A Challenge for Christians in the Face of Continued Decline

Okay, so we just tried doing a dividing line and I'm overseas but all the failure was at the office the net just kept dying and We just be disconnected. It wasn't due to the hotel Wi-Fi or anything else.

It was equipment hardware issues there in Phoenix, so Still Had all this stuff queued up to talk about and so I'm still gonna try to do it. Maybe a little bit faster than I would have because I may have to break this up into some pieces.

Maybe not cover as many things. I don't know. We'll see hotel Wi-Fi and big files multiple gigabytes a little bit on the shaky side, but basically, I had started talking about the collapse of Tony Campola, which started a long time ago that happened to coincide with the Gen hat maker collapse yesterday on the subject of a biblical view of sexuality and marriage and There's nothing new or surprising here.

We've been saying for a number of years. We would see a tsunami of apostasy and collapse on this issue. Very few people in what calls itself evangelicalism have a sufficiently robust or deep view of Scripture.

The nature of Scripture the perspicuity of Scripture sola scriptura tota scriptura to even maintain really a seriously Trinitarian theology let alone a high soteriology and hence a high view of ethics and morals and That's what we're seeing happening.

Of course in our society as more societal pressure comes to bear. Then people begin moving their perspectives and so Campolo has an article in premier Christianity. Which makes you wonder a little bit about where Even the ostensibly conservatives in Britain are going.

But he was asked what made you change your mind at homosexuality. He says one of the things that changed me was going back and studying biblical verses and studying the Church Fathers. I Found that they said very little about it if anything at all.

Jesus, of course never even mentions it which is interesting now I stop immediately. I've said many times before if you hear an ostensibly Christian leader argue like this, you know, you're talking about someone who does not take biblical theology seriously.

The early Church Fathers Said very little about it. Why. Because it was universally recognized as an abomination before God. There was no dispute. There was no one promoting it as a as a proper activity for a Jewish believer or a Christian believer.

So there's very little discussion about bestiality. There's very little discussion about rape. There's very little discussion about all sorts of behaviors in the early Church Fathers because there was no question Concerning the sinfulness of these behaviors.

Why should there be discussion about it? I mean if it if everyone is agreed Concerning the nature of these activities. Why would you expect? Discussion about see this kind of argument is basically well, you know, it's just obviously wasn't an important issue for them.

Well, that's like saying because they didn't spend a tremendous amount of time saying that you shouldn't kill your parents means it Not that killing your parents is not an important thing. That's absurd.

But that's kind of argumentation being used and then Jesus, of course never even mentions it which is interesting. Why? Because any Anyone who has even for a moment Seriously interacted with Jesus view of Scripture in the law Can never make this kind of argument.

Well, Jesus never mentions it. He never mentioned bestiality. He never mentioned incest didn't have to. He quotes, you know, you know, I just remind you of David Gush's amazing statement a Number of just well just a couple years ago where he said we've we've got to stop worrying about Quoting from arcane texts from the book of Leviticus and instead we need to learn to love our neighbor as ourselves and Of course love your neighbor as yourself comes from the middle of the Holiness Code in Leviticus chapter 19.

This is the problem. Anyone who says Jesus never saying about homosexuality just doesn't know anything about Jesus's teaching of the perpetuity and Holiness of God's law, it's just it's it's embarrassing for a person who claims to have any kind of leadership in In the Christian Church to make statements like this.

It is it is a collapse. And it's shocking that Campola would say this then he goes on to say If there's one passage of gay people feel they're clobbered with now here in the seat. He's now just simply repeating the talking points of the homosexual movement.

Just as as plain as can be the clobber passages. This is straight out of the Metropolitan Church. And and all the you know, nothing new here at all. Just repeating what he's being told to say Basically feel they're being they're clobbered with it's out of the first chapter of Romans and of course he quotes Romans 1 23 through 27 and It's it's a paraphrase.

It's not even close to an actual translation, which is ironic. What Paul is doing is tying this homosexual behavior that he's talking about with idolatry now again. We'll stop immediately. It would be nice if we could find some of these Promoters of homosexuality who can walk through Romans 1 follow a context follow an argument.

I've not met a one. Not met a one. We need to go back and restart or figure out where we were in in the Response to Brownson, but we got through in responding to Brownson who is there their primary promoter now.

His way around the clarity of Romans chapter 1. Which is to in essence remove it from its Jewishness. It's Jewish background its biblical background because of it if it's drawing from that then there's no question about what's being said.

There's a question about what nature is. It's God's created order. So his way around it and it really is just a way around it. It's it's not exegesis. It's it's eisegesis, but is to say well that the background this is actually Stoic philosophy.

And so once you understand what the Stoics believed about this Then What's natural is what is expected? Rather than what is created and therefore it just removes this from having relevance. There's I don't know how many dozens of different excuses There are now that have been glommed on to by homosexual advocates if any one of them were actually compelling.

Why do they keep coming up with new ones? They themselves recognize that there are homosexual scholars that recognize there's really no way around this. What it's talking about is what it's talking about.

It is talking about Homosexual practice. There's no question about it. But anyway He says what Paul is doing is tying this homosexual behavior that he's talking about with idolatry. Actually what he's doing is he's describing What idolatry is and the result that it has in creation?

What does it mean when you? Exchange the truth of God for a lie. Well when you exchange the truth of God for a lie That ends up impacting all of your experience so that you exchange the truth of who you are For a lie.

So what are to be your natural created affections? Which for a man is for a woman for a woman is for a man procreation species. Marriage man takes care of woman woman loves man family children. This is this is God's ordained way.

Instead that becomes twisted that becomes Disturbed that becomes disrupted in many different ways but homosexuality is one of the ways that is specifically given as an Illustration of the effect of the suppression of the knowledge of God and idolatry in man's experience.

He goes on to say if you read that passage carefully. It says they gave up their natural affections. The homosexuals say you don't get it Campola. My natural affection was never heterosexual. My natural affection was homosexual.

Stop right there. Mankind does not get to define what natural affection is. The whole point of Romans 1 is that God as creator? The role of his Creatorship begins in verse 18 the revelation that God has made of his existence Through that which has been made leaves them on a polygamous without an apologetic.

That's why they always have to chop Romans 1 up. They cannot walk from the beginning to the end. This is always one of the ways to be able to determine When someone is trying to get around a biblical teaching can they walk through the text?

How many times in debates? Can you walk through John chapter 6 and follow the argument? Can you walk through Romans chapter 9 follow the argument? Can you walk through Romans chapter 1 follow the argument?

What are the debates show. No those that we debate can't do that because they are not actually Handling the text of scripture in a meaningful fashion and Campola wasn't either. So as I began to review scripture I began to say wait a minute.

Maybe this isn't as strong a condemnation as I think it is. Maybe he's condemning obscenities that were related to idolatry rather than loving relationships between two persons again. Straight out of the LGBTQ RST UV playbook.

This is old stuff. This has been around for four decades. Now. It is not meaningful to anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Campolo can just simply be dismissed now as well. He's been doing this for a long time, but this idea of Loving relationships Between two persons again, the Bible gets to define that Jesus gets to define that there is no such thing in scripture as a loving Relationship based upon a rebellion against God's created order that is not biblical.

It will never be biblical no matter how many people collapse on the issue. It will never be coherent and it does not deserve our respect at least from a biblical perspective. And so when we when we see these types of things He says I know are all the arguments pro and con.

No clearly you don't. I've thought of everything really you have. You're much brighter than any the rest of us and I'm still open to considering new things when somebody has something new to say. Having said all of that. I just meet too many wonderful Christian people who are in gay relationships.

And I know this my own marriage has been an incredible relationship. If I was to ask what has been the greatest influence in nurturing me as a Christian, I would say it's my wife. I then ask myself a very simple question Can I deny homosexual couples what I am personally experienced in the way of blessings and joy in a relationship and I immediately go Wow how sad to see such Utter confusion on the part of a person who claims to be a Christian.

That's your wife that's not another man. She is different than you. It's a Complementary relationship. You're not in love with a mirror image and You are obviously not under the authority of Scripture in defining these things any longer as well.

So Campolo collapse. Tent maker collapse. All these other and what do you trace it back to you trace it back to a fundamental collapse in regards to their view of Scripture and to their faith that God has spoken and in essence what I would say is they have a different view of Scripture than Jesus did and as long as you have a different view of Scripture than Jesus did you will not actually be one who can consistently follow Jesus.

You may think you are but you will be inconsistent in your so doing you will be inconsistent. And you're gonna see this over and over again. I keep telling folks Just be aware of the fact. This is the way it's gonna be.

This is the way it's gonna be. And your faith is gonna have to be focused upon what God's truth is and your relationship to him and it's not gonna be able to have a component of This person or that person me anyone else like me.

You can't follow him in. You're gonna have to be convinced in and of yourself of what it's gonna cost to follow after Jesus Christ. That's very very very important there was a challenge for Christians Posted on the web while I was here in In Australia and the fellow who posted it actually had some exchange with with rich and I I Don't know what it's really all about.

I can't really figure it out. It's I've seen things like this before. It's not unique it seems to be presented in some level of mockery, but Leaving that aside Basically, this atheist says well, I want I'm I'm giving Christians an opportunity to Express their faith.

I Really doubt that extremely a series of objections to the Christian faith and They're based upon naturalistic materialism, and so here is a challenge for Christians and We're supposed to affirm these things.

Okay, number one. I believe a snake serpent talk Genesis 3 1. Yes, I do believe that because you see the ability to speak and communicate is not simply a naturalistic evolutionary development. We are made in the image of God God is able to communicate we are able to communicate because God desires to communicate with us.

The lower animals are not given this same capacity for communication in the normal situation, but what the only things could be embarrassing about this is if you actually believe in such things as Miracles that there are rare and unusual times where God for his purposes Intervenes and suspends natural law now in this particular situation prior to the fall we were given very little information concerning the nature of a serpent for example, or What the capacity of such a creature might be?

But the point is this is a supernatural incident and I Am NOT embarrassed by believing the supernatural because I believe Jesus rose from the dead I believe God created the universe and if he has a reason and a purpose to Allow for the natural Normal state of things to be altered so as to bring about a special event.

That's God's right. He can do that whenever he chooses to do so for his purposes and in accordance with his character and So in the incidence of the fall of man there was an interaction between the woman and what is called the serpent and There was communication between them now I don't know the nature of that communication in the sense of how this speech took place or anything else, but yes, there's No question that this took place and unless you're a rabid Fundamentalist naturalistic materialist Which most atheists are even though they've never really thought through how they could possibly defend that it's just an assumption.

It's a presupposition on their part. Then you wouldn't have any objection to that number two I believe a man lived in the belly of a great fish for three days Jonah 117. Well again, that's quite possible actually, though Jonah said he went down into Shaul which is the grave and.

So there would be a closer parallel because remember Jesus used Jonah and you know talked about the sign of Jonah. There would be a closer parallel. If in fact Jonah died and was resurrected when he was expelled up onto the beach.

Because then you'd have a direct parallel to what happens in regards to Jesus who dies is buried and rises again. So it's possible that that happened or It's just as possible. If not more likely. That something else happened in that instance that you actually had a resurrection which becomes then a paradigm a a prophetic type that is then fulfilled in Jesus, so.

Yeah, I'm definitely a supernaturalist. I think the Bible Doesn't know anything about naturalistic materialists other than to say they're foolish. Number three, I believe that Jesus or the stony rebellious children now a number of people that I saw online criticized.

They're just saying well Jesus wasn't on earth yet. What are you talking about? I don't really have any problem with putting it this way as long as as what's being understood on the part of the author is that Jesus pre-existed as the eternal Son of God and that he In perfect union with the Father Is the one who gave us the law he's involved with creation, you know, as long as you're a Trinitarian.

Then there's no what no problem looking at this, but it also You know sort of begs the question Why you're an atheist if you also accept that that Jesus had the authority to do these things and and he rose from the dead.

You might want to think about what that might mean for you. But I believe the Jesus or the stoning rebellious children Deuteronomy 21 18 through 21. Well, I did a whole series on the Holiness Code which included this text and numerous other very difficult texts in the Old Testament law and I pointed out in that instance that you're probably not talking about a little seven-year-old here.

You would be talking about a later teenager into early adult years. You'd be talking about someone who is a rebel against God's law who is breaking God's law and Could Very obviously be one of those who would then bring about The shedding of blood innocent blood.

There's a great deal of concern in the law concerning that particular issue Making atonement for the shedding of innocent blood, etc, etc and so this is simply a recognition that the ones who would have the first indication of Such a rebellious person that could bring blood guiltiness upon the covenant people would probably be the ones who know the Individual best and that would be the parents and so it is a call for parents to look first and foremost to the good of the holy people of God and hence to recognize the tremendous sinfulness of the shedding of innocent blood Violence in the land whatever else it might be that brings blood guiltiness upon the people and That's that then connects this with number seven I believe the Jesus or that a husband should be the first one to throw a stone at his wife If she leads him away from from belief Deuteronomy 13 6 through 10 again Another text that I preached upon in the Holiness Code series where The specific statement was made that even if it is the wife of your bosom the closest friend that you have if Anyone amongst the covenant people of God?

Secretly is Seeking to promulgate Idolatry and rebellion amongst the people that you cannot keep this secret. You cannot keep this private. You are to testify against them before the elders and that they are to be purged from the people again.

These are laws for God's covenant people. These are laws for people who as a nation have covenanted with God to Be his holy people. There are no people like this in the sense of a nation today this is where the issue of Forms of theonomy come in.

I have a very high view of God's law and its relevance today. But I also recognize that the penology that was prescribed was a penology given to a covenant people and was to be undertaken by a covenant people a holy people before God and hence if you do not have that today that the idea of bringing the exact same punishments to bear when you no longer have a a priest.

You no longer have one who's actually Representing God as far as seeking to promote his glory and his name who is in covenant with God. When you no longer have that situation then the issue of the penology that is the penalties that are to be prescribed becomes quite problematic and so number three and seven are both Indications of the incredible importance that was attached to fidelity and faithfulness amongst the people of God In the law of God, which of course the people of God never lived up to.

That's why there had to be a new covenant. That's why Jeremiah chapter 31 is there. That's why there had to be an internal change. The external simply was was not sufficient in any way. Number four, I believe Jesus said that the Israelites could take virgin women for themselves and give 32 virgin women to Jesus now.

There's some really serious confusion on the part of the author in in much of this. What is referred to in Numbers chapter 31. There's there's a couple things there the idea of giving Virgin Virgin women to Jesus.

It it's just so absurd that it's hard to even know how to interact with it. But we'll go down to numbers 31 31. Well, that doesn't make any sense does it I'm sorry, is there a is there an error in the Yeah, the the reference isn't even correct that's that's interesting.

Numbers 31 31. Yeah has absolutely nothing to do with any of that at all. Well, that's nice. Fundamentally the issue was that when the Israelites took a enemy nation That they were allowed to take certain of the women who had not known men and this of course had to do with the military situation that existed in the day and What is often missed by these folks and I don't even I don't even have a clue what the 32 virgin women The G is saying is since can't even get the text, right?

Then it's it's obviously just a flight of fancy imagination, but the normal objection is to the idea of The raping of slave women, etc, etc. What's normally missed and again, if you go to sermon audio look up the Holiness Code In the sermon series that I did at PR BC and look these texts up I expand upon these things more fully but what you need to understand is If there was not provision made for these women Once the husbands had either died in battle or been executed They would be left with no visible means of support in a in a destroyed area.

And basically it was it was a condemnation to death. This was actually a mechanism Whereby life could be saved. We don't view it that way today because we live in very different situations than they did back then but Fundamentally, this was a mechanism that would allow for the saving of life and the continuation of Individuals and and the society.

With still very often a real concern Concerning the bringing in of idolatry and and the temptation to foreign idols that was all that Frequently gets mixed in as well in the situation. But this there were a number of texts that we dealt with that from a modern perspective looked so very strange.

But from the ancient perspective made perfect sense in the sense that they were actually saving people alive. Again have no earthly idea what the 32 virgin women Jesus says because the the text reference is even right.

I Believe Jesus sanctioned abortion killing unborn if an unfaithful wife was pregnant numbers 5 19 to 21 again. The author has no clue how to read the Old Testament or what's going on. That's actually the text concerning the faithfulness test has nothing to do with abortion.

It has nothing to do with murder of unborn children. It has to do with a wife who is suspicious and a test. The willingness on her part to undergo this test and to make a vow That she has not been unfaithful to her covenant has zippity-dippity-doo-doo to do with abortion.

If you want anything in the law that has to do with that look at the striking of the woman who's pregnant what happens if She if stillbirth or if the baby's born healthy, etc, etc but this is just a complete face plant on the part of the atheist and Ignorance of the Old Testament text very very common.

Number six. I believe that many dead people came out of the graves when Jesus died Matthew 27 52 once again. Yes, I do so Jesus rose from the dead. There was a resurrection of saints that were known to the people in Jerusalem at that time period.

It was obviously very partial. It was simply a emblematic of the Resurrection itself that was taking place. There is no expansion upon its meaning, but once again a Christian who believes Jesus rose from the dead is in a rather Odd situation to say well Jesus can rise in debt, but nobody else can again only the fundamentalist naturalistic materialist.

Would have any issue with this or think that it's embarrassing or something like that. It's recorded for us. No special meaning is attached to it outside of It being one of the accompanying signs of the death of Christ.

The the tearing of the veil in the temple, etc, etc. We are looked at number seven finally number eight I believe that Jesus stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son, but didn't stop Jephthah from sacrificing his daughter.

Two things Obviously shows an extremely shallow disrespectful view of What happens in regards to Abraham and Isaac. The fact that this becomes I think one of the key? prophetic pictures Of what is going to be happening in the giving of Jesus himself voluntarily upon Calvary's cross.

What happens with Jephthah? Interestingly enough in our Regular reading of the Old Testament scriptures. That was the text we read a week ago Sunday night at our church as we're working through right now, we're in judges and I read that specific text just a few weeks ago as I said and In That context there's two major understandings as to what took place in regard to Jephthah's daughter.

The one way to understand devoted to destruction is that she was killed. Exactly how is not is not noted but Certainly devoted to destruction can mean that and that is a is a possibility judges gives us a real insight into God working with a people who while they possess the Old Testament law Clearly are operating on an extremely low level of Ethics and morality and constantly falling into sin and Slavery and then and then raising up judges that deliver the people but Very early on it's a very clear indication that just simply being close to Moses and Joshua chronologically as far as generations concern does not mean that you're close to them in an understanding of the things of God and Really what will come out much more in the in the prophets.

It is a sad picture of the reality of the necessity of the New Covenant the necessity of an inward change. Because the people of Israel clearly are not inwardly changed and so they're constantly in this this cycle of apostasy and rebellion and and then deliverance.

The other option however What is interesting is that Jephthah's daughter and then the establishment of this mourning for Jephthah's daughter is in reference to what to her virginity and So it is just as possible that what happened with Jephthah's daughter is that she remained unmarried that is that she Remained a virgin did not have children not having children was considered a tremendous burden and so that the devotion of her was to a life of Celibacy and service to God not to her destruction now again at the time of the judges Could have gone either direction.

We just simply are not told what what is mourned is her virginity and not having children, so That's that's a possibility, but the fact is we don't know and there is no connection of course logically rationally biblically meaningfully between The offering of Isaac and the issue of Jephthah at all.

Why even put the two of them together can't even begin to can't even begin to say so. This kind of stuff it does make you wonder what people are trying to accomplish with this kind of thing. It's hard to say.

But it does give us an opportunity to look at the issue of Mishandling scripture in The sense of trying to offer a challenge to Christians. And very often what is what is presented if Christians themselves knew their scriptures.

If Christians were reading the Bible with regularity and hence struggling with these issues long ago. Running into this kind of stuff would not cause him a problem. I think the reason that causes so many people problems because The people of the book often tend to be more of the people of the net than the people of the book.

And that's a problem that that we have. Well, like I said, we weren't able to do a dividing line today. So I wanted to deal with those things. There was a third thing I wanted to get to but it would take us way too long.

The result of video file would be Probably impossible to do to upload via hotel Wi-Fi. That has a notoriously narrow upload bandwidth. So I don't know if I'll try to do it as a separate video or I'll You know, hopefully maybe get issues fixed back in Phoenix at the office and then we can just hold off the third topic.

For maybe a dividing line next week at some point Don't know that's hard to say what my schedule is gonna be that's gonna allow me to to do anything at that point. The reality is the the topic is in regards to the deity of Christ and you know What that topics not going to change between now and the time I get home in in November so If we can't do it between now and then well, we'll do it then.

So thanks for watching this hope it's been useful to you.