Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Archive for August, 2010

Our Resurrection Bodies

Posted by Job on August 22, 2010

One of the reasons why Bible believing and living Christians should anticipate with hope and joy is the fact of the coming resurrection. At this resurrection, we will receive glorified bodies like that of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:52 tells us that these bodies will be incorruptible. This means immortal, indestructible, will not decay. These bodies will not be subject to injury, disease, wear and tear, nothing! Keep in mind that one of the things that causes destruction, death and corruption is sin. As these bodies will be incorruptible, it is logical that sin and its effects will no longer be in the picture. So while in this life we have to contend with the “old man”, the flesh, the body of sin, or the sinful nature, and we have to resist Satan so that he will flee from us, and we also have to die to self daily, be crucified with Christ etc. in our new bodies those things will not be necessary. The day of perfection will have been attained for us on our behalf, we will abide in Christ and keep His commandments by definition, so all that will be left will be to worship Jesus Christ for eternity in bodies that will be well-suited for the task. And as the mind is part of the body, even things like “wandering eyes”, “short attention spans”, fears, anxieties, frustrations, temptations, divisions and other mental and emotional issues that plague Christians in this life will be overcome. Since our minds will be perfected along with our bodies, the “battle for the mind”, the contending over our will and emotions, will be over. Our inheritance will include clean hearts and purified souls for eternity.

What else do we know about our resurrected bodies? Again, return to the words and example of Jesus Christ. Consider, for instance, when He stated that there will be no marriage after the resurrection in response to the foolish carnal Hellenistic philosophizing of the Sadducees who denied the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33. (Please note that where the Pharisees fellowshipped with the Sadducees in those days, Christians are not to have religious company with heretics that peddle in strange doctrines yet lay claim to our faith.) Instead, as Jesus Christ said, we will become as the angels. This does not mean that we will become angels. It may mean that our resurrected bodies will be similar in some way to those of angels. As for marriage no longer existing, this refers to the fact that the purpose for this institution will have passed. Just as there was no purpose for the institution of marriage to exist among angels, when this age ends and we go from temporal earthly existences in our current bodies to eternal ones, the purpose for marriage in the new age will not exist. Therefore, we can presume that marriage was created to suit God’s purposes, not man’s, and so when God’s purposes are fulfilled in this age concerning marriage, there will be no reason for it to continue.

There are other examples. It is possible, for instance, that a hint of the glory of our resurrection bodies was revealed when Jesus Christ was transfigured as recounted in Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8 and Luke 9:28-36. During this transfiguration, His appearance changed, His face shined like the sun, and His clothes became white. This reminds us of Revelation 1’s description of the resurrected Jesus Christ, the first begotten of the dead.

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Now of course it is not fit that we attain the glory and brilliance of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, but if our resurrected incorruptible bodies take on a mere fraction of what is described here. I Corinthians 15:49-50 states that we WILL bear the image of the heavenly, which is none other than Jesus Christ, and that this must happen because our current flawed conditions cannot inherit the perfection of the kingdom of God in all its fulness. While we are in this life, we can only inherit a portion, a down payment or deposit if you will, of our inheritance. So we will resemble the firstborn Jesus Christ, the one who preceded us in being raised from the dead to eternal life.

Still more evidence on our resurrected bodies comes from the gospel narratives that describe the resurrected Lord. Please recall that Jesus Christ while He was in His earthly condition, kenosis, where He emptied Himself of His heavenly glory and full powers and privileges as deity (see Philemon 2:7) and functioned as a human empowered by – and totally reliant upon – the Holy Spirit and the will of God the Father, and thus Jesus Christ was fully, completely human just as are we. Indeed, even regarding His miracles and mighty works, Jesus Christ told His apostles that they would exceed them.

But when He was resurrected from the dead, it was at that point that He received a body that was “as the angels” according to His own description to the naturalistic Sadducee syncretists that mixed the Greek pagan worldview with Judaism to come up something that was to their own liking, something that they could use in order to conform to the world rather than to be sanctified and separate from it. (In this Sadducees of old are not dissimilar from so many professed Christians today.) Where before Jesus Christ was physically subject to the same limitations as Holy Spirit led and empowered humanity, after His resurrection, afterward in His appearances to His disciples He was able to change His appearance and come and go as He pleased. Yet, He was no “ghost” or spirit as He ate fish among His disciples on at least two occasions. Yet it appears that He ate not to fill some physical need, but rather to prove that He had indeed resurrected from the dead as opposed to merely coming back as a spirit or ghost, and also for fellowship purposes. How amazing, then, if in our resurrected bodies we will be able to eat but not need to! Will the redeemed eat manna in heaven just as did the children of Israel? Will the redeemed eat from the tree of life? These are fascinating things to ponder!

How wonderful these resurrection bodies of the saints shall be! It is something that should fill us with joy, gladness, comfort and expectation while we suffer through the griefs, pains, infirmities, deprivations etc. of our current life. The glory of our new bodies are not even worthy to be compared to our current states, even those of us who in this life enjoy peak physical condition and the financial status and medical care needed to maintain it. The many of us who lack such a physical body, then, should not envy those that we see in athletes and entertainers, for their bodies are temporal and corruptible, and the incorruptible resurrection bodies of the saints will exceed them immeasurably in every good way and in no evil way, including in their capacity to reflect and enjoy the radiant brilliance of our God and worship our God forever. We will never know the joyous, rapturous wondrous illuminating light of the Savior, the pleasure of the indwelling Holy Spirit, or the glorification of God the Father until we experience these things in our new bodies. Though we can partake of and enjoy these things in our current lives when we pray, study our Word, participate in evangelism and discipleship, gather for fellowship and worship, do good works, and grow in faith and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, these pleasures now cannot compare with what is to come. Even so, come Lord Jesus Christ!

And yet, there is indeed another side. Those who are outside of Jesus Christ will also be resurrected and receive indestructible bodies. However, where the bodies of the saints will know unrestrained glory and joy in the presence of Jesus Christ, the indestructible bodies of the lost will be cast into eternal torment, the lake of fire. Do not be deceived, those who go into eternal perdition will be resurrected also and as such receive new bodies. This is described in Revelation 20. Revelation 14:11 states that “the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night.” It is of those that Jesus Christ frequently taught will have weeping and gnashing of teeth. Do not receive the false comfort of the many that are promoting the man-centered and man-pleasing doctrine of annihilationism in these last days, because the words of Revelation and Jesus Christ refute it. Everyone who has had a temporal body during this temporal age will receive an indestructible, resurrection body in the eternal age to come. The only question is whether the fate of this resurrection body is eternal life and joy with Jesus Christ or eternal torment apart from Him.

Please, make eternal life with Jesus Christ in your resurrection body your fate today.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Bible, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Why The “We Need Female Leaders In The Church Because There Aren’t Enough Good Men” Is Just An Excuse For Rebellion And Sin

Posted by Job on August 17, 2010

Now, we have “evangelical feminists” on the move, demanding that the Biblical mandate for God-given roles to the sexes be discarded in favor of the current worldly fascination with the sort of social androgyny (the idea that there is no difference between the sexes that need to be respected) that homosexual Vaughn Walker used in his homosexual marriage advocacy from the bench. Further, in their pursuit of what is clearly an anti-Biblical agenda, they are employing the same rhetoric of the secular humanists feminists before them – as they are cut from the same cloth despite their evangelical pretensions – in claiming that Christians who support Biblical roles for males and females are contributing to spousal abuse, rape and child molestation. Of course, the recent explosion of such issues is due to society’s embrace of such notions as feminism and rejection of Biblical authority, not their fidelity to it. (I suppose that these evangelical feminists are going to claim that the early church, including the apostles who produced the New Testament, was this repository of child molesters and rapists. When you consider their outright rejection of inerrancy and Biblical authority in this matter, one would not be surprised if this is precisely what this group believes. Like the homosexual “Christians”, “evangelical feminists” ignore that these Bible interpretations have been handed down since the early church and are not the invention of a relatively recent group of bigots. Calling contemporary Christians misogynistic, homophobic child rapists for refusing to adhere to their current worldly interpretations means judging those who received the faith directly from Jesus Christ and His apostles as the same. But since honest theology and church history is not on their side, they resort to name-calling and appeals to the same body of “science” as is Freudian psychology and evolution that is used to justify homosexuality and a host of other abominations against one’s own body and other people.)

It seems that one of the more effective excuses to justify female church leadership – one that is gaining traction outside the Pentecostal and liberal theological circles that have long advocated for women pastors and leaders – is the shortage of suitable male leaders for the church. I do not deny the possibility that there is indeed a shortage of the number and type of male leaders required to staff our current ecclesiastical structure. However, the solution to that is to A) question if our (denominationally-driven) ecclesiastical structure is Biblical in the first place and B) realize that the abandonment of Biblical manhood and womanhood and a resulting environment of spiritual confusion and immaturity is a cause of this problem rather than the solution. Therefore, the way to have strong male leaders for the church going forward is for men and women to return to what the Bible commands rather than to use the spiritual condition of the contemporary church as an excuse to abandon it. Instead of looking for an excuse to justify sin and rebellion, we need to seek courage from the Holy Spirit to strengthen us to be faithful in this time of spiritual difficulty.

With that in mind, on my thread “Regarding Women Preachers: I Am Now Convinced That It Is Wrong” a Christian woman named Elsie made the following comment:

Paul says “I do not permit women to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” I agree with the word of God, but I see here that Paul says “I do not permit”, he did not say “God does not permit”.
I believe that only men have the authority to be pastors and leaders in the congregation. But I also believe that in some instances God has raised a woman to prophecy and to be a judge, etc.. When God chose these women to do a specific work, these women where humble women, godly women. I see in these days a lot of disharmony in the church with many women ministring. I don’t think they where called by God. One of the things that astonishes me is how these women dress when they stand in the pulpit. How can a man visit such congregation and stay connected with “the word” when this woman is dressed in a provocative way? There is nothing humble about that and there is nohing holy about that either. We have to be watchful and careful that we do not provoque others to fall.

I will allow her comment and my response below to serve as a rejoinder to those who might be deceived by evangelical feminism, including the argument “We need female leaders in the church because there aren’t enough good male leaders:

““I do not permit women to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” I agree with the word of God, but I see here that Paul says “I do not permit”, he did not say “God does not permit”.”When Paul was saying “I do not permit”, he was speaking from the position of authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. So, what an apostle permitted or denied was based on revelation from Jesus Christ, and therefore binding to the church. That was the real meaning of the oft-misunderstood “binding and loosing” passages of Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18, which is that the apostles, being appointed by Jesus Christ and received the revelation directly from Jesus Christ, had the right to establish doctrines and practices for the early church and those thereafter. This is not to say that Paul was divine in any sense, only that he spoke in the Name of God just as did an Old Testament prophet. When Paul was giving an opinion that he didn’t want to be considered binding, he said so in verses like 1 Corinthians 7:6 when he gave his opinion that it is better not to marry. Please note that in another place (1 Titus 4:3) Paul called forbidding to marry a devil’s doctrine.

“But I also believe that in some instances God has raised a woman to prophecy and to be a judge, etc..”

That is clear. God also raises up female deacons. The issue is the offices [that the Bible restricts women from holding] of pastor and teacher, not of evangelist, prophet or deacon.

… the Bible clearly lays out the role of elder spiritually gifted women in the church, which is to instruct younger women in faith and practice and to tend to the moral and spiritual development of children. In these times Christian woman have despised the role intended and laid out by God for them in order to seek the roles that God has set aside for men. You can see the negative effects on young women and children that result from this neglect. Ironically, the confusion in the church that results in the neglect of young women and children (as confused young women and children today become the very confused people who wind up leading churches 30 years down the line) is what is used as an excuse to justify female pastors.

For instance, a lot of people claim that there should be women leaders because there aren’t enough suitable male leaders, and they use Deborah in the time of the Judges as their proof-text. What they ignore is that the lack of suitable male leaders is precisely because of the refusal of elder women to instruct young mothers and of young mothers to instruct young women. And the proof-text of this is not only that of the kings in Israel (meaning that the kings who had righteous mothers who followed the Lord themselves followed the Lord, but the kings who had wicked mothers turned away from the Lord, and this was the case regardless of the spiritual condition of the father … a godly king and a rotten queen would produce rotten a rotten kid inheriting the throne, but a rotten king and a godly queen would produce a good child who would go on to become king) but also that Deborah herself had to rule because of Israel’s spiritual apostasy, their turning against God, at the time.

So, it speaks volumes that the women who use the lack of suitable male leaders as an excuse to be pastors and teachers are perfectly willing to personally profit from the dire straits that the church is in. That makes you nothing but a spiritual scalawag or carpetbagger. (If you are not from the American South, look the terms up … they mean someone who exploits a great tragedy for personal gain.) The proper response for Christian women to the lack of good male leaders in this generation is to adhere to what the Bible says regarding instructing younger women and children so that the next generation will have strong male leaders for the church. And this is precisely what the God-fearing queens of Israel who were married to evil husbands did. They did not attempt coups against their husbands so that they could rule righteously in their husband’s stead. (Consider that the only female usurper of the throne of Israel was the Baal worshiper Athaliah.) Instead, they raised their sons to know and fear God so that righteous rule would return in the next generation. The righteous queens of Israel knew the merits of adhering to God’s plan instead of following after their own human designs. Christian women chasing feminism idolatry would do well to follow their example. This is ever so more the case of Pentecostal women for whom female pastors is commonly accepted, as Pentecostals are known for their particular emphasis on Old Testament types and examples.

So, if righteous Old Testament queens operating without the benefit of the full revelation of Jesus Christ were able and willing to do what was necessary to produce godly kings for Old Testament Israel, how much more should New Testament Christian women who have the full revelation of Jesus Christ be expected to do so? Those who reject the Bible on this issue in order to follow a corrupt and fallen worldly mindset are without excuse.

For a more exhaustive treatment of this issue, please read:

Why Women Cannot Be Preachers

And to begin conforming your life to God’s desires:

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

What If It Were A Ground Zero Church Instead Of A Ground Zero Mosque?

Posted by Job on August 17, 2010

When you consider the Ground Zero mosque controversy, I cannot help but think of the Orthodox Idolatry post at Judah’s Lion (courtesy of PJ Miller) of concerning the lengths that Christians will go to in order to defend the American system because they perceive the American system to be some Christian ideal and the result of God’s providence and part of His special plan for the redemption of mankind with a unique role in salvation history, and as a result defending America is tantamount to defending the gospel of Jesus Christ itself. From Calvinistic covenant theologians like D. James Kennedy who proclaim America to be the crowning achievement of that system to free will Christians who want the power of man to choose or resist God’s grace to be constitutionally protected by the most powerful nation on earth, there is a lot at stake in claiming that there is Godly virtue in America’s secular freedoms, secular freedoms that are truthfully – according to Judah’s Lion – are actually morally neutral. Nothing of real spiritual value is morally neutral – meaning that it can be used for either evil or good – because God cannot be the origin of evil (James 1:12). Instead, it should be stated that things that are morally neutral can be used to perform God’s purposes. And that is no evidence of the virtues of morally neutral – or amoral – things because even things that are incontrovertibly evil have been used to fulfill God’s purposes too (as in the slaughter of the innocent Jewish children by Herod, which fulfilled a Messianic prophecy).

Now a lot of things have been written by Christians on this mosque topic. So, I will focus on two issues: the need of Christians to submit to the government (Romans 13) and the need of Christians not to be hypocrites. On the first, the Bible makes it clear that failing to obey or respect the law when the law does not force Christians to violate scripture is a sin. To put it another way, attempting to defy or subvert legitimate government is a sin, because legitimate government is a servant of God because of its serving to restrain evil. This means that not only are we to adhere to the law ourselves, but we are to desire that others do so also, and further we are to desire that the law is applied justly, which means fairly and evenly.

With that in mind, make no mistake: the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the applicable state and local laws give Muslims the right to build this mosque. For Christians to go about looking for ways to hinder or intimidate Muslims from exercising and enjoying their legal rights is to attempt to subvert and reject our system of laws. It would make the Muslims the lawmakers and Christians the subversives, the rebels, the seditionists. It would be Christians attempting to subvert the rule of law and undermining a just application of them. Other nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, do not have any pretense of equal treatment under the law. They do not have an equivalent to the Bill of Rights or the equal protection clause. So those nations can have different sets of rules for religious minorities and be justified in their own eyes. But it is America who has those things, and there is no justification for a Christian to attempt to prevent a nation from living up to and enforcing its own laws. Indeed, the Christian who does such a thing is guilty of promoting injustice and lawlessness.

Now a lot of people have taken the stance “it is legal but it isn’t right” under the grounds that it is offensive. The problem is that the First Amendment and other applicable laws are designed specifically to protect things that are offensive. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Now of course, most people are willing to respect the wishes and feelings of the majority. That’s not the point. The point is that they have no legal obligation to. Instead, the law is designed to protect people who have no regard for the majority, and indeed are opposed to the majority.

I don’t believe that a lot of Christians, especially those of a conservative political persuasion, have come to grips with the true nature of the founding of our country. This country’s founding was an act of rebellion, sedition, treason or what have you against England, who (notwithstanding the Native Americans) were the rightful rulers of this nation. Rebelling against a colonial power was a radical act, and it was justified not with the Bible, but with the radical Enlightenment thought that produced – among other things – the murderous French Revolution and ultimately spawned socialism, fascism and communism. So why are we surprised that a bunch of radical seditionists would produce a Constitution that protects the right of radical people to express themselves and organize? So, back then, it was the deists, humanists, rationalists, atheists, unitarians, freemasons (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and similar) plus Jews and Roman Catholics who demanded these protections from our overwhelmingly Protestant nation, and thanks to a revolutionary (seditious) mindset that overthrew the previous experiences of nations from the Roman Empire to Calvin’s Geneva to Bunyan’s England which taught that the long-term survival of a nation (we have only been in existence 300 years!) requires limiting religious freedom, they got it.

Now if it is time to state that the founders were wrong on unfettered religious freedom, fine. But should this reckoning be led by the very Christian leaders who supported the war in Iraq to “defend our religious freedoms and to give the Iraqis religious freedom too!”? If there is a fight to keep Muslims from imposing sharia law on Christians at home, the Christians who supported imposing western style democracies on sharia law on Muslims abroad should not be the ones to lead it. The reason is because such Christians do not support true justice or the rule of law, but instead only want to use these institutions to benefit Christians (and increasingly Jews, Mormons and Roman Catholics, who now all get to be called “Judeo-Christians”). We cannot continue to ignore that our system of laws was created in order to give a bunch of rebellious people that included in their ranks not a few deists and unitarians the “freedom” to reject legitimate Godly authority, which means that we also cannot persist in acting surprised that everyone from the Muslims to the feminists to the Marxists to the homosexual activists to the atheists have used this same system to pursue their agendas also.

Please note that I did not say “co-opt” or “hi-jack” because that would be dishonest. Instead, it can and must be said that these groups are properly utilizing our system according to the manner that it was intended. Our system was created by rebels for rebels. People who are appalled at the rebels of today (i.e. Muslims, homosexuals and other liberals) have forgotten how appalling the American Revolution was to the British! That’s right, the current tea party folks who oppose this mosque on the basis that it will become a breeding ground for terrorists (which it will be, trust me I have no illusion about Islam) conveniently forget how the British very properly viewed the original Tea Party and those who followed after them. Do you believe that the British had any higher regard for George Washington than many Americans have for Feisal Abdul Rauf? Why do you believe that they should have for the man that led a rebellion against their nation that killed many British soldiers? You don’t believe that the British cared any less for their soldiers fighting in America back then than we care about our soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today? (And when you consider that unlike our troops occupying sovereign nations, the British troops were fighting to defend territory that was lawfully and properly theirs from traitors and seditionists?)

So, Christians who believe that by opposing the mosque they are defending America have simply deluded themselves as to what they are defending. It should be clear based on the Bible and our history (by this I mean actual scripture and history and not what we wish the Bible and our history to be for our own political or patriotic purposes) that seeking to either break the law or to intimidate Muslims to abandon their legal rights in order to oppose this mosque is not a legitimate expression of Christianity, which renders under Caesar that which is Caesar’s and submits to higher powers. As building this mosque will not stop a single Christian sermon from being preached or evangelist from being sent, contriving excuses to refuse to respect the law and the decisions of legitimately elected leaders (i.e. Bloomberg and Obama) makes the Christian guilty in this matter. And please, no speaking of how that site is “sacred ground.” Sacred in what sense? Not in a Christian sense, because the New Testament speaks only of the church’s identification with Jesus Christ – and through Jesus Christ God the Father – and it’s being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament no longer even affords much special significance to Jerusalem or the temple. Biblical Christianity respects no concept of “sacred ground”, only an elect people, and stating otherwise is political idolatry.

Now the second issue is even easier: hypocrisy. Suppose this former Burlington Coat Factory site had been purchased by a Christian pastor for the purposes of building a church, seminary or similar. And suppose that the state and city governments were to deny the building of it. Suppose that the logic was that it would be inappropriate, insensitive, and a provocation. Suppose Mike Bloomberg and Barack Obama were to say “building a large church so close to Ground Zero would be an act of declaring that site a Christian site and this nation a Christian nation, and that would dishonor the memories of the Jews, atheists, Hindus, Wiccans and Muslims who died on September 11th, and it would also dishonor the non-Christian soldiers who are fighting for our freedoms.” What if devices or tricks such as declaring this Burlington Coat Factory to be some sort of historical landmark site or changes to zoning laws were done to prevent this “Ground Zero Church” from being built, and demands were made to respect it as “sacred ground.” Suppose that someone were to even propose that building a church on a site that Muslims regard as triumphialist – one where they believe themselves to have obtained a great victory over the west – would be considered a religious and ideological “counterstrike” that would incite and inflame “moderate Muslims” and provoke attacks from Islamists. What would be the response?

We know the answer. Many of these very same Christians would invoke the First Amendment and every other law in the books to support the church being built. The same laws that we are demanding that Muslims either abandon or be denied in this case, most of these same Christians would want to be enforced to the fullest extent possible were the roles reversed. The Alliance Defense Fund, the American Center For Law and Justice, and other similar organizations would be working overtime, as would so many Christian leaders and opinion-makers. They would reject the “this isn’t about the First Amendment … you can build a church anywhere, just not here!” excuse. And you know what, they’d be 100% correct in that hypothetical situation just as they are 100% wrong now.  Do not mistake me, I am a Bible-believing Christian who fully knows the difference between Islam and Christianity. The issue is that our laws respect no such difference because they were written by people who wanted a legal code that recognizes no distinctions between Martin Luther and Thomas Jefferson. Our laws can show no favor on Christians or disfavor on Muslims because in going with Enlightenment humanism, our founding fathers chose darkness over light. So then, what is the justification for Christians to completely cast aside the golden rule – let alone the rule of law – with regards to this matter? Simple: there is none. Instead, you have so many professing Christians that are standing up defending the right to treat Muslims in a manner that is not only illegal, but is not the treatment that they would want to receive themselves. (Again, no claims that “I would respect sharia law if I were living in Saudi Arabia” because this isn’t Saudi Arabia. This is America, and the Bible demands that American Christians be subject to American laws and rulers, not that we try to seek ways to justify violating our laws and defying our leaders.)

Now does this means that Christians should support and defend this mosque? Of course not. Christians should never willingly play a role in the promotion of another religion. (Ecumenical Christians who do so with Roman Catholics and Mormons as well as dispensationalists who do so with Jews, please take note.) The idea that we have to defend the freedom of other religions in order to defend our own freedoms is not supported by the Bible. It is akin to claiming that we have to defend homosexual marriage in order to protect state recognition of heterosexual marriage, or defend abortion in order to make sure that those who wish to have children will be allowed to. Also, it takes the position that the protection and advancement of the church comes from the state and not God. Some Christians, especially those of the liberal bent, would claim that the Bible commands us to speak up for the marginalized and dispossessed and make sure that they receive justice. It is my position that such people would be employing questionable hermeneutics and a faulty application based on them in a case like this. Allow me to say that it would be the duty of a Christian who holds a post in civil government to do his job and follow the law with respect to Muslims in this case. Beyond that, it is the duty of our civil government to protect the First Amendment rights of Muslims. Christians should simply allow our civil government to do its job with respect to Muslims seeking to practice their religion and not interfere.

Ultimately, this Ground Zero mosque is a great example of the dangerous deceptions of political Christianity, both right and left. Political Christianity causes us to error in our thought, speech and actions, and divert those things from what God in His New Testament actually told us to do, which is to go and make converts and disciples and to live under submission to Jesus Christ ourselves.

Update: Following Judah’s Lion has the best commentary on this topic to date.

Thousands of Jesus followers around the world are being persecuted and even martyred for their faith. And just like the Amish who forgave the man who murdered their little girls, these believers endure hardships and persecution with the grace that should remind us of the Savior upon that cruel tree.

But in America a mosque is proposed to be built and millions of people who profess Christ get all up in arms and sound the alarm. The “alarm” they sound is not a call to sacrificial prayer for the souls of the Muslims who will frequent this mosque, but it is a caterwauling about America and the indignity of such a building. And these are people who doctrinally say they believe the Bible.

Evidently they do not.

What more can be said?

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Bible, Christianity, evangelism, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Jesus Christ, religious right | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: