s c, What did I say that gave you the impression I support the idea of evolution? I said that I believe that a Christian worldview "recognizes the reality of natural law," but it doesn't elevate that reality to the level of an immutable principle. What we call natural law is simply a way of speaking of God's ordinary providence, the predictable patterns by which He normally upholds the universe in its regular functioning. But these "laws" are descriptive for man, not prescriptive for God-- that is, He is free at any moment to suspend His ordinary pattern of working and do something totally different, as we see, for example, when Christ changed water into wine quite apart from and outside of any known natural law. What Christ did by miracle "mimicked" the effect of natural processes, so that no scientist could have told the unique, miraculous origin of the wine by studying its properties. There may be many such objects in nature, supernaturally created. For the record, I do not believe in evolution, and the reason I do not is that evolutionary theories rest on the assumption of pure naturalism (naturalism elevated to an absolute principle) which I see as contrary to a Christian world view, that holds to God's miraculous divine interventions in earth's historical past.
What is truly blasphemous is to elevate "natural law" above God Himself, so as to say that God Himself, throughout the whole of cosmic history, has been bound to work always within the framework of natural laws that we observe in the world today which give fixed rates to things like the speed of light, the law of gravity, the rate of radioactive decay in rocks, etc. It is blasphemous to place 'chains' on God by saying that He could never, at any time in the cosmic past, have suspended such laws. That is pure naturalism, which is contrary to the Christian worldview. A Christian worldview recognizes the reality of natural law, but it sees that as existing within the context of the inherent supernaturalism that permeates a God-created, God-ruled universe. Who knows what events in past history-- perhaps at the time of the fall, or the worldwide flood, or Joshua's long day, etc.-- may have altered the fixed constants we see at work in the world today, throwing off the careful calculations of scientists who are developing their theories on the assumption of pure naturalism. Pure naturalism is blasphemous; but there is nothing inherently blasphemous about belief in a young earth, if someone holds to that belief out of respect for the supreme authority of Scripture.
S.Taylor wrote: No freedom of the will = no accountability. No accountability = no condemnation. This is basic logic. We don't condemn a tiger for exercising it's nature, nor do we hold a child accountable in the same way we do an adult.
If you wrote, "No free agency = no accountability" I would agree with you. Tigers are not morally accountable for their actions, because they are not free moral agents with rational souls. They do not make intentional, deliberate moral choices that are either in line with or contrary to divine revelation concerning what is true and right. In that sense, human beings are totally different than tigers. They are not creatures of instinct, but intelligent beings who cannot commit sin except by suppressing divine revelation and deliberately choosing that which goes against the ordinance of God. That does not by any means mean the natural man has 'free will,' however-- a will freed from slavery to sin. You need to study the difference between free agency (which all human beings possess) and free will (which would mean there is an aspect of our being that does not need to be 'freed' by Christ from sin's dominion, contrary to the teaching of Jesus in John 8:34-36.)
Steve R, You do not leave your post as a gospel witness when you serve in the political process of the earthly nation where God has placed you. Daniel found a way to do both; so did Shadrach, Meshach and Aben-nego. The apostle Paul didn't leave his gospel duties when he refused simply to 'cooperate passively' with the government officials who had beaten him openly as an uncondemned Roman and thrown him into prison without trial contrary to Roman law. No; he insisted on justice. He held government officials accountable for their actions contrary to the rule of law and protested them, insisting they come and get him out of there. He also used his Roman citizenship to appeal to Caesar in his own defense-- even though it meant months of imprisonment and a long journey to Rome in chains. He did not say, "I'm a gospel preacher and I just won't make any waves with the political authorities." No; he held them to account for their actions when these were contrary to law and promoted the cause of righteous ruling by government officials.
"This is a healthy response to evil and commendable." I couldn't you agree with you more. The 'escapist, bury your head in the sand' mentality of some Christians toward growing tyranny is incomprehensible to me. The Lord calls us to stand for His truth as salt and light in every sphere of human existence-- and in the sphere of government, the truth is that no one has the right to muzzle citizens when it comes to proclaiming the gospel freely or enchaining citizens when it comes to living in accordance with Christian values in their daily life and work. While political liberty is ours, we must use it to fight against those who hate liberty and would take it away. We have a dual calling--to build the walls of Zion with a trowel in the one hand, and defend the work of wall-building with a sword in the other. That is, we are to proclaim the gospel, on the one hand, but we do not eschew involvement in the political process, on the other.
Christians have become a 'disenfranchised' minority in America, but our only response-- at the same time that we take legal action to defend our Constitutional liberties-- is to prepare for further persecution, pray for our own strengthening, and pray for God to send spiritual awakening to our land. Our calling is to follow our Savior in the path of suffering for the sake of righteousness, so we cannot expect to avoid suffering for our faith. That may involve being sued, dragged before courts of law, and at some point in the future, being imprisoned or taken to 'reeducation camps' for therapy designed to cure us of our religious 'superstitions'-- depending on how far lawless leftists are able to carry out their demonic and anti-Christian agenda. This has happened before in history in the former Soviet Union (read the Gulag Archipelago) and don't think it could never happen in America. Totally depraved human beings are capable of barbaric actions that are utterly shocking and driven by unbridled hatred toward Christ. Just look at the recent video of an unprovoked mob attack on a shopper coming out of a Kroger store in Memphis. There you see the naked face of unregenerate human nature in its hatred of God.
I don't think it is fair to lump together the statement of Dr. Carson with that of Ann Coulter, for they have a fundamentally different conception of the work done by Dr. Brantley and other missionaries who place themselves in life-threatening situations. Coulter's comments reflect her non-evangelical worldview, which has no grasp of the priority of Christian missions and which views people like Dr. Brantley as stupid. She believes he is wasting his medical gifts going to a place like Africa instead of 'serving his own country' and seeking to convert Hollywood moguls. Her viewpoint is fundamentally anti-biblical. Dr. Carson's remarks do not at all disparage Dr. Brantley's work. His remarks are limited solely to the issue of how best to treat the infected doctor in a way that will prevent the spread of the disease to uninfected populations. That is a different viewpoint than that of Ann Coulter, when she disparages the value of missionary work. I am not saying I agree with Dr. Carson's view about treating Dr. Brantley overseas, but I don't think people who feel as he does about the best way to treat the infected missionaries should be regarded as 'anti-missions.' It is unfortunate that his remarks are seen as putting him in the same company of someone like Ann Coulter.
I thought the purpose of inquiry was to find answers. But if a person begins all inquiry with an an priori commitment to eternal skepticism, then he has rejected the very purpose of inquiry. Why go on a search for 'answers' to life's questions if you believe that final answers are unattainable? From whence arises this absolute certainty that certainty is forever impossible? What this man is basically saying is that the search for knowledge must begin with the certainty that knowledge and settled conviction are forever impossible to attain. How can this man know that to be true? Simple. He knows it to be true because it is his settled conviction that it is true and because "everybody knows" that you can't know anything. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
MacArthur is correct in his evaluation of these so-called "churches." They are obviously not Christian churches, for they reject the final authority of the Bible, while at the same time using the name "Christian" to deceive people into believing that they are something which they obviously are not. They have abandoned the ethical principle of "truth in advertising." Why should true Christians recognize any religious organization that celebrates homosexuality as having a legitimate claim to the name Christian? They have no more right to that name than does a religious organization that denies the resurrection of Christ or the deity of Christ. No one is saying these organization are not religious; they are. But the religion they represent is not what James called "true religion." It is not "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" by Jesus Christ through His chosen apostles. It is not apostolic Christianity at all, but a complete rejection of and assault on that faith.
This judge claims that the arguments of those who defend preserving our marriage laws intact "are not those of serious people"because they fail to show how the exclusion of same-sex couples has "any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses." Two things wrong with that statement. First, homosexuals are not being "excluded from marriage" but from this judge's redefinition of marriage as "the union of any two consenting adults." Liberals and conservatives aren't even talking about the same institution; they aren't defining it in the same way at all. Homosexuals are free to marry-- join in a union with someone of the opposite sex-- they just don't want to. Second, legalizing same-sex marriage does not affect heterosexuals' procreative activities, but it does affect the culture. By 'normalizing' what is abnormal, you will engender through the public school system lies, misinformation, and gender confusion in some young people who are insecure in their developing sexuality. Some may be recruited into a lifestyle that they might shun or avoid if the proper societal barriers were in place to discourage perversion. That the sex-drive can become perverted is clear from Sodom, a town where all the men, young and old, had given themselves over to this perversion.
I believe in having a humane attitude and respecting the legitimate rights of all people in a civil society, but that does not include affirming people with fundamentally disordered sexual lifestyles in the "rightness" or "normalcy" of their lifestyle. It does not include reinforcing sexual deviancy in the culture by legislation that seeks to 'normalize' it. By no means does respect for human rights require any society to affirm, dignify, or celebrate any lifestyle that God calls sinful. Showing love to people with anorexia does not involve agreeing with them that they are really overweight and reaffirming them in their self-destructive effort to lose more weight.
This is absurd. For any being to have a moral conscience, it must first of all be self-aware. Machines are not conscious or self-aware-- they are machines. They do not have a mind, consciousness, or the power of self-determination. Any machine, even the most sophisticated computer in the world, can only do what it has been programmed to do-- and it executes its tasks in a mindless manner, without self-awareness of its own existence. It's a machine, after all! How stupid can you get-- to impute "moral conscience" to a machine! Not surprising, though, for a military that thinks cross-dressing and transgenderism may be good for the morale, order and discipline of our troops.
If this video doesn't make you weep, then you have been numbed by all the intensive brainwashing going on in our culture. How tragic and sad to see children-- some of whom are too young to know the facts of life-- being manipulated into echoing like good little parrots the lines they are fed day by day in the public schools about "equality" and "people being free to love whomever they choose to love." You will notice there is no explanation to these children as to what homosexuals actually do with their bodies and their reproductive organs, nor are there any deep moral questions that would actually require thinking, such as, do you think it is 'okay' for human beings to do literally anything with their bodies they want to do-- with anyone? Of course they don't ask such questions that would require children to put a little thought behind their comments. All this video proves is how easy it is to manipulate and deceive young, naive children, so that they echo the mantras their adult brainwashers put into their mouths. How sickening, sad and infuriating that such child abuse is allowed to go on in our country. What parents would allow their children to be exploited in this way?
I said "Matrimonialist" because it doesn't sound as clumsy as "Marriagists." I am Protestant, however-- so I don't see marriage as a sacrament in the Roman Catholic sense, but as a divine ordinance given to mankind.
These so-called evangelicals are not evangelicals; that's because the Christian belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman is as central to our Christian beliefs, in my opinion, as the deity of Christ. It is no less clearly taught in Scripture than the deity of Christ. Paul teaches that marriage is a 'mytery'-- an institution ordained by God that is designed to reflect the spiritual union between Christ and the church. Did Christ lay down His life on the cross to take another Lord into His eternal embrace? Or did He lay down His life to marry the church as His bride? Satan wants to pervert marriage in order to 'blot out' the gospel witness that is proclaimed every time a man takes a woman to be His bride. That's why what is happening in our culture is demonic, and so-called evangelicals who embrace the idea that two men or two women can 'marry' and have sexual relations with each other that are holy and blessed by God are paying heed to 'doctrines of demons.' Belief in God's institution of marriage is so central to our faith that we could call ourselves "Matrimonialists," for we believe that the Christ-church union defines the meaning of history and is at the very center of our faith. That's why so-called same-sex marriage will always be unspeakably blasphemous.
I feel so sorry for these children whose view of reality and of human sexuality is being warped by continual exposure to this perversion of human sexuality. Deep down, every human being knows that sexual relationships between two men or two women ought not to exist-- they are immoral, against nature, and contrary to the pattern for human life and love that God has ordained. They represent a perversion of His perfect plan-- a mockery of true marriage, no matter how studied and rehearsed they may appear before the cameras to fool people into thinking they are "normal." They are not normal. Now, these relationships are being foisted on children by hedonistic, sexually immoral adults who are willing to go to any length necessary to prove the 'normalcy' of their chosen lifestyle to the world. However, to deliberately deprive children of the continuing nurture, care, discipline and instruction of the mother and father who conceived them and brought them into the world by designating one of those parents a mere "donor"-- someone whose job is simply to hand over the child they have conceived to the same sex partner of the other birth parent-- is a gross injustice to children. It is a grievous sin for which our society will be judged by God.
Great Sermon! First of all, I love your programs, Trevor. There is only one thing that drives me up the wall, that is when you repeat things over 10 times in one program. Please understand that you are not talking to small children, we get it after the 5th repetition :) God bless you!
The problem of referring to the Lord's Day as the Sabbath (instead of simply calling it the Lord's Day) is that such terminology tends to erase the very significant differences between the way the Jews were commanded to keep Saturday (they were to bake or boil all food the day beforehand, never on the Sabbath-- Exodus 16:23), and the way the early Christians kept Sunday-- gathering for worship on that day. If we want to express the fact that the Lord's Day is properly used for rest and refreshment, as well as worship, then we ought to point out that the human need for refreshment is an ethical principle revealed by fourth commandment of enduring application, as Calvin says in the Institutes. Servants are not to be oppressed with unbroken labor, but indulged with a day of rest for their refreshment; and that principle would apply to anyone who wants to avoid making an idol of secular work and play. If you can't get your refreshment on Sunday, then it ought to be taken on another day. Worship and refreshment are proper activities on the Lord's Day, based on Scriptural example and moral principles revealed in the Word of God. In that sense, we might speak figuratively of the Lord's day as our "sabbath,' but it is confusing to identify it strictly with the Jewish Sabbath.
I think the best argument against tattoos is that we are to consider our body not our own, but God's, so whatever we do with our body is to be for the glory of God. The question that must be asked is-- how will a tattoo bring glory to God? If someone says, it's a means of bearing witness to Him-- doesn't Scripture say we are to bear witness to God by our works, not by lifeless marks in our flesh? (1 Peter 3:3-4). It is the inner adornment of the soul alone which is "very precious in the sight of God." Do you think a Christian tattoo will somehow strengthen your tie to God by placing of a permanent reminder of Him on your flesh? That is the way ancient pagans thought when they marked their bodies. They thought thereby to strengthen their tie to the deities they worshiped. Young women ought to think of pleasing their future husbands with their bodies, not pleasing themselves-- and many men find nothing attractive about words or images in black ink engraved on human flesh. So while I agree there is no direct mandate forbidding tattoos under the New Covenant, the principle on which tattoos were forbidden under the Old Covenant is still a valid principle. The Bible does not support the idea that we glorify God or strengthen our ties with Him through putting marks on our flesh.