Reproach of Men

Back in April of 2011, I wrote a post critical of Barak Obama for his childish behavior. This was a year before Obama ran for, and was elected to a second term. The post is very clear that Barak Obama was, and still is in many respects, a child. I wrote nothing else about Obama for the duration of his time in office as I really didn’t have time to write, and it was clear that America was content with a child president.

That contentment with an infantile president was amply demonstrated in 2016 and since, by the election of Donald Trump as president. I actually thought that America would not elect a president more childish than Obama, as Americans would become sick of his childishness. I was wrong.

Rather, Americans have doubled-down on insisting on having a child for president. If anything, Donald Trump is far more childish than Obama. Trump is also far more erratic and unstable, exhibiting serious signs of mental instability, even to the point of delusional pronouncements such as the following gems:

“Big areas don’t want sanctuary cities. They want to be safe. They don’t want them. We had to fund our military. Our military was depleted.” (Yes, the “sentences” run back to back, without pause.)

“Six years ago, I wasn’t even running. The Republican of the year award. Maybe they knew what was going to happen.” (This was 2017 and six years previous Trump did not get any such award)

(The following is from November, 2019. If you can follow it, it’s pretty wild. It’s also not coherent)
“The light bulb — they got rid of the light bulb that people got used to. The new bulb is many times more expensive and — I hate to say it — it doesn’t make you look as good. Of course, being a vain person, that’s very important to me. It’s like — it gives you an orange look. I don’t want an orange look. Has anyone noticed that? So we’ll have to change those bulbs in at least a couple rooms where I am in the White House. … We have a situation where we’re looking very strongly at sinks and showers. And other elements of bathrooms — where you turn the faucet on, in areas where there’s tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it — and you don’t get any water. You turn on the faucet and you don’t get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out, just dripping out, very quietly, dripping out. People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water. So EPA is looking at that very strongly, at my suggestion. You go into a new building, or a new house or a new home, and they have standards where you don’t get water. You can’t wash your hands practically, so little water comes out of the faucet. And the end result is you leave the faucet on and it takes you much longer to wash your hands. .. For the most part. you have many states where they have so much water, it comes down — it’s called rain. They don’t know what to do with it. … A lot of things we do are based on common sense. If I didn’t get elected you wouldn’t have a steel industry. … We weren’t going to have a steel industry.”

There a literally dozens of such pronouncements from Donald Trump. Each of them disconnected from reality. Yet, the Republicans see no problem with this and do not even question Trump’s fitness for the office of the Presidency.

This is literally children reinforcing the bad behavior of a child, instead of acting as a check and balance on Trump’s behavior.

Thus, it bears repeating:

Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning! (Ecclesiastes 10:16)

And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. (Isaiah 3:4-5)

Truly, America has a child ruling over it, and children in positions of authority. This is a curse from the LORD God. This will not end well.

There is a problem with modern Christianity. By and large, those who call themselves Christian think that someone has all the time in the world to come to Christ. They seem to believe that God is infinitely patient. It is often stated that someone can be saved on their deathbed, and God’s patience doesn’t run out until they draw their last breath. Thus,  anyone can be saved, at any time — to the point of death: no one is exempt.

The following comment was left in reply to some comments I made on an article concerning someone who was ‘transgender’ that claimed Christ. I irritated some folk when I contended that there was a ‘point of no return’ with the LORD God. Once that point is reached, no matter what you did after that, there was no repentance, and no salvation. The LORD God would cut you off – forever.

The following comment is from that thread:

Eatie Gourmet (in reply to) Paul W. Davis • 5 hours ago

Ok, what if someone lives a life filled with vices, at some point has this sex-change operation…
Then they meet a Christian — who knows where, at a park, a parade, laundromat, wherever — who invites them to church, and they go, and they go a few weeks in a row, and get involved in church activities and come to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
What do you do then? Kick them to the curb? Accept them as is? What?
Do you not believe in redemption?

Remember I didn’t say anything about marriage, significant other, I’m just talking about a single person searching for more meaning in their life.

You can play ‘what if’ all day long. It is meaningless to the actuality of what the LORD God has plainly stated in His word.

The LORD God is express in the Scripture that there is a point that you can go beyond, in which you will never be granted salvation. Esau went past that point. The Pharisees who contended with the Lord Jesus Christ went past that point. Judas Iscariot went past that point. There is a point that one can go past in which the LORD God will not even acknowledge prayers offered up for that person.

The end of patience with Esau

It is not our place to rationalize whether or not we agree with or see the logic in how the LORD dealt with Esau. Rather, we must understand that by default Esau possessed something that was given to him as a blessing. But, because he saw no value in it, he cast it away as worthless:

And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob. And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright. (Genesis 25:27-34)

Esau’s birthright was to have the Messiah come through his lineage. Esau heard the gospel from his father. Yet he disbelieved and despised the Messiah to come — the result was that the LORD took all opportunity for salvation from him.

The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. (Malachi 1:1-3)

Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. (Hebrews 12:16-17)

Without delving too extensively into why the LORD God hated Esau, it is sufficient to understand that the birthright was to have the Savior come through the lineage of the birthright holder. The fact that Esau plainly stated “what profit shall this birthright do to me?” shows that he scorned the birthright. Esau had no children at this point. Hence, if he believed the promise of the birthright, he would have known that he could not die yet. Yet, that was meaningless to him. He didn’t believe it and thus threw it away for a pittance.

The example of the Jewish leadership

Likewise the Pharisees, who, when they came face to face with the LORD, disbelieved and contended, calling the Lord Jesus Christ a follower of Satan. For that blasphemy of the witness of the Holy Ghost to them, they were condemned forever.

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:24-32)

Likewise, those of the Jewish leadership that were instrumental in putting the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross.

I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them. They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards. But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O LORD, in an acceptable time: O God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation. Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters. Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me. Hear me, O LORD; for thy lovingkindness is good: turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies. And hide not thy face from thy servant; for I am in trouble: hear me speedily. Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies. Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee. Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded. Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. (Psalm 69:8-28)

We should not forget the condemnation levied against the Jewish leadership by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 23, is a litany of abuses they engaged in for their own enrichment and power. They appropriated the position of leadership and the name of the LORD for their own ends. They taught and promoted lies to keep themselves in power — at the expense of the Scriptures and those who fell under their teaching.

The end of patience with Judas Iscariot

In the same manner, Judas Iscariot was condemned for the rejection of the witness of the Lord Jesus Christ and his subsequent betrayal of Him to the Jewish leadership.

And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love. Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul. (Psalm 109:5-20)

Here we need only remember that Judas Iscariot walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ and heard the teaching and saw the miracles — for three years straight. Nothing moved him. He was a thief and possessed of the devil. Though he could have been free from demonic influence and free from iniquity, he chose not to avail himself.

The rule is universally applied

As the above examples illustrate, there is a point that you cannot go beyond in rejecting the witness and testimony of the LORD. There is a point in the life of a person who continually rejects the testimony of the Holy Ghost in their heart, in which they will be cut off. In Romans, chapter one, the descent into darkness is detailed. There is a point that one cannot go beyond. If they do, there is no salvation available to them — they are cut off, just like Esau, Judas, and the Pharisees.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:24-32)

We seem to forget that we have no excuse. We have so much more than those which Scripture holds out before us as examples. We are given warnings and shown consequences for belief and actions. We lack nothing for being able to make the correct decisions — except our own will to do so.

Even prayer cannot avail

There is even a point that one can reach in which the LORD will no longer listen to any prayer offered up for them. The nation of Israel reached that point during Jeremiah’s day.

Thus saith the LORD unto this people, Thus have they loved to wander, they have not refrained their feet, therefore the LORD doth not accept them; he will now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins. Then said the LORD unto me, Pray not for this people for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence. (Jeremiah 14:10-12)

The point here is clear: Why waste the time on someone who will not turn and doesn’t care to even try?

Conclusion

Do I believe in forgiveness and redemption?

Obviously I do. I preach the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ, and Christ alone – not of our works. I preach, as the Scripture teaches, that the Father will forgive us through Christ if we repent and believe the Gospel. However, I am not the arbiter of how the LORD God chose to deal with people — especially when they refuse to be honest with themselves or the LORD. The principles set forth above apply equally to all, yours truly included. We must understand the following in no uncertain terms:

the patience of the LORD God with any individual is not limitless.

Plainly, by His word, that patience has an end.

In returning to the discussion that brought about this article, we should understand that the LORD God makes it clear in His word how He made us. The way we are made is so fundamental to our being, that for one to attempt to ‘change their gender‘ (which is all outward and surface anyway — you cannot change your genetics (Y chromosome)), is to fundamentally reject their very being. If one cannot admit the truth of what they are, how could they ever, in their heart, admit the truth of them being a wicked sinner, full of iniquity? This denial begins in the heart, and unless acknowledged, will drive the person to greater and greater denial outwardly as the LORD brings forth that iniquity for them to see:

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)

However much we might like to think we are what we appear to be outwardly, that is often a result of denying who we actually are in the heart. The LORD God does know with certainty who each and every one of us are. Moreover, He is very clear in His word how he deals with each and every one of us. No one is going to change that. If you think you are, you are deceiving yourself.

We would do well to understand: When one engages in self-deception, the only loser is the person deceiving themselves. Thus it bears repeating: the LORD’s patience with man is not limitless, but has an end.

On May 23, the New York Times Editorial Board decided to weigh in on the “same sex” marriage referendum in Ireland.

Granted, the Irish decided to continue down the road to national oblivion in approving “same sex” marriage as legal in their constitution. However, that is Ireland’s business if they are insane enough to do that. But, it hasn’t helped Ireland that it has been on the wrong side of history for quite a few decades now. Ireland has been steadily going down the road to cradle to grave socialism for quite some time now – and it has had its effect.

Presently, Irish debt to GDP is at 123%, which means they owe more than they can make. In short, they are economically bankrupt. However, that mirrors the moral situation perfectly, as they are morally bankrupt as well.

Nevertheless, that is Ireland’s problem, and not the United States’ problem. However, the New York Times decided to stick its nose in that situation, sniff, and then pontificate to us poor, unwashed, unenlightened masses about how worthless our values and morals are.

Specifically, what they stated is this:

“In a statement conceding defeat, the Iona Institute, the main opposition group, said it would continue to affirm “the importance of biological ties and of motherhood and fatherhood.” The absurdity of that statement speaks for itself.”1

I suppose the members of the Editorial Board of the Times entered the world as hatchlings? They surely couldn’t be human, because humans require a mother and a father. When we don’t have that, it is destabilizing.

It is quite clear that children that have both a father and mother who are present and accounted for, do far better than children in any other “arrangement” that exists. If you really care to dispute that, then look at the crime demographics, particularly for children of unwed mothers, or children of households in which one parent is missing. Kindly look at the suicide rate for those who identify themselves as “gay.” Examine the suicide rate for children of those “non-traditional” households.

I guess the New York Times thinks these are good things?

However, that is not the end of the story. The Times Editorial Board evidently thinks that history doesn’t matter. They would do well to note that the rise of Western Civilization was built on families which had a mother and a father. Western Civilization is being torn down and destroyed even as the “traditional” family is collapses. So it is that the short-sighted journalists of the Times cannot see that they are cheerleading destruction and degradation.

I am well aware that the Times Editorial Board does not believe in the LORD God. Thus it is virtually pointless to warn them about history and the witness of every society on earth which has turned this way. All those societies were destroyed. I am certain the Times is totally blind to that. Thus, it would be pointless to warn them.

That’s okay. They will have all eternity to figure it out.

1. The Victory for Same-Sex Marriage in Ireland [↩]

 On January 15, in the wake of the Islamist attacks on the French Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine, the Pope came out and had the following to say about the violent attacks1

“You cannot provoke,” Pope Francis said on Thursday. “You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

Though he defended the principle of free expression and paid lip service to the notion that violence is always wrong, he warned “you can’t make a toy out of the religions of others.”

“To kill in the name of God is an aberration,” Francis said. However, he added that it was natural for those who have been insulted to lash out violently.

“In freedom of expression, there are limits, like in regard to my mom,” Francis continued. “If he says a swear word against my mother, he’s going to get a punch in the nose. That’s normal.”2

I wonder if the Pope really understands the difference between children and adults? Children get offended at many things and never allow an offense to pass. Adults, on the other hand, can be insulted and overlook the offensive statement, understanding that words spoken or written reflect far more on the one speaking or writing, than on what is spoken of, or written about. Apparently Pope Francis does not understand that distinction at all.

Perhaps that is because the Pope shares far more with the immature persons in the Muslim world than he does with any sort of maturity level sought for in rational western culture. At least at one time in western culture, striving to be as mature and understanding as possible was a goal.

It certainly is a desired for goal from a Scriptural point of view. In the Scripture we are admonished continually to grow and be mature and let nothing offend us. We are continually encouraged and exhorted to not be children.

But, there again, being a Catholic, the chances of the Pope actually reading the Scripture to receive that exhortation are slim to none. To defend childish behavior as normal, certainly indicates he didn’t.

Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them. (Psalm 119:165)

1. I should note here that the Vatican website notes that the interview took place, but somehow doesn’t have the text. Emphasis in bold is mine. [↩]
2. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/15/the-latest-to-justify-religious-violence-pope-francis/ [↩]

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.1
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

1. 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. [↩]

Today, the New York Times ran an article about one Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City and a very wealthy man. Unfortunately, Mr. Bloomberg has decided that he can play nanny to everyone and decide for them what is best for them. To that end, Mr. Bloomberg opposes firearms ownership, the use of tobacco, and the consumption of certain foods, holding that all are bad for the rest of us.

In the final paragraph of this puff piece, Mr. Bloomberg had this to say about the end of his efforts:

But if he senses that he may not have as much time left as he would like, he has little doubt about what would await him at a Judgment Day. Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, he said with a grin: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”

Let it never be said that Michael Bloomberg runs short on pride. However that may be, Mr. Bloomberg missed the standard by which one gains entrance into heaven:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

The reason it is by the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone, is because He, and He alone meets the standard of righteousness the Father demands. Hence, through the Lord Jesus Christ and His work of redemption, salvation is, always has been, and ever will be by grace, and grace alone:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

And again:

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:5-6)

Thus, the Scripture is quite plain that you will do it by grace and grace alone, as works and grace are mutually exclusive. But, it is quite evident Mr. Bloomberg has chosen works for his justification before the LORD God, which is to his condemnation:

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15)

Moreover, poor Michael misses the boat altogether in that he thinks being wealthy and powerful are what might qualify him in the first place. However, had he read the following, he would have known the LORD God has no use for him in his present state:

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. (I Corinthians 1:26-29)

And he compounds his error in that he stated “I am telling you if there is a God,…” which is a blatant insult to the LORD God, and shows how very far away Mr. Bloomberg is from ever pleasing the LORD:

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)

Pray for the poor man. He needs all the help he can get. He is wretched, naked, poor and blind, and doesn’t even realize it.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)

I do not watch, nor do I care about Duck Dynasty. I don’t have time for television, and I really don’t need to waste what time I have on a “reality show.” That stated, I do happen to know a bit about Duck Dynasty as there are those I work with who do watch it, and news about it is all over the internet.

So, when the elder of the family that the program is about makes comments that get him fired from the show, it makes news. It is the comments that interest me. More precisely, it is the reaction to the comments that I am interested in. Comments such as this one:

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.1

Now, I happen to know that the family that the show is built around is Church of Christ. I take issue with the perversion of the Gospel of Christ that the Church of Christ puts forth as the “truth.” I can legitimately do this as I do know something about the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ, specifically the Gospel. However, I just don’t think Wilson Cruz does.

I don’t think Wilson Cruz is anywhere near qualified to state what Christians believe, or to make comment about anything relating to the Scripture.

Why?

Let’s try the following passages of Scripture, and keep firmly in mind that the LORD in the Old Testament that came to man and dealt directly with man, is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Yes, bear that in mind that the one who died on the cross is also the one that spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, and spoke to Job and his friends out of the whirlwind.

The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD: And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt. (Genesis 19:23-29)

This same LORD had eaten a meal with Abraham the previous day, and Abraham had interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah, that the LORD should not destroy them should at least ten (10) righteous men be found in them. By the way, what was Sodom and Gomorrah’s wickedness that warranted destruction?

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. (Leviticus 18:22-23)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Just who was it that gave the Levitical Law to Moses to give to the children of Israel? Who was it that met with Moses on Mount Sinai?

Well, that would be the Word, who would take the office of Christ and die to reconcile man to the LORD God.

This also belongs to Christ Jesus:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:7-13)

Hence, when the apostle Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, he penned chapter one by the Holy Ghost, who instructed him in accordance with what the Lord Jesus Christ wanted conveyed. And what does chapter one convey to everyone?

The descent into destruction:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:22-32)

Why does the LORD God call homosexuality an abomination?

Answer a couple of simple questions:

1. What if everyone engaged in same gender relationships only?
2. What would happen to the human race?

Suicide. Self-murder.

Homosexuality is against the very design of man. This kind of activity is destructive to the entire human race.

There is only one creature, one man that would delight in seeing the race of man engage in self-destructive behavior.

Satan.

Why? Because man is made in the similitude of God, and Satan hates the LORD God.

However, man does not need any help in engaging in self-destructive beliefs and behavior. Our own iniquity is plenty sufficient a generator of bad doctrine and the resultant behavior.

It won’t be any comfort to Wilson Cruz, but Phil of Duck Dynasty has his own set of problems to resolve before the LORD — his corrupt understanding of the Gospel:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

You see, Church of Christ doctrine demands that you be baptized for salvation. Hence, they hold that one is not saved unless one is baptized. However, the Scripture states otherwise:

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. (I Corinthians 1:17)

And:

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:6)

Quite obviously water baptism is a work, and it is not part of the Gospel. Which means Church of Christ salvation is of works, and thus under a curse.

Being right about the wickedness of homosexuality is cold comfort when the most important knowledge to obtain is a true Gospel. Whether one is an abomination, or simply accursed, wrong is still wrong. Both individuals fall short of the truth — and it is going to cost them in the end.

Ignorance, it seems, has a rather loud voice.

1. ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks, The Hollywood Reporter [↩]

So the new Pope wrote a letter. And what did he write? Well, it sounds sort of nice. Indeed, it probably will play well in some progressive circles, but for the hardened atheist, the following by Pope Francis is, well… drivel:

In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”1

Uh-huh. However, last time I checked, the Catechism said no such thing, and, as far as I can tell, the Pope is NOT greater than the Catechism. In fact, the Pope can be fired, but if you did away with the Catechism there would be NO Catholic Church.

It seems to me, that the Catechism trumps the Pope whenever there is any conflict — and there certainly is conflict here.

II. HANDING ON THE FAITH: CATECHESIS
4 Quite early on, the name catechesis was given to the totality of the Church’s efforts to make disciples, to help men believe that Jesus is the Son of God so that believing they might have life in his name, and to educate and instruct them in this life, thus building up the body of Christ.2

PART TWO — THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
SECTION TWO — THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER ONE — THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
ARTICLE 1 — THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”5

I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?
1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature.”6

1215 This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.”3

Perhaps if the “vicar of Christ” had bothered to read his own church’s documentation, he might not have engaged in mindless drivel…

1. Pope Francis assures sceptics: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven, The Independent, 9/11/2013 [↩]
2. CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [↩]
3. CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [↩]

Of late, my time is consumed by many things which have prevented me from posting and writing the way I would like. However, the time is spent preparing lessons, conducting those lessons, and preaching. Between those things and working full-time, and trying to fix my house, my time to write is non-existent. Nonetheless, in researching and attempting to write, one of the subjects I am studying is the issue of righteousness: what constitutes it, what destroys it, et cetera, et cetera. In my apologetics research on righteousness I came across the following:

Fundamentally, there are two opposite errors regarding original sin. One is an error of deficiency, in which original sin is treated as less damaging to human nature than it actually is. That is the error of Pelagius. The other is the error of exaggeration, in which original sin is treated as more damaging to human nature than it actually is.1

So the Catholics mean to say that the effect of Adam’s fall was/is a nuanced thing in which we have to understand precisely the effect it had, else we will either:

A.) Not go far enough in assigning the effects of the fall.
or
B.) Go too far in assigning the effects of the fall.

I am sorry, but this sounds like something I would shovel out of my neighbor’s barn.

Why?

Because the Scripture could not be more plain:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

And again:

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Corinthians 15:21-22)

And yet again:

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

I really do not know how you can “go too far in assigning the effects of the fall” as it were. After all, this death includes the following:

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:12-15)

I suppose there is something out there worse than eternity in the Lake of Fire, but nothing ever describes it or even alludes to it.

So then, how is it that one can “go too far” in holding that the effect of the fall upon man was utterly devastating, warping man’s perception and distorting man’s ability to understand?

I suppose it could be that most Baptists and Protestants hold that man is utterly depraved and incapable of righteousness at all.

Well, not quite:

Here we find the opposite error with respect to original sin, namely, an exaggeration of original sin.

Martin Luther
Luther’s two principal errors with respect to original sin are as follows:

(1) Treating original sin as the complete corruption of human nature, rather than as the loss of the preternatural and supernatural gifts.

(2) Treating concupiscence (i.e. the involuntary disorder in the lower appetites) as original sin. 2

Without going into all the convoluted arguments, let us examine what the Scripture declares about man’s fallen state:

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 14:1-3)

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)

Well now, if we are all the children of wrath by nature, dead in trespasses and sins, and exist in iniquity prior to coming to Christ, and there in nothing we can do about it outside of coming to Christ for salvation… How do you exaggerate that?

I find it hard to believe that anyone could think, especially after the evidence of Scripture, that the depravity of man could be worse.

No, if you are borne with a nature to do wickedness, and the LORD God accounts you as dead in trespasses and sins, bound to do every evil work, it is kind of hard to top that. No, there is no exaggeration when it is stated that man is utterly depraved and incapable of any righteousness. That is, if you evaluate what the LORD God evaluates — the soul.

If, on the other hand, you ignore the soul and concentrate on the flesh, and concentrate on sin, rather than iniquity, then you could claim that declaring the soul utterly corrupt is in error and excessive. However, since it is the LORD God who is the sole determiner of who righteous and who is not, it really matters little what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

The sad part is, the Catholic Church has had over 1500 years to get this teaching right — and they have not. Instead, they cling to a doctrine that is provably wrong.

That is the very definition of Stupidity — writ large.

1. Protestant Objections to the Catholic Doctrines of Original Justice and Original Sin, Bryan Cross, Oct. 16, 2011; NOTE: It is unclear here whether Mr. Cross is quoting Professor Lawrence Feingold or simply building off his material. [↩]
2. Protestant Objections to the Catholic Doctrines of Original Justice and Original Sin, Bryan Cross, Oct. 16, 2011 [↩]

One of the problems with being busy is that posting on the website suffers. After all, it takes time to write and then edit articles – particularly articles concerning doctrine. And, it takes time to keep up with the garbage that goes on in this world. There simply are not enough hours in the day to do everything that must be done.

However, the event that prompts this post is impossible to pass up as it highlights exactly what is wrong with this country. It seems that during the Black Entertainment Television “Soul Train” awards, that one Jamie Foxx declared:

“First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama. Barack Obama.”

Which is utter wickedness and evinces a corruption in the black community as the comments were not immediately condemned as being blasphemy and in very poor taste. Instead, there is silence from the black churches and overall black community.

There was a day in this country in which this would have been roundly condemned. However, that day is not today. Rather, today in the United States, man is worshipped and God is forgotten. Because of this, we can rest assured — the utter destruction of America is not that far away.