Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Marriage’

Which Way, Evangelicals? There is Nowhere to Hide

June 18, 2015 1 comment

by Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.

The very first issue of Christianity Today is dated October 15, 1956. In his first editorial, Carl F. H. Henry set his course for the magazine: “Those who direct the editorial policy of Christianity Today unreservedly accept the complete reliability and authority of the written Word of God. It is their conviction that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of plenary inspiration.”

Henry also affirmed continuity with the great orthodox tradition of biblical doctrine and moral principles: “The doctrinal content of historic Christianity will be presented and defended. Among the distinctive doctrines to be stressed are those of God, Christ, man, salvation, and the last things. The best modern scholarship recognizes the bearing of doctrine on moral and spiritual life.”

In that same issue, Billy Graham stressed the authority of the Bible in evangelism. “I use the phrase ‘The Bible says’ because the Word of God is the authoritative basis of our faith,” Graham said. “I do not continually distinguish between the authority of God and the authority of the Bible because I am confident that he has made his will known authoritatively in the Scriptures.”

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Question 57-Puritan Catechism

February 6, 2014 1 comment

CharlesSpurgeonQ. Which is the seventh commandment?

A. The seventh commandment is, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon-A Puritan Catechism

Gendered terms rightly defined by James White

January 7, 2014 4 comments

I would like to share an article from James White at Alpha Omega Ministries. This article is profound in that it rightly defines words such as: father, mother, husband, wife, and marriage; words that today are trying to be redefined. But as James White states, these words cannot be redefined because they are gendered terms and will always describe the object, in which they are being used towards, by their very definition. In other words, just as the term bachelor will always carry with it the meaning of an unmarried man, even so the term husband will always carry with it, the notion of a man who is married to a woman.

Here is the article:

 

 

Mr. Church: That is the Sound of the Barbarians at the Gates

Yesterday I was directed to a Tweet picture that spoke volumes. Here it is:

Pictures can say more than a thousand words, to be sure. And this picture speaks volumes. But I would like to respond to Mr. Church’s interpretation, which I would call the “interpretation of inevitability.”

First, the issue of the abuse of language, the constant ploy of those seeking to degrade the moral and ethical foundation of a culture. The term “homophobe” is one of the most absurd, vacuous, mind-numbing terms ever introduced into the English language. It has no meaningful function, since its actual meaning, and its usage, are rarely concurrent. I do not know any homophobes, personally, since that term would refer to someone who has an irrational fear of their own kind. But that is not how Mr. Church is using it. It is a convenient, if untruthful, term used to slander those who believe homosexuality, as an act and as a lifestyle, is immoral and destructive to human flourishing. Hence it is a convenient way of demonizing an entire position without even offering a meaningful moral or ethical argument. The regularity of its use is witness to the bankruptcy of the position espoused by Mr. Church.

Next, when I look at this picture, many issues crowd my mind. Some I will not enter into here (military readiness, the on-going degradation of the strength of the US and the results that will have in destabilizing the political structures around the world). The main issue though is this: if this is supposed to be a “marriage,” who is the husband, and who is the wife? I am not talking about dominant/submissive roles. I am talking about husbands and wives. See, words have meanings. Marriage has meaning. To marry, as a verb, has meaning, and hence, that meaning is filled out by the direct object of the verb. I, a man, married a woman. Hence, I am a husband, with all the meaning that term carries, to a specific woman, who is my wife, with all the meaning that term likewise carries. All the public education and eradication of human nature in the world cannot remove from those who are created in the image of God a basic, instinctive understanding that “husband” is a gendered term, “wife” is a gendered term, “father” is a gendered term, and “mother” is the most gendered term known to humanity. Hence, “marriage” has a meaning that this picture can never represent, since there is no husband, and there is no wife, in it. Without a husband, you have no marriage. Without a wife, you have no marriage. You can have relationships of all kinds, but what you do not have is a marriage. All the glazed eyes of judges or the wild eyes of zealots can not change this basic reality. This is why we instinctively show pity and compassion to the child who has lost a father or a mother: we recognize the need for both. This is why we likewise look down upon the abusive parent of either gender, and we do so properly. Shame is a proper and good thing when it is used to curb the evil of men and women. But all of these considerations are irrelevant to the picture above, for there is no father, there is no mother, no husband, no wife, no marriage. Just two men kissing, one in uniform. Their strong feelings for each other can never surmount the insurmountable: they cannot be married anymore than they can bear children, fly, leap over tall buildings, or live under water. They were made one way, and their rejection of their God-ordained roles does not redefine marriage.

So the sound I hear when I see this picture has nothing to do with abusing the English language through absurd non-terms like “homophobe.” It has nothing to do with advancement in the 21st century. It has everything to do with the sound the citizens of Rome heard in the early 5th century as those they called “barbarians” swept into the EternalCity. Rome had been crumbling from the inside for centuries—much more slowly, I note, than Western Society today, where such processes take place in the span of a few generations rather than centuries (mainly due to our advanced communications technology). Civilizations that fundamentally reject God’s creative purpose collapse, in time. How else could it be? One will either have a culture of life, or a culture of death, and homosexuality, no matter what else is said about it, does not foster life. It is fundamentally self-centered and narcissistic at its core. The profaning of marriage seen in the above graphic has one inevitable result: it cannot produce life. That which does not produce life tends toward death. That is the bent of this society, just as it became the bent of the later centuries of the Roman Empire. And thus we prove yet once again that those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.

 

Source [Alpha Omega Ministries]

Adultery Prevention

December 12, 2013 2 comments

One of the most depressing aspects of blogging is having a blog post ready, then checking Challies before you post, only to see him tackle the same subject earlier this morning. But if that post was how people fall into extra marital affairs, then this is how people who have remained faithfully married have, by grace, done so. Here are some practical ways to maintain faithfulness to your spouse. (I am writing from a woman’s perspective, but much of this would apply to husbands as well.)

 

Read the rest here.

Matthew Vines’ Interpretations Refuted

October 1, 2012 2 comments

About a week ago Christianpost.com interviewed a young man, whose name is Matthew Vines. Matthew Vines has become quite popular on Youtube for an hour long video in which he tries to reinterpret six scriptures; claiming that homosexuality is never spoken against in the Bible. This he does not do with any success, seeing that he twists scripture to his and homosexuals destruction.

One can find Matthew Vines interview with Christianpost right here. In this interview Vines appeals to the emotions of his listeners, instead of rightly interpreting scripture. This has become a norm in society and especially within the Church. I have often encountered arguments from those who claim to be theologians or ministers and who are suppose to be speaking from the word of God on a subject, yet who instead speak from their feelings on a particular subject. For instance, just the other week one of my friends went to a Catholic funeral and blogged about his experience. In his blog he tries to make Catholicism orthodox because he felt that he was around Christian bretheren at the funeral. Since these individuals acted so pleasant and nice, (in his eyes), then certainly Protestants have misappropriated certain unorthodox views to Catholics. What my friend should have done, before concluding that someone within Catholicism was orthodox, is ask what they believe about salvation and how one is justified before God. My friend then would have found that Rome has not changed its views on justification and that Rome still teaches that one is justified based upon Christ merit and ours. Grace plus works. This view is still unorthodox and still condemned by Paul the apostle 500 years after the Reformation. Scripture has not changed.

Matthew Vines has been answered by some top theologians within the Christian community. They were interviewed by Christianpost and the interview can be found right here. In their assessments of Matthew Vines’ interpretations of six scriptures, these theologians have concluded that Matthew Vines has twisted scripture because of his bias towards the homosexual lifestyle. This is one of the most common errors of misinterpreting scripture. Since every one of us approach scripture with a bias, we sometimes read that bias into scripture.

To show that I have rightly judged Vines’ approach to the scriptures I will quote from one of the theologians who responded to him:

But for McDonough, Vines’ main appeal is emotional, “with a thin dusting of logic on top.”

Theologians, Ministers, Christian bloggers, and all who represent Christ have a mandate by God too speak the truth in love. We need to stand on the word of God, in this trying time. We have a duty, to Christ and the word of God, to proclaim truth that is based upon God’s views and not ours.

As I close this short post I want to state that Matthew Vines has misinterpreted scripture and is leading people astray. The Bible clearly states that there will come individuals who will privily bring in damnable heresies, bringing swift destruction upon themselves 2 Peter 2:1. Of course today we do not see most false teachings and heresies coming in so privately, but openly and the Church is embracing them rapidly.

James White has also refuted Matthew Vines’ misinterpretations and you can find his audio critiquing homosexual behavior right here. Or right here.

Chapter XXV : Of Marriage

September 19, 2012 Leave a comment

1. Marriage is to be between one Man and one Woman; (a) neither is it lawful for any man to have more then one Wife, nor for any Woman to have more then one Husband at the same time.

a Gen. 2.24. Mal. 2 15. Mat. 19.5,6.

2. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help (b) of Husband and Wife, (c) for the increase of Mankind, with a legitimate issue, and for (d) preventing of uncleanness.

b Gen. 2.18.

c Gen 1.28.

d 1 Cor. 7 2,9.

3. It is lawful for (e) all sorts of people to Marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent; yet it is the duty of Christians (f) to marry in the Lord, and therefore such as profess the true Religion, should not Marry with Infidels, (g) or Idolaters; neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are wicked, in their life, or maintain damnable Heresie.

e Heb. 13,4. 1 Tim. 4,3.

f 1 Cor. 7.39.

g Neh. 13 25,26,27.

4. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity, (h) or Affinity forbidden in the word; nor can such incestuous Marriage ever be made lawful, by any law of Man or consent of parties, (i) so as those persons may live together as Man and Wife.

h Levit. 18.

i Mar. 6.18. 1 Cor. 5.1.

The 1677/89 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Gays Shove Evangelists

It never ceases to amaze me how those who push for rights, that are twisted and perverted, will do so under the guise that the opposing side are just bigots. What I am speaking of today is the homosexual movement’s agenda to gain rights that are supposedly equal to what heterosexual couples enjoy. The fact of the matter however; is that they don’t want the same rights as heterosexual couples, but instead want special rights. In other words they want to do what they want to do and everyone else has to stand around and agree with it. I am going to prove this assertion in the video below.

In the video below we will see gays mocking and making fun and even resorting to violence in order to get their so-called points across. This is the real mindset of homosexuals. They believe that no one has any rights to do what they please, except for them. If you stand on a corner and preach the gospel, in a land where you have the right to do so, then homosexuals who don’t like it, will violate your rights by resulting to violence against you.

Before I go any further I want to state what God says about homosexuality. God condemns this act. He declares it an abomination in his sight and one that will result in the participant’s eternal destruction.

 

Leviticus18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

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.

1 Corinthians 6:9 You know that wicked people will not inherit thekingdomofGod, don’t you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, HOMOSEXUALS,

1 Corinthians  6:10  thieves, greedy people, drunks, slanderers, and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

WARNING: Video contains partial nudity and profanity. Click on link to play.

  http://www.mrctv.org/embed/113865