Friday, May 30, 2008

Beholding to Absolute Truth

Just because a person may have the title of "reverend," "pastor," or "priest" in front of his or her name, doesn't necessarily mean that their preaching is beholding to absolute truth.

There are many great evangelists (preachers, reverends, pastors, etc.) who DO hold to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible.

So what's the difference?

Some differences are easily recognizable; i.e. the difference between the rantings of someone who is obviously seen as a radical - like Jeremiah Wright - as compared to someone who is held in the highest esteem amongst most scholars because of his solid, biblical, and truthful evangelism - like the preaching, teaching and writings of John MacArthur.

Recently, I discovered some excellent information and answers on how to discern truth from error; even when such errors may appear to be quite subtle. The answers came from Chapter 14, entitled "Facing the Challenge of Postmodernism" in the book To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview.

First, we need to recognize the fact that absolute truth does exist. Whether one finds or discovers it in one's lifetime is another question. Most postmodernists don't like to even acknowledge such a thing. Their mantra is often, "your truth is not my truth." People can live their entire lives believing that. However, their relativism eventually backs them into a corner of contradiction.

Chapter 14 excerpt:

The logic of truth is the logic of the law of non contradiction. First codified but not invented by Aristotle, this law states, "Nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect." Nothing can possess incompatible properties; that is, nothing can be what it is not. For example, Jesus cannot be both sinless and sinful. If there is exactly one God, there cannot be many gods. This logical principle is not the unique possession of Christianity. It is a truth of all creation and how God ordained us to think. Despite what some benighted theologians have claimed, Christian faith does not require that we somehow transcend this law of logic. God is consistent and cannot lie (Heb. 6:18). God cannot deny himself or assert what is false; nor can he make something both true and false in the same way at the same time.

Those who claim that this basic principle of thought is false must assert this principle in order to deny it. In so doing, they make a mockery out of all thought, language and the very notion of truth. Consider the statement: "The law of non contradiction is false." For this statement itself to be true, it must contradict its opposite (that the law of non contradiction is true). But in so doing, it must affirm the duality of truth and falsity--which is the very thing that the law of non contradiction itself requires. This is how God made us to think--to think in accord with reality.

Over twenty years ago, my search for truth began with reading and studying the Bible. I also found books and summaries that compared biblical Christianity with other religions, cults, and agnostic/atheistic/skeptic beliefs. Over the years, the Bible has explicitly revealed the truth to me - for it continually and vividly points towards Jesus Christ as the one and only Lord and Savior.

However, over the course of those years, I have noticed that there is a stark contrast between postmodernist liberal Christianity and the absolute truth of biblical Christian faith. I have seen the gap between the two grow wider as heresy and compromise took over the minds of those who do not hold to the truth of Scripture.

Chapter 14 excerpt:

Postmodernists who assert that logical principles are merely social and historical constructs nevertheless often accuse their critics of culpable falsehood and thus assert the law of non contradiction. 7

7 On this, see Goothuis, Truth Decay, pp. 232-33.

The liberal left side of Christianity holds to postmodernist beliefs more than it holds to biblical truth. The mantra of "tolerance" and "hyper-sensitivity" has stepped over and trumped the cause to share the absolute truth of Scripture. Thus, the Great Commission, given by Jesus Christ before his ascension into heaven, has been downplayed and a call for creating an earthly utopia here on earth has taken its place.

I am not claiming that we should not do good things to make this world a better place. We absolutely should! However, I have found that such types do not want to discuss sin, confession, and our need for repentance. Coming to the foot of the cross of Christ is often perceived by liberal Christians as "divisive" and "hurtful" for those who are not yet Christians. Therefore, those who share the joy of being born again and telling our stories of redemption and conversion to Christ are often rabidly disparaged and labeled negatively with derogatory terms like "fundies," "bigots," "judgmental" and that old favorite, the "holier than thou" rant.

Why is that?

Chapter 14 excerpt:

The law of non contradiction combined with the specificity of Christian truth and the high stakes involved in choosing whether to believe in Christ means that truth for the Christian is confrontational. When Paul beheld the idolatry of Athens, he was "greatly distressed" and "so he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks" (Acts 17:17). This apologetic spirit eventually led to his famous Mars Hill apologetics address. While the postmodern world beholds the great welter of lifestyles, trends, and facades and can only utter "whatever" with a smirk and a slouch, the follower of "the Way" (Acts 11:26) must defend "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3).

The fact that there are groups, preachers, teachers, churches etc. that label themselves as "Christian"; but do not hold themselves accountable to the absolute truth as found in Scripture, tells us that we need to be much more discerning than ever before in the history of Christianity.

I have mentioned this book and some of its great contents in previous blog posts. However, the following section entitled, "The Biblical View of Truth" is one of the best essays I have ever read! It is so good, that I hesitate to paraphrase even one sentence!

The Biblical View of Truth

In order to counter effectively the postmodernist attack on truth, the Christian apologist should master the biblical understanding of truth. The Scriptures use the Hebrew and Greek words for truth and its derivatives repeatedly and without embarrassment. The meaning of the Hebrew term emet, which is at the root of the great majority of the Hebrew words related to truth, involves the ideas of support or stability. From this root flows the twofold notion of truth as faithfulness and conformity to fact. 12

God is true or faithful to his word and in his activities and attitudes; God is the God of truth. So David prays, "Into your hands I commit my spirit, redeem me, O LORD, the God of truth: (Ps 31:5; see 2 Chron 15:3). Through Isaiah, God declares, "I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right" (Is 45:19).

The Hebrew emet can also represent "that which is conformed to reality in contrast to anything that would be erroneous or deceitful." 13 In several passages, "If it is true" means, "If the charge is substantiated" (Is 43:9; Deut. 13:14; 17:4). Many biblical texts include statements such as "speaking the truth" (Prov. 8:7; Jer 9:5) or "giving a true message" (Dan. 10:1) or a "true vision" (Dan 8:26). Emet can also connote "what is authentic, reliable, or simply 'right,' " such as "true justice" (Zech. 7:9) or as in swearing in a "truthful, just and righteous way" (Jer 4:2). Roger Nicole explains that faithfulness and conformity to fact are:

converging lines of meaning [for the concept of truth] in the Old Testament. Neither is reducible to the other, yet they are not mutually conflicting. It is because truth is conformity to fact that confidence may be placed in it or in the one who asserts it, and it is because a person is faithful that he or she would be careful to make statements that are true. 14

There is no indication that in the Hebrew Bible truth is another word for belief or mere social custom, since beliefs can be false and customs may be opposed to God's will. Jeremiah attacked the falsehood and unfaithfulness of his people when he said, "How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" (Jer 8:8 NIV). Nicole notes that "the clear and insistent witness of the Old Testament in condemnation of all lies and deceit reinforces its strong commendation of emet as faithfulness and veracity." 15

Although some scholars have asserted a great difference between the Hebrew and Greek notions of truth, the Greek New Testament's understanding of truth is consistent with that of the Hebrew Scriptures. The New Testament word aletheia and its derivations retain the Hebrew idea of "conformity to fact" expressed in emet. According to Nicole, "The primary New Testament emphasis is clearly on truth as conformity to reality and opposition to lies and errors." 16

Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament draw a clear contrast between truth and error. John warns of distinguishing the "Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood" (1 Jn 4:6). Paul says that those who deny the reality of the God behind creation "suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Rom 1:18). Before Pilate, Jesus divided the field into truth and error: "For this reason, I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (Jn 18:37).

This biblical conception of truth as fidelity to objective fact also involves the claims that God's revealed truth is absolute as well. It is invariant and without exception or exemption. Neither is it relative, shifting or revisable. A classic text on the absoluteness of truth is Jesus' uncompromising statement, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6). There is no exception or exemption from this claim: there is but one way to the Father, Jesus himself.

The truth of the gospel is not subject to any human veto or democratic procedures. This claim does not mean that Christians claim to have absolute knowledge about God. It simply means that God has revealed his one way of salvation through Christ and made this known in history and as recorded in Scripture and is illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Those who know Jesus as Lord confess his absoluteness, not their own. We can know this truth and testify to it only in light of God's grace because it is only by grace that grace can be known. Postmodernists to the contrary, the biblical meta- narrative does not lead to oppression and arrogance because it centers on the revelation of a good, loving and holy God who has commissioned his people to communicate the absolute claims of the gospel in humility and love.

Moreover, God's revealed truth is universal. To be universal means to apply everywhere, to engage everything and to exclude nothing. The gospel message and the moral law of God is not circumscribed or restricted by cultural conditions. When Peter preached before the Jewish religious authorities, he declared in clear terms concerning Jesus of Nazareth: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12; see also 1 Tim 2:5-6). This, of course, is a direct spiritual and intellectual challenge to every other religion and philosophy on the planet (see also Acts 17:30).

A survey of the biblical view of truth cannot do justice to the richness of the words employed in a wide diversity of contexts. Nevertheless, it should be clear that the biblical view of truth collides with postmodernist notions of the social construction of reality and the relativity of truth. Nicole concludes that "the biblical view of truth (emet-aletheia) is like a rope with several intertwined strands"; it "involves factuality, faithfulness, and completeness." 17 The Bible does not present truth as a cultural creation of the ancient Jews or the early Christian. They received truth from the God who speaks truth to his creatures, and they were expected by this God to conform themselves to this truth. With his basis in revealed truth, the defender of the faith can work to challenge false philosophies pitted against the Christian worldview (2 Cor 10:3-5; Col 2:8-10).

Source: "To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview," ed. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), pp. 241-246.


12 Roger Nicole, "The Biblical Concept of Truth," in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, Mish.: Zondervan, 1983), p. 290.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., p. 291.
15 Ibid., p. 292.
16 Ibid., p. 293.
17 Ibid.; emphasis in the original.

McClellan book? 'Follow the money' to Soros

It seems the whole country is abuzz following the publication of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's tell-all book: "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception." Hal Lindsey hit the nail on the head. People asking why McClellan would "write" such a book should just "follow the money."

read more digg story

Heartbroken? Watch this video and then you decide!

Soros linked to hate-Bush McClellan book
'Hi George,' says blogger who traced connection

The Soros-McClellan Connection


HT: Johnny2k is Home

World Net Daily


Thursday, May 29, 2008

Memorial Day Memories

Tomorrow is the real Memorial Day. Monday was "Memorial Day - Observed." Well, that's O.K. Our fallen military heroes deserve both days of recognition. In fact, I vote that we should make it Memorial Week.

Fox News has been broadcasting beautiful tributes to our fallen military heroes; including a very touching one done by Lockheed Martin. Wouldn't it be great if more companies spent commercial dollars for such a noble purpose?

All of our history's war dead deserve to be in our thoughts this week. Their families belong in our heartfelt prayers.

Tomorrow's date has special significance for me because that is the date that my dad passed away - on May 3o, 1995. I have previously written about my witnessing experience with him. It was back in January of 1995 when I last saw him alive. One day during my last visit with him I had a truly faith-cementing experience. You can read about it at the link above.

I still miss him. I think that I always will until we are re-united in eternity with the Lord. The fact that he accepted Christ as Lord and Savior just four months before he passed away was an answer to my childhood prayers. I was worried about him missing heaven.

He used to call me "sweetie-pie." When I was a little girl I would run to the door when he came home from work, jumped on him, kissed him and said, "I missed you daddy!" I can still remember at the young age of seven, wondering if he would ever trust and believe in Jesus Christ. Thirty-Four years later, my prayers for him were answered!

Sometimes it is difficult to wait for the Lord's timing. However, the Lord is faithful - even when we are not! His timing is perfect! I learned that fact about God in a very real way in the midst of my father's life and death situation. The Lord also gave me a wonderful gift - that glimpse into the heavenly realm through my father's vision of a visiting angel.

I remember one is going to believe me when I tell them what happened that morning. Then again, it doesn't really matter. The event happened for the benefit of both my father and I. No one else needs to believe it, anyway. It was our little shared miracle on this earth.

Still miss him. But I do know that one day I will see him again.

Love you dad!

Your "Sweetie-Pie"

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

This and That

Yesterday, I drove my daughter to the Santa Monica Pier for her Invisalign print ad booking. It's a good thing I went with her. Using the carpool lane saved her from getting caught in a lot of traffic.

These bookings are fun. We get to go to the beach! It was a bit chilly (only 65 degrees), but there were still some brave people who went in the water anyway. My daughter was grateful that she didn't need to pose in a bikini! After all, she got the booking through just a photo of her smile! All of the female models wore beach dresses, shorts and tops; and the guys wore t-shirts and board shorts.

Weeks ago, auditions for this booking appeared on the L.A. Casting site. She submitted some photos, but didn't bother to go on the audition. One reason was because they were looking for teens to do the shoot. She is age 20, soon to turn 21. However, she has a look that is often mistaken for being much younger.

Several weeks ago, we walked into a mall boutique that had prom dresses and bathing suits for sale. The salegirl asked her, "looking for a prom dress?" She said, "no." I knew that it bothered her. She doesn't want to look like she's 16 anymore! Well, getting this booking taught her the advantages of being able to look younger!

When she saw the posting (and the money she could earn!) she told me that she thought 'what the heck...just send some photos...I probably would not get chosen for the job even if I auditioned for it.' Imagine her surprise when they called her for the booking! She told them her age, but the Invisalign people wanted her for the photo shoot because of her smile. In the past, she did wear braces for about a year.

The Invisalign product was formerly available only to adults, 18 yrs. and up. Now, the company wants to promote it to teens. The photos will appear in catalogs delivered to orthodontists for the purpose of encouraging them to offer the product to teens that come in for braces.

It was a beautiful day! The sun was shining, and the breeze was blowing. I walked along the beach several times, stopping to watch the photo shoot as they shifted locations throughout the day. I also took some time to sit in my car and listen to several talk radio shows.

Heard all about the recent gaffes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary's reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination was being bantered about by several radio commenters. Some thought it was intentional; others did not. All did agree that it was a terribly awful gaffe and that she should never have said it!

Barack Obama's Memorial Day gaffe was less egregious than Hillary's. One commenter over at Hot Air wrote:

Is that Barack a Gaffe Guzzler or what?

Jack Bauer


It seems that Obama often makes such dumb mistakes when he does not have a teleprompter in front of him. Some gaffes are more serious than others. Confusing his great uncle's involvement in the Auschwitz Camp liberation with the actual one at Buchenwald does reveal his lack of knowledge about important historical events. With the increasing amount of obvious political gaffes, where he is largely given a pass by the MSM, as well as all of the terribly questionable characters that he has been associated with; I think that more and more people are coming to the realization that the guy just isn't qualified to be president. Period.

Many Americans are worried that if Obama gets into office we would have another Jimmy Carter to deal with. I don't even want to mention Carter's latest gaffe! I agree with this commenter over at Hot Air:

On May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 am, bloghooligan said:
This isn’t even liberalism anymore…this is sociopathic-ism. He’s crazy, and not in the ‘crazy uncle’ kind of way. He’s dangerous.

Not to mention, Jimmy Carter is the father of modern day slavery. Let’s remember he ruined Iran and enslaved its people as well as Zimbabwe.

Wherever there’s an international disaster, it has it Jimmy’s paw prints prominently front and center.

Yes. That utterance by Carter was extremely egregious!! I personally think that he deserves to have his visa taken away!

Shifting gears a bit.

Today, I want to focus in on what Dennis Prager discussed on his radio show yesterday. It was a rebroadcast of a show about The Search for Utopia

It always sounds noble and it always leads to terrible results. Communism is an example. Seek to make the world better, but don't seek to make it a utopia. Originally broadcast on July 10, 2007.

You can go to that link and listen to the 35 minute broadcast. Some of the points that Prager made shows how very different the thinking of the far left is compared to conservative Christians. We all know this, of course, but when Prager mentioned that many of the cults out there are attempts to create a mini-utopia, it made me realize that cult leaders often exploit people, and religion (not genuine worship of God or Jesus Christ) in order to get power and their physical desires satisfied. Many of these men create cult-like atmospheres for one reason - to get sexual gratification from women and children!

Look at the current debate regarding polygamist cults. Some people think that because it exists under the guise of "religion", that the children - who allegedly have been sexually indoctrinated and/or abused before the proper age of consent - should not have been taken away from the compound. Apparently, the recent court ruling agrees. Such situations are very difficult to ascertain what is the best way to deal with them. We all remember the terrible handling and deathly results from the Waco disaster.

But what about these children in this polygamist cult?

Perhaps taking them from the compound wasn't done correctly.

But what about the children?

How does one determine a dangerous cult from the silly ones? And, what should be done about it?

Be back later -



Update: Be sure to read Escape at the CBS News site. Good comments, too.

HT: Hot Air

Michele Malkin

Winnepeg Sun

Protein Wisdom


CBS News

NY Daily News

Friday, May 23, 2008

Jesus Never Said?

I have read such opinions before like this one over at GCMWatch, so many times. Frankly, it is often used as just an excuse to try and get around an issue of sinful sexual deviancy that people just don't want to face.

My previous post was about protecting children from porn in libraries. In the comment section at GCMWatch, one commenter acknowledged that porn addiction has had a stronghold upon his life for 25 years. IMHO, the commenter made some good points, but at the same time, was trying to show that tolerance and compassion alone trumps confession and repentance. I would ask, "Do you think that establishing a church that affirms your addiction would be a good thing?"

Where is the accountability? Scripture is filled with the need for Christians to be accountable to the church as a whole and individual Christians, in particular.

Yet, this is exactly what the gay "christian" churches are NOT doing. They teach the "love, grace, mercy and forgiveness" of Christ without acknowledgement of the sacrificial cross of confession, repentance (which means willfully turning away from sin - not celebrating it or trying to whitewash it through man's reprobate ideology) or recognizing the sanctification process that is to occur once born again in Jesus Christ.

Where's the accountability in that?

I'm not saying to "throw people out of the church." What I'm saying is that some church leaders are deliberately keeping people in the bondage of homosexual sin through their reprobate theology. This is the same error as The Doctrine of the Nicolatians.

The idea that "Jesus never said anything against homosexuality" just shows the ignorance of people who don't know Christ and haven't read and studied the Bible. If they had, then they would realize how ridiculous that statement truly is.

Unfortunately, their logic is terribly flawed. Since such people believe (and teach others) that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality - that must mean that it is okay, right?

Mission America (quote below) has provided excellent talking points that specifically address this very issue. However, I would ask readers to also keep in mind that other sexual sins are involved in the warnings within Scripture to "flee sexual immorality."

1Cr 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.

1Cr 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

1Cr 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Cr 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1Ti 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

1Ti 6:11 ¶ But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.

2Ti 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

2Ti 2:26 And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Consider these facts from Mission America:

He (Jesus) also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence. Are those things okay, too?

There are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in the Gospel accounts, as John writes in John 21:25.

Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.

When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. (Matthew 5:28) And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.

Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah*as an example of God’s wrath ( Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11,Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets clearly described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.

Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, which was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9: 18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere).

So, Jesus was part of the Godhead as the laws were handed down through Moses to Israel and eventually to the whole world. This Old Testament law clearly prohibited homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18 and elsewhere). The apostles understood this also, as shown by Paul’s writing in Romans 1:24-27, Peter’s in 2 Peter 2:4-22, and John’s in Revelation 22:15.

So--the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. When people say, “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” they reveal that they really haven’t understood Scripture, or Who Christ is. Maybe some of these points can help them toward a clearer understanding.

Two comments at my message board regarding the above quote:

"This was an excellent reply based upon the truth of the Bible. Christ is God, the Holy Spirit (God also) inspired the Bible's writing, So when God declared homosexuality an abomination in the Old Testament, it was in fact Christ (God) who was the one declaring that. So, Christ did say a lot about homosexuality...everytime God says it in the Bible, Christ (part of the Godhead) is dittoing it."

"Excellent indeed! ... John 1 explains that Christ was GOD in the flesh and was the Creator who made everything, including every word written by man to be included in the Bible."

* Jesus also said that the signs of the end times would be "as in the Days of Noah" and "the "Days of Lot."

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

Luk 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.

Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Why do you think that Jesus made reference to both "the Days of Noah" and "the Days of Lot?" That link to a fellow Christian brother's essay clearly lays it out. We also see why when we look at additional Scripture:

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Gen 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

Job 22:15 Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?

Job 22:16 Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:

Job 22:17 Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them?

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Note how warnings went unheeded.

Note how few people followed the Word of God.

Note the sexual immorality that was rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, think about today.

What would Jesus have us do in these days?

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8

The eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth to show Himself strong to those whose hearts are fully committed to Him. 2 Chronicles 16:9

HT: GCMWatch

Refusing To Protect Children

I recall reading that before the Internet came into existence, access to p()rn had been greatly reduced. Good citizens rose up and fought to get the p()rn shops out of their communities. However, once the Internet boom happened, p()rn availability and access exploded. Ever since, sexual crimes against children have risen exponentially.

I know the arguments of the other side. Free speech and all of that. However, there ARE STILL p()rn laws that should, and must be observed and enforced.

I could not believe this next story. Now, I have heard of the battle against Internet p()rn access at libraries before. However, when CCF President, Randy Thomasson met with the Sacramento Library board and told them the following:

Thomasson told the board that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision (PDF) upholding the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) means the Sacramento library can institute a zero-tolerance p()rnography policy without violating the First Amendment. “You don’t need battling attorneys to tell you what the law says,” he told the library board. “Just read the U.S. Supreme Court decision which says a library is not a public forum and that libraries don’t have to provide any p()rnography unless they want to.”

I could not believe that the 14 member board deadlocked in a 7 to 7 vote!! Because of the deadlock, Sacramento libraries are still operating like p()rn parlors!

What is wrong with these seven adults who refused to vote to protect children from p()rn and the predators that often result from viewing such disgusting material? It is just unfathomable to me that anyone would side with that despicable organization called the ACLU against the decision given by the U.S. Supreme Court to give libraries the ability to block sexually-explicit web sites in libraries.

What about the children?? That's my question!! Perverts can go get their own computers and access such filth at home. This is astoundingly ridiculous!! And very dangerous...especially for children and women!! They are usually the victims of p()rn addicts who act out their revolting fantasies when just watching it no longer satisfies.


There's more evidence that government's lack of moral standards are making public schools, public colleges, and public libraries increasingly unsafe for children and young adults. The news from the past week should convince us all that pro-family persons of faith should be in charge of schools and libraries to guard and protect children and adults alike.

Home-made bomb explodes a Chico junior high school
Four teens arrested for exploding pipe bomb at Hanford high school
Gang warfare erupts and police squad called in at L.A. high school
Third graders in Pennsylvania trained to see transsexuality as natural
76 San Diego college students arrested for illegal drugs
Homosexual sex offender rapes boy in Massachusetts library

There are far more reasons to block such awful material than just the few examples in the links above.


Thomasson provided the 14 board members with the no-p()rn policy and procedures of the Monroe County Library System in Rochester, New York. “Libraries should adopt this model policy that uses the latest technology to block sexually-explicit web sites, but still allows for bona fide research,” he said.

Reference librarian Gerald Ward, who has worked the last 18 years for the Sacramento Public Library, told the board that all the pornography and sexual behavior he has seen at the library is sickening. “I have images locked in my head that I can’t get rid of,” said Ward, “because the current policy allows any adult to view any kind of p()rnography. The library cannot allow p()rnography on its premises and continue to present itself as a safe and healthy place. The board has a legal and moral responsibility to prohibit people from using library computers to view p()rnographic images.”

If you have the means and are able to donate to CCF (Campaign for Children and Families), please go to the website and donate all that you can. ANY amount will help this worthy organization to continue their much needed work here in California for the sake of our children and grandchildren!

Donate to CCF

CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (CCF) is a leading West Coast pro-family organization empowering citizens to live out their values.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

No Crybabies!

This post is just so great and so true that I had to link it here!
CampOnThis: Crybabies post.

Read the entire thing and the comments. LOTS of great, honest evaluation of the reprobation and error involved with those who adhere to, and preach, the unbiblical and skewed doctrine of liberal Christianity.

Steve writes:

How I wish that some in the Christian blogging community had one ounce of their honesty, courage, strength of conviction, and grace. One that does, is a dear friend of mine, Carla Rolfe. She posted this today to which I was grateful to be included:

While I am grateful for people like John MacArthur, Steve Camp, James White, Phil Johnson, Albert Mohler and others who take the same stand they do, I'm afraid they are in the minority, as our "culture shift" is sliding straight into some sort of wimpy, watered-down, effeminate, group-hugging, Kumbaya-singing version of what the Scriptures say a real church and real leaders should look and sound like.

Another one of my favorite parts comes at the end:

These are serious times beloved that demand serious answers to the hard questions of our generation. If you're not up to the task that's OK. "Go your own way, get out of the way, or just go away." But don't put those of us down who are dealing with ministry issues everyday from the crucible of grace of systematic theology, sound doctrine, church history, and the pages of the Bible.

Now, here is the truth of it that one blogger didn't want to discuss at his blog because it was just too much for him to handle on this important issue: Rick Warren preaches a watered down gospel; his endorsement of Tom Ascol's resolution for a regenerate church membership hurts that resolution severely. You cannot vet your congregation by reading The Message and heralding a watered-down gospel. Add to this, Warren has partnered with Barack Obama on the AIDS issue and allowed him to speak at his church even though Barack supports abortion, partial birth abortion, and live abortion. That is a fact. IOW, if you're unborn he will support your death if its convenient for the birth mother. But, if you somehow survive abortion and do contract HIV, Barack will fight for your right to live. Ridiculous, hypocritical, and plastinated.

But, Warren doesn't mind partnering with the likes of Barack. Rick has forged these ecumenical alliances with nonbelievers on political and social issues for some time on such issues as global warming (which is a myth), ending poverty (which he can't), and AIDS (with any group that shares his views). Mind you there is no biblical support for his unequally-yoked allies. But this is no surprise, for Warren has consistently demonstrated a skewed and unbiblical view of cobelligerence and seems to be oblivious to what the Scriptures actually teach about these things.

Quotes from the Reflections blog:

"We must resist the tendency to be absorbed into the fads and fashions of worldly thought. We need to emphasize, not downplay, what makes Christianity unique. And in order to do that effectively, we need to have a better grasp of how worldly thought is threatening sound doctrine in the church. We must be able to point out just where the narrow way diverges from the broad way." - John MacArthur

"As Christians we must understand that whatever opposes God’s Word or departs from it in any way is a danger to the very cause of truth. Passivity toward known error is not an option for the Christian. Staunch intolerance of error is built into the very fabric of Scripture. And tolerance of known error is anything but a virtue." - John MacArthur

"We must all ask ourselves in the blogosphere, when a media firestorm is created by a Christian spokesperson, has it been because of ones faith in Jesus, standing strong for His truth, or heralding Christ and Him crucified; or some lesser issue? It's easy to attract a crowd. Spurgeon one time remarked: if you want to draw a crowd, pour kerosene on yourself, strike a match, set yourself on fire, and people will come from miles around just to see you burn." - Steve Camp

"Yesterday four radical judicial revolutionaries decided to overthrow centuries of practice and law and create a monstrosity called "gay marriage." No such thing exists. That is like a round square, or a light of darkness. Marriage is not defined by judges who believe themselves free to create new realities. Marriage is a divine institution. But yesterday, the far-reaching proclamation (it wasn't a decision) of the CA Supreme Court made historic and biblical Christianity officially bigoted by granting civils rights on the basis of deviant sexual practice." - James White

Carla writes:

The common factor in these quotes and with these brothers is that they do not shy away from the elephant in the room. They address it with grace and with truth and with firm conviction that the Bible is the measuring rod by which all Christian faith and practice ought to be followed by professing believers.

Another common factor among these brothers (and they're not the only ones, there are others, thankfully) is that it doesn't take much googling to find plenty of criticism of all of them, for having the audacity to declare God's truth, God's way. They're accused of being unfairly harsh, judgemental, divisive, mean, rude, old fashioned, out of touch, etc. so on and so forth.

I love what John MacArthur said here:
"Truth and error cannot be combined to yield something beneficial."

and then again here:

"If we really believe the Word of God is true, we know that everything opposing it is error. And we are to yield no ground whatsoever to error"

HT: CampOnThis

Reflections of the Times

Pulpit Magazine


In an unrelated matter -

Heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to Steven Curtis Chapman and his family on the tragic news that his five-year old daughter Maria was accidentally killed in the driveway of their home.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Tyrannical Judges Redefine Marriage

Dennis Prager certainly spells it out clearly in his article, CA Decision Will Radically Change Society.


This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.

Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.

Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion -- or to any past wisdom -- for one's values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America's values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.

Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals -- the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.

If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

And what will happen after divorce -- which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World." All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.

Remember how voting in Iraq was done while Saddam Hussein was in power? The farcical show of people placing their votes into the ballot box was shown on T.V., trying to make people in the U.S., and the world, think that these people "loved" their dictator. Later, the results of the ballot counting revealed that 100% of the people voted for Saddam!


Of course not! What an absolute sham. It was almost comical if it wasn't so serious. We saw through such deception. The people of Iraq were fearful for their lives if they did any differently. The brutal, tyrannical rule of one man in that country led people to dutifully cast their votes for him.

What happened back then in Iraq, though slightly different, was just as absurd as what happened through the CA Extreme Court here.

Think about this. Three judges voted against changing the thousands-of-years-old definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman. Four judges arbitrarily decided to do so. Three judges for it, and three judges against it, subsequently cancels out each of their votes. Therefore, the vote of one radical liberal leftist judge has, in essence, dictatorially succeeded in overturning the votes of more than 4 million voters in California who voted to keep the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

If that's not viewed as homosexual agenda tyranny, I don't know what would be.

HT: TownHall

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The REAL Reason CA Ct. Ruled As It Did

In an email that I received from Save we find out the REAL reason why the CA Extreme Court ruled the way that it did.

Why did this happen? There were more judges who believe in "legislating from the bench" than judges who believe in upholding the law and constitutional boundaries. Look who appointed the four judges who invented homosexual "marriages" out of thin air:

1. Ron George, nominated to the California Supreme Court in 1991 by Republican Governor Pete Wilson. On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times published a very revealing post-ruling interview with Ron George. George talked about visiting the segregated South as a child and seeing "No Negro" and "No colored" signs. Unfortunately, the Chief Justice's childhood feelings illogically led him to do what no other state supreme court has done -- equate changeable homosexuality with unchangeable race, and throw out the people's vote on marriage in the process. "Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: 'I really don't know.'" Obviously, Californians should NOT accept this tyrannical ruling and must resist it beginning right now.

2.Kathryn Werdegar, nominated by Republican Governor Pete Wilson in 1994.

3. Joyce Kennard, nominated by Republican Governor George Deukmejian in 1989.

4. Carlos Moreno, nominated by Democrat Governor Gray Davis in 2001.

After the ruling, a man identifying himself as Pete Wilson's former press secretary, Bob Hudson, responded to a blog in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Having worked for Pete Wilson when he was a Senator and Governor I can tell you he was not at all a conservative and the folks who did his judicial selections when he was Gov. were way to the left of center and much of his senior staff were gay - not being judgmental there, just pointing out his appointees' votes are no surprise.

This is the consequence of pro-family citizens electing "moderate" Republican governors like Pete Wilson (1991-1998). It's also the result of not holding pro-family Republican governors like George Deukmejian (1983-1991) accountable to consistent pro-family standards.

Elevating Joyce Kennard to the high court was the Duke's worst public mistake. Today, Kennard is the most anti-family judge on the bench. From his official biography: "Asked why he ran for the office of Governor, Deukmejian replied, 'Attorneys General don't appoint judges - Governors do.' During his eight-year term, Deukmejian appointed 1,000 judges, and by the time he left office, he had appointed the majority of California State Supreme Court Justices then serving on the bench.

Despite the disastrous ruling and the strong likelihood of homosexual "marriages" barnstorming through California for every child to see, we must focus on pursuing righteousness and victory. With God's help and each one of us doing our parts, the false marriages scheduled to occur between mid-June and the November election can be blocked.

Campaign for Children and Families
Randy Thomasson, President
P.O. Box 511, Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 265-5650

CCF President Randy Thomasson: "The California Supreme Court has exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred."

HT: Save

The Holiness Factor

Shortly after the homosexual pseudo-"marriage" decision in CA came out, Pastor D.L. Foster posted the contention made by a pro-gay minister named Matt Tittle who stated:

"As a minister in a denomination that ordains gay clergy and offers all of its members the full benefits of membership in a loving faith community, I have conducted several same-sex weddings. In my experience, the love and commitment between gay and lesbian couples is usually even stronger than that of heterosexual couples. Their love has to be incredibly strong to withstand the discrimination and oppression they face on a daily basis."

I think that this represents the next phase of the gay "christian" movement and it's role in the radical homosexual agenda. For now, let's just call it the "we're better than you are" phase.

If you go to this link:

The "hetero vs. homo" debate: is it a valid one?

you will read some great comments by solidly biblical Christians. You will also read comments made by a pro-gay advocate. Decide for yourselves which side is winning that debate.

Here is Pastor Foster's question posed on his site:

"The question: is the “hetero vs homo” debate a valid one (or even necessary one) for a Christian? Why or why not?"

Here is my comment:

No. It’s not valid nor necessary. This is why.

First. The book of Leviticus informs us that whenever improper (sinful) sexual relations occur, there was need for a sin offering (sacrificed animal) to cleanse them of their immorality. The ONLY sexual activity that required just washing afterward (for cleanliness purposes) was when the sexual activity between husband (one man) and wife (one woman) occurred. No sin offering (sacrificed animal) was necessary because the marriage bed is pure (holy) and undefiled due to God’s covenant for this relationship. This is just not so for any other type of sexual behavior or bond.

Second, just as D.L. pointed out:

"That’s why Rev.Tittle is wrong. Gay couples who tout their relational longevity (against heterosexuality) mean little when you look at it from a righteous standpoint. There are people who do wrong things for years, but longevity never sanctifies sin."

The holiness factor is missing from Rev. Tittle’s claim! I glanced through the article, and I did not see one mention of God’s call for His people towards holiness.

“Be holy, because I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44-45), is the theme of Leviticus. It is an important theme throughout the Word of God.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

Holiness is perfection. As believers in Christ, we are to strive for holiness in our lives.

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

It is true that we will not be perfectly holy until we meet Jesus in heaven. However, holiness is our Christian destiny. We are to be “holy to the LORD.” Since that is what we will be one day and since “without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14), we must strive to be holy now.

The Bible emphasizes holiness because a lack of holiness is what accounts for our inability to love rightly and do anything else rightly, for that matter. The reason that so many “love” relationships are so screwed up is because our relationship to God and others are not what they should be and need to be.

I don’t see advocates of the gay “christian” movement ever talk about holiness - at least not genuine holiness as discussed in the Bible. People can claim all day long that their “relationship” is 'holy'. However, if it is not sanctioned (nor sanctified through covenant) by God as revealed in the Scriptures, then they are guilty of adding to the Bible!

D.L., I must tell you how extremely important your ministry here on this blog really is! People who only “see with their reprobate eyes” and do not “hear what the Spirit is telling the churches” are in danger of being deceived into thinking they are saved when they are not! That means that they could miss heaven. That means that they will not be recognized as one of His own! When the sheep and the goats are separated, they will be told to go away because they have not believed in the real Jesus! Jesus will tell them, “I know you not.” (See Matthew 25:1-12)

Look at 1 John 3:2-3

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

1Jo 3:3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

More evidence that we are to strive to be holy!

Read the entire chapter of 1 John 3. In it, we discover who the true brothers in Christ are. They are people like D.L., who is not afraid to tell homosexuals what they need to hear; rather than a “Rev.” like Tittle who just cares about “tickling their ears” and telling them what they want to hear.


This morning, several thoughts came to my mind regarding this issue. The opinion presented by this pro-gay “reverend” Tittle ignores God’s Word on the subjects of both the sin of homosexual behavior, as well as the covenant and sanctity of God-ordained, one man cleaving to one woman marriage.

Both of Tittle’s errors appear to be similar to the temptation that Satan used to lure Eve to disobey God. “Did God really say….”

HT: GCM Watch

Add-on: Tittle doesn't mention God or Jesus Christ in his article, either. When he signs off "keep the faith," one is left to wonder in whom or what?

Monday, May 19, 2008

Triumphant in Christ

In my sporadic reading of several blogs and news websites over the weekend, I found all different kinds of reactions to the same-sex "marriage" ruling in California.

Many people feel the same way that I do about these four rogue judges and their decision that oversteps the votes of over 4 million Californians who voted for Proposition 22. Four activist judges decide to trash traditional marriage even though over 28 states in America have already voted a big fat NO! to same-sex "marriage."

Some are standing by their Christian faith, refusing to go against what is written in the Bible. Others, feel that it was a triumphant achievement for homosexual people. Others, suggested a way to compromise on this volatile subject. Still others suggested that the CA Supreme Court stay the ruling and allow the people of CA to vote on the Marriage Protection Act in November.

Joseph Farah once wrote:

Marriage was, is and always will be for members of the opposite sex. Some courts may say otherwise. Some legislatures may say otherwise. None of that will change anything because courts and legislatures didn't invent marriage – God did.

In the November, 2004 edition of Whistleblower magazine, Mr. Farah wrote:

God had a perfect plan for man. It included one woman - not two, not three, not seven. Just one. It didn't include another man. It didn't include any transvestites or transexuals or intersexuals or metrosexuals.

There were no lesbians in the Garden of Eden. There was just one man and one woman.

That's the way God planned it.

Surely this arrangement was popular for many centuries.

[M]arriage existed in other cultures, but the institution was really codified in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Genesis 2:24 states: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Notice it doesn't say "partner," it says "wife."

This principle is re-emphasized in the Christian New Testament by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:4-6:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

[W]hy are there seemingly irrational attempts today to subvert something so natural and righteous?

I think it has a lot to do with sin and rejecting God's laws. It has to do with rejecting God's wisdom and guidance as it is laid out in Scripture. It has to do with unwillingness to submit to the fact that He knows what is best for us as His children.

The fact that so many homosexual people say, "It is who I am (meaning, being homosexual and indulging in homosexual behavior)" shows how confused many minds are about basic, godly relationships.

The Bible has many warnings about this, including in Isaiah 5:20:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Max Lucado provides some questions for those who might label themselves as homosexuals (or, anyone else for that matter), while at the same time, label themselves as Christians -

1. Where do you find your significance? In your triumphs, or in Christ's?

2. What do you think it means to live in the triumphant lifestyle of Christ?

3. Do you know who you are in Christ?

Yesterday, I read an essay from Max Lucado's book, "On the Anvil." The title was, "Triumphant...Forever!"


Triumph is a precious thing. We honor the triumphant. The gallant soldier sitting astride his steed. The determined explorer, returning from his discovery. The winning athlete holding aloft the triumphant trophy of victory. Yes, we love triumph.

No doubt, homosexuals are celebrating the triumph of the CA Supreme Court decision in their favor. I have read countless posts by homosexuals (and their heterosexual supporters) who think that this decision is the victory they have worked for over the past 20 years.


Triumph brings with it a swell of purpose and meaning. When I'm triumphant, I'm worthy. When I'm triumphant, I count. When I'm triumphant, I'm significant.

Yes. Homosexuals are feeling all of those emotions due to this decision. However, Max Lucado makes a good point in his next paragraph:

Triumph is fleeting, though. Hardly does one taste victory before it is gone. Achieved, yet now history. No one remains champion forever. Time for yet another conquest, another victory. Perhaps this is the absurdity of Paul's claim: "But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession" (2 Corinthians 2:14).

I would like to add to this idea that triumph is fleeting. Triumph can also be deceiving. It can be won through dishonesty, deception, law-breaking, faulty interpretation of our Constitution, wrong ideology, and the list goes on.

For example. When the Roe vs. Wade decision came out in favor of legalizing abortion, the innocuous term of "choice" was used to escape the reality that abortion kills unborn children in the womb. The focus was placed on the would-be mother; and her ability to "decide" what to "do with her own body." Well...guess whose body doesn't have a "choice?" The unborn baby. The most innocent, helpless, and fragile of human beings are slaughtered, at the whim of women who chose to have sex - but do not want to face the possible consequences of that choice. So, since 1973, the deliberate deaths of 78 million unborn babies becomes a terrible, holocaust-like reality in America.

Although Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal, it will NEVER be right in the eyes of God and those of us who follow His commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Jesus said to his followers, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

Despite the abortion holocaust that we are being forced to witness, and the homosexual agenda that is being pushed non-stop upon our children and our nation as a whole, Christians can rejoice in one triumph that isn't fleeting.


The triumph of Christ is not temporary. "Triumphant in Christ" is not an event or an occasion. It's not fleeting. To be triumphant in Christ is a lifestyle...a state of being! To triumph in Christ is not something we do, it's something we are.

Christ is the true Hope that we have in this brief life here on earth. Nothing else truly matters as much as salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord!

At the cross, Jesus said, "It is finished." Jesus did the work that God the Father sent him to do on this earth. He became the bridge of redemption between sinful man and holy God. All who confess of their sin, repent (means willingly turn away) of their sin, believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sin, and ask him into their hearts to live and reign within them through the power of the Holy Spirit, are His forever! There is nothing in this world that could ever be more triumphant than that! Nothing!


Here is the big difference between victory in Christ and victory in the world: A victor in the world rejoices over something he did --swimming the English Channel, climbing Everest, making a million. But the believer rejoices over who he is -- a child of God, a forgiven sinner, an heir of eternity. As the hymn goes, "Heir of salvation, purchase of God, born of his Spirit, washed in his blood."

Nothing can separate us from our triumph in Christ. Nothing! Our triumph is based not upon our feelings but upon God's gift. Our triumph is based no upon our perfection but upon God's forgiveness. How precious is this triumph! For even though we are pressed on every side, the victory is still ours. Nothing can alter the loyalty of God.

Such triumph in Jesus Christ cannot be overcome by decisions and/or evil done in the world. Jesus told us:

Jhn 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Jesus warned us that we would have tribulation in this world. But despite such tribulation, we can be of good cheer because He has overcome the world!

I love God's Word! It is such an honest book! When one is born again in Christ, we receive the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Notice that within all of the good fruit, there is still one called "longsuffering."

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Outline of Biblical Usage for the term "longsuffering":

1) patience, endurance, constancy, steadfastness, perseverance

2) patience, forbearance, longsuffering, slowness in avenging wrongs

Greek: makrothumia
One day, at the proper time, Jesus will come back to avenge the wrongs in this world. He will judge the living and the dead.

Meanwhile, as believers in Christ, we are to endure the wrongs that we encounter in this world while we continue to steadfastly carry out the Great Commission command of Jesus Christ. We are also called to warn others towards repentance and as Jude instructs us:

Jud 1:20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,

Jud 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Jud 1:22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction;[fn4]

Jud 1:23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire,[fn5] hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

1:22 NU-Text reads who are doubting (or making distinctions).
1:23 NU-Text adds and on some have mercy with fear and omits with fear in first clause.

1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.


"Triumphant in Christ." It is not something we do. It's something we are.

Digg link

HT: WorldNetDaily

On the Anvil by Max Lucado, pp. 133-135.

Blue Letter Bible

Saturday, May 17, 2008

CA Rogue Judges & Their Judicial Fiat

Below is a summary of one CA dissenting judge's written opinion about the four rogue judges and their homosexual pseudo-marriage decision:

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.

Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, 4 the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.

The majority (referring to the judges) has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex.

Written by BAXTER, J

HT: Stacy Harp for summary.

Friday, May 16, 2008

The FARCe That Is Obama

Whoo boy! Every blogger out there should pass this along. It's not likely going to be shared by the "we love Obama" MSM!

FARC documents: they’re real, and they’re spectacular.


Obama’s name, you’ll remember, is on that FARC computer:

In a Feb. 28 letter, FARC chieftain Raul Reyes cheerily reported to his inner circle that he met “two gringos” who assured him “the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support ‘Plan Colombia’ nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement).”

One commenter at Malkin's blog came up with a great new slogan for the Obama campaign:

On May 16th, 2008 at 8:55 am, sonofdy said:

No drug lord left behind.

Another makes a good point:

On May 16th, 2008 at 7:57 am, bloghooligan said:
the republicans need to keep the fact that enemies of ours (and freedom) want Obama to win. he’s either in agreement, or they think he’s too stupid. it’s hard to tell which one.

HT: Michelle Malkin

Related articles:

Interpol confirms authenticity of captured FARC data

Obama and FARC

Obama Rama Ding Dong's latest flare up.

Obama says Bush falsely accused him of appeasement

Guilty conscience Barack?

Article excerpt:

John McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, said Obama was showing ''naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment'' in his willingness to meet with U.S. foes.

I hear that Obama will have a televised response to what President Bush stated while in Israel yesterday.

Wouldn't it be great if someone asks Obamafarce about the FARC documents that have his name in them?

Thursday, May 15, 2008

CA Extreme Ct's Shameful Decision

Wrote the following in the comment section of this post last night:

Speaking of pastors having the free speech right to state Bible verses - which state unequivocally that homosexual behavior is sinful - tomorrow the CA Supreme Court will hand down it's decision on whether or not to overturn Proposition 22 (which was voted on by the people in 2000 to recognize that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in CA) and allow homosexual "marriage."

Knowing how liberal the members of the court are, I would not be a bit surprised if they decide to ignore and trump the votes of 60% of the people in order to push their own ideological agreement with those proponents of same-sex "marriage" on the public in this state.

I pray that Prop. 22 ISN'T overturned, but I fear that this liberal leftist court will not be able to resist the opportunity to do so.

If they do such a thing, it may be "legal" in CA to "marry" a person of the same sex; but it will NEVER BE MORALLY RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD. God's laws DO NOT CHANGE!

May 14, 2008 10:33:00 PM PDT

With the CA Extreme Court's "making new law" decision, CA has trumped the vote of the majority of people in this state who voted by 60% margin back in 2000 that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman in the state of California.

How ironic that this Extreme Court has done exactly what John McCain said in his speech this morning about radical judges "legislating from the bench." This court has overturned the will of the people in California.

This unrighteous decision just proves that the Alliance Defense Fund is correct in reclaiming pastor's rights of free speech in the pulpit. Getting that passed will be of the utmost importance in order to prevent so-called "hate crimes" laws - that are currently being pushed into law by homosexual groups and their supporters - which are designed to criminalize any voices that share the fact that homosexual behavior as sinful, shameful, physically, emotionally and spiritually dangerous. Getting pastors who follow biblical morality (and, of course, preach against and oppose homosexual behavior) silenced, is the final goal of the homosexual agenda. If they can, literally, shut all opposition down, then they (believe) that they have won not only the battle, but the entire war against God's Word and proper moral behavior.

There are two people who recently presented strong arguments against homosexual behavior.

1. Pastor Miles McPherson's sermon on February 10, 2008 is called Marriage, The Image of God. Go to the link, scroll down to that date, and you can either watch the video or listen to the podcast.

2. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. - who recently wrote An Open Letter to a University President regarding the Suspension of a Black Female Administrator Who Challenged a Comparison between Homosexual Practice and Being Black.

Also see Dr. Gagnon's answers to questions that he has received regarding homosexuality.

[Note: I respectfully disagree with Dr. Gagnon's view that "salvation can be lost." Dr. Gagnon admits that Christians can disagree on this issue.]

Here is the letter and response:

A Question about Eternal Security and Sexual Immorality
From: Mark
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:20 PM
To: Robert Gagnon

Dear Dr. Gagnon:

Even as one who has learned a great deal from you through your articles, as a Presbyterian minister I must take exception to one aspect of your teaching regarding whether a lady would go to hell if she is in a lesbian relationship [RG: see email below]. Your answer, as I saw it, stated that it wasn't a given but a possibility seemingly based solely on this one thing. Homosexual activity is a sin (it's ironic that those who view that portion of Leviticus 18 as no longer relevant do see all the other teachings there on sinful relationships there as still in effect - incest and bestiality to name a couple).

However: Heaven is based upon what he did on the cross, and our acceptance of Him as Savior. Fornication, Fathers Not Being Involved in the Lives of Their Children, Lying, Divorce, Not Helping Those in Need if You Can, for example, are also sins, but no one seems to suggest that those who continue to lie from time to time, who left pregnant women to raise kids on their own, or who are who are divorced and remarried are all in danger of hell. Jesus does call them to change their ways as part of following Him and He always will, but to say that the promise of eternal life may now be null and void even if they truly believe (albeit erroneously) that God says homosexual activity based on orientation as okay seems extreme.

Let me be clear. I do not excuse these activities or homosexual activity. Having Jesus as Lord means having him as Lord in all of your life. I know that passage in Galatians 5:19-21. I am angered that we in the PC(USA) seem to told not just to acknowledge homosexual behavior but to celebrate it. All are sins that I confront equally as a child of God. When I hear the suggestion, though, that the Lord puts this one sin in a separate category regarding eternal judgment, raises concerns for me that we've gone from one sandy foundation to another another (Matthew 7). James 2:8-13- "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it." All Christians are called to be different. All Christians also continue to be sinners, too.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted what you stated there. Is this what you are saying?


Dr. Gagnon's response:

From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:50 PM
To: Mark

Dear Mark,

The question you raise has to do with the larger question of eternal security, classically defined as “once saved, always saved.” I do not subscribe to it because I don’t believe that Jesus or any NT author, including Paul, subscribed to it. There are literally dozens of texts that make this point. The thought here is not that individuals must merit their salvation but rather that the absence of transformation or the presence of serial unrepentant immoral behavior of an extreme sort demonstrates a fatal deficiency in faith, i.e., in not letting Jesus live in one by grace. When Paul says in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that sexually immoral persons, including those who engage in incest, adultery, and man-male intercourse (and by extension lesbian intercourse) shall not inherit eternal life he is not making this statement only about unbelievers. Both the context of the Christian incestuous man in ch. 5 and the analogy of a Christian, a person who is really and truly joined to Jesus, having sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 make clear, in my opinion, that he also has in view believers who live immoral lives. It is because the incestuous man’s eternal life is at risk that Paul takes the extreme measure of putting him on church discipline, in the hopes that he might be saved on the Day of the Lord.

Thus also he could say to the Thessalonian believers, in the earliest extant New Testament document:

For you know what commands we gave to you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God: your holiness, that you abstain from sexual immorality (porneia) . . . [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . because the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things. . . . For God called us not to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) but in holiness. Therefore the one who rejects [these commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us. (1 Thess 4:2-8)

And to the Galatian Christians:

The works of the flesh are obvious, which are: sexual immorality (porneia), sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), licentiousness (aselgeia) . . . , which I am warning you about, just as I warned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. . . . Stop deceiving yourselves; God is not to be mocked, for whatever one sows that one will also reap. For the one who casts seed into one’s flesh will reap a harvest of destruction and decay from the flesh, but the one who casts seed into the Spirit will reap a harvest of eternal life from the Spirit. And let us not grow tired of doing what is right for in due time we will reap, if we do not relax our efforts. (Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9)

In 2 Corinthians Paul expresses deep concern that

I may have to mourn over many who have continued in their former sinning and did not repent of the sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), sexual immorality (porneia), and licentiousness (aselgeia) that they practiced. (12:21)

Mourning is mourning over death, the possible loss of eternal life for believers who live in this manner. Later, in Rom 6:19-22 and 8:12-14, Paul urged Roman believers to reverse the trend of the immoral life described in Rom 1:24-27, otherwise loss of eternal life would ensue:

For just as you presented your members as slaves to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) and to [other types of] lawlessness for the sake of lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for the sake of holiness (or: sanctification). For when you were slaves of sin, you were free with respect to [the demands of] righteousness. What fruit did you have at that time? Things of which you are now ashamed, because the end (or: outcome) of those things is death. But now, since you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you have your fruit for holiness (or: sanctification), and the end (or: outcome) is eternal life.

The message of Ephesians is similar:

[N]o longer walk as the Gentiles walk, . . . who . . . have given themselves up to licentiousness (aselgeia) for the doing of every sexual uncleanness (akatharsia). . . . Sexual immorality (porneia) and sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) of any kind . . . must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. . . . Know this indeed, that every sexually immoral person (pornos) or sexually unclean person (akathartos) . . . has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the children of disobedience. (Eph 4:17-19; 5:3-6)

And there are many other texts. For me not to say what I said would leave out the whole counsel of God. The deception that a number of the above texts refer to is deceiving oneself into thinking that, as a Christian, who could continue in serial unrepentant sin of an egregious sort (like adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse, sex with prostitutes) and get away with it. It’s not limited to same-sex intercourse. The divorce/remarriage analogy is not a good one, both because Scripture does not treat it as serious an offense (though serious) and because it tends not to be serial behavior (unlike repeated acts of homosexual practice). I would agree, too, that regular, particular grievous non-sexual forms of behavior could also get one excluded from the kingdom of heaven even if one confesses Jesus as Lord.

I realize that Christians have differing views on this issue. I am convinced by Scripture itself that loss of salvation is real and possible for believers. In that sense I am always reforming in the direction of Scripture, or at least trying to do so here.

I hope this helps,


I would argue that people who do not genuinely confess and repent of their sins before accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior over their lives my not genuinely be saved in the first place. Therefore, their names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Once genuinely born again, one cannot lose their salvation. However, a nominal or willfully sinning person who has not made a true commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ, but has simply given themselves the label of "Christian" may NOT have been genuinely converted. Jesus said, "you must be born again." He also said, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." Those who have not made the heart commitment (meaning, not just an intellectual thought that Jesus might be the Savior), may not have been born again through Jesus Christ in the first place. Such people are in grave danger when Jesus, who knows each and every individuals heart and soul, goes through what the Scriptures tell us is "the separation of the sheep and the goats."

Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats:

Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Note Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 25:32-33

II. The appearing of all the children of men before him (v. 32); Before him shall be gathered all nations. Note, The judgment of the great day will be a general judgment. All must be summoned before Christ’s tribunal; all of every age of the world, from the beginning to the end of time; all of every place on earth, even from the remotest corners of the world, most obscure, and distant from each other; all nations, all those nations of men that are made of one blood, to dwell on all the face of the earth.

III. The distinction that will then be made between the precious and the vile; He shall separate them one from another, as the tares and wheat are separated at the harvest, the good fish and the bad at the shore, the corn and chaff in the floor. Wicked and godly here dwell together in the same kingdoms, cities, churches, families, and are not certainly distinguishable one from another; such are the infirmities of saints, such the hypocrisies of sinners, and one event to both: but in that day they will be separated, and parted for ever; Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, Mal. 3:18. They cannot separate themselves one from another in this world (1 Co. 5:10), nor can any one else separate them (ch. 13:29); but the Lord knows them that are his, and he can separate them. This separation will be so exact, that the most inconsiderable saints shall not be lost in the crowd of sinners, nor the most plausible sinner hid in the crowd of saints (Ps. 1:5), but every one shall go to his own place. This is compared to a shepherd’s dividing between the sheep and the goats; it is taken from Eze. 34:17, Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle. Note, 1. Jesus Christ is the great Shepherd; he now feeds his flock like a shepherd, and will shortly distinguish between those that are his, and those that are not, as Laban divided his sheep from Jacob’s, and set three days’ journey between them, Gen. 30:35, 36. 2. The godly are like sheep—innocent, mild, patient, useful: the wicked are like goats, a baser kind of animal, unsavoury and unruly. The sheep and goats are here feeding all day in the same pasture, but will be coted at night in different folds. Being thus divided, he will set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on his left, v. 33. Christ puts honour upon the godly, as we show respect to those we set on our right hand; but the wicked shall rise to everlasting shame, Dan. 12:2. It is not said that he shall put the rich on his right hand, and the poor on his left; the learned and noble on his right hand, and unlearned and despised on his left; but the godly on his right hand, and the wicked on his left. All other divisions and subdivisions will then be abolished; but the great distinction of men into saints and sinners, sanctified and unsanctified, will remain for ever, and men’s eternal state will be determined by it. The wicked took up with left-handed blessings, riches and honour, and so shall their doom be.

HT: Miles McPherson: Marriage, The Image of God

Dr. Robert Gagnon

Blue Letter Bible's Matthew Henry Commentary


Additional posts on this topic:

Americans For Truth: CWA: California Supreme Court Betrays “We the People” on Marriage


To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

“The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called ‘same-sex marriage’ is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies.

“If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that’s their prerogative, but we shouldn’t destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.

“On a positive note, the Court’s decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I’m certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.