A Response to an Advocate of Same Sex Marriage

NOTE: Of recently I have been witnessing to some people online. Here below is a response I recently gave to a homosexual on the topic of "Same Sex Marriage." His words are in bold and mine are in normal font.

Vivy Heine Jerry, we were talking about valid arguements against gay marriage, and your blog is simply your opinion. It is not and can not be the foundation to deny consenting adults any rights.

ANSWER: Vivy, whether you think my arguments on same sex marriage are not valid doesn’t change the fact they are. Now as for my opinion; well, it looks to me you need to be reminded once again of what I had said to you in my last response. “Everyone has and is allowed to have their own opinion. However, whenever fact enters the playing field, opinion is rendered irrelevant and must bow to fact. Opinion only matters with regard to likes and dislikes; e.g., what the best colour in the world is. Opinion is merely personal preference and is no contender against fact.” Need I remind you that what I am talking about is fact, not opinion my friend.

1) You don't even bother to get into single parents or those straight people who can't or don't want to receive. Your arguement is, gay people cannot receive without the help of artificial insemination or surrogacy. So can a lot a of straight couples. They can marry nonetheless, double standard right there - equality is what this is about. And since we have various options to help all couples (gay or straight) who cannot reproduce naturally, and considering that getting children is no requirement to get married in the first place, this arguement is invalid. Homosexuality is found in many species, so the "it's not natural" thing is out of the window too.

ANSWER: A Heterosexual couple who cannot have children is not comparable to a same sex couple. Look, if a heterosexual couple didn’t have the obstacles in the way that prevents them from having children, they could have children. However, homosexual couples can never have children period! It takes one man and one woman in order to create life. It will never happen with two men or two women. Even in the case of adoption, if both a same sex and straight couple were to adopt a child, It would be the heterosexual couple that would model to the child the correct, natural order of what real parents should be. They should be a mother and father, not a dad and daddy or a mom and mommy. If such a child has two dads as parents, the child is deprived of a mother, and if a child has two mothers, then the child will be deprived of a father. So as you can see both a mother and father is essential to the mental health and well being of a child. It is about what is best for a child.

2) The women's role has changed - that was my point, you clearly didn't get it. Women are no longer shackled to home and herd, you will find straight fathers taking time off from work to raise their kids, even single fathers.

ANSWER: Whether a woman’s role has changed or not, is not the point. My blog article was talking about Same Sex Marriage not a woman’s role. Both parents are responsible for raising kids. Children benefit best when both parents are a male and a female.

3) There are plenty of straight women who cannot fulfill the role of mother, plenty of straight fathers who are shitty dads. The gender doesn't define how well equipped you are to be a parent, or how capable you are. Your equation "mom + dad = happy child" is ridiculously flawed - what makes a good parent is not to be coupled with a partner of the opposite gender, it's how you you care for your child, how you show your support, set boundaries and so forth.

ANSWER: Heterosexual marriages are not perfect. I never said it was. If a man or woman cannot fulfill the role as a mother or father; then it is obvious they are not mature enough and ready to take on the responsibility of being a parent. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out.   

" Regardless of the obstacles that prevent opposite-sex couples from having children, or regardless of their age, the fact is that they can have children together. Homosexuals can never and will never have children together. If you throw all the homosexual men on one island and all the homosexual women on another, they will die out in their own generation without having produced any subsequent progeny. The Genesis account is God's standard for all human beings and relationships. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; Eph. 5:31). Jesus re-iterated this, as did Paul, bringing their hearers/readers back to the beginning, and upholding God's standard for all human beings and relationships. You might take note of the fact that Paul said "let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). On every page of the Bible, it re-affirms God's standard and upholds heterosexuality. There are not only the 9 negative prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, but there arethousands of positive affirmations for heterosexuality that, by necessity, prohibit homosexuality, as well. If I love babies, then by necessity I must be against abortion."[1] 

So as you can see my “equation "mom + dad = happy child" is ridiculously flawed” is NOT flawed after all.

4) Again with the bible. It doesn't matter what the bible says, not everybody subscribes to the club this rule-book belongs to. Seperation of church and state, remember? Makes all your bible quotes, what you think is God's plan, all the religious babble irrelevant and invalid.

ANSWER: Yes, again with the Bible. Yes, it does matter what the Bible says, whether you choose to believe it or not. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Now as to “Separation of Church and State.”See below: 

" The below can be found on a plaque on the outside wall at Harvard University (verbatim, in the spelling of the day). This reveals that no such thing as "separation of church and state"ever existed. If you are going to have a civil government that has justice and law, it has to be based upon a moral foundation, which comes from the church.

After God had carried vs safe to New England
and wee had bvilded ovr hovses
provided necessaries for ovr liveli hood
reard convenient places for Gods worship
and setled the civill government
one of the next things we longed for
and looked after was to advance learning
and perpetvate it to posterity
dreading to leave an illiterate ministery
to the chvrches when ovr present ministers
shall lie in the dvst

New England First Frvits

In order to have a moral society, morality has to originate from some place. Moralitycannot and does not originate from man, as we can see from modern society where everyone does what is right in their own eyes. There is no standard, and if it were left up to man to come up with a standard, they would never agree. Morality originates from God's Word, the Bible, which originates from God Himself Who is the authority on and standard for morality. God determines what is moral and what is not moral. As soon as a society rejects that, as soon as a society rejects God and His Word, morality begins to deteriorate into immorality, where bad is called good and good is called bad. Society has to be governed by a standard of morality, and the early founding fathers of America knew this. Without it, you end up with a corrupt and perverse society such as we see today. The church does not need to govern the state, but it ought to influence it." [2] 

 So as you can see all the “religious babble” is NOT “irrelevant and invalid” as you claim it to be. 

5) Marriage is not divine, the sacrament is, and you can keep that. Marriage was first an exchange of property, then a legal contract between the man and the parents of his bride-to-be. It was a legal contract before the churches started having ceremonies besides the signing of the contract.

ANSWER: Vivy, it doesn’t matter about “an exchange of property” or a “legal contract between the man and the parents” or about wedding “ceremonies” long before the Church came on the scene. All these things are man made marriage customs to witness before people, to celebrate two people coming together in the bonds of marriage, and to testify that their marriage vows to each other was for life. Not to say there is anything wrong with these customs. The fact is, they are not divine. Long before Christianity came on the scene, we read of the ancient patriarches Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who took wives, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. What’s interesting, nothing is mentioned about a special wedding ceremony or legal contracts being signed and given. It was when these men had sex with these women that they became their wives (see Gen. 11:29; 24:67; 29:25, 28-30; 1 Cor. 6:16). Did you catch that, it was the sexual union between the man and woman that made them in God’s eyes “one flesh” in Marriage, not the marriage ceremony or legal contracts (see Gen. 2:24; Matthew 19:5-6; Eph. 5:31).

6) Something doesn't become a fact because you say so and quote the bible. There are many countries in which same-sex marriage has been established, and society doesn't crumble there, marriages of straight people don't fall apart more often, there's nothing to support your claim. It doesn't matter what you think is sinful, all these faith-related standards only apply to those who chose this belief. And even they don't uphold them in last consequence. How can you expect all of humanity to fall in line? You have no right to do that.

ANSWER: Again, I am not here to give my opinion, I’m here to share fact based on the Word of God. I happen to live in one of those countries where same sex marriage is sadly established. Sure, society may not crumble right away. But as the old adage says: “They that fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.” The ancient Roman Empire is only one example I could give of many, where homosexuality became widely accepted and prevalent in its culture. Now did Rome fall in a day because of such rampant sin as homosexuality? No, of course not! It was only one problem of a greater problem that lead to the fall of the Roman Empire. Just to be fair, homosexuality was not the primary problem of the Roman Empire, but it certainly did contribute to the eventual fall of the Empire. Now the same is going to happen to North America, because it has failed to learn from the past and from what God's Word says on the issue. 

Now as for “all these faith-related standards only apply[ing] to those who chose this belief” not applying to those who reject Christianity and the Bible. Sorry, but you are not off the hook on this one. The judicial system was based on the 10 commandments of the Bible that for hundreds of years kept law and order in our Western Society. For example, if you murder someone, you go to jail, if you steal from some store or business, the law will reprimand you for it, etc. Even though we live in a secular society these laws taken from these commandments, “thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not murder” still apply today (see Exodus 20:13, 15). Now as to Christians not “upholding the standards” of God’s Word, well, of course not! Christian’s who follow God’s Word do not do it perfectly. “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This is why Christians has placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who had died for their sins. Finally, as for your closing comment: “You have no right to do that.” Vivy, this has nothing to do with “my rights,” but has everything to do with what God’s moral standard of right and wrong is.

--------------------------------------------

[1] The Berean's Desk, "A Letter to Harry Knox" .

[2] The Berean's Desk, "Separation of Church and State" .

A CALL TO SELF-EXAMINATION

NOTE: Here below is an excellent article by a puritan named Benjamin Keach I came across on the Defending and Contending blogsite that I think is both fitting and challenging article to start the New Year with. I hope it will inspire you to live for the Lord as It will me.

Posted by Manfred DefCon on January 1, 2014  

by Benjamin Keach

What can render the state of a person worse than to be an enemy of God, Jesus Christ, and the power of godliness; and yet to think he is holy and a good Christian? Nay, because his conscience is blind in the matter, it acquits him since it lacks saving light, while he keeps up in a zealous performance of the external acts of duty and religion; by which means he is deprived of that help which some openly profane gain from the rebukes and lashes of their own consciences, which often proves a means of their conversion. But the hypocritical professor, not knowing he lacks a changed heart, nor understanding that he is without those Sacred Principles from whence should flow all he acts and does, but contrariwise he is stirred up by false Principles, and acts only by the power of natural conscience and affections, having no clear judgment to discern his own danger, nor what a state he is still in. His condition is deplorable, and this unclean spirit is worse and more dangerous than that which he was in before.

Their blindness and ignorance consists in that they cannot discern nor distinguish between a changed heart and a changed life, or between legal reformation and true regeneration. They think, because their behavior seems so much better than it was before, in their own apprehension, and in the apprehension of others also, their condition is good enough. They comparing themselves with themselves, beholding what a vast difference there is, or seems to be in respect of what they once were, when swearers, drunkards, whoremongers, etc., cannot but commend themselves to themselves. Once they saw themselves sinners, and called themselves so, and were ashamed of their own sinful and wicked lives; but now they are righteous in their own eyes, and so have no need of any further work, being arrived to that state of holiness (so they think) to that degree of piety, to that change, to that conversion, that they conclude they need not seek for further change and yet they are deceived…

The state of the self-righteous and Pharisaical persons is far worse than the state of gross and profane sinners. These are sick and know it not; wounded, but see no need of a physician… They may conclude they are converted, and therefore seek not after conversion.

It is a hard and difficult thing to bring a Pharisaical person, one that looks upon himself to be a religious man, to see his woeful state and condition.

Men may be civilized, and make a great profession of religion, and pass for saints on the earth, that are not such in the sight of God in heaven.

It is a most dangerous thing to make a profession of religion without true regeneration being first wrought in the soul; better to be no professors at all, than not so as to be sincere…

This may inform us of the cause and reason there is so great reproach brought upon religion, and on the ways of God, and on the people of God, by some who profess the gospel. Alas, many of them who are called saints, we may fear are but counterfeit Christians, such as who never experienced a true work of grace; they may have knowing heads, but unsanctified hearts…

Moreover, it sharply reproves those preachers whose great business is to bring men into visible profession, and make them members of churches, whose preaching tends more to bring persons to baptism, and to subject to external ordinances, than to show them the necessity of regeneration, faith, or a changed heart. 

For the Lord’s sake take heed what you do, if you would be pure from the blood of all men. We too often see when people are got into churches, they conclude all is well; and when conversion is preached, they do not think it concerns them, but other people who are openly profane: and thus they come to be blinded, maybe to their own destruction…

It may also put us all upon a strict examination of our own hearts, lest we should be found to be some of these false and counterfeit Christians. And that we may clear ourselves in this matter; consider:

1. Were you ever thoroughly convinced of your sinful and lost condition by nature, and of that horrid evil there is in sin? Did you ever see sin as the greatest evil, most hateful to God, not only of the evil effects of sin, but also of the evil nature of sin, not only as it has made a breach between God and man, but has also defaced the Image of God in man, and made us like the devil, filling our minds with enmity against God, godliness, and good men?

2. Is there no secret sin lived in and favored, the evil habit never being broke? Is not the world more in your affections, desires, and thoughts, than Jesus Christ?

3. Are you willing to suffer and part with all that you have, rather than sin against God? Do you see more evil in the least sin, than in the greatest suffering?

4. Do you as much desire to have your sins mortified as pardoned, to be made holy as well as to be made happy? Do you love the work of holiness as well as the reward of holiness? Do you love the Word of God for that purity which is in it, as well as the advantage that comes by it?

5. Have you seen your own righteousness as filthy rags, and have you been made poor in spirit?

6. Have you received a whole Christ with a whole heart? A whole Christ comprehends all His offices (prophet, priest, and king), and a whole heart includes all our faculties. Is not your heart divided?

7. Is Christ precious to you, even the chiefest among ten thousand? Are you the same in private as in public? Do you love Christ above son or daughter? Do you love the Person of Christ?

8. Can you bear reproof kindly to your faults, and look upon him your best friend, that deals most plainly with you?

9. Do you more pry into your own faults, than the miscarriages of others? Are you universal in your obedience? Do you obey Christ’s Word, His commands, because you love Him?

10. Have you been the same in a day of adversity, as now you are in a day of prosperity?

11. Can you say you hate sin as sin? Is your mind spiritual, and set upon heavenly things? Do you love the saints, all the saints, though some of them are not of your sentiments in some points of religion?

12. Can you go comfortably on in the ways of Christ, though you meet with little esteem among the saints? Can you stay your souls upon God, though in darkness, having no light? Is all the stress of your justification and salvation built upon Jesus Christ?

Consider these few questions, and do not doubt but that your hearts are sincere, when you can give a comfortable answer to them, though it be with some fear and doubts that still may arise in you. A true Christian is ready to mistake what belongs to him, and take that to be his, that belongs to an hypocrite; while, on the other hand, an hypocrite mistakes that which belongs to him, and applies that to himself, which is the portion of sincere Christians. – Benjamin Keach

Taken from The Counterfeit Christian or the Danger of Hypocrisy by Benjamin Keach, (London: John Pike, 1691). Some archaic words have been modernized.

Do not quickly read these questions and forget about them. Many professing Christians today are simply outwardly religious, but their hearts have not been changed by the regenerating power of God. Christ demands the supreme place in your heart and affections. If you love anything more than Christ; if you love anything equal to Christ (though you may have a wealth of biblical knowledge); you are not a child of God. “Do not be deceived” (Galatians 6:7).

http://defendingcontending.com/2014/01/01/a-call-to-self-examination/#respond

Margaret Sanger: Planned Parenthood's Dirty Little Secret

"I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made! Wonderful are your works; 

my soul knows it very well."

(Psalm 139:14, ESV)

After doing a bit of research on the founder of today's modern "Planned Parenthood." I have found some pretty revealing information on this lady. In my previous post written by Lauren Enriquez who outlined 10 quotes by this lady.

10-Eye-Opening Quotes from Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

by Lauren Enriquez 

Margaret Sanger has been lauded by some as a woman of valor, but a closer look reveals that Planned Parenthood’s audacious founder had some unsavory things to say about matters of race, birth control, and abortion. An outspoken eugenicist herself, Sanger consistently promoted racist ideals with a contemptuous attitude. Read on to learn why Planned Parenthood hides behind a false memory of Sanger, and why, despite her extraordinarily prolific writing career, one rarely sees her quoted by Planned Parenthood leaders and apologists.

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 

Margaret Sanger

Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family.

"[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

"Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth."

“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

"Give dysgenic groups [people with "bad genes"] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."

April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention."

The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1

"[The most penetrating thinkers] are coming to see that a qualitative factor as opposed to a quantitative one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses of humanity."

Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Here, Margaret Sanger speaks on her eugenic philosophy – that only the types of “quality” people she and her peers viewed as worthy of life should be allowed to live.

"Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots."

The Need for Birth Control in America (quoted by Angela Franks.)

"Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion."

“Family Limitation,” eighth edition revised, 1918

LifeNews Note: Lauren is a Legislative Associate for Texas Right to Life and a graduate of Ave Maria University. This post originally appeared at Live Action News and is reprinted with permission.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Defend and Contend for the Faith

By Alfred Shannon, Jr

Solomon instructs us that those who keep the law contend with the wicked.

Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, But such as keep the law contend with them. Prov 28:4

Jude wrote that we should not only contend for the faith, but to earnestly contend for the faith.

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 3

Paul wrote that we are to provoke one another unto love and good works.

"Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works;" Heb 10:24

How often when the truth of God isn’t on our side we will  attack the manner of how one teaches. Jesus taught not as the scribes and Pharisees, for he taught them as one having authority. He verily had authority, for it came from God the Father. Not only did Jesus have authority, but so did his Word. Such authority that it will judge all of mankind come the day of judgment. Mt 7:29; Jn 12:48

Is it judgmental to say believe and be baptized or be condemned. Yes it is! But it’s not our judgment, and it’s not our power, or authority that will punish them, it’s God!

When we earnestly contend, and defend the Word of God we have to be prepared to be accused of judging someone when we tell them the error of their ways. We must be prepared to be attacked as the carrier of bad news just as Jesus said we would. If they falsely accuse Jesus, will they not also falsely accuse us. Jn 15:20,21

As preachers and teachers of God’s Word, we must boldly teach God’s Word even as the world boldly teach false doctrine, and that without blushing. Jer 6:15

Debate is defined as a verbal study, answer, defense, discussion. Paul was “set for” it. Peter said to be “always ready” to engage in it (Phil, 1:17; 1 Pet. 3:15). Most people today believe it is not right for the Bible to be debated. We hear gospel preachers should avoid it all costs. We hear Christians should stay away from all debates. Men say that debating is not approved by the meek and mild, Christ and the Apostles do not authorize it, and that true Christian attitudes forbid it.
Paul said such a day this would come that men would seek soft speaking preachers. Don’t look for it anymore, it’s here.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

People’s ears are itching for easy, soft, smooth teaching. Plenty of preachers supply the compromised, watered-down, lenient teaching necessary to tickle itching ears.

As in the days when Israel mixed human teaching with divine law, the preachers today say,
“Peace, peace; when there is no peace,” and “the people love to have it so”.  Jer 6:14

A “gospel preacher” is no longer expected to challenge error, and is considered a bully or a mad mad for standing up for the truth. Instead, he is expected to grin and play dead like a possum, in the face of sin and error. It’s “unchristian” and not in “vogue” to debate. So we must either pretend that issues between truth, and error doesn’t exist, or else that they don’t matter very much. Ignorance is considered bliss to the people, and silence is considered golden by the preachers.

Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive.
Prov 17:28

How audacious Jeremiah was to write that God’s people were foolish. A people who were wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

“For My people are foolish, They have not known Me. They are silly children, And they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge.” Jer 4:22

Preachers (all Christians!) who are concerned for the truth and who want to obey the word of Christ, are neither ashamed nor afraid to discuss and debate religious issues honorably. Most preachers today are weak-kneed to preach the unadulterated uncut version of God’s Word. Some have no real convictions, while others don’t have the courage to match their convictions.

Let us plead for a return to simple New Testament Christianity without human heads and headquarters, human creeds and clergies, human traditions and theologies. Let us oppose false doctrine of every kind, and regard all doctrine not revealed in the New Testament as false. Let us be willing to be examined. If we are practicing things not found in the bible, or failing to practice things commanded there, we must make corrections. The Bible is the final authority for every religious question. It is perfect, all-sufficient, and inerrant as the inspired Word of God (1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:3). “For the truth’s sake,” Christians must not be afraid or ashamed of public review, discussion, debate, or examination. Rom 1:16  It’s better we be wrong on earth, and correct our mistakes, than to stand before God at the judgment with no such option to change. 1 Cor  11:31,32; 2 Cor 13:5

Pardon me if I offend you, but it’s not your feelings I seek to hurt, but your soul I seek to save. And this all Christians must do to sinners, saints, and even themselves. We must earnestly contend for the faith, and warn all who will hear of the penalty if we get it wrong.

Elijah was considered a trouble maker, Jesus spoke with authority, and Paul’s speech was rude, but they all spoke the truth. 1 Kings 18:17; Mt 7:29; 2 Cor 11:6 Some will call it arguing; Some will call it insulting. Some will call it abusive; but if it’s your soul that’s in danger, who do you want to come to you? One that speaks softly and agrees with your error, or one that speaks boldly, and points out the error of your ways?

See http://biblicalproof.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/contend-and-defend-the-faith-boldly/

Proclaiming the True Gospel that Convicts!

"Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation."

(Mark 16:15, ESV)

Over the past decade I have noticed that the atmosphere for sharing the Gospel with others has changed quite a bit. There was a time when you could carry on a decent conversation about the Gospel with someone you met in a coffee shop or on the street; but that has dramatically changed. Now when a Christian shares the Gospel with a person, he or she is met with open hostility. Gone are the days when people actually held God’s Word in high esteem and Christians were respected. Because of such hostility, the church in recent years has sought to water down the message of the Gospel so as to not offend potential converts who may attend a local evangelical congregation.

It is interesting to note that today’s church is more interested in amusing sinners on the way to hell with entertainment, instead of sharing the true message of the Gospel. Some will argue here, “But the gospel will offend people.” Of course it will. It is supposed to. People do not like having their sin exposed by the light of the glorious Gospel. Besides, did not Jesus say, “Blessed are they that are not offended in Me” (Matt. 11:6; Luke 7:23). The Lord Jesus did not have a problem with sharing the message of the Gospel with people. He knew some people would be offended when He would expose their sin, such as lying, stealing, adultery, covetousness, etc. Simply speaking, Jesus was not afraid to call sinful behavior and actions for what it is—sin! (Exodus 20:12-17; Matt. 5:27-30; Mark 9:42-49; Rev. 21:8). Even religious people were not exempt from Jesus calling their behavior and actions sinful as well (see Matt. 23:13-36). We as Christians today need to believe our Bibles and start calling the blatant bad behavior and actions of others for what God calls it—sin!

Why is it Christians today are so taken up with their own concerns, and are so satisfied with just practicing an outward form of Christianity that is more dead ritual than living worship; yet not care about our suffering brethren and sisters in Christ, nor care about our neighbor who is on the way to hell due to our lack of lovingly sharing the Gospel with them? How true are the words of J. C. Ryle, when he said:

Options for this story

"The saddest symptom about many so-called Christians is the utter absence of anything like conflict and fight against spiritual apathy in their Christianity. They eat, they drink, they dress, they work, they amuse themselves, they get money, they spend money, they go through a brief round of formal religious services once or twice every week. But of the great spiritual warfare – its watchings and strugglings, its agonies and anxieties, its battles and contests – of all things they appear to know nothing at all. Let us take care that this case is not our own." ~ J.C. Ryle 

Some will argue here that it is “judgmental and unloving” to point out the sin of others and tell them if they don’t repent, they will go to hell.  Really? Well then, would you rather I be “silent” by saying nothing at all, and let such people go to hell? Is that really the loving thing to do; is that truly loving my neighbor as myself? Proclaiming the true Gospel should always Convict of sin; whereas a false Gospel will Comfort a person in their sin. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). For no one is righteous, no one does good, nor seeks after God (see Rom. 3:9-20).

Misapplied Scripture: Matthew 7: 1

 By Andrew Olson 

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” – Matthew 7:1 – NASB

While the previous “Misapplied Scripture” articles have dealt with verses that are often used out of context by those professing a faith in Christ, this is a verse that is often used by those who have made no such profession, or in some cases they have only very recently made such a profession. Nevertheless, it is a verse that is commonly misapplied, so I wish to address it here.

As with any verse, this one must be taken within its context. Normally I advise, at the very least, to read a verse within the chapter that contains it. In this case, such an approach would be adequate, but not optimal. Chapter seven of Matthew’s Gospel comes as the third of three chapters detailing the famous Sermon on the Mount¹. This chapter is especially Gospel-centric.

I’ll begin by showing verse one in conjunction with the following verse: Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you (emphasis mine.)

Verse one doesn’t exhort Christians not to judge, but rather to keep their judgments fair, honest, and consistent. Because the Christian understands the Gospel, which at the most basic level states that in order to inherit eternal life one must repent of his sins and trust that the sacrifice made by Jesus our Savior on the cross is sufficient to pay the penalty for sins, it is fair, honest, and consistent to hold others to the standard of the Gospel.

By stating what Jesus did in verses one and two, Jesus was also rebuking the standards of Pharisaical Judaism, which demanded an impossible righteousness from the laity, while the leadership was corrupt to the core. Jesus was rebuking those who imposed a “do what I say, not what I do” standard on others. The apostle Paul clarifies this nicely in Romans 2:1, where he says: Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things (emphasis mine.)

Not only does Jesus not command us never to judge, looking at the greater context of the New Testament we find that He often commands the Christian to make judgments. For example, later in chapter seven, beginning with verse fifteen, Jesus instructs us to beware of false prophets. How are we to beware of false prophets if we are not permitted to judge them false in the first place? He goes on to explain that bad fruit comes from a bad tree. If the fruit of a prophet is unbecoming of a believer in Christ, it is not only safe to judge him false, we are commanded by our Lord to do so.

If Matthew 7:15-20 is not enough to convince the reader, John 7:24 should be. In John’s Gospel, Jesus states: Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment²(emphasis mine.)

Furthermore, in Luke 12:57, Jesus says: And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?

The apostle Paul magnifies the fact that righteous judgment is not forbidden. In 1 Corinthians 6:1-3, he says: Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

So we see that judgment is not forbidden by scriptures as many non-Christians familiar with Matthew 7:1 would like to believe. Rather, judgment should be done in righteousness. The whole of scripture, among other things, is written to equip the believer to correctly judge right from wrong. Where the scriptures are silent, we as believers should be silent (for example, the scriptures are silent on participation in sports activities, therefore there is no basis to condemn one who enjoys playing (or watching) baseball.)

However, where the scriptures are clear, we are to rebuke, reprove, and call others to repentance; and we are to be willing to be held to the same standard we hold others to.

In addition to scriptural arguments regarding judgment, it is also reasonable to appeal to logic. In this case, it is fair to point out to the non-Christian who says that it’s wrong to judge that their statement is itself a judgment. It is self-contradictory, logically fallacious.

Supplementary to describing how this verse is misquoted and misapplied, I would like to discuss the primary reason it is misused so often. The scriptures teach that men hate righteousness and love darkness. Exposing the darkness in their lives pricks their consciences, typically evoking wrath. They do not want their deeds to be judged in any way because they love their sin more than they love their own lives, and don’t want to be reminded of where their sins will lead them. However, even if we disobey our Lord and remain silent, they are left without excuse.For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:18-21)

These people need the Gospel. The kind of rebuke that we Christians would offer each other is offensive to them. To the Christian, proper rebuke and instruction in the Word of God is as precious as fine jewelry, but to those who despise the Word of God, rebuke is received in much the same way as hurled stones. Don’t waste your time treating them the way you would a fellow believer. For Jesus said: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6) Instead, plant the seed of the Gospel, pray that it take root, and move on to other business.

I’ll conclude the way I always do, by exhorting the reader to consider the context of every verse in the Bible. No verse is given in a vacuum. At the very least, read the chapter that the verse is contained in, but ideally read a chapter or two before and a chapter or two after. Also consider the greater context. Consider Matthew 7:1 in the larger context of the four Gospels at one level, but also the New Testament at another level.

In addition, consider the logic of how the verse is being applied. If the statement contradicts itself, as the application of this verse often does, the application must be wrong.

---

Footnotes

¹ Many scholars believe that Matthew’s occupation before becoming a disciple of Jesus, that of a tax collector, required him to write in a form of short-hand that would allow very quick writing, likely meaning that he was able to record what a person was saying word-for-word, as the person spoke. The likelihood that the Sermon on the Mount was recorded exactly as it was spoken in Matthew’s Gospel is quite high.
² Jesus was responding to those condemning him for healing a man on the Sabbath. He reminded them that the Law allowed men to be circumcised on the Sabbath in order to bring them into compliance with the Mosaic Law (healing them of their legal deficiency), how much more was it right to heal a man of a physical deficiency!

-          See more at: http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2337#sthash.KTfC0LP3.dpuf