Bad Theology

I enjoy a good Facebook debate. The problem is that it invariably devolves into refutation of bad doctrine and sloppy hermeneutics. I’m sure you have encountered the “do not judge” canard. People like to stop at Matthew 7:1 and ignore the rest of the chapter which actually teaches us to rightly judge.

There was a guy today who said he is loving and tolerant of everyone, “just as Jesus was tolerant of the prostitute who was about to be stoned.” Mind you, this was a professing Christian.  He not only attempted to pummel scripture so that he could make his point for homosexual marriage, but he completely got it wrong.  This guy was so far off base, he could have better supported his position by vaguely referencing The Cat in the Hat.  We can clearly see that the woman in John 8 was an adulteress, not a prostitute.  Further, he asserts that Jesus is tolerant.  I suppose that depends on how carefully you read the Bible.

He and I would be in agreement that Jesus loves prostitutes, tax collectors, and other sinners.  As a matter of fact, he loves sinners so much that he died while we were still his enemies. (Romans 5:10)  Is Jesus tolerant of their sin?  Moreover, is Jesus tolerant of your sin?

Do we take the Bible at face value or do we rely on our own understanding?  If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we can take it seriously and the entire book is about HIM.  If you cannot see his handiwork in the Old Testament, then maybe you need to look closer.  Isaac is a picture of Jesus.  Jonah is a picture of Jesus.  Moses’ brazen serpent in the wilderness is a picture of Jesus.  Boaz, the kinsman redeemer, is a picture of Jesus.  Noah’s Ark is a picture of Jesus.  Even the manna is a picture of Jesus.

Do you think that the God of the universe went to these great lengths so that sin may abound? (Romans 5:20)  Absolutely not.  Jesus is most intolerant in regard to sin.  His word was and is divisive, not harmonious.  Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)  Jesus came here ready for battle.  This was not a literal sword that we might imagine.  The sword is Jesus’ word.  You see this referenced again in Revelation 19:15. 

Jesus gets even more radical when he says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)  That sounds demanding; he said that we must obey him.  When we actively pursue sin and licentiousness, is that obeying Jesus?  Is that loving Him?  If you were to have an extramarital affair, is that a manifestation of your love for your spouse?  Paul writes the church in Corinth and says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)  Those verses encompass all of us, yet the believer is sanctified.  Why would we cling to our sin that separates us from our Redeemer?

Bad theology is deadly.  The poor soul I had a dialogue with on Facebook is utterly confused as to what the Bible says, yet when he is challenged with scripture (like so many others), he bristles and rejects the truth.  He champions the wrong Jesus as his is absent from the Bible.  I believe that sound doctrine is fundamental for the Christian.  Without it, we are tossed about while we grasp at worldly constructs of love, tolerance, and acceptance when the Bible teaches of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Is Tolerance Intolerant?

I was engaged in an online conversation regarding the matter of homosexual ‘marriage.’ This is a matter in which many are involved. It is interesting to see how people today are quick to demonize anyone with a differing view. Tolerance is not holding the same view as everyone else. That is called agreement. In order to exercise tolerance, I must hold a view that is different than somebody else. No, I’m not evil if my views are not your views. In fact, if they were, that might make for some one-sided dialogue.

Below is a response I wrote regarding a perceived “tolerance infraction”:

I want to set the record straight that I do not believe homosexuality is an abomination. According to the Bible, God says homosexuality is an abomination. He says the same about lying and a litany of other transgressions. Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Absolutely. Do I believe that people should be able to conduct their lives as they see fit? Unquestionably. But I believe people deserve informed consent so that they may act accordingly.

One issue I do have is the requisition of the term “marriage.” I believe as the Bible dictates. It says marriage is between one man and one woman. Though I disagree, I would be more comfortable with calling a homosexual union something else. The term ‘union’ would work nicely. As for me, it doesn’t matter what it is called as long as it is not marriage. I sincerely believe that marriage is a representation of the relationship between Jesus Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the Bride). This is very sacred to me. So is my marriage to my wife of many years.

If part of the issue pertains to affording homosexual couples the same benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy, the laws need to be changed so that both groups are on equal ground. Another option is to strip benefits from heterosexual partners.

A possible solution is this: the Church abandons the term ‘marriage’ in favor of a term that accurately defines the nature of the relationship in a God honoring way. Call it a covenantal union or something. I’m not terribly concerned over semantics. I just know that a heterosexual marriage is not the same as a homosexual ‘marriage.’ As much as we try to reshape our perceptions in the name of equality, it doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t equal. Sure, we can pass laws and we can aggressively prosecute Christians who don’t get with the program, but nothing is changed. A homosexual ‘marriage’ is not endorsed by God. Nor will He ever endorse it. I’m not saying this to be mean, but declaring something as true doesn’t make it so. Though a zebra looks similar to a horse, it still is a zebra.

There was a time where I wouldn’t protest. Not because I thought it was the right thing to do. I just didn’t care. I also didn’t care about abortion or really anything else. I was an unregenerate who looked out for himself. I’m still a sinner, but I have repented of my previous life and put my trust in Jesus.

I know many people think it’s mean to tell others that they are wrong. Some behave as if it is evil to use the “w” word. The fact is that it is the opposite. Believe it or not, atheist Penn Teller helped me understand that. Regarding a particular proselytizer he said, “If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell…how much do you have to hate someone to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” That sums it up quite nicely. It’s okay to tell people they’re wrong in the spirit of love. Not some sappy sentimental love, but a godly love that genuinely cares for people and their eternal souls. In John 14:15, Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” He determined this was so important He repeated this twice in the same chapter. To emphasize, He followed with, “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words.” (John 14:24 ESV)

I don’t want anyone to go to hell, but if someone lives an unrepentant lifestyle, the Bible is clear that hell will be his destination. Those are harsh words, and if I was in danger of hell, I would rather hear the truth now than find out when I’m standing in judgment.

I’m sure it’s my turn to hear that I’m wrong. That is okay. Disagreement is not synonymous with hatred. It seems that people use the terms interchangeably. I hear people trying to enforce tolerance through intolerance. Maybe someone redefined ‘tolerance’ when I was sleeping, but to be tolerant of something, there must be some incongruity. If you like cheeseburgers and I don’t, as long as we don’t punch each other in the nose, we are being tolerant of each other. If I try to coerce you into forsaking cheeseburgers through litigation or other means, I’m being intolerant. I see the Tolerance/Intolerance Paradox in the world today. Some homosexuals demand tolerance while being intolerant of some Christians’ perceived intolerance. I can’t speak for everyone, but as for me, speaking against homosexuality (or whatever sin happens to be the flavor of the month) isn’t me trying to throw my weight around. I’m a wretched sinner like everyone else. I’m speaking out against the sin, not the sinner. I do so out of genuine concern for others’ salvation. I wish we didn’t live in a broken world. I’m compelled by my faith to warn of the real danger of sin. I do so out of love for my Savior, not out of hatred for my fellow man.

Again With the Persecution?

I just read an article from the Daily Caller regarding another story of a “bigoted” florist that refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding.  I really can’t say that this story is news because it happens so frequently nowadays.  This particular story caught my attention because the state of Washington is not only levying fines against the business, but it is suing the owner personally, which seems to go beyond punitive.  As for me, these tolerance/intolerance shenanigans are so bizarre that I would find them laughable if they weren’t so devastating to those who are only trying to honor God.

Barronelle Stutzman, the proprietor, sold flowers to homosexuals.  She even sold flowers to this same couple.  In all likelihood, Ms. Stutzman gladly provided her services to anyone for all occasions except one:  same-sex weddings.  In those instances, she helpfully directed customers to florists that would sell flowers for these special occasions.  Her reason was simple.  She was upholding her convictions as she did not want to sin against God.

Before you launch into your “selling flowers for gay weddings is not in the Bible” tirade, let’s look a little closer.  Granted, the Bible has no explicit command to refrain from participation in gay wedding ceremonies, so this matter is adiaphora.  The Christian could make a determination that he is not sinning by providing a service for a gay wedding.  After all, he’s not performing the actual ceremony.  For another Christian, his conviction may be that any participation would be sinful.  Either way, a person’s faith should not be subject to government intrusion.

The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and defines marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 tells us to abstain from the appearance of evil.  I’m not trying to be inflammatory, but the Bible is clear on matters of sin.  Sin is evil.  Further, we should be mindful of our actions so that we do not become a stumbling block for other Christians. (1 Corinthians 8:13)  Romans 14:13-23 is an important passage that helps clarify, and I believe is especially helpful in navigating issues that are not specifically addressed in the Bible.

Consider the consumption of alcohol.  The Bible condemns drunkenness, but does not prohibit drinking.  It’s actually very clear that drinking alcohol is lawful; it’s the excessive drinking that is sinful.  If I personally think drinking is sinful, I am committing a sin if I drink a glass of wine because I’m not acting on my faith. (Romans 14:23)

This shouldn’t even be an issue.  This is not discrimination.  If anything, it’s a moral issue and the government shouldn’t be in the business of legislating morality.  Actually, in this case, Uncle Sam is legislating immorality.  If the florist was Muslim, it’s unlikely that anyone would object.  Islam forbids homosexuality and in certain countries, one could receive the death penalty by being a homosexual.  That’s the double standard that is pervasive in American culture today.  The tolerance/intolerance duality is hardly anything that resembles egalitarianism.  Matthew 10:22 and John 15:18 illustrate the real reason for the animosity.  The world hates Jesus Christ and we are hated because we love Him.

I understand that this is an unpopular position.  Before I was saved, I would have been on the bandwagon hurling insults at prudish Christians (and I identified as a Christian).  I also would have ridiculed homosexuals as I affirmed their right to do whatever they wanted.  Only five years ago I came to understand that I was an utterly depraved and wrong-headed unregenerate.  I realized that I must repent and put my trust in Jesus.

As a Bible believing Christian, the world views me as bigoted and small minded.  I can live with that.

Covenant of Sin

I just read a disturbing Yahoo News article regarding an evangelical couple with a gay son. The story ends tragically, and the impression I’m left with is that the lesson learned is to change Church policy instead of submitting to the sovereignty of God.

My heart goes out to families like this. There are no simple answers and how can one even begin to comfort parents who have lost a son.

There seems to be confusion between acceptance and affirmation. Acceptance is possible without condoning sinful behavior. Affirmation is an attempt to normalize sin, regardless of God’s stance on the matter. After all, He created the universe. I don’t think He is wishy washy on matters of sin.

Ultimately, there is only one issue at hand: either the Bible is divinely inspired or it’s not. Do we believe God, or is He a liar? If God is Truth, then we are called to holiness. If God is a liar, then He is unworthy of our worship.

If we cannot trust the Bible, then we can disregard any notions of absolute morality. In fact, this point marries well with relativism. I’m sure the subject has come up while waiting in line at Walmart when somebody opines, sodomy may be true for you but it’s not true for me.” Besides, we are talking about people wearing pajamas or full size sheets safety pinned in place. Personally, I try to keep my conversations light, but to each his own.

This brings up another question. In John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This statement refutes relativism. Is Jesus a crackpot or is he telling the truth? If Jesus doesn’t lie, look into his numerous statements that authenticate the Old Testament. If the Old Testament was wrong, Jesus could have set the record straight by telling us that there were abuses in Sodom and Gibeah, and He has been through anger management training. Jesus could have waved the rainbow flag of surrender chanting, “Gay is OK.” But He didn’t.

In Matthew 19:5, Jesus obliquely denounces homosexuality. His assertion is that a man will cleave to his wife. Some want to ignore that. Some want to ignore the Old Testament. Some want to dismiss our call to righteousness. Some twist our freedom in Christ as license to commit some of the most heinous of sins.

So which is it? If the Bible is not the divinely inspired word of God, then it is utterly useless. Aleister Crowley, a Satanist, said, “Do as though wilt.” Do we do what is right in our own eyes or do we seek fellowship with God?

If faith is based on fabrication, you are a fool to partake in its abominable sacrements. If the Bible is divinely inspired, we mustn’t create a god in our fallen image. We must take the Bible at face value and practice the tenets of the Bible as they stand.

It’s interesting to see how people try to have it both ways. John 14:5 says, “If you love me, you will keep my commands.” So which is it? Do you love Jesus Christ that brings salvation, or do you embrace your sin which reaps judgment?

We Live in a Civilized Society?

I was reading “Judges: Such A Great Salvation” when I came across an interesting sentence regarding God’s judgment. Davis stated, “We need to beware of thinking that God avenges only when he makes a racket.” (p. 125) It caught my attention because when we consider God’s judgment, we usually think of natural disasters or some other cataclysmic event. We forget that God’s wrath may be poured out slowly over time.

Such is the case in America today. We might surmise that God is exercising a judgment of abandonment with the rise of immorality. We are a culture of death where we kill the unborn and the infirm. We even sanction doctor-assisted suicide as a sort of pre-emptive strike.

We also see all manner of sexual sin from adultery and pornography, to widespread acceptance of homosexuality. The apostle Paul writes, “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” (Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭24-25‬ ESV) This is the world we live in.

It is apparent that morality is on a downward trajectory and it seems that God is judging America, not with a loud bang (at least not yet), but slowly and methodically where we are ensnared and are not even aware of it.

Or I may be mistaken and the normalization of sin might actually be evidence of an intrepid and virtuous society. A society where somebody’s “choice” trumps the sanctity of life. A society that advocates the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies for reasons that can be as hollow as being inconvenient to being as depraved principled and idealistic as being favorable to the unborn baby because we subjectively decide that being born would infelicitously affect his quality of life. See, eugenics is propitious not only for society at large, but for the aborted child as well.

We have fallen so far that we believe (at least in limited cases at this time) that murder is advantageous to the murderee. Or to use an actual word, a favor had been done for the victim beneficiary.

I must live on another planet because I thought a favor was something good like cutting a little old lady’s lawn without compensation. I suffer from chronic pain and am unable to work, and I anticipate this particular brand of goodwill will expand from terminal patients to other patients with a questionable quality of life. Forgive me if I seem ungracious, but I would like to decline this favor in advance. I wonder if benefits such as these will ever become mandatory.

Identity Crisis

Consider a world where your identity is based on how you project yourself instead of DNA and common sense. Before we embark on this journey of self-actualization, let’s dust off our Bible to read Psalm 139:13-16. The Psalmist writes, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” It sounds as if God, had already planned and designed each of us before He ever created the universe.

I’m aware that there are those who do not believe in the God of the Bible. Some don’t believe in God at all. That’s fine. If that is the case, the concept of rejecting our DNA to redefine ourselves might seem reasonable. After all, we just evolved over billions of years. We are just evolving ourselves rather than waiting for random chance to catch up.

If we believe in God (or any god for that matter), we are only cleaning up His mess. He created the moon and the stars. He created the green grass and the blue sky. He created giraffes and gnus. His perfect will created you and I. But He made a cosmic mistake. With every fiber of my being, with my limited knowledge and fickle emotions, I look in the mirror and see a man staring back, but in the deepest recesses of my soul, I know that I should have been born a cat.

I have pictures of me playing with balls of yarn as a kitten child. I’m ashamed to admit it, but I have a nasty catnip habit. I think the strongest marker that assures me that I should have been born a cat is that I catch mice and small birds and proudly lay my trophies at my wife’s feet.

This image of a cat is courtesy of Wikipedia.

What do you see in the above picture? If you see a man, you are narrow-minded and intolerant. Any reasonable person sees a picture of a cat. God must be a rascal to trap a cat in a human body. I can’t imagine the torture he must have endured to self-evolve into his real self–a cat.

Sadly, this is not just an isolated incident.  There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of transhumans.  Some may believe this is a mental delusion that should be included in the DSM V.  It’s not.  We need to exercise compassion and love for these poor creatures.  They should not be derided as deviants or some kind of abomination.  They should be accepted and affirmed.

This image of a sloth is courtesy of Xuilla on Flickr.

Imagine the horror of living in a body that is not your own.  Look at Slothman.  Look at the pain in his eyes.  He has to wear a ridiculous getup because he cannot afford his transformation.  Is it unreasonable to have the government pay for him to become a proper sloth?  What’s the deal with his claws?  Are those chopsticks?  It’s ridiculous to even entertain the notion that a sloth can hang in a tree with chopsticks.

These poor transhumans need to be integrated into society as the creature that they are on the inside.  You can’t possibly imagine the pain these manimals carry.  I do, though.  I’m a cat trapped in a man’s body.  People laugh at me when I wear my cat outfit made out of a patchwork quilt and a snow tire.  Admittedly, it doesn’t look very catlike, but I cannot afford anything else.

This is the world we live in.  A world with no common sense and no ultimate sense of morality.  We are in a world of deviancy and corruption because we think we know what is best.  Proverbs 3:5 tells us not to lean on our own understanding, yet we mutilate our bodies and souls for cheap thrills.  Or worse, we desecrate our bodies as we take a “moral” stand against righteousness.

Is God A Tyrant?

Richard Dawkins is quite descriptive when he states, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”  Interesting.

It’s interesting when an atheist invariably paints God as some sort of cosmic bully, yet they are unable to see His goodness.  It’s not a matter of finding a balance between God’s niceness and meanness.  God is Love, yet God is Justice.  We, as fallen humans, have a tendency to frame the argument from a position of innocence.  Can we honestly say that we are innocent?

If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that we are covetous and murderous thieves. Those are strong words, but we must remember that Jesus upped the ante when he said, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭21-22‬ ESV) We choose to indict God when we are guilty rather than to humble ourselves and repent.

Perhaps we want to blame God for our sinful nature. Why would a loving God make us broken, only to cast us into hell? That’s a good question, but God did not make us sinful. He created Adam and Eve without sin. The sin nature of Adam passed to his descendants. We are not direct creations of God like Adam and Eve. We are born of Adam. Sure, there is the Jehoiachin problem, but if it wasn’t for the virgin birth, Jesus would have inherited this sin nature.

We say that God is immoral for upholding His perfect and moral law. The Ten Commandments are so deceptively simple, yet impossible to maintain. Is God immoral because these rules are so hard? No. The Law doesn’t make us bad any more than it makes us good. The Law reveals our inability to be righteous on our own. The Law points us to our Savior. But we reject the Savior.

We say God is immoral when He upholds His impossible laws, yet we are upset when He extends grace to rescue us from our dire situation. We choose to remain dead in our trespasses and blame our Creator for our sins. God then offers us salvation and we have the audacity to call him a tyrant.

Another Perspective on Sin

It’s interesting how we view and rationalize sin.  Sometimes we tell ourselves that God wants us to be happy.  To maintain that position we must completely throw out 1 Thessalonians 4:7.  Why should we try to be holy, anyway?  Joel Osteen sure makes Christianity sound easy with a limp wristed god that will give us a fancy car just so that we will bless him with our presence.  How can anyone even want to submit to an impotent god that will shower us with gifts so that we will spend time with him?  Oh wait.  We don’t.  Even people that subscribe to Osteen’s brand of Christianity probably are more concerned with what God will do for them than what God has done for them.

We can fall into another pit when we believe that God made us this way (whatever this way happens to be), so God must be pleased with our current fallen condition.  As a matter of fact, since He made us this way, wouldn’t our present condition be more desirable than holiness?  I have heard the argument, “I was born gay, therefore God made me this way.”  I can just as easily say, “I was was born with a predilection to alcohol, so if I choose to be a drunk it is because God made me this way.”  The rapist can cay that they were born with these tendencies, so ultimately, God created the rapist.

If this argument was valid, Paul would have not addressed the Church in Corinth with, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV)  So was Paul mistaken when labeling certain people as deviants?  Who is right?  Are Paul’s words divinely inspired, or should I lean upon my own understanding? (Proverbs 3:5)

I’m also intrigued when someone resorts to pragmatism as a defense to homosexuality.  Usually, the argument is meant to divert the attention from homosexuality to adultery.  I agree that adultery is sinful and should be addressed, and at least in the case of my church, these matters are dealt with in a biblical manner.  Notice that there is no argument that adultery is sinful.  When someone who supports homosexuality by equating it with the normalization of adultery, he just admitted that homosexuality is a sin.  Otherwise, he would have defended adultery as natural, or preferable, but would not assent to the fact that it is sinful.  What was 1 Thessalonians again?  The ESV states, “For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.”  That sounds nothing like “adultery isn’t that bad or God reveres homosexual practices.”

From our perspective, we may try to minimize our guilt.  Is lying really all that bad?  If lying is okay in certain circumstances, then maybe adultery is acceptable.  Afterall, illicit sex isn’t really immoral (as long as no one gets hurt and both parties want to engage in sexual deviancy).  From there, it’s not a stretch to say that homosexuality is natural, and maybe even more than just an alternative lifestyle.  But is this our view of sin or is it God’s view?

The only thing that matters is God’s perspective regarding sin.  If sin wasn’t so deadly, we would not have continuous warnings.  Paul states, “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions,divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21 ESV)  The issue at hand is not merely homosexuality.  The problem is with all sin.  We are called to be holy and we will be judged accordingly.  All sin is unnatural.  They are abominations, yet we try to normalize them because we believe that our feelings are more important than our God.

CC image courtesy of Bront Nolson.

Which god do You Worship?

It’s interesting how people like to place limits on the sovereignty of God. It is something that is impossible, because if God has limited authority, He is not sovereign. Yet, some are not comfortable with the idea of a sovereign God. You can see this as books of the Bible are ignored, concepts such as justice are glossed over, and you are left with a spiritless, plastic, bumper sticker god. The bumper sticker says, “God is Love,” or more appropriately, “god is love.”

What is interesting with “do it yourself” religion is that you can add or subtract components to make your faith truly unique. God does some pretty scary stuff and the Bible promises some scary stuff for unbelievers, so it is easy to dismiss the Wrath of God because it sounds mean. Now that eternal punishment is off the table we are free to do as we wish. At least that’s what we want to believe.

CC image courtesy of Rox Steady on Flickr.

Let’s assume that this bumper sticker is true. Does it mean that God is only love? Or is He more? What about righteousness? What about justice? What about mercy?

As I was exploring this concept I focused on 1 John 4. It’s very compelling that the first verse of the chapter exhorts the reader to test the spirits as there are many false prophets. Nevertheless, we are adhering to the assertion that “God is Love.” One noteworthy verse mirrors John 3:16. It states, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.” (1 John 4:9 ESV) Is this saying that we all will live through Jesus? It says we might. John 3:16 was also a conditional statement. The verse doesn’t say that everyone will have eternal life, but “whoever believes in Him.” So we are left with two groups of people: those who believe, and those who do not. So far, I don’t see evidence of unconditional love.

If believers will have eternal life, what happens to the unbelievers? John 3:18 leaves no room for interpretation when it says “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” If we take the Bible seriously, how can we synthesize this with our newfound belief that “God is Love?” We can’t.

I read a post recently that said God cannot execute wrath because it is sinful. I searched the Bible to find if there was scripture where someone might come to that conclusion. Granted, it is a stretch to use the Bible to assail God’s character at all, but if we believe that God loves unconditionally, we can believe whatever we want.

Colossians 3 teaches the believer to seek Christ, not his sinful nature. It also mentions God’s wrath. But is His wrath sinful? In verses 5-8, the reader is advised to “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.” (Colossians 3:5-8 ESV) In one short passage we have God’s wrath and man’s wrath. But are they the same?

CC image courtesy of Rox Steady on Flickr.

To learn the original intent it is best to read it in the original language. Regarding God’s wrath, the Greek word is όργή (I’m aware the markings aren’t quite right, I just can’t figure out how to type them). This is #3709 in Strong’s Concordance and it defines this word as fixed, controlled, a passionate feeling against sin. Man’s wrath is θυμόν in Greek. This is #2372 in Strong’s Concordance and is defined as rage which is a flaw not present when the Lord expresses intense anger. We see that God’s wrath is controlled and purposefully executed without sin. Man’s wrath is not righteous, rather it is an impulsive fury.

God is Love. But is that all He is? He is also Just. God could be a Just Judge and be unloving. He could be like the Pharisees and carry out the Law to the letter. God cannot be Love and not be Just, though. It seems counterintuitive, but if you love someone you also hold them accountable. This is what people don’t like. Accountability. We want to sin as we please but we don’t want to reap the consequences. The consequences are real. The Bible says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV) “And such were some of you.” Paul was addressing true believers who repented of their sins.

We all worship a god. Do you worship materialism? Do you worship a god that turns a blind eye to sin? Do you celebrate a god that affirms a sinful lifestyle, like the god of this age? Or do you worship the Living God of the Bible who detests sin? 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is patient so that we can come to repentance. This is where people quote John 13:34, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but are we loving if we avow or even encourage a sinful lifestyle? That is most unloving as we are spreading lies from hell when we promote happiness over holiness.

…As Long As I’m Happy

How important is it to be happy? I’m aware that the pursuit of happiness is an American right, but how aggressively should happiness be pursued? Should an individual attempt to attain happiness himself or should it be handed to him?

It sounds innocuous. I certainly enjoy the moments I stumble into happiness, but it certainly is fleeting. Don’t get me wrong, I love my life. I have a beautiful, loving wife and three wonderful daughters. I also have chronic pain. I suffer from bouts of depression. I live in Louisiana and it gets really hot here. Happiness is nice, but at what price?

I read an article yesterday that caught me by surprise. It was denouncing gay marriage, but from the perspective of the jilted spouse. I have not heard the media report the number of families that have been torn apart because one party in the marriage decided to break the covenant. The marriage was destroyed because somebody “deserved to be happy.”

I’m a Bible believing Christian and I believe a marriage is between one man and one woman. I also believe that a marriage is for life and mustn’t be ended over trivial matters. As far as I’m concerned, regarding divorce, all matters are trivial except in the cases of spousal abuse and adultery. You certainly don’t file for divorce because you are chasing a fleeting emotion such as happiness.

Gay marriage aside, is it acceptable to pursue happiness at the expense of others? Is it appropriate for a man to abandon his wife and children so that he can be happy with a younger woman? This happens all the time. Or should we affirm the husband who always wears protection, but he cheats on his wife? He sleeps around in the name of happiness, so we must celebrate his brave action, right?

Wrong! This man is a jerk! He is an adulterer and dishonors his family with his crass behavior. What about the kids? His paychecks should be signed over to his spouse to support his children. His paramour can take care of him. How can anybody in their right mind leave his loving family in hot pursuit of happiness in the form of a 23 year old blonde woman? Not me. There’s matters of honor, love, respect, keeping your word, and numerous other virtues that pleasure seekers dismantle daily. If these cads are called adulterers when they leave for another woman, how can the man be called ‘brave’ and ‘heroic’ by divorcing his wife to marry a man?

What is required for the public to call shenanigans? A man leaves his wife for two men? Will there be public outcry because beautiful family was destroyed by a selfish man or is he just brave and heroic?