1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Sin is the transgression of the law. I get that.
There aren't too many Christians these days that wouldn't be willing to tell anyone that will listen that homosexuality is a sin, and rightly so. Clearly homosexuality is against God's law.
And therein lies the problem.
"We're not under the law anymore, we're under grace." How many times have you heard that? How many times have you said that? "We're not under the law anymore, we're under grace." Well, if we aren't under the law anymore, then how is it even possible that homosexuality is considered a sin?
Let me explain.
It seems it's sheik to say these days that, "We're not under the law anymore, we're under grace." Yet I actually agree with this notion quite a bit. Those that have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are not under the law anymore. Their sins are covered by the blood of Son of God. Now they are under the conviction and direction of the Holy Spirit (of course we have to ask, "What standard does the Holy Spirit use?") to walk in the way of and abide with Jesus. Besides, the law is set-up specifically law breakers, not for those that obey the law.
1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
But what law?
Nowhere in the 10 Commandments can one specifically find a prohibition against homosexuality, or having an affair with one's aunt. Nor does the 10 Commandments make mention of bestiality. I think the 7th Commandment is fairly clear: "Thou shalt not commit adultery. " - Exodus 20:14. In fact, the word used here for adultery means just that, "to commit adultery, always with wife of another" - see Strongs #H5003.
Well, that's confusing. If sin is the transgression of the law and yet I can't find a prohibition against homosexuality in the 10 Commandments, then how in the world can homosexuality be a sin?
Is it something I might find in the Mosaic law? You know, that law that was ' just for the Jews.' Well, after a very brief search I found this one for homosexuality:
Leviticus 20:13 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.
I found this one that prohibits having an affair with one's aunt:
Leviticus 20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
I found this one that says something extremely negative about bestiality:
Leviticus 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
How then can something not mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and yet mentioned in a law that apparently has nothing to do with Gentiles but "Jews" only, be considered sin? Is it because, as the pat answer seems to be, it's something that was "reiterated" in the "New" Testament?
Few men marry their sisters. Why is that considering there is no prohibition of a man marrying his sister in the "New" Testament? Could it be that's because it's found in the Mosaic law?
People will say and do just about anything to prove that we aren't under the "law" anymore but use that very "law" to conveniently attack a position in an argument they feel quite passionately about.
Yet it is these very arguments that dismantle the very positions they hold about the law and grace.
Whenever I read the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 I try to imagine for a second that it was me caught in the very act of doing a sin worthy of death by stoning. I try to imagine Jesus saying to me, "David, where are your accusers at? Has no man condemned you?"
Jesus came to show us the Father....everything about the Father. His goodness, His mercy, His grace and tenderness. He came to show that to me, and He came to show that in every sinner. Jesus uses the law to show us our weaknesses and our propensity to sin, yet at the same time He doesn't condemn us.
Do we have license to sin? God forbid. Do we have complete freedom to pick and choose which of God's laws we will choose to follow? Sure we do. If we choose the road that's wide and that leads to destruction God will not stop us. Does that mean He stops loving us? God forbid.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Who is Israel?
For an absolutely riveting video that clearly and concisely demonstrates the Biblical truth regarding the true identity of Israel please click the link shown above. The video is only 13 minutes long, yet those 13 minutes are jam packed with scriptural references and proofs that end this notion that the modern, secular nation state of Israel is the favored nation of God or home to His people.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Does that mean we can murder and steal?
I also wanted to mention that in Ray Comforts "Answers from the Evidence Bible - Freedom from Keeping the Sabbath" there is this argument:
"Acts 15:5–11, 24–29 was God’s opportunity to make His will clear to His children. All He had to do to save millions from damnation was say, "Remember to keep the Sabbath holy," and millions of Christ-centered, God-loving, Bible-believing Christians would have gladly kept it. Instead, the only commands the apostles gave were to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication."
Using the same logic as expressed above then had the Jerusalem Council mentioned, "Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not covet, etc, etc, then by extension millions of Christ-centered, God-loving, Bible-believing Christians would have gladly kept them. But is that true?
What the argument here is really making is that since the Jerusalem Council did not admonish newly minted Christians from murdering, stealing or coveting then those must be perfectly fine to do! But who would buy that argument? Who would even make such an argument and still keep a straight face? Even more interesting is that this very council of consisting of new Christians from Jewish backgrounds made it known that these new Christians were to keep certain aspects of the Mosaic health laws, 1) Not to eat blood, and 2) Not to eat anything strangled or that died on it's own.
Clearly, a confused, nonsensical argument should be rejected whenever logic based on the perfect law of God and clear Biblical evidence is used to dismiss it.
"Acts 15:5–11, 24–29 was God’s opportunity to make His will clear to His children. All He had to do to save millions from damnation was say, "Remember to keep the Sabbath holy," and millions of Christ-centered, God-loving, Bible-believing Christians would have gladly kept it. Instead, the only commands the apostles gave were to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication."
Using the same logic as expressed above then had the Jerusalem Council mentioned, "Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not covet, etc, etc, then by extension millions of Christ-centered, God-loving, Bible-believing Christians would have gladly kept them. But is that true?
What the argument here is really making is that since the Jerusalem Council did not admonish newly minted Christians from murdering, stealing or coveting then those must be perfectly fine to do! But who would buy that argument? Who would even make such an argument and still keep a straight face? Even more interesting is that this very council of consisting of new Christians from Jewish backgrounds made it known that these new Christians were to keep certain aspects of the Mosaic health laws, 1) Not to eat blood, and 2) Not to eat anything strangled or that died on it's own.
Clearly, a confused, nonsensical argument should be rejected whenever logic based on the perfect law of God and clear Biblical evidence is used to dismiss it.
How perfect?
Today I had an opportunity to listen a bit to Ray Comfort of the "Way of the Master" fame. It was a tape from his appearance at the Strategic Prophecy Conference held recently in California. It was actually quite good. Ray has a very logical and Biblical way of pointing out that the "law of liberty", the Ten Commandments, are still in effect and are a wonderful way to point out sin and in effect, the character of God. He makes sense and uses a myriad of scriptures to show that the moral law of God is indeed "...is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple."
But there is a bit of a problem that we need to address.
On Ray's web site there is a section titled "Answers from the Evidence Bible" in which the argument is made that in reality the moral law of God isn't perfect after all, at least that's what I gather the argument is when I read articles titled, "Freedom from Sabbath Keeping."
If God's original moral law is perfect and able to convert the soul then why would it need to be changed by doing away with the Sabbath? Honestly, if something is perfect by definition (in this case God's definition), it needs nothing to be changed to make it better. If something is considered perfect it can't be made more perfect by changing something about it. Furthermore, if something is deemed to be perfect is later found to need changes then it couldn't have been perfect in the first place.
That's a question I love to have answered. How is it that something God deemed to be perfect wind up needing to be changed?
Here's a few questions asked in the article that I'll happily answer:
"First, nowhere does the Fourth Commandment say that Christians are to worship on the Sabbath."
Actually, that's a fairly untrue statement when the weight of actual Bible evidence is applied to it. First, it was a "mixed multitude" (Exodus 12:38) that came out of Egypt and enjoyed that first Sabbath in the wilderness. That should be proof alone that God didn't just command the children of Israel. But just a scant 5 verses later we read the requirements for the strangers (gentiles) that wanted to take part in the Passover (Exodus 12:43-48). Obviously taking part in the Passover meant accepting what the Passover symbolized which is the life and sacrifice that God would later provide for the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36).
This brief picture of Bible prophecy in Exodus clearly demonstrates that there would be a people outside of the original covenant that God made that would desire to be part of His covenant. What is most interesting to note is that these strangers that desired to take part in the Passover would have done this by faith, and not by any requirement of any covenant.
Second, the stranger was required to keep the Sabbath holy and to keep from profaning it. "But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:" - Exodus 20:10. Strangers in the Bible always symbolize a people outside of God's original covenant with the children of Israel.
Third, a "Holy Convocation" was called to be assembled every seventh day Sabbath. "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day [is] the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work [therein]: it [is] the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings." - Leviticus 23:3
One can easily conclude that if a stranger was to keep the Sabbath holy by commandment of God, and a holy convocation was suggested by God, that what might be inferred was that God wanted to share with the strangers what was going on and why?Obviously in that we see this addressed by Paul when he tells us that the oracles of God were first entrusted to the children of Israel - see Romans 3:2.
Fourth, God gives us further evidence that it is the strangers, the Gentiles, that take a hold of His covenant in a most interesting, and quite enlightening manner:
"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;" - Isaiah 56:6
Just as the the covenant was confirmed by the willingness of the children of Israel to do what was commanded in God's holy, just and perfect moral law, the Ten Commandments - see Deuteronomy 4:13; God specifically made it clear through the prophet Isaiah that the sons of the Gentiles would join themselves to God by taking a hold of His covenant and keeping His Sabbath.
Lastly, the argument that "...nowhere does the Fourth Commandment say that Christians are to worship on the Sabbath" is a bit of a red herring at best. The childish retort would simply be that nowhere does the Fourth Commandment say that Christians are not to worship on the Sabbath for that matter. But in examining and weighing the mounds of Biblical evidence and scriptures it becomes even more far-fetched to believe that Christian aren't required to keep the Sabbath. After all, if the law is indeed able to "convert the soul" are we referring only to Jewish souls?
And yet Paul recognized quite fully that even those that didn't have the law, yet did the requirements of the law, were actually those that understood the law. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" - Romans 2:14.
It's evident, from a purely logical standpoint, that something that is perfect doesn't need to be changed. The moral law of God, written by His finger and engraved in stone, is indeed perfect, holy, just and good.
It has never changed.....and never will.
But there is a bit of a problem that we need to address.
On Ray's web site there is a section titled "Answers from the Evidence Bible" in which the argument is made that in reality the moral law of God isn't perfect after all, at least that's what I gather the argument is when I read articles titled, "Freedom from Sabbath Keeping."
If God's original moral law is perfect and able to convert the soul then why would it need to be changed by doing away with the Sabbath? Honestly, if something is perfect by definition (in this case God's definition), it needs nothing to be changed to make it better. If something is considered perfect it can't be made more perfect by changing something about it. Furthermore, if something is deemed to be perfect is later found to need changes then it couldn't have been perfect in the first place.
That's a question I love to have answered. How is it that something God deemed to be perfect wind up needing to be changed?
Here's a few questions asked in the article that I'll happily answer:
"First, nowhere does the Fourth Commandment say that Christians are to worship on the Sabbath."
Actually, that's a fairly untrue statement when the weight of actual Bible evidence is applied to it. First, it was a "mixed multitude" (Exodus 12:38) that came out of Egypt and enjoyed that first Sabbath in the wilderness. That should be proof alone that God didn't just command the children of Israel. But just a scant 5 verses later we read the requirements for the strangers (gentiles) that wanted to take part in the Passover (Exodus 12:43-48). Obviously taking part in the Passover meant accepting what the Passover symbolized which is the life and sacrifice that God would later provide for the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36).
This brief picture of Bible prophecy in Exodus clearly demonstrates that there would be a people outside of the original covenant that God made that would desire to be part of His covenant. What is most interesting to note is that these strangers that desired to take part in the Passover would have done this by faith, and not by any requirement of any covenant.
Second, the stranger was required to keep the Sabbath holy and to keep from profaning it. "But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:" - Exodus 20:10. Strangers in the Bible always symbolize a people outside of God's original covenant with the children of Israel.
Third, a "Holy Convocation" was called to be assembled every seventh day Sabbath. "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day [is] the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work [therein]: it [is] the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings." - Leviticus 23:3
One can easily conclude that if a stranger was to keep the Sabbath holy by commandment of God, and a holy convocation was suggested by God, that what might be inferred was that God wanted to share with the strangers what was going on and why?Obviously in that we see this addressed by Paul when he tells us that the oracles of God were first entrusted to the children of Israel - see Romans 3:2.
Fourth, God gives us further evidence that it is the strangers, the Gentiles, that take a hold of His covenant in a most interesting, and quite enlightening manner:
"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;" - Isaiah 56:6
Just as the the covenant was confirmed by the willingness of the children of Israel to do what was commanded in God's holy, just and perfect moral law, the Ten Commandments - see Deuteronomy 4:13; God specifically made it clear through the prophet Isaiah that the sons of the Gentiles would join themselves to God by taking a hold of His covenant and keeping His Sabbath.
Lastly, the argument that "...nowhere does the Fourth Commandment say that Christians are to worship on the Sabbath" is a bit of a red herring at best. The childish retort would simply be that nowhere does the Fourth Commandment say that Christians are not to worship on the Sabbath for that matter. But in examining and weighing the mounds of Biblical evidence and scriptures it becomes even more far-fetched to believe that Christian aren't required to keep the Sabbath. After all, if the law is indeed able to "convert the soul" are we referring only to Jewish souls?
And yet Paul recognized quite fully that even those that didn't have the law, yet did the requirements of the law, were actually those that understood the law. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" - Romans 2:14.
It's evident, from a purely logical standpoint, that something that is perfect doesn't need to be changed. The moral law of God, written by His finger and engraved in stone, is indeed perfect, holy, just and good.
It has never changed.....and never will.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Even Jesus Christ Rejects National Israel
Even Jesus Christ rejected the notion that a future, secular nation/state would have any significant relevance for the future of His kingdom. Jesus, because He is God, knew that He would be rejected by those He was sent to and that eventually those that were outside of this and yet wished to join themselves to God the Father would do so through His Son, Jesus Christ.
Let's study this important parable to find out how and why Jesus spoke what He did to the Pharisees:
The Bible and Christian thought is not a "new" religion but merely an extension of the old ways of the Israelite teachings that were meant to direct the observer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Savior that He would send and in our case, has sent.
Let's study this important parable to find out how and why Jesus spoke what He did to the Pharisees:
Matthew 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
The householder in this parable, as in all the other parables that mention the householder, speaks of God the Father. In creating the earth and all that is in it He is the householder and the One that planted the vineyard. The vineyard in this case are those people that God has planted and continues to plant to this day that hear Him and abide with Him. See Isaiah 61:3. The vine, if there was any doubt, is Jesus Christ (John 15:1).
21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
The servants that God the Father sent to the husbandmen, those in charge of keeping the vineyard in order, were the prophets of the Old Testament that spoke to the Children of Israel of the coming Messiah.
Here, Jesus specifically reminds those who He was speaking to what had actually happened to a number of the prophets that God sent to the Children of Israel. Jeremiah was stoned, as was Habakkuk and Zechariah was slain with the sword by Joash.
Jesus here is re-emphasizing what He said in verse 35.
This is more than obvious that Jesus here is talking about Himself.
21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
Jesus is simply predicting what happened in His day when the Son of God came and was killed by the Pharisees.
See above.
Jesus asks those whom He was speaking to a very important and pointed question that we must ask ourselves. When God the Father returns to see what has happened to His vineyard what will He do?
Do you desire to be a part of that "other husbandmen?" By accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and abiding with Him you personally become part of the other husbandmen and will render to Jesus the fruits in their seasons.
This is a direct reference to Psalms 118:22 and Isaiah 28:16. Jesus is constantly refered to as a rock or stone in both the Old and New Testaments.
Jesus plainly declares here that the Kingdom of God, which is found within the heart of each and every man and woman (Luke 17:21), would be taken away from those that were responsible to share the great and wonderful blessings of God the Father and eventually given to another. This fact is made even more clear in the Book of Acts when the Jews of that day found themselves unworthy of eternal life and thus the preaching of the Kingdom of God went to the gentiles.
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
In other words, when we voluntarily fall on that stone, that precious corner stone of Jesus Christ, we see our weakness and just how helpless we really are. Thus we realize how broken we are. And yet, if we resist that power of Jesus Christ and allow that stone to fall on us, it will grind one to powder.
The Bible and Christian thought is not a "new" religion but merely an extension of the old ways of the Israelite teachings that were meant to direct the observer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Savior that He would send and in our case, has sent.
Replacement Theology
I think that there is some confusion in the world today, among Christians and non-Christians alike, regarding the belief that the majority of Christians are taught or believe that “the Church” has somehow replaced the nation of
If this is indeed the thinking, that “the Church” has somehow replaced the nation of
Personally I believe that very few Christians have this belief, because if more Christians did, they would understand the truth that the Church has not replaced
Those that are called out by the Holy Spirit to believe in and, more imporantly, abide with Jesus Christ are members of His Body, the Church. They become adopted members of His nation. His family has replaced the secular, nation/state of
In the Old Testament, if I wanted to join with the nation of
Exodus 12:43-49 clearly spells out God’s desire for accepting the Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ in type.
And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This [is] the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. All the congregation of
Now, if an Israelite had purchased a slave, that slave could participate in the eating of the Passover provided he was circumcised. Likewise, those that of their own volition who chose to partake in the eating Passover (verse 48), where also required to be circumcised and after wards were considered to be “as one that is born in the land.”
How are we, as Christians today, purchased just like a slave? Through the blood of Jesus Christ; Ephesians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 6:20. What is required of anyone that wishes to join Jesus Christ and become a follower of His way, of His truth and His life? A circumcised heart; Deuteronomy 30:6, Romans 2:28-29. Those things in the Old Testament which pointed to Jesus Christ and that were to be performed by the tribe of
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Food for Thought......
The following is a letter to the editor that was written by a friend of mine in Colorado. It is definite "food for thought." This is the link to Doug's web site: http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/waning.html
Letters to the Editor
Rocky Mountain News
Denver, CO 80202
Editor:
Thank you for your article of June 30, 2008 entitled “Evangelicals' political clout wanes, scholars say.” This waning political influence is long overdue. For years, Christians and their churches have been inappropriately used as partisan political tools. The consequences have been most unfortunate.
From 1980 to 2000, there was always a drumbeat about the need for Christians to vote Republican. When George W. Bush mentioned Jesus during the 2000 campaign, things went crazy. Based on just one statement, evangelical leaders relentlessly promoted Bush as this great Christian man and insisted that Christians stand with him foursquare. Someone said that it was as if they wanted to add Bush to the Holy Trinity.
Millions of evangelicals thus became fervent supporters of unprovoked war, torture, warrantless searches and spying, rogue police and guilt without trial. They became cheerleaders for the most un-Christlike behavior imaginable.
When called on this, they often would try to frighten people, saying things like, “Do you want liberals in power?” Well, our “conservative” president outspends his liberal predecessor by $1 trillion per year. Every liberal program these “conservatives” say they oppose is larger and costlier than ever. Abortions are as available now as they were in the Clinton years.
Christians are called to be light in a world of darkness and salt in a world of decay. While we need to be involved in politics, we must not compromise Christianity for the sake of political victory. We must acknowledge the very strict limits of what government can accomplish and that the state almost always does more harm than good.
We must also not yoke ourselves unequally with secular political movements. This unholy alliance of evangelical Christians and the Republican Party has given Christians a reputation as warmongers, cultural control freaks and partisan political jerks. This is not how Christ called us to live.
Let us look to the Bible and to the teachings of Christ, rather than temporal partisan political agendas, as our guide toward influencing our world.
Douglas F. Newman
Aurora
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
