Reevaluating Christian sexuality and holiness.

I’d like to speak out on an issue of great controversy. I know that many people will not agree with me. But one great concern I have is with the Gnostic understanding of spirituality prevalent today in evangelical Christianity.

What is Gnosticism? The popular group was a half-Christian half-Platonic/pagan religion that appeared in the early church. They stressed among other things the complete distinction of spiritual and physical with physical matter being evil while spirits were always good.

Many Christians in the early centuries of the Christianity added Gnostic ideas to the faith. And soon many of these false teachings were translated into Christian doctrine. Augustine was one culprit who occasionally added Gnostic ideas to the faith; and unlike his predecessor Origen most of his ideas stuck with the western Church. Augustine was given a great standing among Christian community. Yet before, he had converted He was a teacher Neo-Platonism. (Confessions of St. Augustine)

One of the doctrines, which he was responsible for was the belief, which Catholics would adopt, stated that sex is the original sin. Many Christians would catch on to this view of sexuality. They would go on argue for the Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity of Mary. Because they argued that since Mary was the mother of Jesus she had nothing do with sex, ever. Also, the Bible book “Song of Solomon” which was about sexual love between a young married couple was reinterpreted as a book of God’s Love for his people. This became a very awkward interpretation since God would have erotic desires and fantasies toward the church. Some theologians even argued that Adam did not have a penis when originally created.

Also the practice of Monasticism formed out of Egypt, a region popular for Neo-platonic and Gnostic philosophy. They practiced isolation and permanent celibacy. The Catholic Church at first was concerned but then decided to impose monasticism upon all church laity. Soon, this was a normative view of sex.

However, Catholicism has always struggled with hypocrisy as a result. Many Monks early on were guilty of castration (burning off their genitals). This was considered heretical by the early church since our sexual organs are part of our body which is created in the image of God. Many priests in the medieval times were known coming to prostitutes. In fact, many Catholic countries are well known for having an above average rate of prostitution. In the last century thousands of priest in America alone have resorted to Child molestation, homosexuality or both. And a recent poll in Ireland, showed that more 50% of active priest have been sexually active while priest.

The problem with this view of sex is that it does treat sexuality as a natural part of God’s universe. God not only created the process of sex, but made it a natural part of God’s universe

In fact, the Bible mentions sex as the very first commandment given to man.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The Bible contradicts many of the sexual teachings of Catholicism like imposed celibacy.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

In the evangelical movement, we have moved away from many of these Catholic doctrines, and yet many beliefs and practices remain and are making a comeback.

In reaction to the secular sexual revolution churches and youth ministries are putting an emphases upon abstinence and remain a virgin before marriage. This I believe is the right thing to do. However, these movements have had a tendency to dominate youth ministries.

When I was a youth the subject of virginity was the dominant topic of my youth ministry experience even above evangelism. In fact, I don’t remember any Bible doctrines discussed in detail outside of this doctrine. There was discussion of believing, justification, eternal security, confessing our faith, prayer, worship, dependence on God and that was about it. The focus was on morality/virginity, getting saved, witnessing (and repeat)! This was not unique of my church either. This is what I have seen from the majority of youth ministries of which I have heard and of which I have ministered alongside.

As I went through Bible College the emphases on chastity multiplied. Now the emphases was not just waiting as far as sexual relations goes but no copulation or “making out”, and for many even kissing and dancing. There was a large movement in the dorms to be totally free from masturbation some of them nicknamed it “going on strike (!)”. Many rules have been added in light of sexual scares. Many argue that a man should never be left alone with a women or minors. I even knew one church that had a policy of firing ministers if they were found alone in the same room as someone from the opposite sex. (Remember, not necessarily in an awkward position, just sharing air space.) Now there are even some that argue that you should never date until you are married. I noticed that many of these types of people had a large emphasis on these subjects but when the subjects of Biblical interpretation were discussed it was deemed socially incorrect. For them spirituality is about emotion prayer and chastity.

The emphasis on virginity has become an even taller hurdle in our culture, not just because society has become covered sexual messages, but because the normal age has been stretched to even older averages. ( late 20’s to mid 30’s) as opposed to early 20’s. Remember how many celibacy advocates look up to Mary as their role model? Most scholars agree that she was between 13-15 when she had Jesus and was then married. ( Not to mention the fact that she several children. I waited for marriage until I was 26. That means I was a virgin longer than Mary!

The danger of this kind of sexual teaching is strong. Raising up high goals for a highly tempted society is a recipe for hypocrisy. I remember speaking with a young woman who was in a youth group that I had helped in leading years ago. She had felt compelled to leave the church because of the shame heaped upon her for getting pregnant. She told me very sincerely that she practiced her faith just the same as the rest of the youth. Her friends in the youth were preaching chastity but were sexually active with their boyfriends and girlfriends. Then one day she got pregnant the youth minister’s wife said some hurtful things according to her and she was so offended by the hypocrisy she left the church that her family and herself had went all her life. She has since married the father. It’s one thing to get after Christians over pre-marital sex but if only the pregnant are chastised, then you only have a condemnation of their children. This is a problem of hypocrisy. By the way Children are a blessing from God.

Psa 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

Psa 127:4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

Psa 127:5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

This reaction to temptation I believe is feeding sin more than stopping it. I wonder if this wasn’t the starting point for ministers who have fallen in sexual sin such as Ted Haggard.

So how she would approach sexuality? First let us understand some issues.

First, we should understand what is biblical and what is not. The Bible does have rather high standards of sexuality, though not impossible ones.

The Bible teaches that we should not have sex outside of marriage. (The term fornication is sex outside of marriage.

1Co 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

The Bible does teach that we should not lust either.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Now some people gather several misconceptions. First of all, Jesus did not say lust is the same as adultery. He said it was the same as adultery of the heart. Otherwise women would be divorcing their husbands because as soon as they lusted it in their head it would be ok to rip apart the family. However to lust is to perform adultery in our minds. Since we should not act out adultery we should not fantasize about having sex with others.

Many argue that singles must not copulate, nor kiss, nor masturbate. This is based off of the implication that we should not have sexual immorality.

Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

However, the Bible is not very specific as to what sexual uncleanness for a moral person entails. Therefore I think our convictions ought to be left up to the individual or at most the family. If one follows an implication of scripture that is unclear and it only affects just themselves or a few then it should only be the responsibility of a few. Basically the male and female and if they are young their parents.

Ironically, I believe the best interpretation of the implications of scripture is that we should not touch areas that cause sexual arousal and by staying away from lust we should not masturbate. However to preach about these subjects to the church is ultimately encouraging gossip. So I think sexuality should be left as matters that are to be private.

If you commit a private sin of conviction, I do not believe you have to discuss it with any one other than God and an offended party.

This brings us to the second point. We need to understand what are realms of responsibility are.

Some issues are up to the government, others the church, others the family, and others the individual. Some issues may involve several, but some don’t.

Unless you are committing a sex crime upon an individual, the government should not be concerned with you sex life. Unless you have committed a public (or made known to the public) sexual sin then the church doesn’t need to get involved. (Though ministers should be available for counseling) The family should get involve about the same although they will probably deal with these issues more commonly.

By the way in my experience those youth that have model families of sexual morality and usually better off than those who don’t, even if they go to church. We must remember that the family has a greater influence and more time with youth than churches. If the family sets the example then you have the best shot. However, no matter what it is the decision of the individual.

Thirdly, politic correctness is not biblical. While we should avoid the appearance of evil, but some appearance should not be assumed evil. When Jesus was alone with the woman at the well, appearing before Mary Magdalene at Golgotha he was not appearing to be evil. Nor was he appearing by gather little children to himself. This is not the problem of people who are accidentally alone, it is instead the problem of those who assume evil thoughts. It is not Godly to accuse people of misdeeds, this is gossip and slander.

Jud 1:10 But these speak evil(gossip) of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

Pro 10:18 He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.

Fourth, we need to put sexual morality in its proper place. One of the greatest regrets about our obsession with sex is that it takes up valuable time away from our lives and focus on other morals. A classic example is Jessica Simpson. Simpson was formerly a Christian artist and her father was formerly a youth minister. Many praised her for waiting for marriage. However, people didn’t notice her reality show drunken binges and cursing. Nor did they pay attention to the fact that she married a non-Christian and that she had left Christian music for worldly music. Since then she has divorced her husband, and made more sexually explicit videos portraying the character of Daisy Duke. Daisy Duke used to be a sex symbol in the 70’s. Ironically, even though she did not have a public reputation for Christianity, she never resorted to dressing in a bikini, straddling a car dancing, all the while rubbing herself with car-wash soap for television.

The fact is that holiness should not focus on one activity but following all of God’s commands. Young Christians may know to wait for marriage (Whether or not they follow it.) But do they know about not being lazy (idleness)? The bible says we are not to even hang around with an idle man. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-11) How about hatred, in the same passage where he speaks on adultery, Jesus said that hatred is a sin, which could bring us to Hell? (Matt.5:22) We need to have a complete focus on all of God’s commandments, not just a few.

Fifth, we need to have a more practical viewpoint of sexuality. We need to let go of our subjective feelings based sexual morality and focus on its practical use. Sex is not about our personal sensations, it’s about family. God’s purpose of sex is in order to reproduce and bond the husband to the wife. If a young man is having trouble containing his sexual desires, then he needs to get married. If he is not ready to get married then he needs to get himself ready. If he needs money then he should go out, work overtime, and save up for a house. When he is tempted as a married man, he needs to make love to his wife and then focus on God.

Sixth, in order to have an effective competent sexual lifestyle we need to lower the sexual environment. We need to join in the fight to get pornography off out of the public square. Off the TV, Radio, Internet, and magazine racks. We must help the government realize that pornography is not speech, it is simply a form of prostitution designed to rip apart families. We must stay away from and boycott all sexual industries, strip clubs, adult toy & bookstores, peep shows and adult theaters. Stay away from adult magazines, books, videos and call lines. Churches and families need to make sure that the women and girls are not dressing too lascivious (smutty).

2Co 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:

2Co 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Seventh, another matter that has been going on which individuals and churches have ignored is that we need to be vigilant over our conversations. When we have lewd Jokes and intensely sexual conversations then we have provided a sexual environment that can be very tempting. As individuals families and churches we need to refocus on the content of our conversations. We should only speak on the subject if we have to.

Eigth we must remember sexuality in light of the cross. We will all have sin and almost always have some sexual sin. The goal in the gospel is not simply to have virgins who wait for marriage. The goal of the church and the gospel is to save our souls from Hell and give us new life in Christ. Sexual holiness is a defensive practice. But holy living must focus on positive practices, which bring Christ in the world, not only run away from the devil. Many of our fathers in the faith did not have perfect sex lives. David was considered a man after God’s own heart. Yet, he was guilty of both adultery and polygomy. Even the man in first Corintinthians who had sex with his father’s wife was eventually restored. We may bear many scars of sin, but this is the sin that Christ died to redeem us from.

Col 3:2-15 "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful."

The other day, I was at the library of a Seminary when I overheard one of the students describing their report. (Probably a dissertation, but I didn’t ask) He stated that the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of the virgin birth was actually a prophecy of King Hezekiah, that the language was simply figurative and hyperbole of the virgin birth. While the name Emmanuel was symbolic of Hezekiah bringing the Law back like Jesus would. Let’s look at the text.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

First we notice, that Matthew says that the virgin birth previously described was the fulfillment of the prophecy. Specifically the fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. It is not word for word because Matthew was either using an ancient Greek translation or was translating the text himself into Greek. ( the gospel of Matthew was written in Greek while Isaiah was a Hebrew document.

The seminarian’s argument is that gospels were not concerned with interpreting Isaiah, but using the passage for another purpose.

I agree that it is possible for the New Testament to quote a passage and not intend to interpret it’s meaning, but use it as an illustration or application.

However as we just noted Matthew intend the account of the virgin birth fulfilled or completed the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.

Isa 7:10-25 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land. And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns. And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

As we look at this passage the sign that God introduces is an interruption in the prophecy. Ahaz even refused to ask for it. Yet God intended specifically to give this prophetic sign. A virgin born son who is considered God with us.

The Seminarian did not go to the length refusing the virgin translation of Isaiah 7:14. However, many do and he may. The usual usage of the Hebrew word “Almah” is that of a virgin. It always refers to a young woman at the age prior to marriage, which is either a virgin or fornicator.

It is impossible to claim Hezekiah was virgin born since his father was Ahaz. And Ahaz raised his children up pagan taking his son through the fire. Not exactly virgin born, nor God with us. If his birth were illegitimate, then why would he know that God was with us?

The context of the prophecy points to times of great wealth for Israel and poverty for their enemies. Those times did not come then, and has not come until recently. The sign of the Messiah’s Virgin Birth is a sign that God and not the pretender Kings would reign. Ahaz was faithless, he depended on the pagan nations instead of the power of God. Yet God would reign spite of him. Herod was much the same way, He was faithless and depended on pagan Rome, yet God gave him the sign of Christ virgin birth. Ahaz did not even want to here this sign. Herod did not even want to allow this sign to exist. Because they would both have to submit to the Sovereign law of God and give up their own power. Which they did not even want to do for Yahweh.

Basically his issue was what was the meaning of the text. An Author can only have one meaning. So how could a prophet like Isaiah know anything about Jesus? And if he did not know about Jesus, why would he even be concerned with him? If he did not, then there is no way that he could have prophesied about Him. Besides since the prophets did no everything many of them probably did not know everything about Jesus.

The problem with this line of thought is that the prophets were not allowed to make the Bible their way.

They could not add or take away words.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

They could not give their interpretation of the prophecy on the prophecy itself.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Private) 2398 idios {id'-ee-os}

of uncertain affinity;; adj

AV - his own 48, their own 13, privately 8, apart 7, your own 6, his 5, own 5, not tr 1, misc 20; 113

1) pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self

interpretation)1955 epilusis {ep-il'-oo-sis}

from 1956; TDNT - 4:337,543; n f

AV - interpretation 1; 1

1) a loosening, unloosing 2) metaph. Interpretation

If there was such looseness in the prophecies then we should not discount our local televangelist prophets even if their prophecies are not literally fulfilled.

The prophet simply communicates God’s Will. He then asked me if I was arguing for Mechanical Dictation. Mechanical dictation states that a prophet has nothing to do but write and if this were the case why is the Bible written in ways that author would like to write? Why isn’t it a bunch of straightforward commands as oppose to parables? Besides that would make it to where we would not be allowed to translate the Bible. Because God only inspired the Bible using Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

Well, I believe the Bible has different genres and figures of speech. But I knew he inspired every single word. Then as I had got done with the conversation, it finally occurred to me. Guess how many major advocates are there of mechanical dictation? None! (Except possibly Muslims or perhaps followers of Peter Ruckman)

So then what was this idea? A scarecrow! (A scarecrow argument is an argument in which you do not represent the opponent, but make up a caricature of the argument and then tear it down) The way of inspiration I believe in then is verbal inspiration. When the author writes out the message, for instance in a historical narrative, God delivers the revelation in a way the author would most like to communicate it, but remember that God preplanned the words.

Exo 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

Exo 32:16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

The subject called hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) is very seductive and dangerous. Because, if you take theology you are more prepared for the professors personal opinion. But you can more easily interpret Biblical hermeneutics as a hard science.

However you have to know how God inspired the Bible before you can properly interpret it completely.

You may notice that there is circular reasoning there in interpretation and theology. But you have to have faith in Jesus and a heart of obedience before you can truly hear his words. If you can accept His word then you can understand his word.

What we need a little less interpreting and whole lot more listening.

Why is it that I could take an hour or two out of my time to exegete this passage and understand it’s meaning. While my seminary friend has possibly taking several days if not weeks studying the same passage to come up with such an awkward interpretation?

Now let me say this I believe this fellow was entirely, well educated. I also think that if you saw him speaking with yours truly, you would see that he would appear much more likely to be intelligent and professional than I. He was well dress and well groomed. I on the other hand was unshaved wearing an “Addicted to Jesus” T-shirt that was big and worn out, because I was on the way to clean out some abandoned buildings. He spoke very articulately and was very well spoken. Even trying, I simply could not have spoken as articulately in conversation.

However, he had some bad presuppositions that were indoctrinated in him which confused the way the text works. (I have an idea of the professors responsible but I will not deal with them by name.) But at the end of the day, paper is colored blind and we must test ideas outside of appearance.

You see, he will go to school and listen with awe to a “conservative” professor. The professor will give very eloquent speeches indoctrinating them with a doctrine he learned from a “liberal” professor at another Seminary who had got that idea from an anti-Christian professor who hates “fundamentalism”. The “conservative” professor espoused biblical truth more, but the liberal teachings that he actually does teach will be asserted more dogmatically than if the student went to a “liberal” professor.

This brings me to the issue, which we must face. Sometimes Seminaries are as much trouble as they are worth. How many multitudes of churches have taken their hopeful future pastors to become ready ministers, only get an apostate in return? They walk around being filled with worldly pride and a giant magnet on their back that attracts false teachings to their back.

I am not saying that a minister does not need to be educated and qualified. But does a Seminary education really say that he is either educated or qualified? I am not necessarily going to say that we shouldn’t go to Seminaries. Yet we need to seriously re-evaluate its position. I’ve seen plenty who either went apostate, warped a church or got kicked out for arrogant upheavals. We must remember what Paul said,

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The church and not the Seminary is the ultimate storehouse of truth, it us who guards the bible, not man made institutions.

Seminaries are many times placed as authorities over churches. This not simply over the line but is a smack in the face of anyone who would hold the autonomy of the local church. Now there are many hard workers at many Seminaries both as students and professors. Their place should be seen as a place for research but never one of authority. If we can not have that balance then we will lose our churches every time.

Babies Chosen for salvation.

Question I: Why?

1. God’s love and mercy through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. John 3:17, 1John 2:2

2. Also the salvation to mankind is based on the will of God and not man.

Romans 9:11

Question II: Why them over others who don’t know Jesus?

Answer:

1. Jesus has propitiated the unwillful sins of the world because he is a guilt offering

Isaiah 52:15-53:6, Isaiah 53:10

2. Babies don’t know right from wrong, which is where the curse came from.

Gen. 3:22, Deuteronomy 1:39, Isaiah 7:15

3. Infants have yet to sin willfully

Ezek.18, 28:12-15

4. They are considered alive prior to the knowledge of the Law

Rom. 7:9-11

5. A. They are fear fully and wonderfully made.

Psalm 139

B. Infants have been created in the image of God and blessed

Gen 5:1, James 3:9

C. Infants know God through natural revelation

Romans 1:19-20

D. Have not sinned and therefore not been blinded by sin.

Isa. 59:1-2

E. Considered holy

1Corinthians 14:20, Psalms 8:2

6. The child’s faith is a qualification for all who are saved.

Matthew 18:3-4

What about confess Christ? Rom. 10:9

Children and infants praise God naturally.

Psalms 8:1-2, Matthew 21:16

What about sinful nature?

Christians still have a sinful nature but they are redeemed.

Are we not cursed from birth? (Psalm 51:5)

Yes, however God desires everyone to come to a saving knowledge of grace

Specifically children Matthew 18:14

Earlier we established how Christ atonement Propitiates for the sins committed unwillfully which is the only sins that infants commit.

Is there any record of men being elected or saved at birth?

Yes, John the Baptist, Jeremiah

Are all babies elected at birth?

No! This position is only claiming that God will elect someone who dies before they have reached the age where they have learned right from wrong. However, with the evidence of John the Baptist it is possible for someone to be elected at birth.

Are there any example’s of Babies expected to make it to heaven?

Yes in 2 Samuel 12:23

Doesn’t Matthew 18:6 restrict this to only young believers?

Although this passage does refer mostly to believing children there is reference to Children in general. Matt 18:14

What about the beginning of John 3?

The isolated passages may lead one to suppose that one could not be saved without physical birth. However when we look at the context of the passage the subject has nothing to with the age of accountability. An older male Pharisee is in inquiring on how he must be saved. John 3:4

And Jesus refers to men in the subject

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Born again reference is being used to mimic the symbol of Baptism.

Baptism was entering in a new covenant through repentance.

But it was not just the actions that save us it was in fact the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit that saves us.

It isn’t true that when you are baptized, your original sin is removed and that is why we need to baptize babies?

This drawn from a misinterpretation of Acts 2:38. However this passage clearly says that one needs to repent which babies don’t do. And based on the context, Quotes in Luke (Luke 13:5) and quotes from Peter (acts 10:44-48, 1Peter 3:21) it is obvious that Peter was emphasizing repentance for the person in sin and Baptism as mark of that.

Thoughts on CCM

Contemporary Christian Music has been and always will be a subject of great controversy. Many pros and cons for many types of people but I would like to give my own perspective on it from the years I have spent involved with and meditating upon it.

A. Though there may be subjective opinion of one genre verses another there is no objective way to measure genre this side of heaven. Which instrument does God want more a guitar or mandolin? Maybe a harmonica, or how about a harp? What is God’s favorite music? Country and Western what about reggae? Even if we stop at worship, which is better? Gregorian chants or southern gospel? It is obvious that there are multitudes of ways to do music. Music stylistically represents culture. As long as cultures are diverse then so will be language and music. Though God chose the Jews of the Old Testament era, we do not know how to perfectly translate their culture to ours; in that God made a lot of legislation that was specific designed for the ancient Hebrew’s time and era. Even current Jews have a great deal of debate on how to accomplish that old lifestyle in today’s world. Therefore for Gentile Christianity this is even truer. There is no one cultural standard. Now do not confuse my statements with culture for morality. Our values are eternal and never change. But our culture always changes. Therefore, it is no surprise that our music always changes. So we can not therefore say that there is a perfect style of music. Occasionally, we may see things a style offers that are wise or unwise, moral or immoral, and correct or incorrect. However this far away from an exact science and always will be so. Instruments in and of themselves electric or acoustic can be used in any way whether Good or bad.

B. Instrumental music is not however neutral. Some people draw the conclusion that instrumental music is neutral and does not effect us one way or the other. This is a false teaching however. Music is and always has been an extremely powerful force. Many a famous musician has given a great diatribe on the power of their music. Few preachers have ever been able summon the type of religious devotion that has sprung up from rock and rap mega concerts. Where fans would start fanatical fan clubs openly call there musician their “idol” hang up posters listening to the recordings over and over again. The world we live in today is run through popular music. We here it constantly, in stores, on commercials, movies, sports games, concerts, restaurants not to mention in private. Music has many drug like qualities. It can easily altar our moods and often times is used for wild parties, religious service, athletic endeavors, fighting depression, studying and sleeping. Music indeed is a force to be reckoned with. There has been positive music that has inspired people to do right. There has also been negative music that inspired evil. Instrumental music has the ability to alter our emotions. Our emotions can be swayed in moral and immoral directions. Whether lust, wrath, depression or anxiety. We must not be fooled by the power of instrumental music.

C. It is true that secular rock and rap music has pagan and demonic influences, connected with it. The term rock and roll actually was a metaphor for sex. It was a form of rhythm and blues, which encouraged lascivious behavior, drunkenness and eventually teenaged rebellion. It started out with a secular bend which a Judeo-Christian society was quick to perceive and deny. Soon rock & roll was hit with the British invasion. Groups like the Beetles and rolling Stones took over the airwaves. Soon their came a pure pagan element to rock music. Some jokingly while others very seriously were making allegiance with demonic forces. Rap music was never as openly blasphemous against Christianity. Though their lifestyle was obviously pointed in the devil’s direction. Rap started out not quite as evil. It had a party beat that tried to take urban blacks away from their ghetto environment. Yet soon enough as it became popular it embraced the criminal world filled with gang violence, obscenities, drug abuse, and violence toward women, prostitution etc.etc. Just as suicide would become calling card for the rock star lifestyle, gang violent shootings and murder became the calling card of gangsta rap. Even at the point were the emphasis on violence was slightly hushed, the materialistic lifestyle has set Americas youth on fire.

D. With all this said, all music can be sanctified. There have been Christians on the big and small stage who have used their musical gifts to reach out to today’s youth and there has been some success. I have been ministered to and been apart of a few of these ministries. You can always measure the effect by the fruits of the spirit. There has been success in Christian music to bring people to a more spiritual level. There have been listeners who have gained a contrite and have self-control etc.

E. Yet the success is limited I believe because of lack of knowledge. Even though Christians have a freedom to play any genre. They must understand that playing secular music is like meat that has been sacrificed to idols. Many new Christians may listen to Christian music copying a worldly beat and think of a song that had the old sex, violence, envy, or other fleshly emotion and be drawn back into the old temptations. (1 Corinthians 8:7) At the same time a lost person may hear Christian music with a secular beat and be unimpressed with either the inconsistency or the annoyance of a foreign message. I remember several years ago watching MTV’s “The real world” a Christian from Kentucky was carrying a DC-Talk CD back when they were a rap group. A member who was a black comedian laughed at the CD because Christianity was not nearly as macho or violent as he understood rap to be. Christian Music is not necessarily an effective evangelism tool.

F. There is stark distinction between worship and entertainment. A large problem I see today in Christian music comes from the confusion of purpose. Many acts have accidentally assumed that they can be simultaneously entertainers and worship ministers. First of all if they are providing worship ministry and selling tickets, then the gospel is on sale. But this points to the previous fact that there is a difference between worship and entertainment. Entertainment is focused on pleasing people. Worship is focused on pleasing God. If your lead worship you may entertain your audience but never at the sacrifice on giving praise to God. In entertainment you are focused on the audience and pleasing them but hopefully you can give glory to God in the process. Is it ok, for a Christian to have entertainment. It would be worldly and lazy to have too much too much entertainment. In fact I would say seeking entertainment is never going to be the highest good. But people have a need to serve themselves and have fun or entertainment. We all have a sinful nature and we all are going to have activities to please ourselves. The dirty little secret most preachers never touch on is that God knows this. (Ecclesiastes 7:16-20) The questions if we are going to please our selves, would we rather do it through Godly activities or ungodly activities? This is the purpose of Christian entertainment. It will always be better for me to feed the homeless and reach the lost than find Christian entertainment. But when I, like the rest of world, do not have the spiritual resolve to positive do good. It would be good to seek entertainment in sanitary environment which Christian music provides.

G. Most of today’s mainstream Christian music is in serious need for reformation. There has been a need to make Christian music worldlier to win the lost. However, worldly music on protects lost people form Christianity. Worldliness keeps the attentions of the audience away from the Holy Spirit. Christian music also needs to focus less on popularity and more on ministry. Attention is paid more to young good looking acts and less on older more experienced Christians. Not to exclude the younger acts, however the bias is obvious and in an immature direction. Younger good-looking acts are made the main event because of calculated popularity. However, these group are usually less theologically orthodox, less experienced in ministry and more naïve to world of temptation. Many of them have the right motives, but while they can give a great testimony, they are unprepared for real guidance. Pushing them in the spot can hurt them as badly as it hurts the overall audience.

H. Christian music needs to drop ecumenicist philosophy, for bold evangelistic zeal. Over the years Christian music has been dominated by a doctrine of ecumenicism. At first, it was only scene as pragmatically ignoring conservative protestant difference to effectively deliver the gospel. But over the years the message has been pounded like hellfire and brimstone. Theology doesn’t matter at all! Now it doesn’t matter if artist are Protestants or Catholics or liberals and as a result some are Christian musicians are now accepting the Mormon cults and Muslims as well. Well let’s take this idea to its logical extent. The reformation didn’t matter, it didn’t matter that Christians could never have real assurance of salvation. It doesn’t matter if faith justifies them or they need works. Doctrinal differences don’t matter. The Anabaptist and Baptist were divisive and wrong for the radical reformation. Because it doesn’t matter if the members of your church are saved or not. Also religious freedom doesn’t matter either. It doesn’t matter, John Wycliffe and William Tyndale were wrong for defying the church so that a common person could have their own copy of the Bible. The Bible is divisive. Is this type of behavior really pleasing to Jesus? Matthew 10:34 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” If we are going to follow Christ, we have to be divisive in the sense that the gospel is divisive. Many Popular Christian acts must remember this, if they really want to reach the lost.

I. Real powerful Christian music must focus its power on a striving hunger for righteousness, holiness, humility and sacrificial love. It must evangelize out of the conviction that there is a real hell which our generation really needs to escape from. Much Christian music is transformed into a bully pulpit. Instead of Bible verses they use an upbeat message and nice guitar riffs. However with all the force the direction gets blurry and blurrier each year. More emotion less theology and bible. Emotion if used in a godly way is an awesome thing. Yet if it is prostituted, a Christian youth can be raped of any true passion. If denominations and theology really different matter then how can all these different Christians always preach the exact same sermon? Why can’t there be a Christian rocker who really is different?

Are the days of prophetic Christian rockers like Keith Green and Rich Mullins gone? Are their musicians willing to play unpopular messages and take their stand against the status quo, if only for the prize of treasure in Heaven?

If not then this is day the music died.

But if so, rock on for Jesus, rock on!