Tuesday, 31 December 2013

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/

Saturday, 28 December 2013

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/

Tuesday, 24 December 2013

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:

"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).

Saturday, 14 December 2013

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!


Saturday, 30 November 2013

Apollos the Faithful Apologist



“For he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.”
(Acts 18:28, ESV)

Apollos is introduced for the first time in Acts 18: 24-28 and is considered to be one of the earliest apologists of the Holy Scriptures. He knew the Scriptures well. Not only that, he was a very fine and accomplished speaker as well. There are three points that distinguish Apollos as one of the early Churches’ great champions of the faith. Let's consider them together.

  1. Apollos, Mighty in Speech! (Acts 18:24).
  2. Apollos, Mighty in the Scriptures! (Acts 18:25-26, 28).
  3. Apollos, Mighty in Spirit! (Acts 18:25).

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Men, Femininity and Gender Reversal


Times are getting even more difficult for men who just want to be men to live in a society that demeans and demonizes masculinity; and bizarre for those men who want to embrace femininity. More and more we are seeing today's women becoming increasingly assertive in their demeanor, while more men are sadly embracing a more passive feminine role. 

I remember a little while ago watching a video online that explored the issue on male behavior  in relationships with women. The reporter asked a number of women on the street, in parks, and malls what they thought about the behavior of men in today's society. What was interesting, many of them had this to say. "Men are too passive," and "men need to be more assertive in their relationships with women." Some other women said, "I would like it if men would lead more in the relationship." Though this does not tell us anything about whether these men have embraced their femininity. What it does tell us is that men are no longer aggressive in a healthy masculine assertive way as their fathers were before them.  

Male femininity as portrayed here in today's Western culture is embraced as a good thing, instead of a shameful behavior.  Though both men and women possess feminine and masculine characteristics, this in no way gives license for a man to become effeminate in his behavior, nor does it give a woman the right to behave in a more masculine way.  Since God created a man to be a man, his very identity requires him to function in a masculine manner. Why? because to act in a feminine way is a contradiction to his identity as a man. The sexual identity of a man testifies to the fact that he should behave in a manner that compliments who he is as a man. The very core nature of a man is to be masculine, not feminine. Sadly, all too often this is the attitude of such men in today's culture who have embraced their femininity as their identity. One online article confirms this in these words: 

"They are not bogged down by others and are proud of their new found identity. Male femininity has its roots in ancient Greece and Mesopotamia and has been an increasing phenomenon from the dawn of the 20th century. Men today no longer have an inferiority complex in declaring their status and the society too, to a large extent has embraced feminine men. Economic openings for them have also gone a long way in their integration to the society. There is no particular reason for men becoming feminine. It may vary from individual to individual but mostly an interest in the 'female way of life' is the root cause of Male Femininity."[1] 

Personally, I believe there is much more to it than the above quote by the author who says it is men who have an interest in the "female way of life" who have embraced this new feminine identity. I believe the real root to this problem can be traced to the dominate influence of feminism and homosexuality in today's society. These influences are largely responsible for gender confusion that has lead to a certain segment of the male population to accept Male Femininity. Here's a quote I had written about gender confusion on my Facebook page a couple years ago:  

"We are living in a society that seems to glory in the confusion of genders. Our culture is increasingly abandoning the distinction between men and women, by feminizing men and masculating women. This of course, deeply affects relationships between both genders. Men are uncertain to what their role is as a man in the relationship; whereas, women are dissatisfied with their role in leading the relationship they know in their heart belongs to the man."[2]  

How could this have happened? This has happened through feminism and homosexuality being indoctrinated in people's lives through the use of the education system, the media, movies and other avenues such as literature that has given it wide acceptance. Even the law and courts are now reinforcing these negative world views in our Western Culture. Over the past 30 or 40 years of these views being promoted and given first a toehold, then a foothold, and now a stronghold in our society has allowed feminism and homosexuality to flourish and become a dominate force in our culture.  

Though my primary focus is on how feminism has affected and oppressed men, with "Gender Reversal" being one of the repercussions of feminist indoctrination; I only mention here homosexuality because it to is responsible as well in influencing men to embrace their Male Femininity that has lead to Gender Reversal.  

Such "esmasculation" of the male identity in today's society is the sad result of many men accepting as normal the effeminate life style that has been influenced by feminism. And make no wonder, since the masculine nature of man is demonized in our society, many men have embraced a more feminine approached to life. In other words, they have denied their true masculine role as men for a feminine role that is more acceptable in today's society.

Yet what people need to realize is the term "effeminate" is one of the sins in the list the Apostle Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It is not a compliment for a healthy heterosexual male today to take on the effeminate role. When the Apostle Paul mentioned those who were not going to inherit the kingdom of God, the distinction is made in the KJV between the "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind," as the "passive" and "active" roles of homosexuals. In the same verse the Darby translation is quite bold when it defines effeminate as "those who make women of themselves." ("effeminate by perversion," Darby lit. Trans.). In a more modern translation, the ESV includes both passive and active partners together in these words, "nor men who practice homosexuality." The footnote for this verse further confirms my point, "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts." So men who are considering or have already embraced the "effeminate" life style should really reconsider what they are actually accepting. Do such men really want to associate themselves with the perverted life style of a homosexual? It is indeed sad that our society has come to this. 

I am aware this chapter on “Men, Femininity, and Gender Reversal” may be a point of contention for some of my readers, while others will immediately understand where I am coming from. I do not hold any hostility against any homosexual or transgender person, but with love seek to share the truth with those willing to listen. Unfortunately, many have been brainwashed by schools, the media, movies, T.V., and popular literature to be hyper sensitive to other people’s views that goes against the culture’s narrative. Such hyper sensitive people get easily upset, offended, and closed minded to any views that may differ from theirs. They associate disagreement with them as hate. To such people I make no apologies and would ask that you just simply skip this chapter if the truth is too much for you to handle. 


For more information on the subject, I would also like to recommend to the reader the Special Report on “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences” by Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer and Dr. Paul R. McHugh in The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, Num. 50, Fall 2016. Another helpful work is Frank Turek’s small book, Correct, Not Politically Correct.


[1] http://emasculated.org/content/emasculated-and-oppressed-men
[2] My Facebook page, October 5, 2011. (Slightly revised from the original).

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

I Am The Living Bread!


“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

(Matthew 4: 4, ESV) 

This morning the Lord made His presence known in the Men’s Morning Meeting at St. Thomas’. The Lord gave Art, Derek, and myself bread, but then again the Lord has been faithful in making his presence known each week in our small group. I just found this morning unique in that He gave each of us a different aspect to the same truth being conveyed in this particular study Art was leading us in. Each one of us was given a different point on this morning’s theme text, John 6:51. These three aspects are as follows: Art was given the truth about “Giving Out” the Bread we feed on; Derek was given the truth about “Living Out” the Bread we feed on; and I was given the truth about “Taking In” the Bread we feed on.  

The truth of this order would be as follows:

  1. “Taking In” conveys the truth that just like we would eat natural bread, so are we to feed on the Bread of God’s Word. Bread is no good to us if we do not digest it, so it is with God’s Word. Let us not be just tasters of God’s Word, but rather let us be eaters of the Bread of God’s Word. “Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart” (Jer. 15:16, ESV).
  2. “Living Out” tells us the truth that just like natural bread sustains us and gives us the physical strength to live from day to day, so the Bread of God’s Word sustains us spiritually, giving us the necessary strength to “live out” the truth of God’s Word in our daily lives. “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22).
  3. “Giving Out” implies the truth that a part of “living out” the Bread of God’s Word is to share it with others. This can be done in two ways: first, in ministering and teaching God’s Word to fellow Christians; secondly, in proclaiming the Gospel to needy souls who do not know Christ. (See Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16). 

Here are four aspects to consider about the term “Bread” in John 6:32, 33, 35, 51:

  1. THE TRUE BREAD FROM HEAVEN: This truth is interesting in this verse for a couple reasons. First, “the true bread” is distinguished in this text apart from “the bread from heaven.” The bread from heaven that Moses prayed for the children of Israel in the wilderness was angel’s food (see Ex. 16:4-17; Psalm 78:25). It was called “manna,” yet it could not satisfy. The term “manna” means “what is it?” Second, “the true bread” here identifies metaphorically the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Three truths can be seen in regards to bread here: (1.) The "bread" prepared by the hands of men speaks of the flesh (1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:8-9); (2.) The "manna" that rained down from heaven to the children of Israel speaks of the law that was to be given; (3.) Jesus "the true bread" speaks of salvation by grace. All three types of bread gives sustenance, but it is only the "true bread" that can eternally satisfy.
  2. THE BREAD OF GOD: Now this truth speaks of the divine aspect and origin of this Bread. This bread is neither angel’s food nor is it the natural bread from man. It is Bread, the Bread of God that imparts divine life. Manna and the natural bread made by the hands of man will perish. It only feeds the natural, earth bound life that is subject to the laws of this present life. It nourishes the flesh, but does nothing for the spirit. The natural man does not receive the things that be of God (see 1 Cor. 2:14). Now the spiritual man born of God receives all things that is of God (see 2 Cor. 5:17).
  3. THE BREAD OF LIFE: The Lord Jesus in this text begins with these words “I am,” making the truth about the metaphor Bread personal. And this Bread imparts life. Not natural life, but rather spiritual life. An abundant life that is both satisfying and eternal. Jesus’ promise to whoever comes to him he/she will never hunger or thirst (6:35). “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matt. 5:6).
  4. THE LIVING BREAD:  The Lord Jesus Christ again makes it personal with these same words “I am.” Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am…the life.” Jesus identifies Himself as equal with God in John 6:32-33, 51 when He says He originated from heaven, which offended the Jews. “This pronouncement exactly reiterates verses 33, 35, 47-48. bread…is my flesh. Jesus refers here prophetically to his impending sacrifice upon the cross (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). Jesus voluntarily laid down his life for evil, sinful mankind (John 10:18; 1 John 2:2)."[1] This truth is echoed again when Jesus fortold his death to His disciples in the upper room (see Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). 

In ancient times in the Middle East bread was an important part and source of food for the Jew and Arab. Bread indeed is a source of nourishment, but it is no good unless it is broken and eaten. This truth can be seen when Jesus fed the 5,000 with only five barley loaves and two fishes. (see John 6:1-15). The truth here is that only the Lord Jesus can satisfy our need. Just as He provides for our need for physical sustenance, so does He meet our spiritual need for daily sustenance from His Word (see Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3). Just as Jesus became broken bread for us, we must become broken bread for others. We must understand that bread never broken can never feed others. This same truth applies to a believer’s life. If we willfully remain unbroken bread, then God cannot bless and multiply our brokenness to feed others. So if the bread of our lives remains intact, it cannot make the necessary contact that imparts the impact that nourishes others. (Matt. 6:11).




[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible: ESV, (Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois, 2010), pg. 1551.

Thursday, 31 October 2013

Concerning Halloween

By James B. Jordan

It has become routine in October for some Christian schools to send out letters warning parents about the evils of Halloween, and it has become equally routine for me to be asked questions about this matter.
 
“Halloween” [not Holloween] is simply a contraction for All Hallows’ Eve. The word “hallow” means “saint,” in that “hallow” is just an alternative form of the word “holy” (“hallowed be Thy name”). All Saints’ Day is November 1. It is the celebration of the victory of the saints in union with Christ. The observance of various celebrations of All Saints arose in the late 300s, and these were united and fixed on November 1 in the late 700s. The origin of All Saints Day and of All Saints Eve in Mediterranean Christianity had nothing to do with Celtic Druidism or the Church’s fight against Druidism (assuming there ever even was any such thing as Druidism, which is actually a myth concocted in the 19th century by neo-pagans.)

In the First Covenant, the war between God’s people and God’s enemies was fought on the human level against Egyptians, Assyrians, etc. With the coming of the New Covenant, however, we are told that our primary battle is against principalities and powers, against fallen angels who bind the hearts and minds of men in ignorance and fear. We are assured that through faith, prayer, and obedience, the saints will be victorious in our battle against these demonic forces. The Spirit assures us: “The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20).

The Festival of All Saints reminds us that though Jesus has finished His work, we have not finished ours. He has struck the decisive blow, but we have the privilege of working in the mopping up operation. Thus, century by century the Christian faith has rolled back the demonic realm of ignorance, fear, and superstition. Though things look bad in the Western world today, this work continues to make progress in Asia and Africa and Latin America.

The Biblical day begins in the preceding evening, and thus in the Church calendar, the eve of a day is the actual beginning of the festive day. Christmas Eve is most familiar to us, but there is also the Vigil of Holy Saturday that precedes Easter Morn. Similarly, All Saints’ Eve precedes All Saints’ Day.

The concept, as dramatized in Christian custom, is quite simple: On October 31, the demonic realm tries one last time to achieve victory, but is banished by the joy of the Kingdom. What is the means by which the demonic realm is vanquished? In a word: mockery. Satan’s great sin (and our great sin) is pride. Thus, to drive Satan from us we ridicule him. This is why the custom arose of portraying Satan in a ridiculous red suit with horns and a tail. Nobody thinks the devil really looks like this; the Bible teaches that he is the fallen Arch-Cherub. Rather, the idea is to ridicule him because he has lost the battle with Jesus and he no longer has power over us.
(The tradition of mocking Satan and defeating him through joy and laughter plays a large role in Ray Bradbury’s classic novel, Something Wicked This Way Comes, which is a Halloween novel.)

The gargoyles that were placed on the churches of old had the same meaning. They symbolized the Church ridiculing the enemy. They stick out their tongues and make faces at those who would assault the Church. Gargoyles are not demonic; they are believers ridiculing the defeated demonic army.
Thus, the defeat of evil and of demonic powers is associated with Halloween. For this reason, Martin Luther posted his 95 challenges to the wicked practices of the Church to the bulletin board on the door of the Wittenberg chapel on Halloween. He picked his day with care, and ever since Halloween has also been Reformation Day.

Similarly, on All Hallows’ Eve (Hallow-Even – Hallow-E’en – Halloween), the custom arose of mocking the demonic realm by dressing children in costumes. Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ – we have NO FEAR!

I don’t have the resources to check the historical origins of all Halloween customs, and doubtless they have varied from time to time and from Christian land to Christian land. “Trick or treat” doubtless originated simply enough: something fun for kids to do. Like anything else, this custom can be perverted, and there have been times when “tricking” involved really mean actions by teenagers and was banned from some localities.

We can hardly object, however, to children collecting candy from friends and neighbors. This might not mean much to us today, because we are so prosperous that we have candy whenever we want, but in earlier generations people were not so well off, and obtaining some candy or other treats was something special. There is no reason to pour cold water on an innocent custom like this.
 
Similarly, the jack-o’-lantern’s origins are unknown. Hollowing out a gourd or some other vegetable, carving a face, and putting a lamp inside of it is something that no doubt has occurred quite independently to tens of thousands of ordinary people in hundreds of cultures worldwide over the centuries. Since people lit their homes with candles, decorating the candles and the candle-holders was a routine part of life designed to make the home pretty or interesting. Potatoes, turnips, beets, and any number of other items were used.

Wynn Parks writes of an incident he observed: “An English friend had managed to remove the skin of a tangerine in two intact halves. After carving eyes and nose in one hemisphere and a mouth in the other, he poured cooking oil over the pith sticking up in the lower half and lit the readymade wick. With its upper half on, the tangerine skin formed a miniature jack-o’-lantern. But my friend seemed puzzled that I should call it by that name. `What would I call it? Why a “tangerine head,” I suppose.’” (Parks, “The Head of the Dead,” The World & I, November 1994, p. 270.)

In the New World, people soon learned that pumpkins were admirably suited for this purpose. The jack-o’-lantern is nothing but a decoration; and the leftover pumpkin can be scraped again, roasted, and turned into pies and muffins.

In some cultures, what we call a jack-o’-lantern represented the face of a dead person, whose soul continued to have a presence in the fruit or vegetable used. But this has no particular relevance to Halloween customs. Did your mother tell you, while she carved the pumpkin, that this represented the head of a dead person and with his soul trapped inside? Of course not. Symbols and decorations, like words, mean different things in different cultures, in different languages, and in different periods of history. The only relevant question is what does it mean now, and nowadays it is only a decoration.
And even if some earlier generations did associate the jack-o’-lantern with a soul in a head, so what? They did not take it seriously. It was just part of the joking mockery of heathendom by Christian people.

This is a good place to note that many articles in books, magazines, and encyclopedias are written by secular humanists or even the pop-pagans of the so-called “New Age” movement. (An example is the article by Wynn Parks cited above.) These people actively suppress the Christian associations of historic customs, and try to magnify the pagan associations. They do this to try and make paganism acceptable and to downplay Christianity. Thus, Halloween, Christmas, Easter, etc., are said to have pagan origins. Not true.

Oddly, some fundamentalists have been influenced by these slanted views of history. These fundamentalists do not accept the humanist and pagan rewriting of Western history, American history, and science, but sometimes they do accept the humanist and pagan rewriting of the origins of Halloween and Christmas, the Christmas tree, etc. We can hope that in time these brethren will reexamine these matters as well. We ought not to let the pagans do our thinking for us.

Nowadays, children often dress up as superheroes, and the original Christian meaning of Halloween has been absorbed into popular culture. Also, with the present fad of “designer paganism” in the so-called New Age movement, some Christians are uneasy with dressing their children as spooks. So be it. But we should not forget that originally Halloween was a Christian custom, and there is no solid reason why Christians cannot enjoy it as such even today.

“He who sits in the heavens laughs; Yahweh ridicules them” says Psalm 2. Let us join in His holy laughter, and mock the enemies of Christ on October 31.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

Worry is the Absence of Faith and Faith is the Absence of Worry

"Do not worry about your life."
(Matthew 6: 25)
 


So much energy gets wasted on worrying. Worry is a burden that God never intended for us to carry. Worry is not taking God at His word. Worry is sin. Yet many people worry about things they either cannot change or about things that they later find never happened. When facing worry, realize worry is the absence of faith, whereas faith is the absence of worry. Three things are essential to rid oneself of worry.

1. Give it over to the Lord. If you truly have faith in God, then entrust the matter that worries you into God's hands. Believe that God will take care of the issue that is worrying you.

2. Be Confident. This is trusting God at His Word about an issue that worries you. It is a trusting assurance that the Lord will take care of the matter in your life that is worrying you.

3. Be Determined. Since God does not work according to our time schedule. We need to wait on the Lord to resolve the issue that is causing us distress. We need to determine in our hearts by faith. To determine: "deter" -to put off; so determine therefore means to "put off" worry and "press on" in faith trusting that God knows best.


Tuesday, 22 October 2013

The Kindness of this Present, Momentary Suffering?


"the FELLOWSHIP of His sufferings"
(Phil. 3: 10)


1. The REALITY of Suffering.
2. The REVELATION of Suffering.
3. The REWARD for Suffering.
4. The GIFT of Suffering.
5. The GUIDANCE of Suffering.
6. The GOOD that comes from Suffering.
7. The FRUSTRATION of Suffering.
8. The FELLOWSHIP of His Suffering.
9. The FRUITFULNESS of Suffering.
10. The CONSEQUENCES of Suffering.
11. The CROSS of Suffering.
12. The CROWN of Suffering.

 As much as we don't like hardships, pain and suffering are the TOOLS God uses to make a man and woman of God to resemble Christ. And none had suffered quite like Christ did on the Cross. So since Christ came into our world of suffering and pain and experienced it like none ever had, ought we not to count it a privilege in some small way to enter... into "the FELLOWSHIP of His sufferings" (Philippians 3:10)? Those who suffer the most, have the most to give to others. The GIFT of suffering helps us to love, understand, and empathize in a deeper level into what our neighbor is suffering. So let us consider this “momentary [and] light affliction” (2 Corinthians 4:17, Darby Trans.) a KINDNESS in this present life, as opposed to the eternal SUFFERING of hell that we so deserve. He suffered the CROSS for our sins so that we might not suffer the CONSEQUENCES of our sins in hell. When He came into our world, man gave Him a Cross; whereas Christ gave HIMSELF. Now that’s amazing Love. May we never forget that!

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Does Deuteronomy 23: 20 on the Issue of "Usury" Prove that the Bible Favors Jews over Non-Jews?


" Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."
(Deut. 23: 20, KJV)
 

Tonight I met two middle aged men downtown. We had quite a lively discussion about injustices the government and society at large heap upon those with disabilities, and about why these gentlemen discredit the Bible? According to one of these middle aged men, by the name of Calvin, the Word of God can't be trusted because it was written by a bunch of fascist Jews who own the banks that control everything. Also, The Bible can't be trusted because the Roman Catholic Church were responsible for putting together the Word of God as we have it today and is used to control the masses.  

So naturally, I asked him to prove his point by presenting to me evidence to why I should believe his outrageous claim. So he quoted to me two possible passages of Scripture taken from Deuteronomy 23: 28-29 or 28: 28-29 that speaks about how Jews were allowed to exploit non-Jews by charging them "usury" (interest). Since I had a small Bible on me, I looked up the passages Calvin had cited to me. The first thing I noticed was that verses 28-29 does not even exist in Deuteronomy 23, for it ends at verse 25! The actual verses that speaks about "usury" is verses 19-20. Secondly, he said the Deuteronomy passage is the first mention of "usury" in the Bible. This of course is false. The first mention of "usury" in the Bible is found in Exodus 22: 25. The third thing I noticed was the passage he mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 28: 28-29 had nothing to do with "usury." Actually, from what he shared with me about the hardships he had  endured in life due to his disability and his apparent rebellion and animosity towards God and His Word made me wonder if the Lord was rebuking Calvin through Deuteronomy 28: 28-29 that I had read to him.  

Alexander Cruden, the author of Cruden's Complete Concordance defines "usury" as follows:
 

"By usury is generally understood in the Bible any interest on a loan, whether in money or in wheat or other commodities. Modern usage has confined the meaning of the word to an unlawful interest.  

The law of God prohibits rigorous imposing of interest or exacting it, or a return of a loan without regard to the condition of the borrower; whether poverty occasioned his borrowing, or a visible prospect of gain by employing the borrowed goods. 

The Hebrews were plainly commanded  in Ex. 22: 25, etc., not to receive interest for money from any that borrowed for necessity, as in the case in Neh. 5: 5, 7."[1]
 

The word "usury" is used 17 times throughout the Bible. 15 times in the Old Testament and 2 times in the New Testament according to Cruden's Concordance. (See Ex. 22: 25; Lev. 25: 36-37; Deut. 23: 19-20; Neh. 5: 7, 10; Psalm 15: 5; Prov. 28: 8; Isa. 24: 2; Jer. 15: 10; Ezek. 18: 8, 17, 13; 22: 12; Matt. 25: 27; Luke 19: 23.) The specific verse in question that Calvin quotes to demonize Jews is Deut. 23: 19-20. Verse 20 is the primary passage under question. It reads as follows: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it." (KJV). 

 The Jew was the 'lender' while the stranger was the 'debtor.' The stranger was required in the agreed amount owed to pay interest as well to the Jewish lender for the money or item borrowed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines two words in relation to the lender and the one who borrows as follows. The Jew who is a lender is a usurer, "one that lends money esp. at an exorbitant rate." The Jew was required to charge usury that was only fair and reasonable. He was not to over charge interest to the stranger. By the time the New Testament era came, the infamous tax collectors were notorious for charging outrageous amounts of interest. Therefore they were hated by the people of that day. Now the borrower was charged usury. The term means "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use." 

In Matthew Poole's Commentary, he explains why the Jews were allowed to charge "usury" to strangers. He writes as follows:
 

"Ver. 20.  Unto a stranger, i.e. to a person of any other nation, for so that word is generally used, and therefore they who restrain it to the cursed Canaanitish nations seem to do so without any solid or sufficient grounds. And though the word brother is ofttimes used in a general sense for every man, yet I think I may affirm that wheresoever the words brother and stranger are opposed in the Jewish law, the brother signifies the Israelite only, and the stranger signifies any person of what nation or religion soever, whether proselyted to the Jewish religion or not, and so it seems to be meant here. And the reason why usury is permitted to a stranger, not to an Israelite, may seem to be this, because the Israelites generally employed themselves in the management of land and cattle, and therefore could not make any advantage of borrowed money to balance the use they should pay for it; and consequently it may be presumed that they would not borrow money upon use, but for want and poverty, and in that case, and principally for that reason, usury seems to be forbidden to them, as may be thought from Le 25:35,36. But the strangers made use of their money in way of trade and traffic with the Israelites, which was more gainful, and could much better bear the burden of usury, and reap advantage from money so borrowed; and these strangers here spoken of are supposed to be competently rich, and not poor, as may plainly appear by comparing this place with Le 25:35,36, where they are no less forbidden to take usury of a stranger than of a brother, in case of poverty."[2]
 

Authors Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe puts it this way for why Jews could be exempt from being charged usury, whereas Jews could charge usury to strangers.
 

"Of course, usury was not forbidden with strangers (non-Jews), but only with brothers (other Jews). If this seems partial, it is only because the laws forbidding usury on the poor (or one's brothers) were a divinely enjoined act of benevolence, not strictly a matter of business. When it comes to doing business, one is entitled to a reasonable profit on his investment. Since the risk of loss (from non-payment) must be covered, it is just to pay the investor an appropriate amount for his risk."[3]
 

After reading through all 17 passages of Scripture on "usury" in context with Deuteronomy 23: 20 there is nothing indicating unjust partial treatment of Jews over non-Jews. Unless Calvin is able to present indisputable evidence to support his case against the so called accusation he is leveling Against God's Word, he really doesn't have a valid case at all.   

My heart goes out to Calvin in the struggles he is going through in regards to his disability, but that does not in no way excuse him from attacking God's Word without warrant. The only other argument he tried to present was that the Book of Revelations was full of God's wrath and vengeance. That God was a mean tyrant. He fails to understand why the Book of Revelations speaks of God's judgment and wrath. He doesn't realize that God's judgment and wrath comes upon mankind in the last day because of their sin and rebellion against God.




[1] Alexander Cruden, Cruden's Complete Concordance, (Dugan Publishers Inc., Gordonsville, TN, Revised 1986), pg. 717.
[2] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power BibleCD 5. 2), Deut. 23: 20.
[3] Norman L. Geisler & Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008), pgs. 128-129.

Saturday, 14 September 2013

Is Homosexuality a Choice?


by Mark Escalera

Those who hold to a secular, humanistic worldview have a penchant for being inconsistent. However, they are normally consistently inconsistent. Their answers have to change to suit their sinful lifestyles, and when the answers provide or offer tolerance to all (except for true believers), those answers have to change again just like the faulty science or research they want to appeal to in order to try and prove why they are the way they are.

One question that is often asked though is, “When did YOU choose to be heterosexual or homosexual?” They ask what they feel is the perfect question knowing that the answer given will quantify their own sin, grant them the right to be intolerant towards true Christians, and free themselves from the bonds of the laws of God.

So, let’s look at this question. When did I choose my sexual orientation? The question itself is wrong and is completely predicated on the removal of God from the equation.

If we are but a mere by-product of millions of years of evolution, then there would certainly be no “choices” in aspects of life such as sexual orientation and morality. Instead, my DNA or genes would influence who I was. It would then have an impact on my upbringing, environment, education, government, home life, etc., etc. The reason is because Darwinian evolution believes in the continued improvement and betterment of the species of animal known as man.

Thus, if I am merely an animal and one that is continuously evolving, I would be forced to accept that whether I was good or bad would be based on my DNA. This is why Hitler believed he was right to exterminate all peoples that he did not like. He was living out his beliefs.

It is this reason why Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood can operate with impunity in the wanton murder of millions of babies in the mother’s womb. They are acting out the logical conclusions of their belief. Evolution makes us better and abortion simply weeds out the weak and inconsequential in their minds.

Therefore, if I am but an evolutionary blip, then I cannot choose. I could no more choose who I want to have sex with than what morals I wanted to practice. In other words, if my evolutionary genes did not offer me the ability to make moral choices, I could kill with no conscience, or assault another person, and should have the freedom to do so.

After all, we do not kill animals that use their base instincts to kill or assault another animal, so why should we do this with human animals? There must be a level of consistency if we are going to apply evolutionary beliefs and still say that how I live or who I sleep with is not a choice.

However, there is another option. The option has a name and He is God. He alone is God and He will not give His glory to another. He demands worship and praise from all of creation, including man. This is the only God of the Bible.

This belief found in the pages of Scripture approaches the creation of man, not from the aspect of evolution, but from the aspect that God is Who He says He is and that He did what He says He did.
This belief is to be reflected in every aspect of every person who has ever lived. Sadly, sin entered the equation when Adam willfully and deliberately disobeyed God. When sin entered the world, it was passed to all of Adam & Eve’s children and their descendants.

Everything that God made in the beginning was good and with no imperfections. Even Satan was created as Lucifer and he was the highest of all the angelic beings. He worshiped at the foot of the throne of God and sang the praises of God. But pride entered his heart and he was cast from heaven.

He fell to earth and chose to deceive humanity into thinking they could be like God and know good and evil. Everything that God made Satan has tried over and over to make an evil counterpart. For example, God created marriage between one man and one woman until death parts them, but Satan quickly introduced polygamy, sex with children, bestiality, living together outside of marriage and homosexuality, and then persuaded mankind that these would be just as acceptable as long as they were simply committed to a “loving” relationship.

While DNA continues to grow weaker and more diluted from one generation to another, the one constant is that sin remains. It totally engulfs a person and makes them slaves to their depraved nature.

In one sense, man does not choose to make wise and good decisions because he is at enmity with God. Thus a person who practices sin is simply living out what is in their heart. A person can be just as sinful as a heterosexual as a person can be who is a homosexual. Satan seeks to persuade mankind that evolution is the answer and that God’s laws are not the moral basis of how the world is run.

However, there are morals and there are absolutes. God did not create but two genders – male and female. Not man, but God created the institution of marriage, thus He alone has the right to set the rules – one man and one woman for life. Not man, but God created government, thus He alone has the right to demand the rules be honored and obeyed.

In conclusion, this brings us back to the question of when did I choose my sexual orientation. I did not choose because there is nothing to choose. God who sets the rules made me a male. Therefore, He did the choosing for me. He instilled in my heart the desire to marry a woman who would be my companion.

The “choice” that I have is whether I am going to honor the God who created me and live according to what He made me, OR, I can disobey, dishonor, and show my hatred for the Creator by living in a way that evidences my rebellion. Males are designed by God to be the counterpart to females. God did not create males to have sexual relationships with other males, nor did He create females to have sexual relationships with other females.

Further, God did not create man to live outside the boundary of His laws. This means that God established the morals. We do not kill because God said do not kill. We do not commit adultery because God said do not commit adultery. We do not steal because God said do not steal.

As a human being, I am created in the image of God. I am NOT a by-product of evolution or an evolutionary process. I am NOT free to live any way that I want in opposition to God without being willing to pay the price for my sin and folly. I am bound by my conscience that was placed in me by God. I am bound by His laws because God is the giver of all that pertains to morality. I cannot and would not have any morals apart from God giving them because the theory of evolution does not lean towards the production of morality. Morals cannot appear out of thin air, there must be an Originator.

So, to answer from a Biblical perspective – when did I choose my sexual orientation? I did not choose because God made me a male. This means I am hardwired in every way to respond to a female. God does not make mistakes. If a male wants to respond to another male, or a female to a female, or a human to an animal, they can do so, but not because God created them to do so, but because Satan who hates mankind, and hates God even more, has duped mankind into believing that we were born in a certain way and that we do not have to obey God.

Therefore, the real question that must be answered has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is about God. A person in the LGBT community can try to use this question to prove who they are, but they can only do so by appealing to evolution and not God.

The real questions that humanity faces are really about God. Is He real or is He but a figment of a deluded segment of mankind? If He is real, then His laws are just as real and we are bound to obey them or pay the price.

If He is but a figment, then I fear for the world because rape, assault, murder, and sexual perversions will continue and grow worse. Man left to himself will never be good because evolution does not permit man to be good. It requires him to do whatever is necessary to fulfill the mantra of the survival of the fittest.

So, here are the “choices” each reader has to make. Do you obey God or do you obey Satan? Do you believe you are here through random mutations and thus incapable of choosing either your morality or your sexual orientation, or do you believe that God created you in the very image of God?

To be consistent, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in God and believe in evolution. You cannot obey God and obey Satan. You cannot be a good moral person and be a person who holds to no absolute truths. You cannot be a follower of Christ and be a person who willfully breaks His laws.

If you realize in any way that you have hope in something that provides no hope, then I have some additional information that you might like to read.

Before time began, God purposed in Himself that He would provide a means of restoring fellowship with fallen man. He desires to have fellowship just as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden, but He cannot stand to look upon sin. In addition, He told Adam and Eve that if they sinned, they would surely die.

This created a dilemma. How could a holy God look upon sinful man and have that fellowship restored? The answer is so simple that even a child can come to the point where they believe in the truth of God’s Word.

When the time was right (Galatians 4:4), God the Son laid aside His glory and took upon Himself human flesh and became a man (Philippians 2). Coming to this earth, He lived a perfect, sinless life. He did not sin, nor could He sin. John the Baptist saw Him coming across the hills of Judea and said, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

This means that Jesus Christ was willing to fulfill the law in its entirety and to also be the substitutionary atonement for our sins. In order to be able to face God, this substitution means that something or somebody had to die in our place and atone for the wrath of God. So, Jesus Christ went to the cross of Calvary and there took our sin upon Himself and suffered the entire wrath of God so that we do not have to do so if we but confess and repent of our sin while placing our faith in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:21 sums up the wonder of this message. “For our sake (humans) He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in Him (Jesus Christ – God the Son) we (humans) might become the righteousness of God.” What is a further wonder is that the Bible states clearly that WHOEVER wants to come to Christ may come. He will make you a brand new creation and you will no longer be a slave to your sin.