Saturday, October 22, 2011

15 Inspiring LGBT Religious Leaders...?

As usual the Huffington Post is systematically staying right on mission:  Shaping the culture into a mind-set where black is white, and evil is good.    
Reflecting and shaping the culture in which it is embedded, religion has historically been hostile to LGBT-identified people and communities. However, over the last three decades more denominations, congregations and individuals have come out in support of honoring the full humanity of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people. Today, hundreds, if not thousands, of religious communities are truly places of celebration, healing and hope for all people.

This initial list of 15 ground breaking individuals is just a sampling of the many LGBT religious leaders who have reclaimed religious traditions and communities. We hope that you will use the feature on this slideshow to add gay religious leaders who you feel should be included. Meanwhile, we thankfully acknowledge the ongoing contributions of these inspiring religious leaders.
This is so egregiously false, it is difficult easy to believe they actually wrote this. "Reclaimed" they say?  This would only be possible if one is willing to re-write the entirety of history and deny historical fact.  Apparently, the folks at AOL and the Huffington Post will do just that. 

The only way to celebrate sin, is in fact to hate the Jesus of scripture, or of course - re-write His words.  

A terrible warning to us all - Yes, - "God gave them over." Romans 1:24.

Monday, October 17, 2011

15 year old Jamie Hubley

Well, another "gay" teen takes his life as reported by the Ottawa Citizen.

"I hate being the only open gay guy in my school… It f***ing sucks, I really want to end it. Like all of it, I not getting better theres 3 more years of highschool left, Iv been on 4 different anti -depressants, none of them worked. I’v been depressed since january, How f***ing long is this going to last. People said “It gets better”. Its f***ing bull****. I go to see psychologist, What the f*** are they suppost to f***ing do? All I do is talk about problems, it doesnt make them dissapear?? I give up." - Huffington Post.

I suspect the maggots like Dan Savage (the leader of the "It gets better" project lie) will appear with his unclean hands and mouth to protest and proclaim the lie that most Canadians and Americans have swallowed up like manna falling from the sky - "you can't change!". 

There is a reason God teaches us to raise up our children in the knowledge of Him, it actually matters.  Jamie Hubley, by all accounts, appeared to be a very troubled teenager, but it appears not one adult in his life told him about his creator and only hope - Christ Jesus.  In his own words - "Remember me as a Unicorn :3 x) MAybe in my next life Il be a flying squirreel :D".  Yes, this is exactly the results of a world that has abandoned the Truth for lies.

Perhaps this teenager knew exactly what so many others know without being capable of understanding nor communicating it; yes, they have a problem....No, its not a lack of "love" problem or a "gay" problem - its actually a problem called - sin.  And yes, even teenage boys and girls are loaded with it.  Without a Biblical worldview or education, there are absolutely no True answers to the most pressing questions of life, no matter what secular educators would have you and your children believe.

Telling teens, or adults for that matter, that they should embrace and celebrate what they actually hate about themselves - is indeed a death sentence.  You cannot cut the sin out of you, you cannot find a love or "partner" that will take it away, you cannot change what only God can.  

1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 

Or you can take the worldly wisdom of the likes of Dan Savage or Lady Gaga - you don't have a problem, and don't worry, it will get better.  Celebrate your sin, let it rule in your life.  The religious fundamentalist bastards won't rule our lives forever... 

  Inserted from Jamie's blog - "You can't break...when you're already broken" .  

Read these prophetic words from G. Craige Lewis:
In every walk of life, we make choices. These choices will get us approved by some and rejected by others. But the homosexual doesn't want ANY rejection because all rejection points to that personal rejection they are feeling deep down inside because they are warring against their very image and nature itself. Because they feel God rejects them spiritually, and nature rejects them naturally, they have no validation. So, they need people to validate them at all times, with no rejection at all. Any type of rejection, whether its verbal, physical, mental, or emotional points to the fact that they feel bad about their present state and desire to change but feel they cannot. This is why it's so important that we as a church offer deliverance to them. Not at the cost of compromise or acceptance, but by convicting and offering Christ as an opportunity to be recreated. I do not believe a homosexual is born homosexual because we are not born with behavioral traits, but we are taught them. But even if they want to claim they were born that way, Christ can make us BORN AGAIN! This is a recreation into a new creation and old things can be passed away. So, there is hope for the homosexual and lesbian but if the church continues to condone this lifestyle and not make a difference between the sacred and profane, then we won't have answers for them when they come for reconciliation.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Questions for homosexuals - and those who approve of it.

Source: CARM

  1. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY:  If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection?
  2. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY:  If sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition and the homosexual community wants cultural and social support since, as they say, "they are born that way," then shouldn't they also support “homophobia” since it could be legitimately argued that homophobes are born with heterosexual-orientation and possess a natural aversion to homosexuality?
  3. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY:  If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then doesn't it make sense to say that homosexuality is a learned behavior since the implication is that pro-homosexual genes would have been wiped out generations ago?
  4. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY:  If this is not the case, can you please explain the mechanism by which “homosexual genes” aid in survivability and are then passed on to descendants?
  5. GENETIC PEDOPHILIA:  If genetic predisposition is used as a support for stating that homosexual behavior is morally okay (because they are born that way), then shouldn’t pedophilia behavior also be considered morally okay since they claim they were born that way?
  6. GENETIC PEDOPHILIA:  If pedophiles are morally wrong because they violate the wishes and will of the younger individuals, then at what age is a person too young to engage in sexual activity in accordance with his or her natural predisposition (i.e., being born that way)?
  7. CONSENT:  In light of being born with a sexual orientation (like homosexuality, frotteurism1, voyeurism2), if pedophiles are morally wrong because they are acting out their sexual orientation upon minors who are not mature enough to consent, then what do you do when minors become mature enough to consent and also claim they are born wanting a sexual relationship with an older person?
  8. CONSENT:  If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent, then what do you do with with younger-than-18 adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people?  Is it okay?
  9. MORAL STANDARD:  From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?
  10. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?
  11. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system if it contradicts another?
  12. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?
  13. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what gives them the moral right to change society's morals when the majority condemn homosexuality as morally wrong?
  14. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, including those who disagree with them?
  15. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to condemn those whom they label "homophobes" when they are just expressing their personal moral preference?
  16. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL:  If homosexuals say that "homophobes" are wrong because they want to restrict homosexuals' rights and impose their values on them, then what gives the homosexuals the right to impose their sexual values on others?
  17. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences?
  18. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, and they also believe they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences, then how is that not arrogant?
  19. CIVIL RIGHTS:  If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights be granted to those of Alternate Sexual Orientations (ASO) such as pedophilia, incest, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, fetishes, frotteurism, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.?  If not, why not?
  20. CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights also be granted to heterosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior)?  If not, why not?
  21. CIVIL RIGHTS:  If equal civil rights should not be granted to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (excluding homosexual behavior), then what is it about homosexuality that deserves special status protection where other sexual behaviors do not?
  22. CIVIL RIGHTS:  If homosexuals are granted privileges due to civil unions and domestic partnerships, shouldn't the same be offered to heterosexuals?
  23. FAIRNESS:  Shouldn’t an equal amount of sexual-orientation-promotion be offered to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (i.e., pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation) such that they are also promoted in parades, schools, movies, sitcoms, magazines, schools, etc.? If not, why not?
  24. FAIRNESS:  Would you, if you are pro-homosexual in practice and/or ideology, promote and support heterosexual parades, heterosexual oriented TV, and overt heterosexual appreciation and promotions in school classrooms – the same as is occurring with homosexuality? If not, why not?
  25. FAIRNESS:  If being intolerant of homosexuality is somehow wrong, then why are the homosexuals not wrong when they express their intolerance of those who disapprove of homosexuality?
  26. FAIRNESS:  Isn't it hypocritical to say that homosexuals want tolerance for everyone, but at the same time they practice intolerance of the those who disagree with their behavior?
  27. FAIRNESS:  If homosexuals want tolerance, then when they try and change the rest of society's views about homosexuality, aren't they demonstrating their intolerance of the majority position? 
  28. FAIRNESS:  If you affirm that it is okay for homosexuals to show their intolerance for the majority view against homosexuality by trying to change the rest of society's view to conform to their own, then shouldn't it be okay for the majority to try and change the moral view of the homosexuals and have them conform to the majority?
  • 1. Frotterusim is the act of deriving sexual pleasure from intentionally rubbing against and/or touching a non-consenting person.
  • 2. Voyeurism is act of deriving sexual pleasure from watching another person undress and/or participate in sexual activity.

Friday, September 30, 2011

The Deadly false promise of the "it gets better" campagin

GCMW: Video and Full Article

Homosexual activists Dan Savage and Lady Gaga should be brought up on charges of murder for issuing wholesale false promises and lies to young people confused about their sexuality.

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44 ESV

Just this past week, Savage’s so-called “it gets better campaign” proved just how ineffective it is when a fourteen year old boy in Buffalo, New York committed suicide after embracing its dead message. ABC News reported that Buffalo police are considering charges.

It was clear Jamey Rodemeyer was walking on unstable ground when he posted a video as part of Savage’s massive internet based deception movement. Watch his video where he attempts in vain to prop up his life on Savage’s dead promise. This is the portrait of a child with an empty heart. He doesn’t believe the IGB promise even while he tries to convince others with the same empty words he is holding onto.

Re Decisional Regeneration

While the words "make a decision for Christ" are not used in Scripture, the fact that we are commanded to repent seems to imply an exercise of the will. 
Instead of "inviting Jesus into your heart", which is a foreign concept in scripture, we should urge repentance and throwing ourselves on the mercy of Christ and His finished work on the cross.
"We must preach the gospel that they are sinners, but that Christ has come to save sinners just like them. We must not deviate from the Scriptures in order to win more bodies while we give false assurance to souls." 

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Why "Prevenient Grace" should be rejected as unbiblical

Prevenient Grace – in the simplest understanding it is quite simply grace [God’s] that is resistible.  Another term used to describe the same concept is “pre-regenerating grace”.

From a theological stand point, it is grace that enables sinners to come to God in faith, (the sinner is no longer incapable of responding to God) but it does not guarantee the sinner will respond.  In essence the sinner has experienced just enough grace to now be capable of coming Christ, but not all sinners will (choose to).  Therefore, this “kind” of grace in order for it to be effectual (saving) is solely dependent on the sinner’s response, not God.

While an entire book could be written on this topic, let’s cut right to the core.

Paul tells us in Philippians 1:6, that - “He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ.”  This single verse alone should destroy any notion that God’s saving grace is somehow ineffectual or not guaranteed – simply because it is the work of God, not the sinner.     

Furthermore, prevenient grace does considerable harm to the very unity of the triune God.  The supporter of prevenient grace has the Holy Spirit out in the world spreading some sort of “buffet  type grace” to all of humanity, Jesus who had to have died for ALL mankind, since He is offering saving grace to all mankind, and a Father that is either incapable of saving those for whom Jesus has already paid the penalty, or He just can’t since the sinner refuses to accept His grace.  In essence, prevenient grace necessitates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are out doing their own thing in utter disunity. Nothing could be further from what the scriptures teach.

  • Romans 8:30 - And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.        

  • John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

  • Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

The Biblical facts are, man does not need to be made partially better (able to respond), he needs a miraculous re-birth.  Man needs to become alive (resurrected) in Christ. 

Prevenient grace, therefore must be rejected as unbiblical. 

John 1:12–13
12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Ephesians 2:8–9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Once Saved - Always Saved: False teaching?

It is with regret over several friendships lost, and at the same time, great joy in proclaiming the True Gospel, that I write this post.  As some readers (all three of you) may know, I have over the past six years with great affection supported DL Foster’s ministry (The Gay Christian Movement Watch blog and Witness Ministries).  Today, I can no longer do so with any confidence – I hope that changes.  The reason is the same reason I recently left a ten year membership and leadership position at my church:  Teaching that Salvation can be lost.  The Truth: Salvation cannot be lost. 

Other ways of expressing the same lie: 

·         “Salvation is not a static, one-time event in our lives.  It is the ongoing experience of God’s gracious presence transforming us into whom God intends us to be.” [Official United Methodist Church statement].

·         “We work out our salvation in partnership and guidance of the Holy Ghost.  If once saved, always saved excludes sin and repentance of the believer, then it is a false teaching.” DL Foster. [Notice the words “We work out our salvation in partnership”, as if the Biblical Jesus was looking for “partners” and as if His work on the Cross was somehow insufficient and needed more work].

Any ministry / church that speaks of the exclusivity of Christ in salvation, uses orthodox language, teaches salvation by grace, and proclaims the authority and sufficiency of scripture, yet denies salvation is secure, or that it is conditioned upon man’s continued obedience, is quite simply – very dangerous.   It could actually be more dangerous than the common cults of our day who also teach of “another” Jesus and “another” Gospel, simply because it is much harder to discern.  

Let’s break this down:
Justification (God declaring man righteous) is NOT a repeated process.
"To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).  That is justification.

Therefore, because of justification, believers not only are perfectly free from any charge of guilt (Romans 8:33) but also have the full merit of Christ’s sinless record reckoned to their personal account (Romans 5:17).

The results are crystal clear:
·         We are adopted as sons and daughters (Romans 8:15)
·         We become fellow-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17)
·         We are united with Christ so that we become one with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17)
·         We are henceforth "in Christ" (Galatians 3:27) and He in us (Colossians 1:27)

Just as our physical birth can never be undone, so too our spiritual birth can never be undone. Christ said “You must be born again” (John 3:7), not “you must be born again and again and again.” In Philippians, Paul praises God for the confidence that “he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion” (1:6). 
Conclusion: one cannot “fall from grace” – loose their salvation because salvation is NOT a process – it is a divine act of God.  Salvation is wholly and entirely a work of God, not man. 

The god who saves men, but says it is up to them to lay hold and keep said salvation, does not exist.  It might make for a profitable ministry in fulfilling folks desires to be spiritually fulfilled in their own works (since a works based salvation is always attractive to the unregenerate / unsaved/ natural man), however it is absolutely foreign to scripture.   Think about it, even true believers can get caught up in their "good" works to the point that are actually offending the imputation of Christ's work (His blood) on the cross. 

I pray God leads His faithful to renounce these teachings in no uncertain terms in order to transform perhaps some leaders to recognize their error and correct their teachings so as to not to continue to mislead others.  Many men and women (Saints of the past) have been brutally tortured and killed defending this very doctrine.  It is NOT splitting theological hairs – I ask you to pray-fully consider and search scripture to verify.

From a personal perspective, as much as DL Foster has touched my life (he continues to deserve much credit for his orthodox stance in defending sexual purity) and the many (minority as time goes on) Methodist Pastors remaining true to a biblical teaching of faith alone; anyone who teaches salvation is progressive or dependent on man - teaches another gospel and condemns himself.  Galatians 1:9, “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” 

Yes, it is indeed that serious.  Paul was specifically addressing this very topic: Man is “justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law” (Galatians 2:16).  Faith plus works is another gospel, and if any man or Christian denomination teaches a works plus faith based salvation, no matter how “slick” they try to be using  orthodox language, God’s wrath remains upon them.  The whole of scripture concurs with this Truth.  It is real easy to teach "eternal security," and at the same time deny it with works - and nobody notices.     

What about continuing in sin after salvation? 

First, please understand this Biblical Truth: Jesus' death was absolutely sufficient to pay for all of our sins—past, present, and future, pre-salvation and post-salvation (Romans 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21). 

Second, the Bible makes it clear that a true Christian will not live "any way he wants to." Believers are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17), they will demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and not the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Lastly 1 John 3:6-9 clearly states that a true Christian will not live in continued sate of willful or unrepentant sin.  A life patterned by willful unrepentant sin, is a life that is still lost. 

Two key points that should / must be drawn here:  1. there is a difference between how a person is to live, and how a person is saved.  2. Faith and repentance are the result of salvation, not the cause.   

Two book recommendations for further study: