Unteachable?

NOTE: I underline for emphasis. All emphasis is mine.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thessalonians 5:21)

Well, it’s not the first time I have been called “unteachable,” and I am certain it won’t be the last.

What is the problem?

I demand proof — not assertions. I also demand that competency be demonstrated in the English language and in knowledge of the Scripture. Additionally, honesty is paramount, along with a strong sense of respect for the rights of others. What this means is you do not take the materials of others and appropriate them for your use, not acknowledging they are not your own. Moreover, when using the material of others, citation is given as to the author and publisher. Failure to abide by the foregoing will certainly cause me to lose respect for whosoever it is that is attempting to teach me. This is when I become “unteachable.”

What I was told was this:

Paul, your spirit is unteachable, and I”m(sic) no longer going to bang my head against the wall for someone who has no respect for me. ((http://www.reproachofmen.org/blog/?p=788&cpage=1#comment-1370))

And:

You are unbelievable. Paul, I have a feeling you have to be right and argue about everything. That is a sign of an unteachable spirit. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 13 Feb. 2009))

Of course, there is a reason for my “unteachable spirit,” which is duly noted above and in my personal testimony. When I was saved back in 1996, I determined that I would never be deceived again — and I have steadfastly, rigorously tested everything that I encounter. Initially, I had a learning curve which coincided with my learning of the doctrine. However, as time has gone on, I have come to know why certain doctrines, no matter how they are presented, are inherently wrong. Additionally, I have also learned when someone is dodging questions and not being honest with the Scripture.

Of course, my willingness to listen and understand what they are teaching diminishes greatly when I am given “correction” like the following:

No Paul, my analogy is not saying we control God, really bad understanding of my analogy. God controls our decisions to further his will. Our will is the hand and God’s will is the glove, His will and purpose are behind our decisions. We can’t make a decision with out God’s will and purpose being behind it, hense(sic) the glove over the hand. Why did you erase all the evidence that refuted your commentary? When are you going to give scripture reference to your view of foreknowledge? When are you going to explain how one receives Jesus by grace alone without merit according to your foreknowledge view? ((http://www.reproachofmen.org/blog/?p=579&cpage=1#comment-1328))

In looking at Aaron’s analogy of the hand and the glove, I really have to raise the question of which is in actual control: the glove — or the hand. The fact that a glove covers a hand does not and cannot change the reality that it is the hand which is in control. The glove has no actual ability to influence what the hand does, it simply is a slave to the hand — which was my point to Aaron. However, as you can plainly see, he missed it totally. The problem here is the analogy stinks, especially for the point Aaron is attempting to make.

As for the erasing of the commentary, I didn’t. It was held in Moderation until I decided what to do with it. The reason I could not decide what to do was the comments were plagiarized. There was absolutely no citation or acknowledgment that the comments made belonged to someone else, and were being appropriated for use as “Comments.” This is theft of intellectual property. This was not the first instance either. Back when this whole debate started some months ago, Aaron plagiarized R.C. Sproul’s work, and when called on it, blew it off with this remark:

First, I never claimed the questions to be originally to be my own, Second, Who cares if the commentary did not come from me originally, where the truth comes from is irrelevant if I believe the content. ((private e-mail dated 24 Nov. 2008))

To which I replied:

You have a very real problem that you don’t even see. Using or sending material that you do not cite the source, and allowing someone to think it is your own is called “plagiarism” and it is fundamentally dishonest. Everyone who has ever gone through school and written any paper that used other sources has been instructed as to what constitutes plagiarism, and that it is fundamentally wrong. It constitutes intellectual theft of property.

What is even more distressing is that you don’t see a problem with appropriating other people’s material as your own. This is very disturbing and indicates plainly that you have no problem with dishonesty. None of this is “irrelevant” and is not mitigated in any way by whether you agree with the authors of the material or not. You took of their labor, and appropriated it for your own, passing it off as your own after citing J.I. Packer, which means that you knew you should cite your sources. ((e-mail to Aaron dated 24 Nov. 2008))

To which I received the following reply:

I’m not in school writing a paper for you to grade, therefore, in the future I will recite the source if that makes you happy. I did not realize this was important to you. Again, I was not in any form trying to take credit for anyone’s work, just giving you information that I agree with and asking you to respond. If I gave that impression I apologize. If I believe in the content, what does it matter where it comes from? If I can copy and paste someone elses commentary that I believe in and save typing time, whats wrong with that. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 24 Nov. 2008))

When I pushed for an acknowledgment of wrongdoing in the midst of addressing a closely related issue, I received the following:

Still waiting for you to respond to my foreknowledge/predestination and Romans Chapter 9 emails, quit dodging PAUL and answer the emails. Who is plagiarizing? Not me, I have sited(sic) all my sources professor Davis. Quit shifting the attention on false non-issues and answer the emails that are fatal to your theology. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 26 Nov. 2008))

The supposed “false non-issue” is a reference to the thread of discussion in which I pressed for an answer to the following contradiction in Calvinist/Reformed doctrine:

Even though you cannot seem to see the inherent contradiction in this (Just like you cannot seem to see how plagiarism is theft and wicked sin.):

“People make decisions for themselves. OK Paul, Good. People are responsible for the decisions they make,”

and

“WHO DECIDES? GOD DOES, AND HE DOESN’T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.”

We will go on, specifically since you stated the following:

“Ok, Good. Every decision a person makes good or evil fulfills God’s will.”

So, this was all God’s will:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea , hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons . And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:1-8)

By your words, it was the will of God that Adam fell, and sin entered into the world. Correct? ((e-mail to Aaron dated 26 Nov. 2008))

Now, for those who are familiar with Mormonism and the Book of Mormon, my question should ring a bell. Additionally, if we understand the point of the question, we will understand that this is one of the core issues of Calvinist/Reformed doctrine concerning salvation. It is not, as Aaron claimed, a non-issue. Nonetheless, my bringing up again the unresolved issue of Aaron’s plagiarism touched a nerve, and I was called “professor Davis” in reply.

After cutting communication with him and rebuking him sharply, he finally sent this “apology” of sorts:

I did not realize I was not being honest and decent ,and discussing docrine(sic), I am willing to do that. We got on the wrong foot some how, I apologize for my part. I would like for you to respond to this email and the others. Thank you ((e-mail from Aaron dated 1 Dec. 2008))

To which I replied:

Do you understand how wrong plagiarism is? And that one should never do it, no matter how much you agree with the source?

The only exception to this rule is to protect the identity of an individual that may not, or does not wish to have their name published. Obviously, this does not apply to published materials. When I quoted you in the blog post, I did not name you expressly, only stated that “a Calvinist” sent me an e-mail. That way, you were cited without focusing on your name, only on what you said. ((e-mail to Aaron dated 1 Dec. 2008))

And I also sent another letter to him detailing the problem with Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps, where they outright lied about a meaning to an underlying Greek word:

My larger point here was that Westboro lied – outright lied. Westboro claimed that a meaning didn’t exist, when it plainly does exist. Once you lie, it really doesn’t matter about your argument. Bald-faced lying will kill any credibility one has. I could have ended the whole series about Westboro with the point below, and been fully justified.

My second point was this:

“Since we now know that outright distortion of the meaning of passages and verses is not beyond them . . .”

If someone will lie about one thing, especially something so obvious, what else will they lie about and distort? Why should I believe anything Westboro Baptist Church says?

If we want to discuss whether the context of the passage is “all men everywhere” or only “the elect,” that is a separate discussion altogether. ((e-mail to Aaron dated 1 Dec. 2008))

Aaron then agreed that he knew plagiarism is wrong:

1) Yes, I know plagiarism is wrong. 2) My intentions were not to plagiarize, but to simply challenge your views with other people’s commentary that I believe refute your thinking. My mistake was not telling you in advance my sources, which I have since aplologized(sic) for. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 1 Dec. 2008))

However, I should have known that he was not sincere, and that plagiarism is the normal mode of operation for him as is shown by the comments referenced above that are plagiarized. They were posted in late December well after he stated he knew what plagiarism was and that it is wrong. The comments can be found here and here.

The long and short of this is that I am “unteachable” when someone has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt they are a thief and a liar. I simply refuse to take anything they state with anything other than a grain of salt. Why should I accept what they say? If I allow myself to receive “teaching” from a thief and liar, then I too will become like the thief and liar. The Scripture tells me that. Before I will believe any man, I will look to Scripture for my instruction. I expect everyone else to do the same.

I do not expect anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it or write it. Rather, I expect it to be tested and rigorously examined by the standard of Scripture. I firmly believe that, if I am correct, the LORD will confirm it without question in His word. In this sense, I expect everyone else to be “unteachable” as well. After all, the Scripture, the word of God instructs us with the following:

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:45)

And again:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:19-21)

And yet again:

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 3:13-17)

The reason for this is summed up in the following statement by the Lord Jesus Christ:

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:47-48)

Hence, whether anyone listens to me or not, a failure to adhere to the Scriptures will cause one to be judged and condemned by the very Scriptures they failed to pay heed to and handle properly.

As for Aaron, well . . . . he obviously thinks he has something in him folks want as this statement was in one of the final comments he left:

There are people that are starving to have what is inside of me. ((http://www.reproachofmen.org/blog/?p=788&cpage=1#comment-1370))

Oooo-kay. It’s breathtakingly arrogant, but if you believe it . . . . . . . . . . Hell awaits.




An Open Letter to Matthew Vines

Please note that all Scripture references are King James Version, 1769 Edition

Mr. Vines,

It quite plainly appears that you think you have a case for seriously contending that Scripturally there is nothing wrong with sodomy and “long-term” same gender physical relations. You also believe you have proved that someone can be a sodomite and be a genuine, Bible-believing Christian as well. I would like to address those issues with you, and point out to you that you have been less that honest in your interpretation of what the Scripture states.

But before addressing those issues, I would posit to you that perhaps attempting to overthrow 4000+ years of Scriptural teaching is likely not a good idea. Perhaps the arrogance and ignorance of youth is at play here, but that really doesn’t matter. You are an “adult” and you should know better. I read the transcript of your presentation, and it amounts to a screed (that is all I can properly call it). I state that about this presentation where you spoke at a Methodist church in Kansas, as the transcript is full of illogic and supposition, half-truth and some outright lies. What was presented contains such understanding as the following:

“The second problem that has already presented itself with the traditional interpretation comes from the opening chapters of Genesis, from the account of the creation of Adam and Eve. This story is often cited to argue against the blessing of same-sex unions: in the beginning, God created a man and a woman, and two men or two women would be a deviation from that design. But this biblical story deserves closer attention. In the first two chapters of Genesis, God creates the heavens and the earth, plants, animals, man, and everything in the earth. And He declares everything in creation to be either good or very good – except for one thing. In Genesis 2:18, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” And yes, the suitable helper or partner that God makes for Adam is Eve, a woman. And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men – for straight men. But for gay men, that isn’t the case. For them, a woman is not a suitable partner. And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men—for gay men, it’s another gay man who is a suitable partner. And the same is true for lesbian women. For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner. But the necessary consequence of the traditional teaching on homosexuality is that, even though gay people have suitable partners, they must reject them, and they must live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own. We are now declaring good the very first thing in Scripture that God declared not good: for the man to be forced to be alone. And the fruit that this teaching has borne has been deeply wounding and destructive.”

“This is a major problem. By holding to the traditional interpretation, we are now contradicting the Bible’s own teachings: the Bible teaches that it is not good for the man to be forced to be alone, and yet now, we are teaching that it is.”

So you believe that when it teaches in Genesis, chapter 2, verses 18-24 that it is “not good for man to be alone,” it is actually the teaching of ‘not having someone to share a life with?’ Moreover, you assert that the “traditional interpretation” creates a conflict in Scripture because “gay people” are forced to be alone contrary to what the LORD stated when He made man.

The Creation of Man
While you focus on the aspect of woman being an help meet, (proper) for man, and then argue that this is not true for sodomites – you do so totally and willfully ignoring actual issues in the passage. While the traditional interpretation of the passage is correct, and that is what you are arguing against, traditional teaching about the passage never really gets to the “why” of it all.

It comes across that your thinking is as follows: After the LORD God made man, He suddenly realized that man really shouldn’t be alone. After all, that is tantamount to what you argue. Consider the following passages and the bearing they have on the situation on earth, after Adam is created, but before Eve is brought out of Adam:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8)

And again:

…(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.(Romans 4:17)

So when did the Lord Jesus Christ die on the cross? In the minds of men it was 2000 years ago. But not in the heart and mind of the LORD God. In the heart and mind of the LORD God, Christ died on the cross in eternity past. Just as Abraham has always been the father of many nations – even before Abram was ever conceived. You should notice that “be not” is future tense, and “as though they were.” is past tense. By this, the LORD God made plain that His view is not the same as ours, and there are no surprises for Him.

So, what does this have to do with “an help meet” for Adam? Perhaps the following will enlighten the situation somewhat:

Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.(Matthew 22:28-30)

So, what is the great distinction between man and angels other than angels are soul and spirit, and man is soul, spirit and body? Perhaps you should consider that all the angels were created all at the same time? Should you not also consider that the angels do not procreate – that they do not produce offspring? It is quite plain in Scripture that there are no successive generations of angels. Hence, marriage is neither necessary nor appropriate for angels – they are genderless.

But it is not so with man. Rather, man is unique. Whereas animals are spirit and body (as everything is spiritually driven), [Hebrews 1:1-3; Luke 19:38-40; Ecclesiastes 3:21 – KJV, please] and angels are soul and spirit, man is made in the similitude of God and is a tri-unity of parts to make a whole (The LORD God is a tri-unity of Persons, yet one God – which is far beyond what man is or can be.) Howsoever, not to get off point, man has a component that is like the animals in that he is physical and hence, like the animals, must reproduce in successive generations.

Of course, you should now realize that the LORD God knew all this in eternity past.

Since it is patently obvious that angels are strictly spiritual and cannot manifest physically unless the LORD God commands them and enables them to do so, it is impossible for angels to be an “help meet” for man. Hence, that leaves the animals, which are physical. But, is any animal really a suitable companion and help proper for man? After all, man is made in the image and likeness of God in five identifiable aspects:

  1. Man is a tri-unity of parts: Soul, spirit and body. The LORD God is a tri-unity of Persons: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost (Though there are orders of magnitude difference here, the pattern is the same.)
  2. Man has Free-will.
  3. Man has the innate ability to Judge.
  4. Man is Creative. Man creates out of that which already exists (ex-aliquid (which is out of something or pro-creation)) (the LORD God does it ex-nihlo (out of nothing) – again orders of magnitude difference, but the same pattern – a shadow of the power of the LORD)
  5. Man has the moral imperatives: Grace, Mercy, Compassion, Forgiveness and Love

This gives rise to several questions about why an animal was not chosen as an help proper for man:

1. Which of the animals have any of these readily identifiable aspects?

  • a. Which animal has free-will? (this is best illustrated by the animal’s ability to defy its instinct and act differently from the expected, normal response.) (I do know you will point to the rare cases of supposed “same gender” behavior among animals to justify your behavior and say it is “normal” while ignoring the fact that animals are driven expressly by hormones and instinct.)
  • b. Which animal has the ability to discern what something is, not just what it appears to be?
  • c. Which animal is creative? Where are the inventions of animals?
  • d. Which animal has and expresses the moral imperatives?

2. Hence, what species of animal would prove a suitable and proper help for Adam?

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18-20)

It is apparent that no animal was created on the same order as man. Though physically, man shares some common traits with all other living things, the order in which those things are arranged makes all the difference. After all, helium and lead share all the same particles in their respective atoms, but I don’t think you want to have trace amounts of lead in your lungs, whereas you breathe in trace amounts of helium daily with no discernable harm. Moreover, in its normal state lead is a very heavy metal, while helium is a very light gas. They are radically different in physical characteristics, but made of the very same particles, just differently arranged.

That understanding comprehended, we must consider that for man to exist beyond the person of Adam himself, two things must happen:

  1. There must be a means of reproduction, of successive generations.
  2. That help must be proper for Adam, that is, complementary to him.

Hence, no animal was or is, suitable. Now, it is manifest that Adam, of himself, cannot produce successive generations. Moreover, the law of procreation is to bring forth “after their kind,” meaning only of the same species:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25)

This ‘order of things’ is ordained of the LORD God for the reproduction of the species, originally to populate the earth, and after the fall, to have successive generations. Physically, this is the only way it can be. Hence, by this design, there exists a male and female of each higher order of species. This is amply illustrated when the LORD commanded Noah to build the ark for the preservation of life during the Deluge.

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. (Genesis 6:19-20)

Thus, it is quite apparent that only another of the race of man, yet able to produce offspring with Adam, is necessary, as it is part of our physical design. Moreover, this “help meet” (help ‘proper’) must be complementary to Adam. This the LORD God knew in eternity past. Yet, the LORD did this exercise with Adam for two distinct and clear purposes:

  1. To demonstrate to all, that though man shares a basic commonality with the animals, man is not an animal, but is far beyond the animals, being made in the image of God. ((There is a curiosity here. It pertains to the whole issue of using animals to justify human behavior, seeing that animals are not made in the image of God, but man is. Why is it that those promoting same-gender relationships cannot use reason to understand that man’s iniquity and sin have adversely affected the animals as well? Just as man cannot reproduce using same-gender relations, neither can the animals. The instances of such in nature are not endemic to any species and are prejudicial to the continuance of the species, just as it is with man.))
  2. Adam has dominion over the earth. It is his. Hence, his first act of dominion is to name all creatures under his dominion. This is a basic right and prerogative of kingship.

Nonetheless, man is also subject to the limitations of the physical, and must fill the earth with his kind, and like the animals, produce successive generations. After the Fall, this becomes critical to the survival of the species of man, as Adam’s generation will pass (death being introduced by the transgression of Adam), as will all successive generations. If no offspring are produced for only one generation, the species ceases to exist. Thus, the LORD God performs an act of procreation, that is, producing out of an existing kind. The following passage provides the detail of the event for our understanding of the order of things, that is, how they are to be.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:21-24)

Here we plainly see that the woman was formed out of the man, and thus shares all characteristics of being made in the image of God, being made out of a portion of the man. Genetically, this difference is expressed in that males have a Y chromosome, and females do not. Moreover, the woman being made out of the man, is not the dominant individual, though she shares many characteristics which would allow her to become dominant. To this, the Scriptures speak expressly:

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (I Corinthians 11:8-10)

And again:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (I Timothy 2:12-14)

Hence, the woman fulfills several vital and important roles in the order of things, being formed expressly for the purpose of assisting Adam in the administration of the earth. Hence, this basic understanding also grasped, we should then understand the import of the command given to Adam by the LORD God:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)

Now, I have to ask, seeing the LORD God repeated this same command to Noah and his family:

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. (Genesis 9:1)

How precisely do sodomites (same-gender intimate relations) fulfill the command of the LORD God to “be fruitful and multiply?”

Moreover, though the LORD God could have brought another male out of Adam, He didn’t. Why is that, seeing He knew that man would fall into iniquity and sin?

Doesn’t this give rise to questions about turning over the order of things the LORD God set in place? Yes, I have read what you claim – that the Fall changed everything:

“But not only are they all negative, from the traditional viewpoint, they gain broader meaning and coherence from the opening chapters of Genesis, in which God creates Adam and Eve, male and female. That was the original creation – before the fall, before sin entered the world. That was the way that things were supposed to be. And so according to this view, if someone is gay, then their sexual orientation is a sign of the fall, a sign of human fallenness and brokenness.

While you do not expressly state this in the above quote, you clarify what you mean later on in your presentation:

“But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with.”

Strange you should make that argument, seeing that it is manifestly impossible for procreation between those of the same gender to take place, either pre- or post-Fall. Even among the animals it does not happen that an entire species turns to same gender procreation. Since the LORD God reiterated the command to Noah and his sons after the Deluge, it is very apparent this command and decided order of things did not change with the Fall, but remained consistent and constant. Therefore, I will submit to you that what you claim as “natural” is actually an elective. There are an number of individuals who abandoned “same-sex orientation” when they were actually born-again in Christ, the testimony of one of which can be found here:

TESTIMONY FROM AN EX-GAY[1]

This counters your argument in its entirety. Howsoever, what you interpret as ‘natural and normal’ is manifestly impossible for fulfilling the continuing command of the LORD God to “be fruitful and multiply.” But I will remind you that “the natural man receiveth not the things of God…” (I Corinthians 2:14) and that the normal, default end of man is an eternity of suffering in Hell.

Nevertheless, when you argue that the LORD God is okay with you and others like you being engaged in sodomy, and that this ‘way you are’ is fine with Him, you are inasmuch as claiming that what you and others like you engage in is righteous:

“Being different is no crime. Being gay is not a sin. And for a gay person to desire and pursue love and marriage and family is no more selfish or sinful than when a straight person desires and pursues the very same things.”

Hence, due to your argument, we need to look to the Scripture where the LORD God makes plain that He loves righteousness:

Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

Righteousness is defined in Scripture as the quality of being equal in all one’s ways, as we find in Ezekiel 18:

Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. (Ezekiel 18:25-30)

And again in Ezekiel 33:

Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways. (Ezekiel 33:17-20)

Note that the LORD God was accused of being unequal in His ways, and He countered that the people of Israel were indeed unequal in their ways. Moreover, the LORD would judge the people of Israel according to their ways (hence judging Israel itself), and He set forth that iniquity would be their ruin. By the close and immediate association of terms, it is clear that the quality of iniquity consists of being unequal in one’s ways. Note here that the LORD does not state “doings” but “ways” which is the driver of “doing.” In sum, the LORD is examining the motivation of the heart, not what someone does outwardly:

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.(I Samuel 16:7)

These things being the case, it is proper to ask you:

If everyone did what you are doing, what would be the result for the race of man?

If what you are doing is righteous, and springs from a righteous heart, then everyone ought to be able to do what you are doing with no ill effects to any individual, or the race of man as a whole.

Consider: If everyone engaged in same gender relationships, and this is equally valid as relations between a man and a woman, then men and men, and women and women exclusively ought to bring no harm to the race of man. After all, if it is righteous and equal, then everyone ought to be able to do it – and the next generation would come into being just like the current generation has.

But that won’t happen, will it?

No, you choose rather to focus on the “suitable partner” aspect of the passage, ignoring what criteria might make up that “suitable partner” for Adam:

“And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men – for straight men. But for gay men, that isn’t the case. For them, a woman is not a suitable partner. And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men—for gay men, it’s another gay man who is a suitable partner. And the same is true for lesbian women. For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner.”

You also ignore a whole lot of other teaching contained in the passage as well. This is what makes what you have done fraudulent. There is much more teaching in the passage, particularly concerning the issue of a man and woman becoming “one flesh” in the eyes of the LORD, which is the integration of what was separated before the fall (Why did the LORD not make another man out of Adam – though He could have easily done so?). I will not get into in those other teachings this letter, but suffice to say, they will not support your supposition either.

Leviticus 18:22
You practiced intellectual dishonesty throughout your presentation, with one of the clearest examples being your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

You explained the application of the verse with the following:

“In the Gospels, Jesus describes himself as the fulfillment of the Law, and in Romans 10:4, Paul writes “Christ is the end of the law.” Hebrews 8:13 states that the old covenant is now “obsolete,” because Christ is the basis of the new covenant, freeing Christians from the system of the Old Law, most of which was specific to the ancient Israelites, to their community and their unique worship practices. Christians have always regarded the Book of Leviticus, in particular, as being inapplicable to them in light of Christ’s fulfillment of the law. So while it is true that Leviticus prohibits male same-sex relations, it also prohibits a vast array of other behaviors, activities, and foods that Christians have never regarded as being prohibited for them. For example, chapter 11 of Leviticus forbids the eating of pork, shrimp, and lobster, which the church does not consider to be a sin. Chapter 19 forbids planting two kinds of seed in the same field; wearing clothing woven of two types of material; and cutting the hair at the sides of one’s head. Christians have never regarded any of these things to be sinful behaviors, because Christ’s death on the cross liberated Christians from what Paul called the “yoke of slavery.” We are not subject to the Old Law.”

And you continue in the following paragraph further justifying your interpretation:

“There are three main arguments that are made for this position. The first is the verses’ immediate context: Leviticus 18 and 20 also prohibit adultery, incest, and bestiality, all of which continue to be regarded as sinful, and so homosexuality should be as well. But just 3 verses away from the prohibition of male same-sex relations, in 18:19, sexual relations during a woman’s menstrual period are also prohibited, and this, too, is called an “abomination” at the chapter’s close. But this is not regarded as sinful behavior by Christians; rather, it’s seen as a limited matter of ceremonial cleanliness for the ancient Israelites.”

Allow me to address the first thing you mention, which is the fact that the book of Leviticus is a book largely dedicated to the ceremonial law. However, the scope of Leviticus is not limited to only the ceremonial law, but does address issues outside the covenant in places. One of those places is indeed chapter 18. For the sake of clarity, we need to examine the issue of what is an abomination with one passage immediately following another:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you(Leviticus 11:9-20)

If you will note, in 18:22 the phrase ‘it is abomination.” is used. But distinctively, in chapter 11 of Leviticus, the phrases “an abomination unto you” and “ye shall have in abomination” are used, with one time “are an abomination” being used clearly in the context of the children of Israel. What this plainly demonstrates is a difference in the scope of the commandment. While the words “unto you” clearly restrict the scope of the commandment, they are reinforced by the phrase “ye shall have in.” which limits applicability to the children of Israel. Conversely, verse 22 of chapter 18 has no such restricting or qualifying language attached to the statement “it is abomination.”

Hence, Leviticus 18:22, properly interpreted, is open-ended and unrestricted in its application. It applies to everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, regardless of time in history. We can find confirmation of this being the proper interpretation just a couple of verses further on in the chapter where it is plainly stated:

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. (Leviticus 18:24-28)

If it is, as you argue, that this proscription on behavior applies only to the children of Israel in the covenant, then please explain who the people were that the LORD God was casting out of the land so Israel could possess it? Please explain how the Canaanites defiled the land, if it is as you say, that these proscriptions only apply in the covenant, when the Canaanites are clearly Gentiles and not in covenant with the LORD?

I will submit to you that the LORD God held then, and still holds today, that sodomy is abomination. The reason for that assertion lies the previous evidence given and in the following two verses:

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)

And:

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)

Moreover, you also claim the following as justification for your reasoning:

“in 18:19, sexual relations during a woman’s menstrual period are also prohibited, and this, too, is called an “abomination” at the chapter’s close. But this is not regarded as sinful behavior by Christians;”

I will remind you of the following passage from Acts, which is extracted from a letter the Apostles wrote to the churches addressing the issue of the Law and its relationship to salvation:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28-29)

Which came from their understanding of the covenant the LORD God made with Noah, which is still in force and effect:

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.(Genesis 9:1-4)

In your “interpretation” of things, you apparently have forgotten that what “other Christians” think is meaningless. Rather, what matters is what the LORD God states. He has plainly stated that profaning the blood is an offense to Him. Whether one eats blood, or lies with a woman in menses, the blood is being profaned and it is sin. Remember, that command fell under the auspices of “For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;” in Leviticus, chapter 18.

Conclusion
It occurs to me that you have fallen for the lies of both the Devil and your own deceitful heart. You would do well to heed the implicit message of the following passage of Scripture:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

It is implicit in the above passage that our hearts lie to us. This is reinforced by the following from Proverbs:

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. (Proverb 28:26)

You would also do well to understand that Satan is very good at putting thoughts into the minds of men, even those who truly belong to the Lord Jesus Christ:

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Matthew 16:21-23)

And again:

And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. (Luke 9:52-55)

Now, if Satan can adversely affect the minds of the apostles, and it is written that he takes the lost at his will:

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (II Timothy 2:24-26)

Perhaps you should consider why it is that you think the way you do, and “feel” the way you do. How do you know what thoughts are yours? How do you know that what you feel is truly the way that it is?

I find it interesting that you have expended much effort to justify your position “biblically” and think you really need to do this. It reminds me of the following incident from Acts:

And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. (Acts 16:16-18)

Being a liar from the beginning, and the father of lies, Satan does not have a problem using someone to promote a false Christianity, and getting people to believe the LORD approves of those things which are an abomination to Him.

So I must ask: Where precisely do you stand? I really think you had better seriously consider where you are, because you are not standing in a good place.

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis




Speaking In Tongues – Part 2

This message has moved to Ebenezer Baptist Church’s Audio, Messages and Lessons, Speaking In Tongues – Part 2 page.

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis




Speaking In Tongues – Part 1

This post is moved to Ebenezer Baptist Church’s Audio, Messages and Lessons, Speaking In Tongues – Part 1 page.

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis




A New Cart

In II Samuel, chapter 6 we are told of the fetching of the Ark of God to Jerusalem by David after he became king and had taken Jerusalem and made it the chief city of Israel. However, as we read in the relating of that incident, we are informed that it did not end well. In fact, it ended in the death of Uzzah (or Uzza), one of the sons of Abinadab, in whose house the Ark dwelt. In I Chronicles, chapter 13, this event is related and we are given more detail.

And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the LORD our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren every where, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us: And let us bring again the ark of our God to us: for we enquired not at it in the days of Saul. And all the congregation said that they would do so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people. (I Chronicles 13:1-4)

And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets. And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God. (I Chronicles 13:7-10)

Of the details given, we are informed that all Israel was in agreement as to how to set about bringing the Ark to Jerusalem, and that there were instruments played and much singing. It is also confirmed that the Ark was placed on a new cart. Nonetheless, for all Israel’s worship and celebration, when the oxen stumbled at the threshingfloor of Chidon, and Uzzah sought to steady the Ark and prevent it from falling off the cart, the LORD God struck Uzzah dead when Uzzah touched the Ark. Immediately, all celebration ceased and the Ark was carried to the house of Obed-edom, a Gittite, where it remained for three months. As the Scripture tells us, the house of Obed-edom was blessed the entire time the Ark remained there.

This engenders several questions:

  1. So, what went wrong?
  2. What was amiss that the anger of the LORD was so kindled against David and Israel that He struck Uzzah dead?
  3. Was it that Uzzah had simply touched the Ark, or were there aggravating factors along the way?
  4. Why was God not pleased with King David, a man after the LORD’s own heart, and all Israel who sought the LORD God and obviously thought they were pleasing the LORD?
  5. Oh, and why should we care? After all, this event happened nearly 3,000 years ago and is definitely Old Testament dispensation, and really doesn’t have a bearing on us.
  6. Or does it?

To find the answer to all the above questions, particularly the issue of applicability to us, we only need to continue a little further in I Chronicles and pay close heed to what is related to us. In chapter 15 of I Chronicles, we find that David begins to set right the things wanting in the first venture to bring the Ark to Jerusalem.

In the following passages, we find that David returned to the Levitical law for the determination of what ought to be done in bringing the Ark to Jerusalem. In so doing, David confesses fault in how it was determined that the Ark ought to be borne. This time, a new cart is not chosen, but the Ark of God is carried as directed: upon the shoulders of the Levities. Moreover, the priests and Levities are directed to sanctify themselves prior to coming near the Ark of God.

And David made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent. Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the LORD chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever. (I Chronicles 15:1-2)

And David called for Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and for the Levites, for Uriel, Asaiah, and Joel, Shemaiah, and Eliel, and Amminadab, And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order. So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel. And the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the word of the LORD. (I Chronicles 15:11-15)

Again, King David and all Israel went forth to fetch the Ark with singers and instruments and the Ark of God was borne upon the shoulders of the Levites. This time we find the response of the LORD God to be different:

So David, and the elders of Israel, and the captains over thousands, went to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the house of Obededom with joy. And it came to pass, when God helped the Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, that they offered seven bullocks and seven rams. (I Chronicles 15:25-26)

So, what made the difference in the LORD’s response to David and Israel, and how does that apply to us?

The answer is astoundingly simple: Obedience.

If we care to note, it was not the music or the singing that pleased the LORD. In fact, when that was done the first time they attempted to bring the Ark, it did nothing to alleviate the LORD’s displeasure with David and Israel. It was not the fact that all Israel was behind bringing the Ark to Jerusalem, as that was the cause of the breach in the first place. No, to the LORD God, it is irrelevant whether our music and singing are good, or whether everyone agrees with us, or even that we are supposedly “seeking” God; what matters to the LORD God is what Samuel expressly told Saul when Saul allowed disobedience to the commandment of God in the matter of  utterly destroying the Amalekites:

Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD? And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. (I Samuel 15:19-23)

To the LORD God, disobedience in any form and to any degree, is rebellion. What made the transgression of Uzzah so egregious was the fact that the Ark was to be carried in the style of a King, elevated above all others. It plainly was not. By placing the Ark upon a cart, whether new or old, they treated the earthly representation of the throne of God like they would a pile of manure, or straw, or wood, or any number of other common things that are carried about upon carts. They did not treat the Ark with the reverence they should have, and this displeased the LORD God. Thus, when the oxen stumbled, and Uzzah thought it ought to be prevented from falling, and hence, touched the Ark, it was the final insult for the LORD. Plainly, the attitude of King David and all Israel was not one of reverence to the LORD and His things. For that attitude of irreverence the LORD struck Uzzah dead. Thus, the LORD ended any continued mishandling of the Ark, in bringing the Ark to Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that when this attitude was rectified, and the law was followed, the LORD blessed.

So, what does this mean for us?

Aside from the obvious lesson that we ought to follow what the LORD God commands fully, there are several other specific things pertinent to our particular culture that we need to take note of.

First
In most worship services great emphasis is placed upon the music and its style. In fact, I have observed several church signs where the pastor’s name is given, but the name underneath it is not the associate/assistant pastor’s name, but the name of the music director or song leader. In many instances this position is not even called the song leader or music director, but the “worship leader.” This indicates the level of importance placed upon the one leading the singing. In fact, by calling the position “worship leader” those churches elevate their music and singing above the teaching and preaching of the word of God. This is manifestly in error as the word of God states. Notice the Psalm states that it is the word, and not music that God has elevated above all His holy name:

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2)

Second
Regardless of our intentions, if we do not follow what God has said to do, the way he said to do it, we still displease Him and are disobedient to His word. King David and all Israel had the best of intentions the first time they went to fetch the Ark. Nevertheless, the LORD God was not pleased by the way they chose to do things, and struck Uzzah dead as a result. The second time, Israel did all according to the commandment, and the LORD blessed. It could not be more plain that our intentions make no difference in pleasing the LORD God. Rather, it is our obedience that counts.
Third
No matter how many of us agree, it carries no weight with LORD if we agree on something that is contrary to the word of God. The LORD God gave us His word. And, regardless of how anyone may feel about it, it is the plain expression of His will: He clearly means for us to follow it. Even if everyone on earth agreed to walk contrary to the LORD God and His word, it does not sway the LORD one iota. We seem to forget that He made all the creation in six days by simply speaking it into existence. With a word He will cause the earth and the heavens to cease to exist, and with a word he will bring the new heavens and new earth into existence. What arrogance and presumption it is on our part to think that we can sway the LORD God by all agreeing to something, even when it is contrary to His word.
Last
If you want the LORD’s blessing upon your church services, and upon your personal life, be obedient to His plain written word. There is simply no reason to attempt to get a new cart when the LORD has already provided a way for things to be done.

In sum, there is no substitute in the eyes of the LORD God for simple obedience to His word. What He told ancient Israel applies equally to us today:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exodus 19:5-6)

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:22-23)

When it comes to serving the LORD God, there really isn’t any other option.




The Hour is Late

In case you haven’t noticed, the hour grows very late. Whatever ministry things the LORD God has laid on your heart to accomplish, get them done.

Even if the hour weren’t late, consider your age and how much time you have left to fulfill your ministry. For me, I have many things to write and document before that time is shut off. I would like to be able to stand before my Lord and know that they were accomplished.




Another god

By embracing the wage issue as a core part of their message, progressives have seen direct political gains. In an era of frayed relationships with the faith-based community, the issue has created an alliance for progressives with religious leaders, especially Catholic and other denominational officials who have made living wage issues a core part of their social justice teachings. It gives progressives what the Rev. Steven Copley, who led a recent successful minimum wage drive in Arkansas, calls “a moral issue, a faith issue and a family values issue” to rally supporters. ((http://www.progressivestates.org/content/483/))

I have to ask: Just who do you serve Stephen? Do you serve the LORD God, or man in the form of a communist, humanist agenda? By the way, just what does the “minimum wage” have to do with preaching the gospel? Where is that in the “great commission?” If it is there, I sure don’t find it at all. Moreover, I cannot find it anywhere in the New Testament either. Would you mind citing chapter and verse for me?

But that is not all you are involved in is it? Somehow, you find it necessary to ally yourself with socialist and communist causes under the guise of “progressivism.” ((http://www.reproachofmen.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/Progressive_States_Network-_-Networks_Board_of_Directors.pdf)) You know, as one who has to work for a living, and has been underpaid at times, I really do not appreciate what you are doing. Why? Because it is simply not your job.

As a supposed minister in the Methodist denomination, do you really think you are helping the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ by your actions? Or, is that simply a cover for your political and social leanings, which are actually communist?

I have to ask, as I am compelled to preach the gospel and show forth Christ in every aspect of my life. What about you Stephen? Or, has Methodism drifted so far away from service to God that they tolerate, and even encourage one of their ordained ministers to engage in political and social activism?

Just what god do you serve Stephen?

You are of course aware that you will be held particularly accountable for wrapping yourself with the name of Christ, and using it as a front for wicked, humanistic purposes don’t you? Are you also aware that you are to be obedient to the laws of the land, beginning with the Federal Constitution? Moreover, this includes immigration law as well? After all, it is written:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. (I Peter 2:13-15)

You know, I don’t see the Apostle Peter or the Apostle Paul overthrowing the Roman system, or even advocating for changes in its laws anywhere in the New Testament. Moreover, it is utterly plain that the Lord Jesus Christ, who you claim to serve, did not do so either.

You know what Stephen, it appears to me that you actually need the gospel just as much as Vladimir Putin. Funny how that all your studies in seminary never seemed to get that point across to you. Perhaps it is because you didn’t actually enter seminary to learn to be a preacher anyway, but found it a easy way to ride the gravy train. After all, what really is expected of a “professional minister” anyway?

A couple of last things Stephen; if you don’t recognize the passages, I won’t be surprised.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (I Corinthians 1:17-18)

Oh, and as for your “title” of Reverend, I know that you will eat that one day:

He hath shewed his people the power of his works, that he may give them the heritage of the heathen. The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. (Psalm 111:6-10)

Finally, you remind me very much of Jeremiah Wright, since you two seem to have the same agenda. You and he both remind me of what the Scripture has to say about those who pretend to serve God, all the while serving themselves:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. (II Peter 2:1-3)

It seems to me you serve another god Stephen. You would do well to comprehend that its awful hot in Hell and that eternity is a awful long time to be there.





Why America is Condemned

It pains me to have to write this, nonetheless it is utterly necessary as Americans need to understand what is happening to America and why. America is condemned, and will be destroyed — end of story. There is at this point, literally nothing that can be done to stop it. Why? Because America has totally cast off the LORD God and blasphemes the LORD at every opportunity. It is not just the “Left” and their Hollywood friends and the major media. No, it includes those on the “Right” and goes beyond that into every political persuasion, every field of endeavor, and permeates the churches. I know of a number of supposed fundamental Baptists who no longer trust the LORD to bring about change in this nation. Instead, they have hitched their hopes to the Republican/Conservative/Libertarian movement and seek to elect people they believe can “save” America.

This condemns them, and their protestation that they “believe” God and trust Him. If they truly trusted the LORD, they would put far more effort into cleansing their own lives, cleansing their churches, and focusing on proper teaching of the Word of God. They would strive to think like Christ, instead of putting America on a pedestal, and thinking America is the light of the world. The sad part of this is that fundamental and conservative Christians in America often pay heed to totally ungodly radio and television persona, and elevate them to a higher status that the LORD God whom they say they serve.

One such individual that fundamental/conservative Christians elevate is Rush Limbaugh, a very popular radio commentator. Back before I was saved, I used to listen to him, and thought he was quite entertaining and informed about what mattered. That changed after I was saved. I noticed some glaring inconsistencies in his beliefs, and ultimately found out how anti-Christian Mr. Limbaugh really is. Recently, Mr. Limbaugh’s anti-God, anti-Christ views surfaced again at the CPAC conference in Washington, D.C. The following is a small portion of his remarks at the beginning of his speech. Be prepared, as what he states is rank blasphemy.

And that I am arrogant. Neither of these things are remotely true. I can tell you a joke to illustrate this. Larry King passed away, goes to heaven. He’s greeted by Saint Peter at the gates. Saint Peter says, “Welcome, Mr. King, it’s great to have you here. I want to show you around, give you an idea of what’s here, maybe you can pick a place that you’d like to reside.” King says, “I just have one question: Is Rush Limbaugh here?”

“No, he’s got a lot of time yet, Mr. King.” So Saint Peter begins the tour. Larry King sees the various places and it’s beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says “Rush Limbaugh.” [Laughter]

And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says: “I thought you said he wasn’t here.”

“He said, he’s not, he’s not. This is God’s room. He just thinks he’s Rush Limbaugh.”[Laughter] [Applause]

So you see I’m not pompous. [Laughter] ((http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html))

This is nothing but outright blasphemy. Moreover, it betrays exactly where Rush Limbaugh stands — without fear of God, and in total opposition to the LORD. Worse yet, the response of the audience was not shock and condemnation for such wicked statements. No, there was no such condemnation here. ((Rush Limbaugh brought a cheering crowd to its feet several times Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington as he called on fellow conservatives to take back the country. (CNN) )) Instead, they laughed and applauded, thus condoning the wicked blasphemy of Mr. Limbaugh.

Pray tell, what then is the difference between Mr. Limbaugh, his conservative friends at CPAC, and Barak Obama and his amoral friends on the Left?

Absolutely nothing.

The really troublesome thing about this incident is that no one mentioned Mr. Limbaugh’s totally wicked and evil comments. Not Fox News, WorldNetDaily (which claims to be so “Christian”), Pajamas TV or any of the numerous conservative bloggers that covered the event. Rather, it was unremarkable and even accepted by them as “normal.”

When someone publicly blasphemes the LORD God, and no one says anything about it, that is when we are on the brink of utter destruction. The LORD God will not long tolerate it. As for Mr. Limbaugh, the LORD has a way of making certain that we are judged by the words of our own mouth.

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:34-37)





Communist Goals and Christians

As with all things, when information is obtained which gives additional confirmation of what is known, it is settling in the way of making the ground just that much firmer. The following video does just that: It adds to the multitude of evidence of the dangers facing everyone in the United States. Christian, please understand:

Communism benefits NO ONE – NOT EVEN THOSE IN POWER IN THE COMMUNIST SYSTEM – ALL LIVE IN FEAR.

One of the most distressing things about modern America is the total lack of understanding about how an individual’s thinking (and hence behavior) affect society and contribute to the destruction of the United States. Today, it is not just communists that think like communists, but fundamental and evangelical Christians as well. Why? Because they have accepted communist ideas, without understanding those ideas and movements in society were and are utilized by communists to achieve certain goals.

While it is true that all societies decline over time, the rate at which they decline can be greatly affected by the individuals in that society. Thus, the responsibility for societal decline and subsequent destruction under tyranny rests with each and every individual in society. In short, we will all be, and are, all responsible for the coming tyranny in the United States of America. Hence, it there is any hope at all, we must understand how we arrived at this point. To assist in that understanding, the following is presented.: ((While I do not agree with, and strenuously oppose Mr. Skousen’s Mormon beliefs, what he discovered is entirely and undeniably true. Thus, at least on this subject, all would do well to take heed.))

Please note: I have annotated the attainment of those goals based upon my research and study.

Excerpted from The Naked Communist

W. Cleon Skousen

Published 1958, Eleventh Edition 1962

pp. 258-262

Importance of the Psychological War

The biggest mistake of the West has been allowing itself to drift into a state of mental stagnation, apathy and inaction. In some circles, motivations of patriotism, loyalty and the traditional dream of “freedom for all men” have been lying dormant or have been paralyzed by a new kind of strange thinking. Authorities say there is an urgent need for a revolutionary change in our state of mind.

What is wrong with our “state of mind ?“

First and foremost, we have been thinking the way the Communists want us to think. Our founding fathers would be alarmed to learn how confused many of our people have become over such fundamental problems as coexistence, disarmament, free trade, the United Nations, recognition of Red China, and a host of related problems. Instead of maintaining a state of intellectual vigilance, we have taken Communist slogans as the major premises for too many of our conclusions. Let us go down a list of current strategy goals which the Communists and their fellow travelers are seeking to achieve. These are all part of the campaign to soften America for the final takeover. It should be kept in mind that many loyal Americans are working for these same objectives because they are not aware that these objectives are designed to destroy us.

Current Communist Goals

1. U. S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. (accomplished)

2. U. S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. (½ accomplished)

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. (½ accomplished)

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. (accomplished)

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites. (accomplished)

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. (½ accomplished)

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the UN. (accomplished)

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev̓s promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN. (rendered moot)

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. (accomplished)

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the UN. (accomplished)

11. Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) (accomplished)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. (accomplished)

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. (accomplished)

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office. (accomplished)

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. (accomplished – there is very little distinction in the policies of either major political party. Instead, political expediency rules the day. For the Republicans it is much more about being in power than adhering to the U.S. Constitution as written.)

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. (accomplished)

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers̓ associations. Put the party line in textbooks. (accomplished)

18. Gain control of all student newspapers. (De facto accomplished)

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. (accomplished)

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions. (accomplished)

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures. (accomplished)

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.” (accomplished)

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” (accomplished)

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. (accomplished)

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. (accomplished)

26. Present homo-sexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” (accomplished)

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.” (accomplished)

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” (accomplished)

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis. (accomplished)

30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” (accomplished)

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. (½ accomplished)

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. (accomplished)

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. (accomplished)

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. (accomplished)

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. (they have been far more successful in subverting the FBI, and are subverting all law enforcement)

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. (accomplished)

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business. (accomplished)

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat. (accomplished)

39.Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. (½ accomplished)

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. (accomplished)

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. (accomplished)

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems. (accomplished)

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government. (accomplished)

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal. (accomplished – actually, they accomplished more than they hoped – Communist China controls the canal through a front company: Hutchinson Whampoa)

45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike. (½ accomplished)

If the student will read the reports of Congressional hearings together with available books by ex-Communists, he will find all of these Communist objectives described in detail. Furthermore, he will come to understand how many well-meaning citizens have become involved in pushing forward the Communist program without realizing it. They became converted to Communist objectives because they accepted superficial Communist slogans. Soon they were thinking precisely the way the Communists wanted them to think.

42 out of 45 goals either completely accomplished, or near attainment.

Now Christian, the next time you sit down to lap up some more of Hollywood’s bilge, or get wrapped up in the crud this world calls entertainment, you can think of how much you are assisting in the destruction of the country the LORD God left you in to spread His message of the Gospel. I’m certain all those who will be slaughtered in the days to come will thank you for your diligence.





Rebellion and Authority

A Wednesday night lesson on what constitutes rebellion and what is authority and what is the extent of it. This is the first lesson in a series on the Christian’s relationship to government.

This lesson is now located on Ebenezer Baptist Church’s Messages and Lessons page. It can also be reached at the direct link: Rebellion and Authority.

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis