Some people want only as much of God's salvation as will keep them out of Hell!

From Grace Gems

   ~  ~  ~  ~

"Some people want only as much of God's salvation as will keep them out of Hell, and they measure out with unconscious precision how much worldliness and sin they can still hang on to without jeopardizing their chances. This is 'conversion' without repentance. Flee from it!" David Shepherd

"Are you guilty of this insidious practice? Are you unconsciously weighing out each day how much sin and worldliness you can still enjoy, and yet miss Hell's eternal torment and flames? If this is the case with you, then you are a religious pretender and a gross hypocrite who needs to swiftly run to the foot of the Cross and repent of such an atrocity!

"A 'worldly Christian'? Can there be such a thing? Or is this a term that the backslidden Church came up with to try to appease their guilty consciences and to excuse their ungodly ways? The concept of a 'worldly Christian' is a total absurdity! A true Christian is devoted, dedicated, or consecrated to God's service--not worldliness. We are either devoted to Jesus--or to the world. Which is it for you?" C. Giordano

"Nothing worse can happen to a church, than to be conformed to this world! Those who would be transfigured by Jesus, must not be disfigured by conformity to the world." Charles Spurgeon

"If I find anyone who is settled down too snugly into this world, I always doubt whether he's ever truly been born again." A.W. Tozer

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money!" Matthew 6:24 

   ~  ~  ~  ~

We have published several short quotes on the minced oaths and the sin of taking God's Name and Word in vain:

 The sin of sacrilege!
(Octavius Winslow, "The Officer's Daughter" 1861)

"I, the Lord, have spoken! I will bless those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at My Word." Isaiah 66:2

Alas! how prevalent the sin of sacrilege is — even with some professing Christians! The common use which is sometimes made of sacred words, the light and flippant manner in which holy phrases are employed, the carnal use which is frequently made of the words of Scripture itself, the interlarding of vain conversation with Scripture phraseology, and what are intended to be witticisms — at the expense of God's holy Word. These are sins of greater prevalence and magnitude than, perhaps, many who are beguiled into their commission are aware!

We can scarcely conceive of anything more grieving to the Holy Spirit — than the manner in which some people deal with His inspired Word. Nor is the low spirituality which this solemn trifling with the Bible betrays, less painful.

A heavenly mind will guard the sacredness and purity of God's Word with holy jealousy! How can it be otherwise? To the Bible, the instrumentality of God's truth — the believer is indebted for his quickening, for his sanctification, and for his comfort! To trifle, then, with that holy Word, to quote it flippantly, to speak of it irreverently, to jest with it profanely — would seem a crime from which a mind stored with its precious treasures, and imbued with its hallowed spirit — would recoil with holy dread!

Oh, beware, reader, how you sport with, or trifle with — God's holy Scriptures! Oh, it is a fearful thing to quote with sportive lip, to touch with unhallowed hands — the holy Word of God!

"My heart stands in awe of Your Word! I rejoice in Your Word like one who discovers a great treasure!" Psalm 119:161-162

(Editor's note: It is truly lamentable, that many professing Christians use the holy Word of God to amuse others with 'bible jokes' and in other trifling and irreverent ways. Much of today's pseudo-Christian music, movies and literature — use the Word of God in a flippant manner, if not in a downright profane and sacrilegious way.)

Little Sins

(J.R. Miller, "Daily Bible Readings in the Life of Christ" 1890)

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same — will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 5:19

A great many people are careful about breaking large commandments and committing heinous sins — while they commit 'little sins' continually and without scruple.

They would not tell a direct lie for the world — but their speech is full of little falsehoods!

They would not steal money from the purse or drawer of another — and yet they continually commit small thefts! For example, by mistake the grocer gives them a penny too much change — and they do not think of returning it. Through the carelessness of a postal worker, the postage stamp on a letter is left uncancelled — and they take it off and use it a second time.

They would not purposely try to blacken a neighbor's name or destroy his character — and yet they repeat to others the evil whispers about him which they have heard, and thus soil his reputation.

They would not swear or curse in the coarse way of the ungodly — but they are continually using such minced oaths such as, Gosh! Gees! Heck! and other mild, timid substitutes for overt swearing.

They would not do flagrant acts of wickedness to disgrace themselves — but their lives are honeycombed with all kinds of little meannesses, impurities, selfishnesses, and bad tempers.

We need to remember, that little disobediences — harm our witness for the kingdom of Heaven.

Little sins — mar the beauty of our character.

Then, little sins are sure to grow! The trickling leak in the dike — becomes a torrent deluging vast plains!

Ofttimes, too, little sins are infinite in their consequences.

We ought never to indulge even the smallest faults or evil habits — but should aim always at perfection of character, and perfection is made up of 'littles'.

  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

Editor's note: Minced oaths are used to avoid swearing, when expressing surprise or annoyance.

Minced oaths are usually, although not exclusively, religious in nature, and date from the days when it was irreverent and unacceptable to use the name of God, Jesus, or other sacred words in everyday speech. To mince your words, means to choose words so as not to offend anyone — except for God, who sees them as sacrilege (the sin of profaning sacred things).

Here are a few examples:
Bejabbers  —  By Jesus
By George  —  By God
By golly  —  By God
By gosh  —  By God
Chrissakes  —  For Christ's sake
Criminy  —  Christ
Cripes  —  Christ
Dad gum  —  God damn
Dagnabbit  —  God damn it
Dagnammit  —  God damn it
Dang  —  Damn
Darn  —  Damn
Darnation  —  Damnation
Doggone  —  God damn
Gee whizz  —  Jesus
Good grief  —  Good God
Goodness gracious  —  Good God
Gosh  —  God
Gosh darned  —  God damned
Heck  —  Hell
Jeepers Creepers  —  Jesus Christ
Jeez  —  Jesus
Jiminy Christmas  —  Jesus Christ
My goodness  —  My God
My gosh  —  My God
Tarnation  —  Damnation

 

Sacrilege!

(by Octavius Winslow)

Cultivate a profound reverence for God's Word. Nothing is more grievous to the Holy Spirit than a trifling with revelation. The words of Scripture are divinely inspired. "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Beware of referring to it with levity. To adopt the words of Scripture irreverently, or to employ its phraseology flippantly, is to cast discredit upon inspiration, to press it into the service of the flesh, and to make the Word of God the jest book of the profane. This is awful trifling with the thoughts and words of the Holy Spirit!

Stand in awe of this Holy Book!

God says, "I will bless those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at My Word." Isaiah 66:2

"Then all who trembled at the Words of the God of Israel..." Ezra 9:4

"We will follow the advice given by you and by the others who respect the commands of our God..." Ezra 10:3

"My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of Your laws." Psalm 119:120

"My heart stands in awe of Your Word." Psalm 119:161

(Editor's note: How very sad is it that many professing Christians use the holy Word of God to amuse others with 'bible jokes' and in other trifling and irreverent ways. Much of today's pseudo Christian music, movies and children's literature use the Word of God in a flippant manner, if not in a downright profane and sacrilegious way.)

A Critique of Eric Reitan's Article:

‘Anti-Gay Bigotry, Sincere Belief, and Christianity’

Of recently I was asked by a friend to give a response to Mr. Reitan’s article: “Anti-Gay Bigotry, Sincere Belief, and Christianity” written on Sunday April, 6, 2014 on his blogsite.[1] The article opens up with a popular meme going around the social media. Here below, I have recopied it so my readers can see the meme for themselves.

On the most part, as a Bible believing Christian I agree with the meme above, but of course my opponents will disagree with it. Since the meme above was the focus of Mr. Reitan’s article, my focus will be on examining his comments to see if it lines up with the facts and with what God says about the matter in the Holy Scriptures.

After carefully considering Eric Reitan’s article and what it has to say about the subject of homosexuality. It had raised a few concerns that I will be addressing in my thoughts below. So let us consider the matter before us.

First, I want to open by stating that I will not be dealing with the Huffington Post article that Mr. Reitan alludes to. That’s an article best left for another time to respond to. My primary focus will be on Eric’s article.

Second, It is good to see that Mr. Reitan acknowledges to a degree the love Christians desire to show to their gay and lesbian neighbors. He writes, “Let me start with the grain of truth. There are Christians out there--I've known many of them--who are sincerely committed to the love command of Christianity, who sincerely wish to show love for their gay and lesbian neighbors,…” However, he then goes on to reiterate one of the common phrases used by homosexual advocates to bully them into silence with such terms as “phobic”[2]

I think it is important to mention here the meaning behind the word homophobia. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says the following:

“An irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals—homophobe/ homophobic.”[3]

However, not all agree with the term homophobia, as one online article mentions:

“Perhaps the leading researcher and writer on homophobia from a gay perspective is Greg Herek, and he clearly expresses his reservations about homophobia, preferring the term sexual prejudice:

Sexual prejudice refers to negative attitudes toward an individual because of her or his sexual orientation. In this article, it is used to characterize heterosexuals’ negative attitudes toward (a) homosexual behavior; (b) people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation; and (c) communities of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Sexual prejudice is a preferable term to homophobia because it conveys no assumptions about the motivations underlying negative attitudes, locates the study of attitudes concerning sexual orientation within the broader context of social psychological research on prejudice, and avoids value judgments about such attitudes.”[4]

As you can see from the quote above, the term homophobia is not favored by Mr. Herek, who prefers the term “sexual prejudice.” Though I disagree with Mr. Herek, I believe his term is the better one. Sexual prejudice better explains how a homosexual feels in the face of those who disagree with him or her. However, the term is still wrong in light of God’s Word that clearly condemns homosexuality (more about that later).

What is even more interesting, the same online article I quoted from above gives its own criticism of the term homophobia in this comment below:

“For different reasons homophobia has been condemned, as inaccurate and not always appropriate for the purpose by gay writers and activists, and as a deliberately misleading and sinister smear by those opposed to the gay agenda. Thoughtful writers on both sides agree that the word rarely if ever means a debilitating irrational fearfulness of homosexuals or homosexuality, a meaning strictly required by psychiatric nomenclature. Probably for those very reasons, its broadness and its guilt-inducing and mental illness connotations, the word has served, and continues to serve, a most useful political purpose and despite its limitations is not likely to be abandoned any time soon.”[5]

I wholeheartedly agree with the quote above. My personal experience on online forums such as Youtube, Facebook, and even my personal email has people using the term homophobia as a political tool, often use it to silence those who oppose homosexuality and its agenda. Both myself and many other devote Christians who love our homosexual neighbors and want to reach out in love to them, do not suffer from a so-called ‘overwhelming irrational fear’ of homosexuals. We do not scream, “Eeeek! Look! A homosexual! Run!” No, in faithfulness to God and love to our homosexual neighbors we seek to share the TRUTH of God’s Word and what it says about homosexuality. Dr. James Dobson gives this insight on how Christians should treat their homosexual neighbor:

“As Christians, we must never do anything to cause hurt and rejection, especially to those with whom we disagree emphatically. We certainly cannot introduce homosexuals to Jesus Christ if we are calling them names and driving them away. Believers are called to show compassion and love to those who would be our enemies. These people, some of whom seem hateful themselves, need to be welcomed into the church and made to feel accepted and appreciated. At the same time, we must oppose their agenda, which is harmful to society, to families, and ultimately to homosexuals themselves.”[6]

Third, before I get into the three main points Mr. Reitan talks about, I believe it is worth while quoting his last paragraph in his introduction and make a few comments in what I have observed in it. It is as follows:

“In some cases, the Christians I've know who fit this description seem to wish quite sincerely that the Bible didn't say what they take it to say--because they are uncomfortable with the implications. They have gay friends and, while trying to avoid the subject when they can, feel that their allegiance to their faith demands that they call all gay/lesbian sex wrong when asked. They say, almost apologetically, "I'm just saying what I believe. It's nothing personal against you."” I don’t doubt there are those Christians who do feel “uncomfortable” with what the Bible says about homosexuality, since it is clearly condemned in the Scriptures. Such saints need to ask themselves this question, “Does a “loving monogamous” homosexual relationship justify it as being “Right” in light of the Holy Scriptures, or is it better to compromise on this issue so not to offend my homosexual neighbor, or is it better to just tell the TRUTH?” If we truly LOVE our homosexual neighbor (see Matt. 22:39), we will tell him or her the truth. That is the right thing to do. Love does not rejoice in wrongdoing [homosexuality], but rejoices in the truth [heterosexuality] (1 Cor. 13:6).

Fourth, now let us consider the three main points in the body of his argument and come to the conclusion of what the truth really is.

1. First and foremost, it is Personal.

Under this first heading by Mr. Reitan, the author fallaciously argues the issue of homosexuality is personal. Often, gay people like to equate homosexuality to their identity. Some of them like to argue that being gay is innate, they were born that way. I can accept the fact that some people have more of an inclination towards homosexuality than other people do. However, a homosexual is NOT who he/she really is, it’s what they choose to do. Since we all possess a sinful nature, we all have desires and temptations we can fall prey to if we are not careful in making the right choice.

Next, we see Mr. Reitan appealing to his reader’s emotions through the illustration he uses to try to persuade us on how terrible it would be if some person was committed to breaking our marriage apart from the person we dearly love. He argues, because they love each other that makes their relationship before God alright. The author here is trying to equate same-sex marriage with heterosexual marriage. This of course is an erroneous argument. He is appealing to our emotions, instead of appealing to the TRUTH. The truth is the Holy Scripture does not recognize same-sex marriage. Actually, it is in opposition against the true order and purpose of marriage, which God ordained to be between a man and a woman. Also, it is a picture of Christ and the Church. The fact is same-sex marriage is a perversion of the true model of marriage between a man and a woman who are a picture of Christ [the man] and the Church [the woman] (see 1 Cor. 7:2; Eph. 5:22-33).

Then Mr. Reitan concludes his first point with these words: “And the personal effects would be devastating,…” Here, Mr. Reitan argues about “the personal effects would be devastating,” while at the same time ignoring the “devastating effects” that homosexuality has already had on our society. Funny how he conveniently did not consider addressing that issue.

2. Beliefs can be Unloving.

Wow! There is so much I take issue with here in this second point. So for brevity’s sake, I will only address some of his key points that caught my attention.

First, Mr. Reitan argues, “Standing by certain beliefs can affect people’s lives. And this means that standing by a belief can be loving or unloving towards your gay and lesbian neighbors. To stand by the belief that all gay/lesbian sex is wrong is to be committed to the systematic social marginalization of gays and lesbians, and to be committed to ending their meaningful, loving intimate life-partnerships. In the face of that, an assurance of love and friendship and a promise not to “bully” can sound pretty darned hollow.” To begin with, standing by certain beliefs can affect people’s lives. Of course it does, it is supposed to. Now as for the Biblical “stand” or “belief” that Christians like myself hold to on the issue of homosexuality is the LOVING position to hold to, because it is based on God’s Word. But of course, you are going to cry foul, when I quote such Scriptures that condemns homosexuality as sin. You, like many other advocates for homosexuality will accuse me of being "unloving" and a hateful, bigoted, homophobe. All because I stand on the truth of what God's Word says about homosexuality. 

(To be Continued...)

---

[1] http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.ca

[2] This phrase “phobic” is a shortened form of the term “homophobic,” which is another form of the word “homophobia.”

[3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Sixth Ed., (Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts, USA; 2004), pg. 344.

[4] See the link: http://www.spcs.org.nz/the-term-homophobia-its-origins-and-meanings-and-its-uses-in-homosexual-agenda/ pg. 1

[5] See http://www.spcs.org.nz/the-term-homophobia-its-origins-and-meanings-and-its-uses-in-homosexual-agenda/ pg. 2.

[6] Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle, (Multnomah Publishers, Sisters, OR, 2004), pg. 73.

The Truth Behind the "Lemon Tree."

 

Even though these lyrics are written from a secular band. I find these words are quite relevant to the present state of Western Women and the personal experiences of what many Western Men have gone through. Though I am sure it is not true of all women. However, no one can deny the damage that Feminism has done in Western Society. It has turned women into men, and men into women. It has left quite a mess in its wake over the past 40 sum years. It has made relationships between men and women ten times harder. Anyway, the lyrics are as follows:

 

Lemon Tree Lyrics

By Peter, Paul, & Mary

 

Translation in progress. Please wait...

When I was just a lad of ten, my father said to me,
"Come here and take a lesson from the lovely lemon tree."
"Don't put your faith in love, my boy", my father said to me,
"I fear you'll find that love is like the lovely lemon tree."

Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
But the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.
Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
But the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.

One day beneath the lemon tree, my love and I did lie
A girl so sweet that when she smiled the stars rose in the sky.
We passed that summer lost in love beneath the lemon tree
The music of her laughter hid my father's words from me:

Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
But the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.
Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
But the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.

One day she left without a word. She took away the sun.
And in the dark she left behind, I knew what she had done.
She'd left me for another, it's a common tale but true.
A sadder man but wiser now I sing these words to you:

Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
But the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.
Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet
But the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat.

50 Questions to Ask Mormon Missionaries

Questions are a great way to witness to Mormons. Most cultists will turn you off if you begin to preach to them, however, asking questions gives them hope that you are genuinely interested in learning more about their religion. It also is a great way to get them thinking about things they may have never thought about and researching into the false teachings of their church. Questions are great seed-planters that the Holy Spirit can make grow in their hearts and minds and, ultimately, lead them to Christ. They are also great conversation starters. The questions below are grouped into 4 different categories.   Mormon Prophets  1.    Why does the Mormon Church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple being built in Missouri in his generation (Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5)?  2.   Since the time when Brigham Young taught that both the moon and the sun were inhabited by people, has the Mormon Church ever found scientific evidence of that to be true (Journal of Discourses, 1870, v.13, p.271)?    3.   Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is “our Father and our God” when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God (Journal of Discourses, Apr. 9, 1852, vol.1, p.50)?  4.   If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)? 5.   Since the Bible’s test to determine whether someone is a true prophet of God is 100% accuracy in all his prophecies (Deuteronomy 18:20-22), has the LDS Church ever reconsidered its teaching that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were true prophets?  6.   Since the current LDS prophets sometimes contradict the former ones, how do you decide which one is correct?  7.   Since there are several different contradictory accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision, how did the LDS Church choose the correct one?  8.   Can you show me in the Bible the LDS teaching that we must all stand before Joseph Smith on the Day of Judgment?   Mormon Scripture  9.   Can you show me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?  10.  If the words “familiar spirit” in Isaiah 29:4 refer to the Book of Mormon, why do familiar spirits always refer to occult practices such as channeling and necromancy everywhere else in the Old Testament?  11.  Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)?  12.  Why were the words “white and delightsome” in 2 Nephi 30:6 changed to “pure and delightsome” right on the heels of the Civil Rights campaign for blacks?  13.  If God is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones, why does Alma 18:26-28 and John 4:24 say that God is a spirit?  14.  Why did God encourage Abraham & Sarah to lie in Abraham 2:24? Isn’t lying a sin according to the 10 commandments? Why did God tell Abraham and Sarah to lie when 2 Nephi 9:34 condemns liars to hell?  15.  Why does the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when history and the Bible state that he was born outside of Jerusalem, in Bethlehem?  16.  If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, as Joseph Smith said, why does it contain over 4000 changes from the original 1830 edition?  17.  If the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel”, why does the LDS Church need additional works?  18.  If the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel”, why doesn’t it say anything about so many important teachings such as eternal progression, celestial marriage, the Word of Wisdom, the plurality of Gods, the pre-existence of man, our mother in heaven, baptism for the dead, etc?  19.  Why do you baptize for the dead when both Mosiah 3:25 and the Bible state that there is no chance of salvation after death?  20.  Since the word grace means a free gift that can’t be earned, why does the Book of Mormon state “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23)?  21.  Does the LDS Church still regard the Pearl of Great Price as Holy Scripture even after several prominent Egyptologists proved it was an ancient funeral scroll?  22.  Why does the Book of Abraham, chapters 4 & 5, contradict Alma 11 in stating that there is more than one God?   23.  Why does Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 say there is no forgiveness for a murderer when 3 Nephi 30:2 says there is forgiveness for him?  24.  If the Adam-God doctrine isn’t true, how come Doctrine and Covenants 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel chapter 7?  25.  Why does the Book of Mormon contain extensive, word-for-word quotes from the Bible if the LDS Church is correct in teaching that the Bible has been corrupted?  26.  Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries?  27.  If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English?   Bible Questions  28.  If marriage is essential to achieve exaltation, why did Paul say that it is good for a man not to marry (1 Corinthians 7:1)?  29.  Since the Word of Wisdom teaches us to abstain from alcohol, why did Paul encourage Timothy to drink wine for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23)?  30.  If obeying the Word of Wisdom - which tells us to abstain from caffeine, alcohol and tobacco - is important for our exaltation, why did Jesus say that there is nothing that can enter a man to make him defiled (Mark 7:15)?  31.  If Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and Elohim is referred to as God in the Old Testament, can you explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to me: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD (Jehovah) our God (Elohim) is one LORD (Jehovah)?  32.  Why does the Mormon Church teach that we can be married in heaven when Jesus said in Matthew 22:30 that in the resurrection men neither marry, nor are they given in marriage?  33.  How can worthy Mormon males become Gods in the afterlife when God already said that before him no God was formed, nor will there be any Gods formed after him (Isaiah 43:10)?  34.  If God had a father who was a God, how come Isaiah 44:8 says that he doesn’t know him?  35.  If God was once just a man who progressed to becoming a God, how do you explain Psalm 90:2: “…even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God”?  36.  How can God be an exalted man when Numbers 23:19 says that God is not a man?  37.  Why does the Mormon Church teach that Elohim had sexual relations with Mary to produce Jesus when both Matthew and Luke teach she was a virgin (The Seer, January, 1853, p.158)?  38.  Why does the LDS Church teach that Jesus paid for our sins in the garden of Gethsemane when 1 Peter 2:24 says it was on the cross?   39.  Why did Bruce McConkie write that a man may commit a sin so grievous that it will place him beyond the atoning blood of Christ (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p.93) when the Bible says that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7)?  40.  Why does the LDS Church teach that man first existed as spirits in heaven when 1 Corinthians 15:46 says that the physical body comes before the spiritual?  41.  Since Jesus statement, “Be ye therefore perfect” (Matthew 5:48) is in the present tense, are you perfect right now? Do you expect to be perfect soon? According to Hebrews 10:14, how are we made perfect?  42.  Why do Mormons say the sticks in Ezekiel 37 represent the Bible and the Book of Mormon when Ezekiel 37:20-22 tells us that the sticks represent two nations, not two books?   43.  Why does the LDS Church teach that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers when both the first chapter of John and Colossians teach that Jesus is the Creator of all things, including Lucifer?  44.  Why do worthy Mormon males hold the Aaronic priesthood since Hebrews 7:11-12 clearly teaches that it was changed and superceded by something better?  45.  If your leaders are correct about the complete falling away of the true church on earth, was Jesus in error when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18)?   General  46.  If having a physical body is necessary to become a god, how did Jesus become a god before he had a body?   47.  Do you think the LDS Church will reconsider its teachings that the American Indians are descendants of the Jewish race now that DNA evidence has proven that they are actually descendants of the Asian race?  48.  If polygamy was officially re-instituted by the Mormon Church, how would your wife feel about you taking another woman?  49.  Since the LDS Church teaches that there was a complete apostasy of the true church on earth, does that mean that the 3 living Nephites and the Apostle John went into apostasy also?  50.  Why are Mormon Temple ceremonies secret to the public when the Old Testament temple ceremonies were open to public knowledge? Tower To Truth   See the link: http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/witnessing/pf_50_questions.htm

 



The Most Despised Verse in the Entire Bible!

By Frank Hall

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Romans 9:13 

This is perhaps the most despised verse in the entire Bible! 

Contrary to popular religious opinion, God does not love all people.

There are only two kinds of people in this world--Jacobs and Esaus.
These two men represent the entire human race.
Jacob represents God's elect--and Esau represents the reprobate.
Jacob is loved by God--and Esau is hated by God. 

God's love is sovereign and free. God's love for Jacob did not depend on Jacob. God loved Jacob, simply because He chose to love Jacob--not because He saw something in Jacob that merited His love. In fact, Jacob proved himself to be completely unworthy of God's love--as do all whom God loves.

God's love depends on God, not Jacob. Jacob can't earn God's love, and Jacob cannot lose God's love--because it does not depend on him. The love of God is completely sovereign and free. God gives and withholds His love as He sees fit.

God's love is discriminating love. Love is always discriminating. By definition, love is never common to all. Jacob was set apart by God's love, and being set apart by God's love--he had God's special favor and the affection of God's heart. God's love is always particular and distinguishing. He does not love all people--He only loves Jacob. 

God's love for Jacob and hatred for Esau are according to His eternal purpose, not according to their works. "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works, but by Him who calls . . . Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy!" Romans 9:11-16

Jacob was elected to salvation before he was born, and Esau was rejected by God before he was born--according to God's eternal purpose.

Because Jacob was loved by God--God sent His Son into this world to redeem him from his sins. Christ died for Jacob--not for Esau! "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Thoughts on the Sufferings of Christ

 Too often our focus is on the physical sufferings of Christ, while little thought is ever given to what else the Lord Jesus suffered. There are three points that come to mind in regards to the sufferings of Christ. What are these points?

 (1.) Christ's Mental Sufferings! The Lord Jesus suffered in his sinless soul on earth by the sin and degradation He seen and experienced from men on a daily bases.
 (2.) Christ's Physical Sufferings! The Lord Jesus suffered in His body through the brutalities inflicted upon Him by men through the beatings, scourging, and crucifixion.
 (3.) Christ's Spiritual Sufferings! The Lord Jesus suffered the full wrath and punishment of His Father for our sin during the three dark hours on the Cross during His crucifixion. 

 It is the third point that interests me at the moment. To date, I cannot ever remember reading or hearing a sermon on this aspect of Christ's sufferings for our sin during these dark hours on the Cross. Such sufferings are as mysterious as the scene at Calvary was shrouded in darkness. Does not this part of Christ's suffering deserve our attention as well?

Consider this dichotomy. (1) Christ endured Man's wrath; (2) Christ endured His Father's wrath. The first, shows man's attitude towards God's sacrificial love; while the second, shows God's attitude in response to man's sacrilegious hatred. It wasn't the "nails" that kept the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross. The only thing that kept Him there was His Unconditional Love for us! As sinners, we deserve the full wrath of God for our rebellion against Him. Instead, God came in the flesh and became our substitute, and took upon Himself the punishment for our sin that we so rightly deserve. Praise God He loved us so!

Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage

By Jonathan Leeman

More and more commentators are saying that we have passed the tipping point on same-sex marriage in the United States. Almost daily another politician or public figure stands before a microphone to declare his or her support. It feels like the dam has burst; the paradigm shifted.

Whether or not same sex marriage is a political fait accompli, I don't know. What concerns me in the present hour is the temptation among Christians to go with the flow. The assumption is that the nation no longer shares our morality, and that we must not impose our views on others and blur the line between church and state. Besides, we don't want to let any political cantankerousness get in the way of sharing the gospel, right? So we might as well throw in our lot. So the thinking goes.  

How hard Christians should actively fight against same-sex marriage is a matter for wisdom. But that we must not support it, I would like to persuade you, is a matter of biblical principle. To vote for it, to legislate it, to rule in favor of it, to tell your friends at the office that you think it's just fine—all this is sin. To support it publicly or privately is to "give approval to those who practice" the very things that God promises to judge—exactly what we're told not to do in Romans 1:32.

Further, same-sex marriage embraces a definition of humanity that is less than human and a definition of love that is less than love. And it is not freedom from religion that the advocates of same-sex marriage want; they want to repress one religion in favor of another.

Christians must not go with the flow. They must instead love the advocates of same-sex marriage better than they love themselves precisely by refusing to endorse it.

I am saying this for the sake of you who are Christians, who affirm the authority of Scripture, who believe that homosexual activity is wrong, and who believe in the final judgment. I don't mean here to persuade anyone who does not share these convictions.

My goal in all of this is to encourage the church to be the church. What good is salt that loses it saltiness? Or what use is light under a bowl? Rather, blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Deeper Understanding of Humanity

I believe Voddie Baucham is exactly right to say that "gay is not the new black," and that we should not formally equate sexual orientation to ethnicity or sex as an essential component of personal identity. It is amazing to me that recent legal battles simply take this equation for granted without holding it up to the light and looking at it.

There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person with same-sex attraction might say "I am a homosexual" in the same way someone might say "I am a male" or "I am black." First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don't hurt others. Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of being fully human.

All the talk about "equality" depends upon these foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.

Marriage then becomes an important prize to be won for people with same-sex attraction because, as the oldest and most human of institutions, marriage publicly affirms these deep desires. Everybody who participates in a wedding—from the father who walks a bride down an aisle, to the company of friends, to the pastor leading the ceremony, to the state who licenses the certificate—participates in a positive and formal affirmation of a couple's union. It is hard to think of a better way to affirm same-sex desire as good and part of being fully human than to leverage the celebratory power of a wedding ceremony and a marriage.

Make no mistake: The fundamental issue at stake in the same-sex marriage debate is not visitation rights, adoption rights, inheritance laws, or all the stuff of "civil unions." Those are derivative. It is fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.

Biblically minded Christians, of course, have no problem recognizing people with same-sex attraction as fully human. There are members of my church who experience same-sex attraction. We worship with them, vacation with them, love them. What Christianity does not do, however, is grant that fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human.

Christianity in fact offers a more mature and deeper concept of humanity, more mature and deep than the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle has of him or herself.

It is more mature because Christianity begins with the frank admission that fallen human beings are corrupted all the way down, all the way in. A child assumes that all of his or her desires are legitimate. Adults, hopefully, know better. And a mature understanding of fallen humanity recognizes that our fallenness affects everything from our biology and body chemistry to our ambitions and life loves. Same-sex attraction is but one manifestation. This is why Christ commands us to go and die, and why we must be born again. We must become new creations, a process that begins at conversion and will be completed with his coming.

Also, the fact that Jesus is Lord means his authoritative claim on our lives reaches all the way down, all the way in. We have no right to stand before him and insist upon our definitions of masculinity, femininity, marriage, love, and sexuality. He gets to write the definitions, even when they go against our deepest desires and sense of self.

Rooted in biology or not, there is a difference between gender, ethnicity, and "orientation." Orientation consists primarily of—is lived out through—desire. And the fact that it involves desire means it is subject to moral evaluation in a way that "being male" or "being Asian" are not.

Here is what's often missed: neither the fact of the desire, nor its possible biological basis, gives it moral legitimacy. Don't mistake is for ought. We understand this quite well, for instance, when it comes to the behaviors associated with some forms of substance addiction or bipolar disorder. The biological component of these maladies certainly calls for compassion and reams of patience, but it does not make their attendant behaviors morally legitimate. To assume they do means treating human beings as just one more animal. No one morally condemns a leopard for acting instinctually. Yet shouldn't our moral calculations for human beings involve something more than assent to the biochemistry of desire? We are more than animals. We are souls and bodies. We are created in God's image. To legitimize homosexual desire simply because it's natural or biological, ironically, is to treat a person as less than human.

All of this is to say, Christianity not only offers a more mature concept of humanity, it offers a deeper concept. It says we are more than a composite of our desires, some of which are fallen, some of which are not.

Remarkably, Jesus says that our humanity goes deeper even than marriage and sex, and certainly deeper than fallen versions of them. He says that, in the resurrection, there will be no marriage or giving in marriage. Marriage and sex, it appears, are two-dimensional shadows that point to the three-dimensional realities to come. A person's humanity and identity in no way finally depends on the shadows of marriage. Dare we deny the full humanity of Christ because he neither consummated a marriage nor fathered natural children? Indeed, wasn't the full humanity of this second Adam demonstrated through begetting a new humanity?

There is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's version of the human being. It is inhumane to morally evaluate people as if they are animals whose instincts define them.

And there is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's quest for same-sex marriage. It is inhumane to call bad good, or wrong desires right. It is inhumane to equate a person with the fallen version of that person, as if God created us to be the fallen versions of ourselves. But this is exactly what same-sex marriage asks us to do. It asks us to publicly affirm the bad as good—to institutionalize the wrong as right.

Christianity says that we are not finally determined by ethnicity, sex, marriage, or even sinful desire. We are God-imagers and vice-rulers, tasked with showing the cosmos what God's triune justice, righteousness, and love are like. The Christian message to the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle is that we believe they are even more human than they believe.

Deeper Love

Christianity offers a more mature and deeper concept of love, too. Love is not fundamentally about a narrative of self-expression and self-realization. It is not about finding someone who "completes me," in which I assume that who "I am" is a given, and that you love "me" authentically only if you respect me exactly as I am, as if "I" is somehow sacred.

Christian love is not so naïve. It's much more mature (see 1 Cor. 13:11). It recognizes how broken people are, and it loves them in their very brokenness. It is given contrary to what people deserve. We feed and clothe and befriend them, even when they attack us. But then Christian love maturely invites people toward holiness. Through prayer and disciple-making, Christian love calls people to change—to repent. Christian love recognizes that our loved ones will know true joy only as they increasingly conform to the image of God, because God is love. This is why Jesus tells us that, if we love him, we will obey his commands, just like he loves the Father and so obeys the Father's commands.

Christian love is also deeper than love in our culture. It knows that true love was demonstrated best when Christ laid down his life for the church to make her holy, an act which the apostle Paul analogizes to the love of a husband and wife and the husband's call to wash his wife with the word (Rom. 5:8; Eph. 5:22-32). The Bible's central picture of gospel love is lost in same-sex marriage, just like it's lost when a husband cheats on his wife.

The progressive position might call the orthodox Christian position on gay marriage intolerant. But Christians must recognize that the progressive position is unloving and inhumane. And so we must love them more truly than they love themselves.

Public Square and Idolatrous Religion

What then shall we say about the public square? Shouldn't our understanding of the separation between church and state and religious freedom keep us from "imposing" our ideas upon others? Why would the church being the church affect our stance in the public square among the non-church?

What people can miss is the distinction between laws that criminalize an activity and laws that promote or incentivize an activity. The laws surrounding marriage belong to the latter category. The government gets involved in the marriage business—to the chagrin of libertarians—because it thinks it has some interest in protecting and promoting marriage. It sees that marriage contributes to the order, peace, and good of society at large. Therefore, it offers financial incentives for marriage, such as tax breaks or inheritance rights.

In other words, institutionalizing same-sex marriage does not merely make government neutral toward unrighteousness; it means the government is promoting and incentivizing unrighteousness. The 2003 Supreme Court decision to overturn laws that criminalized homosexual behavior, by contrast, need not be construed as a promotion or affirmation of homosexual behavior. The irony of the progressive position on same-sex marriage is that it cloaks its cause in the language of political neutrality, when really it is just the opposite. It is a positive affirmation of a brand of morality and the whole set of theological assumptions behind that morality.

To put this in biblical terms, institutionalizing same-sex marriage is nothing other than to "give approval to those who practice" the things that God's word condemns (Rom. 1:32). And behind this moral affirmation, Paul tells us, is the religious "exchanging of the immortal God for images" (Rom. 1:23). To establish same-sex marriage, in other words, is an utterly religious act, by virtue of being idolatrous.

For the Christian, therefore, the argument is pretty simple: God will judge all unrighteousness and idolatry. Therefore Christians should not publicly or privately endorse, incentivize, or promote unrighteousness and idolatry, which same-sex marriage does. God will judge such idolatry—even among those who don't believe in him.

God Will Judge the Nations

Let me explain further. Both the Old Testament and the New promise that God will judge the nations and their governments for departing from his own standard of righteousness and justice. The presidents and parliaments, voters and judges of the world are comprehensively accountable to him. There is no area of life somehow quarantined off from his evaluation.

Hence, he judged the people of Noah's day, Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharaoh in Egypt, Sennacherib in Assyria, Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, and the list goes on. Just read of his judgments against the nations in passages like Isaiah 13-19 or Jeremiah 46-52.

It's not surprising, therefore, that Psalm 96 and many other passages make the transnational, omni-partisan nature of God's judgment clear: "Say among the nations, 'The LORD reigns.' . . . he will judge the peoples with equity" (Ps. 96:10; also Ps. 2; Jer. 10:6-10).

Does the same principle apply in the New Testament era? Yes. The governors of the world derive their authority from God and will be judged by God for how they use their authority: Caesar no less than Nebuchadnezzar; presidents no less than Pharaoh:

• Jesus tells Pilate that Pilate's authority comes from God (John 19).
• Paul describes the government as "God's servant" and an "agent" to bring God's justice (Rom. 13).
• Jesus is described as the "ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5).
• Kings, princes, and generals fear the wrath of the Lamb and hide from it (Rev. 6:15).
• The kings of the earth are indicted for committing adultery with Babylon the Great (Rev. 18:3).
• Christ will come with a sword "to strike down the nations" (Rev. 19:13), leaving the birds "to eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty" (v. 18).

God will judge all nations and governors. They are politically accountable to his standard of justice and righteousness, not to their own standards. To depart from God's righteousness and justice—for every government in the world, Old Testament and New—is to incur God's wrath. 

The fact that we live in a pluralistic nation in which many do not acknowledge the God of the Bible makes no difference to God. "Who is the Lord that I should obey him?" Pharaoh asked. The Lord demonstrated in short order precisely who he is. The fact that Americans believe a government governs "by the will of the people" makes no difference either. A Christian knows that true authority comes from God, and so he or she must never promote and incentivize unrighteousness, even if 99 percent of the electorate asks for it.

This does not mean that Christians should enact God's judgment against all forms of unrighteousness now, but it does mean that we Christians should not publicly or privately put our hands to anything God will judge on the last day. Yes, politics often involves compromise, and there are times when Christian voters or politicians will be forced to decide between a lesser of two evils. And for such occasions we trust God is merciful and understanding. Still, so far as we can help it, we must not vote for, rule for, or tell our friends at the office that we support unrighteousness.

Does this mean we can impose our faith upon non-Christians? No, but endorsing same-sex marriage is another kind of thing. To endorse it is to involve yourself in unrighteousness and false religion, and an unrighteousness that God promises to judge.

In fact, same-sex marriage itself is the act of wrongful governmental imposition. Martin Luther wrote, "For when any man does that for which he has not the previous authority or sanction of the Word of God, such conduct is not acceptable to God, and may be considered as either vain or useless." And God has never given human governments the authority to define marriage. He defined it in Genesis 2 and has not authorized anyone to redefine it. Any government that does is guilty of usurpation.

Since same-sex marriage is effectively grounded in idolatrous religion (see Rom. 1:23, 32), its institutionalization represents nothing more or less than the progressive position's imposition of idolatrous religion upon the rest of us.

I am not telling Christians how many resources they should expend in fighting false gods in the public square, but I am saying that you must not join together with those gods. There is no neutral ground here.

Embrace and Stand Fast

Churches should embrace their brothers and sisters who struggle with same-sex attraction, just like they should embrace all repentant sinners.

And churches should stand fast on deeper, more biblical conceptions of love by loving the advocates of same-sex marriage more truly than they love themselves. We do this by insisting on the sweet and life-giving nature of God's truth and holiness.

In our present cultural context, Christian love will prove costly to Christians and churches. Even if you recognize the Bible calls homosexuality sin, but you (wrongly) support same-sex marriage, your stance on homosexuality will offend. A people's strongest desires—the desires they refuse to let go of—reveals their worship. To condemn sexual freedom in America today is to condemn one of the nation's favorite altars of worship. And will they not fight for their gods? Will they not excommunicate all heretics?

But even while Scripture promises short-term persecution for the church, it also, strangely and simultaneously, points to long-term praise: "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation" (1 Peter 2:12). I'm not sure how to explain that, but I trust it.

See the link:  http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/04/15/love-and-the-inhumanity-of-same-sex-marriage/