Be Spiritual

Be Spiritual

There is a lot of talk these days of people who claim to be “spiritual” but not “religious.” The problem with this mindset is that Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declared the spiritual man to be the one who receives the things of the Spirit and brings forth the fruit of the Spirit.

Are you indeed spiritual?

Are you indeed spiritual?

One of the problems in the church at Corinth was division resulting from a lack of love and humility. They were following the preaching styles of men and not the message of Jesus. In chapter two Paul declares that there are “natural” men who do not receive the things of the Spirit and there are “spiritual” men who do. He chastises the Christians at Corinth for being neither, they were not “natural” nor “spiritual,” but “carnal.” Like little spiritual babies, that is, Christians who were acting like “natural” men and not “spiritual” men.

It would do us well to ask ourselves what manner of men are we? We are to be mature, spiritual, and faithful stewards of the spiritual things of God. Our giving, living, and loving should all reflect the fruit of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, [and] self-control” (Galatians 5:22–23). Be faithful!

Posted in Tim Dooley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Be Spiritual

Baptism, Women, and Peripheral Reasoning

Baptism, Women, and Peripheral Reasoning

Peripheral Reasoning: The insidious idea that we can somehow circumvent the actual, factual, specific, contextual, cornerstone teaching on a given subject, by utilizing examples that only might, or in some cases, do not even apply to said subject at all – and still come to an accurate conclusion on the topic under discussion. An everyday illustration of such “peripheral reasoning” would be if one were seeking to learn about American football, and were given a booklet on the game and rules of American baseball, under the guise or premise that, “Well, after all, they’re both American sports, and they both require a ball, an offense, a defense, a team, a field, and uniforms.” But we all know that any conclusions regarding the rules of the game of football, gained from instructions specifically devoted to the rules of baseball, would be extremely suspect at best, and completely confusing and erroneous at worst.

The use of peripheral reasoning in religion is common.

The use of peripheral reasoning in religion is common.

The absolute essentiality of avoiding any such peripheral reasoning at all cost, is profusely and infinitely magnified and multiplied when exploring spiritual topics and commandments, which have eternal life and death implications (2 Timothy 2:14-19; 2 Peter 3:14-18). This is not a game! Eternal lives are on the line! Eternal souls stand to be lost! And yet, tragically, such peripheral reasoning on certain essential spiritual subjects, topics, and commandments abound today – to the total deception and destruction of any who might seek to justify their own, personal, pride and/or agenda driven deviation from God’s divinely inspired and eternally settled in heaven truth (2 Thessalonians 2:9-15; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Psalm 119:89).

One prime example of such deadly, spiritual, peripheral reasoning, would be when one who has convinced themselves (in support of whatever personally-driven agenda they are seeking to promote, and despite what God’s word so clearly, concisely, and consistently states to the contrary) that water baptism has absolutely nothing to do with salvation – and then they bring up texts like John 3:16 as supposed “proof” of their point! Really? John 3:16 cannot be used to make any real, legitimate, scriptural point regarding baptism, as the subject itself is not even seen, mentioned, or remotely under consideration or contextual discussion therein! If one wants to truly understand the subject of baptism from God’s perspective, then they must begin with a thorough examination of the rock-solid, concrete, cornerstone texts which actually mention the word and/or specifically address the subject! They must begin with texts that were actually, literally, specifically written to instruct us about, and/or at least might include some form of the word “baptism” – or else they’re seeking to learn about ‘football’ from instruction on the rules of ‘baseball,’ and will wind up both completely confused and then finally, ultimately deceived.

Why are such people so afraid to begin with a thorough examination of the texts in Scripture that were specifically written to instruct us on baptism? Because those God-given  (2 Timothy 3:16-17), eternally settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89), divinely-inspired and dictated texts (2 Peter 1:20-21) such as: Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38-41, 22:16; Romans 6:1-23; Galatians 3:26-26; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 2:8-12; 1 Peter 3:21; and etc, all confirm the absolute essentiality of this act of faith known as baptism, without and before which, no sinner on earth can be saved under the new covenant according to the word of God.

And so, either in their biblically-ignorant lack of the knowledge of God and His righteous edicts (Romans 10:1-3), or else in their attempt to advance their own personal agenda, they begin with verses, reasonings, and applications that actually neither mention, nor have anything whatsoever to do with the specific subject under consideration! Now, perhaps in some cases, and in order to give themselves some semblance of the appearance of credibility they might possibly at least give a passing mention to a few of the cornerstone verses that were actually written to specifically address the subject at hand. But then they will usually move on very quickly after only a cursory glance, before the total, entire, and glaring truth of those texts has a chance to be seen, explored, emphasized, and obeyed.

Nowhere in the church today is such presumptuous, pride-driven, personal agenda promoting peripheral reasoning more prominent, than in the discussion of women and just exactly how God designed both them and their place to be within His Son’s one, New Testament church (Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 16:16). This will be made very clearly and obviously evident from the upcoming discussion of just such an attempted defense of more female leadership in the church, in direct defiance of, and disobedience to, the divinely-inspired and required, written commandments of God. But before we get to that specific list, we will start out by seeking to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) and therefore begin with a brief (due to article length and space considerations) exploration of the actual two texts in the New Testament which do contain almighty God’s specific, exclusive, written and all-authoritative instruction, regarding this particular topic.

First Corinthians 14:33-37NKJV states: For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

Now, one of the first things some will do who do not want to have to deal with the simple, straightforward, and clearly stated scriptural truths that this text contains, is to seek to throw up a sinister smokescreen of questions that it doesn’t quite as clearly answer, so as to blur and/or circumvent all of the exact truth, that it does so clearly state. But it’s forever… firmly fixed the in the heavens (Psalm 119:89 ESV) truths are unavoidable, indisguisable, and irrevocable for those whose first, only, and absolute top priority is to please and serve God, instead of anyone or anything else. And at least three of those crystal-clear and inarguable truths are these:

  • This instruction is for all the churches of the saints; that is to say, in all regions, all ages, all cultures, and all times from then on forward and on into the future forevermore, just as is the one faith, once delivered, for all the saints prior to the end of the first century (See Jude 3). The only exception being congregational singing, simply because God – who Has all authority – said so (See: Ephesians 1:1, 5:19; Colossians 1:2, 3:16).
  • And although we do not, and cannot, know exactly what specific “law” he refers to when it comes to women remaining silent in the churches (i.e., “en ekklessia” in the Greek; literally, “in the assemblies,” which is what he has been addressing since about the middle of chapter 10), what we do know for absolute certain, is that they are still to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive…, just as both that law, PLUS the commandments of God, unquestionably state here.
  • And lastly, it is an indisputable, eternal, and inarguable fact, that these requirements are not based on, or biased by, anyone’s personal opinion, preference, or peripheral reasoning, but are absolutely and inarguably the commandments of the Lord. And both Matthew 15:1-9, as well as Mark 7:1-13, also make it abundantly clear, that to “lay aside,” “reject,” or make “of no effect” “the commandment of God,” in order to practice man-made and preferred traditions, renders any and all such resulting worship, as “vain.”

Our second, vital, essential, divinely-inspired and eternally-settled in heaven cornerstone text which is also specifically devoted to this particular topic, comes from 1 Timothy 2:8-15, wherein almighty God, through His divinely-inspired and Holy-Spirit driven instruction (John 16:7-15; 2 Peter 1:20-21) states: I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

While some of the “smokescreen questions” regarding this text will be answered and cleared away in the upcoming discussion, several of this text’s eternally settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89) truths are also unavoidable, indisguisable, and irrevocable as well.

  • First off, we see that males leading (or lifting up holy hands) in prayer is in an everywhere context and time-frame as well.
  • Secondly, we clearly see that God directed the Apostle Paul to state that a woman [is not] to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. To have authority over is obviously to take the lead over. Therefore, when women lead prayer, lead singing, preach, teach, or take the lead in any form or fashion over a man when it comes to these things, they are in direct and obvious violation, rebellion, and disobedience to this God-given, designed, and required pattern.
  • And perhaps the single most important and vital aspect of this entire text for our discussion today, is exactly what it does so clearly state in those last three verses, wherein God – appearing to anticipate today’s whole man-made ‘cultural’ argument and excuse for non-compliance with His commandment – lets us know in no uncertain, and certainly unmistakable terms, that this instruction ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT FLUXUATE WITH, NOR DEPEND UPON, ANY ERA, AREA, ARENA, AGE, OR CULTURE. He does this by taking us all the way back to the very beginning and showing that this order absolutely, unmistakably, and irrevocably transcends all ages, cultures, times and desires! Notice again, verses 11-15: Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

How can this point possibly be missed? From the very beginning, God both created, designed, desired and determined two different genders (Genesis 1:27). And in His complete perfection, He also therefore designed, desired, and determined, incredibly different, exclusive, certain and specific roles for each of His two created genders to fill! This is true in both the physical, as well as the spiritual realm. And any violation of either of these divinely-designed and determined differences, is an utter abomination before Him (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 14:33-37). (This also means that any congregation or individual that would seek to justify breaking down God’s divinely designed distinctions between men and women in the spiritual realm (or church), must also be prepared to accept, defend, and justify breaking down God’s divinely designed distinctions between men and women in the physical or sexual realm as well, or else be found to be lost and floundering in total and hopeless hypocrisy.)

In addition, Jesus said “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Therefore, any new doctrine, conclusion, or peripheral reasoning, which either confuses, contradicts, compromises or seeks to circumvent in any way, shape, or form, even the slightest portion of these two, divinely-inspired, cornerstone texts dealing very specifically and contextually with women in the Lord’s church, would be in direct violation of the commandments of the Lord and exactly what He specifically commanded regarding women, in all the churches of the saints, learning in silence, and not teaching or having authority over the men assembled there. And this, those who respect and revere God, dare never do (John 14:15-24; 2 Corinthians 4:2).

Neither are the above conclusions, which are gleaned from simply and sincerely reading and submitting to God’s commandments “just [our/my] interpretation,” as “no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). But they are instead, the rock-steady, rock-solid result of diligent study, resulting in “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

I was recently made aware of yet another list of “peripheral reasonings” seeking to somehow circumvent the commandments of the Lord regarding women’s roles in the church. I must say that they were by and large not all that much different than what have surely been encountered, biblically addressed, and put to rest many times before on this subject… but the answers remain the same, because the Scripture does not, has not, and will not change. And so, please notice that in the below examination of said list, the original points will be first quoted, with the biblical responses found in light blue shaded backgrounds for your convenience…

~~~~~~~~~~~~

(NOTE: To view this entire study, including a point by point biblical breakdown and response to the 20-plus, furnished, “scriptural proofs” supposedly supporting more female leadership in the assemblies of the Lord’s church, please see the newly-posted “Peripheral Reasonings And Women’s Roles In The Church” PDF under the “Contemporary Worship Errors Corrected” section of our “Bible Studies” tab at www.clevelandok.church, or, www.clevelandcoc.com.)

Posted in Doug Dingley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Baptism, Women, and Peripheral Reasoning

Stop Showing Skin

Want to go to Heaven?  Stop Showing Skin!

Ladies, I’m asking you as a man, a fellow human being, a husband who wants to be faithful to his wife in mind as well as in body, and as a father of little girls.  Please be modest.  Please.

That not reason enough?  Well, how about this?  Do you want to go to heaven for all eternity?  Or do you want that sun tan you’re working on to turn into a major, never-ending burn that no amount of aloe will ever fix?

When men see skin, it affects them.

When men see skin, it affects them.

Here’s the thing, Christian sisters…

The Bible commands us to dress modestly and discreetly both by direct command to women and by implication to men (1 Tim. 2:9-10; Matt. 18:6-9), and yet we are now in the time of year when many – including many of those who profess to believe in God and follow him – do the exact opposite.

This happens due to either ignorance of God’s Word, stubborn pride and selfishness, or a desire to conform to the standards of the world rather than the standards of God.  Regardless of the reason behind it, sin is being committed when we dress immodestly in public among those who are not our spouses, and the wages of impenitent sin is death (Rom. 6:23; Heb. 10:26-31).

Yeah, that’s right.  I said it.  Someone needs to…

Women and men who wear the name of Christ should not be solely considering whether or not their clothing is in fashion, stylish, or if what they wear will keep them cooler or warmer depending on the weather.  First and foremost, Christians must consider whether or not what they wear is modest and proper for those who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ.

Here’s that verse again, for those of you who are still reading but didn’t look it up in your Bibles when I cited it earlier:

Likewise also, that women should adorn themselves in RESPECTABLE apparel, with MODESTY and SELF-CONTROL, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with WHAT IS PROPER FOR WOMEN WHO PROFESS GODLINESS – with good works.

For those of you who have questions about the “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire” part, let me refer you to this article I linked to some time ago by a brother in Christ named Wes who really summed up exactly what Paul was talking about in one of the best and most understandable ways that I’ve seen.  What I want to focus on in this article is the part of modesty’s definition that condemns showing skin.

In the interests of getting the point across, let me be very clear…

Ladies, it is shameful and sinful to expose or draw attention to the private parts of your body! 

You sin against God whenever you wear these low-cut shirts that show your cleavage or your stomachs in public! 

You sin against God whenever you wear those shorts which stop well above your knee and show off lots of leg! 

You sin against God whenever you’re in public and wear those really tight pants or shorts that accentuate your backside! 

You sin against God whenever you wear really tight shirts that accentuate your breasts! 

You sin against God whenever you wear bikinis or swimsuits that show off most of your breasts, your torso, your backside, and your legs!

I wish that there wasn’t a need to speak so bluntly and forcefully about such things, but there is.  Friends, please know that those who profess to love God must obey him (John 14:15) and dress appropriately, even if it means inconveniencing yourself during the summer months by wearing something a little warmer in public.  Souls are at stake, including your own!

“But Jon,” some will say, “‘modesty’ is such a subjective term.  Europe’s definition of modesty is far more liberal than ours, while the Middle East’s definition is far stricter.  So how can one know what modesty truly is?”

That’s a legitimate question.  In Europe nude beaches are the thing.  In Saudi Arabia women are stoned to death for showing their ankles.  Is modesty really nothing more than a cultural thing, then?

Here’s the truth of the matter.  We can have confidence that the Bible holds the answer to what modesty really is because God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).  Let’s see how by first going way back to the beginning, to Genesis…

Do you remember how, when Adam and Eve sinned and thus realized they were naked, they made “coverings” for themselves out of fig leaves?  In spite of that, Adam confessed later on that he still felt naked (Gen. 3:7-10).  Have you ever wondered why they would still feel naked even after clothing themselves?

Perhaps because in the original language, “coverings” (chagorah) literally is defined as a particular type of garment which is the equivalent of underwear covering only the midsection.  So when you see those paintings of Eve with fig leaves over her midsection and bosom, remember that those paintings are incorrect because, going solely by the definition of the Hebrew word for “coverings,” Eve would not have been covered at all above the waist.

Ladies, if a loincloth was all you had to wear, you would feel naked too, wouldn’t you?  With that in mind, how much difference is there between today’s swimwear and your underwear?  Not much.  Really.  Let’s be honest.  Not.  Much.

Later, we see that God himself clothed Adam and Eve with “coats” of skin (Gen. 3:21).  In the original language, “coats” (kethoneth) literally is defined as a particular type of garment covering someone from the shoulders to the knees.  Now, why would God do this?

After all, at this time Adam and Eve had already clothed themselves.  So why did God go to the trouble to clothe them himself?  And why would he inspire Moses to record this in the book of Genesis?

Perhaps because he planned that Genesis would be part of “whatever was written in former days” that was “written for our instruction” and example (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11).

In other words, when we read the Old Testament and see how God clothed Adam and Eve from the shoulders to the knees in contrast to their skimpy fig leaf loincloth underwear, we now know God’s standards of modesty and thus have a non-subjective definition to uphold and live by.  There’s your definition of modesty.  Non-subjective.  Black and white.  Universal, regardless of what they do in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.  God’s revealed standards trump whatever man’s standards are in whatever culture he is in.

Some will still ask, “But what’s the harm in showing off some skin?”  Good question.  Here’s the answer…

Have we forgotten that the One who loved us so much that he sent his Son to die for us has commanded us to not walk “in lewdness and lust” and to “make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts” (Rom. 13:13-14)?  Do you know what that means?

Ladies, speaking as a man, I can tell you how difficult it can be to avoid lusting after women who aren’t my wife when most of the women around me are showing off their cleavage and thighs.  And yes, God still holds me to the responsibility to not lust.  That’s very true, but it doesn’t stop with me.

He also expects THOSE AROUND ME (that’s you, ladies) to do their part to not put the temptation in my path (Matt. 18:6-9; Rom. 14:21)!!

So ladies, help us guys out.  As Christians, that’s what we all are supposed to do, right?  Bear one another’s burdens?  (Gal. 6:2)

Deep down, sisters, you know what the low-cut shirts and bikinis do to your average male when he sees them.  You girls know.  Let’s be real.

Mary Quant, the London fashion designer who invented the miniskirt, said, “Mini-clothes are symbolic of those girls who want to seduce a man.”  When she was asked where wearing miniskirts would lead to, she replied with one word:  “Sex.”

When the cruise ship Santa Maria was hijacked by terrorists in 1967, you want to know what the women who were on board (most if not all being non-Christians, I might add) did with their skimpy swimsuits?  Do you think they put on those itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny bikinis and went out on deck to get some sun and frolic in the pool in front of those pirates?

Nope.  Here’s what they did.  They all went out of their way to hide the bikinis and wear modest clothing because, by their own admission, they didn’t want to entice the terrorists to rape them.  And that’s what you would do too, right?  Sure, you would.  You’re smart, just like them.  They knew exactly what wearing the skimpy clothing would cause men to desire.  Deep down, so do most of you, sisters.  Let’s be real.

However, many of you women don’t care.  I know.  Over the years, I’ve talked to several young women – including, unfortunately, some within the church (and some of their mothers) – who basically say, “So what?  It’s the guy’s problem, not mine and not my daughter’s.”

Well, it may be more of your problem than you think…

I recently read a sociologist’s interview with a young man who expressed deep anger and resentment towards women for sexually “teasing” him, as he put it, via what they wore and the flirtatious way they acted around him, only to later have the power to with the threat of an accusation of rape deny him the fulfillment of those urges. Another young man interviewed said that he himself felt “sexually violated” by what the skimpy clothes and suggestive poses his female peers constantly exposed him to, only to then have and exercise the power to deny him the satisfaction of those urges. These and other young men confessed the need to “get back” at women for teasing them in these ways.

After revealing that hundreds more felt this way, the sociologist concluded that the immodest dress and sexually teasing actions of many young women is one of the main contributing factors to the startling rise of many young men’s interest in violent hard-core pornography, date rape, and deep, violent anger and resentment towards females in general, things which in many cases carry over into marriage and lead to spousal and child abuse.

While the contribution of women’s immodest dress and actions in no way justifies these sinful actions of men, at the same time it should not be overlooked or excused away.  Ladies, let me put it to you this way.  If I purposefully get into a Rolls Royce, drive it to the worst part of town, park it right in front of some gangstas, get out of it and lean up against it right in front of those hoods, and hold the keys to it in my right hand and my big, fat wallet bulging with cash and credit cards in the other hand…what’s going to happen?  You know what’s going to happen.  I’m going to get robbed.

So I get robbed, and the police come, and let’s say they arrest those thugs.  Who committed the crime?  The gangstas.  But do you know what any honest cop is going to tell me?  They’re going to say, “Hey, don’t be stupid.  Don’t go flaunting your wealth right in front of the people who are likely to rob you.”

Ladies, men are created by God to be visually stimulated sexually.  We are turned on by what we see, first and foremost.  If you show off your body in front of us, here’s what’s going to happen.  The ones of us who have no morals are going to look at you as a piece of meat that they want, and because they have no morals they’re going to take what they want, regardless of what you want.  And if by the grace of God they don’t, then they WILL go to porn to satisfy their urges…which means that the porn business which degrades and uses women will continue to exist and prosper.  Do you want that?

Yes, yes, I know that ultimately the decision to do these wrongs is on them, that’s true…but Matthew 18:6-9 tells me that God will say that you had a hand in it as well.  Do you want that?

And as for those of us who have morals, well, it’s less likely that we will go after you PHYSICALLY in any way…but with enough visual stimulation, don’t rule it out over time.  But what is going to happen, I guarantee it, is that we will MENTALLY look at you as a piece of meat that we want.  And we also will be that much more tempted to satisfy those urges which your immodesty helped create by turning to porn.

And if we aren’t married and are trying to obey God by not having sex until we’re married, you’ve made it that much harder for us.

And if we are married and are trying to obey God…and honor and love our wives completely…by being 100% faithful both physically and mentally to our wives, you’ve made it that much harder for us.

And again, I know that ultimately the decision to commit these wrongs is on us, but Matthew 18:6-9 promises me that God will hold you accountable also.  Is that what you want?

How much better our society would be if we all just decided to do things God’s way! 

How much better if we would simply remember that our bodies are not our own, but God’s (1 Cor. 6:18-20)!

How much better if we would honor him with our bodies and be considerate of the spiritual well-being of others by how we dress (Phil. 2:3-4)!

How much better if parents would not permissively contribute to their daughters conforming to the immodest standards of the world (Rom. 12:2), but rather would let God’s standards of dress be their standards!

How much better if parents would teach and enforce those standards to the next generation (Deut. 6:6-7)!

How much better it would be if we all taught our children that “marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).

Want to know what would happen if we taught – both by word AND example – that biblical truth to the next generation like we should?

Our daughters, when they grew up to be ladies, would save the sexually enticing showing of skin for the privacy of their marriage bed, at which time they would be willing to satisfy THEIR HUSBAND’S needs, and he theirs (1 Cor. 7:1-5).

Our sons would go through puberty without the added burden of being bombarded with sexual temptation by the female skin they see all around them, only to be denied fulfillment and thus grow more and more angry and resentful towards women in general.

They would enter into marriage with a proper attitude towards their wives, and the intimacy between them would be all the more rewarding.

Because of this, more marriages would be saved from adultery and divorce.

In the meantime, more young women would be safe on dates.

The porn industry would not profit.

All of us would be blessed in this life as well as in the life to come.

Doesn’t that sound great??

But as it is, our society has forgotten the command of God for modesty, and many in the church have conformed to the world rather than to God in this area.  By doing so, they contribute to the fornication, lewdness, heartache, and worldliness that plagues our society by tempting the unmarried (and those who are married to others) around them.

And here’s what’s going to happen…

At judgment God will hold them accountable in addition to those who unrepentantly gave in to the temptation to fornicate which was put in their path (Matt. 18:6-9).  They will receive the wages of their sin, eternal death in hell (Rom. 6:23; Rev. 21:8).

Take it to the bank, friends.  That’s exactly what will go down.

Don’t be a part of this!  Dress modestly, and teach others to do the same!

Posted in Jon Mitchell | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stop Showing Skin

MATRIMONIOS IGUALITARIOS

MATRIMONIOS IGUALITARIOS 
En primera instancia es obvio que el tema tiene que ver con la ideología de género y el homosexualismo en sí. En los últimos días se ha incrementado el debate en varios países de latinoamérica luego de que el 26 de Junio de 2015 la corte suprema de los estados unidos declarará legal el matrimonio de personas del mismo sexo a travez de todo el país, enviando así un mensaje muy claro al mundo entero. En un noticiero local en Costa Rica escuché un término que inmediatamente llamó mi atención: “matrimonios igualitarios”. De ninguna manera nuestra intención sea ofender o degradar a alguien ya que todos somos creados por el mismo Ser supremo, más bien este breve espacio es para que juntos podamos razonar y podamos ser objetivos en el tema. Yo no apoyo el matrimonio entre personas del sexo opuesto solamente porque es una tradición, ni tampoco apoyo los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo solamente porque es algo popular y moderno. ¿Cuál debería ser el estándar entonces? Aquí está la clave de todo, ¿desde que estándar, o en que base podemos determinar que es moralmente correcto y que no lo es? ciertamente no en las tradiciones, ni lo moderno pero en la Biblia, la palabra de Dios, aún cuando la palabra “Biblia” sea ofensiva para muchos, es ha sido y seguirá siendo el estándar supremo para determinar lo que es correcto y lo que no lo es aún cuando usted no crea en la Biblia. 

No es matrimonio.

No es matrimonio.

La palabra “matrimonio” puede ser encontrada a través de las páginas de la Biblia. Mientras lo leemos, podemos encontrar que la palabra “matrimonio” está escrito 19 veces en 18 textos. La palabra “casar” aparece 19 veces en 18 textos, y “casado” está escrito 30 veces en 28 textos así desde el inicio de los tiempos “matrimonio” es una palabra que tuvo su origen en la Biblia y quién dio ese origen sin duda alguna fue Dios mismo. Ninguna persona puede tomar este concepto para adaptarlo a gustos y preferencias individuales. En una ocasión  escuchaba al hermano B.J Clarke afirmar que nosotros no fundamos el universo y que si queremos cambiar alguna regla de las que Dios ha establecido entonces lo más correcto es salir del universo e ir a construir nuestro propio universo para imponer nuestras propias leyes. Pero si yo no puedo hacer eso en mis capacidades (menciona el hermano) entonces me doblego humillado ante aquel que si puede y me someto voluntariamente a sus leyes. 
El terrible problema aquí es el irrespeto deliberado frente a Dios. Bajo otro contexto el apóstol Pablo escribe a los hermanos en Galácia que “…Dios no puede ser burlado” (Ga.6:7), el hecho real de la frase es que nadie pude dejar plantado a Dios y salir bien librado, nadie pude abofetear a Dios y pensar que nada va a sucederle, matemáticamente no es posible. 
Por otra parte el concepto de Matrimonio igualitario está destrozando el objetivo de la creación misma y la intención de Dios para la subsistencia de la raza humana. ¿Puede imaginarse usted  que hubiera pasado si Noé hubiera apoyado las marchas sobre los matrimonios igualitarios? ¿Piense por un momento que hubiese sucedido si  sus tres hijos (Sem, Cam, Jafet) hubiesen sostenido pancartas de colores por las calles centrales de la ciudad abogando por matrimonios del mismo sexo? La raza humana hubiese muerto. En Gen 1:28 la intención de Dios para el hombre era para que poblara la tierra cuando no había ni siquiera creado a Eva para ese momento, por lo tanto el hecho de que dos personas del mismo sexo convivan juntos y que no puedan reproducirse contradice abiertamente la intención clara de Dios. La lógica se opone a estas uniones, la genética se opone, la moral renuncia ante estos casamientos, la Biblia le da la espalda y por sobre todo Dios aborrece estas relaciones. El hermano Dave Miller; talentoso predicador del evangelio en cuanto al tema menciona lo siguiente, note:
De igual manera, los apetitos y/o preferencias sexuales no tienen nada que ver con la composición genética. En cambio, son el resultado del ambiente, la experiencia, la cultura y otros factores que pueden moldear y afectar a las personas en sus decisiones. Las inclinaciones y tendencias sexuales que el homosexual dice que son “sentimientos” inherentes no son diferentes a los sentimientos e inclinaciones que un pedófilo posee en cuanto a su atracción sexual por los niños. Ni tampoco son diferentes a los sentimientos que un asesino experimenta por sus tendencias violentas. Estos “sentimientos” que experimentan son obviamente reales; pero es un error asignar a estos sentimientos una causa genética. No es aceptable, bíblicamente y moralmente, que un individuo actúe basado en tales sentimientos. Aquí está la diferencia entre la raza y la homosexualidad. Un afro-americano no puede alterar su color, pero sí puede alterar su comportamiento. Y los homosexuales también pueden hacerlo. (Dave Miller Ph.D, la homosexualidad y el racismo; apologetics press).
Tal  como lo afirma nuestro hermano el antiguo profeta dijo hace mucho tiempo que el corazón es engañoso (Jr.17:9), pero en este caso ni siquiera es el corazón sino más bien los apetitos de la carne y de la lujuria. Tanto usted como yo hemos notado que las relaciones entre personas del mismo sexo son muy inestables, ellos conviven juntos por un tiempo pero  en un muy corto periodo de tiempo son infieles el uno del otro porque se aburren y hasta llegan a acuerdos para estar con terceras personas y continuar en la misma relación ¿Porque sucede este factor? La respuesta es simple, no han sido diseñados para convivir como pareja y por lo tanto nunca serán estables.  Creo que del pasado podemos aprender importantes lecciones ha no ir en contra de Dios, pero con o sin nuestro apruebo lo que hemos estado viendo en nuestros días aumentará. Ni siquiera Dios obliga al hombre ha hacer un cambio, aunque si lo anima a realizarlo, nuestra parte también es solamente animar a obedecer a Dios, pero los cristianos tenemos bella esperanza, nosotros esperamos habitar en un lugar mucho mejor por la eternidad así que personalmente estoy convencido que la paciencia de Dios llegará a su limite tal como  llegó a su limite en los días  de Noé (Ge. 6). Espero  que usted y yo apreciado lector, estemos en el mismo lado del barco cuando eso suceda. 
Posted in Heiner Montealto | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on MATRIMONIOS IGUALITARIOS

It Takes a Village . . . Maybe

It Takes a Village . . . Maybe

A few years ago, Washington reminded us of an African proverb about rearing children. Evidently, it was part of the Igbo culture in Nigeria from centuries ago. You may recall the emphasis that says, “It takes a village to raise a child.” There is some obvious truth in this concept, but there may be some inherent dangers. Let’s think about it together.

Which village is shaping you and your family?

Which village is shaping you and your family?

There is no doubt that the community in which children are reared plays a powerful role in the spiritual development of every child. The fact that some fail to understand this is seen by the opening words of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:33. “Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals.” The fact that Paul begins with this warning about being deceived shows that this truth can be hidden from us.

The world that existed when many of our older members were young no longer exists. The culture of those days is not the culture of our day. So, what might have been a truth years ago is not necessarily a truth today. What if parents fail to realize this today? They can unconsciously give their children to the “village” where the school system is forbidden to teach morals and tie them to Jesus. The majority of the hours each day is spent in that “village.”

Then, there is the “after school village.” With both parents working, or even where there is a single parent situation, making a living means children have to spend time somewhere. I do not have a perfect solution, but wise parents should think about the impact those hours have on their own children. Sports have their place, but do we not realize the impact that the language and attitudes shown by coaches and players has on our children? To do nothing to counter this influence is to let this “village” rear our children.

Be aware of the “village” of media. Do we really want the lifestyle of actors, actresses, singers and filthy comedians to mold our children? Are we content to have our children, who know of the immoral lives of leaders in media, make those individuals their heroes and idols? The same could be said of the influence of smartphones and the internet.

There is another side to the words of Paul about the impact of ungodly friends, and that is the impact of the influence of godly friends. It is so easy to get so busy that we fail to get our children to spend as much time as possible with other children who have real values.

There are two God-given “villages” we have to help us. One of the blessings of the church is its influence as a “village” today. The other is our homes. Not just houses where the family finally gets together to sleep in the same house—but a real home—God’s “village” where He is present!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on It Takes a Village . . . Maybe