Articles on homosexuality

As the Singapore newspapers start to tire of the debate, and let the militant homosexual minority 'have the last word', so to speak, I think it is good to compile the various posts on the issue, with most of them written by my friend and brother-in-Christ Vincent Chia over at his blog Viva vox Dei.

Here are the various posts on why we should not decriminalize homosexuality in Singapore (Currently, Section S377a of the Penal Code calls homosexuality an unnatural act punishable by law, although almost nobody is prosecuted under it):

The Homosexual Issue in Singapore: A Deeper Legal Problem

The Homosexual Debate Cannot Escape a Moral Argument

The Homosexual Debate, Majoritarianism, and the Moral Argument

The Golden Rule of Reciprocity, Genetics, and the Homosexual Debate

And a short argument why the word homophobia is a misnomer and doesn't exactly exist:

The misnomer called Homophobia

And the concern that most (especially Singapore) churches would be at the mercy of homosexual propoganda, together with a very brief exegete of Rom. 1:18-28:

The infiltration of sodomy into Christianity

Well-meant offer of the Gospel...

I don't know why Phil Johnson wants to open up the can of worms called "the well-meant offer of the Gospel". Anyway, he has done it in his blog here, again. I have commented on this issue before (which can be found from a compiled article) here (Scroll down until you come to the relevant topic), and I have replied to Phl Johnson and co. over on his blog on this topic now. The main point I want to make is actually very simple:

There is a BIG difference between God wanting compliance with His commands (including the command to repent) and God wanting all people to be saved (well-meant offer of the Gospel). Very big!

'Christians' move towards code on seeking converts

It seems that there would soon be a certain code of conduct in trying to win converts to another religion. According to Reuters:

Christian churches are moving closer to a common code of conduct on how they go about winning converts among themselves and from other religions, the World Council of Churches (WCC) said on Monday.

No prizes for guessing whether true Christians would be deemed to have 'violated the code' as we share the Gospel of Jesus Christ which can alone save any person. As for me, I couldn't care less about this 'code'. They don't speak for me anyway.

A first hand account of witnessing in Palau's carnival

What happens when you try to preach the Gospel in a Luis Palau evangelistic carnival? Read this to find out.

An overview of the Word-faith movement

Here is a very good overview of the doctrinal beliefs of the Word-faith cult.

I think it would be good to just take notice of the various statements of faith of the Word-faith Rhema Bible School started by the late heretic Kenneth E. Hagin. The US Rhema Bible Training Center (RBTC)'s statement of faith can be seen here, whereby the Singapore Rhema Bible Training Center (RBTCS)'s statement of faith can be found here. It is interesting to note that the US School states that 'divine healing is provided for in the atonement of Christ', while the Singapore school seems to be more orthodox and merely states that 'We believe that healing of the body is part of the blessings of both the Old and New Covenant and that God has provided many different ways through which healing can be received. ' Interesting .... Why does Rhema Bible Training Center Singapore (RBTC) not follow their mother institute in stating that 'healing is provided for in the atonement of Christ'? To appear more evangelical?

Song: Your Name

This is a nice song by Paul Baloche:

Your name
by Paul Baloche and Glenn Packiam © 2006 Integrity’s Hosanna Music

Comments: Capo 3

1:
As morning dawns and evening fades
You inspire songs of praise
That rise from earth to touch Your heart and glorify Your name

Chorus:
Your name is a strong and mighty tower
Your name is a shelter like no other
Your name, let the nations sing it louder
‘Cause nothing has the power to save, but Your name

2:
Jesus, in Your name we pray
Come and fill our hearts today
Lord, give us strength to live for You and glorify Your name

Here are the chords,

And here's the video:

Mirror

Revealing details about the Emerging Church movement

Rev. Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries has posted the correspondence he had with an Emerging Church pastor regarding the recent 'poster controversy' started over at Pyromanics. The Emerging Church pastor Mike Clawson said this at the end of the exchange:

“Salvation is through the grace of God alone; by the faith alone given to us by God, in Christ alone.”

Another bit of irony (and perhaps more evidence of how you really haven’t understood what those in the EC are saying) is that I would completely affirm this statement as well. You hold this up as an example of the radical difference in our views – and yet I see no disagreement here.

I 'agree' with his statement ... and pigs do fly, at least in the world of the Emerging Church movement. So salvation is both by grace alone and not by grace alone, by faith alone and also not by faith alone, and in Christ alone but not in Christ alone too. I'm sorry, I'm not 'smart' enough to get my mind around such strange doctrine (1 Tim. 1:6-7). But anyway, if Mike really mean that last statement, then his entire emerging ministry is a total sham, and vice versa. Since he himself said that he used to be orthodox, then I guess this warning applies to him:

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding Him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, an produced a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, recieves a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. (Heb. 6:4-8)

Notice the last verse which states that such a land is worthless and near to being cursed. This is a warning that if a person is set on apostasty, his/her final end is destruction, and we are to warn that person that such is the case. This is was not meant to be used to judge whether someone is apostate, although it could be if that person has proved conclusively his or her apostasy, but hopefully be a very strong warning to prevent people from apostasizing. Those who continue in this path knowingly should very well know that there would be no hope for them anymore; no way of salvation open to them, they are considered to be damned to hell with no hope of returning to God. Such a scary prospect should very well be a warning to all of us Christians to stay on the narrow path and strive towards the goal that Christ Jesus set for us (Phil. 3:14). Let us not have ANYTHING to do whatsoever to do with all these heretical movements.

Why Calvinism has nothing to do with fatalism

I have decided to take up the slack from my friend Hanmin over here, ever since he raised the issue (and then decided that it was not profitable for him to carry on with it).

Anyway, before we start, it would be advisible for those who do not know much of the issue to read the following articles: Soteriology, and Differences between Pelagianism, its derivatives and Christianity, in order to gain some insight into the issue first. Simply put, the doctrinal system known simply as Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace is biblical as opposed to its other alternatives. For a refutation of Amyraldism, readers may refer to the relevant section in the article The Gospel and its proclaimation for a biblical and logical refutation of this hybrid compromise system.

With this established, what then is the difference between Calvinism and fatalism? Is Calvinism just 'a hair shy' of fatalism? By postulating a God who is absolutely sovereign over all, does this make God the *gasp* author of sin, or render us robots?

First of all, let us define our terms. Calvinism broadly speaking is that system of theology whereby God who is sovereign works out ALL things for His own good purpose, which is hereby especially emphasized in the realm of salvation or soteriology. This is done through the use of primary and secondary, and active and passive causes. By primary, we mean that God did it directly. By seondary, we mean that God did it through intermediaries, who may not by themselves be fully obedient to God's commands. Active causes refer to God doing such an action by an positive extension of His will, while passive causes refer to God doing such an action by NOT interfering and thus causing the event to be aborted.

Now, all these terms are not found in the Bible per se, but they are used so as to give the issues we face clarity, much as how the term Trinity expresses a vital Truth of the Godhead. From this categorization, we can obtain the following chart:

Causes	Primary	Secondary
Active	God personally does this action by a positive extension of His will	God does this action through intermediaries by a positive extension of His will
Passive	God personally does this action by not doing something in order to accomplish His will	God does this action through intermediaries by not doing something in order to accomplish His will

We will look at this chart later on, but for now, let us look at fatalism. Fatalism teaches that everything has been predetermined, thus regardless of what we do, everything has already been decided, and thus whatever has been decreed to happen will happen, and nothing anyone can do will thwart this event from happening. The conclusion drawn from this is that we might as well do nothing, since whatever we do will not matter; all has been predetermined anyway.

As a cursory look between Christianity and Fatalism would show, Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with Fatalism. Christianity has God working through intermediary causes, which includes us humans by the way, while fatalism denies the presence of intermediaries. In fatalism, God cannot work His will through using a person to implement it, which God often does as shown in the biblical narratives.

Nevertheless, doesn't Calvinism approach fatalism in a certain way? After all, if God is absolutely sovereign, doesn't that mean that nothing we do will ever change the will and actions of God?

To this question, we answer: Yes and No. Yes, if by that it is meant that we cannot alter God's wills and foil or determine God's actions. No, if by that is meant that we cannot seem to alter God's wills and redirect God's plans. The key word here is 'seem'. God's will is something that will be done, but as He does work through intermediaries to implement it, and no one except God Himself know what His will is, sometimes God may not appear to get His way, but rest assured that whatever we do, the outcome is exactly as what God has planned and desired, even when it seemed otherwise and go against what we think we know about what God desires.

It is because of this reason that Calvinists are not fatalists. We acknowledge that God works through secondary causes (intermediaries) which include us. Whatever we do, we do so boldly, knowing that regardless of what we do, God's plans will still be accomplished. In fact, if anyone behaves like a fatalist, their idea of God is too small as compared to the true biblical God. To the fatalist, what their beliefs basically amount to is that God could possibly be thwarted by their actions, or the other extreme that God does not have use of me, of which both are refuted by Scripture. For the latter, God desires to use us in His endaevors, as the men of God throughout the Bible have known. For the former, they have a very small view of God, to think that their actions could in any way change God's plans.

In the area of Evangelism, for example, Evangelism is ultimately of God. Yet the reason why we do Evangelism is that God has commanded us to do so, and that He has made it such that we are the intermediaries of His will through the proclaimation of the Gospel. Evangelism is thus implemented by God through primary active and secondary active causes; the former through the Spirit's regeneration and the latter through us in priviledge of the Gospel proclaimation. And lest anyone should think that the idea of God including us in His plans means that the job might be botched, let them mediate on the words of Scripture which says that God is able from the stones to raise up children for Abraham (Mt. 3:9, Lk. 3:8). If any person thinks that his/her disobedience would foil the plans of God, let them think twice, for their disobedience has already been planned by God and would be punished by Him, and others will have taken up the duty which was not attended to by him/her.

Others might then ask, what about the Fall? Was the Fall of Adam predetermined by God? Well, since God is absolutely sovereign, the Fall must be something which He has ordained to happen. Furthermore, if election in Christ was done before the foundation of the world, that means that God has already known beforehand that men would fall and thus needed to be elected in Christ in order to be saved. In fact, since before the foundation of the world, and thus before the Fall, God has already elected some to salvation, the Fall must be seen as unavoidable and thus in a sense decreed in the eyes of God, otherwise God's election makes no sense, as it would be foiled if Adam did not sin.

Nonetheless, God is not responsible for the Fall. The Fall was wholely due to Man's disobedience towards God. Since God did not cause Adam and Eve to fall, yet that event was inevitable, the implementation of the Fall was through secondary, passive causes. God did not cause Adam to sin, but let him do so, thus it was passive, and He was not the one primarily involved in the entire episode also, with Satan being the chief instigator and God only allowing it to happen.

What then of the decree of election and reprobation? Election is something whereby God does so personally and actively (Eph. 1:1-11), thus it is a primary active action. Reprobation, however was never said to be something God did actively, as God does not cause anyone to go to hell, but Scripture does say that God is personally involved in the process of reprobation (Rom. 9:17-22; Prov. 16:4; Jude 1:4; 1 Peter 2:8), therefore the process of reprobation is of a primary, passive nature.

With this settled, it is hoped that it can be seen that Calvnism is NOT fatalism. Those who choose to continue to think it is show their ignorance of Calvinism, Scripture, and even philosophy, from which their objection is supposedly grounded in (since fatalism is not a biblical word or concept).

Posters for the Emerging Church Conversation Chaos

These posters are just too good to keep for ourselves. Do share them. I'm sure the Postmodern 'arty' Emerging members love them a lot... (Eh, wait, what you mean by calling us postmodern? We are a couple of missional Christians, whatever that is supposed to mean = ____ ; nevermind if you don't understand what we are saying ...)

Article: Cast your burdens on the Lord

Here is a good article to encourage those of us who are grieved by the things happening in the visible churches today.

The misnomer called Homophobia

I hate to be sucked into this mess, but I am starting to get fed up with the propoganda of the homosexuals.

The first thing I want to start with is that there is no such word as 'homophobia'. The whole word is a misnomer. Homophobia is *supposed* to mean an irrational fear of homosexuals / homosexuality. The main word here is irrational. However, is the fear of homosexual(ity) really irrational?

When people oppose homosexuality, there would typically be lots of possible arguments they would advance to support this position of theirs. Thus, the fear of homosexuality is not irrational on the surface. Of course, however, people could very well use such arguments as a smokescreen to hide their 'phobia' of the thing itself. (Definitely, homophobia can never be used against those who have thought through the issue rationally) However, is that the case with homosexuality?

Now, it may be granted that there may be some people who have not thought through their opposition to homosexuality, and perhaps they could legitimately be labeled as having 'homophobia', but is that really the case?

In Scripture, it is written:

The wrath of God has been revelaed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in unrighteousness suppress the truth, for what can be known about God is plain to them, for God has shown it to them. .... ... For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to him, for they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they becme fools, ...

For this reason, God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women gave up natural relations with men for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another; men committing indecent acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Rom. 1:18-27)

I have exposited the verses in a previous post, but suffice it is to say here that homosexuality is feared because God has already shown it to be unnatural. All who fear homosexuality, whether they validly thought through the reasons why they do so, do so out ot the common knowledge of morality given to all Man by God Himself. Thus, there is no such thing as an irrational fear of homosexuality, and the entire misnomer has been shown.

Before going any further, let me say that the reason I use Scripture, even though most homosexuals and their symphatizers detest the Scriptures, is that I am a presuppositionist. I am NOT going to give up my presupposition to pander to the worldview of the homosexuals, as they too have their own presuppositions which they would not give up. Let God be true, and every man a lier (Rom. 3:4). Since God created all, all Man, even the homosexuals themselves, know deep in their hearts that what God says about homosexuality is correct, and they are wrong. Therefore, I based on epistemological foundation on the Word of God itself, and it will be a sure and strong foundation for my position.

Since that is the case, the word 'homophobia' has bee shown to be a misnomer, a word coined by the homosexual movement to blackmail the rest of humanity emotionally.

However, for argument's sake, let us suppose that this phenomenon of 'homophobia' does actually exist. What then?

Well, there are other phobias present in this world, for example, acrophobia (or the fear of heights), claustrophobia (or the fear of enclosed or confied space) etc. Now, what do we do when we see people who have such phobias? Do we punish them by having such phobias? Do we put them in jail? Call them hateful? Oh, but people are not involved? How about sociophobia then? If people are suffering from phobia that affects their relation to society, are they fined, imprisoned or subjected to character assisination? No! Yet, if homophobia is indeed real, why is it that those who are supposed to suffer from it are ridiculed, imprisoned, fined, and otherwise shouted down? If it is indeed real, shouldn't the homosexuals have compassion on these people and try not to aggregate their conditions by openly and publicly parading their 'affections'. Even if the condition is detrimental to others and society in general, shouldn't the person be send for counseling and therapy instead of being punished by the law?

The reason why this is so is because the homosexuals are indeed bigoted and are just using this word as part of their arsenal of 'weapons of mass emotional blackmail' (WMEB). If they truly believe that this word 'homophobia' as being adequately describing those who oppose them, they wouldn't insist on punishing those who label their actions/orientation etc. as evil (legally or otherwise), nor would they deride them, but instead would choose to curtail their own rights so as not to cause emotional torment in the 'homophobes'. That they choose to utilize this word shows their hypocrisy and duplicity!

Article: On singles who desire a spouse

Interesting article here.

Just fyi: Am starting to think about the issue seriously. Bottom line is that I will not get anyone who will cause me to directly or indirectly compromise my walk with God, and no one should know the exact criteria I'll use to judge, in order that nobody will get to 'act' in order to gain my approval.

Armenians and Arminians

Oh my, this is good. Read the headlines for Tuesday's 'news': Armenians protest being called Arminians. An excerpt:

YEREVAN, ARMENIA - "No more slander!" "Stop the confusion!" "We aren't going to take it anymore!" and "Speak and write more precisely!"

These were some of the slogans being shouted at a non-violent protest in the capital city of Armenia last week. This protest is the first in Yerevan since its struggle for independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While that struggle was political, this one is theological. Some people would say this is no big deal, but for the citizens of Armenia, this is a matter of truth and integrity.

Armenia is a small, landlocked country located between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. It is an ancient society that has faced much hardship over the years. Armenia's latest battle is one for its very name.

The leaders of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which was founded in the first century, told TBNN, "Our church was founded by two apostles of the Lord. Armenia was the first country in the world to adopt Christianity as its state religion, in the year 301 AD. We have no historic connection with the Roman Catholic Church or any of the Protestant churches of the west. Why, then, do people constantly refer to us as Arminians?"

...

Read more about it here

Article: The Building of a Clone Army

Seems like today's pastors are being trained to behave like clones... perhaps of Rick Warren? Read this and come to your own conclusions.

Church polity: Councils and church polity

[continued from previous posts here, here, here and here]

The Jerusalem Council

In Acts 15, the one and only council ever to be recorded in the Scriptures, and the only infallible one at that, being presided over by the Apostles and recorded in Scripture, convened in Jerusalem. The issue being decided then was whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised after they became Christians (v. 1). This was due to the Jewish roots of Christianity, and because of the continuity between OT Judaism ad Christianity. As God seemed to be doing a new thing in broadening the church to be global in scope, many Jewish believers, especially those who came from more religious and Pharasiatical backgrounds, were concerned as to how Gentile believers should be incoporated into the Church. Were they supposed to observe the Mosaic Law, just as believers during the OT times did? If the Law was still valid, shouldn't the new Gentile converts be circumcised as well, as a mark of entry into the Covenant?

It is in such a transition period that the Jerusalem Council took place. In this Council, the Apostles and elders present covened, heard the case (v. 5-7a) and then declared the position that Gentiles believers should not be tied down with obeying the Mosaic Law but to obey the Lord according to their conscience being led by the Holy Spirit, with some general observances for them to keep in order not to stumble their Jewish brethren (v. 19-21). Such a ruling was sent out to the churches involved in the controversy (v. 22-29) and became binding on them (although in this case it was gladly received by the churches, since it ruled in their favor).

Now, it has been said, often by Baptists, that the Jerusalem Council is not a Council in the sense of it deciding doctrine, but of Paul deciding whether the Church in Jerusalem was still following the faith. This of course is contradicted by the text of Scripture. Furthermore, if such was indeed the case, then why was it said that the church in Syrian Antioch send and appoint men to 'the apostles and elders about this question' (v. 2), instead of Paul personally going there himself to see whether the circumcision party were 'official representatives of the Jerusalem Church'? Why was Paul sent with regards to the question posed by the circumcision party instead of being sent with regards to whether the party had official sanction from Jerusalem? After those of the circumcision made their point to the Council (v. 5), why was there much discussion and debate over the points they have raised (v. 6-7a) instead of the Apostles and Elders of the Jerusalem Church just immediately mentioning to Paul that such is not their position and these people were not official representatives of the Jerusalem Church?

The fact of the matter is that the Jerusalem Council was indeed a Council which met for the purposes of deciding on doctrines. The position that this was not a council which met for the purposes of determining doctrine is clearly a reading into Scripture of a certain church polity rather than of letting the text speak for itself.

Now, it may be granted that Paul was indeed worried whether the Jerusalem Church was still orthodox. Certainly, Paul, being himself an Apostle called personally by our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:5), preached with the authority that comes with his status and office, and he certainly have no qualms rebuking a fellow Apostle who compromise the faith (Gal. 2:11-14). However, that does not have any bearing about why the council convened in the first place.

Councils where doctrines are decided therefore has a biblical precedent. However, are they still valid for us today?

To answer this question, we must first note that the Jerusalem Council is the only council ever presided over by the Apostles, who were given the gift of apostleship to pronounce the very Word of God. Thus, the Apostles could pronounce doctrines 'ex cathedra', in that sense. Therefore, whereby the Council of Jerusalem decide on doctrines, no other Councils since then could do so, since there are no more Apostles then and now. In other words, the Jerusalem Council is unique in Church history, and will never be repeated again.

Nevertheless, since the elders are the successors to the Apostles, and they were present at the Jerusalem Council too, could Councils still be convened and their rulings made binding on believers? To a limited extent, they can. However, since elders are not infallible, nor could they pronounce on issues infallibly, their rulings are only binding on believers inasmuch as they are biblical. We shall hereby note that even the Apostles pronounced truth in accordance with Scripture, as they quote from the texts of the Old Testament (v. 16-18), and therefore for us who do not have the gift of apostleship among us today, all pronouncements of Councils must be made from the Scriptures; that they conform to the truths of Scripture and not just proof-text from it.

We can look though Church history to see both the use and abuse of Councils. Councils have been good and well used in the church as they have helped to keep out heresy (e.g Council of Nicea, Council of Chalcedon) and preserve the purity of the Church. However, Councils, being guided by fallible Man, can and do err, as groups of clergy have pronounced error which may be in direct opposition to the truths of Scripture. An example of such an errant Council would be the Council of Trent, which formalized the seperation of Roman Catholicism from biblical Christianity.

With that said, what can that be said of operational councils in the form of classis, synods etc.? Are such higher level institutions scriptural? Certainly, there seems to be a biblical precedent in the Jerusalem Council. However, does the Scriptures support such an application of Acts 15?

It is my opinion that such is not the case. Councils, whether biblically or historically, were convened only when necessary, never to be an permanent organization which serves only to glue congregations together. They were only convened when doctrinal controversies erupted in the churches, and such churches then met together in order to discuss the doctrines involved in the controversy. Certainly, synods which convene together for the planning of 'Presbyterian Sports Day' or 'Combined Easter celebration' or 'Synod Sunday' (just to make them feel relevant, I guess) are not scriptural (and these concrete examples did in fact happen, because I was in a Presbyterian church before). Presbyerianism in this particular area has been found to be lacking in Scriptural support., and in fact these higher-level organizations most of the time end up as just 'so much red-tape' (Bureaucracy)

Analysis of the remaining church polities

We have already disqualified Episcopalian and Single elder/pastor-led church polities as being contrary to Scripture. Presbyterianism has been found to be lacking in its emphasis on Councils and Synods and other higher-leve assemblies. Let us now look at the remaining church polities.

Congregationalism places a huge emphasis on the priesthood of believers, by giving each member of the church a 'voting right'. However, is that what the Bible teaches? In certain congregationalist churches, like Brethren churches, the offices of elders and deacons do exist. Of course, it may be granted that some of these office bearers do not function biblically, but that is a seperate issue, as plural elder-led congregationalism does exist. The main issue in contention with congregationalism is whether every member should have a 'voting right'. Is that how the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers should be applied?

Certainly, there is much merit to the idea, as elitism tends to be minimilized in such a situation. However, the problem lies in the fact that leaders in both the Old and New Testament do not seem to be picked by democratic voting. In fact, sometimes they are not someone who would naturally be chosen by the majority. Joshua was personally handpicked by Moses, and only later accepted by the people. David was not even one of the choices given to the prophet Samuel initially to choose from. And who chose the Apostles? Certainly not the church! Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every church they planted, which certainly does not mention anything about the voice of the congregation.

It can be said that in the case of the seven deacons (Acts 6:1-6), the deacons were chosen by the people and then the apostles accepted them. However, the most we can legitimately infer from this passage is that the deacons are to be selected by the people of God. No mention of elders are made in Scripture with regards to the same procedure, however.

Within congregationalism itself, the democratic congregationalist system works in such a way that even doctrinal issues are decided by the congregation itself. This, however, contradicts the Scriptures, as elders are commanded to teach and to rebuke those who err (Titus 1:10-15), without being told anywhere in Scripture to leave it to the congregation to decide on doctrinal issues or on the implementation of church discipline.

In concluson, various church polities have been looked at and examined according to Scripture. The number of offices, their functions, roles and responsibilites have also been discussed and looked at. With this, it is hoped that all of us would meditate on the Word of God regarding this issue so as to work towards the purity of the churches.

[THE END!]