Christians: focus your attention!

Earlier this week, I had an interesting conversation, diagnosing and discussing pressing areas of belief or practise, where Christians need to focus attention unto the future, for the sake of the church. That conversation is what spurred this quick post. In no particular order, five of my top "look here's"  would be:

1. The need for a biblical understanding of saving faith, that sees trust in Christ as the crowing element of saving faith. This is crucial for everything from safeguarding against every works gospel imagined to having assurance of salvation. Those who believe put no confidence in what they have done, but trust in Jesus Christ (who lived, died, was buried, has risen and will return) alone to save them a sinner, resting solely upon  (clinging to) Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and to be counted right before God. We who trust in Christ, that is collective, are a saved people through Jesus Christ.

2. The need to stand up for the historicity of the Old Testament - creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Garden of Eden, a literal Flood, a literal Exodus, etc. It is beyond me how anyone could read the New Testament alone and doubt any of these things are taught in the Bible. Suppression of the Scriptures to accommodate the world shows disdain for Christ's Lordship. Those who under the guise of being "thoughtful Christians" treat God's word no better than a medieval writing, turning the Bible into a theory to be critiqued, are demonstrably dangerous to other Christians and Christianity as a whole. I have never met anyone who has denied a literal Adam and Eve, while showing a love for God's word.

3. A proper view of the severity of sin the holiness of God, and to be more thankful. Justice = Christ did not become man and die on the cross at all - rather you are in hell right now under the wrath of an eternal and holy God who must punish sinners. Who God is and who we are before God is the antidote to the "this isn't fair", "how could God", "where is God" crowd. Be thankful He sends not only rain, but He even sent His Son! We ought promote a greater thankfulness to God for what we do have (and we have a lot to be thankful for), especially undeserved fellowship together as God's people in Jesus Christ, awaiting His return - our best life is not yet.

4. Acknowledgement that Christians are different. The greatest form of antinomianism I see today is the culture that promotes salvation in sin, rather than salvation from sin. Usually be making grave sins or lifestyles matters of Christian Liberty. Those who believe have turned from sin, to submit to the risen Christ as Lord. We are not saved as people who dwell in sin and are mastered by sin - we are new creations in Christ, who purpose to follow Him in duty and gratitude, serving Him awaiting His return - together, as a redeemed people.

5. The urgent need for proper education and accountability. Francis Schaeffer said, "Tell me what the world is saying today, and I'll tell you what the church will be saying in seven years." Theistic evolution? Separation of God and state? Homosexuality is natural? Gender identity? What is next? Welcome to the next generation of Christians, tossed around by atheistic education, where an increasing majority believe or tolerate all four. One century ago, would you believe me if I told you that theistic evolution would be the majority view in many once conservative denominations? We are seeing the same trend on those other issues. Christian children need to be trained to see Christianity as a worldview that actually interprets and assesses the world, they do not need to be trained to see Christianity as irrelevant to or being 'fixed' by the real world.

And "pastors" - please start taking the teaching qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 seriously. If you cannot teach the first five words of the Bible to your congregation, or teach them that God really did create a literal Adam and Eve as husband and wife, you are not "able to teach".

The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 2 – By What Standard?

This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will reiterate that God defines marriage, and He defined it as being between one man and one woman.

In yesterday’s first instalment, I briefly outlined the biblical perspective on homosexuality. Today’s second instalment is an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage. The issue that Ideal with in this article is at the very foundation of the issue: presuppositions.

“Get up” and support Gay Marriage because I think it is “the right thing to do”:

On December 3, the ruling Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a ‘conscience vote’ on the issue of gay marriage. The party voted to in favor of changing their official party doctrine to support gay marriage by a margin of 208 votes to 184. Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, rejected calls for the opposition to likewise hold a conscience vote on the issue. Abbott, who opposes gay marriage said in an interview with Sky News that "the fundamental duty of every politician is to keep his or her commitments”, so because  “every single one of us went to the last election saying marriage is between a man and a woman”, his party will not hold a conscience vote. In the absence of a conscience vote within the Coalition, the bill will be unable to obtain a parliamentary majority, which will mean that gay marriage will remain illegal in Australia.

In the weeks before the Labor Party conference, the Australian left wing lobby group “Get Up” created a public petition promoting gay marriage, which they delivered to the ALP Conference on the day of the conscience vote.

“Get Up” is a group of radical leftists. For example, in 2006, they lobbied the Government to release David Hicks (a terrorist found guilty of providing material support for terrorism) into the Australian community. Although the views of “Get Up” do not represent the majority of leftists on every issue, their advertisement has been very popular among those in favour of gay marriage.

So, according to the campaign, why should gay marriage by legalized? The advertisement used a technique wherein they made the protagonist appear genuine and likeable to force the audience to positively empathize with the protagonist, before it was revealed that he was a homosexual. This is nothing but an appeal to subjective and emotional reasoning.

Suppose that Craig created a home video showing snippets of his life. In the video, you saw Craig enjoying a cruise, laughing at a theme park, playing beach cricket, spending time with his family and helping other people move furniture. Craig so far seems like a genuine and likeable guy. But, in the final scene, he takes a ring out of his pocket, gets down on one knee, and proposes: not to a woman, not even to a man, but to a toddler. You can substitute “toddler” for “dog” or “mother” if you would rather. Do you still think Craig is a genuine guy?

Apart from the proposal being man to man, rather than man to toddler, the “Get Up” add is exactly the same. It proves nothing; the debate on gay marriage is still at square one: is it moral for a man to marry another man (or is it moral for a man to marry a toddler)?

The video concludes with firstly a famous political slogan from the Whitlam era (“It’s Time”) [my American readers can substitute Obama’s slogans about change], then secondly with a plea to “end marriage discrimination”. Said otherwise, the advertisement asserts that “now is the time to legalize gay marriage”. The problem is that “now is the time to legalize gay marriage” is nothing but a subjective opinion. If I were to present the rebuttal of “I disagree”, on what ground could the gay marriage advocate say that their opinion is right, but my opinion is wrong? By what objective moral standard can the gay marriage proponent prove that their position is correct? A subjective opinion is just that.

The ‘Get Up’ campaign slogan is “the overwhelming majority of Australians support full marriage equality and it is the right thing to do”. Why is legalising gay marriage “the right thing to do”? By what objective standard is legalising gay marriage “the right thing to do”? The reason why you cannot think of an answer is because there is no answer. If God does not exist, then absolute morality cannot exist. If God does not exist, no one cannot prove that anything is moral or immoral; in fact morality cannot exist, period. But, proponents of gay marriage are already borrowing from and supressing the Christian worldview in asserting that morality exists.

“Helping other people is ‘the right thing to do’” is only your opinion. “Legalising gay marriage is ‘the right thing to do’” is only your opinion. “Legalising adult to toddler marriage is ‘the wrong thing to do’” is only your opinion.

Only if the God of Christianity who has revealed Himself in the Bible is presupposed, can objective morality exist. Morality expresses the holy and righteous nature of God. Something is moral because it is in conformity to the character of God. Something is immoral because it is not in conformity to the character of God. God’s commands are in conformity to His character. So, according to God, is homosexuality moral or immoral?

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…” – Leviticus 20:13

“Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.” – 1 Timothy 1:9-10

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” – Mark 10:6-9

By God’s standard, the only objective standard, legalising gay marriage is not “the right thing to do”. Homosexuality is a sin. That is the objective truth.

(c) Jonathan Williams, Created December 2011, Updated April 2012.

The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 1 – A Biblical Introduction

This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will begin by noting that God defines marriage, and He defined is as being between one man and one woman.

In today’s first instalment, I will briefly outline the biblical perspective on homosexuality. In tomorrow’s second instalment, I will release an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Then later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage.

The Bible on Gay Marriage:

God instituted marriage at creation to be between one man and one woman:

Genesis 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

God commands marriage to be between one man and one woman:

Matthew 19:4-6 “And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Mark 10:6-9 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.  “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Homosexuality is sin; it is an abomination:

Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those tho lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…”

Romans 1:24-28 “Therefore God gave them over tin the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonoured among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their woman exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural and in the same way also the abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, me with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their sin. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10 “realising the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men, and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”

Jude 7 “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (C.f. Genesis 19:5)

Governing authorities are required to illegalise same-sex marriage:

Governments are instituted by God “for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Peter 2:14). Same-sex marriage is a final hallmark of a sinful nation; God destroyed the exceedingly sinful (Genesis 18:20) Sodom over homosexuality (Genesis 19:5, Jude 7). God commands Governments to restrain sin (1 Peter 2:13-14); in functioning to restrain/punish sin and maintain good order in society (Romans 13:1-4), Governments are to oppose and punish homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27).

Marriage is a creation institution common to both believers and unbelievers – providing a foundation for the continuation and development of society. The ability to have children is intrinsic to marriage (Genesis 1:28). Children are born through a mother and a father. If two men are two women are allowed to marry, that would mean that a child does not need both a mother and a father. Children can only be produced by one man and one woman; children need both a mother and a father (Genesis 2:24). So called same-sex marriages by definition cannot biologically produce children, so cannot be called marriages.

Societies consist of families; families are the building blocks of societies. This has been God’s framework since creation (Genesis 2:24). A society cannot continue or survive without a future generation. To have a future generation is only possible through the reproductive acts of a father and a mother. If procreation is abstracted from marriage, the private and public context for parental responsibility, societal order and the intrinsic responsibility for a biological father to care for his children are removed. Governments must regulate marriage as being between one man and one woman to protect the very foundation of society.

Conclusion:

According to God, marriage is the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. If you define marriage as anything else, you must appeal a standard. By what standard ought marriage by defined by? If marriage is not defined by God, it cannot be defined at all. If governing authorities are not permitted to illegalise so called same sex marriage, then by what standard are they permitted to illegalise incestuous marriage? As Christians, we must begin with God – the very foundation of morality. This point will be demonstrated in our second instalment.

©Jonathan Williams, April 2012.

The Norwegian terrorist is not a 'right- wing fundamentalist Christian'

After the tragic news of the twin terror attacks in Norway on July 22 2011, news outlets throughout the world described the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik as a "right- wing fundamentalist Christian".

1) "Right Wing"

"Right- wing fundamentalist Christian" is loaded description. Firstly, to label him "right wing" without any further clarification is very misleading; such a view of the political spectrum is black and white, therefore inaccurate.

If we used those identical black and white standards used by the media to describe the right wing to likewise describe the left wing, I could just as easily argue "Robert Mugabe is left wing and extremist, Barrack Obama is left wing; therefore Barrack Obama and the entire left wing are extremists." The media's line of reasoning is therefore pure nonsesne.

The misleading journalism did not stop here. The media continued to point out Breivik's severe hatred for Muslims. And may I ask, are the moral beliefs or Islam (i.e. their views on homosexuality) right wing or left wing? If Breivik's views represent those of the entire right wing, then we must conclude that Muslims unequivocally hate themselves! Do not be fooled by the media; Breivik is not right wing, he is an extremist, just like Hitler on the extremist right, and Jong Il and Stalin on the extremist left.

2) "Fundamentalist Christian"

The second part of the phrase 'right wing fundamentalist Christian' is an even more inaccurate description. In fact, it is a blatantly dishonest attack on Christianity from the media, as the fundamentals of Breivik are certainly opposed to Christianity.

A 21st century intellectual said "I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian". That statement is from Christopher Hitchens: a man who vocally speaks out against religion, more accurately represented Christianity that the 'unbiased' media.

Breivik himself stated "If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian." Here, Breivik explicitly confesses that he does not have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God"; therefore by even Hitchens definition, Breivik is "really not in any meaningful sense a Christian". As Breivik does not even understand what Christianity is, how can we expect him to successfully and honestly explain what the "cultural, social, identity and moral platform" is? It is certainly not terrorism.

Furthermore, Breivik denied being religious, confessed that he doubts God's existence, stated that he does not pray. These are not marks of a Christian.

A Christian will keep God's commandments - not ignore them, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15 NASB); a man who doubts the existence of God cannot strive to keep that which he doubts to exist. He certainly does not obey God's command that He be prayed to (Phil. 4:6-7). The Christian does not doubt God, but believes and trusts in God in faith "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". Is doubting the existence of God reconcilable with having assurance that a promise of God will come to pass by God? Breivik obviously does not have faith.

This brings up a third question: because his fundamentals are not Christian, where do his fundamentals come from? Breivik stated ‘As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe".

"Science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings" shows that this man's authority is not God as revealed in Scripture, but is Science as interpreted by man. Holding the science of man as authoritative over the word of God is atheistic - not Christian! Scripture declares that "God created" (Gen 1:1); it is atheism, not Scripture that removes God from creation. Darwinism is athiestic, not Christian; Breivik's authority it atheistic, not theistic. As a self-confessed Darwinist, Breivik is a fundamentalist atheist: not a Christian.　

The terrorist said further "Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities."

It is clearly evident that this man is not Protestant: he described "Protestantism as the Marxism of Christianity" and referred to sola fide as "everything we do not want". Further, he longed to fight crusades under a "Crusader Pope" looking to the Roman Catholic Crusades for inspiration. He believed that those who died would receive an indulgence, and enter heaven for their martyrdom... of course this eternal life will be with the God who probably does not exist and should not be prayed to or obeyed...

3) Final Remarks:
Breivik is neither right wing, nor a fundamental Christian. Politically he is an extremist, period. Religiously he discards creation for evolution, replaces Christian duty with autonomous aggression, rejects sola fide for indulgences and rejects the truth of God for a lie. He is an atheist - not a Christian: atheistic (evolution) not theistic (God as creator). Terrorism is an ungodly result of disobeying God, not the godly result of obeying God. Terrorism is atheistic to its core.

(C) J. Williams, 2011.