Josiah Concept Ministries

Solid and unshakable faith in Christianity begins and ends with one person: Jesus Christ. He made us a promise that I have found has stood the test of time in both my personal life and my marriage:

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it. (Mat 7:24-27)

The rock is important symbolically, for the rock represents God Himself (cf. Deut 32:1-43; 1 Sam 2:2, 2 Sam 22:2, 3, 32, 47, 23:3; Ps 18, 62:2, 6, 89:26; Is 26:4, 44:8). It is therefore of fundamental importance to build your foundation on the rock of Jesus Christ. I cannot stress this point enough.

I call us apologists “God’s cops.” To an extent, that is exactly what we do. We fulfill the functions of a police detective squad in service to the gospel. One thing that police do is chase after fugitives, or attempt to prevent someone becoming a fugitive. Jesus promises that no one will be able to snatch one of His faithful (Jn 10:29). I believe that He fulfills His promises by using us, and so I will pray that Bill from The Friendly Christian reads this post and His faith is strengthened by what he reads.

Bill is having a crisis of faith, not unlike Mother Teresa had. But it seems as though Bill hasn’t properly understood theology, and the people that I’ve read in response to him are either atheists that are pushing him to take the next step and admit that God doesn’t exist, or Christians who are just telling him to have faith because it’ll get better.

This is why I echo James White’s oft-repeated mantra of “Theology Matters.” Bill kicks off his post this way:

I feel like God has blessed/cursed me. I feel like I’m currently able to view Christianity through the eyes of an Atheist. I see the “flaws.” I see the “holes.” The OT God seems much different from the NT God. I see the hypocrisy. (emphasis added)

Bill says that this is unsettling and troubling. Then he adds, “I don’t know why, but I’m just so sold out on God, though” (emphasis added). What is unsettling and disturbing to me is a Christian who can’t answer why he believes in God in the first place. It seems to me that Bill has a very blind faith, and not faith that is based on a contextual definition of faith in the first place.

That Bill thinks the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are different means that he would have difficulty explaining passages like Nahum 1:6 or Numbers 31. But this is not the case when God’s wrath is properly understood side-by-side with His love, not opposed to it! This is the first evidence of a larger problem: Bill really doesn’t have a good foundation for his faith!

Read more »

I have consolidated, edited, and updated the preceding three parts of this series here. Since it has been a while in posting (mostly due to serious computer issues that have crippled my Internet access) it may help to familiarize yourself with what has come before this so that you will be up to date. As sometimes happens, in writing and researching this piece I have changed my mind about the necessity of no physical death prior to the Fall, I now believe that it is possible the Fall only brought on spiritual death. However, I am not at all convinced that God merely breathed a soul into Adam, who prior to that had evolved from the ground up (so to speak). I have made some changes in the articles to reflect this new conviction.

The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.

There is a way to reconcile these points with each other, and for that we need not go any further than our own logic. Read more »

August is one of my wife’s favorite months to have a husband in apologetics ministry.  Her personal theological entertainment is the unbiblical Catholic devotion Mary, especially when it gets weird, like seeing Mary in a drop of chocolate.  So, in honor of my wife, who puts up with a lot for me to conduct this ministry and work full time, I thought I’d look at Steve Ray, Catholic apologist, who has posted some logic behind the Marian dogmas.  Let’s take a quick look.

Follow the logic: 1) The kings of Israel raised their mothers to Queenship which became established as an official office; 2) the mothers were referred to as the Queen Mothers or the Great Lady; 3) they sat on a throne near their sons (1 Ki 2:19); 4) Jesus is the quintessential Jewish King with an eternal kingdom; 5) Jesus is the fulfillment if the Israelite offices of Prophet, Priest & King; 6) As the Davidic king, Jesus would honor his mother more than earthy kings honored their mothers; 7) It is biblical, historical, and reasonable to expect the perfect Jewish king to follow in the stead of the kingdom and his fathers by assuming his mother to a throne at his right hand. It is proper and biblical to consider Mary in a position of intercessor. (source)

Well, item 1 is a leap since we only know of one king that did it.  Item 2 means nothing.  Item 3 again has only one historical example.  Items 4 and 5 I very obviously agree with.  As a side note on item 5, though, if Jesus is the fulfillment of the office of priest, then why do Roman Catholics continue to have priests?  Item 6 is a leap as he pretends to know the mind of Christ, which of course, no human can.  Item 7 has no basis in reality, since it is not reasonable to expect someone who achieves perfection to follow the model of the earthly, sinful kings that came before.  And finally, even if I followed the logic up to item 8, that point is still irrelevant because all that has been argued is that Mary should receive the title of Queen Mother, not that any responsibilities would be conferred upon her.

So, even if the logic of 1-7 washed, would Mary have any responsibilities in this position as Queen of Heaven?  Well, the very Bible that these guys are using to back up the dogmas says that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ.  Therefore, I would have to say that it is unlikely that she would be granted authority that usurps Christ’s authority.

The Reformed Catholic blog, which follows most Catholic teachings but has a decidedly Calvinistic soteriology, has this to say in response to Steve:

Here’s a tip for all our Catholic friends. When you’re defending the traditional doctrines of Catholicism, just admit it. You’re working with traditions. Not biblical doctrine. And you’ve accepted such things by faith in the Magisterium. Whether or not the traditions are present in Scripture is really immaterial. There is no Queen Mother tradition in the Scriptures that would allow you to take these sorts of logical leaps . . . . (source)

This echoes some of James White’s response, here.  But the best part of that post is its conclusion:

I would dearly love to see Rome’s popular, traveling apologists stand up before a live audience and actually defend Rome’s dogmas on this topic. They love to crank out the books and CD’s on the topic, because, quite obviously, they sell. But you won’t find them rushing to defend these things against knowledgable opposition, and for good reason. They know that this kind of argumentation collapses under serious examination, and the only folks who find it convincing in the long run are those who want to believe.

So would I, Dr. White.

I discussed knowing a false teacher/prophet by their fruits in my post about Fred Phelps. Today, we have another shining example in this article. Let’s look at this passage of Scripture:

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (Lk 18:15-17)

The disciples tried to prevent children from coming to Jesus, and Jesus put the smack down on ‘em.  He doesn’t want any child hindered from coming to Him.  Now, based on some of the typical responses (the fact that “theocracy” is used to categorize that post speaks volumes about the poster’s opinion of religion) to this news item, I can honestly say this action would hinder children from coming to Christ.

This ministry is not bearing good fruit.  I state the obvious, I know, but ministries like that are lumped together in the mind of the world, and all Christian ministries end up with the label of “child dragger.”

Finally, I know my title is wrong but I sure couldn’t resist.  Someone had to do that joke.

I encourage everyone to read the full story, linked below, but this excerpt is touching:

We prayed during our family devotions. Talitha (11 years old) and Noel and I prayed earnestly for the families affected by the calamity and for the others in our city. Talitha prayed “Please don’t let anyone blame God for this but give thanks that they were saved.” When I sat on her bed and tucked her in and blessed her and sang over her a few minutes ago, I said, “You know, Talitha, that was a good prayer, because when people ‘blame’ God for something, they are angry with him, and they are saying that he has done something wrong. That’s what “blame” means: accuse somebody of wrongdoing. But you and I know that God did not do anything wrong. God always does what is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand.” Talitha said, “With his pinky.” “Yes,” I said, “with his pinky. Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.” (source)

The bridge tragedy could easily be evidence of God’s judgment and wrath outpouring on mankind. Instead, John Piper focuses on divining the purpose in the tragedy; the message God intends to send the survivors of the incident.

Jesus was brought news that people were suffering and dying even in His time. His response? Repent, or else you will face the same thing.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5)

Jesus tells us that the purpose behind these seemingly senseless acts of God is to simply call the world to repentance.

And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’” (Luke 13:5-9)

This parable seems to imply a limit to the number of chances we get to repent. Bad news for many people I know, good news for others. But a call to Christians everywhere: take each witness opportunity that God grants you and use it to its fullest! You never know if this chance is that person’s last.

Even though I do not endorse Tekton Apologetics Ministries webmaster J.P. Holding’s consistent use of sarcasm and mockery as opposed to loving enemies and praying for the ones who persecute you, I still found this item hilarious beyond words.

I seem to get this same complaint, especially from a guy I work with, that the Bible just isn’t clear.  As Holding observes, the people who say this are just flat out unwilling to approach the Bible on its own terms.  They rant and rave that God should have been more clear in what He revealed to mankind.  Yet after I explain both the clarity and the unique way that each item in the Old Testament foreshadows or is a symbol of an event or a belief in the New Testament, their eyes glaze over and they protest that what I’ve just said makes too much sense for it to be right (Eph 4:18).
A good example would be the time that my atheist coworker asked about the animal sacrifices.  As usual, he asked me why God changed His mind about animal sacrifices.  This guy loves to start the conversation by pointing out that God changes His mind quite a bit, implying that, in reality, people just get tired of religion one way, so they change it by declaring that God no longer wants us to do something.

So I told him that God didn’t change His mind, but instead something better happened.  I explained that Jesus’ death on the cross was full payment of all sins we have, are, and will commit.  I told him that if he took the care to examine the passages in Exodus that describe the care and preparation of a Passover lamb, then compare them to the description of Jesus’ crucifixion in the gospels, followed by the theological exposition of Jesus’ position as High Priest in the letter to the Hebrews, that he would understand why animal sacrifices are no longer necessary.

He didn’t believe me.  Instead, he just scoffed at how convenient all of that was.  In his mind, that was just evidence that these guys planned all of it just to make money.  Just a story, a carefully contrived story, designed to make its authors a lot of money.   Of course, he has no reasonable explanation for why all of the Apostles were very poor and why they were so willing to march to their deaths to proclaim a message that not only wasn’t making any of them rich, but that they knew was a lie.

And, he has also said that the inconsistencies in the story make it badly in need of editing.  Funny how he seems to claim both that the story is too well written, and that isn’t written well enough.

In light of all that, I would like to be the first one to say that I would buy Holding’s bumper sticker if he ever gets around to marketing it:

Every once in a while, I see something online that gives me a dual reaction. I want to be outraged or upset, but I’m not sure if that is the right way to go. Then, part of me sees value in it only for the humor.

I’m talking, of course, about these Jesus action figures. Yeah, you read that right, Jesus action figures. They have Jesus riding a bull at a rodeo, Jesus playing football, Jesus on a Harley, Jesus playing soccer, Jesus surfing, Jesus skateboarding, and Jesus rock climbing.

The two that I question are Jesus begging for food and Jesus dressed in military fatigues carrying a dove. In the toy line, these are titled “I am hope” and “I am peace.”

Jesus begging for food? In the opening verses of Matthew 4, Jesus is tempted by Satan and He refuses to accept physical food, saying that man does not live by bread alone. This teaching is echoed in John 6, when Jesus refuses to give physical food to the followers, saying that it is spiritual food that they are in need of. These points are driven home nicely, albeit in fictional format, in Frank Perretti’s The Visitation (or watch the movie if you don’t like to read). This action figure is not consistent with Scripture.

Another danger of that action figure is the thought of Christ begging in general. People already have this idea–mainly from megachurches and from other places like those that teach extremely watered-down theology–that God through Christ is on His knees begging you to accept salvation. We have this idea that our humanity somehow completes God, or that He for some reason needs us.

Nothing could be further from the truth! It is the other way around. We need Him! He is not lucky to have us on His side, we are lucky that He still makes use of us sinful humans to glorify His name.

As for Jesus in military fatigues, mostly I think that it just gives the outspoken atheists (such as Dawkins and Hitchens) more ammunition in their quest to destroy religion. This just gives them something that they can point to and say, “See! See! The Christians are planning on going to war with the world! Look at this doll! It is one of an entire line! This is what they teach their young. Now, to further illustrate my point, let me play the movie Jesus Camp again.”

There are many conversations in the blogosphere that happen to be going on at the moment that I would like to join, but find myself without the time to do so.  Therefore, I just decided to do a round up of the best that’s out there, and add a few imperfect thoughts to the mix.

First, for those unaware,  Dr. Francis Beckwith, a respected theologian, has recently converted to Roman Catholicism.  I’m no friend of the church of Rome, but everything I have to say can be read here at Dr. James White’s blog.  It’s just so difficult to believe that someone who has spent his life studying the Bible can convert to a religion that preaches so much contrary to the book he professes to love and defend.  As Dr. White says, and as I (a former Catholic) can attest, there is no teaching of God’s grace or forgiveness.

I know I sometimes feel like the adulterous woman in John 8:3-11.  Except that I’m a man.  And I haven’t committed adultery.  That aside, I feel like I’ve laid before God, all my sins and iniquities there for Him to see.  And He says to me what Jesus said: “I don’t condemn you.  Go, and sin no more.”

It’s so powerful, the grace of God.  That He is willing to forgive those children of His who, like me, lay their sins before Him and repent–and then just say to us simply, “Go, and sin no more.”  How many times will He forgive us?  I assume the same number of times that Jesus told Peter to forgive a brother that wronged him: “Seventy times seven times.”  That’s a Hebrew idiom that means “infinity.”

All of this because of Christ’s death on the cross.

Rome doesn’t preach that.  In Rome’s gospel, we somehow have to clean ourselves first, we have to do something to earn our salvation.  Of course, we can never know for sure if we have earned our salvation; that’s the sin of presumption.  Instead, we have to trust  in a repeating sacrifice of the Mass, the “infallible” interpretations offered by the church hierarchy, the sacraments, and (of course) an indeterminate stay in purgatory.  Those may cleanse us of our sins.

Of course, the real gospel message is one of simple repentance and preparedness to do the good works of God: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:8-10, emphasis added).  The Jesus of the gospel saves perfectly, every time (Heb 10:14).  We need no other imperfect sacrifice, offered repeatedly on the altars of Roman Catholic churches everywhere, we only need Jesus (Heb 10:1).

Yet, Dr. Beckwith appears to believe otherwise.  I suppose we should pray that God will reveal His truth to Dr. Beckwith in His time, and that this move will demonstrate God’s glory in a way that would not otherwise be possible.  God does make all things work together for the sake of His people (Rom 8:28).

DefCon–an organization for the Defense of the Constitution–is taking on Dr. Ken Ham’s upcoming Creation Museum by circulating two petitions, one for academics and one for ordinary citizens, but to what purpose I cannot ascertain by reading the petition.  It only calls for opposition to the Creation Museum, not to shut it down.  It doesn’t even ask us to boycott it.

Ham has answered the critics on his blog several times by repeatedly using the catch phrase “They haven’t even visited it.”  Yeah, Doc, but they already know our arguments as literal-Genesis guys, same as we know their arguments as evolutionary biologists, right?  So they can guess what is in there.  Same as I can hazard a guess as to what would be in an evolutionary museum.

Aren’t both of us just yammering away the same way?  I mean, evolutionists say that evolution must be true because God didn’t create it, look at the similarities between species, look at the evolutionary tree, etc., etc.  It must be true because the alternative is God!

The creationists do the same thing.  It must be true because the Bible says so, we can explain similarities between species by common design, God’s law and judgment doesn’t exist with 4.6 billion year old Earth, etc. etc.  It must be true, because the alternative is evolution!

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King.  So what?  I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe.  I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, but perhaps in the case of Young vs. Old, we just don’t have enough evidence from either side to rule out any possibilities.

Logic forces me to believe in a Creator simply because an infinity of past events leading to the present isn’t possible.  “Infinity” is a concept, not a number to be used in equations.  Time is merely the result of this universe, specifically, planetary bodies orbiting large centers of gravity create what we know as “time.”  Before that, there was no duration, aging, or anything else associated with the passing of time.  God, existing in this eternity, created the universe (and with it, time).  It only makes sense that the Creator of something was never subject to it, since “it” didn’t exist before the Creator created it.

The challenge as a Christian becomes preaching sin, death, and judgment when we know that these concepts are tied to the Fall, but (in an Old Earth model) not unique to the Fall.  The position of Ken Ham and the entire AiG crew is to teach a literal account of Genesis, support a Young Earth model, and thus maintain the integrity of God’s Word.

I, as a Young Earth creationist, believe that some room must exist for science to work its wonders.  Why can’t there be a reconciliation between what one teaches, and the other says?  Many Old Earth creationists believe in the tenets of sin and judgment, and know why death occurs in relation to the Fall, just fine and dandy without having to be Young Earth creationists.

Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out.  Of course, being an apologist, I hate wavering on any Biblical issue.  As the defender of God’s truth, I should have a position to defend.  Wavering doesn’t bode well for me.

Of course, I think it does if my motive is to come to the truth of what God is teaching.  I believe that the Christians out there will sympathize with that, but the atheists will see this as a weak point and fire both barrels at it.

And on a weird note, Westboro Baptist Church is getting sued for having a parody video on their website of “We are the World.”  That was such a cheesy song, but it did so much good for the world.  And, of course, that was back when Michael Jackson was cool.  Westboro is now using it to spread their message of hate.

The parody version, “God Hates the World,” is still available on the cult’s web page and the lawyers have issued statements that say it won’t come down.  Let the pissing contest begin!

Hmmm… Interesting title for a worship song.  Do their Bibles not have John 3:16 in it?  That is assuming they actually read the Bible, of course.

I’m writing this entry because a lot of what is contained herein needs to be said, and it needs to be heard by Christians who are confused by the whole issue of homosexuality. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this issue. It is quite the hot potato within the church today, and I have made it perfectly clear that I believe with all of my heart that the church is handling this issue in the worst possible way. What I have not made clear is the appropriate way to handle this issue, because a way to handle the issue never presented itself.

First, let me make it clear that I do not accept that homosexuality is “normal.” I do not believe that it is inborn, either: we are not born gay, nor are we born straight. I will cover that momentarily. I believe that it is a perversion of the plan God has set forth in marriage, and I believe that the Scriptures that condemn it are quite clear on this fact. There have been many attempts by gay theologians and “gay Christian” activists to muddy the clear teaching of Scripture in this regard.

Some people may not be familiar with the Scriptural arguments in favor of homosexuality, so I will pause here to briefly explain them. There are six main Scriptures to which the gay community refers to as the “clobber passages.” They are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Pro-gay theologians have argued that these passages don’t really condemn gays, and that modern people are misinterpreting them.

Gay theologians say that the passages in Leviticus merely refer to temple prostitution and ritual sodomy, not the loving relationship shared by modern gay couples. This is probably going to surprise many people, but I’m actually not going to argue with that statement. The book of Leviticus was devised as a holiness code for priests, and it is only fitting that such a statement is referring specifically to that practice, and not to a loving relationship between people. I therefore agree that this is misused to clobber gays.

Deuteronomy is a suzerainty treaty between God and the nation of Israel. Between God and a specific nation that existed in a specific time–the physical descendants of Abraham, not the spiritual ones. Modern Christians, the spiritual descendants of Abraham, can refer to this book to identify the sorts of practices that God disapproves of, such as homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc., but also can reason that some of these things are not applicable today. There is much theological debate about what parts are still applicable and what parts not, so we cannot say for certain here that we should condemn homosexual behavior on the basis of Deuteronomy.

I can say, with a degree of certainty, that it stands up to reason on the basis of this passage and of the account of marriage between one man and one woman (Gen 2:23-24) that a strong case against homosexuality can be made. The honest gay theologian should at least be able to agree with me on that point.

Leviticus, a holiness code for priests, and Deuteronomy, a suzerainty treaty that is no longer in effect because of the disobedience of Israel, are hardly the most appropriate books of the Bible to use to condemn this behavior. They are important to discern which behaviors are acceptable to God and which are not, but they cannot be used the way that many Christians today try in regard to homosexuality. It then becomes open season for the detractors to throw out the ridiculous rules contained in these books, pointing out (rightly) that if we have dispensed with those rules, why not this one? I’ll cover why we should not soon, but for now, let’s look at the Pauline passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy as a group, because the same primary argument is used in an attempt to toss both of them out wholesale: the Greek words μαλακός (malakos) and ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs).

The pro-gay argument is that latter word has an unclear meaning, and that it is only ignorance that would have us translate the word as “homosexuals.” But this translation really isn’t far off if one pays close attention to the context:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Cor 6:9-10]

What is translated “men who practice homosexuality” here in the ESV are two Greek terms, μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης. The former literally means “soft,” and the latter is subject to much etymological debate. Can we ever know what Paul meant by these words, or is the meaning obscured by time?

Pay attention to the list itself: notice that it is divided into categories: sexual sins, covetousness, and finally, “white collar.” We have good reason, therefore, to believe that ἀρσενοκοίτης has a sexual connotation, since it follows sexual sins. It precedes sins of coveting, which could imply some sort of envy.

This fits homosexuality perfectly: they envy the rights granted heterosexual couples who marry, especially in today’s society. Therefore, putting this sin between sexual sins and sins of coveting is a nice fit. But this still doesn’t address another concern of the gay community: why did Paul use these terms instead of the most common Greek term describing homosexuality?

I believe that there are two reasons. First, the common term would have brought to mind the common practice of the day: an older man taking a young boy under his wing (among other things) to educate him and “make him a man.” Essentially, that term would condemn only this practice, not homosexuality in general. Paul wanted to use language that would have condemned all homosexuality, not just the practice of the day. He wanted terms that were more generic, terms that would survive the times. Why those particular words were chosen leads me to the second point.

The second reason is that Paul was trying to be descriptive of how a homosexual couple actually works. This way, he condemns both parties in the couple, not just one or the other. Nowadays (and I can assume in Paul’s day as well), gay couples consist of a “top” and a “bottom.” The top fills the role of the man, he is the one that “goes into” or “knows” the other, to put it King James language (ἀρσενοκοίτης implies a strong man and a marriage bed). By contrast, the bottom fulfills the role of the woman; he is “went into,” so to speak (the literal translation of μαλακός is “soft,” which fits the implied meaning nicely). Put another way, had Paul been writing today, he may have written “neither the sexually immoral, people who worship things of this world, cheats, homosexual ‘tops’ and ‘bottoms,’ thieves, money grubbers, drunks, crooks, nor embezzlers will inherit the Kingdom.”

This same argument works for the translation of 1 Timothy 1:10.

The pro-gay argument against the passage in Romans is that this refers to lustful relationships, not pure loving relationships. While I can’t disagree with this argument in spirit, since it does match the context of Romans 1, there is one flaw in this reasoning. Everything mentioned in Romans is going against God’s plan, God’s natural order of things. This implies that the gay theologian understands that God has the right to order creation as He sees fit. The gay theologian must also accept the Bible as the Word of God, the same way I do. It is standard practice to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. So, are there any Scriptures that set a natural order to sexual relationships?

Of course there are! Genesis 2:21-24 tells us that God took a part of man to make woman, and that in order for a man to be whole again requires a woman, not another man. The same is also true for women. This account is confirmed by Jesus in Matthew, when the Pharisees ask about divorce laws. We can then assume that Jesus also intended marriage to be between a male and a female, not between members of the same sex.

I think that I have established that homosexuality is, indeed, a sin. It violates God’s natural order and has been consistently taught against in crystal clear Bible passages. The issue here is not weather a gay person is born or made, nor weather God still loves them or not; the bottom line is “According to the Bible, is homosexuality a sin?” I don’t think that any reasonable argument can be proposed contrary: homosexuality is a sin.

The problem I have lies in articles like this, from Dr. James White yesterday:

Homosexuals are suppressing the truth of God in their lives. It is a difficult thing to wrestle constantly with your conscience, to put out so much effort into convincing yourself that your sin is good, to call light darkness and darkness light. It is toilsome. Because of their state, homosexuals are particularly angered by anyone who would say “homosexuality is unnatural; it is directly opposed to God’s creative order, it is sinful, life-destroying, and God demands you repent from it.” And so, they are willing to lend their considerable financial (and hence politically powerful) support to any politician who will help them to suppress such speech, or to put it bluntly, to give them super-rights. They wish to be able to say, and do, anything at all: but, at the same time, they are willing to see the rights of others, especially their free-speech rights, denied. [source]

Again, I agree with Dr. White’s statements here. But the last statement ignores the fact that Christians, despite having God’s truth on our side, are no better than the homosexuals in our treatment of them. We somehow act like homosexuality is some kind of unforgivable sin, when some of us are guilty of it (and worse) in our lives. We treated these people, who want nothing more than equal rights with everyone, like dirt–as if their sin is somehow contagious. Adulterers, drug addicts, gamblers, and even child molesters are given second chances in church without batting an eyelash. Why not homosexuals? Why are they treated as some sort of heart-hardened unrepentant group that is seeking to destroy us?

To that end, I can’t say that I disagree with Lynette1977 in this post, where she asks the ultimate question: Why do gays stay in a religion that calls for their persecution? Christianity doesn’t call for the persecution of gays, but is it any wonder Lynette and others believe that it does? Look at the way Christians–even prominent apologists like Dr. White–behave toward gays!

The problem is that we’re putting the cart before the horse. The only existing condemnation for homosexuality is the Bible. I’m not denigrating the Bible’s importance, but I am trying to point out that fewer and fewer people are accepting it as a source for morals. This is the real problem that we, as Christians, must address first. We need to call for society to come back to a Biblical understanding of morals and creation first, then we can reason with them from Scripture to understand why something like that is wrong through God’s eyes.

To that end, organizations like Answers in Genesis are very worthwhile causes to support. Dr. Ham works tirelessly to promote a better and more Biblical understanding of the world.

Christians have lost the focus we once had on discipleship: building relationships with people without judging their lifestyle, and leading them to God’s truth through the Bible rather than trying to slap their faces with it.

So what’s my recommendation for dealing with the homosexual? Well, evangelize him or her the way you would anyone else, and then live your life according to God’s commands. Talk about it. Show them from the Bible why you do what you do. Let the Word of God speak for itself. If that person is truly motivated to shed the harmful behavior out of reverence for a new faith in Jesus, then great! You won a convert, you have a new disciple, and you didn’t even have to give away a new car to do it!

In short, I believe in relationships being the key to solving this problem, changing it one heart at a time, not proselytizing the entire group. As individuals accept Christ, Christ will motivate them to change in His time. Meanwhile, as for legislative measures to legalize gay marriages, I don’t see that we have other choice: “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” [Mat 5:39]. It is obvious that God is sending our gay brothers and sisters a powerful delusion, so let’s not resist that overall. Let’s instead fight it by living the lives Jesus called us to live, and show the ones God draws to Himself how to do the same. Just like Proverbs also states. Pray for the wisdom to discern the difference.