What Real Freedom From Homosexuality Looks Like

by Matt Moore

I’m sitting here at Starbucks with the word document open… and blank. Wishing I had something to write about. I mean, I do. I have a lot of things going on in my life right now. It’s just that none of those things have anything to do with homosexuality. Nothing going on in my life right now has absolutely anything to do with things gay-in-nature.

…..It hit me, right as I was typing out that paragraph above: “I really am free of this thing.”

I’m free from homosexuality. Not free in the sense that I don’t experience attraction to men — I still feel that. Those butterflies. That inward pull. Dozens of times a day, I do. It’s a part of my life — a part of the sinful flesh that I temporarily indwell.

I’m free in the sense that it doesn’t dominate me. And I don’t just mean in an “I don’t act out anymore” kind of way. My freedom isn’t constituted by the mere fact that I’m not actively engaging in homosexual activity. You can modify your behavior and still be very much in bondage.

I’m free from homosexuality because it doesn’t
dominate my thought life, anymore. 

Before Christ saved me, I was obsessed with “the gay.” I was obsessed with denying and hiding my homosexual feelings for years. And then tiring of that misery, I became obsessed with satisfying the desires. Engulfing myself in them. Identifying myself by them.

And then a few years ago, Jesus got me. And when I say He got me, He got me. But I was still obsessed homosexuality. I was obsessed with my “testimony” — I was obsessed with being “that ex-gay Christian guy.” I was obsessed with writing blogs, writing books, speaking at conferences… all the while telling myself I was doing it for God.

I mean, sure. I was doing it for God, partly. But mostly, it was for me. It was to give my life purpose. I was on a crusade to legitimize my existence, my singleness, my different-ness, my place in this world. And used “ministry” as the venue to do just that.

But something over the past two years has changed, in me. A big something. I don’t find myself thinking on “the gay” anymore. My infrequent bloggings on this website are about the extent of my focus on the subject.

I find the life of my mind now is pretty much centered on God. Not merely the things of God, but the Person of God. Not perfectly centered, no doubt. But He is what I think about most. Knowing Him, loving Him, enjoying Him, serving Him, following Him, proclaiming Him to the people around me. Spending my life away for the sake of the gospel, where He’s placed me…in real life with real people who really need redemption. These are the thoughts, by God’s grace, that fill my mind.

People ask me all the time how they can be free from homosexuality. My short answer is this: The same sex desires may never go away. But stop obsessing over them. Stop trying to make them disappear. Stop trying to explain them away. Stop thinking about them all day long. Stop wrapping your identity up in them (whether you’re a Christian or not). Stop worshipping them. Worship Jesus.

That’s the cure — the cure to freedom. Worshiping Jesus.

Biblical Theology and the Sexuality Crisis

by Al Mohler

Western society is currently experiencing what can only be described as a moral revolution. Our society’s moral code and collective ethical evaluation on a particular issue has undergone not small adjustments but a complete reversal. That which was once condemned is now celebrated, and the refusal to celebrate is now condemned.

What makes the current moral and sexual revolution so different from previous moral revolutions is that it is taking place at an utterly unprecedented velocity. Previous generations experienced moral revolutions over decades, even centuries. This current revolution is happening at warp speed.

As the church responds to this revolution, we must remember that current debates on sexuality present to the church a crisis that is irreducibly and inescapably theological. This crisis is tantamount to the type of theological crisis that Gnosticism presented to the early church or that Pelagianism presented to the church in the time of Augustine. In other words, the crisis of sexuality challenges the church’s understanding of the gospel, sin, salvation, and sanctification. Advocates of the new sexuality demand a complete rewriting of Scripture’s metanarrative, a complete reordering of theology, and a fundamental change to how we think about the church’s ministry.

IS “TRANSGENDER” IN THE CONCORDANCE?

Proof-texting is the first reflex of conservative Protestants seeking a strategy of theological retrieval and restatement. This hermeneutical reflex comes naturally to evangelical Christians because we believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible word of God. We understand that, as B.B. Warfield said, “When Scripture speaks, God speaks.” I should make clear that this reflex is not entirely wrong, but it’s not entirely right either. It’s not entirely wrong because certain Scriptures (that is, “proof texts”) speak to specific issues in a direct and identifiable way.

Continue reading...

Why My Family Doesn't Do Sleepovers

by Tim Challies

James Dobson believes that children should not participate in sleepovers. The world has changed, he says, and has become too dangerous to allow your children out of your sight for so long. In his book Bringing Up Girls, he says:

Sadly, the world has changed in the last few decades, and it is no longer a safe place for children. Pedophiles and child molesters are more pervasive than ever. That is why parents must be diligent to protect their kids every hour of the day and night. …

Until you have dealt with little victims as I have and seen the pain in their eyes, you might not fully appreciate the devastation inflicted by molestation. It casts a long shadow on everything that follows, including future marital relationships. Therefore, parents have to think the unthinkable in every situation. The threat can come from anywhere—including neighbors, uncles, stepfathers, grandfathers, Sunday school teachers, coaches, music instructors, Scout leaders, and babysitters. Even public bathrooms can be dangerous today…

He believes the threat is so pervasive that parents should not allow their children to participate in sleepovers. I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing.

Continue reading...

Alex Haiken: Liar and Deceiver

Dear Reader,

My friend Jerry and I have been conversing with a Jewish homosexual named Alex Haiken who mistakenly thinks himself to be a Christian. He constantly and consistently laces his e-mails, blog articles, and responses with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations. Alex relies on the unscholarly works of such homosexual/pro-gay authors as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and their works have been exposed to be filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. Alex continually fails to practice honest and responsible hermeneutics and exegesis, habitually ripping texts from their context and attempting to interpret them based on our day and age and what is or is not acceptable in and by our societies.

 

Over on With All I Am, Prayson Daniel writes an article in response to arguments made by Alex Haiken. In the section titled "Haiken's Objection," the first paragraph summarizes Alex's words, the second paragraph is a direct quotation of Alex's words, the third paragraph is a combination of summarization using quotations from Alex's words, and the fourth paragraph is a quotation of Alex's words again. All the things you find in any document that quotes another document.

In the ensuing comments, Alex Haiken accuses Prayson Daniel of misquoting and misrepresenting his words (ironically, the same things Alex does with Scripture). In a fit of rage, Alex blasts, "YOU HAVE REPREHENSIVELY [sic] MISREPRESENTED MY WORDS, POSTED WORDS THAT I DID USE OUT OF CONTEXT, AND ATTRIBUTED YOUR OWN WORDS TO MY NAME." Alex argues further, "The tile [sic] of this post is appalling. It is appalling because you had the unprincipled audacity to use my name, a screenshot from my blog, and then put them together with words I never used. You are misleading your readers into thinking that the words you wrote are my words. They are not. Your words do not represent me. They do not represent what I have said. On the contrary, they misrepresent me."

To demonstrate that he has not misquoted or misrepresented Alex's words, Prayson provides this link to the precise comments made by Alex. Despite this link with the factual evidence (and a subsequent quoting of the entire thing and re-posting it for everyone to read), Alex continues to claim misquotation and misrepresentation, deliberately trying to avoid the question posed to him by Prayson. Prayson's question? "Would you be kind to show how infant child sacrifice (18:21) and intercourse with animal (18:23) are morally binding despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman (18:22) is not?" The same problem three other commenters on Alex's blog caught him in.

"If Leviticus 18:22 forbids sexual intercourse between a male as with a woman only because of its association with idolatry viz. pagan fertility cult ritual, then it would logically follow that Leviticus 18:23 sexual practices with an animal, and Leviticus 18:21 infant child sacrifice are also forbidden only because of their association with pagan idolatry.
Could you show how infant child sacrifice (18:21) and intercourse with animal (18:23) are morally binding today despite their association with idolatry, while sexual practices between a male as with a woman(18:22) is not?"

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

"You have been quite thorough in your interpretive attempt, but your conclusions are absurd. You claim that 'Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones'. Then you must conclude that there is also nothing wrong morally with bestiality or child sacrifice.
You’re right that we should be wary about bringing our own predetermination to the text; unfortunately, it is clear that is exactly what you have done. You are not being honest with the text, and the results are bad exegesis and a wrong interpretation. Without delving too deeply into another subject, I’ll say simply this is the best reason for an interpretive authority."

Alex argues that the title of the post is appalling "because you had the unprincipled audacity to use my name, a screenshot from my blog, and then put them together with words I never used." If Alex's contention was with a screenshot of his blog, possibly suggesting that the words in question might have originated from there, then he might have a case for the removal of the screenshot but everything else would still stand. The use of his name and the summarization and quotation of his comments from another post are legitimately used. The fact is, as the evidence shows, Alex did use those words. Prayson puts quotation marks around direct quotations from Alex's comments, which is what every document quoting another document does (something Alex has yet to learn how to do, as well as providing the source reference information). In Alex's comment, paragraphs 2 through 8 are what Prayson uses in his summarized first paragraph. If you take "Leviticus 18:21-23," the preceding introduction, and the following verses as a paragraph together, paragraph 10 is what Prayson quotes in his second paragraph. The two quotations from Alex in Prayson's third paragraph are taken from the second last paragraph of Alex's comment here, wherein the question is a loaded one (just one of Alex's typical fallacious argument tactics). The quotation from Alex in Prayson's fourth paragraph is from the end of the thirteeth paragraph of Alex's comment.

As anyone can see, Alex is blowing smoke and trying to deceive the readers of Prayson's blog.

Interestingly enough, in this comment Alex writes, "So if one reads the passage in context we see that the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not SEXUAL ones." Yet, on his website Alex writes, "...the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones." Which is it, Alex? Sexual or moral? Why did he change his wording? Was he tired of people catching him in the problem he created for himself by using "MORAL"? Sexual and moral are not synonymous. Can Alex name an example where incest and bestiality are okay for "SEXUAL" reasons? How about where they are okay for "MORAL" reasons? No? Did not think so. The problem is, his replacement of "moral" with "sexual" makes even less sense, considering the fact that sacrificing children to Molech has nothing to do with "sexual" reasons. This little "boo boo" of Alex's has just demonstrated how he likes to play fast and loose with his eisegetical interpretation because he cannot grasp the context. The fact remains that these acts were prohibited for moral reasons (and sexual, if you like, although that reasoning lacks any kind of coherent sense). For a breakdown of the context as well as an exegetical treatment of both Leviticus 18 and 20, please go here.

Slaves or Sons?

There are Christians out there who attempt to assert their sonship to God while denying their servitude to God. They profess to be sons of God but deny they are slaves of God. In fact, many of them, confused on the issue of biblical slavery versus the slavery that occurred in England and America, downright hate the word "slave" and fight against it with all their might. They deny they are a slave of any kind.

Here is a list of Bible saints who explicitly identified themselves as slaves of God or Christ: the virgin Mary, Paul, James, Jude, and John. Peter said, "Live as slaves of God" (1 Peter 2:16). Paul wrote, "You have become slaves of God" (Romans 6:22). Jesus commanded His disciples to regard themselves as slaves of God (Luke 17:10).

The Bible affirms both our slavery and our sonship to God. It is utterly impossible to read the Bible, pay attention when you read it, and miss this point. We call God "Father" because we are His children, and "Lord" ("Master") because we are His slaves. God's fatherhood does not trump his lordship, and our sonship does not trump our servitude.

I have already addressed the issue of slavery here.

Goliath: Four Sons or Four Brothers?

Quite a while ago, a friend of mine brought to my attention a break through he had come across while reading the Bible. He asked if I recalled how preachers tend to refer to Goliath's four brothers. I affirmed. He then informed me that they were four sons—not four brothers. His evidence? "These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants" (2 Samuel 21:22 KJV). After all, Goliath was a Gittite from Gath and "these four" referred to the four giants discussed in the previous verses. Upon reading the passage myself, it seemed that he had a solid case. Seems like very convincing information, right? 

Well, in the parallel passage found in 1 Chronicles 20, one of the giants slain is named Lahmi, and he is referred to as "the brother of Goliath." In verses 4 and 6, the other two giants are referred to as "descendants of the giants" and "descended from the giants," respectively. Plural. In 2 Samuel 21, they are referred to as "descendants of the giant" and "born to the giant." Singular. If the singular is the proper rendering, who is this giant? Is it Goliath, as would seem to be the case based on a simple reading of the text? One of the four giants mentioned is listed as Goliath's brother while the other three are listed as descendants of the giant(s). Did he have three sons and one brother? If so, why then does verse 22 say "these four"? This became confusing, so I did what I do best and started digging.

In Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." In Numbers 13:33 it says, "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." The Hebrew word, which is here retained from the original, is nepiyliym (נפילים), a masculine noun used only in the plural meaning "giants," and most translations render it thus. The word used in 2 Samuel 21 (rapah [רפה]) and 1 Chronicles 20 (rapa [רפא]), interestingly enough, does not mean "giant(s)." So why do the KJV, the NASB, the NRSV, the NKJV, the ESV, and the HSCB all render it incorrectly?

These words (rapah [רפה], singular, meaning "Rapha"; rapa [רפא], plural, meaning "Raphaim") are proper nouns designating a person—Rapha, the father of several giants among David's enemies. Ironically enough, the NIV is one of the only other Bibles, along with Darby's translation, to render it correctly, as did the Wycliffe, the Matthew-Tyndale, and the Geneva Bible centuries ago. In the Wycliffe Bible, the word in 2 Samuel 21 is rendered as "Harapha," while the word in 1 Chronicles 20 is rendered "Raphaim." In the Matthew-Tyndale Bible, the word in 2 Samuel 21 is rendered as "Haraphah," while the word in 1 Chronicles 20 is rendered "Haraphah." Here are the verses from the 1560 Geneva Bible:

2 Samuel 21
¹⁶Then Ishi-benob which was of the sonnes of Haraphah (the head of whose speare wayed thre hundreth shekels of brasse) euen he being girded with a newe sworde, thoght to haue slaine Dauid.
¹⁸And after this also there was a battel with the Phiistims at Gob, then Sibechai the Hushathite slewe Saph, which was one of the sonnes of Haraphah.
²⁰Afterware there was also a battel in Gath, where was a man of a great stature, and had on euerie hand six fingers, and on euerie foote six toes, foure and twentie in nomber: who was also the sonne of Haraphah.
²²These foure were borne to Harapha in Gath, and dyed by the hand of Dauid and by the hands of his seruants.

1 Chronicles 20
⁶And yet againe there was a battel at Gath, where was a man of a great stature, and his fingers were by sixes, euen foure and twenty, and was also the sonne of Haraphah.
⁸These were borne vnto Haraphah at Gath, and fel by the hand of Dauid: and by the hands of his seruants

Rendering these words as "giant(s)" when the words clearly do not even come close to such a meaning (in any lexicon or dictionary I looked up), even though the Raphaim were likely all giants, only serves to confuse the issue for someone who merely reads the Bible at face value rather than studying it deeper. Once we understand this information, everything becomes clear. Rapha was a giant who had five sons: Goliath, Ishbi-benob, Saph (or Sippai), Lahmi, and the unnamed 24-digited brother. So Goliath did have four brothers—not four sons.

Misquoting the Bible: Ephesians 5:21

Far too frequently have I encountered individuals online who incorrectly refer to the passage in Ephesians dealing with marriage and the home. They deliberately misquote it and twist Scripture to say something it clearly does not say. The ones most guilty of this offense tend to be Liberals, who are frequently in rebellion against what Scripture teaches and commands. These Scripture-twisting individuals who deliberately ignore context quote the Ephesians passage as such:

²¹and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. ²²Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. ²⁴But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. ²⁵Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; ²⁶that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. ²⁸So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; ²⁹for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, ³⁰because we are members of His body. ³¹FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. ³²This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. ³³Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.

What is wrong with these people quoting Scripture in this way? Verse 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the context of the passage on marriage and the home (verses 22-33). Verse 21 ends several passages addressing the church and how the Christian ought to walk and be an imitator of God. The church is supposed to "submit to one another in the fear of God" (v. 21)—not husbands and wives to each other. In the hierarchy of the family, only the wife is to submit herself to her husband, "as the church submits to Christ" (v. 24). She is to do so "as to the Lord" (v. 22). The only time she is not to do so, but to still honour and respect her husband (v. 33), is where sin is concerned (e.g., if he wants her to do something that is clearly against God's commands). Her first obedience is to God. The same concept applies to children. Children are to obey their parents, except where sin is concerned. But they are still to honour and respect their parents. Their first obedience is to God as well. A good husband will consult his wife for her wise counsel, including her in the decision making process, but ultimately the final decision is his to make—for good or bad—and he will be held accountable before God for it. She should not try and usurp this position from her husband because then she will be held accountable before God. In every area of life there is a hierarchy of authority. Would you, as a low-end employee, want to be held accountable to the manager or CEO for a decision that was made by your supervisor? Would you, as a soldier, want to be held accountable to the General or Commander-in-Chief for a decision that was made by your commanding officer? Would you, as a student, want to be held accountable to the principal or the school board for a decision that was made by your teacher? Hierarchy exists everywhere. Within God Himself (Father, Son, Holy Spirit); within the angels; and within the family.

Why do these so-called "Christians" deliberately misquote this passage? Because they are disobedient and rebellious, and rather than obey God and what He has commanded in Scripture, they want the husband to have to submit to his wife, which is entirely unbiblical. That is like requiring God the Father to submit to God the Son, or parents to submit to their children. It is a deliberate rearranging of the hierarchy established by God for authority and accountability. The concern and argument regarding an abusive husband is without foundation. Verses 22-24 and 33 address the wife, while verses 25-31 and 33 address the husband. This passage, as well as others, does not allow for a tyrannical husband who abuses the authority given him by God. Any husband who attempts to use such passages incorrectly by misquoting them—quoting only the parts that address the wife while glossing over or skipping the ones addressing himself—is being disobedient and rebellious. In such cases, the wife is allowed to separate from her husband with the goal of reconciliation in mind once he gets help and submits to the Lord as he ought to do.

The passage in Ephesians on marriage and the home is correctly quoted when it looks thus:

²²Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. ²⁴But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. ²⁵Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; ²⁶that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. ²⁸So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; ²⁹for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, ³⁰because we are members of His body. ³¹FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. ³²This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. ³³Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.

Any attempt at inclusion of verse 21 is Scripture twisting and the individuals who do such have an agenda to get others to rebel and be disobedient toward God and His Word. Be obedient toward God and content with the position He has given you.

Both Apostles Are Right

by William Bacon Stevens

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" James 2:14

The religion of Jesus Christ is made up of two parts: faith and works.
Faith is the root of works.
Works are the fruit of faith.

A belief, however true and pure, if it is accepted only by the intellect, and is not carried out into practice, translating the faith held by the mind into active duties, is a barren faith, which will not be accepted by God, and which will not secure salvation.

On the other hand, works, however good, which do not spring out of faith in the Lord Jesus, but which are done merely from human and worldly motives, are of no avail before God, because "whatever is not of faith, is sin."

Thrice has James told us, "Faith without works is dead!"
And just as distinctly has Paul declared, "By the works of the law, shall no flesh be justified in His sight."

Both apostles are right!

Works without faith have no living root.
Faith without works has no authenticating fruit.

They are the two parts of the one tree, namely, the root and the fruit. They are the two halves of the one whole; together they make up the true Christian.

"In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by works, is dead!" James 2:17

Genuine vs False

Jesus frequently addressed the issue of genuine believers and false believers, making a clear distinction between possessors of Christ, who own God in their hearts and souls, and professors of Christ, who merely honour God with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. In several of Jesus' teachings, He told us plainly that the kingdom of heaven, also called the kingdom of God, would consist of genuine believers and false believers together.

¹On that day Jesus went out of the house, and was sitting by the sea. ²And great multitudes gathered to Him, so that He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole multitude was standing on the beach. ³And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow; ⁴and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. ⁵And others fell upon the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. ⁶But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. ⁷And others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. ⁸And others fell on the good soil, and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. ⁹He who has ears, let him hear."
¹⁸"Hear then the parable of the sower. ¹⁹When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. ²⁰And the one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word, and immediately receives it with joy; ²¹yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. ²²And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. ²³And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit, and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty."

Matthew 13:1-9, 19-23; cf. Mark 4:1-9, 13-20; Luke 8:4-15

²⁴He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. ²⁵But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. ²⁶But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. ²⁷And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' ²⁸And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' And the slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' ²⁹But he said, 'No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. ³⁰Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
³⁶Then He left the multitudes, and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." ³⁷And He answered and said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, ³⁸and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; ³⁹and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. ⁴⁰Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. ⁴¹The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, ⁴²and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

⁴⁷"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering fish of every kind; ⁴⁸and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down, and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away. ⁴⁹So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, ⁵⁰and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁵¹Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes."

Matthew 13:47-51

After Jesus said these things, He said something so profound, yet simple, that most people seem to miss it. Contrary to what some professors claim from their unbelieving lips, a person's faith is not personal and private. Observe what Jesus had to say on the issue.

²¹And He was saying to them, "A lamp is not brought to be put under a peck-measure, is it, or under a bed? Is it not brought to be put on the lampstand? ²²For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it should come to light. ²³If any man has ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 4:21-23; cf. Matthew 5:14-16; Luke 8:16-18

Jesus said other similarly revealing things as well.

¹⁵"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? ¹⁷Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. ¹⁹Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰So then, you will know them by their fruits."

Matthew 7:15-20

In other teachings from Jesus, contrasting genuine believers and false believers, He informed us of the kind of character that genuine believers would exhibit.

¹"Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went out to meet the bridegroom. ²And five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. ³For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, ⁴but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. ⁵Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. ⁶But at midnight there was a shout, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' ⁷Then all those virgins rose, and trimmed their lamps. ⁸And the foolish said to the prudent, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' ⁹But the prudent answered, saying, 'No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.' ¹⁰And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. ¹¹And later the other virgins also came, saying, 'Lord, lord, open up for us.' ¹²But he answered and said, 'Truly I say to you, I do not know you.' ¹³Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour."

Matthew 25:1-13

¹"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. ²Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit. ³You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. ⁴Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. ⁵I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. ⁶If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. ⁷If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you. ⁸By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
⁹"Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. ¹⁰If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. ¹¹These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full."

John 15:1-11

The good soil versus the rocky soil and the thorny soil, the wheat versus the tares, the good fish versus the bad fish, the wise virgins versus the foolish virgins, the branches that bear fruit versus the branches that are barren, and the sheep versus the goats, etc. All of these are pictures of genuine converts and false converts growing up in the universal church together until Jesus returns to separate the wicked from the just (see Matt. 25:31-46). This is why Jesus says things like this:

²¹"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. ²²Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' ²³And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"

Matthew 7:21-23

These people believe themselves to be saved, otherwise they would not say, "Lord, Lord." However, Jesus, knowing their hearts, exposes the truth that they were merely professors whose lips honoured God but whose hearts were far from Him. This lends to why the Bible tells us to examine ourselves so much, to take the log out of our own eye before trying to take the speck out of another's eye. The heart is very deceitful, and with so many false gospels being preached of "easy believism," it is very easy for us to convince ourselves we are saved when in fact we are not. Do we hide our Christianity and refuse to speak about it? Or are we bold and confess Jesus before others regardless of what they might think of us?

Which type of Christian are you? Genuine? Or false? There is no such thing as a "carnal Christian."

A New Year's Resolution

by Matthew Henry

"My times are in Your hand!" Psalm 31:15 

Firmly believing that my times are in God's hand, I here submit myself and all my affairs for the ensuing year, to the wise and gracious disposal of God's divine providence. Whether God appoints for me . . .

     health or sickness,

     peace or trouble,

     comforts or crosses,

     life or death,

may His holy will be done!

All my time, strength, and service, I devote to the honor of the Lord Jesus, and even my common actions. It is my earnest expectation, hope, and desire, my constant aim and endeavor, that Jesus Christ may be magnified in me.

In everything I have to do, my entire dependence is upon Jesus Christ for strength. And whatever I do in word or deed, I desire to do all in His name, to make Him my Alpha and Omega. I have all from Him and I would use all for Him.

If this should prove a year of affliction, a sorrowful year to me, I will fetch all my supports and comforts from the Lord Jesus and stay myself upon Him, His everlasting consolations, and the good hope I have in Him through grace.

And if it should be my dying year, then my times are in the hand of the Lord Jesus. And with a humble reliance upon His mediation, I would venture into the eternal world looking for the blessed hope. Dying as well as living, Jesus Christ will, I trust, be gain and advantage to me.

Oh, that the grace of God may be sufficient for me, to keep me always in a humble sense of my own unworthiness, weakness, folly, and infirmity, together with a humble dependence upon the Lord Jesus Christ for daily grace and strength.