Pastor's Blog Subjects. (Click One)
Retraction Statement on Supralapsarianism
My Story of Chronic Pain and Faith
The Justice of God in an Unjust World
Blog Component
Retraction on Supralapsarinism
The Justice Of God In An Unjust World
How Can God Be Just, and Let Some Die And Others Live; Let Bad Things Happen
Written By Daniel Gamble
The other day I was approached by an individual with a very important question. It is not a question that is unique to this individual, but it is one which I am asked about quite often as a minister of the gospel. I will do my best in this post to answer the question(s) clearly and fully.
This question is as old as Religion itself. In fact most religions have been created in an attempt to answer the question of human suffering and the role or absence of God. The modern sentiment is somewhat different however than the sentiment of man throughout most of history. Throughout most of history, man has portrayed God as intimately involved and the author of everything that happens, both good and bad. If lightning struck, it was God. If there was an Earth quake, it was God. If someone got a disease, then it was God that gave it to them because of disobedience. We will break this down in a minute, but the truth is, man didn’t really have a problem with this reasoning until more recent, modern times.
Modernity says that because there is sorrow, tragedy, death, and inequities in the world, there is no way that God can exist and/or He cannot be just and all powerful. Because, if God loved man and is all powerful, why would he let bad things happen? In a car accident, why let the drunk driver live and the innocent child be killed? Why let an innocent child be molested or raped, warping them for life, and in some cases it ends with them being killed? Why allow such war and starvation? Why does the child or mother die of cancer while the murderer gets off Scott-free? Why does God heal one person, but let another die?
These are powerful questions, which many Christians (even ministers) run away from or offer cop-out answers to because they are too afraid to examine the issue in depth and critically. There is nothing wrong with asking “why?” Jesus Himself, asked “why” on the cross (Matthew 27: 46). I am not afraid of people questioning God. In fact I encourage it. I’m not afraid of it and neither is God because the truth is if you are honestly seeking, He will answer and you will find Him. You do not have what you need because you have not asked for it (James 4:2).
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened” (Matthew 7:7-8, KJV).
There is nothing wrong with asking. The key is, where do you go for your answer? Since Jesus is the way, the Truth, the Life (John 14:6), and He is the Word (Logos) incarnate (made flesh) (John 1), we must go to scripture for our answer and in order to understand the nature of God and His relationship with man.
DOES GOD CONTROL EVERYTHING?
It is true that in the Bible there are stories of God causing natural disasters like earthquakes and droughts, etc because of the disobedience of the people. The goal of such things was not just to punish but to wake people up to their backslid condition and to encourage repentance and a return back to God. However, the term natural disaster suggests something important. These things happen naturally on their own. We know what causes earthquakes and droughts, and tornadoes and hurricanes in ways the writers of the Bible did not. There are times that God manipulates nature for his purposes and goals (Genesis 6-6;Mark 4:39), but there are also times that these things happen just because they happen. However, God can also use the natural occurrences to draw people to Him and reveal His love (more on this in a moment).
There is another important distinction to note: When God causes trouble to come about, it is always because of sin. Remember there are times that things happen that God is not the author of (we’ll elaborate in a moment) but when He is behind it it is in order to get people to repent and turn from sin.
“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent” (Revelation 3:19, KJV- Emphasis added).
“I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men” (2 Samuel 7:14, KJV):
“Is not destruction to the wicked? and a strange punishment to the workers of iniquity” (Job 31:3, KJV)?
So God only causes bad things to happen when he wants to turn people from their sins. Why then do bad things happen to good people (classified as a believer for the purposes of this post)? NEVER once do we see God causing trouble in the life of a BELIEVER. Some people believe that when bad things happen it is God trying to teach them something. This is just NOT true. God is never the author/cause of bad things which happen in the lives of believers/Christians. Think about it, if you are a parent, do you purposely cause harm or trouble to your child just because you want to teach them something? No, not if you are a good parent.
However, bad things do happen which you are not the author of and it is your job as a parent to make sure that your child makes it through these things OK, and that their character is shaped in a positive way despite the bad, episodic experience. When bad things happen to believers, this is what God does. The enemy (Satan, Flesh or the World) is the author or trouble, sorrow, pain, in the life of the believer (not God) but when faith is placed in God, He turns that bad around for our good, shaping our character in a positive way despite the bad, episodic experience.
“But as for you (his brothers), ye thought evil against me (Joseph); but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Genesis 50:20, emphasis is mine).
The Hebrew word for “meant” is “chashab”and it means “to work” and “to fabricate.” This Old Testament Scripture is consistent with the New Testament Scripture:
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28, KJV).
There are some scriptures in the KJV which, due to outdated language usages and/or grammatical choices, which seem to suggest the opposite of what I am saying here. One example is Psalms 11:5:
“The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth” (KJV).
False meaning has been applied to the word “trieth”, which in the Hebrew is “bachan” and it simply means, “to investigate.” It isn’t saying that God takes us through troubles but that he examines and inspects us to address any flaws that we may have, but he doesn’t bother doing this with the wicked, because they are not under his lordship and direction. The word, “bachan” can also mean “test.” There are references in scripture to God “testing” people’s faith, and there are references to people’s faith being “tested.” The difference is that there are things which test our faith that God is not the author of. But when he is the author of the test, it never comes in the form of calamity.
For example, God tested Abraham’s faith when He asked him to sacrifice Isaac. But Abraham’s faith was also tested when his brother Lot was captured by an invading army. The difference is that with the latter, God was not behind the test. The enemy was. God manipulated it for the good of Abraham, but He did not set the events in motion.
It is only in the case of God judging a NATION, that the righteous are sometimes caught up in the punishment of the wicked. In Ezekiel 21 we see that when an invading army conquers a nation (allowed by God because of the sin of the nation), the righteous suffer just like the wicked. This cannot be helped. This is why it is so important to have righteous leadership.
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn” (Proverbs 29:2, KJV).
What about an event like the Egyptian bondage? God sent them to Egypt knowing they would be enslaved. He even warn Abraham about what would happen to his descendants (Genesis 15:13). The truth is, God used the evil intentions of Joseph’s brothers to accomplish good. God saved the children of Abraham from famine. A wicked Pharaoh enslaved the Jews, not God. His foreknowledge of an event does not equal design. At the root of these things and all of history is free moral agency, which we get into in just a bit.
So, as you can see, God is not ever the author of bad things which happen to the righteous/believer/Christians. He is, at times, responsible for the bad things which happen to the wicked/unbeliever. And then there are times when things just happen. To add further clarification on the matter and to elaborate on the issue of death, let’s go back to the beginning.
THE BEGINNING
Death has always been a part of creation. I know I will offend some people with this statement, but I believe that the Earth is older than 6000 years old. I believe that Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. This is not in conflict with scripture at all. I believe that man is only been on the earth around 6000 years, but that the earth was here much longer. One just only look at the bones of prehistoric animals to realize that death was here as long as life. Everything that is materially created must have a natural end that it will definitely suffer from unless there is some kind of supernatural intervention.
This is what we have in the case of man. Man was not created as a supernatural, eternal being. Adam and Eve would have aged (the process of cells deteriorating and eventually dying) just like the rest of us. The secret to their eternal life, was the “Tree of Life.” From examining the scriptures we can ascertain that the Tree of Life was a “fountain of youth” whose fruit was for medicinal purposes and would have reversed the effects of aging, rejuvenating the cells of the body to keep the person young. In the future kingdom of God to come, we see a return of the Tree of life and its purpose:
“In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2, KJV).
This was a supernatural gift, given by God to man, upon condition of man’s obedience. By keeping the commandments of God, man had right to the tree of life, and thus would live forever. The same is true in the future kingdom as well.
“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Revelation 22:14, KJV).
Without veering off into another topic, let’s briefly examine the “fall” of Adam and Eve. The only commandment that we are aware of that God gave Adam and Eve was not to eat the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17, KJV).
I will examine the fall in greater detail at a future point, but it is clear from scripture that without knowledge there can be no sin.
“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17, KJV).
When we have knowledge of wrong, it is our propensity to commit that wrong. Paul even says that the strength of sin is the Law (1 Corinthians 15:56). When we are told not to do something because it is wrong, it is the truth, but it also creates a desire in us to do that wrong thing (Romans 7).
Like I said, we will examine this in a later post, but when Adam and Eve sinned, God removed them from the tree of life as punishment and because of this they began to and eventually died.
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life” (Genesis 3:22-24, KJV).
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23, KJV- Emphasis added).
With the curse also comes diseases, and sicknesses, wars and other causes of premature death outside of aging. These things are a result of the curse from Adam’s sin and not the fault of God.
Another problem is the free moral agency of man (the ability to decide between moral rights and wrongs). With knowledge of wrong, man can choose to do that which is morally wrong. Sometimes innocents are victims of someone else’ choices.
The drunk driver chose to drink and get behind the wheel. The child killed in the wreck is the victim of the drunk’s choice. Likewise, the victim of abuse suffers because of someone’s free moral agency. To always intervene would be to nullify this gift of choice. In order to ensure your freedom, the freedom of others who would abuse it, must also be protected.
GOD’S INTERVENTION
At greater issue here, which is at the root of the original question, is why does God intervene in some situations and not others? By what standard does he judge who is worthy of help and who is not? We know he doesn’t always nullify someone’s free moral choice, but it is obvious that at times He does.
This is not an easy question to answer, and there is not a one size fits all answer. What role does prayer play? What factors deem it appropriate to intervene?
First let’s look at prayer:
Earlier we saw that we have not because we ask not. But what does it mean if we ask and still don’t recieve what we asked for?
“Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss...” (James 4:3, KJV).
The truth is, God knows everything, not just about the present but about the future. He knows what will bring about what is best for us. So if we ask for something that goes against that “best” for us, then God will not answer us in the way we want and may not intervene in a situation. God will intervene only when the intervention will produce a better end result than will come about from a lack of intervention. We may not always understand how something can be for our good, but:
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9, KJV).
We must also realize that God does not just consider how something affects us, but he also examines and considers how it will affect others around us. In the case of Lazarus, He knew letting him die, would present an opportunity to raise him from the dead which would cause many to believe in Him, who otherwise would not have believed (John 12).
God’s mercy is present in the death of the righteous and he protects them from the evil to come:
“Good people pass away; the godly often die before their time. But no one seems to care or wonder why. No one seems to understand that God is protecting them from the evil to come.”(Isaiah 57:1, NLT)
For the believer and the young child, to be absent from the body (to die) is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8).
There is really no way to fully answer why God does what He does. Sometimes he is the architect and other times things just happen. Some times he intervenes, but other times he doesn’t.
I will end this discussion will one more salient point. In the Bible we have story after story of God’s intervention in the lives of men and women. It reveals to us the nature and personality of God. If a story didn’t serve that purpose then it didn’t make it into scripture. Take the story of David. We only have a record of a few events in his life. There was obviously a whole lot more that happen to him and he did that is not recorded. Why wouldn’t it be recorded? Most likely, because they were not events in which God intervened.
In the Bible, there are only 3,237 people mentioned. 3237 out of the billions of people who have lived on this earth, millions at that time. All of those people lived lives of testing, trials, sicknesses, successes. We only have a few records of a few people of a few circumstances in which God intervened. Still fewer is the number of believers. I think it would suffice to say that MOST of the time God does not intervene in most circumstances in the lives of men. He does when it serves His greater purposes, but other times He just lets things play out.
Habakkuk prophesies about coming trials and judgments to a nation and people. Of the righteous he says:
“Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith” (Habakkuk 2:4, KJV).
The rain (storms and trouble) falls on the just and unjust alike:
“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45, KJV).
But through it all, we must have faith! It may not make sense but just have faith and God will always accomplish what is best for you!
HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE AND THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE CHURCH
Earlier this year the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the band of several states of same sex marriage,
setting a precedent which now makes gay marriage the law
of the land in all 50 states. The supreme court decision is the
culmination of decades of debate and ultimately a battle
several thousands of years in length. The truth is, the battle
is not over for the left and gay marriage activists, but really
has just begun. All kinds of legal ramifications are now up
in the air for the church and the adherents of the faith. I
invite the reader to join me in an examination of these legal
issues and their ramifications for the faith of Christianity.
I would like to state on the outset of this examination, my
stance as it pertains to the issue of homosexuality and by
relation the topic of gay marriage. All scripture quotations are
taken from the King James Version unless otherwise stated,
and the Hebrew definitions are from Strong’s “Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible”. I firmly believe that
homosexuality is not only a sin, חטא- a missing of the mark,
but as Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 call it, it is an abomination,
תּועבה- that which is hated and disgusting. The text of Lev 18
reads as, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: it [is] abomination” (Lev 18:22). It is interesting
that the commandment is not limited to non monogamous
same-sex relationships as many now suppose, but it is
specifically against the very act of gay sex, whether or not it
is within a committed relationship. Monogamy is not the
issue. “Love” is not the issue. The act is explicitly forbidden.
References to homosexuality are not limited to the Old
Testament, but are in fact more numerous in the New
Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul writes, “Know ye not
that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”
The Greek word for “abusers of themselves with mankind,” is
̓ρσενοκοίτης which means sodomite, which was universally
recognized as one who engaged in same sex relationships,
specifically in the case of men and by relation as it pertains to
women. The Contemporary English Version renders the
verse, “No one who is immoral or worships idols or is
unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a
homosexual."
There are countless examples of which there is not enough
time to enumerate for the purposes of this paper, all of which
provide a strong and clear biblical stance against the act, and
behavior of homosexuality. The Old Testament language of
“disgusting” and all its connotations is kin to the usage of
“unnatural” in the New Testament. We will examine this
point in a few moments.
Before going any further I think it would be beneficial and
fair to state the stance of those which are pro homosexual
marriage. In the article, Liberty and Equality: A Defense of
Same sex Marriage it says “Opposition to homosexuality is
grounded in religious doctrine and cultural norms. A Pew
Research Center poll released in February 2014 found that
49 percent of Americans favor same sex marriage. Similarly,
Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll conducted in May
2014 found that 55 percent of Americans support the
legalization of same sex marriage” (Wyatt Nichol, p. 117-118). The theme that opposition to gay marriage is rooted in
religion is prevalent and although my personal viewpoint as
stated above has roots in religion, religion is not the only
consideration. But I digress. The question is, how many of
these viewpoints are rooted in incomplete information? I
would propose that many of them are.
A recent poll found that most Americans “... think that 23
percent of Americans, or almost one in four, are gays or
lesbians, a Gallup survey released Thursday revealed. That's
way off: The polling organization most recently found that
less than 4 percent self identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or
transgender”(Brody). This is a very small but loud minority
which makes it seem larger than it really is. The facts do not
support the premise that a large segment of the population is
being denied equal rights. Should the law always cater to the
minority or is democracy not majority rule?
Wyatt Nichol and Naylor contend that refusing gay marriage
is a violation of basic human rights. They list several
grievances against gay couples. “Even through complex and
expensive legal arrangements under contract and property
law, same sex couples may not be fully able to share health
and retirement benefits, file joint tax returns, benefit under
property and inheritance laws, or visit loved ones in medical
facilities” (Wyatt Nichol, p. 118). Building on the false
premise that opposition is rooted a religious view of morality,
they write, “The prohibition of same sex marriage also fails
to satisfy the criterion of a moralistic policy” (Wyatt Nichol,
p. 119). But the very definition of “moralistic policies”
disproves their point. “Moralistic policies are justified when
the action is considered wrong and regulation of such action
is relevant to some public purpose, and when the regulation
does not cause harm greater than it seeks to prevent” (Wyatt-Nichol, p. 119).
I am sure that it hurts the sentiments of homosexuals to
be denied the “special rights” they seek for, but as will
be enumerated momentarily, the greater harm would
result in the allowance of them. I say these are special
rights because the gay agenda wants rights afforded to them,
which they have not met the criteria to receive. That criteria
is you must be one man and one woman. This has always
been the law of the land. No one has prevent homosexuals
from being gay or even cohabiting, but they do not have the
legal or moral standing to be married. In my opinion, the
desire of homosexuals to marry is not rooted in love or
commitment, but it has financial motivations. The
following comes from a pro same-sex marriage advocate:
The Defense of Marriage Act, “was significant because, in refusing to
recognize same sex marriage, it also
denied over 1,100 federal benefits,
rights, and privileges, such as Social
Security survivor benefits, family health insurance, veterans’ benefits,
and joint tax returns, to same sex
partners... For example, a gay or
lesbian married couple who filed a
state joint tax return could not file a
federal joint tax return, nor could a
homosexual federal employee
receive health benefits for his or her
spouse... Equally important, benefits
to spouses in states that legally
recognize same sex marriage benefits
are taxable by the federal government
and must be reported as income... In
contrast, heterosexual married couples
do not pay taxes on federal benefits,
creating unequal benefits between
married heterosexual and homosexual
couples. This results in discrimination
based on sexual orientation (Wyatt-Nichol, p. 124).
If we want to end the different standards as it applies to the
tax code, then change the tax code, not the institution of
marriage. I will reserve a discussion on the ramifications for
the church and religious leaders for the last section of the
paper. I would like to first examine my opposition from a few
different angles. The first thing I want to examine is how
homosexuality is unnatural and therefore a gay marriage is
unnatural and violates natural law which is the foundation and
authority of all law. Proponents say same sex marriage is a
basic right, but it actually violates all natural standards.
[S]ame sex civil marriage advocates can
use the government as a tool to force
those who would not otherwise do so to
believe or act as though same sex civil
marriage is the same thing as traditional
marriage... [however] If same sex civil
marriage is not a natural marriage, then
there can be no natural right to same
sex civil Marriage... Further, there can
be a natural right to same sex civil
marriage only if there is actually such a
thing as same sex civil marriage that
has an ontological status of existing
naturally (Holzer, p. 64).
In other words, does it exist without coercion and forceful
implementation upon a people or society? The answer is,
No! Holzer continues,
If it is the case that only those acts or
things that conform to the natural law
possess natural rights, then that which
is unnatural does not possess natural
rights... According to natural moral
law, homosexuality is unnatural. By
unnatural, I mean that the acts
performed by same sex partners do
not fulfill the purpose for which the
body parts are intended. Moreover,
not only are the body parts in question
not used for their designated purpose,
homosexual acts are often injurious
to the body (Holzer, p. 69).
This last point is an important one. When someone uses the
body for a task it was not designed for, it causes great harm.
Holzer quotes Jeffery Satinover on this matter:
[H]omosexual men are disproportionately
vulnerable to a host of serious and
sometimes fatal infections caused by the
entry of feces into the bloodstream. These
include hepatitis B and the cluster of
otherwise rare conditions, such as
shigellosis and Giardia lamblia infection,
which together have been known as the
“Gay Bowel Syndrome.” Homosexual
men are at risk for these pathologies
even if they are in a monogamous
relationship, and homosexual women
face their own health risks. Lesbians
face a greater risk of several different
types of infections, including bacterial
vaginosis, chlamydia, trichomoniasis,
and the human papillomavirus
(Holzer, p. 69).
HIV is among the deadliest of these diseases. Holzer uses
Timothy Hsiao’s statements to further contribute to this
argument:
Now our actions are executed by
engaging bodily faculties. When we
breathe, we use our lungs. When we
see, we use our eyes. When we
engage in sexual activities, we use
our sexual organs. These faculties
have natural purposes that direct
us to the achievement of their end.
Lungs are for breathing, eyes are
for seeing, and sex, as I will
argue, is for procreation
(Holzer, p. 70).
As you can see, the very act of homosexual sex, which
bluntly is anal sex, is dangerous and harmful to the body,
which from a Christian perspective is the temple of the Holy
Spirit.
Another approach to examine is the difference between
contractual relationships and covenant relationships. It is
possible that by trying to promote and reward marriage, the
Federal Government has actually weakened it, making it
nothing more than a contractual or financial union which can
easily be broken when it is no longer beneficial or until
something “better” comes along. “A contract is an agreement
between two parties who both incur detriments and derive
benefits from the contract” (Shaughnessy, 13).
“A contractual perspective describes the family as a voluntary
association, subject to the wills and preferences of the
couple, their children, their dependents, their household”
(McConnell, 2001, p. 411). This viewpoint lends credence
to the validity of homosexual marriage and the financial
rewards of such feeds their desire for the “right.” But when
a spiritual perspective is taken regarding marriage it viewed
as a sacramental association (McConnell, 2001, p. 411).
God intended marriage to be a covenant relationship between
a husband and a wife. The breaking of flesh and shedding of
blood which occurs when virginity is taken is the sacramental
union of two flesh into one. If it is nothing more than a
contract, then we might as well open the floodgates to
whatever.
Since the floodgates have somewhat been flung open, there
are many ramifications for the church and practitioner of the
faith. What has yet to be determined by the courts is whether
or not a church and/or a minister can be required to perform a
gay marriage or is our right to refuse ensured by the
constitution? Institutions in the private sector such as florists
and bakeries owned by Christians have come under attack
for not wishing to supply goods for a gay wedding because
it violates their religious conscience. It is obvious that the
gay agenda is not only interested in the right to marry, but
they want to force everyone to believe the way they believe.
In the 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska
(262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed.
1042), the plaintiff was convicted for
violating a state statute that prohibited
teaching in a foreign language.
Determining whether the statute
infringed upon liberty guaranteed in
the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Court stated: While this Court has
not attempted to define with
exactness the liberty thus guaranteed,
the term has received much
consideration and some of the
included things have been definitely
stated. Without doubt, it denotes not
merely freedom from bodily restraint,
but also the right of the individual to
contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to
acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up
children, to worship God according
to the dictates of his own conscience,
and generally to enjoy those
privileges long recognized at
common law as essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men (Wyatt-Nichol, p. 120).
The same statute that gays will quote, “to marry, establish a
home and bring up children,” also protects my right as a
minister to refuse to participate in such relationships and “to
worship God according to the dictates of [my] own
conscience.” A business owner should have the right to not
accept the business of any patron, especially when it is
against their religious views. Of others do not want to do
business with that company because of the stance, then
they should go somewhere else.
Since the ruling of the supreme court, public institutions are
bound to the new and present law of the land and the
constitutional requirements which come with that
(Shaughnessy, 8), but churches are considered private
institutions which are “free to set whatever parameters [they]
deems appropriate for behavior, since persons choose to
participate in the private sector, and can end that participation
at any time” (Shaughnessy, 3).
An issue or conflict between the church and a homosexual
falls under the parameters of religion and doctrine, and
religion is specifically protected under the constitution.
“...traditionally courts have practiced the doctrine of ‘judicial
restraint’ and have declined to become involved in disputes
that are doctrinal in nature because of the principle of
separation of church and state” (Shaughnessy, 14).
The obvious goal of the left is to make the church change its
stance and force participation in homosexual marriage.
Hillary Clinton even said recently, “And deep seated cultural
codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be
changed” (Weingarten). Ministers such as myself will go to
prison rather than violate my conscience and convictions.
The First Amendment to the constitution states, “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” Any law which
forces me to violate my sacred beliefs is prohibiting my free
exercise.
Other implications concern the use of facilities and the
participation of staff in such practices. A Church, its
leadership, and its members insomuch as the church is
collection of those members, is protected by the
constitution from governmental involvement in it contractual
affairs. A church is free to and must formulate and require
adherence from its members to doctrines involving same sex
marriage. My church has in its bylaws that any staff member
even participating in a gay marriage with be immediately
removed from their position.
We are in dangerous times and the legal questions will play
out rather quickly. But now is the time for the church to stand
firm and be unmovable in its convictions. Regardless the
legal fallout of our decisions, our allegiance must first and
foremost be to the Law of God.
References
Brody, Ben. "Americans Vastly Overestimate Size of Gay
and Lesbian Population." Bloomberg.com. May 22, 2015.
Accessed October 12, 2015
Holzer, Shannon. "Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Same
Sex Civil Marriage: Do Same Sex Couples Have a Natural
Right to Be Married?" Texas Review of Law & Politics 19,
no. 1 (Fall 2014): 63 thru 79. Accessed September 28, 2015.
Atlas Religion Database.
McConnell, Michael, Robert Cochran, and Angela Carmella,
eds. Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought. New Haven
& Londen: Yale University Press, 2001.
Shaughnessy, Mary Angela. Ministry and the Law: What
You Need to Know. New York/Mahwah, New Jersey:
Paulist Press, 1998.
Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:
Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English
Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of
Each Word in Regular Order, Together with a Keyword
Comparison of Selected Words and Phrases in the King.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1980.
Weingarten, Benjamin. "Hillary Clinton Says Religious
Beliefs ‘have to Be Changed’ on Abortion. Here’s Why
That’s Ironic." The Blaze. April 27, 2015. Accessed October
15, 2015.
Wyatt Nichol, Heather, and Lorenda Naylor. "Liberty and
Equality: In Defense of Same Sex Marriage." Public
Integrity 17, no. 2 (Spring 2015): 117 thru 30. Accessed
October 3, 2015. Atlas Religion Database.
Replacement Theology and Dual Covenantism
There are two erroneous doctrines concerning Israel which are permeating the church world today. One is replacement theology which states that the Church replaces the Jews as the chosen people of God and that the Mosaic Covenant is supersededh or rather replaced by the New Covenant. . The second, on the opposite end of the spectrum, dual-covenant theology states that the Jew can come to God outside of Jesus Christ. We will break down each of these viewpoints and explain why they are wrong and then articulate the truth in a clear and scriptural manner.
REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY
Replacement theology is also known as supersessionism and fulfillment theology. There are three major viewpoints which fall under the umbrella of this theology.
1) Punitive supersessionism- which says that the replacement is punishment for Israel's rejection of Jesus Christ.
2) Economic supersessionism is used in the technical theological sense of function. It is the view that the practical purpose of the nation of Israel in God's plan is replaced by the role of the Church.
3) Structural supersessionism- basically says that nothing in the OT is relevant under the NT.
By the way, the Greek word for testament is "diathēkē" which means: "properly a disposition, that is, (specifically) a contract (especially a devisory will): - covenant, testament."
This view was formulated by the Catholic church and was rooted in a desire to solidify power and in many cases antisemitism.
Those who hold this viewpoint reject any claim to divine blessing and protection for modern Israel and that the land they possess is no longer theirs, even that the covenant had nothing to do with the land.
DUAL-COVENANT THEOLOGY
Dual-covenant or two-covenant theology is unique in that it holds that the Old Covenant or the bible's Law of Moses remains valid for Jews while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles.
Those who believe this say that Jesus' message is not for Jews but for Gentiles and, that John 14:6 is to be understood thusly: "I am the way, the truth and the life; and no Gentile comes to the father except through me."
THE TRUTH
Both of these view points particularly the viewpoints surrounding the Land of Israel are based in a lack of understanding and context.
There is not ONE old covenant. There are multiple. You have the Davidic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, the Adamic Covenant, the Noahidic Covenant, and the Abrahamic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is the covenant God made with Israel with the condition of them keeping the Law. This covenant is found in Exodus 20:1-31:18.
This is the covenant that Christ fulfills and thus puts into action the New Covenant of Grace. This debunks Dual covenant theology because Christ says that no man can come to the Father but through him. Christ himself pronounces his exclusivity as the way of salvation (John 14:6).
However this has nothing to do with the Jews being replaced as God's chosen people. Paul speaks very strongly against this sentiment in Romans 11:
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
As to the land and blessing as God's chosen people. This is not connected to the Law, but to the UNCONDITIONAL and eternal covenant of Abraham.
Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
Gen 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
As you can see, any statement that the Land is not Israel's is ignorant of and completely contrary to scripture. Still further.
Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. He is the promised seed which will bless all the nations.
Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Christ is the fulfillment of Mosaic covenant in that he i the fulfillment of the Law and his atoning blood has been sprinkled upon the mercy seat and satisfied the wrath of God.
Christ is the fulfillment of the Adamic Covenant in that he is the seed of Genesis 3:15:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant in that he is the seed from the house of Davod which will sit on the throne forever.
As you can see, Christ is the fulfillment of all the covenants, so it is obvious that the New Covenant doesn’t replace the old, but rather was always the intended goal. Even those under the old, were justified by their faith and not the works of the law or conscious.
ESCHOTOLOGY
The 7 years of tribulation of Daniel’s 70 weeks and the book of Revelation are not for the church but they are for the nation of Israel.
Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
IN CLOSING
The church has everything it has because of Israel. It has been granted grace to be a part of what has always been Israels’. We have not replaced the nation of Israel, but we have been grafted into the promise. Scripture is very clear and we would be wise to hearken to it.
However, the Jews must come to God through Jesus Christ and we see in Zechariah that they indeed will at his return.
Introduction
My name is Pastor Daniel. As of September 2015, I am 29 years old. I have been in the ministry for going on 16 years. This blog will give me an opportunity to pontificate on the important issues of our day and give you the sources so that you can seek out the info for yourselves. I hope you will check this website regularly. I am not sure how often this blog will be updated but it will be on a regular basis. Thanks and God Bless