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!

Posts Tagged ‘original sin’

Abijah And The Doctrines Of Grace 1 Kings 14:1-18

Posted by Job on January 1, 2012

I have the opinion that the case of Abijah in 1 Kings 14:1-18 can be used as an example to explain the doctrines of grace. My example does not deal directly with the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Old Testament saints; yet the principles of the doctrines of grace are still present. The text from Biblegateway appears below.

At that time Abijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick. And Jeroboam said to his wife, Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get thee to Shiloh: behold, there is Ahijah the prophet, which told me that I should be king over this people. And take with thee ten loaves, and cracknels, and a cruse of honey, and go to him: he shall tell thee what shall become of the child. And Jeroboam’s wife did so, and arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. But Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age. And the LORD said unto Ahijah, Behold, the wife of Jeroboam cometh to ask a thing of thee for her son; for he is sick: thus and thus shalt thou say unto her: for it shall be, when she cometh in, that she shall feign herself to be another woman. And it was so, when Ahijah heard the sound of her feet, as she came in at the door, that he said, Come in, thou wife of Jeroboam; why feignest thou thyself to be another? for I am sent to thee with heavy tidings. Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince over my people Israel, And rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes; But hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back: Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat: for the LORD hath spoken it. Arise thou therefore, get thee to thine own house: and when thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him: for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing toward the LORD God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam. Moreover the LORD shall raise him up a king over Israel, who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam that day: but what? even now. For the LORD shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of this good land, which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their groves, provoking the LORD to anger. And he shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin. And Jeroboam’s wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah: and when she came to the threshold of the door, the child died; And they buried him; and all Israel mourned for him, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by the hand of his servant Ahijah the prophet.

The TULIP acronymn is often used to simplify and summarize the presentation of the doctrines of grace, often referred to as Reformed theology or Calvinism. Consider this to be TULIP as it pertains to this Abijah.

Total Depravity: 1 Corinthians 15:22 tells us “in Adam all die”, a reference to original sin condition of all mankind that is the result of the disobedience of Adam, the originator and thus federal head of the entire human race. As Abijah is a descendant of Adam, he was considered a sinner, an enemy of God, separated from God, and dead to spiritual things. Romans 5:10-14 makes these facts, i.e. the state of our enmity with God, that this state and with it death was passed on to Adam’s descendants, clear. Note that it is because of this total depravity due to original sin that God can declare a death sentence on an entire family based on the actions of one person – as God did to the line of Jeroboam, father of Abijah, because of Jeroboam’s wicknedness and idolatry – and not be called unjust.

Unconditional election: God declared that of all the house of Jeroboam, only Abijah would receive an honorable burial. The reason for this was not because of the righteousness of Abijah, for Abijah was a child (so described by Hebrew word na’ar in verse 3 and yeled in verses 12 and 17). And God did not make a special case for Abijah because of his age, as God ordered the destruction of juveniles in many other cases, including the firstborn in Egypt. Instead, the reason why Abijah alone of the line of Jeroboam was given honor by God before all Israel was “because in him there is found some good thing toward the LORD God of Israel.” This good thing was grace; of God’s choosing Abijah and Abijah alone “in the house of Jeroboam”, the wicked king who turned Israel to idols. The election of the child Abijah was an act of a sovereign God alone, which Abijah having no ability to either consent to or reject the decree of El Shaddai.

Limited Atonement (though I prefer the Baptistic term particular atonement instead): in a dream the angel of the Lord revealed to Joseph concerning Jesus Christ that He would save His people from their sins (Mat 1:21). “His people” does not refer to national Israel, but the church, those called righteous and redeemed in both Old Testament and New Testament times. Jesus Christ stated that His death was not intended for all, but only for His friends in John 15:13-14. Note that Jesus Christ spoke those words not in public, but only to the apostles at the last supper, and moreover after Judas Iscariot, the son of perdition, had been dismissed from the room – and from the scope of Jesus Christ’s words as pertaining to whom Jesus Christ called His friends and for whom He was going to die – in John 13:27. God gave Abijah an honorable physical death because Abijah was considered by the calling and election of God – and God so chose Abijah and not Abijah God in accordance to the words of Jesus Christ in John 15:16 – and as such Abijah was God’s friend. Jeroboam and the rest of Abijah’s house, however, was not.

Irresistible grace:  Revelation 13:8 reveals that Abijah’s name was written in the Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4 reveals that Abijah was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Abijah was called to God as a juvenile, and died as a juvenile. As such, Abijah had no opportunity to resist, defy or undo God’s plan to save him. As a result, the standing of Abijah before God declared in 1 Kings 14:13, “in him there is found some good thing towards the Lord God of Israel”, was going to be retained; this decree of God was going to come to pass.

Perseverance of the saints: Abijah was a child in a household that was totally given over to idolatry. Jeroboam, his father, chose idolatry to retain his political power. Further, his mother was the daughter of the Egyptian pharaoh Shishak. Had Abijah lived to adulthood, he would have been reared and molded in this revolting spiritual environment. A study of the Kings and Chronicles books of the Bible reveals that pagan queens (of Judah and Israel) generally resulted in their sons’ being pagan kings. This Abijah should be considered an Old Testament “type” of the “once saved always saved” doctrine where Jesus Christ stated “no one will snatch them out of my hand” (concerning those given to God the Son by God the Father) in John 10:29.

So, the case of young Abijah, a child redeemed from the wickedness of the house of Jeroboam, was honored in death (though premature death was considered regrettable in Israel, the manner of his death was still preferable in that culture to that of the rest of his family) and had this honorable state and status before God preserved in the the Bible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, can hence be used to understand the doctrines of grace. This is not some mere exercise, but rather our understanding of the doctrines of grace should give us ever more reason to worship, praise and glorify the God who grants this grace, for it is only by this grace that we are able to receive so great a salvation.

Have you experienced the grace of God? If you have not, I urge you to follow

The Three Step Salvation Plan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Christianity, Jesus Christ, predestination, Reformed, religion, Theodicy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

1 Corinthians 15:22 In Adam All Die But In Christ All Live

Posted by Job on April 1, 2011

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Pass over from death in Adam to eternal life in Jesus Christ today.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Posted in Bible, Christianity, evangelism, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is The Rider On The White Horse Of Revelation 6:2 Christ Or Anti-Christ?

Posted by Job on March 9, 2011

Revelation 6:1-2 reads “And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”

The predominant view in modern western fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is that the rider of the white horse is the anti-Christ. This was my view until very recently, when I read the John Bunyan allegory “Holy War“, which altered, or should I say enhanced, my view of Jesus Christ (more on that later), just as did reading “Pilgrim’s Progress Part 1” changed my view of Christian living and Part II changed my view of the pastorate and of the church.

Allow me to say that this article provides a good reason why the rider on the white horse cannot be the anti-Christ, which is that the four horsemen are released this eschatological figure is not released until the fifth trumpet. The trumpets do not occur until the seventh seal, and the white horse is released by the first seal. So, the white horse comes at or near the beginning of the events of Revelation (presuming a linear timeline with a literal interpretation) while the anti-Christ comes well into those events. Some interpretations deal with this by claiming that the reference in Revelation 6:2 is the anti-Christ’s laying the groundwork, placing everything in order, for his full unveiling to the earth that is described later.

Well, further arguments against the rider being the anti-Christ are given in this article. It deals with how those who propose that the rider is the anti-Christ deal with the fact that white is always used to represent Godly virtue by making the statement that the anti-Christ comes in this manner to deceive people into thinking that he is Jesus Christ. However, this interpretation requires starting with the idea that the rider on the white horse is the anti-Christ, and then making everything else fit, something often called thesis-driven analysis and also called eisegesis. If your starting point was neutral concerning the identity of this character, then his being on a white horse would immediately disqualify your  associating him with the anti-Christ. But if your starting point was his being the anti-Christ, that is when you have to contrive an explanation for the horse being white, one that seems to violate all rules and standards for hermeneutics used for other passages. The question is: “Why is this done?”

It goes back to one’s view of Jesus Christ. The rider of the white horse is given a bow and he went forth to conquer, and conquer he did! Modern, humanistic, enlightenment thinking does not permit viewing Jesus Christ as the Conqueror. That is, at least not until the last day when Jesus Christ comes to judge the nations for their wickedness. That is the one time that the modern church with its man-centered mindset allows Jesus Christ, who as God is the Creator, Owner and Sustainer of the Universe, to be viewed as a conquering ruler. (And for those who believe in the rapture, this happens when the church is already off the scene, and is spared having to deal with Jesus Christ in this role.) In the modern mindset, Jesus Christ can be viewed as the sacrificial lamb, advisor, “co-pilot”, best friend, psychiatrist/psychologist, enabler, helper, moneychanger (prosperity doctrine), mystic/shaman, errand boy, and even romantic lover, but NOT as a conquerer. This stark, authoritarian, militaristic view runs counter to the modernistic Jeffersonian view that exalts such ideas as civil rights, human rights, democracy etc. above all, and needs a Jesus Christ that will bow and be conformed to it. Thus, Jesus Christ as conquerer cannot exist in the mind of the modernist/postmodernist Christian except for a single day when He is forced to execute that role with respect to the wicked. With the exception of that day, Jesus Christ remains in a construct that the modern mind finds acceptable. And according to that construct, where conquest to set up authoritarian rule is undemocratic is evil, this HAS to be the anti-Christ!

It cannot be Jesus Christ according to this mindset, because this mindset makes Jesus Christ a democrat. This Jesus Christ does not conquer. No, this Jesus Christ is standing outside the human heart like a lovesick teenage loverboy knocking on the door waiting, longing, begging for His sweetheart to come in. And it is only when the person that Jesus Christ’s target makes the free will decision to open the door to his or her heart and invite Jesus Christ in that salvation occurs.

For this to happen any other way, uninvited, unasked, and without consent, is tyranny. For Jesus Christ is not a sovereign king who rules by way of His undisputed dominion over the creation that is the work of His own hands for Him to do as He pleases. No, that is tyranny. Such rule is illegitimate, based on the threat of force rather than the consent of the governed! A true, enlightened philosopher king governs not by power or divine right, but by mutual consent! So, the one who stands at the door and knocks and will not come in without the consent of the “pilot” (for Jesus Christ is merely the co-pilot, not the actual pilot who is running the show and is the true master of eternal destiny, which is man’s free will) is Jesus Christ, the genuine article. The conquerer who does not ask permission, who does not gladly (though under submission) come when asked and does not meekly leave when rejected? Now that has to be the anti-Christ! So says the modern Christian mindset.

Thankfully, John Bunyan did not live in modern Enlightenment times! Therefore, Bunyan presents a different Jesus Christ, one that is actually present on the pages of the Bible before all the modern humanist filters and constructs are placed on it. Bunyan’s rather rough allegory presents a kingdom ruled by Shaddai (God the Father), whose most prominent and prized possession is the city Mansoul, which was built by the King Himself. While the modern mindset reared on democracy would revile the idea that a city is the possession of any king, A) this was in fact the custom of monarchs in times past – the kingdom and all in it were their possessions, and in the east the subjects of the “lord-kings” were considered slaves to the lord-king, and remember the Bible is an oriental book, not a western book and B) the Bible was fully written in the mindset of this custom. Mansoul rebelled against King Shaddai due to the provocation and trickery of Diabolus (Satan) and made Satan its king instead, under the false pretense that they could exchange status as slaves under King Shaddai’s rule to free men under his rule. Of course, Diabolus immediately made the residents of Mansoul his slaves, but so thoroughly corrupted and tricked them that they mistook the slavery of Diabolus and sin for liberation. Their delusion was so strong that when King Shaddai sent His captains (difficult to tell in the allegory, my guess is that they are angels) to liberate Mansoul from Diabolus, they resisted with all their might. The story was explicit: when Mansoul was given a multitude of opportunities to make a free will choice for King Shaddai, they rejected King Shaddai each time due to the depths of their depravity.

So, King Shaddai sent His Son, Prince Emmanuel, to recapture Mansoul. In this allegory, Emmanuel did not conquer Mansoul by standing at the door knocking and being invited in. Quite the contrary, He came with an army of soldiers and overcame the recalcitrant Mansoul, who resisted Him with all the force that it could muster – as it was still dedicated and devoted to Diabolus and its own sinful passions – with mighty force. Make no mistake, in this allegory, “and he went forth conquering, and to conquer” Mansoul! After the conquering of Mansoul was done, Prince Emmanuel had the entire town confess that He took the town for Himself as His prize by force; that when the town had the chance – indeed several chances – to yield itself up to the government of the Prince and His Father by choice, they refused each time. So, Mansoul chose the rule of Diabolus, and Prince Emmanuel gained the rule of Mansoul only by overtaking Diabolus, binding him, driving him out, and “spoiling the goods of the strongman” by declaring and setting up His own rule and domain – and through it re-establishing the same of King Shaddai – by force. Mansoul had no say in the matter, because Mansoul, by decree, election and will of God the Father its Owner and Creator – had declared it to be so. Mansoul did not choose Prince Emmanuel, but Emmanuel chose Mansoul (John 15:16).

Now, Jesus Christ as He is commonly depicted in most modern gospel music is not the rider on the white horse. But Jesus Christ as depicted in Holy War and in the Bible may well be. If nothing else, it is something to consider. Another thing to consider: why would the anti-Christ have to go about conquering the world to begin with? According to the words of Jesus Christ, Satan is already the prince of this world (John 14:30)! 2 Corinthians 4:4 declares Satan to be the god of this world, Ephesians 2:2 declares him to be the prince of the powers of the air. So, the anti-Christ does not need to conquer the world. All he needs is to have Satan’s authority transferred to him. Revelation 13:2 says exactly that: “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Further, Revelation 17 says that the rulers of the earth GIVE their power to the beast, NOT that he conquers them and takes it from them by force.

This may seem like idle speculation, or an excessive emphasis on “last things” when other issues concerning orthodoxy and orthopraxy are more pressing: “minoring in the majors.” However, one’s view of last things often casts a shadow on one’s belief. Many theological liberals and “moderates” de-emphasize predictive prophecy because of an anti-supernatural bias. Others use apocalyptic texts to promote the political and social causes that are near and dear to them. And many Christians are attracted to the rapture doctrines because of their desire not to suffer persecution and rejection by the world as Christ suffered the same.

In a similar fashion, the idea that the anti-Christ is the conquerer on the white horse reveals the mindset of a great many Christian theologians, preachers, and laymen concerning the doctrine of original sin. So many Christians SAY that they believe in original sin, or even total depravity, but by adhering to such interpretations as this, it really does imply otherwise. If original sin is true, if total depravity is true, then why is it that Jesus Christ comes only by willing invitation, and the anti-Christ only by force? Is that not backwards? If the anti-Christ, the beast is “the man of sin”, then the fallen, wicked world, if it is not his already, will freely, gladly accept him as one of their own, a kindred spirit! Again, why would a sinful world oppose and resist a man of sin? Why would they not accept him and instead need to be conquered by him? Only if there is some inherent virtue, inherent goodness in him that would cause him to resist the evil rather than accept it.

The idea that the anti-Christ would have to conquer is based on the notion that man is basically good; that the nations are basically good. And is that not what so many seem to adhere to because of their political, cultural and social beliefs? That the nations – especially the pro-western capitalist democracies – are good, and only the exceptions – the anti-democratic, anti-western, authoritarian regimes – are bad.

Isn’t it curious how most of the theories about where the anti-Christ will come is from the “bad” nations? First it was from the “bad” communist regimes. Then it was from the “bad” secular humanist socialist United Nations or European Union. Now speculation centers on the “bad” Islamic regimes. The idea that the anti-Christ could come from – gasp! – America, the shining city on a hill, the nation founded on Christianity and is a beacon of freedom and goodness? Well, MAYBE, but only if he is not really one of us like Obama!

Again, it is based on the idea that there is some inherent virtue in man, and some inherent virtue in what man builds. It is based on a rejection of original sin, a rejection of total depravity. Even the very idea that Satan takes over the earth and installs the anti-Christ only when the church departs after the rapture is based on the notion that Satan is not the god of this world at present! Ironically, people who adhere to this belief are de facto amillennalists believing that rather than being the god of this world in this present age, Satan is currently bound by the church’s presence.

So many Christians who profess to be evangelical or fundamentalist and profess a belief in original sin based on the actions of Adam only apply that doctrine to soteriology. They only apply mankind’s fallen nature to the individual human soul! But when it comes time to apply it to a larger scale, they shrink back! Why? Because of their love of this present world and the things in it! To those people, James 4:4’s “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” applies to liking MTV and the New York Times editorial page and not the entire fallen worldly system! The parts of the world they like, they consider it good, moral, even Christian. It is only the part that they are alienated from, usually because of political or cultural considerations, that they consider to be “worldly.”

But go back to the text and view it in context. Yes, Revelation concerns the last days. But the letter to the Hebrews – and elsewhere in the New Testament – declares that the last days began after the work of Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God’s plan and the high point of the history of creation. So, the last days – the time period that Revelation concerns itself with – is not merely the last seven years, the “great tribulation.” Instead, it concerns itself with the entire endtimes, which is now, and has been since Pentecost. That is why the letters to the churches are the first part of the Revelation. They are not introductory material to set the stage for the eschatology. Instead, they are part and parcel of the eschatology!

In that context, note that the white horse and its rider come first. It is the first seal! So, after the heavenly visions in Revelation 4-5, the white horse and its rider are the first thing that we encounter when the events shift back earthward in Revelation 6. So, why not strongly associate the white horse and rider with Jesus Christ speaking to and walking amongst the churches in Revelation 2-3? Were the material in Revelation to be arranged topically (i.e. with the things happening in heaven all together and the things happening on earth all together), that is exactly how it would appear … Revelation 6:1-2 would immediately follow the challenge to the Laodicean church!

So then, why not consider the possibility that the rider on the white horse given the bow and the crown and goes about conquering (and as this article states he does not obtain or use these things illegitimately in a manner that is against God’s will … such ideas are missing from the text) is going about to foreign lands conquering souls of sinners for God the Father? Did not Jesus Christ say in the Olivet discourse (i.e. Matthew 24:14) that the end will not come until His gospel is preached in all the world for a witness to all nations? Well, in Revelation 6, though it is certainly the last days, the end is not yet come! So, me must consider that the rider on the white horse is none other than Prince Emmanuel enlarging the domain of King Shaddai through the conquest of souls in every tribe and nation that are hardened with the total depravity of original sin.

Granted, this article does state that the rider is the Holy Spirit, not Jesus Christ. I disagree, but for my purposes the distinction is not a great one, as Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit in His Name to complete His Work through the church which is Jesus Christ’s Body, and the Holy Spirit is the One who performs regeneration. Instead, the main point is to consider the strong possibility that man-centered, humanistic thinking is the reason why the rider on the white horse was ever called the anti-Christ to begin with, especially when one has to be very inconsistent in one’s interpretation of Revelation and the Bible in general to arrive at that viewpoint.

Of course, the main point is that Jesus Christ is returning to judge the world and all its people for their wickedness. The only way to escape this judgment that is certainly to come at a time in the future that has been predetermined by God the Father is to be saved through Jesus Christ. If you have not been, I urge and entreat you that you would be so; that you too would be a conquest of Jesus Christ as was I.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan Today!

Posted in abomination, anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, apostasy, beast, Bible, christian right, Christian salvation, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, conservatism, conservative, endtimes, eschatology, globalism, government, great tribulation, harpagesometha, Holy Spirit, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jesus Christ, Left Behind, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, liberation theology, man of sin, mark of the beast, mid - tribulation rapture, Middle East peace process, Muslim, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim media conspiracy, New York Times, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, political correctness, politics, post - tribulation rapture, postmillennialism, pretribulation, rapio, rapture, religious left, religious right, the anti-christ, the beast, the false prophet, warning given to churches in Revelation 2 and 3 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Do Jews Bear Responsibility For The Death Of Jesus Christ?

Posted by Job on March 4, 2011

The answer to this question is yes. This is a fact plainly given in the Bible. That the Jews killed Jesus Christ is explicitly described by the unanimous testimony of all four gospels. Moreover, this event was recounted in various New Testament epistles. Also, the death of the Moshiach (or Messiah, or Christ) at the hands of His own people was prophesied in several places in the Old Testament. So, to deny this truth is akin to denying the truth of the Bible itself. Thus, the primary reason and motivation for denying this fact is to deny the truth and authority of the holy scriptures.

Now even though this is a fact plainly recorded and described in the Bible, it is not without a degree of nuance. For instance, there is the fact that Jesus Christ was killed on a Roman cross by Roman soldiers acting under orders by Pontius Pilate. Well, the Bible does not absolve the Roman Empire of guilt either! Quite the contrary, not only does it record the Romans’ mocking, torturing and killing Jesus Christ despite knowing of His innocence and mighty works, but Jesus Christ Himself told Pilate that he only had power over Christ because such power (meaning civil authority) was given to Jesus Christ by God. The fact that human rulers and governments derive their power from God and are used to do God’s bidding (whether they know of it or not) is a consistent theme of the Bible, given from Exodus in the Old Testament to Romans in the New Testament at minimum.

Still, it is impossible to blame entirely or mostly the Romans, because the Bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ was handed over to the Romans to be executed by the Jewish leaders. The gospel record states that the Jewish leaders initially handed Jesus Christ over because of the crime of blasphemy – which the gospels tell us that they actually sincerely thought Christ to be guilty of, though they could not legitimately prove it – and that Pilate and Herod were disinterested in using the Roman justice system to settle an internal Jewish matter. Pilate instructed the Jewish leaders to deal with them according to their own system, and the Jewish leaders refused, cagily claiming that execution was against their law. While that was technically true according to the Jewish statutes of the time (for reasons too complex to be enumerated here), Pilate knew full well that the Jews did execute people by stoning for blasphemy and other crimes, with Stephen in Acts being an example. Instead, the real reason why the Jewish leaders deferred stoning Jesus Christ themselves was the fear of provoking a popular revolt. A massive Jerusalem revolt over the stoning of Jesus Christ would have likely meant the end of the Jewish leaders, either at the hands of the people or at the Roman Empire (who would have held the Jewish leaders responsible for inciting the revolt by killing an innocent man very popular with the people in the first place).

So, then the Jewish leaders used the charge that Jesus Christ was a political subversive among the Jews attempting to challenge, defy and subvert their authority over the Jewish people. While they did not accuse Jesus Christ of being a threat to Rome itself, the Jews did enjoy a status of self-government under the Roman Empire because of their being a distinct people with a unique religion, and Rome had the obligation to protect this autonomy from internal and external threats, in addition to their policy against rebellions and disturbances in general (pax Romana). Violating Jewish blasphemy laws was not a Roman official matter, but attempting to rival or overthrow a local government was. So against this charge, Pilate had little recourse but to take it seriously, especially when Jesus Christ did not deny being King of the Jews (and Pilate knew that Christ had a large band of devoted followers), other than simply release Jesus Christ in complete rejection of the charges, which he was not willing to do. So, Jesus Christ was officially accepted as a prisoner of the Roman Empire. Pilate then made one last attempt to save Jesus Christ by having Him released in accordance with the Passover tradition – even rigging it by making the only choice Jesus Christ and the murderer Barabbas – and then ordered the execution.

So yes, the actual murder of Jesus Christ was committed by Romans. However, consider under our own laws, the person that hires a “hit man” to kill someone. Both the “hit man” who actually performs the deed and the person who hired the “hit man” are equally guilty of murder under our laws. In this case, the Roman Empire was the hired assassin, and the Jewish leaders were the ones that hired the Empire to commit the deed on their behalf. In another example, the Old Testament provides a comparison where the Jewish leaders were to be held responsible: that of David in the case of Uriah the Hittite. Uriah the Hittite was not killed by David’s hand, but rather on the battlefield by enemy soldiers. David instructed his generals to put Uriah “on the front line”, have Uriah’s company engage the enemy in battle, and then withdraw, leaving Uriah isolated, outnumbered and surrounded. So, though Uriah the Hittite was killed by Philistines, the Bible explicitly tells us that God held David personally responsible for the murder. So, in the murder of Jesus Christ, the Jewish leaders acted as King David, and the Roman Empire acted as the Philistines. Thus, giving the Roman Empire all or even most of the responsibility for this deed requires rejecting the truth of the gospels, the epistles that speak of the gospels, and the Old Testament scriptures that predict the gospels. The idea that Jesus Christ was killed by the Romans because He was – or the Romans erroneously thought Him to be – a political subversive cannot be reconciled with what the Bible actually says, and one must deny the Bible’s contents in order to adhere to and advance that position.

This brings us to the most difficult issue of all: the Jewish leaders living in that time versus the Jewish nation at that time and since. How can all the Jewish people be held accountable for the actions of a few Jewish religious leaders? Answering that question adequately requires that one challenge the modern mindset and adopt a way of thinking that was prevailing at the time when the Bible was written. The Bible was not written in modern times by people with contemporary ways of viewing the world. Often, we accidentally interpret the Bible as if it was. Or more dangerously, we consider our times to be better, more moral, more civilized, more intellectual, and more advanced than was the times of the Bible, so we see interpreting the Bible according to modern constructs as an improvement that provides a better, deeper, more spiritual interpretation and application.

So, yes, it is true that according to Enlightenment thinking and Bible interpretations from the worldview of Enlightenment thinking, only the Jewish leaders directly involved in the plot to hand Jesus Christ over to the Roman Empire with a demand to execute Him based on a judgment of theirs that He had committed a capital crime (whether blasphemy or indirectly threatening pax Romana) were guilty. However, the rub is that the Bible’s worldview does not reflect that of the Enlightenment, and in some instances to understand the Bible’s contents, one must reject Enlightenment thought.

The reason is that whether by accident or design, a major product of the Enlightenment is the enhanced – almost singular – focus on the individual. Above all else, the Enlightenment exalts an individual’s having the ability to possess and exercise his intellectual and moral free agency. As a matter of fact, according to the Enlightenment, the very purpose of civilization – community, culture, government etc. – is to empower this individual free agency to the maximum extent possible. Anything that puts unnecessary limitations on the individual is repressive and oppressive tyranny, and every institution should be designed to promote the most individual power and influence. Democracy, for example, is the ideal because it provides the maximum amount of individual influence over government, which we are told is illegitimate unless it derives from the consent of the governed.

Needless to say, this is incompatible with a book which starts with “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth” and therefore establishes from the very beginning that not only the individual but all creation is unconditionally owned and governed by an absolute Sovereign. An example: the people who founded this country by organizing a seditious sinful rebellion against this nation’s rightful ruler (yes, that is true whether it is in your history book or not) justified it based in part on the idea that the fact that the ruler was taxing them autocratically with no say in how high the tax rates were, how the tax money would be spent, and without asking their opinion or consent on the passage of laws governing the property and behavior of those being taxed. While that idea seems to be “gospel truth” in the minds of many western – and especially American – Christians NOW, in the worldview of the Bible, where the absolute rule of monarchs was not only unquestioned but was considered a virtue, it was madness. In the Bible, kings did not ask for permission, nor did they govern according to conditions imposed on them by their subjects. Instead, they governed by conquering – or the threat thereof – and their charges either accepted their edicts or perished. The purpose of governance in the Bible’s time was not to empower the individual to seek his own destiny to the greatest extent possible, but rather to maximize the ability of the monarch to govern. The monarch in turn was to use his power to provide as much order, peace, stability, protection and prosperity as possible. Naturally, a bunch of individuals living according to their own whims, fancies and self-centered passions – whatever the consequences to their families, tribes, communities and kingdom – acted against the ability of a monarch to protect and provide for his people and keep the peace.

Of course, with individualism comes the concept of individual responsibility. Now of course, modern thinking rejects true individual responsibility, which holds that each person must bear the responsibility for his actions, whether positive or negative. Instead, current modern thinking holds that each person must receive the maximum amount of benefit for positive actions, should receive as little ill effects for negative actions as is possible (that “society” should step in and bear as much cost as possible) and that above all receiving negative consequences that are not the result of something that individual did consciously and directly is perhaps the greatest of evils (on a par with depriving a person of the liberty to exercise his free agency). Now though a great many conservatives (theological and otherwise) propose that true individual responsibility is Biblical, the truth is that with respect to things that truly matter – the big picture where the Bible is concerned – the Bible does not deal with individual personal responsibility at all. Instead, the Bible deals with groups of people that have an individual – or a smaller body comprised of members of the group – acting in representative fashion. According to the Bible, no one stands alone. Everyone is part of the group, represents the group, and is represented by the group. Where the modern mindset is individualistic, the Bible’s mindset is tribalistic and nationalistic. The modern mindset, therefore, exalts itself against the Biblical mindset, and to understand the Bible, the modern mindset must be rejected.

Consider two core doctrines: original sin and Jesus Christ’s atonement. A Bible-based Christian with a modern mindset will know why he is a sinner because of what Adam did, but will not be able to truly understand why this is so. As a result, this fact is a truth in his mind only because the Bible says so, and to him it is a mystery that he accepts by faith without asking very many probing questions. Or, such a person may see it in the context of something that is still relevant to the modern world … something received by inheritance (i.e. a child inheriting a parent’s assets upon that parent’s death) or perhaps genetics. In a similar fashion, a person might simplify the atonement with a “Jesus Christ took my individual sins and died in my individual place and that one act did it for every other individual sinner on an individual basis” mindset. That is because the modern mind has real issues with such concepts as “federal headship”, “covenant representative”, “corporate solidarity.” Because the Bible has no concept of respect for the individual as we would recognize it today, it is taken for granted that we are all sinners because God appointed Adam as the representative of the human race, and as a result we are automatically, legally declared sinners because our representative sinned. It is in the same manner how in Bible times a king would literally commit genocide against and totally wipe out another kingdom because an offense made against him by that country’s monarch. In the time that the Bible was written, it was absolutely proper to hold all the people in the kingdom responsible for the deeds and misdeeds of their representative the king.

And that brings us to the Jewish leaders in the time of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: they were the legitimate representatives of the Jewish people in both a religious and civil capacity. So, just as Adam’s eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil plunged all mankind into sin, the high priest Caiaphas and his collaborators’ sending of Jesus Christ to His execution was an action borne by all the Jewish people with consequences for all Jewish people. Again, let us use King David as an example. One might protest that the nation of Israel was not punished for David’s murder of Bathsheba. That is true, but David’s murder of Uriah was David’s acting in a private capacity in a private matter. By contrast, the rejection of Jesus Christ as Messiah and King was done by the Jewish religious leaders as a public matter – both civil and religious – on behalf of the whole nation. So instead, this can be considered akin to David’s sinning in his public capacity of ruler and commander of the military by ordering a census. The result of this act was the death of 70,000 people. These people did not sin and had no role in that act whatsoever, but rather died because of the actions of their representative David. For another example, many Egyptians, including the firstborn in every house, died because of the official actions of the representative of that nation, the pharoah. While the death that came upon Egypt was at least in partial response to the murder of the Hebrew male babies, virtually none of the Egyptians who died were directly connected to or personally responsible for that official decree of an Egyptian ruler some 80 years prior, or its execution thereof.

We should also remember that Jesus Christ spoke of the collective guilt of the Jewish people and nation when He pronounced woe upon Jerusalem and predicted the destruction of the temple and the end of the Jewish age in 70 A.D. We should also remember that the apostle Peter explicitly assigned responsibility to the Jews – and not merely the Jewish leaders, but Jews who may not have even been in Jerusalem at all when Jesus Christ was crucified nearly two months earlier – in his sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:14-36. Those Jews – again those who may not have even been present and possibly may have had no knowledge of the act – did not deny their responsibility for killing Jesus Christ, but instead fell under conviction and instead asked how they could repent in Acts 2:37. So, Jews at the time of Pentecost were fully aware of their shared responsibility due to the actions of their leaders. Such a thing was not questioned, because it was a truth, a mindset that was a core part of Jewish culture and belief of the day. The Jews at the time of Pentecost were not influenced by Enlightenment thinking! And neither should we be.

Now there is the perfectly legitimate question as to whether this guilt for the death of Christ shared by the Jews ended at some point, such as when Jesus Christ prayed for their forgiveness when He said “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do”, or in 70 A.D. when “this generation” ended, and then there is also the issue that according to certain Old Testament texts, sins only extended to the third, fourth or tenth generation (unless specifically stated otherwise). In that light, it is a legitimate question whether Jews living today are responsible through their national representatives at the time of Jesus Christ. The best answer that I can propose would be in the affirmative, for the passages that appear to time-limit to “third and fourth generation” only refer to punishment for the guilt, and not the legal status or judgment of guilt itself. This legal status or judgment of removal of guilt for the Jewish people for the murder of Jesus Christ appears nowhere in the Bible. As a result, only Jews who have all of their sins forgiven by having Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can be considered innocent at this present time.

So then, what does this mean? In many practical respects, absolutely nothing. For instance, the guilt of the Jewish people over the death of Jesus Christ is no more or no different from the guilt of all men over the sin of Adam. So, reviling, slurring or persecuting Jews as “Christ-killers” as if Jews are unique among mankind bearing imputed sin is absurdly anti-Jewish (or anti-Semitic as it is called in modern times) because sin imputed to mankind is universal. And the folly is even greater when one considers that it was Adam’s sin that necessitated Jesus Christ’s death in the first place. So what is the theological justification for singling out Jews for Christ’s death when you yourself bear equal responsibility for the very event that required Jesus Christ to be rejected and killed by His people?

Further still, Christian persecutors of Jews throughout the centuries have done so in spite of the commandments in the New Testament text itself. First of all, the New Testament does not command or in any way endorse the resentment or mistreatment, whether on a systematic or an individual basis, any Jew because of the Jewish guilt over the murder of Jesus Christ (or for any other reason for that matter). So, because the New Testament does not tell Christians to mistreat Jews, then the moral and ethical instructions and restriction of the New Testament on Christian behavior applies to our behavior with and among Jews. So, with Jews just as everyone else, we are to commit no obvious sins or crimes against them (i.e. murder, theft, slander), we are to love our neighbors, love our enemies, turn the other cheek, do unto others as we would have them to do unto us, refrain from spreading malicious gossip and rumors (blood libels, conspiracies about Jews controlling the government/media/banks and similar) and also obey the civil laws designed to protect all. Obviously, Christian mistreatment of Jews over the centuries required the sinful reinterpretation or nullification of these texts to justify it. The Bible makes it clear that those who do not keep the commandments of Jesus Christ whether with respect to Jews or in general are not Christians at all; they are not sheep but goats.

More specific theological reasons are spelled out in the outstanding and pivotal work of the Jew Sha’ul, the Book of Romans, the same Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin that is called Paul. Ironically, Paul is considered by those who despise scripture as the greatest of anti-Semites and the originator of the replacement theology that was allegedly used to justify persecuting Jews. Of course, such statements are lies against Paul, against the Bible, and against the Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible. The truth is that Paul dedicates a large portion of the book of Romans not to denounce Jews as Christ-killers and demand that they receive ill thoughts and treatment as a result, but instead demanding that Gentile Christians accept and respect the Jewish Christians’ lineage and their adherence to their religious, cultural and national traditions, including circumcision and observing the Jewish feasts and the Jewish sabbaths. Unfortunately, the Gentile Christians quickly cast aside Romans and began to drive Jewish Christians out of churches over their refusal to abandon their heritage for Hellenism as early as the 2nd century, less than 100 years after Romans was penned.

In the course of defending Jewish Christians, Paul made the shocking statement that both exists in tension with legitimate replacement theology (though not paradoxical or in contradiction with or nullification of it!): that Jews are still God’s people, and moreover the original God’s people. Believing Gentile Christians are “grafted in” to the original branch of Jews who believe in their Moshiach. (It is very difficult not to come to the conclusion that believing Jews are therefore “first among equals” based on Please recall that the Bible is not an Enlightenment document, and therefore lacks our notions of total egalitarianism.) Now, it is tempting to state that Romans 11 only applies to believing Jews’ still retaining something of their chosen or special status. Romans 11:28-29 specifically rejects this by saying “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the Father’s sakes for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” That verse explicitly means that the original status of Israel set forth when they were first called out of Egypt and made into God’s unique people is unchanged, either by their breaking of the Sinai covenant (that is now of none effect, the ark which signifies that covenant was lost in 586 B.C.) or by their rejection of their Moshiach, an event that was necessary for the new covenant.

Further, Romans 11:28-29 precedes this amazing thought: “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” So, if the Jews are still God’s chosen people according to God’s election, and if all Israel shall be saved, what kind of a madman who professes to believe and love the Bible and take it seriously would persecute or hate any Jew? It makes no sense. It is the sort of sin that makes no sense, is utterly counterproductive, entirely without rational basis, and can only be described as being the work of demons. And it goes without saying that the people claiming to be Christians who persecuted and murdered Jews totally ignore Romans 11, and in the course of doing so did nothing but bring God’s curse upon themselves. It is particularly amazing that no small amount of Christians that adhere to covenant theology completely suppressed the truth of God within themselves with regards to Romans 11:28-29’s clear statement regarding God’s not repenting Himself of electing Israel, including those who do not believe.

Another vital theological reason: Christians are not God. A core fact of the New Testament is that the Old Testament Israel system of priests, sacrifices and civil judgments for religious laws is gone forever. Now under that old system, it was necessary and proper to give various punishments, including death, for sins. But now, Jesus Christ is our High Priest, and as we are in Jesus Christ, we are a priesthood of believers. And further, despite what was taught and practiced for centuries, the New Testament does not command, provide for or desire the establishment of Christian civil governments – as those contradict Christian doctrine inherently – but rather only governs churches and the lives of individual Christians. So, the only punishment for sins in the church age is church discipline of believers. As unbelieving Jews are not in Christian churches, they are not subject to any Christian punishment or sanction of any kind for any sin against Jesus Christ or anybody else. So, in the absence of a human official priesthood or theocratic state (which again, the New Testament forbids in both cases), Christians have no authority to judge or make any punishment for any sin apart from discipline in an ecclesiastic context (i.e. excommunication), and even those are sins that a believer individually personally committed (churches cannot punish anyone for being “in Adam”). So, any Jewish guilt related to the death of Jesus Christ is for God to judge and God to punish. Any man who takes this duty upon himself is presumptuously and sinfully laying claim to Divine duties and privileges, and is therefore bringing God’s wrath upon himself. Also, as stated earlier, one cannot punish a Jew for the actions of Caiaphas without also punishing a Gentile for the actions of Adam.

In summary, the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ is attested in the Bible. However, the same Bible makes it clear that this guilt on the part of the Jews is God’s business alone. God alone judges sin, and God alone punishes sin. So, the person that attempts to act in God’s place does nothing but sin himself. Therefore, beyond mere bearing witness to the truth of the Bible, the issue of Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ is not an issue, and further dwelling on or making too much of the issue only serves as a temptation to invite the influence of what apparently are extremely powerful evil spirits that provoke thoughts and actions related to anti-Judaism (commonly referred to in these times as anti-Semitism).

This means that the real issue is not whether Jews living today bear responsibility for the actions of Caiaphas and other Jewish leaders in death of Jesus Christ. Instead, it is the sin guilt that all bear, Jew and Gentile, for the actions of Adam. Be not deceived … whether Jew or Gentile, if you are not reconciled with God through His Unique Son Jesus Christ, because chiefly of the actions of Adam, and also because of your own sin – for all do sin – you are considered to be a sinner by God. The Bible says that the soul that sins will surely die, and the Bible declares this death to be eternity in a lake of fire. The good news – the gospel – is that because of the actions of Jesus Christ, you can be declared free of all sin, whether your own individual actions, the actions of Caiaphas if you are a Jew, and the actions of Adam for all. So whether Jew or Gentile, please urgently:

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in anti - Semitism, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Conrad Mwebe: Total Depravity of Man

Posted by Job on May 16, 2009

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Brain Scans Showing Brains of Homosexuals Resembling People Of Opposite Sex Is The Result of SIN!

Posted by Job on June 17, 2008

Scans see ‘gay brain differences’

People are going to use articles like these to assert that what the Bible teaches regarding homosexuality is wrong because homosexuality is an immutable biological characteristic like sex or race. (If anything, they view homosexuality as even more fundamental then sex – falsely commonly called gender, which is a political term created by homosexual feminists to suit their purposes – because sex change operations, now being given even to small children, are done to accommodate homosexual preferences.) 

However, findings like these do not oppose the Bible, but rather confirm it. They should not weaken faith, but rather strengthen it. Why? Let me give you an example. I am not among those that claims “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy as a Christian allegory, and J.R.R. Tollkein’s vehement denials that it should be considered as such should be respected rather than claimed by Christians desperate to have a piece of popular culture all their own. Still, those familiar with the movies or books remember consider the effect that the ring, which represented evil and sin, had on Gollum. Consider not merely the effect that the ring had on Gollum’s MIND, giving him a split personality which Sam Gamgee named one “slinker” (after Gollum’s sneaky subversive subtle evil nature like Satan as the serpent in the Garden of Eden) and the other “stinker” (after Gollum’s more direct, malevolent, and aggressive evil nature like Satan as the dragon). Instead, also consider the effect that sin had on Gollum’s BODY. Where Gollum was once a hobbit like Frodo and Sam, sin transformed him PHYSICALLY into a twisted monstrosity that Aragorn referred to as “the footpad” after his froglike feet. Further, there were the orcs … originally elves but so PHYSICALLY twisted by Sauron’s witchcraft that not only did their appearance change, but they could no longer even bear sunlight! Again, “Lord of the Rings” is NOT CHRISTIAN, as Tollkein himself stated that it was his attempt to create a system of pagan mythology for Great Britain to go along with the Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology that he loved studying. Still, Gollum, the orcs, the trolls, etc. are examples of the physical effects of sin as told by a Mary – worshiping Roman Catholic that was very familiar with the subject, and as such makes for a very good secular nonbiblical contemporary example that can be used to illustrate a Biblical point.

Here is the sad part: orthodox, evangelical, fundamentalist, conservative, Biblical, etc. Christians have no problem acknowledging that Adam’s fall and the resulting effects of sin and death entering creation had a tangible effect: that the spiritual consequences of Adam’s sin had a real and discernible effect or manifestation on the natural world. So what is the problem? Contemporary Christians compartmentalize. They only believe that the “spiritual stuff like that” happened BACK THEN. Modern Christians, even Bible – believing ones, have the modern secular humanist mindset that in these times, the spiritual God of heaven has basically gone deist and left the workings of the world to science, economics, politics, religion, culture, and the alleged ability of man to use those things to take dominion of and rule the earth. Yes, even according to theologically conservative Christians, when the apostolic age ended not only God but the entire spirit realm went on holiday, and God and the ability of the spirit realm to have a regular tangible discernible effect on the natural realm in a way that billions of people can witness and acknowledge will not happen again until the rapture, the great tribulation, or the return of Jesus Christ (depending upon your eschatological position … full disclosure mine is historic premillennialism, which was the position of the early church before eschatological viewpoints were corrupted by Greek pagan allegorizing and the political needs of the Roman Empire). 

But no. Spiritual things and their ability to influence the natural world did not go away when Jesus Christ ascended back into heaven. The tangible physical effects of God’s grace are still present in all creation! God still causes the sun to shine and the rain to come for the good and the evil Matthew 5:45. What is it, modernist evangelical Christian? You do still believe that it is God that runs and sustains creation, right? Or have you been seduced by some corrupted form of natural theology that makes you more acceptable to the elite scholars and theologians? Well let me warn you … it was precisely that sort of corrupted natural theology, a form that made Christians marginally palatable to the atheist humanist enlightenment European academic community, that caused the Lutheran Church of Germany to vigorously endorse Adolph Hitler! The Lutheran Church of Germany actually issued a proclamation stating that God had placed Adolph Hitler in power to lead Germany back to greatness! So people, look at the horror of World War II and the blood of millions of innocent Jews and see the result of theologies that deny and run away from true spirituality, making God so transcendent, so detached and removed from His creation as to be functionally deist. And yes, I should point out that Hitler did murder homosexuals in his concentration camps too! People, be not deceived, Hitler was not evil because he hated homosexuals. Hitler hated homosexuals because he was evil!

So, a person that honestly believes in the spirit realm, sin and righteousness, good and evil has no problem accepting the fact that sin can and does cause physical changes in people. I am not merely talking about how alcohol abuse can destroy your liver, or gluttony can give you cardiopulmonary disease, though that certainly is true. I am stating that the spiritual effects of sin can and does have a tangible effect on a person’s biology, and moreover that said tangible effects can be passed onto one’s offspring. Again, go back to Adam! Why did eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil cause his death? Was it arsenic, strychnine, ricin, or some other poison? Did it contain anthrax, ebola, or some other pathogen? If so, it certainly took a mighty long time to work, didn’t it, because Adam lived to be 900, and spent a great deal of that time having children! And also, that would not explain how the ricin or the anthrax got into Adam’s children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on! No, there was nothing intrinsically harmful about the fruit itself. The Bible even says that it was good for food! The only issue was that God told them not to eat it. The death that entered Adam and the entire creation was the physical effects of sin. You know what? Medical science explains it. Our DNA, RNA, chromosomes, etc. are imperfect. We die because over time our body ceases to create enough healthy new cells to replace the cells that die, and we are also prone to conditions where malformed cells overtake and destroy healthy ones (i.e. cancer). That genetic defect has been passed on to every man born of Adam! And if the spiritual consequences of Adam’s sin had a physical manifestation back then, the spiritual consequences of our sins have physical consequences right now! 

That is why Christians need not unconditionally reject the notion that some conditions, including homosexuality, may in fact be genetic. We should not be so quick to adopt the recent – and humanistic and ultimately Marxist – notion that everything is the result of free will and surroundings. If the effects of Adam’s sin are propagated throughout all humankind, why cannot the biological changes that result from sin be passed down? Doesn’t the Bible itself say so, that the effects of sin go from generation to generation? Even better: does not the Bible say that we are born in sin? Do not words MEAN things? Well, so – called Bible believing Christians know full well what being born in sin means. We know it, BUT WE DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE IT! That is why we are so willing to cast off what the Bible says in favor of the scientific, philosophical, and political imaginations that are products of minds that have specifically rejected Jesus Christ! I want someone to show me where it says in the Bible that anyone was a victim of their environment, surroundings, and circumstance. The one instance that I can think of, the infant son of wicked king Jeroboam that the sovereign God who predestines and elects knew was righteous, well God took that child out of that bad situation, didn’t He (1 Kings 14:12-14)? 

That is why we as Christians have to get serious. Sin in the time of Adam, the flood, the patriarchs, Israel, etc. is the same as sin today. It has the same effect on the spirit, the same effect on the mind, and the same effect on THE BODY. We Christians have to eliminate from ourselves these worldly considerations that make it so easy to reject our faith and start to believe THE BIBLE. So, instead of wallowing in the filthy pit of the church of judge not touch mine anointed excuses, we have to consider the effects that sin has on our physical bodies. And since there is a thing called genetics, we have to consider the effects that our sin will have on the bodies of our CHILDREN and our GRANDCHILDREN and so on. What about the work of Jesus Christ who was wounded for our transgressions, bruised by our iniquities, and by and with His stripes we are healed? That is true for those who REPENT. REPENT does not just mean giving mental verbal intellectual assent to being a sinner and saying that you are sorry. That is “salvation prayer easy believism.” REPENT does not mean being truly legitimately heartbroken. That is deception. The best evidence of this is the Old Testament where after Israel provoked God in the wilderness, God REPENTED of His desire to destroy them. God didn’t say He was sorry. Why? What does a sovereign holy God have to apologize for? Who does He apologize to? Especially when it comes to His desire to destroy wickedness? And no, God did not destroy Israel 1000 times and just feel so horrible, terrible, and afflicted about it that He had to go to the confession box, talk to the priest, and say the rosaries and hail Marys. So what did it mean when God repented concerning destroying Israel? IT MEANS THAT HE DIDN’T DO IT! Repent isn’t the EMOTION of feeling sorry, it is the ACTION of turning aside, changing your path! So, for Jesus Christ to heal the sin effects present in your body by and with His stripes – with His work on the cross – you have to REPENT of your sins which means YOU HAVE TO END YOUR SINFUL LIFESTYLE. Modern theology says that you can keep sinning and be healed so long as you are “Godly sorry” each time you sin. THE BIBLE says that the Holy Spirit writes God’s law on your heart and gives you such an aversion to sin that painfully vexes you. Which one are you going to believe? 

But the bottom line is that we should not be surprised when the sinful actions of people cause tangible physical outward signs that are not direct physical consequences of their behavior and otherwise cannot be explained. Honestly, what do you suppose all those references that Paul made to being delivered up and given over to all manners of corruption and wickedness actually means? People, in particular go study Romans 1:18-32, and instead of focusing only on the tidy neat inoffensive little notions acceptable not only to modern theology but also to the little theories of perverts like Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, and most who followed after them that this only applies to people’s behavior, minds, and character. No, look at those verses and consider that they mean for THE PHYSICAL BODY, and not just for individuals, but for people’s offsprings and entire cultures! Phrases like “corruptible man“, “gave them up to uncleanness“, “to dishonour their own bodies“, “gave them up unto vile affections“, “change the natural use into that which is against nature“, “leaving the natural use“, “men with men working that which is unseemly“, and the clearest example “receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Now I am not going to deny that this also does not refer to changes in mindset, morality, and character, but how can one deny that this also does not refer to the spiritual effects of sin changing the physical body to the point where it simply is physically not what it was prior? 

If one accepts that sin is inherently unnatural to creation and as a result has effects far broader and greater than the mere direct and immediate consequences of the act – the Biblical view – then one should have no problem with this whatsoever. But if one takes on the modern, humanistic worldview that sin is more or less natural and therefore Christians should resign themselves to it and even tolerate it to a great degree – the “stop all the condemning, stop talking about what we are against and start talking about what we are for” mindset – then being confronted by medical science such as this can only leave you with two options.

1. This is the bogus pseudo – scientific result of liberal agenda – driven politicians masquerading as people with Ph.D’s in biology, medicine, engineering, physics, etc. A conservative Republican family values Christian would have known to use only the “right” equipment and the “right” procedures and interpreted the data the “correct” way in order to get the “right” results that would have “scientifically proven” man’s free will. GOD FORBID THAT MEDICAL SCIENCE WOULD PROVE THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN AND HOW BADLY MAN NEEDS THE HOLY SPIRIT TO INTERVENE IN ORDER FOR US TO BE SAVED! WELL GUESS WHAT SOPHISTICATED CHRISTIANS – SCIENCE HAS ALREADY DONE IT WITH BABIES! SO WHY CANNOT SCIENCE DEMONSTRATE THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN WITH ADULT PRACTICING HOMOSEXUALS? (I am supposing that theological sophisticates are waiting for scientific results that would tend to confirm Pelagianism or Arminianism?) Of course, I am not saying that agenda – driven sham science does not exist: evolution is bogus for instance. But Christians have NO CASE for dismissing these findings until the science behind it is investigated. That has been the case with evolution: Christians have studied the science, forced even leading evolutionists to acknowledge that it is a sham, and as a result evolutionists have had no recourse other than to make it illegal to even mention the holes in evolution in public schools and universities and research labs have actually stopped hiring and admitting Christians into research programs. But in this instance, Christians need to investigate the science before they say that it contradicts the Bible. As it is, the only reason for claiming that these results violate the Bible in the first place is because modern theology presents a functional deism where the spiritual is replaced by the secular, the acts of God are replaced by the acts of man, and this creates a Christian mindset that is much more accommodating to amillennialism, dominionism, reconstructionism, and SIN.

2. Or you can decide “hey, well this proves that the gay rights activists like Soulforce and the Human Rights Campaign and Act Up are right, so we have to accept that modern science and ethics have proven the Bible to be wrong.” 

Both options are, of course, unacceptable to me. Instead, the route that I choose is one that the Bible has makes plain from Genesis 3: the spiritual effects of sin causes changes in the natural world, including but not limited to twisting, deforming, and setting at odds with its natural purpose the bodies of men. Think about it: the corruption of man and beast and the earth itself due to sin caused God to destroy the world with the flood! Similar to Romans 1, take a look at Genesis 6! “The earth also was corrupt before God.” “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” “And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” But here is the clincher: “There were giants in the earth in those days.” Do you realize that there is an emerging consensus in the evangelical scholarly community that the giants of Genesis 6 merely referred to arrogant tribal rulers? Never mind that the exact same Hebrew word in that passage was used in Numbers 13:13, the giants of the sons of Anak. What did Israel say? “Compared to those GIANTS we look like GRASSHOPPERS! We can’t defeat them in battle, so we aren’t going to go in the Promised Land!” I guess “we are grasshoppers compared to them” was just a figure of speech; they were simply speaking of how mighty the tribal kings were. So I guess these Anakite kings were supposed to be mightier than PHAROAH OF EGYPT or something? So if they were grasshoppers before the Anakite kings, what was Israel before pharoah, who ruled the most powerful nation in the world? Amoebas? It sounds like to me that these leading evangelical scholars are doing all that they can to deny that sin really is and what sin really does. Which is precisely why I am certain that since these great respected theologians cannot take position 1) above and retain their esteemed positions in the academy, the day is soon coming that findings like this will make position 2) will be their only recourse. And the question is … when that day comes, will you go also with them? Or will you go with the Bible and those of us that believe in what it actually says and means? 

Posted in Apologetics, Christianity, gay rights, homosexuality | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments »

Is Sin What We Do Or What We Are?

Posted by Job on May 7, 2008

Please read link below.

Sin: What We Do or What We Are?

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: