediators, Jesus fulfills the role of a mediator. Israel as mediator was a shadow of what was to come. The fulfillment is found in Christ. We will not return to shadows of the fulfillment—ever! They were imperfect. The perfect has come, is here, and shall remain. We have no need of imperfect shadows, as the author of Hebrews informs us. That Dispensationalists miss all this is a crying shame. It is as plain as the nose on their face. Why can Dispensationalists not understand this? Why do they prefer their flawed and erroneous interpretations to the plain understanding of Scripture as it is written? This perplexes me greatly.

The nations do not go to Israel for mediation; they go to Christ! He provides salvation. It is His name salvation is available through. It is through Him that you come unto the Father. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). Jesus is our mediator—not national Israel! That any Dispensationalist would miss this or deny it is incomprehensible to me.

Premise 4: All Who Are in the True Irasel—Christ Jesus, Are Also Israel

This premise is so easy to prove and simple to understand that it is almost laughable how Dispensationalists deny it. Dispensationalists claim to read the Bible "literally," yet every time you examine their doctrines you find that they do not pay attention to the literalness of Scripture. It seems they try to read the Old Testament literally, while ignoring the literalness of the New Testament. The New Testament was in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed. The New Testament illuminates and explains the Old Testament. Dispensationalists claim we are not allowed to spiritualize the text, yet any educated Bible student will see that Jesus and the Apostles did it frequently. Where Jesus and the Apostles spiritualized their quotations from the Old Testaments, Christians are to hold to those interpretations. If Jesus and the Apostles gave an interpretation of a text that was different from the "literal" understanding of the Pharisees and Jews at that time, then we need to accept the interpretation given us by Jesus and the Apostles. Dispensationalists would benefit from reading their Bibles backwards. Read the New Testament several times over until they understand it inside and out. Then read the Old Testament and see how the New Testament illuminates it and explains it. Their problem is that they are committing the same eisegetical interpretations as that of the Pharisees.

For example: The Pharisees were looking for a literal, physical kingdom. The Dispensationalists are looking for the same. But what did Jesus say? At the beginning of Jesus' ministry, He announced, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). What time is He referring to? For the good student of the Word the answer is simple. Daniel had predicted four empires: Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Then, "in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom" (Dan. 2:44). In the days of which kings? In the days of the Roman kings. Jesus later said, "There are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of god after it has come with power" (Mark 9:1). This is a reference to Pentecost. When the Pharisees asked Jesus about this kingdom, the one they perceived would come literally and physically, He stated clearly to them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed" and "behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Luke 17:20-21). He said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). For people who claim to read the Bible "literally," why can Dispensationalists not grasp the words of Christ?

The exact statement of the fourth premise can be seen when you read Romans 11:17-24—literally! Paul divides national Israel into two groups: believing and unbelieving. According to Romans 2:28-29, the broken off branches—the unbelieving group—are not true Jews. According to Romans 9:6-8, the broken off branches—the unbelieving group—do not belong to Israel. There is a distinction made in Romans 11 between true Israel and false Israel, between spiritual Israel and fleshly Israel. Just as the Old Testament had prophesied, which Paul calls a "mystery," believing Gentiles are grafted in with believing Jews; in to the true Israel. Expansion theology. If Gentiles are grafted in to the true Israel (the believing group, the remaining branches), what does that make them? True Israel! The New Testament everywhere quotes from and alludes to the Old Testament, applying the literal text of these quotations to finding their fulfillment in the church. 1 Peter 2:9-10 is a classic example of this.

Further proof concerning this fourth premise is evidenced from what Paul had to say in the letter to the Galatians. "Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, 'And to your seed,' that is, Christ" (Gal. 3:16). "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise" (Gal. 3:29). See Ephesians 2:11-22 for more.

Conclusion: There is No Future Role for National Israel in the Plan of God

All four premises, provided by a Dispensationalist to summarize the beliefs of non-Dispensationalists, are true. Therefore, the conclusion must also be true. The fact is, there is no future role for national Israel because national Israel is nothing! Where do you see Israel anywhere in the New Testament? It is all about Christ! Christ was the final sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Dispensationalists claim that in their future millennium we will return to sacrifice "as a memorial." Why in the world would you return to an imperfect shadow of the fulfillment when you have the fulfillment before your very eyes?!? Furthermore, if they read the passages "literally" that they quote in regard to this false and erroneous teaching, they would see that they state very clearly that they are "sin offering[s]" that "make atonement." There is nothing "memorial" about these sacrifices!!! Why would anyone take Dispensationalism seriously when they do not take the Bible seriously?

As the old children’s song goes: “Father Abraham had many sons, many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them and so are you…” Its theology is unquestionably biblical. In Romans 4:1-16, the Apostle Paul explains that Abraham is “the father of us all.” True believers in the Old Testament were saved in the same way that true believers are saved in the New Testament— by faith, and by faith alone. Adoption into God’s family is achieved not through having the right family name, ethnicity, land of birth, or residence. Neither are men and women the children of Abraham and the children of Israel because of physical attributes (Rom. 2:28-29) or lineage descent (Rom. 9:6-8). True Israel is faithful Israel, and only faithful Israel inherits God’s promises (Gal. 3:7, 16, 29). National Israel has no part in the inheritance of those promises. They are for faithful Israel only. Faithful Israelites are those circumcised in their hearts, those who have trusted in the Messiah: "Circumcise then your heart, and do not be stiffnecked" (Deut. 10:16). This is the way God has always fulfilled His purposes in saving His people.

As Burk Parsons said, "True Israel is faithful Israel because they have faith in the only faithful Israelite who has ever lived—Jesus the Messiah. Only Jesus completely fulfilled all of the Father’s righteous laws for Israel. As the only faithful Israelite, Jesus is an Israelite according to the flesh, and He enjoyed all the benefits that come from being born into the nation that possessed the oracles of God. As the faithful Israelite Jesus is the true Israel because He is the true Son of God." All who are united by faith alone to Christ Jesus are the true "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16).

When the New Testament makes reference to "Scripture" or "the Scriptures," it is speaking about the Old Testament. On the road to Emaus, what did Jesus teach His disciples from the Scriptures? Did He teach them about Israel and how everything is about Israel? No! He taught them how they all pointed to Him!!! "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). All of Scripture is about Jesus. Not Israel! When you read your Bible, you should be looking for Jesus on every page.

As Justin Taylor said, "Jesus is the true Israel, and the church becomes the Israel of God as it unites to True Israel. The same is true for ethnic Israel, whom God has not abandoned. But their only hope is to be united with Jesus, the ultimate suffering servant."

...Jesus had become a remnant of one. He was the embodiment of faithful Israel, the truly righteous and suffering servant.

Unlike the remnant of the restoration period, he committed no sin (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22).

As the embodiment of the faithful remnant, he would undergo divine judgment for sin (on the cross), endure an exile (three days forsaken by God in the grave), and experience a restoration (resurrection) to life as the foundation of a new Israel, inheriting the promises of God afresh.

As the remnant restored to life, he becomes the focus of the hopes for the continued existence of the people of God in a new kingdom, a new Israel of Jew and Gentile alike.

As the nucleus of a renewed Israel, Christ summons the “little flock” that will receive the kingdom (Dan. 7:22, 27; Luke 12:32) and appoints judges for the twelve tribes of Israel in the new age (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30).

The church is viewed as the Israel of that new age (Gal. 6:16), the twelve tribes (James 1:1), “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession” (Ex. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9).

A sinful nation, Israel could not suffer vicariously to atone for the sins of the world. The sinfulness of the nation made it unacceptable for this role, just as flaws would disqualify any other offering. Only a truly righteous servant could bear this awful load.

—Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard,

“Isaiah,” An Introduction to the Old Testament, 315.

 Michael J. Vlach, like all Dispensationalists, denies the literal reading of the text and the plain understanding of what it indicates. He denies 1 Timothy 2:5 as ruling out mediatorial functions for Israel by saying, "The context of 1 Tim 2:1–6 is salvation." What does he think the mediatorial function of Israel was prior to Christ? A pizza delivery system? National Israel was unsuccessful in their mediatorial functions. They were an imperfect shadow of what was to come. Jesus mediates all affairs between men and God now, so what purpose would an imperfect shadow have in returning to mediation? National Israel is nothing!!! Jesus is "all in all" and fulfills everything! He is True Israel in every sense of the term; and we, being in Him, are the "Israel of God."