Archive | Homosexuality

RSS feed for this section

The Advent of Moral Anarchy

It was not hard at all to put together a string of articles on the moral anarchy in Western culture today, especially on the “transgender” issue.  Touched on the conviction by a lower court of two men for daring to quote John 14:6 in public discussion in the UK.  Then talked about a few other items, including the upcoming debate on the Trinity with Mr. Ventilacion of Iglesia Ni Christo up in Rapid City, South Dakota on April 21st.  For those wondering, we kept it to an hour today!

Here is the YouTube link:

The Rebellion of Transgenderism, then, A Challenge Fulfilled

First half hour or so was on the ascension of transgenderism and the use of the sexual revolution by the left to attack religious freedom in the United States, illustrated in today’s court ruling against the florist in Washington state.  Then we transitioned into a discussion of a challenge sent to me from Dr. Leighton Flowers regarding man’s inabilities due to sin, and we spent a full hour working through the key texts that teach the truth on this matter.

Here is the YouTube link:

The Fullness of Time, America’s Hate Preachers Reviewed

Took a long while to get going (technically and otherwise) but eventually got into Galatians 4:4-5 as an incarnation passage and its meaning to us at this time of the year.  Then we moved over to a quick review of a couple of segments of the BBS documentary “America’s Hate Preachers” and what it means to “adorn the doctrine” of God our Savior.  Hopefully helpful thoughts before this special weekend.

Here is the YouTube link:

The Hill to Die On, For There are No Other Hills

So I wandered into a little restaurant/pub type place near my hotel in Sydney this afternoon to grab a bite to eat. I got a notification on my phone about an article posted by my daughter Summer, so I opened it up and began to read.  I began co-authoring The Same Sex Controversy when Summer was around eleven years old, so it has been very interesting to say the least to see her engaging the same topic, only now on super-steroids as the past fifteen years have brought such amazing changes to the landscape in the rapid decay of Western culture and the abandonment of biblical norms.

I had watched her video, of course, and well knew that the primary response would not be based upon the actual issues but upon “feels,” impressions, etc., for this is how so many in her generation interact and exist.  So as I began to read Nichole Nordeman’s lengthy comment on Summer’s video I was hardly surprised by what I read.  I surely have little to add to Summer’s superb response.  But I did want to reply to one particular aspect of Nordeman’s position.  She wrote,

I’m also going to try not to debate or argue the issue(s) with you. That is an endless loop of back and forth Biblical ammunition, interpretation, bias, and theological leanings. You are very clear about your position. It would be a waste of oxygen and blinking cursors for us to attempt to get on the same page. I am okay to disagree. Thankful for the space and freedom to do so.

The believer who wishes to engage this darkened world and seek to be “salt and light” needs to see this attack for what it is: a devastating assault that has to be met head-on.  It cannot be ignored, it cannot be accepted.  It is the very reason The Reformation Project exists, why Matthew Vines does what he does, why Brownson wrote his book, and so many others. To allow this argument to stand is to lose the war.  It is that pernicious.

If, as the argument asserts, there is no certain Scriptural knowledge as to God’s intentions and purposes in human sexuality and marriage, then we are all wasting our time.  This is why believers are in the minority even amongst “religious” people today: so few truly believe that God has spoken with clarity on anything, let alone this subject.  Once a person believes that it is just a matter of opinion, or, as expressed above, “interpretation, bias, and theological leanings,” then it is nothing but a vain argument without relevance, and we might as well forget about it, allow anyone to do anything (and I do mean anything), and fall into the abyss of moral relativism that is the necessary corollary of a world without a Creator who speaks.

Those who are promoting the abandonment of biblical norms and categories based upon emotions and feelings know the biblical teaching is consistent and clear—well, at least their leaders do.  Sadly, most people on both sides of the argument hold their positions for other than exegetically-based reasons (though that luxury is fast disappearing for those willing to count the cost of opposing the Autonomous Human Revolution).  But when the two sides meet openly in the context of fair, balanced debate, the result is consistent.  So this is the alternative: pivot quickly based upon the mere assertion of ambiguity on the part of the Bible (“There are so many scholars on both sides!”) and place the conversation firmly upon the slippery quicksand of human emotion and prejudice.

When we think presuppositionally, we can recognize these attacks for what they are and respond to them immediately.  But thinking presuppositionally means thinking biblically, based upon a firm belief that it was, in fact, God’s intention to deliver the faith once and for all to the saints, and that He managed to do so.  If you believe that, you are in a small minority—but in one that has been promised the Spirit and the gifts and an inheritance in the kingdom of God.

And They Just Keep Getting Longer….

Started off discussing the David Gushee article from a few weeks ago and his very truthful analysis that there is no middle ground on the issue of God’s law for the believing Christian.  Too bad Dr. Gushee has chosen to be on the wrong side of that divide!  Then we watched an entire section of a video from Israel United In Christ (IUIC), one of the Hebrew Israelite camps (the ones who wear purple and gold), where they discuss Vocab Malone and myself as fulfillment of biblical prophecy!  Then I was about to play Andy Stanley’s sermon from Sunday (well, just a portion), but I decided instead to go the dangerous route and follow a link provided in Twitter to Dr. Frank Turek and Dr. Richard Howe discussing “bad ways” to prove God’s existence.  Everyone was telling me this would give me background into what Stanley was saying, so we dove in live and responded as we went along.  So we will get to the Stanley sermon material on Thursday as we spent the rest of the time on the Turek/Howe discussion.

Here is the YouTube link: