Regardless of the particular sins we may see manifested in our children, one fact applies to all: to sin is their nature, and the only cure is the gospel. Rick Holland offers this needed reminder:

Parenting is a multi-level maze of challenges to navigate and sins to mortify—both in parents and in children. The concerns of parenting are as numerous as the number of children. Dealing with the depraved infection natural to our children’s souls on the septic morality of our culture is far beyond the intuitive abilities of loving parents. Sin’s pulverizing destruction comes from both the outside—culture’s moral chaos—and from the inside—the soul’s pervasive sinfulness.
   Parenting can be wrongly interpreted as a process of keeping our children good and pure. The truth is that every child is born sinful. The goal is not to keep children from becoming messed up by sin; instead it is to see their inborn sin covered by the gospel. As a friend of mine puts it, “parents can’t mess up their children; they come that way as a result of Adam’s fall.”

—Richard L. Holland, “Christian Parenting and Homosexuality,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall 2008): 218.

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. Psalm 122:1 (Geneva Bible)

Praise for Conversion
Samuel Stennett (1727–1795)

Come, ye that fear the Lord,
And listen, while I tell
How narrowly my feet escaped
The snares of death and hell.

The flattering joys of sense
Assailed my foolish heart,
While Satan with malicious skill
Guided the poisonous dart.

I fell beneath the stroke,
But fell to rise again;
My anguish roused me into life,
And pleasure sprung from pain.

Darkness and shame and grief,
Oppressed my gloomy mind;
I looked around me for relief,
But no relief could find.

At length to God I cried;
He heard my plaintive sigh;
He heard, and instantly he sent
Salvation from on high.

My drooping head he raised;
My bleeding wounds he healed;
Pardoned my sins, and, with a smile,
The gracious pardon sealed.

Oh, may I never forget
The mercy of my God;
Nor ever want a tongue to spread
His loudest praise abroad.

—Worthy Is the Lamb (Soli Deo Gloria, 2004).

Psalme 119:137–144
(Geneva Bible)
Tsaddi.
137 Righteous art thou, O Lord, and iust are thy iudgements.
138 Thou hast commanded iustice by thy testimonies and trueth especially.
139 My zeale hath euen consumed mee, because mine enemies haue forgotten thy wordes.
140 Thy word is prooued most pure, and thy seruant loueth it.
141 I am small and despised: yet do I not forget thy precepts.
142 Thy righteousnesse is an euerlasting righteousnes, and thy Lawe is trueth.
143 Trouble and anguish are come vpon me: yet are thy commandements my delite.
144 The righteousnes of thy testimonies is euerlasting: graunt me vnderstanding, and I shall liue.

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lorde Jesus Christ.

I did something last week that rarely do any more. I took my wife to a movie in a theatre. It’s not that I don’t like movies; I actually see quite a few, probably more than I should. I just usually wait for them to come out on DVD. I find that very few movies, even of those I like, are worth the trip to theatre, and are certainly not worth giving up my own controlled environment to see. So if I sit in a theatre for one and a half to two hours and the movie isn’t stellar, I’m likely to think much less of it than I would if I had been watching at home. All that is to say that Taken is probably a better movie than I think.

Like the title says, this is not a review, but it will contain some spoilery, though none you wouldn’t predict anyway. You’ve been warned. Here is the beginning of the plot synopsis from Rotten Tomatoes (no spoilers beyond what you would see in the previews):

Liam Neeson is an unstoppable force in this adrenaline-fueled thriller from director Pierre Morel. Bryan (Neeson) has taken early retirement from the CIA in order to live closer to his teenage daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace). Bryan's government work kept him away from Kim for much of her childhood, and he's now trying to make up for lost time. When Kim announces that she's taking a trip to Paris with her friend Amanda (Katie Cassidy), Bryan is apprehensive about her traveling on her own. His worst fear is soon realized, as Kim and Amanda are abducted upon their arrival in France. Bryan immediately springs into action, using his well-honed CIA skills to piece together clues from a single, frantic phone call he received from Kim. (continue at Rotten Tomatoes)

What no reviewer that I’ve noticed (not that I’ve been paying attention) has commented on, and the writers, judging by the ending, didn’t think was important, is the one thing that ruined the movie for me. And let me point out that it wasn’t just me who noticed. My wife jumped right on it when we were barely out of the theatre, and before I had said anything about it. I suppose it was nice that this deficiency wasn’t manifest until the very end, so we were able to mostly enjoy the show.

What is left out of the synopsis above is this: Mills’ ex-wife is married to a very wealthy businessman and has custody of their daughter Kim, but as Kim is a minor, she needs his consent to leave the country. He doesn’t like it, but finally relents. Here’s the big thing: Kim, her mother, and step-father conspire to deceive Dad about the purpose of the trip. She is not simply going on a fun trip with a friend to stay in a safe, adult-supervised home. She and her friend are going to spend the Summer following U-2 all over Europe. There are no adults involved at all, which is what makes their abduction so easy. Had Dad known, he would never have allowed that. Had he known, he never would have had to risk his life to rescue her, and some very bad things that I will spare you would not have happened.

But young people do foolish, sinful things; I understand that. Adults make foolish, sinful decisions; I understand that, too. So while I am irritated and disgusted with what Kim and accomplices have done, I hope it will come out alright in the end — and, after a fairly decent show (gripping action, compelling plot, blah, blah, blah, insert movie critic mumbo-jumbo here) it does, mostly. We knew it would.

Here’s the burr under my saddle: Dad gets his daughter (who, by the way, seems remarkably unscarred by an experience that was traumatic in the extreme — but that’s another gripe) home and is met by a grateful mother and stepfather, who have, of course, a newfound admiration for the man they could previously barely acknowledge. They’re all one big happy family now.

Not one word remotely resembling the vaguest apology is heard. No “I’m sorry I deceived you. I’m sorry I was so foolish. I’m sorry I put your daughter’s life and yours in grave risk. I’m sorry I caused the deaths of several people, some of them innocent.” No remorse over wrong done, just relief and an air of “All’s well that ends well.” No humble contrition, just a rich sugar-daddy’s handshake and some vague, desultory statement on the order of, “Thanks, if there’s ever anything I can do for you . . .”

I left the theatre wanting to give them all a piece of my mind, including the hero for letting it go at that. If she had been my daughter, there would have been repercussions.

I guess that’s the world we live in. There are no sins, only good and bad outcomes. As long as no harm is meant, no wrong is done.

Of old I have known from Your testimonies
That You have founded them forever.
                           —Psalm 119:152

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in his excellent Word.
                           —John Rippon, 1787

It is the blessed privilege of all believers to rest in the knowledge of the promises God has given in his Word. His promises are everlasting promises that cannot fail.

   “Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.” David found of old that God had founded them of old, and that they would stand firm thorough all ages. It is a very blessed thing to be so early taught of God that we know substantial doctrines even from our youth. Those who think that David was a young man when he wrote this Psalm will find it rather difficult to reconcile this verse with the theory; it is much more probable that he was now grown grey, and was looking back upon what he had known long before. He knew at the very first that the doctrines of God’s Word were settled before earth world began, that they had never altered, and never could by any possibility be altered. He had begun by building on a rock, by seeing that God’s testimonies were “founded,” that is, grounded, laid as foundations, settled and established; and that with a view to all the ages that should come, during all the changes that should intervene. It was because David knew this that he had such confidence in prayer, and was so importunate it in. It is sweet to plead immutable promises with an immutable God. Is was because of this that David learned to hope: a confidence in a God who cannot change. It was because of this that he delighted in being near the Lord, for it is a most blessed thing to keep up close intercourse with a Friend who never varies. Let those who choose follow at the heels of the modern school and look for fresh light to break forth which well put the old light out of countenance; we are satisfied with the truth which is old as the hills and as fixed as the great mountains. Let “cultured intellects” invent another god, more gentle and effeminate that the God of Abraham; we are well content to worship Jehovah, who is eternally the same. Things everlastingly established are the joy of established saints. Bubbles please boys, but men prize those things which are solid and substantial, with a foundation and a bottom to them which will bear the test of ages.

—Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Hendrickson, 1988), 3:403–404.

The eternality of God juxtaposed against our finitude necessarily precludes us from gainsaying his decrees and designs. Stephen Charnock draws from the book of Job:

   How bold and foolish is it for a mortal creature to censure the counsels and actions of an eternal God, or be too curious in his inquisitions! It is by the consideration of the unreachable number of the years of God that Elihu checks two bold inquiries: “who hath enjoined him his way, or who can say, thou hast wrought iniquity? Behold, God is great, and we know him not; neither can the number of his years be searched out.”[Job xxxvi. 26, compared with ver. 23.] Eternity sets God above our inquiries and censures. Infants of a day old are not able to understand the acts of the wise and gray heads: shall we, that are so short of being and understanding as yesterday, presume to measure the motions of eternity by our scanty intellects? We that cannot foresee an unexpected accident which falls in to blast a well-laid design, and run a ship many leagues back from the intended harbor; we cannot understand the reason of things we see done in time, the motions of the sea, the generation of rain, the nature of light, the sympathies and antipathies of the creatures; and shall we dare to censure the actions of and eternal God, so infinitely beyond our reach? The counsels of a boundless being are not to be scanned by the brain of a silly worm, that hath breathed but a few minutes in the world. Since eternity cannot be comprehended in time, it is not to be judged by a creature of time: “ Let us remember to magnify his works which we behold,” because he is eternal, which is the exhortation of Elihu backed by this doctrine of God’s eternity (Job xxxvi. 24), and not accuse any work of him who is the “ancient of days,” or presume to direct him of whose eternity we come infinitely short. Whenever, therefore, any unworthy notion of the counsels and works of God is suggested to us by Satan, or our own corrupt hearts, let us look backward to God’s eternal and our own short duration, and silence ourselves with the same question wherewith God put a stop to the reasoning of Job—“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job xxxvi. 4), and reprove ourselves for our curiosity, since we are of so short a standing, and were nothing when the eternal God laid the first stone of the world.

—Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Baker Books, 2005), 1:295

Can your church be described by the color of its members? That is, do you belong to a “black” church, a “white” church, etc? Maybe your community, like mine, is not ethnically diverse enough to manifest such distinctions. If it is, and your church does not reflect that diversity, you should probably be asking why that is.

Why should there be churches made up of white Christians, and churches made up of colored Christians in the same community, and, where all speak the same language; why should white Christians and colored Christians not feel perfectly at home with each other in the same religious gatherings, if they are all Christians, if they all believe in the Fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man, in doing by others as they would be done by, in loving each other as they love themselves, in their oneness in Christ Jesus, and if the same holy Spirit dwells alike in their all hearts?

—Francis J. Grimké, cited in Thabiti Anyabwile, The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors (Crossway, 2007), 119–120.

It is difficult to look at our culture today without being overwhelmed by the moral decay we see all around us. Conditions are worse, it seems, than they have ever been before. But the world in which Jesus and the apostles lived was every bit as bad, and the gospel they preached still has the same power to saved souls and transformed lives that it had two thousand years ago.

Imagine a world in which in which sexual immorality is promoted, available, and accessible, a world in which adultery in common, prostitution legal, drunkenness normal, and theft a constant threat, a world in which most children rebel against their parents and fornication and incest are rampant, God is openly hated, the justice system rarely works for the innocent, and Christianity is illegal. Imagine a world in which homosexuality is out of the closet, is publicly recognized, and enjoys promotion and protection from the government. This is not an imaginary world, nor is it a glimpse into the future. It is a description of the world of the NT. Jesus lived in this world and the gospel was cradled in this kind of society. It is at this point that Solomon should be heard: “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9). Homosexuality has not taken God by surprise, but God’s nature is to take homosexuals by surprise with the saving truth of the gospel.

—Richard L. Holland, “Christian Parenting and Homosexuality,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall 2008), 230–231.

Item number one:

CNN reports that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's wife wants to end marriage due to his incorrigible philandering. Seems reasonable, I suppose, except that . . .

She, Veronica Lario, is his second wife. Berlusconi first met her after seeing her perform topless in 1980. He was still married to his first wife at the time. Their first child was born in 1984. He was divorced from his first wife in 1985. They then had two more children before getting married in 1980. So now, after twenty-nine years, nineteen of them married, she wants to divorce the cheating dirtbag.

Says Mrs Skunk to Mr Skunk, “I want a divorce.”

“But why, my love?” he inquires.

“You stink,” she replies.

Item number two:

In 2007, Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens corresponded over the question, “Is Christianity Good For The World?” That correspondence was published in Christianity Astray Today, a book was written, and in 2008 Wilson and Hitchens took the debate on the road. Now, a forthcoming documentary, Collision, will chronicle that debate. Watching this trailer for that documentary, the following snippet from Hitchens caught my attention.

[Wilson] imposes on himself and on others an unbelievably strenuous burden of worry and guilt. If you insist on believing that you are depraved, as he would put it, rather than evolved, as I would put it, that you labor under a burden of condemnation from your birth rather than bear the stamp of your lowly origins, as Darwin puts it . . .

So . . .

Wilson’s view (and mine), i.e., that man is depraved and under condemnation, but can be instantaneously, supernaturally transformed into a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17), possessing the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:14–16) and manifesting the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–25), constitutes “an unbelievably strenuous burden of worry and guilt.”

It is so much better to believe that yes, we’re bad, but there is nothing we can do about it. It is just the way we have evolved, “the stamp of our lowly origins.” The best we can hope for is that the next generation will be a little more evolved.

Well, thank you Mr Hitchens. I feel so much better now, having been relieved of that odious burden.

Item number three:

You can honor your mother this Mother’s Day with a donation in her name to Planned Parenthood. Imagine sending Mom a heart-warming card like this:

I love a good irony, but my mom would kill me.

On the other side of this issue, these people do not impress me — not one bit.

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. Psalm 122:1 (Geneva Bible)

THE MEETING-PLACE.
Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)

Where the faded flower shall freshen,—
   Freshen never more to fade;
Where the shaded sky shall brighten,—
   Brighten never more to shade:
Where the sun-blaze never scorches;
   Where the star-beams cease to chill;
Where no tempest stirs the echoes
   Of the wood, or wave, or hill:
Where the morn shall wake in gladness,
   And the moon the joy prolong,
Where the daylight dies in fragrance,
   ’Mid the burst of holy song:
      Brother, we shall meet and rest
      ’Mid the holy and the blest!

Where no shadow shall bewilder,
   Where life’s vain parade is o’er,
Where the sleep of sin is broken,
   And the dreamer dreams no more:
Where the bond is never severed;—
   Partings, claspings, sob and moan,
Midnight waking, twilight weeping,
   Heavy noontide,— all are done:
Where the child has found its mother,
   Where the mother finds the child,
Where dear families are gathered.
   That were scattered on the wild:
      Brother, we shall meet and rest
      ’Mid the holy and the blest!

Where the hidden wound is healed,
   Where the blighted light re-blooms.
Where the smitten heart the freshness
   Of its buoyant youth resumes:
Where the love that here we lavish
   On the withering leaves of time,
Shall have fadeless flowers to fix on
   In an ever spring bright clime:
Where we find the joy of loving,
   As we never loved before,—
Loving on, unchilled, unhindered,
   Loving once and evermore:
      Brother, we shall meet and rest,
      ’Mid the holy and the blest!

Where a blasted world shall brighten
   Underneath a bluer sphere,
And a softer, gentler sunshine
   Shed its healing splendor here:
Where earth’s barren vales shall blossom,
   Putting on their robe of green,
And a purer, fairer Eden
   Be where only wastes have been:
Where a King in kingly glory,
   Such as earth has never known,
Shall assume the righteous sceptre,
   Claim and wear the holy crown:
      Brother, we shall meet and rest,
      ’Mid the holy and the blest.

—Horatius Bonar, Hymns of Faith and Hope, First Series (James Nisbet & Co., 1878).

Psalme 119:145–152
(Geneva Bible)
Koph.
145 I haue cried with my whole heart: heare me, O Lord, and I will keepe thy statutes.
146 I called vpon thee: saue mee, and I will keepe thy testimonies.
147 I preuented the morning light, and cried: for I waited on thy word.
148 Mine eyes preuent the night watches to meditate in thy word.
149 Heare my voyce according to thy louing kindenesse: O Lord, quicken me according to thy iudgement.
150 They drawe neere, that follow after malice, and are farre from thy Lawe.
151 Thou art neere, O Lord: for all thy commandements are true.
152 I haue knowen long since by thy testimonies, that thou hast established them for euer.

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lorde Jesus Christ.

If your time is worth anything to you, anything at all, click “back” immediately. This post is certain to be a complete waste of time.

Sometimes I have completely useless thoughts. I know, I know, hard to believe, but true nonetheless. Here is one I had last night:

Arnold Dorsey changed his name, and I don’t know why.

It is common knowledge that aspiring entertainers with unwieldy names often change them to something a bit more marketable. Some of them, we can understand. A few examples:

• Charles Buchinsky became Charles Bronson.
• Archie Leach became Carey Grant.
• Betty Joan Perske became Lauren Bacall.
• Frederick Austerlitz became Fred Astair.
• Doris Von Kappellof became Doris Day.
• Frances Gumm became Judy Garland.
• Issur Danielovitch became Kirk Douglas.
• Samuel Goldfish, tired of being picked on at recess by the other movie producers, changed his name to Samuel Goldwyn (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer).
• No one has to ask why Marrion Morrison changed his name to John Wayne.

Some are not so understandable; for example:

• I can’t imagine why Frank Cooper changed his name to Gary Cooper, but okay, whatever, po-tay-to po-tah-to.
• Ditto Julie Wells, a.k.a. Julie Andrews.

But seriously . . .

Why would anyone with a perfectly normal name like Arnold Dorsey, who was not trying to be funny (e.g., Caryn Johnson/Whoopie Goldberg), change his name to Engelbert Humperdinck? How does it happen that anyone contemplating a name change, says, “Hey, how about Humperdinck?”

Unless I am wrong — and I am never wrong — this makes no sense.

All of God’s attributes are dependent upon his eternal being. If God has an end, none of his attributes which we recognize as being unlimited can be. What this means to us is that, if God is not eternal, his promises are meaningless; for if he ceases, his covenant ceases.

   If God be eternal, his covenant will be so. It is founded upon the eternity of God; the oath whereby he confirms it, is by his life. Since there is none greater than himself, he swears by himself (Heb. vi. 13), or by his own life, which he engageth together with his eternity for the full performance; so that if he lives forever, the covenant shall not be disannulled; it is an “immutable counsel” (ver. 16, 17). The immutability of his counsel follows the immutability of his nature. Immutability and eternity go hand in hand together. The promise of eternal life is as ancient as God himself in regard of the purpose of the promise, or in regard of the promise made to Christ for us. “Eternal life which God promised before the world began.” (Tit. i. 2): As it hath an ante-eternity, so it hath a post-eternity; therefore the gospel, which is the new covenant published, is termed the “everlasting gospel” (Rev. xiv. 6), which can no more be altered and perish, than God can change and vanish into nothing; he can as little morally deny his truth, as he can naturally desert his life. The covenant is there represented in a green color, to note his perpetual verdure; the rainbow, the emblem of the covenant “about the throne, was like to an emerald” (Rev. iv. 3), a stone of a green color, whereas the natural rainbow hath many colors; this but one, to signify its eternity.

—Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Baker Books, 2005), 1:297.

I will bow down toward Your holy temple

And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth;

For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.

—Psalm 138:2

A word of encouragement from Spurgeon for all of us “bibliolaters.”

The word of promise made to David was in his eyes more glorious than all else that he had seen of the Most High. Revelation excels creation in the clearness, definiteness and fullness of its teaching. The name of the Lord in nature is not so easily read as in the Scriptures, which are a revelation in human language, specially adapted to the human mind, treating of human need, and of a Saviour who appeared in human nature to redeem humanity. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but the divine word will not pass away, and in this respect especially it has a pre-eminence over every other form of manifestation. Moreover, the Lord lays all the rest of his name under tribute to his word: his wisdom, power, love, and all his other attributes combine to carry out his word. It is his word which creates, sustains, quickens, enlightens, and comforts. As a word of command it is supreme; and in the person of the incarnate Word it is set above all the works of God’s hands. The sentence in the text is wonderfully full of meaning. . . . Let us adore the Lord who has spoken to us by his word, and by his son; and in the presence of unbelievers let us both praise his holy name and extol his holy word.

—Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Hendrickson, 1988), 3:244–245.

The following excerpt from a sermon preached in 1892 by Francis J. Grimké (1850-1937) addressed the rampant emotionalism in the pulpits of black churches of his day. More than one hundred years later, we can see not only that the same tendencies still exist, but that Grimké’s message applies equally to people of all colors. The emotionalism of, say, an American of Scandinavian descent may lack the exuberance Grimké saw, but it is no less superficial and no less spiritually retarding.

—Francis J. Grimké, cited in Thabiti Anyabwile, The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors (Crossway, 2007), 130–131.

Over the last few Fridays, I’ve been sharing excerpts from the Fall 2008 issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal. The theme has been a biblical view of homosexuality. Today and next week will finish that series with Alex Montoya’s “The Church’s Response to Homosexuality.” This is naturally an appropriate ending note. Too often we are zealous to know what is right, but fail to follow through to the application. A biblical understanding of what homosexuality is and what God thinks of it is good and necessary, but useless — and perhaps even harmful — without an equally biblical answer to the question of so what?

Montoya presents four ways in which the church must respond to homosexuality. I will be bringing you two of them (you’ll have to get your own copy to read the rest):

1. The Church Must Expose Homosexuality as a Sin against God (today)
2. The Church Must Extend the Grace of God to Homosexuals (next time)

The first may seem obvious; we’re already doing that, aren’t we? Well, many are, but I’m afraid many more are simply exposing it. Exposing it as sin, maybe — a sin against decency, a sin against morality, a sin against “family values” (whatever that is) — but not necessarily as sin against God. That it offends us is often the primary message that is sent to homosexuals. The message they need is not why it matters to us, but why it matters to God.

. . . Homosexuality is more than a mere sexual preference, a social choice, a genetic predisposition as some say; it is a sin against Almighty God. It is a willful assault on the person and work of God. Homosexuality is against God in these four ways. First, homosexuality is a sin against God’s creative order. . . .

And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt 19:4–6). [also Gen 1:27–28; Gen 2:22–24; Heb 13:4]

   Hence, the Scriptures affirm that any violation of the creative purposes of God is a sin against Him. Furthermore, it proceeds to state categorically that homosexuality is not only sin but a perversion of the creative order:

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. . . . For this reason God gave them over in to degrading passions; for their woman exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error (Rom 1:24–27).

   A second way that homosexuality is against God is that homosexuality is a sin against God’s law (1 Tim 1:8–11). The Scriptures clearly identify homosexuality as a sin which violates the express law of God. In Paul’s discussion of God’s law, he states,

Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted (1 Tim 1:9–11).

The apostle clearly makes homosexuality a sin which cannot be reconciled with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Scripturally, one cannot be a Christian and a homosexual.
   The third way that homosexuality is against God is that homosexuality is a sin against God’s Kingdom (1 Cor 6:9–10). The apostle Paul informs an ignorant mind and corrects a deceived heart by stating clearly that homosexuality excludes one from inheriting the kingdom of God. . . .

Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9–10).

   Finally, the fourth way that homosexuality is against God is that homosexuality is a sin against God’s holiness (1 Thess4:3; 1 Pet 1:15–16). The Bible is clear on God’s expectation of His people:

But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15–16).

This holiness pertains specifically to the area of sexuality:

For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality, that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you (1 Thess 4:3–8).

   Homosexuality is called an unrighteous and ungodly act (Rom 1:18; 1 Coi 6:9; 2 Pet 2:9; Jude 4). . . .
   Hence, Christians are under obligation to know and to make known the sinfulness of homosexuality. They cannot be swept away by the tide of public opinion or public decrees; nor can they remain mute concerning the terrible consequences of those who practice homosexuality. . . . As the watchman of Israel was warned not to be silent about the judgment coming upon the nation, so too, Christians dare not be silent about the dangers that homosexuals are facing (cf. Ezek 3:17–19).

—Alex Montoya, “The Church’s Response to Homosexuality,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall 2008), 235–237.

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. (Psalme 122:1 Geneva Bible)

Living for Jesus

O Saviour of Sinners,

Thy name is excellent,
thy glory high,
        thy compassions unfailing,
        thy condescension wonderful,
        thy mercy tender.
I bless thee for the discoveries, invitations,
      promises of the gospel
   for in them is pardon for rebels,
      liberty for captives,
      health for the sick,
      salvation for the lost.
I come to thee in thy beloved name of Jesus;
   re-impress thy image upon my soul;
Raise me above the smiles and frowns of the world,
   regarding it as a light thing to be judged by men;
May thy approbation be my only aim,
   thy Word my one rule.
Make me to abhor that which grieves thy
      Holy Spirit,
   to suspect consolations of a worldly nature,
   to shun a careless way of life,
   to reprove evil,
   to instruct with meekness those who oppose me,
   to be gentle and patient towards all men,
   to be not only a professor but an example
      of the gospel,
   displaying in every relation, office, and condition
      its excellency, loveliness and advantages.
How little have I illustrated my principles
   and improved my privileges!
How seldom I served my generation!
How often have I injured and not recommended
   my Redeemer!
How few are those blessed through me!
In many things I have offended,
   in all come short of thy glory;
Pardon my iniquity, for it is great.

—from The Valley of Vision, Arthur Bennett, editor (Banner of Truth Trust, 2002).

Psalme 119:153–160
(Geneva Bible)
Resh.
153 Beholde mine affliction, and deliuer mee: for I haue not forgotten thy Lawe.
154 Pleade my cause, and deliuer me: quicken me according vnto thy word.
155 Saluation is farre from the wicked, because they seeke not thy statutes.
156 Great are thy tender mercies, O Lord: quicken me according to thy iudgements.
157 My persecutours and mine oppressours are many: yet doe I not swarue from thy testimonies.
158 I saw the transgressours and was grieued, because they kept not thy worde.
159 Consider, O Lord, how I loue thy preceptes: quicken mee according to thy louing kindenesse.
160 The beginning of thy worde is trueth, and all the iudgements of thy righteousnesse endure for euer.

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

I seldom say (or write) anything worth repeating, but occasionally I look back and think I had the right idea and managed to communicate it not too badly; which is just my self-justifying explanation for today’s post.

I hate really dislike paraphrasings and dynamic equivalent translations of the Bible. I want the Word of God, not an interpretation of it. Occasionally, I run into arguments in their favor from people who basically agree with me, but still think they are useful. The argument goes: Yes, we should have accurate translations, and these interpretive translations are not good; but for purposes of evangelism, and for young, new believers, we should use the more paraphrased versions. Then, when they are ready, we should introduce them to a good, essentially literal translation. I encountered this argument in a book I read awhile back (ironically, this one). At that time, I listed the following objections to that practice, which I still believe are valid:

1. It has the potential to create confusion, and undermine confidence in the Word of God. What are we saying if we give a Bible one day, only to return later with another, better Bible, explaining that “some of the stuff in the first Bible we gave you isn’t quite right, but this one can be trusted — honest”?
2. It diminishes the role of the Church in the proclamation of God’s Word. The Word of God is not meant to stand alone, outside of the Church. That is not what we mean by sola Scriptura. In addition to simply being read, it is to be explained and taught. Some of it is difficult. That is why we have pastors — preachers, teachers, shepherds — as well as congregations of mature believers: to disciple the young and immature. We are not simply to hand out Bibles and hope for the best; we are to preach it, teach it, and live it out among our neighbors. In the same vein, but far more importantly,
3. It fails to recognize the role of the Holy Spirit in illuminating God’s Word. God chose the words he wanted us — all of us, simple and wise — to read. If God doesn’t intend for us to receive the word independent of teachers, it is even more true that he does not intend for us to receive it independent of himself. “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Corinthians 2:14). No matter how simple the translation, none of us can understand it adequately unless we are filled with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit will make the Word understood, if we bring it accurately.

Originally posted April 24, 2006.

This post requires a disclaimer: I am not an expert in Biblical languages. In fact, I barely know anything at all about them. I know nothing at all of Hebrew, and what I know of Greek could fit in a shot glass. I am basing my opinions on my references to Strong’s and BDB lexica, and I am aware that there are more nuances to translation than simple lexical definitions indicate. With that in mind, I welcome comments on this post from anyone who knows what I do not. I am not looking for opinions from those with a casual, “what’s the difference?” attitude. I am definitely not interested in the opinions of those who do not believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. This post will be nothing but picayune quibbling to you.

Bible translations should, as closely as possible, translate the exact words of the text. I do understand that all translation requires some interpretation, so all translations (yes, including my KJV) have some degree of Dynamic Equivalency (DE), but I maintain that the job of the translator is to translate. Interpretation is the job of theologians (including untrained theologians like most of us). That means I accept translations that are classified as Essentially Literal or Formal Equivalent (FE), and reject paraphrases and DE translations. My basic reason for rejecting them, including the one that is mostly not too bad (NIV), is that they begin with the intent of presenting what the text means rather than what the text says. While FE translations intend to give us the literal translation but are at times forced, because of linguistic difficulties, to go with a dynamic equivalent, DE translations throw their hands up in defeat and go straight to interpreting, so the reader is presented with the translator’s interpretation, however accurate that may or may not be, rather than a translation.

None of that is the point of this post. If it was, I would probably carry on much longer and eventually write something far beyond my knowledge. Some may argue that I already have, but they would be wrong. Just wait, though; I still might.

The real subject of this post is the various translations of a particular verse, 1Kings 14:10.

Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. -KJV

therefore behold! I will bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male in Israel, bond and free; I will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as one takes away refuse until it is all gone. -NKJV

therefore behold, I am bringing calamity on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male person, both bond and free in Israel, and I will make a clean sweep of the house of Jeroboam, as one sweeps away dung until it is all gone. -NASB

therefore behold, I will bring harm upon the house of Jeroboam and will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will burn up the house of Jeroboam, as a man burns up dung until it is all gone. -ESV

The first phrase of interest is “and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall” (KJV). The KJV has translated it literally.

The NASB, well-known as the most literal of the FE translations, gives a DE translation, “and will cut off from Jeroboam every male person.” The others translate it similarly. This passage is, without a doubt, referring to all males. There is no other meaning implied, so in this case, the interpretation is accurate. However, it is an unnecessary departure from literal translation. Regardless of the language, everyone understands that only men urinate standing up. For those who are squeamish about such a descriptive phrase, all I can tell you is that God was not squeamish about it when he breathed it into the text of his Word (2Timothy 3:16).

The second phrase of interest is, “and will burn up the house of Jeroboam, as a man burns up dung until it is all gone” (ESV). Here, the ESV is the most literal translation, but it is not without a flaw.

The KJV and NKJV correctly say “the remnant of the house of Jeroboam,” while the NASB and ESV say “the house of Jeroboam.” What difference does it make? I don’t know. No doubt there is someone who does, but I don’t. What I do know is that God said “the remnant of,” so that is what we must say.

The ESV correctly uses the words “burn,” while the others use “take away” or “sweep away.” Again, I don’t know why it matters if they are taken away, swept away, or burned, but God's choice of words was “burn.” Rather than ask why that matters, shouldn’t we ask, “Why use any other word, when God chose this one?”

The KJV, NASB, and ESV all use the word “dung,” while the NKJV shies away from the literal translation and uses “refuse,” winning points as the most polite, if not the most accurate. What I find most interesting about this is the fact that the modern translations hang onto an antiquated word. Even the NIV says “dung.” I’ve spent most of my life in agricultural communities, and had jobs where I was responsible for thousands of dung-producers. I’ve spread countless loads of dung on fields in Wisconsin and North Dakota. I’ve never heard a single farmer or rancher use the word “dung,” unless he was reading from the Bible. These days, we say “manure” – unless we just stepped in it.

What is my point? I’m getting there. I chose to examine this particular verse because it was in my reading this week, and I thought it was interesting. While the discrepencies noted here may be insignificant, there are other passages in which poor translation does violence to doctrine.

Point #1: A translation that sets out to be literal, even though it can’t completely succeed, is far better than one that doesn’t even try. The inaccuracies represented here are probably not important, but then I chose to look only at those Bible versions that claim to be literal. Check it out in The Message, if you have a strong stomach.

Point #2: Even the best translation is just a translation, and even FE translators make unnecessary compromises with the text. All of us need to be willing to dig deeper into our study than superficial reading if we are to obey the command of 2Timothy 2:15, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Continuing rerun week . . .

I was wondering to myself (again) the other day where all the feminist are in the war on Islam terrorism. Almost exactly three years ago, I was wondering the same thing.

• Some Numbers to Ponder
• The Numbers Explained

Another rerun. I don’t know if I can forgive myself . . .

Christian psychobabble — I can do without it.

• Forgive Yourself
• The Gospel in Spider-Man 3
• Forgive Yourself — One more thing . . .

Another rerun brewing . . .

In which I get controversial, and a little bit smart-alecky, asking you to Ponder This . . .

Wrapping up rerun week . . .

We used to be funny here on Saturday. Okay, scratch that. We used to tell jokes here on Saturday, about various things, including

• a duck
• some Indians
• and a frog.

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. (Psalme 122:1 Geneva Bible)

HYMN 26 (C. M.)
Hope of heaven by the resurrection of Christ. 1 Pet. i. 3—5.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

Bless’d be the everlasting God,
   The Father of our Lord;
Be his abounding mercy prais’d,
   His majesty ador’d.

When from the dead he rais’d his Son,
   And call’d him to the sky,
He gave our souls a lively hope
   That they should never die.

What though our inbred sins require
   Our flesh to see the dust,
Yet as the Lord our Savior rose,
   So all his followers must.

There’s an inheritance divine
   Reserved against that day;
’Tis uncorrupted, undefil’d,
   And cannot waste away.

Saints by the power of God are kept
   Till the salvation come;
We walk by faith as strangers here,
   Till Christ shall call us home.

—from The Psalms & Hymns of Isaac Watts. Hymns and Spiritual Songs. Book I: Collected from the Holy Scriptures

Psalme 119:161–168
(Geneva Bible)
Schin.
161 Princes haue persecuted mee without cause, but mine heart stood in awe of thy wordes.
162 I reioyce at thy worde, as one that findeth a great spoyle.
163 I hate falshoode and abhorre it, but thy Lawe doe I loue.
164 Seuen times a day doe I praise thee, because of thy righteous iudgements.
165 They that loue thy Law, shall haue great prosperitie, and they shall haue none hurt.
166 Lord, I haue trusted in thy saluation, and haue done thy commandements.
167 My soule hath kept thy testimonies: for I loue them exceedingly.
168 I haue kept thy precepts and thy testimonies: for all my wayes are before thee.

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Remembering sacrifices . . .

past,



and present.

In our last visit with Charnock, we discovered the comfort we can find in in the attribute of God that is his eternality. Now we’ll see an application regarding our attitude toward our sin.

   Let us be deeply affected by our sins long since committed. Though they are past with us, they are, in regard of God’s eternity, present with him; there is no succession in eternity, as there is in time. All things are before God at once; our sins are before him, as if committed at this moment, though committed long ago. As he is what he is in regard of duration, so he knows what he knows in regard of knowledge. As he is not more than he was, nor shall not be any more than he is, so he always knew what he knows, and shall not cease to know what he knows. As himself, so is his knowledge, is one indivisible point of eternity. He knows nothing but what he did know from eternity; he shall know no more for the future than he now knows. Our sins being present with him in eternity, should be present with us in our regard of remembrance of them, and sorrow for them. What though many years are lapsed, much time run out, and our iniquities almost blotted out of our memory; yet since a thousand years are, in God’s sight, and in regard of his eternity, but as a day—“a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday, when it is past, as a watch in the night.” (Ps. xc. 4)—they are before him. For suppose a man were as old as the world, above six thousand five hundred years; the sins committed five thousand years ago are, according to that rule, but as if they were committed five days ago; so that sixty-two years are but as an hour and a half; and the sins committed forty years since as if they were committed but this present hour. But if we will go further, and consider them as a watch of the night, about three hours (for the night, consisting of twelve hours, was divided into set watches), then a thousand years are but as three hours in the sight of God; and then the sins committed sixty years ago are but as if they were committed in this five minutes. Let none of us set light by the iniquities committed many years ago, and imagine the length of time can wipe out their guilt. No; let us consider them in relation to God’s eternity, and excite an inward remorse, as if they had been but the birth of this moment.

—Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Baker Books, 2005), 1:301–302

As I was straightening my bookshelves last week, I pulled another yet unread fat puritan volume off the shelf and began reading. Published in 2005 by Soli Deo Gloria as Disputations on the Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (1547–1595), it was originally published in 1588 with the typically descriptive title A Disputation on the Holy Scripture against the Papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. I love that about Puritan writings; you never have to ask what they’re about.

The question before us today is, on what account do we recognize the canon of Scripture? Is it on account of the testimony of ecclesiatical authorities? That is, does Scripture derive its authority, or any part thereof, to the decrees of men? And if we say “no,” do we mean that the church has nothing to say in the matter? Whitaker writes:

. . . we do not deny that it appertains to the church to approve, acknowledge, receive, promulge, commend the scriptures to all its members; and we say that this testimony is true, and should be received by all. We do not, therefore, as the papists falsely say of us, refuse the testimony of the church, but embrace it. But we deny that we believe the scriptures solely on account of this commendation of them by the church. For we say that there is a more certain and illustrious testimony, whereby we are persuaded of the sacred character of these books, that is to say, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, without which the commendation of the church would have with us no weight or moment. The papists, therefore, are unjust to us, when they affirm that we reject and make no account of the authority of the church. For we gladly receive the testimony of the church, and admit its authority ; but we affirm that there is a far different, more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church. The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is [autopistos], that is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknowledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so determined and commanded, but because it comes from God; and that we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by the Holy Ghost. Now by the church we understand not, as they do, the pastors, bishops, councils, pope; but the whole multitude of the faithful. For this whole multitude hath learned from the Holy Spirit that this scripture is sacred, that these books are divine. This persuasion the Holy Spirit hath sealed in the minds of all the faithful.
   The state of the controversy, therefore, is this: Whether we should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church’s testimony, or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 279–280

Some time ago I heard a pastor express the following complaint: “Some Calvinists are more Calvinistic than Calvin.” What he meant was that, while Calvin sought to develop a biblical theology, and largely succeeded, some Calvinists develop their theology beginning with Calvinistic presuppositions rather than Scripture.* Calvin would not have been pleased. Burk Parsons writes:

   Christopher Catherwood, in his book Five Leading Reformers, offers a word of warning to all Calvinists:

We must be “Bible Calvinists” not “system Calvinists.” We can all too easily get sucked into what we feel is a neat system of thought, and forget that we ought to make everything that we believe compatible with Scripture, even if that means jettisoning ideas that flow well in a purely logical sense but are nonetheless incompatible with what the Bible teaches. Although Calvin did not make that mistake himself, it is arguable that many of his followers have done so over the ensuing centuries—and I include myself, as a Calvinist, in that caution!

   Although I would argue that “Bible Calvinism” necessarily, and rightly, engenders “system Calvinism,” Catherwood’s admonition is one we all should heed with care. Calvin was a Christian who fitst and foremost lived and breathed the living and active Word of God, and all true Calvinists must follow his example. Calvin labored over his Institutes of the Christian Religion—which is unquestionably the most majestic volume in all of human history next to sacred Scripture—in ordered to help those preparing for the pastoral ministry to study the Word of God and have “easy access to it and to advance in it without stumbling.”
   According to Calvin, we are to be “daily taught in the school of Jesus Christ.” Thus, we must be students of Scripture if we are to possess right and sound doctrine: “Now in order that true religion may shine upon us, we ought to hold that it must take its beginning from heavenly doctrine and that no one can even get the slightest taste of right doctrine unless he be a pupil of Scripture.” Elsewhere Calvin writes, “Let us not take it into our heads either to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything of him that is not prompted by his Word, or to speak anything that is not taken from that Word.” This, writes T. H. L. Parker, “is Calvin’s theological programme—to build on the Scripture alone.”
   The entirety of Calvin’s ministry was established fundamentally on the Word of God. In accordance with the Reformation credo ad fontes, “to the sources” (particularly to the only infallible source), Calvin’s Institutes was a summary of the Christian religion according to Scripture. This was Calvin’s theological modus operandi, as Calvin scholar Ronald S. Wallace maintains: “We could, of course, argue cogently that the whole of his later teaching and outlook developed from the Bible. He insisted always that tradition must be constantly corrected by, and subordinated to, the teaching of Holy Scripture.”

—Burk Parsons, John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology, ed. Burk Parsons (Reformation Trust, 2008), 4–5.

*A note to Arminian readers who are now nodding gleefully at an apparent admission that Calvinism is certainly not biblically derived: This is no such confession, only an acknowledgement that some Calvinists are more systematic than biblical. Now consider whether or not you approach Scripture without presupposing Arminian free will.

This post is a sequel to one posted two weeks ago, looking at Alex Montoya’s article in the Fall 2008 issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal, “The Church’s Response to Homosexuality.”

In the previous post in this series, I wrote that “Too often we are zealous to know what is right, but fail to follow through to the application. A biblical understanding of what homosexuality is and what God thinks of it is good and necessary, but useless — and perhaps even harmful — without an equally biblical answer to the question of so what?” Today we’ll consider the most important part of the answer to that question.

As I said last time, Montoya presents four ways in which the church must respond to homosexuality, two of which I am covering here:

1. The Church Must Expose Homosexuality as a Sin against God
2. The Church Must Extend the Grace of God to Homosexuals

That homosexuality is a sin against God must never be forgotten. But we must also remember that every New Testament condemnation is followed by the offer of redemption. If we are genuine disciples of Christ and ministers of the gospel, we can do no less.

   If the church is to be involved in bringing homosexuals into the fold of Christ it must be prepared to do the following. The church must first learn to show compassion to the homosexual. . . .
   The church can be guilty of the attitude of the Pharisees towards the sinners of their day. The Pharisees displayed an absolute lack of concern and compassion for those who were lost (cp. Luke 15:1–32). Christ taught compassion for the lost, and this includes the homosexual:

Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. When the Pharisees saw this they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with tax collectors and sinners?” But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt 9:10–13).

R. Albert Mohler writes, “Homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.” Homosexuals are hurting people and need more than condemnation; they also need compassion.
   In the second place, the church must be willing to associate with homosexuals. Here is where the church displays its ignorance and its arrogance when it comes to reaching out to homosexuals. The church can misunderstand what it means to be in the world but not of it. We may think that it means for Christians to have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals. The Bible speaks of the opposite. It shows that it is unavoidable and in many ways necessary to associate with homosexuals if we are to present the gospel to them. Paul corrected the Corinthians when he said,

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world (1 Cor 5:9–10).

Clearly we must dispel the label of being “homophobic” by not refusing to befriend and associate with homosexuals. We have nothing to fear and everything to gain for the gospel’s sake.
   Thirdly, the church must have the conviction of the power of the gospel to convert the homosexual. That homosexuals are such by nature and therefore cannot change nor should society try to change them into heterosexuals has been exposed as utterly false. The power of the gospel has been rendered ineffective by the deception placed upon the church that homosexuals cannot be changed. Prior to the “sexual revolution,” no question existed about homosexuals being able to change. . . .
   The Christian church has . . . always believed the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16). It is a truth in Scripture that wherever the sinfulness of sin is mentioned, the power of the gospel is also mentioned as that force which counteracts the power of sin to enslave and to condemn.
   After the condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1, Paul wrote, “ all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:23–24).
   After the condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Cor 6:9, Paul adds, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). The homosexual can experience regeneration through the Holy Spirit, the power to triumph over indwelling sin as described in Romans 6, and the assurance offered to all believers in the justifying work of Christ (cf. Romans 8) . . .
   After the condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Tim 1:10, Paul magnifies his own sin above all sins and says, “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (1 Tim 1:15). If God can save the worst, then He can obviously save a homosexual.
   Wherever man’s depravity and sinfulness are magnified, so also is the grace of God magnified so as to more than make up for man’s fallen nature. Consider the testimony of Eph 2:1–10 and Titus 3:3–7. These promises apply to homosexuals as well.
   The fourth way that the church can extend the grace of God to homosexuals is for the church to provide special discipleship for homosexuals. The New Testament testifies to the possibility and frequency of a believer’s relapse into their former way of life. The convert from a homosexual lifestyle is no exception. Christians should not be surprised by the difficulties encountered by some in overcoming their former lusts, nor should they give up in their efforts to disciple them into the new life in Christ.
   The rise of numerous support groups for homosexuals is testimony to the necessity of the church to focus on those who desire Christ and who desire to live a victorious life in Christ. . . . Andy Comiskey of Desert Stream Ministry writes, “We must renounce the unbelief prevalent in certain evangelical circles that resigns homosexual strugglers to little if any release from their tendencies. That perception of God is too small.”
   . . .
   Finally, if the church is to extend the grace of God to homosexuals, the church must effectively incorporate converted homosexuals into the Body of Christ. At times the church has allowed the stigma of homosexuality to follow the converted homosexual into his new life in Christ. . . . The Corinthian church serves as a model in the way it was composed of all sorts of sinners. Note how Paul addresses the church: “Such were some of you; but you were washed . . .” (1 Cor 6:11). The “some” refers to the fact that the church contained some ex-fornicators, some ex-idolaters, some ex-adulterers, ex-effeminates, ex-homosexuals, some ex-thieves, etc. The phrase “such were some” indicates the conversion from a life of sin to a new relationship with Christ, and acceptance into the fellowship of believers in Corinth. The church cannot adopt an arrogant attitude toward converted homosexuals, but instead deal biblically with their conversion, and in fact, rejoice that God saved has “some.”

—Alex Montoya, “The Church’s Response to Homosexuality,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (Fall 2008), 238–241.

Creating a Culture of Evangelism

I reioyced, when they sayd to me, We wil go into the house of the Lord. (Psalme 122:1 Geneva Bible)

HYMN XVII
JEHOVAH-NISSI,
The Lord my banner. Ex. xvii. 15.
by William Cowper (1731–1800)

BY whom was David taught,
   To aim the dreadful blow,
   When he Goliath fought,
      And laid the Gittite low?
No sword nor spear the stripling took,
But chose a pebble from the brook.

   ’Twas Israel’s God and king,
      Who sent him to the fight;
   Who gave him strength to fling,
      And skill to aim aright.
Ye feeble saints your strength endures,
Because young David’s God’s is yours.

   Who ordered Gideon forth,
      To storm th’ invaders’ camp,
   With arms of little worth,
      A pitcher and a lamp?
The trumpets made his coming known,
And all the host was overthrown.

   Oh! I have seen the day,
      When with a single word,
   God helping me to say,
      My trust is in the Lord;
My soul has quell’d a thousand foes,
Fearless of all that could oppose.

   But unbelief, self–will,
      Self–righteousness and pride,
   How often do they steal
      My weapon from my side?
Yet David’s Lord, and Gideon’s friend,
Will help his servant to the end.

—from Olney Hymns. Book I: On select Passages of Scripture.

Psalme 119:169–176
(Geneva Bible)
Tav.
169 Let my complaint come before thee, O Lord, and giue me vnderstanding, according vnto thy worde.
170 Let my supplication come before thee, and deliuer me according to thy promise.
171 My lippes shall speake praise, when thou hast taught me thy statutes.
172 My tongue shall intreate of thy word: for all thy commandements are righteous.
173 Let thine hand helpe me: for I haue chosen thy precepts.
174 I haue longed for thy saluation, O Lord, and thy Lawe is my delite.
175 Let my soule liue, and it shall praise thee, and thy iudgements shall helpe me.
176 I haue gone astraye like a lost sheepe: seeke thy seruant, for I doe not forget thy commandements.

Grace be with you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.