The Homosexual Hubbub

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Bulletin ArticlesCulture WarIn The NewsHomosexualityHomosexuality

The rapidity with which homosexual activists are successfully pressuring the nation to extend legal marital status for same sex couples is staggering. Town mayors in American cities from California to New York have taken it upon themselves to issue marriage licenses for homosexual partners (“Bloomberg…,” 2004; “Politicians…,” 2004). These developments were inevitable in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historically and constitutionally unprecedented elimination of state sodomy laws (Lawrence…, 2003). The high court’s decision was a reversal of its 1986 decision that upheld State sodomy laws and reinforced the historic stance that homosexuality is not a constitutional right.

The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for more than 40 years to restructure public morality. The American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973 (see “Gay and Lesbian…,” 2002). The American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975 (Herek, 2002). The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization.

Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans are even aware that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated emasculation as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1903, 1:226-227).

Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer is—the Bible. “Traditional” (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: “Have you not read that He who made them at 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’?” (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Eve—not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen.

In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. It would appear that the warning issued by God to Israel regarding its own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination…. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations…lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).

Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable Divine expulsion.

REFERENCES

Barton, David (2000), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press), third edition.

“Bloomberg Backs Gay Civil Unions” (2004), The Washington Times, [On-line], URL: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040307-114408-3980r.htm.

“Gay and Lesbian Issues,” (2002), American Psychiatric Association Public Information, [On-line], URL: http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose-1.cfm.

Herek, Gregory (2002), “Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health,” [On-line], URL: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html.

Jefferson, Thomas (1903), Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association).

Lawrence et al. v. Texas (2003), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102.

“Politicians Fear Backlash from Gay ‘Marriage’ ” (2004), The Washington Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040222-122715-6305r.htm.

Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.

“Sodomy Laws in the United States” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Truth about our Creator Video 28 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/searching-for-truth-about-the-creator/ 

 

Spirituality in America–Only "Three Inches Deep"

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Bulletin Articles

In 1999, George Gallup Jr. and D. Michael Lindsay produced a book titled Surveying the Religious Landscape. The book was a compilation of religious polls taken from the last seven decades of American culture. In the 171 pages comprising the book, several interesting, encouraging, and somewhat surprising statistics appear. For instance, in surveying belief in God or some type of Higher Power, “a total of 95% of the public in 1947 said they believed in God; 96% hold this belief today” (1999, p. 2). An amazing 96 out of every 100 Americans believe in some type of God. Also, when asked about the importance of religion in their lives, 87% of the American people polled in 1998 said that religion was very important or fairly important (p. 10). In fact, after compiling several of the surveys, the authors concluded: “Americans outshine most other industrialized nations in religious fervor” (p. 119). On the heels of that statement, one survey done showed that 84% of the Americans questioned believed that Jesus Christ is God or the Son of God, while only 46% of those in Great Britain believed the same (p. 123). Furthermore, in 1998, 80% of Americans polled said that they believed the Bible was the actual or inspired Word of God. Such statistics show that Americans, by in large, at least mentally accept the importance of religion, God, and Jesus Christ.

 

When questions pertaining to ethical issues were posed, however, the results of Americans’ religious fervor did not necessarily match their professed beliefs. For instance, when young adults ages 18-29 were asked if they believed premarital sex to be wrong, only 1 in 4 said they considered it to be wrong (p. 98). That means, 75 out of every 100 young adults in the United States do not think that premarital sex is wrong! When this question was posed to the American population: “Do you think it is wrong for unmarried couples to bear children out of wedlock, or not?”, 50% of those polled said they did not think it was wrong (p. 127).

Here we come to the dissonance between Americans’ beliefs about God and the Bible, and their implementation of those beliefs into their lives. The Bible clearly and repeatedly states that premarital sex is wrong. Hebrews 13:4 states: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10). The Bible further states that before children are born, a person should be properly married (1 Timothy 5:14). Sexual intercourse before, or outside of, a proper marriage relationship is condemned time and again (Matthew 19:9).

Why is it, then, that the majority of American people believe in God and the Bible, yet do not put the teachings of the Bible into their lives? Gallup and Lindsay had this to say:

Gallup research would indicate that the greatest chink in the bulwark of American religion is the lack of spiritual practices and disciplines actively exercised by religious adherents. Consider, for instance, the following statistic: 93% of Americans have a copy of the Bible or other Scriptures in their household, yet only 42% of the nation can name even five of the Ten Commandments. Spirituality in America may be three thousand miles wide, but it remains only three inches deep (p. 45, emp. added).

Oh, how haunting the words of Christ will be to many of those Americans who believe in God, believe the Bible is His Word, and believe that Jesus is His Son: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Gallup, George Jr. and D. Michael Lindsay (1999), Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

BIBLE

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1029160206415009 

Eternity

https://www.facebook.com/reel/939948945797983 

So Jesus Video

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2242699842935616 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

The "Little Grand Canyon"

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Creation vs. EvolutionGeology

The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens on May 18, 1980, was one of the most-watched geological catastrophes of all time. During the initial eruption, “the mountain released the energy equivalent of 20 million tons of TNT. The total energy output during the nine-hour eruption on May 18 was equivalent to 440 million tons of TNT, approximately 30,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs” (Morris and Austin, 2003, p. 28). This certainly would classify as a major explosion, to say the least. And yet, as huge as this particular eruption was, it paled in comparison to many other volcanic eruptions. For instance, Morris and Austin note that the “last big explosion at Yellowstone, for example, was over 2,000 times the explosive power of Mount St. Helens” (p. 12).

The full extent of what scientists learned from the 1980 eruption has yet to be measured, but certain geological features caused by the explosion have made Earth scientists take a closer look at their interpretations of current geological features. For instance, for many decades, the majority of the scientific community has looked to the Grand Canyon as an example of a geologic feature that was formed over multiplied millions of years. According to the popular mantra that “the present is the key to the past,” geologists have suggested that the Colorado River carved out the canyon slowly but surely. The Grand Canyon National Park website has this to say about the formation of the Canyon: “Grand Canyon is an erosional feature that owes its existence to the Colorado River. Of equal importance are the forces of erosion that have shaped and continue to shape the canyon today. These include running water from rain, snowmelt, and tributary streams which enter the canyon throughout its length” (“Geological Story”). Nothing is mentioned concerning a possible catastrophic origin of the canyon.

The effects of Mount St. Helens, however, have cast some serious doubt on the long-held uniformitarian theory that the Grand Canyon must have been slowly carved over millions of years. Before the eruption, Spirit Lake (the lake close to Mount St. Helens) drained into the Toutle River. The upper river, however, was buried by up to 600 feet of debris from the eruption, which blocked the lake’s usual drainage site. For two full years, Spirit Lake was unable to drain into the Toutle River. Then, on March 19, 1982, a small eruption around the summit of Mount St. Helens caused a mudflow that was 20 miles long. The mudflow pooled behind the debris dam, and sent mud flowing furiously over the west end of the big steam pit. The flow quickly cut a canyon that was 140 feet deep. “The canyon produced by the mud has been called ‘The Little Grand Canyon’ because it appears to be a one-fortieth scale model of the Grand Canyon” (Morris and Austin, 2003, pp. 74-75).

If the eruption of Mount St. Helens could initiate a situation in which a canyon one-fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon was formed in one day, and the eruption of Mount St. Helens was by no means the largest ever (dwarfed by the last eruption measured at Yellowstone, which produced 2,000 times the explosive power), then what would a person expect to happen when the “fountains of the deep” were broken up and the entire world was covered by water as in Noah’s Flood? Surely, the evidence from Mount St. Helens shows that catastrophic origins of geological features like the Grand Canyon are a possibility. The ideology of those who refuse to acknowledge the Flood’s geological force is discussed in 2 Peter 3:5-6: “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (emp. added).

REFERENCES

Morris, John and Steven A. Austin (2003), Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

“The Geological Story of the Grand Canyon,” [On-line], URL: http://www.grand.canyon.national-park.com/info.htm.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Searching for Truth Video 15 min

 Searching for Truth: Introduction About Truth | WVBS Online Video

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Martin Luther Speaks on “Faith Only” and Baptism

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Bulletin ArticlesDoctrinal Matters

One popular belief in many protestant denominations is the idea that God supplies salvation to each and every person based solely on the faith of that person, apart from any action taken by that individual. This idea, often called sola fide, says, that a person is saved by faith alone. Any number of quotations demonstrating this doctrine can be cited. In a debate with Thomas Warren in 1953, L.S. Ballard affirmed the position that “the alien sinner is saved the very moment he/she believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God” (Warren and Ballard, 1953). This particular belief is commonly worded like this: “People are saved through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.”

According to the modern-day advocates of “faith alone” salvation, water baptism cannot be a requisite to salvation, because it is something “more than” faith. While space limitations prevent a thorough investigation of the biblical doctrine of baptism (see Lyons, 2003), it is interesting to note how far the “faith alone” doctrine has drifted from its original form.

The idea of being saved by faith alone is often attributed to Martin Luther. Indeed, he and the other reformers challenged the Catholic Church that sold indulgences and offered a “works-based” type of salvation. Martin Luther often taught that salvation was based on faith alone, and not received based upon a person’s meritorious works. Martin Luther did not, however, take faith alone to mean that mere mental assent to Christ’s deity was sufficient to obtain salvation. In fact, Luther’s idea of faith alone does not conform to the modern-day idea that baptism cannot be required for salvation.

While it is understood that the opinions of men are in no way authoritative when it comes to God’s plan for salvation, it is nonetheless interesting to note that Martin Luther believed wholeheartedly in the necessity of baptism as a requisite for salvation. In his Large Catechism, Luther wrote:

[I] affirm that Baptism is no human trifle, but that it was established by God Himself. Moreover, He earnestly and solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. No one is to think that it is an optional matter like putting on a red coat. It is of greatest importance that we hold Baptism in high esteem as something splendid and glorious. The reason why we are striving and battling so strenuously for this view of Baptism is that the world nowadays is full of sects that loudly proclaim that Baptism is merely an external form and that external forms are useless…. Although Baptism is indeed performed by human hands, yet it is truly God’s own action (1978, pp. 98-99).

From Luther’s comments about baptism, it is obvious that he viewed water baptism as essential for salvation. Many of the protestant denominations that attribute their ideas about “faith only” to Martin Luther have not been taught that Luther’s concept of faith alone was not in opposition to works of God (like baptism and repentance), but in opposition to meritorious works by which a person believes that he or she “earns” salvation.

What, then, would Martin Luther say to those today who teach that “faith alone” excludes baptism? Listen to his words pertaining to this teaching:

But our know-it-alls, the new spirit people, claim that faith alone saves and that human works and outward forms contribute nothing to this. We answer: It is of course true that nothing in us does it except faith, as we shall hear later. But these blind leaders of the blind refuse to see that faith must have something in which it believes, that is, something it clings to, something on which to plant its feet and into which to sink its roots. Thus faith clings to the water and believes Baptism to be something in which there is pure salvation and life, not through the water, as I have emphasized often enough, but because God’s name is joined to it…. If follows from this that whoever rejects Baptism rejects God’s word, faith, and the Christ who directs us to Baptism and binds us to it (1978, pp. 101-102).

Martin Luther was a man. He made many mistakes and believed things about the Bible that were not true. It should be noted, however, that the “faith only” doctrine attributed so often to him has been misrepresented on a grand scale. Martin Luther’s words are unambiguous and clear. His “faith only” doctrine did not exclude baptism as necessary for salvation. Could it be the case that those who loudly tout the “faith only” mantra have not thoroughly investigated the works of the man to whom the doctrine is so often attributed?

The Bible does teach that those who are being saved are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). It does not, however, teach that a person is saved “by faith alone” without any further acts of obedience. Even Martin Luther recognized that water baptism is not a meritorious work that earns a person salvation. On the other hand, it is an obedient act required by God in order for people to obtain salvation.

REFERENCES

Luther, Martin (1978), Luther’s Large Catechism, (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “The Bible’s Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complimentary,” [On-line], URL: https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/617.

Warren, Thomas B. and L.S. Ballard (1953), The Warren-Ballard Debate, (Moore, OK: National Christian Press).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.