Is Heaven For Real?

Have you had someone you know die recently? Do you wonder what has happened to them? Do you wonder if there truly is a heaven? Or a hell? Thessalonians. 4:13-18 "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.  Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
 
 For many people heaven is some sort of fairytale place on a par with Shangri-la. It is a fantasy that one hopes and wishes for, but there is no substance of reality for them. It is not tangible, therefore it is not really more than a hopeful idea. If they try to picture heaven, they think more in terms of either becoming an angel strumming a harp on a fluffy cloud or just becoming a sort of energy that is part of the fabric of the universe. But what does the Bible tell us about the afterlife?

First of all, we should look to the person who was seen in His afterlife, by people just like us. A tangible evidence of that life's existence and what we have to look forward to. Christ appeared to many people after His resurrection. Did it say that he had grown wings like an angel and was sitting on a fluffy cloud strumming a harp? No. Did it say that His life energy had joined the oneness of the universe? No. When Jesus was resurrected, He had a body that was of a similar nature to the one we have now. It was a corporeal body which could and still can be touched, as evidenced when He had Thomas touch Him. He ate, talked, and walked with his disciples. He was self-aware and thought and had feelings just as He had before dying. He knew all His old friends and interacted with them as He had before death. So He was very much in a body that operated as the one we have now does, but it was far improved over the mortal body we have. It will never age, it will never suffer disease, it will never have corruption of any kind, it will never again die, and it has special capabilities like the ability to appear and disappear at will over long distances, including going from earth to heaven. In short, the resurrected body is perfect in every way. The only thing Christ kept from His first body was the marks in His hands and feet to prove who He was. This should not surprise us, for we are told in 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 that the body we get at the resurrection is the fruit of the seed that was sown when our mortal body dies. Just as a seed is planted in the ground and must die to what it was so that it can become the beautiful plant that has within it the seed of the original, but is far more glorious than the seed, so our bodies will do the same thing in the resurrection. " But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?  Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:  And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:  But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.  All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.  There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.  So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:  It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (Christ) was made a quickening spirit.  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.  Paul is telling us that once Adam sinned, and we became corrupted, the only way that we could again enter into the presence of God was to shed the corrupted body by death. This is why God would not let them eat of the tree of life and live forever, for they would have been forever barred from living in the presence of God. Death is the means by which we can enter into the presence of God and live with Him. We must shed the corruption and let it sow the seed for incorruption. 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?  The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.  But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

So we know that we will have new bodies at the resurrection and go on living in a similar way to how we have lived this life, thinking, feeling, eating, drinking, doing things. But that is at the resurrection. What of the time between death and that time of resurrection when Christ returns? What happens to those who have belonged to Christ who have died in the interim between His resurrection and the resurrection to come? In Revelation we are told of those who have not yet received a resurrected body. In this case, these particular people are those who were martyred for Christ. Revelation 6:9-11 "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?  And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."  and in Chapter 7 verse 9 we see those whom these martyrs were told they must wait for. "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;"  Clearly even before receiving resurrected bodies, people have some sort of spiritual bodies which can be seen. They can think, speak, feel, and are as self-aware as we presently are. As Paul has said, there are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial.

While presently those who die in the Lord go to heaven, upon the resurrection there is a new place awaiting habitation for those with their new perfect bodies. Christ said that He was going to prepare a place for us to live. John 14:1-6 "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.  And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.  Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Revelation 21:2  "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."  Revelation 21:10-27 " And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. (that is 1500 miles in each direction)  And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. (minimum 216 feet) And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Notice that the city is a crystalline city 1500 miles in length, width, and height. Pluto is 1474 miles in diameter. It is far too large to rest upon this planet. It is lit by the brightness of the glory of God, and there will be no need for a sun or moon, due to the brightness of its light. We are told that the nations of the world will walk in the light of it. All of these descriptions would seem to indicate that this city is a city that either orbits the earth as does the moon, or stands out in space apart from the planet as does the sun, for being too large to rest upon the planet, and providing light to all the nations of the earth would seem to require this. As we know that Christ ascended into the heavens, and that resurrected bodies would seem to have the ability to transport over distances at an instant, it would seem to be a distinct possibility that this is a satellite city. Very real, very tangible, and very visible. It's distance from the earth would easily prevent anything that could defile it from entering into it. Only those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be able to enter it, for their glorified resurrected bodies would have the abilities needed to get there.

This brings us to the crux of the matter. Only those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be able to enter into it. What happens to those who have not had their names written in that Book. If the afterlife is as cognizant and self-aware with feelings, and thoughts, and a body as the present world is, what becomes of those who do not get to enter into New Jerusalem?

Mark 9:43-48 "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Matthew 18:7-9 "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!  Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

Revelation 20:4,5b, 6, "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years........... This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."  Revelation 20:5a, 7, 10-15"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished........ And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison...... And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."  Your judgment will come out of one of two books. You will be judged by the Book of Life, or you will be judged out of the Book of Works. Those judged in the first resurrection of the righteous are in the Book of Life. Those judged in the second resurrection are judged by their works, and their works will not get them into heaven. They will be cast into the lake of fire, for justice demands punishment for sin, and if Christ's atonement has not been applied to one's sins, then one must pay for them himself.

There are only two choices for where you spend eternity. Either with the Lord, or in the lake of fire. There is no third choice. This life is when you make the decision as to where you will spend that eternity. If you think you can choose to not make a decision, you are mistaken. To not choose Christ is to reject Him and choose the second resurrection. To be in the first resurrection it demands a decision of your will to follow Christ. 

God has many attributes. He is holy, He is love, He is just, and He is merciful. We want Him to have those qualities, but it is those qualities which keep us apart from Him. To be in His presence requires that we be holy. But we are not capable of it. Isaiah 64:6 “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"  Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" 

For Him to be just, He must punish those sins and transgressions and the punishment for sin is death and an eternity apart from Him. Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"  

God is loving and merciful, but justice prevents mercy, for to provide mercy one must forego justice, but then God would no longer be just. But then if He does not show mercy,  He is not loving. God solved this dilemma by loving us enough to send His only Son to die in our place, so that justice might be served, freeing Him to offer us mercy.  Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Because Christ was holy and perfect, and without sin, He met the standards God required. Because He loved us, He took the punishment for all of our sins and justice was served. Because justice was served, God could then show us His mercy. But the catch is, you have to accept it as God has offered it, on His terms.

Our works will not suffice to pay the penalty for our sins, for our works are as filthy rags. Therefore our justification before God must come from another source. John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Romans 5:8 " But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 

All - every person ever born into this world, with the exception of Christ - have sinned and come short of God's holiness. The only person who could pay the penalty for our sins so that justice might be satisfied and mercy shown to us was Jesus. Acts 4:12 " Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." John 14:6 " Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

Many think they can find their own way to God, by following some other religion or person, or being a member of a church. They cannot. Many think they can work their way to heaven. They cannot.   Galatians 2:16 “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Romans 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Justification before God comes one way only. Romans 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Note that it is not the head that must believe, but the heart. James 2:19 " Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." A head belief does not save the devils, nor will it anyone. It requires the heart.

Maintaining that justification up to the time of salvation (upon your death) takes a little more than just confession and belief though. Justification is not a trophy to put up on a shelf and ignore. God wants a relationship with us. He wants us to live a holy life, obedient and sanctified unto Him.  John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commandments.”  Romans 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  1 Peter 1:16 "....it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

He wants us to run the race and endure all things to the end of our life. Hebrews 12:1 "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,"  2 Timothy 4:7-8 " I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." Matthew 24:13 “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”

We must also do the works God provides for us to do to demonstrate our faith to both Him and the world. James 2:14-26 “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”  The reverse is also true. Works without belief and faith will not suffice. It takes faith first, then God provides us with the works to give evidence of that faith.


Heaven is for real, even more real than the world we know now. Heaven is a hope. A hope that we will once again be reunited with the ones we love, who have gone on before us. This life is the only chance you will have to make sure that you get there.There is no being able to be neutral, there is no "not choosing."  To not choose God and Christ is to actively reject God and choose eternal fire. Heaven is for real, but we have to choose it.

Addendum: For those who wonder about babies and little children, the Scriptures indicate that they are with the Lord. When David's baby died, he said that he would one day go to meet that child. Before there is an awareness, babies cannot be guilty of rejecting God, so they are covered by the blood of the Lamb. Christ loves little children. He would never cast them into the fire when they have never had the opportunity to accept or reject Him. They have in essence, kept the Ten Commandments perfectly.

What Is the Real Purpose of the Church?

Two incidents occurred to me recently that made me realize how much people do not realize what the purpose of the Church (as in universal) is versus the purpose of the church (as in the local body of believers that gather to worship). The first was a parody post that someone put on Facebook about a "Christian" family who could not understand why their daughter went astray when she left home, as they had faithfully taken her to church whenever there was not a sports game or other event which she needed to attend. This amounted to about four times a year plus the requisite Christmas and Easter services. This post sparked some dialogue among a few people. Now while this was meant as a parody, I can actually witness to the fact that there are people who do this very thing and wonder why their children have gone wrong, so in truth it was not a parody.

One of the first comments made was the following: "One cannot sensibly attend church if one does not have a vital relationship with Jesus Christ and his body, the Church."

On the face of it, one would be tempted to agree without thinking twice, for it is true, you are not going to get much out of a church service if you do not have a relationship with Jesus and are a part of the body of Christ. But what was meant by to "sensibly" attend church? Does it mean that you have to be there for every service? Does it mean that you have knowledge of the subject being taught? Does it mean you enter into a mystical experience? Does it mean that one can only get something out of attending if one has a relationship with Christ and the the Church universal? Or by "Church" did he  mean with the local body? What was this person's definition of Church (with the capital "C") and "sensibly"?

Now as I have seen and known more people than I care to admit attend church un-sensibly from the definition given above (having a relationship with Jesus), I wanted to follow up on that idea, so said the following: "It wouldn't matter if they had had her there every Sunday. Or had her enrolled in a Christian school to boot. A child doesn't really learn a relationship with Christ from attending church or going to a Christian school. A child learns to have a relationship with Christ from being trained at home on a 24/7 basis, and seeing their parents relationship with the Lord in constant action. One doesn't even have to attend church to teach a child to have a relationship with Christ. Look around at the Muslim and atheist countries where people might not be able to attend church. Yet they pass on their faith, because they are living it and their children see that."

A response to my comment was the following: "There is, however a dimension of this that is easy to miss: the church IS the Body of Christ and the effects of Jesus' Passion, death and resurrection are both personal AND communal. In my opinion, this is emphasized nowhere MORE clearly than in the letter of Paul to the Ephesians. Even in the countries you mention, there is at least some sort of fellowship occurring, and then there is the presence of the Church in the prayers of all the faithful around the world. One may not be able to attend a service under the circumstances you mention, but there truly is no such thing as a Christian outside the Church. Under ordinary circumstances, we NEED the fellowship to grow in holiness, to "come to full stature in Christ." I truly don't understand why a person cannot come to know Jesus through the church. Is not one of the reasons for the church the spread of the gospel? To help those who do know and love Jesus to grow in that love, and in the love of their neighbor? The couple may well be failing, but so also may the particular congregation to which they belong.

The first thing I noticed about this interchange was that this person equated the church (the local assembly) with the Church (universal - the Bride of Christ made up of regenerated individuals). That fallacy disturbed me. While that is what it should be, that is not what it is. The second thing I noticed would not normally have bothered me, but considering that this person equated the church with the Church, and from the context felt that a person had to attend church to be a Christian, I was concerned about the statement that "there truly is no such thing as a Christian outside the Church." Then the misunderstanding of what I said to interpret it to mean that I felt a person couldn't be saved by attending church bothered me. Following that was the statement that one of the reasons or purposes of the church is to spread the gospel, and that the congregation had failed the children. I was quite disturbed to see this individual had so misunderstood the purpose of the local assembly. I answered the individual on these points, but I would like to take a little more time to speak to them here as well as some other points.

A major problem was this individual's definition of church (as we view it today) vs. Church. I found out later that this person was a new Christian coming from the former background of a Catholic monk. This explained his lack of understanding of the difference, for what is taught in that denomination is that salvation comes through being a member of the denomination, which they believe is the only true Bride of Christ. Individual regeneration is not the issue in this church. Being born into it and maintaining the rituals, or converting to it by going through all the rituals, along with good works is the means of salvation, for they believe salvation comes through the denomination itself.  If you are not part of this church denomination, the denomination teaches that you cannot come to Christ through any other. They do not recognize it as merely a denomination, which is the crux of the matter. They actually believe it is the Bride of Christ established by Christ through Peter. This belief is not Scriptural in the least. Salvation comes through personal repentance, confession, and belief in Christ's sacrifices for your sins. This needs to be followed with a life lived in obedience to the Lord, enduring to the end. There are two ordinances that were given that we should also obey, which are baptism (by immersion - see my article on baptism, http://bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2011/10/does-eucharist-lords-supper-make.html) and partaking of the Lord's Supper (which is not transubstantiation or consubstantiation, but merely symbolic - see my article on Does the Eucharist Make Christians Cannibals, http://bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2011/10/does-eucharist-lords-supper-make.html). 

The definition of the Church, as in the Body or Bride of Christ is "the corporate body of individuals who have accepted the Lord as their personal Savior."  It is a group made up of people who may or may not know each other or worship together, but who all have accepted Jesus as their Savior. It has nothing to do with man-made institutions or organizations. It is a spiritual corporate body, not a physical one in the sense of an organization one can look at and see the individual members by enrollment. Only God truly knows the membership of the Church. The definition of a church (with a small "c") should be "a local assembly of believers who gather to worship and praise God; disciple and hold accountable members (this is best done through individual mentors throughout the week, who have a relationship with the person being discipled) , fellowship with and edify each other; help other believers in their assembly with physical needs,  and study the Word to equip them to go out to spread the gospel. This is the purpose and reason for the local assembly. Instead the definition of the church seems to have become "a local assembly of believers and unbelieving seekers who gather together, so that the believers can evangelize in a corporate (as opposed to individual) way through entertainment, social gatherings, self-help programs, and some non-threatening watered-down presentations of the gospel, leaving out the difficult teachings and ordinances, and getting rid of "churchy" things which create an atmosphere which might offend the seekers (such as pews, pulpits, and God-honoring music), and provide a place where believers can expect their children to be taught how to know and love God (in place of the parents doing it), so that they might follow in the footsteps of their parents being members in good standing in the local church and living the lifestyle of a "good" Christian. 

As one can see, the parody which generated the discussion was pointing out that people believe the  second definition of the church as the true definition. The members of the local assembly have been made to believe it is the responsibility of the assembly as a group to evangelize the lost, raise the children, and provide programs for the needs of people - unsaved and saved alike. In so doing, they abdicate any personal responsibilities for following the command that we are to take the gospel out to the world and disciple people. And also it allows them to abdicate any responsibility to evangelize and disciple their own children. Instead it is the "church's" responsibility (and often fault when it fails) which often also becomes, in the eyes of the members, the pastor's responsibility, as the shepherd of the assembly, to see to it that people (and in particular their children) come to and grow in the Lord. 

This wrong idea was supported in a couple comments I quoted above from the individual with whom I was dialoguing.  "Is not one of the reasons for the church the spread of the gospel?" and "The couple may well be failing, but so also may the particular congregation to which they belong."  As just pointed out, the reason for the local assembly is not to spread the gospel. It is to prepare the saints for the spreading of the gospel by equipping them with gifts to edify, exhort, and help each other grow, so that they might be able to put on the full armor of God and go out to do battle, for presenting the gospel is a battle against the spiritual wickedness holding people in the grip of sin. (Ephesians 4:11-12 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" and 6:11-18 "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:  Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;"

Preaching the gospel message should not be having to occur in the church. We are not to be delivering the gospel message there, for the purpose of the assembly was for the coming together of the saints, not unbelievers. We are to move on to subjects that will teach growth in the body. 2 Timothy 2:15 " Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Hebrews 5:12-14; 6:1-2 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." 

As for the statement that the church failed, because the child did not accept the Lord, it is the duty of every believer to present a life that reflects Christ, but it is not the duty of the church assembly to raise someone's child. That is akin to saying it is the responsibility of a school teacher to teach a child discipline and manners. No, it is the responsibility of the school teacher to teach educational subjects, not give the child his character traits, which studies show are set by the time a child is of an age to start kindergarten. The church is responsible to offer the child Christian fellowship,  exhortation and knowledge of God's Word, and edify them through the gifts that the body practices. And it is true that a child may come to the Lord through these things, but it is not the responsibility of the church in the one or possibly two hours a week they have the child to do the job that the parents have not done with the other 166 hours in the week. Discipleship and discipline is definitely the responsibility of the parent, as is a thorough working knowledge of the Word and intimate prayer relationship with God, for this requires more than one or two hours a week to teach. The church is not to blame when a child has no training. Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."  In addition to this is the fact that the local assembly is most likely not solely filled with believers. Most churches have people who attend because it is part of the way they were raised, rather than the fact that they have a vital relationship with the Lord. Some are so far from the Lord that they have sins which affect the congregation. I have known far too many churches where pedophilia has been a secret problem. In one large church I attended - an evangelical Bible church - a young man murdered his wife for the insurance money. The same church had a serious pedophilia problem in which multiple children were abused. And its leadership was found to be guilty of having mishandled the church's funds. I have personally seen adultery, rape, and homosexuality in the most conservative of evangelical churches.  As if that were not enough, I have known of churches where Satanists have infiltrated for the very purpose of destroying the church. To trust the spiritual state and growth of your child to the local assembly is an idea that is so bad in its concept, that I have no words for people who would defend its existence.

Another statement that the person above made that I need to address is " One may not be able to attend a service under the circumstances you mention, but there truly is no such thing as a Christian outside the Church."  While it is true the way he wrote this, with the Church having a capital "C", meaning the Body of Christ, it is not true that one must attend a church to be a Christian. These days more and more Christians who are concerned to live their lives for Christ even more fully, are leaving the church due to the apostasy which they find there. While fellowship is needful, for to have to go without it is a burden that is very hard on a Christian, it is becoming harder and harder for those who seek to obey God in every way to find fellowship with like-minded believers. And if finding fellowship with other Christians apart from any particular local body is hard, it is nigh impossible to find a local assembly where one can go to worship that is not deeply entrenched in apostasy. Not attending a local assembly does not negate a person's Christianity. In fact these Christians often have a much more intimate and serious walk with the Lord than those in the church. They see doctrines of demons which they cannot abide, they see itching ears wanting to be satisfied, and unbelievers, often the very young and untrained, ruling the roost or at least calling the shots,  so to speak. We are not to stay in Babylon when we find ourselves there. So these people depart the church in favor of remaining steadfast in the faith.

At the beginning I had said that there were two incidents that made me reflect upon this issue. The other was a visit with a friend recovering from major surgery, who happens to be a pastor's wife. We discussed this problem, for it is a problem that has directly affected her and her husband. It seems that they find themselves blamed when the church "fails" in some way, for ultimately people equate the "church" as being the pastor and his leadership. It had not "failed" because of the pastor's and his wife's lack in any way. It has "failed" because the expectations of the congregants were not viable expectations. They were not exercising their personal responsibilities as Christians, nor were they recognizing that the pastor and his wife had no ability to succeed in things which they thought were the responsibility of the "church," for the very reasons explained above. Two hours a week is not going to do a job that 166 hours a week for many years has failed to do. I happen to know this pastor puts in many hours of preparation to teach this congregation, and do all the things that they as a corporate group should be doing (edifying and helping each other), not just he and his wife. In addition to this, when the pastor does try to do what is required of us Scripturally, taking the gospel out to the people where they are, he has been criticized for it, as some think he should not show his face in a place where "sinners" can be found, even if he is not doing anything other than offering the gospel and comfort to those in need. I hate to tell these judges, but "sinners" are found in every church including the one they attend, and they qualify in that very group they are so worried about. The pastor should not be the only one taking the gospel out there, yet he is, as they believe is the "church's" responsibility, not theirs. 

Having discussed the purpose of the church as a local body, we must then look at what the purpose of the Church is. The Church as the Bride of Christ has the following purpose. They are to love God, praise God, and obey God. They are be a light to the world bringing the gospel wherever they can, disciple those whom they bring to the Lord, and serve the Lord and each other using their gifts for God's glory and the edification of each other. They are to be prayer warriors. They are to endure to the end no matter what that might include in the way of tribulation, persecution or even martyrdom. They are to maintain the faith, keep doctrinally pure, and while they must live in the world, so therefore should not separate themselves so that they cannot interact with the world, for then they cannot share the gospel,  they are not to be a part of the world by living carnal worldly lives in imitation of the world. They are to be holy and separate unto God. This is the purpose of the Church universal, the Body and Bride of Christ.

There is not that much difference between what the purpose of the Church is, and what the purpose of the church should be. What is mentioned here for the Church beyond what was mentioned above for the church, is really also required of the church. They should also be as a group doctrinally pure, they should endure to the end, they should pray in a corporate gathering, they should be faithful, and holy, and obedient. The difference is that the individual's responsibility of evangelism is not a responsibility of the corporate group as a single entity. Therein lies a big difference, for when one removes the concept of evangelizing from the church's responsibility, then the things which are causing the apostasy are also removed, such as the non-churchy atmosphere so as to not offend, the ungodly music to entice, the entertainment to keep them coming, the programs to satisfy their non-spiritual needs, and the like. All of the things which are causing the problems in the church seem to stem from the whole idea that evangelism is a corporate church obligation, not an individual one.

We need to get back to the idea that the church is supposed to be a gathering of believers for their spiritual growth and worship of God. It is not meant to be an outreach to unbelievers. I believe the reason this is becoming a problem is due to numbers. The churches are getting smaller and smaller, and the pastors cannot continue to serve them without a congregation sufficiently large enough to employ them. Many work second jobs to be able to be pastors. Rather than realize that if the individuals of the church were doing as they should, being prayer warriors and going out and evangelizing and discipling individually and bringing the converts into the church as believers, they are fixing the problem by bringing in unbelievers through any means available to fill the pews and the offering plates. And the unbelievers want the church to change to suit their needs if they are to stay. They do not realize the church is not there to serve their needs. It is there to serve God and equip the saints. And so things which do not belong in the church become what the church is all about. And so apostasy reigns.

We have lost the ability to trust God in favor of trusting our own abilities to manipulate circumstances, by compromising. This never works when one is seeking God's favor. It really boils down to the individual people in the Church (and the church) and their walk with God. We have lost our way in favor of having itching ears. We have lost the idea of holiness and obedience. We have no desire to personally spread the gospel, and we do not study or pray. When the Church is in trouble, then the church is in trouble. And the Church is in trouble.

Christianity, It's A Lifestyle. (?)

The other day, a relative of mine posted one of those posters with a catchy statement that keeps getting reposted on Facebook, and this is what it said.

"Attending Church every Sunday does not make you a Christian. How you live your life outside of the walls and off of the pews tells the whole story. It's a lifestyle." I immediately made a comment on that statement, then my curiosity got the better of me and I started scrolling down to look at the other comments. I only read about eighty of them, but with the exception of two others who said what I said, people focused on two different aspects of the statement. Most seemed to focus on the subject of church attendance and defended how important it was that attending church was necessary if people were Christians. The second aspect was that if you are a Christian, it should not be just a Sunday thing, but be a lifestyle.

What occurred to me was that all of these people had completely missed the point. Being a Christian does not have anything to do with church attendance, nor does observing a lifestyle necessarily make you one. A person can still be a Christian and not attend church. Many people have had to do that over the millennia, as they had to stay in hiding about their faith or be killed. Many still have to do that in some countries. As for the second aspect, I have seen many people in a number of denominations and even cults, who live a lifestyle that is moral and Christian-like, and these people are not necessarily saved, because they either believe in a works salvation, or they do not believe that Jesus is God incarnate who died for their sins. Yet their lives are very pure, even moreso than some Christians'.

What everyone missed, with the exception of two other people, was the fact that becoming a Christian only comes about through one way. That way is having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. A relationship is not dependent upon regular attendance at a church, for this is an impossibility for some people in certain situations. We are not to forsake getting together with other believers to encourage and exhort each other, but that is not the same as attending an organized church on a weekly basis for formal services. If the church is in apostasy, it is far better to not attend and just gather with those who are like-minded for home services or Bible studies.

As for the lifestyle part, yes, a true Christian's lifestyle should reflect their faith, but the reverse is not necessarily true. You cannot make the statement that a person who has a moral lifestyle is in truth a born again believer, for some cults deny Christ, yet they live very moral lifestyles, attend their church regularly, and do good works. Even some people who do not have any religious beliefs may live moral lifestyles and do good works, simply because that is how they were brought up, or how they choose to live.

The only thing that determines whether or not you are a Christian is whether or not you have a personal relationship with the Father through Christ Jesus. This is the only definition of a Christian. So the statements "Attending Church every Sunday does not make you a Christian. How you live your life outside of the walls and off of the pews tells the whole story. It's a lifestyle," are misleading statements. The first part is true, as church attendance does not determine whether or not you have accepted Christ as your Savior. Church attendance is not even a gauge, for many devout Christians are walking away from the churches due to the apostasy there. The second part, as to how you live your life outside of church tells the whole story, is a false statement. Many people live perfectly moral lives totally outside of the Christian faith. The third part, that it is a lifestyle is ambiguous. The believer should  live a lifestyle that reflects God, but a lifestyle does not determine whether or not the person is a believer.

The fact that out of eighty responses, I only saw two that realized the error in this message and what the truth really was bothered me. It means that only two and a half percent of the people reading that post (of those that I read), who consider themselves Christians, understood what real salvation is based upon, a relationship. Neither church attendance nor a lifestyle will make you a Christian. It is now much easier to understand what Christ meant when He said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23. Many people who believe they are headed to heaven may not get there, for they are counting on the church (and their faithful attendance) or their lifestyle (of being a good person) to get them there. They do not really know Christ, for you can only know Him when you have a relationship with Him. In that day  He will not recognize them.

The Gift of Tongues - Good or Bad?

I have tackled a lot of controversial issues in this blog, but until now I have not felt led to write on one which has been controversial since the beginning of Christianity. What prompted me to write now was that God brought it to my attention, via a video that someone had made, that it was a subject that I needed to address, so I will address it. That subject is one of the gifts of the Spirit. I have already discussed the gift of prophecy in my article on the existence or not of prophets today, and I will address the others gifts in time, but for today I want to address the subject of tongues. Of all the gifts, this is the one about which there seems to be the greatest controversy. It is odd in a way that this should be, for of all the gifts, and there is a fair list of them, this is considered to probably be the least valuable. Yet it is the one which so many clamor to get, proudly declare they have, insinuate that people aren't saved if they don't have it, practitioners get bashed by others who say it no longer exists, and no matter who is talking about it, is controversial. Why is this gift, which Paul suggests as less important than others, such a hot button? Why has it reached an elevated status above all other gifts?  For that answer we need to look at what the Scriptures have to say about it.

The first mention of it is by Christ when He appeared to the disciples after the resurrection and was sending them out to evangelize the world.  Mark 16:17 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues."  This is a reference to the new ability which would first occur with the giving of the gift of tongues at Pentecost. Acts 2:3-4 "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance,"  From that point forward the disciples (who would then be apostles) would carry the gospel out into the entire world, including countries with languages which they did not speak. Having the gift of tongues was a necessity to spread the gospel as quickly as possible. When Christ said believers would speak with new tongues, He meant tongues of other known languages. Acts 2:8-11 "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." 

Now so far, the indication is that the only tongues they are speaking are known tongues. Not ones learned by the apostles, but known to the world. Nothing is said about the tongues being a heavenly language which nobody can understand. These are all established languages which people are miraculously speaking having never studied them. And the purpose at this point is to enable the gospel to go forth into all the world as per the great commission given by Christ to the apostles. These tongues were understood by someone. They were not gibberish.

The next time we see tongues, it is again in the book of Acts 10:44-47 "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.  And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.  For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

In this incident, the Holy spirit gave the gift of tongues to some Gentiles who believed. The purpose of this seems to be for a sign. In particular it is a sign for the Jews, who were astonished that God was accepting the Gentiles as equal believers along with them, for Peter states what the result of them hearing these people speak in tongues is - their acceptance of them. It is the evidence that the Holy Spirit is doing the same for the Gentiles as He did for the Jews, so the Jews must accept the Gentiles as equals. Had there not been some sort of sign from God, there is probably no way the Jews would have accepted them as equals and heirs of salvation, because they were astonished that God would do so. There had to be a sign from God for them to accept the Gentiles. 1 Corinthians 1:22 " For the Jews require a sign," and  1 Corinthians 14:22a "Wherefore tongues are for a sign,"  Now as we must only interpret what we read within the parameters of what we have already learned, we have to still conclude that these are known or recognizable languages that these people are speaking. Had they not been, the apostles would probably have accused them of faking it by just speaking gibberish or being demonically controlled. They recognized that these people were indeed speaking other languages, which they could not have known, and thus they were being indwelt by the Holy Spirit just as they had been at Pentecost. So now we can conclude that tongues have two purposes. They were for the purpose of spreading the gospel quickly to people of other nations and languages, and they were a sign for the Jews that God was accepting the Gentiles as equals in His kingdom.

The next case of speaking in tongues is found in Acts 19:1-6 "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,  He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Paul finds some disciples and asks if they have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, since they believed. His question indicates that the normal thing has now become that when a person accepts the Lord, they are immediately indwelt by the Spirit at that time. As this is the normal understanding that we have as to what happens upon receiving the Lord today, this seems a little strange to us that it had not happened, but note that these people had never heard about the Holy Spirit, so would not have understood what was happening. They needed to have understanding first, so the Holy Spirit held off indwelling them until they could learn. I also want to point out that at no time yet has this been referred to, as is common upon some churches today, as a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" as in a separate manifestation beyond being initially indwelt. This has merely been the normal receiving of the Holy Spirit to be indwelt, even though it came later than the belief. The only baptisms going on so far are water baptisms: John's and in the name of the Lord. The Holy Spirit is given to them along with the gift of prophecy when Paul lays hands upon them. What occurs for them at this point is the receiving of the Spirit that one normally gets upon believing. Now notice too, that it is not just tongues which are given, and again there is no indication that these are anything but known languages as previously stated, but they are also given the gift of prophesy, which Paul later says is the most valuable gift.

In Corinthians 12 we finally come to the passage that most people are aware of when speaking of tongues. I will put in bold print the things which will be addressed below.

"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.  Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.  Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;  To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.  For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.  For the body is not one member, but many.  If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?  And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?  If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?  But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.  And if they were all one member, where were the body?  But now are they many members, yet but one body.  And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:  And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.  For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:  That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.  And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.  Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.  Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?  Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?  But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

In this passage we find Paul talking about the gifts of the Spirit. The first thing he says is that we should not be ignorant concerning them. He does not just mean ignorant as to what the gifts are, but ignorant as to how to use them, or how to treat them. In other words, they are to be used properly and according to the rules which we will see later, and they are not to be treated as if one is all important and the others are not.

The next statement of note is that Paul says there are diversities of gifts. In other words, not everyone is going to get the same gift. Again I repeat, more loudly, NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO GET THE SAME GIFT. There are many gifts and many means of administrating them, and many ways of them operating. He then states that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is given to everyone. So everyone is going to have some kind of manifestation, but not everyone is going to have the same manifestation. Now as we have already been told that there are many gifts, and then that the Holy Spirit manifests Himself in every believer, we must conclude that the Holy Spirit will manifest Himself in each believer through a different gift upon belief. So there should be no theology in which people say that if you don't receive a certain gift  (namely tongues), you have not been "baptized" in the Holy Spirit.

There is one indwelling whether you want to call it an indwelling, a manifestation, or a baptism.There is one time at which the gifts are given according to what we have read so far. The one time that it is mentioned that it was not given at the time of belief, it was because they did not know about the indwelling of the Spirit and needed to learn about it first. Supernatural gifts may manifest immediately as above, or possibly it might take a particular situation for it to manifest, however not every gift has a supernatural manifestation. They will manifest as people involve themselves in the congregation and that gift becomes needed. Teaching will not be a miraculous manifestation, nor will most gifts. One thing is certain, people should not expect a miraculous manifestation of a particular gift (tongues) beyond the gift they are given, to prove they have been indwelt. If you are going to be "filled," as the term is applied to differentiate it from being indwelt, you will be filled with your own gift. Your gift is your gift not someone else's and you receive it when you are indwelt at the time of belief. You may manifest it at various and multiple times and you obviously should, but you are not given one gift to use, and then given another to prove you are saved.

Nothing in Scripture indicates there is a special outpouring of only one gift (namely tongues) weeks, months, or years after salvation which signifies that someone is filled with the Spirit. We will manifest our own gift in power when we are "filled" with the Spirit. When we realize what our gift that we have been given is, we should not expect to see that gift in every other believer. We might find it in some, for these gifts are given to each congregation for a reason, but we may be the only person in our local assembly with that gift. The reason being that God gave gifts as it pleased Him to do so, so that the entire body might be whole. Paul points out that the foot, hand, ear, and eye are all part of the body, and the body needs all those parts. The foot can't be the hand nor should he want to be. The ear is not the eye, nor should he want to be. But if there were only feet or only hands or only eyes or ears, what kind of body would it be? Not a useful one, that is for certain. We need all the parts of our body to function properly, and the body of Christ needs all the parts to function properly too. And it is not just the body universal that needs these gifts, the local assembly needs to have a diversity of gifts, so that it can function. They cannot all do the same job. What good would a hospital be if everyone wanted to be the administrator? Every gift plays its part, and all are important in the whole.

Paul first lists some gifts in the middle of this passage. They are word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discernment, tongues, and interpretations. Then at the end of this passage he gives a list of gifts apparently in the order of their priority. I hate to say in importance, because all parts of the body are important, but some will take more precedence in the functioning of the entire body as a whole, while some serve smaller parts of the body at a time. He lists apostles as the first in priority. The original apostles were the missionaries who had known the Lord personally and carried the gospel to all parts of the world. As the apostles brought the gospel to the world, this was and is the first priority gift, as spreading the gospel was and still is the main priority. This is followed by prophets or the gift of prophecy. These were and are the people to whom the Lord gives the ability to 1) see sin before others see it 2) who know the Word well, so that they know when it is being twisted or corrupted, 3) are given God's warnings to pass on, and 4) might be shown some things of the future. These things are crucial gifts for the local body, so that they might keep deception and sin out of the church and warn the congregation if God is going to punish them for some sin, so they can repent. The next important gift is teaching. Everyone needs to study the Word of God, so that they might learn the Word and be discerning Bereans to rightly divide it to avoid error, and be able to give a defense for their belief,  and most importantly learn about God's prophecies of the Second Coming. There are some gifted with teaching these things, as not everyone is a scholar, but you would not want a church with nothing but teachers. After those are the gifts that would be applied individually or to smaller situations, unlike the previous three which are for the entire body. There are the gift of miracles, healing, helps, government (administrative talents) and finally tongues. In both lists tongues is listed at the end of the list. This is probably because it is the least useful in terms of edifying the church, regardless of what some churches today want to believe. Now this is still only a partial list of the gifts, but they will be covered in another article.

The next mention of tongues is when Paul continues on from the last verse which said, "and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." He is about to talk about love being the greatest of all the gifts, for all these other gifts will cease one day, but love will never cease. But within this passage he still talks about tongues, so it is necessary to look at those two verses

1 Corinthians 13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

1 Corinthians 13:8 "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease, whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away,

The first verse talks about the tongues of men and of angels. We know man has a diversity of languages, but here we are told that there is a language that the angels speak. In this verse Paul is not saying that he does or we can speak with that language. He is saying that if even he were to speak with a diversity of tongues including that of the angels, and did not have love, they would be useless for even if they were understood, nobody would hear anything that was being said, for people watch what we do before they listen to what we say. It is not a definitive statement that he or any person can talk in the tongue of the angels. He is saying if he were to do so, for if you take the "though" as a definitive that he does, then you must also take as a definitive that he does not have charity or love, for the connecting word is "and," not "but" or "or."  He is making the hyperbole that if his gift were even so great that he could understand and speak in the tongues of the angels (which would be quite a gift, for only the angels would understand and benefit from it, man would not), it would be worthless without love.

In the next verse, he states that the gifts will eventually cease, and tongues is one of them. Some people believe that they already have, for the next two verses say "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." These people believe that "the perfect" that was to come was the completion of the Bible with the New Testament. This does not work however as an interpretation, because we are told that in the end times people will prophesy, and since prophesying is included in this verse, it cannot mean the completion of the Bible. Acts 2:17 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." Therefore we know that the gift of tongues is still in existence and will be until "the perfect" or the Lord's Kingdom comes.

Now in the next chapter, which is the last discussion the Bible has on tongues, Paul makes some comments that make it apparent that he is somewhat frustrated with them, and sets out some rules about the use of the gift of tongues. Apparently the church at Corinth was abusing it in several ways. Again, due to the length of this passage, I will put some highlights in bold print.

1 Corinthians 14:1-28, 33, 39 "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.  There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.  Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.  For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:  And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.  How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.  If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.  But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.... For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints......Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues."

The first thing Paul does in this passage is to tell them that they need to do everything in love, for this issue was apparently becoming a matter of disagreement among them. Then he tells them that they should desire to have spiritual gifts, but more importantly they should desire to have the gift of prophecy. Prophecy is the most edifying for the church. Right here, this statement should stop people from making tongues a hallmark of being filled by the Spirit and desiring it for themselves and pressuring others to want it as a sign of being filled by the Spirit.  Paul says the gift they should be desiring is prophecy, for it is the most useful for the church, which is the point of the gifts in the first place. The purpose of gifts is for the edification of the church, not for the edification of or more commonly today, the puffing up of an individual due to pride.

Tongues in particular is the topic under discussion, and his comments make it clear that it has become a problem. First he clarifies that when you speak in an unknown tongue (now note he means unknown in that nobody is a native speaker or has learned the language, not that it is a non-earthly language that nobody would know) nobody understands (unless there is a native speaker of that language or an interpreter), so he who speaks in tongues is not speaking to men, or for the edification of the congregation, but only to God, for the only one in the congregation that understands it is God. What the Spirit is saying is a mystery to anyone but God, under these circumstances. This basically means that God is talking to Himself, which does not hold much edification for man, nor would there seem to be any purpose in God doing that. The only man who might be edified is the man who is doing the speaking in tongues. But now we have to consider, how is that edifying to the person if they do not understand a single thing they are saying? Well, to just experience the filling of the Spirit would be an uplifting experience emotionally and spiritually in the sense that you realize the presence of the Lord, but other than that, you would not learn anything or get any answers to questions you might have, or have any intellectual input whatsoever. The experience would be more one of feelings of elation than anything else. The problem with this is that if a person gets addicted to the feeling, they might start manufacturing an experience to get a rush of feelings, so that they can have a "high" as they say. Coupled with that is the danger of pride creeping in and the person beginning to think that somehow they are superior, because they are having this supernatural experience which others are not having. And indeed, this seems to have been one of the problems that this church was experiencing. People were all wanting to have this experience and it appears it was becoming the "in" thing to do it.

Then Paul makes a comment that people quickly refer to, to defend wanting everyone to speak in tongues. Paul says that he wishes that they all spoke in tongues. Unfortunately people stop there and do not read the rest of the sentence, for he also says that he would rather that they prophesy. His meaning is not that he wants everyone to talk in tongues, because that is the greatest gift. He is saying that he wishes that everyone would at least have this minor gift, so that they would at the very least have personal edification, however, he would rather that they have the greater gift which would edify the entire church. He makes one caveat as to the gift of tongues having any edification for the church and its usefulness as such and that is if there is someone there to interpret. This would require that someone understand the tongue, which still indicates it is a known language, not some unknown gibberish that nobody could comprehend. Today many people think that if they simply speak in tongues, that is the whole point of the gift. Paul says that if you speak in tongues, (and it must be interpreted) it is only of any profit if it gives a revelation, knowledge, a prophecy, or doctrine. Otherwise it is not of any use whatsoever. Unless what is being said is understood and has some content of importance, you might as well just be talking into thin air, for it is completely useless.

Paul continues by saying that there are many languages in the world (now again here when he is referring to the gift of tongues, he is speaking of known languages which someone speaks), but unless someone can understand it, you have no communication at all. You merely appear to be a barbarian to the person listening, speaking a bunch of gibberish. They were apparently zealous to have spiritual gifts, but most particularly tongues, so Paul tells them, that if they are so zealous for the gifts, they should want to get the one which will edify the church. If they do get the gift of tongues, to make it of any use, they should pray that they also get the gift of interpretation. Paul now mentions tongues in the context of having it manifest during prayer. This is the first time that it is mentioned that tongues manifests through prayer and not just when one is speaking. Up until now, tongues manifested to allow them to preach to people of other languages, when people heard the word and believed, or by the laying on of hands. So now we know that tongues can manifest during prayer. Now when Paul refers to speaking in tongues while praying, he has just said that they should pray that they can interpret, for he now says that if one prays in tongues, the spirit may be praying, but the mind is unfruitful. He then tells them that they should instead pray with the spirit and the mind, so that there can be understanding. We are to prefer to pray normally than in tongues. It is preferable to do so. This would negate the idea that some people have that praying in tongues is a far more spiritual and superior way to pray. The reason for tongues not being preferable is that nobody can be edified except perhaps the person speaking. 

Paul declares that he is glad he speaks tongues more than any of them. Why would he say this, if he feels that tongues is not that useful a gift? It is for the same reason that occurs today. People who speak in tongues (or think they are speaking in tongues) tend to get an attitude of superiority over other Christians who do not speak in tongues. It causes a lot of division and hard feelings, which obviously was happening in this church. He is glad he speaks in tongues, because he cannot be accused of being jealous and saying those things our of resentment. He is saying tongues is not all that valuable as a gift in the church, because it is the truth,  not because he is jealous. To make the point clear, he says that in church he would rather speak five words that people understand than ten thousand words that they don't. Clearly speaking in tongues is something that he really does not put much importance upon, as far as serving the church. It appears to be at this point a self-edifying gift, more than a missionary tool, or a sign to the Jews, which then makes it of no use to the church. As the original intent of the gift was as a missionary tool, or as a sign to the Jews, it is not pertinent or useful for it to be a gift within a local assembly. They all speak the same language, and they were by now understanding that Gentiles and Jews were both equal in God's eyes when it comes to salvation. Therefore it was not of much use unless, as he said earlier, it was interpreted and had a prophecy or doctrine or something useful such as that to relate to the church.

Now Paul chastises them and tells them to not be like childish in their understanding. He then takes them back to the Old Testament Scriptures which say that God has prophecies that with people of other tongues He would speak to His people, yet they would not hear Him. This is what was happening. Israel was rejecting the gospel, so the gospel was going forth into other lands and languages to the Gentiles, and would eventually have to come back to Israel via these other languages and nations or via the Gentiles. Paul is emphasizing that when God speaks about tongues, He is talking about the gospel being preached in other languages, and that tongues was given to serve that purpose, not really as some sort of personal experience to get worked up over. Tongues was not to be a sign for believers, (that they were saved),  but as a sign for those who did not believe, in other words as previously mentioned, the Jews, to show that God was working through the Gentiles. Then he again reiterates that prophecy was the gift for believers.

Now Paul mentions another problem that this is causing. Everyone in the church was apparently trying to speak in tongues (just as today people can "manifest" this through faking it due to peer pressure). This was creating chaos and he says that if someone who is an unbeliever or does not know the Scriptures comes in, and they are all talking away in tongues, it will merely make the visitors think that they are all crazy. However, if someone comes in and hears prophesying, the things that are said will convince and convict and thereby bring them to salvation. Therefore when they come together everyone should bring their own gift (and he does include tongues in here) and exercise those gifts for the edification of the church. And here he lays down some rules about tongues. If someone does speak in tongues, if that truly is their gift, then at the most there should only be two or three that do it at a service, and only if there is an interpreter there to make known what is said. And then they should not do it at the same time, but take turns in an orderly fashion. If there is no interpreter, then they are to keep their mouths shut. If even just this last rule were followed, this rule alone would shut down a tremendous amount of the speaking in tongues that is going on in some churches.

Finally Paul relents and says that they should not forbid anyone to speak in tongues, for it is a gift, and it does have its place as long as the rules are followed, however, he says that instead of wanting this gift, they should really be desiring that God would give them the gift of prophecy.

So in covering all the verses in the New Testament about the gift of tongues we see that 1) they are known languages  2) it is the least important of the gifts, unless there is an interpreter and the message is one of knowledge, prophecy, doctrine or revelation 3) it is only one of many gifts, so will not be given to everyone 4) it is really a missionary tool, either to spread the gospel or to be a sign to the Jews, and of not much use for the edification of the church 5) it is really a personal edification gift if you pray in tongues, and even then if you can't interpret you probably shouldn't be doing it as it is far preferable to pray with understanding 6) there are rules for its use 7) it is not a sign for the believer, so therefore it should not be used as one - do not judge a person's salvation status by whether or not they speak in tongues and 8) while Paul mentions that there is an angelic language, there really is no indication that this is a language available for speaking in tongues. It would serve no purpose as the angels do not need the gospel and that was the purpose of tongues - to spread the gospel. Nor do they need a sign to recognize that someone is accepted by God, as they are not unbelievers. So there is no such confirmation in Scripture that speaking in tongues is a heavenly unknown angelic tongue called "prayer language" as people like to call it.

As a last warning, I have personally been aware of the fact that speaking in tongues can be demonic, as well as from the Holy Spirit. This may be another reason why Paul said that if there is no interpreter they should keep their mouths shut, for if you speak or pray with no understanding, and you are not sure of whom spirit is which is talking, you have no idea what garbage may be coming out of your mouth. A true incident I would like to relate is when the brother (who was a pastor) of my college roommate was visiting a church that practiced the gift of tongues, because he was curious about it as it was not a practice of his church, he heard at least one person speaking in a tongue he was able to understand. And what that person was saying was that Satan was their god and they were cursing Jesus and the Father. And all around this person people were praising God for this person speaking in tongues. He did not interpret for them, as he was very disturbed by it, and rightfully so. Their lack of discernment was causing the entire congregation to blaspheme God. This is the problem with desiring a gift that you have not actually been given. Satan will use your desire and pride to give you what you want, and blaspheme through you. If you speak in tongues and cannot interpret, then be very aware that the thrill you feel when you do so might not be coming from the Lord, but be a feeling that Satan is instilling in you to make you do this over and over, so he can mock both you and God. Do not think you are above being deceived, for pride goeth before destruction and it seems that this particular gift causes many to have pride in it. If you speak in tongues, pray that you might interpret or be very careful. Remember it is preferable to pray with understanding, rather than to get a "high" off of it.

What Are Christians To Do About These New Gender Neutral Laws?

In America there has recently arisen a huge controversy over gender specific bathrooms. I do not know how the rest of the world handles this problem, but let me explain how things used to be in America.

Public bathrooms mainly take the form of gender specific, being fairly non-private once inside the gender specific room. The men's room has multiple urinals on the wall with a few stalls with doors that have toilets in them. The women's bathroom have multiple stalls with toilets and both bathrooms have several or a row of sinks. Now these stalls are not what you would call completely private. They do not begin at the floor, but about a foot or so above it. The tops of the stalls end at about six feet from the floor, so just above a woman's head height. There are small gaps between the doors and the door jambs where they are hinged together, so that one can glance in to see if a stall is occupied, without having to test the door.  One can look under or over the stall without too much difficulty if one is inclined to do so. One can even crawl from stall to stall by sliding underneath the partitions. So privacy is a relative term here.

There are some places who have created separate family/handicap/non-gendered bathrooms in addition to or in place of the gender specific bathrooms. These are rooms large enough to accommodate wheelchairs and a few people comfortably (so a parent can take in multiple children),  which simply have a single handicap facilitated toilet, sink, and baby changing station, rather than multiple toilets and sinks. This is your basically like your home bathroom. But these kind of bathrooms are the exception and unusual and not the rule.

The ruling has come down that now there should be no such thing as gender specific bathrooms and that you can choose to go into whichever one you identify with, regardless of the gender of body you are actually inhabiting. Needless to say the LGBT people are very happy about this, but the vast majority of people are not, especially parents of small children.

In addition to this, the schools (and public gym type businesses) are opening the locker rooms (where in many schools there are rows of showers with no curtains) to either gender, so girls/women can go shower with boys/men and vice versa. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where there might be a problem with this. 

So where is a Christian supposed to stand on this issue? Many are speaking out about it and saying that we should not be tolerating this. They are concerned that this is going to lead to abusive situations with voyeurs and pedophiles. In fact it already has as men are going in with cameras and taking pictures. Parents are terrified of allowing their children to go into a bathroom or locker room alone, and with good reason. Pedophiles are naturally going to take advantage of this and use it to provide resources for their sins and perversions. How some people can ignore the safety of children to force people to cater to their "feelings" is beyond my comprehension.

Other Christians are on the fence saying that we should just pray and do what is "right." By being "on the fence" I mean that they aren't sure that these issues are sins, so therefore they do not want to judge or be less than loving toward these people with these issues as they feel that tolerance toward their sin is the preferable way of representing Christ. Funny that I don't remember Christ ever telling people that their sin was okay with Him. He forgave them, yes, and we should not hate the sinner ever, but He also always followed offering forgiveness with the command to "go and sin no more." He didn't tolerate the sin, He forgave it, but warned them to not continue in it. So Christians who are equating tolerance with love are sadly mistaken in what they are doing. We cannot tell them that their sin is not a sin, for that is not honest. We need to tell them that their sin is a sin, but that Christ forgives sin and that we all have sins that need forgiving. Our problem has become that we are no longer labeling certain sins as sins, and in that we cross from being loving in Christ to being an enemy of Christ, for we no longer stand for what He stands for.

The second thing that these people say, and I can agree with this, for prayer is a mighty and powerful weapon against the enemy, is that prayer is necessary. The problem has become, that while they give this lip service, people are not really praying. How can I know this? Because this country is not changing. God has said in 2 Chronicles 7:14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."   If Christians really were on their knees praying, we would see change in this land. But the only change we see is that things are getting more ungodly every day. That would force the conclusion that Christians are not praying at all. Or the alternative to that, which might be the more accurate conclusion, is that their prayers are hindered and not heard. Why is that? Because when we have sin in the way, God cannot hear our prayers for they are hindered by our disobedience. The Church today is in great apostasy. God is not hearing the prayers of those who so disregard His Word and His standards.

The last problem is when a Christian says that we should do what is "right." What exactly is meant by that? Do they mean do what is tolerant? Or do they mean do what is right in God's eyes? Which one is the "right" way? Which one is truly the loving way? Is condoning sin loving? Or it is more loving to tell people the truth, that what they are doing is sin and if they don't repent of sin, it will lead them to hell? It may seem more loving to be tolerant, for when one is tolerant, one will find that people who want to sin will react back in a loving manner, for they are not feeling that their behavior is coming under condemnation. As love is being returned to the Christian, they feel that they have been loving themselves. But this is not the definition of real love. On the other hand, a Christian who stands up and proclaims God's Word, which is the most loving thing you can do, and condemns sin will always be hated. For we are told that the world will hate us, if we choose to stand for God. I think that is the real situation here. Christians are afraid. They are afraid of taking a stand for Christ, because that will bring persecution. How much easier to stay quiet and be seen to be tolerant and loving so that you do not have to fear the hate that the world will give you for standing for Christ.

Matthew 10:22 " And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

Matthew 24:9 "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

Mark 13:13 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

Luke 21:17 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake."

John 15:18 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."

There are many Christians who say that we should not judge others, for we ourselves are not without sin. Well, there is judging and there is judging, as they say. It is not our place to decide the motives of another person's heart, nor are we to absolutely declare that a person is going to hell, for many have had deathbed conversions in spite of the life they have led. And we are not to worry about an unbelievers particular sin, for the objective is to share the gospel. With believers that changes. We are supposed to watch their behavior and if it needs correcting, we are to speak to them about it. God lays out a procedure for how to handle that starting with a one on one conversation to removing them from the church.However, we can say with absolute authority and without judgment that there are behaviors that are called sins by God and we are to state what those are regardless of whom we are addressing. We do not just condemn others in doing that, we condemn ourselves as well, for none of us are without sin. What is happening is that people are not distinguishing between condemning the sin and condemning the sinner.

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:10 "As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one."  There is not a single one of us that is without sin, so we should not act with a self-righteous attitude toward the sinners when we speak out against sin. But we are to speak out against sinful behavior. What is happening nowadays is that sin is no longer being labeled as sin in some cases, and the main subject where that is happening is where sex and gender come into question. Christians are buying into the lie that these behaviors, which God calls perversions and the depravity of man, are being said to be genetic problems, not the sin nature of man or the giving over of oneself to demonic control. They are making excuses for these perversions in complete disregard of what the Scriptures clearly teach on the subject. (See my articles on transgenderism and homosexuality in the archives.) Even when shown what the Bible says, many will cling to the "evidence" and I use that term very loosely of "science" and I use that term very loosely also, as being the last word on the subject, and therefore they must act in tolerance of these sins, so that they are being Christ-like. They see those who take a stand against these sins as being very hateful and unloving, and very unChrist-like. I think they have forgotten what Christ did in the temple when He overthrew all the tables of the merchandisers, because they were robbing the people blind. He was also not very nice to the Pharisees. Somehow His behavior in the face of blatant sinners who would not acknowledge that what they were doing was a sin has been swept under the carpet. Yes, the sinners who fell at His feet in repentance got a loving response from Him, although it was followed with a warning. But they acknowledged their sin. They knew they needed forgiveness. They were not arrogant in His face. The Pharisees and moneychangers were. And He reacted quite differently to them. If we are to act in the same manner as Christ, we are not to tolerate blatant sin that is going on with no acknowledgment that they are doing anything wrong. We are to cry out, "The Emperor has no clothes on." (For those of you who don't understand that, check out the children's story The Emperor's New Clothes.")  It is the non-politically correct thing to do, but it is the truth. And we will stand out for saying it. And we will be hated for saying it.

In a public statement that I made, I suggested that as we are being ignored and our voice is not heard in this matter, that to be heard we must carry out the passive (not aggressive) actions of withdrawing our support of those institutions who are taking up this cause. We need to boycott the stores, we need to pull our children out of the public government assisted schools (for their government assistance is based upon their enrollment numbers). One reaction I received to this was that we needed to pray and do the RIGHT thing. (Caps were the commenters, not mine.) So as I said above, if what I suggested is not the right thing, to speak out to keep the genders as created by God separate, to protect the modesty, privacy, and safety of adults and especially children, and show our passive disapproval in our actions, then what is the RIGHT way?

It was once said that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." By sitting back and saying we are praying (when many really aren't, they merely are saying that to look more righteous - and the proof of that is that nothing is changing) and then taking no action, because to do something is seen by the world as being hateful and intolerant, we are doing nothing.  Evil continues to triumph because Christians are mistaking tolerance (out of fear for their safety) in place of real love, which is to proclaim God's love and God's wrath. I fear evil is triumphing, because Christians tremble in fear. If they fear reprisals from the LGBT group for not approving gender neutral bathrooms, what will they do in the face of the antichrist and his demands and wrath?