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.
There could hardly be a more blatant violation of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. The only reason Obama would want to place his 'government spies' in news rooms is as a first step toward controlling the press-- another typical move by our president to rescind guaranteed Constitutional rights, in the 'grand tradition' of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and other socialist/Communist dictators.
Look no further to find the reason why so many young people are 'tolerant' of homosexuality and approving of so-called 'gay marriage'-- because their personal rejection of God's law concerning sex-- their abuse of God's holy gift by engaging in sexual union outside the sacred bonds of marriage-- disqualifies them from assessing correctly the morally heinous character of homosexual acts. Their own lawless lifestyle strips them of the moral discernment needed to recognize sexual perversion when they are staring it in the face-- so they offer no objection to government funded efforts to pervert the institution of marriage.
The American people need to realize that Obama and Holder are criminals deliberately seeking to overthrow our American system of government which is based on the recognition of natural law ("the laws of nature and nature's God") and natural rights (God-given "unalienable" rights) as the foundation of our legal code. By trying to pass legislation that relentlessly attacks and nullifies the 'natural law' basis of our civil laws-- for example, by inventing absurd, arbitrary, man-made distinctions between 'opposite-sex marriage' and 'same-sex marriage'-- they are simply trampling on and deliberately seeking to decimate our American form of government, and above all, our Judeo-Christian culture and the moral values enshrined in our legal code. They are lawless criminals, and the people of the United States should recognize them as such and appeal to state and local officials to lead the way in resisting their tyranny by nullifying any and all rulings of the federal court that aim at destroying state sovereignty and the moral foundation of our civil code. No American should be forced to regard the sexual jerry-rigging of two men or two women as a true 'sexual union' or the monstrous sin of sodomy as constituting a legitimate legal basis for marriage.
What Pat Robertson needs to realize is that Christian beliefs to the unregenerate mind are all 'ridiculous,' they are all 'impossible' and 'nonsense.' Simply by affirming the truths of the Apostle's Creed, Christians already look like a 'joke' to the natural man, for whom the gospel itself is foolishness. We won't stop appearing like fools, clowns, and idiots to the mind that hates God until we deny every truth in the Bible rooted in the recognition of God's Almighty, supernatural, miracle-working power. We most certainly will not win their respect simply because we buy into theories of origins based on pure naturalism and a uniformitarian view of earth's history. What we need to tell the natural man is the most ridiculous intellectual posture to take as a rational human being is to deny the resurrection of Christ. Moreover, if Christ rose from the dead-- which is what God's Word affirms and 'many infallible proofs' corroborate-- then the most ridiculous thing is to deny Jesus' view on anything, including His view of the Old Testament and the origin of the world.
GsTexas, Well said! The hypocrisy and blatantly subversive goals of this administration in its passion to replace hard-won American liberty with Big Brother socialist tyranny-- is utterly breathtaking.
Just finished reading David Horowitz's booklet entitled, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: the Alinksy Model." It sounds like of people in our government right now-- perhaps this judge, as well-- are following the Alinksy model for bringing about social change. They using the power of public office to 'destroy' existing social structures, values and norms, in order to impose new ones. Their whole goal is the destroy the status quo in order to bring about in a revolutionary manner the type of classless, morally libertine, socialist utopia they want to see, by whatever means it takes (in their view, the end justifies the means-- and that means using the law as a tool to undermine and destroy the rule of law.) That is exactly what I see happening with a ruling like this one-- a judge using the power of his judicial office like a wrecking ball, to destroy social order and bring about social and moral chaos. Little wonder that Alinsky dedicated his main book to Lucifer, the model 'rebel.'
This looks to me like a strategy to change Roman Catholic attitudes toward "same-sex" relationships in an underhanded manner, by focusing on children instead of adults. By trying to win sympathy for children who are being parented by people involved in these relationships, the pope seems to be wanting to 'soften attitudes' toward practicing homosexuals in the church. "After all, if we come through as condemning, it's going to hurt the children." This is a sickening sentimental approach to issues that really concern the unyielding rigor, holiness, and righteousness of God's moral law. To say, "We must change our condemnatory view of same-sex relationships for the sake of the children involved" is really a sly and slippery strategy to whittle away at biblical standards of sexual morality by degrees. Not surprising that this should come from a man who pretentiously claims to be the "vicar of Christ" on earth.
Our culture has reached this low point because the professing church in America has for many years failed to proclaim the whole counsel of God and has failed to denounce sin from the pulpit for fear of appearing too 'negative.' So-called churches which have abandoned the authority of Scripture have tolerated for years false shepherds in the churches and false teachers in the seminaries who have denied completely the biblical gospel, by denying such cardinal doctrines as the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the necessity of repentance, the eternity of hell, etc. Such churches have also abandoned the practice of church discipline and turned a blind eye to such things as 'cohabitation' among church members. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the general culture reflects this decline by denying the plain teaching of the Bible about marriage and God's design for human sexuality? What is happening in the culture is shameful and lamentable, but it no surprise when one considers how the fear of God and the truth of God has been excluded for so many years in so many so-called churches throughout our land. It is the logical outcome of a slow decline into apostasy.
Dear Mike, You ask, "Does this judge even have a clue how stupid his statement is? No knowledge of biology?" Sure, he has a clue. Sure he has knowledge. What this judge is doing is called "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness"-- an act, Paul says, that provokes God's righteous wrath and judgment.
Talk about willful blindness! Obviously, a homosexual couple cannot 'procreate' without the use of a third party providing a necessary missing component for conception to take place-- a component which the couple cannot provide for themselves. I suppose people will argue that that is no different than heterosexual couples using modern technology to overcome infertility. But it is wrong for society to deny to children the right to be raised by a mother and a father, and it is wrong for society to encourage surrogacy and sperm donation as a 'business enterprise,' in which people are encouraged to conceive children for whom they take no personal responsibility. Every child has a natural right to be raised by the mother and father who conceive them and bring them into this world. They also have a right to receive the input of both a male and female parent. Situations that fall short of that divinely ordained pattern should not be held up as a perfectly 'normal' and exemplary pattern of family life. For any society to overthrow the natural right of children to be raised by their biological parents by creating a system which deliberately produces abnormality is to engage in high-handed rebellion against God and the order of family life He has ordained.
There is such a broad range of people who identify themselves as Charismatic, it is hard to lump them all together. I have friends call themselves as "Charismatic Reformed" Christians. In practice, it seems to me their theology differs little from that of Martin Lloyd-Jones, since they never have any distinctively Charismatic features in the worship service of their church-- no tongues, prophecies, healings, etc. Their position is basically that God may give miraculous gifts in the present day, but that it is left to His sovereign will. On the other hand, there are those who believe Christians should actively 'seek' the extraordinary gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians, and if these are lacking in a church, something is wrong-- the church is quenching the Holy Spirit. It is this latter group I consider the most extreme, for they make no distinction at between what was normative in the apostolic era and what is normative today. Calvin speaks of 'traces or shades' of the apostolic gifts remaining in the church, though he clearly believes that revelatory gifts have ceased to be normative, now that the canon of Scripture is closed. We surely must guard against lumping together in the same box all who regard themselves as in some sense 'non-cessationist.' There are various views.
Washington Cathedral has clearly become a 'synagogue of Satan' where the gospel is denied and where evil is called good and good evil. Men like Hall should be recognized as for what they are-- wolves in sheep's clothing, emissaries of Satan dressed up like angels of light, whose purpose is to deceive and destroy the souls of men (and even their bodies, since the homosexual lifestyle is dangerously unhealthy, often characterized by high levels of promiscuity and casual sexual encounters that expose the practitioner to all manner of deadly diseases and even physical trauma through the grossly unnatural acts they perform). It may sound harsh to call Mr. Hall a 'wolf' or 'emissary of Satan,' but the Word of God of God calls us to 'expose' the works of evil and the workers of iniquity. God's Word is not unclear on this matter of God's design for human sexuality, nor will He be mocked.