The Federal Election – what an exciting subject! So why discuss it? Why mention it?
In a western democratic country like Australia (or England, the USA, Canada, and many other countries) the right to be able to cast your vote is as much a privilege as it is a right; but if Christians don’t vote then the non-Christian population will be the only people determining who will get elected, and what policies are important. Politicians pander to loud voices most of the time.
Just because politicians go to “church” or say, for instance, “God bless America,” that does NOT make them Christians. Just because a political party SEEMS more closely aligned to Christian beliefs and/or standards – in their speeches and advertising – that does not make it so. For example, America’s so-call conservative Republican Party is just as un-Christian as the Democrats – despite popular opinion amongst Americans to the contrary. Let’s have a quick look at the history of the conservative, “Christian,” Republican government in the USA:
… it was Dwight Eisenhower’s appointed Earl Warren Supreme Court that ordered God out of the class room as it was Richard Nixon’s Warren Berger Supreme court that ordered God out of the maternity ward with Roe v Wade. Not least of all however is the enduring saga of Ronald Reagan and his evil, evil lies. It was Reagan’s Supreme Court Justice Sandra day O’Connor who ordered God out of the judiciary. After promising Christian America he was pro life, Reagan did nothing pro life but rather stabbed a dagger into the backs of the naïve and undiscerning people who believed him and appointed a pro abortion Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. While some conservatives found her pro affirmative action decision an outrage that is a secular issue. It was O’Connor who ordered the 10 commandments out of the Alabama Judicial building. Moreover however, it was Ronald Reagan’s Sandra Day O’Connor who wrote the court’s decision against the Texas anti sodomy law legally opening the very door for same sex marriage triggering the state by state avalanche of demands for it. Whether the advice Reagan so often relied upon from his wife Nancy who regularly consulted fortune tellers accounts for his wickedness and treachery we cannot say, although it might be a reasonable explanation as it may for his arming terrorist Iran and then denying it. Like most presidents, Reagan was a (sic) also a Freemason. His arch betrayal of his gullible pro life supporters and his judicial appointments however are the true legacy of Ronald Reagan and the true nature and character of the Republican Party. They are as evil, as demonically manipulated, and as anti Judeo-Christian as their liberal Democrat opposition.
In Australia we have the conservative Liberal-National Party (LNP) and left-wing Labor Party – which had been in government for two terms – losing the last election in September 2013. Australia’s Prime Minister and leader of the Labor Party coming into the election was Kevin Rudd, whilst the leader of the opposition was Tony Abbott. Though there are other political parties, the above two are the main players, and both Labor’s Kevin Rudd and the LNP’s Tony Abbott, claimed to be Christians.
Mr Rudd is an Anglican who attends St John the Baptist Church in his Bulimba electorate, though he was raised a Roman Catholic, and it is said that he has not formally renounced his Roman Catholic faith. In a 2007 article in The Australian newspaper, Mr Rudd said in relation to his Roman Catholic origins and his marriage to Anglican wife Thérèse, “It's a unity ticket, but I never resigned from Rome.” When in the nation’s capital, Canberra, Mr Rudd attends St John the Baptist Church in Reid.
Mr Abbott is a Roman Catholic, who attended a Roman Catholic high school where he was taught and influenced by Jesuit priests; in his mid-twenties he attended St Patrick’s Seminary – but did not complete his studies. Mr Abbott has been accused of wearing his Roman Catholic beliefs on his sleeve – and thus being too influenced by them.
So who should one have voted for in the September 2013 election? Who should Christians vote for? Mr Rudd, Mr Abbott, someone from a minor political party, or an independent? We have great freedom and great privilege being able to vote. But is our vote inconsequential? As Christians is it irrelevant who we vote for? One person votes Labor, the other LNP, who’s right and who’s wrong? Are both right, are both wrong?
Sadly modern political choices are coming down to choosing the (perceived) lesser of two evils, as the saying goes. In some respects one person and one political party might be better economically for Australia and the other worse; but the same too applies with regard to laws and morals. The question, then, is what is more important for Christians when voting? Which aspect is more important from God’s perspective? Might Christians give account to God as to their (voting) moral stand, or lack thereof?
There are a myriad of opinions on what is better economic policy, foreign policy, health and welfare, etc., but such policies are, for the most part, influenced and determined by what is better – overall - for the prosperity of the nation and its people. Yes morality does influence these decisions, but it is the laws and legislation that governments make, and the judgments of its courts, that have the biggest impact on its morals. Similarly, perceived public opinions and standards can influence politicians and changes to laws: for good or bad.
As such, I wish to discuss a moral issue for Christians in regard to voting at elections; and it is for this reason that this article will concentrate on the beliefs, perspectives, opinions and comments by the then Prime Minister of Australia – leading up to Australia’s September 2013 election – Kevin Rudd.
During the August 10, 2013, election debate Mr Rudd said that if the Labor Party was re-elected that “within the first 100 days the Labor government will introduce a bill to legalise same-sex marriage”. On Monday, 2 September 2013, Kevin Rudd appeared on the ABC’s Q&A program, in which he reiterated his support of homosexual marriage.
A man, who is a church pastor and speaker on the radio, queried Mr Rudd at the Q&A show over his apparent to-ing and fro-ing in his opinions and perspective (as it seemed to this pastor’s radio listeners) just to win votes. Mr Rudd’s response included:
Rudd: … three, four, five months ago, I concluded in my conscience, through an informed conscience, and a Christian conscience, it was a right thing to do. And let me tell you why. Number one: I do not believe people, when they are born, choose their sexuality. They are gay if they are born gay. You don’t decide at some later stage in life to be one thing or the other. It is, it is, how people are built, and therefore, the idea that this is somehow an abnormal condition is just wrong. I don’t get that. I think that is just a completely ill founded view. Secondly, if you accept that it is natural and normal for someone to be gay, because that’s the way they are, then it follows from that, that I don’t think it right to say that if these two folk here who are in love with each other, and are of the same gender, should be denied the opportunity for legal recognition for the duration of their relationship by having marriage equality. If you accept that your starting point is that, um, homosexuality is abnormal; I don’t know if that’s your view.
Host: well we can go back, and arh…
Rudd: I just need to know
Host: …, just, we will go back to our question; we need to ask, What, what it is, that you believe, Christians in particular, are upset about?
Pastor: I think the thing is that, ah, you know, every pastor we do marriages between husbands and wives, and Jesus said, a man shall leave his father and mother and be married. That’s the biblical definition. I just believe what the Bible says, and I’m just curious for you Kevin [Rudd], if you call yourself Christian, why you don’t believe the words of Jesus in the Bible?
Rudd: Well mate, well mate, if I was going to have that view, the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition. [Applause from audience]. Because Saint Paul said in the New Testament, “Slaves be obedient to your masters,” and therefore we should have all fought for the Confederacy in the US Civil War. I mean for goodness sake. The human condition and social conditions change. What is the fundamental principle of the New Testament? It is one of universal love. Loving your fellow man, and if we get obsessed with a particular definition of that through a form of sexuality then I think we are missing the centrality of what the Gospel, whether you call it a social gospel, a personal gospel, or a spiritual gospel, is all about. And therefore, I go back to my question, if you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition then frankly I cannot agree with you based on any element of the science; and therefore if a person’s sexuality is as they were made then you’ve got to ask yourself a second question, “Should therefore their relationships be legally recognised?” And the conclusion I’ve reached is that they should. And on the question of chopping and changing, I wrote a two or three thousand word essay, stuck it online, months, and months, and months ago – before returning to the prime ministership – so everyone would know, why I had changed my position, the reasons for it, and it was the product of some many, many months and years of reflection – in good Christian conscience.
In some ways, it is hard to know where to start in regard to Mr Rudd’s reflective position. Do we start with his misrepresentation of Saint Paul? His misuse, misrepresentation, of the word “natural” in regard to slavery? Whether changing “social conditions” means the Gospel, and/or Christian moral standards, should change? What of the true “fundamental principle” of the New Testament; and what of universal love and its meaning – let alone its outworking?
For starters, “loving your fellow man” does NOT mean what homosexuals think it means! That Mr Rudd suggests that a form of sexuality be it for or against homosexuality is the “centrality of what the Gospel … is about” is delusional! What Mr Rudd has done here is prefix “Christian” to the word conscience to justify his point of view. To be a Christian is to be Biblical. Mr Rudd’s obvious Biblical ignorance shows that any reflection he has undertaken is neither Biblical nor Christian.
Concerning slavery Paul did indeed say, “Slaves be obedient to your masters” (cf. Eph 6:5; Col 3:22) BUT he did NOT say this was natural – certainly NOT in the sense that Mr Rudd is using “natural” in relation to homosexuality. Paul said,
Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. 1 Corinthians 7:21-24 (Emphasis Mine)
Let me suggest that anyone who thinks that the Bible, or any of the apostles, taught that slavery is a “natural” condition – has either not read the Bible, or is so blinded by sin, that God has given them over to their delusion. Christians are to remain WITH GOD in the condition they were called, either as the Lord’s freedman or Christ’s slave.
Paul was addressing the culture of Rome at around 50AD. What is Mr Rudd suggesting that Saint Paul should have said? Maybe “rise up and kill your masters”? Is that the solution to Mr Rudd’s idea that “slavery” is natural? Rome was a pagan nation, the principles and laws of which were based on Greco-Roman pagan worldview. A runaway slave could be put to death. What does Mr Rudd suggest Paul should have said to slaves who had turned to Christ? Run away? Be disobedient? Hinder, backchat, disrespect your masters? Seriously! Paul told Christian slaves AND Christian MASTERS alike to keep in mind that GOD is the ultimate master. Therefore act accordingly. To suggest that “slaves be obedient to your masters” means that slavery is a natural condition is a conclusion based on ignorance of both the Bible and history.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honour your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. Ephesians 6:1-9
The Christian Gospel and teaching showed that before God, [free] men had no more privilege than women, children and slaves. To a first century Roman society this was scandalous. It is for this reason Christianity was viewed as turning the world upside-down, and why it was being slandered. Subsequently, Paul told the members of the churches he founded to do what they would be culturally expected to do – even though, in reality, they were free. Imagine a society where women are possessions, children are nothing until adulthood and slaves are the lowest of possessions - chattels. Now add the Gospel and tell them they are ALL precious in God’s sight and NONE has more favouritism with God than any other. Now consider the tensions that might arise in a household where slaves might grumble at being slaves when THEY ARE NOT inferior to their masters, and so on. (Note however that there are differences between the Greco-Roman world and Jewish world).
It is in this framework that Paul (and Peter) addresses things in Eph 5:21-6:9; Col 3:18-4:1; 1 Pet 3:1-7; 1 Peter 2:18-25; 1 Tim 2:8-15, 5:1-2, 6:1-2; and Titus 2:1-10.
So amongst all this, Paul in Ephesians, tells wives, children and slaves to submit (which is NOT something new, but rather something culturally expected), BUT what he does say to husbands, fathers and masters is ENTIRELY radical to the social and cultural context. Life is NOT all about husbands, fathers and masters. The welfare they (husbands, fathers and masters) should be looking out for is the other party’s and NOT theirs (which they were used to and was the cultural norm).
Fortunately, there have been other ministers of some churches who have pointed out the erroneous nature of Mr Rudd’s comments.
… Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, says Rudd "misquoted the Bible" and was "profoundly wrong". Aristotle, not the Bible, defined slavery as a natural condition.
As Canon Sandy Grant, senior minister at Wollongong's St Michael's Anglican Cathedral, pointed out, the Bible actually ranks "slave traders" among "the ungodly and sinful".
Grant added: "I am appalled at how this national leader . . . misrepresented the Holy Book of the faith he confesses on its teaching on one matter (slavery) to avoid its teaching on another matter (of marriage) . . ."
But the Left-leaning Q&A audience applauded Rudd wildly for abusing the pastor and Christianity and the ABC's clip went viral, watched 330,000 times.
In fact, Rudd's rant perfectly illustrated how Labor has failed: how it confuses abuse with persuasion, Twitter for the public, fashion for substance.
Note how Rudd repeatedly made the pastor seem a bigot for holding an opinion Rudd himself held until last May.
In fact, Rudd used to argue - just like the pastor - "marriage is between a man and woman" and "it's just been our traditional, continuing view". Was he then a gay-hater?
But with a convert's zeal, Rudd showed no respect for the opinion he used to hold or for the pastor. He sought to win an argument by bullying, not persuading. Hasn't that been Labor's way? To denigrate people for holding opinions Labor itself once held or has since adopted?
From a socio-economical perspective what is natural – as in the social and/or economic climate to which you were born into – does NOT mean you have to remain there. In Roman times slaves could be freed, gladiators in the arena could be freed, the poor could do well in business and become rich, and a rich person could become enslaved as a result of debt. The “natural” state had nothing to do with one’s DNA (or any other such perspective). Your DNA didn’t make you poor or rich – though your heritage, i.e. parents, could. Your DNA didn’t make you slave or free, though your heritage, i.e. parents, could. And in either so-called “natural” circumstance one might be able to change one’s circumstances, or by decree of one’s master or Caesar, have it changed.
If slavery were TRULY a “natural” state – then the apostle Paul’s suggestion that slaves should try to become free (1 Cor 7:21) if possible – would mean that Paul is advocating people become UNNATURAL – which is absurd. This is putting things in reverse … and the likes of Australia’s “Christian” then Prime Minister were and are, in effect, saying that the unnatural is natural, and the natural is unnatural.
Since Mr Rudd raised the issue of what is “natural” and introduced the subject of “science”, then let me propose an elementary scientific experiment. Let us place a community of homosexual men on one island, and a community of homosexual women on another; if after 50 years their populations have (NATURALLY) increased then I will whole-heartedly say that homosexuality is natural. What? “This won’t work!” you say. Why not? It is obvious that no one is going to seriously suggest that semen in the bowels of a man is natural? After all, will this naturally produce offspring? No? Then how can anyone – Christian Prime Minister or not – claim that homosexuality is both naturally or scientifically supported. How delusional do you have to be, or how much of a liar are you?
So much for slavery! How about what is the “fundamental principle of the New Testament” and the “centrality of what the Gospel … is all about”. Let’s look at the New Testament and let God’s Word speak for itself:
John the Baptist speaking to Jews
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 3:2)
Jesus Speaking to Jews
From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17).
Peter and the Apostles Speaking to the Jewish Council
He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Saviour, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5:31)
Peter: Speaking to the other Apostles and Disciples concerning Cornelius
When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18)
Paul: In Athens speaking to the Athenians on Mars Hill
Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, (Acts 17:30)
Paul: In Miletus speaking to the Ephesian Elders
solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:21)
Paul: before Festus and Agrippa at Caesarea
but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.(Acts 26:20)
Repentance! This is what the New Testament proclaims – as well as Christ’s sacrifice to take the penalty for man – taking the punishment that is due us for our rebellion before God – if only we submit ourselves to God. The Gospels proclaim this message, and the book of Acts records the proclamation of this very same message that the apostles took to the world.
But how can anyone REPENT of something unless there is a rule, law or standard of God’s which people have broken and by which they are compared? And once one has REPENTED (i.e. turned from doing things your own way) it is EXPECTED that you do things God’s way and have God’s opinion – because repentance is turning TO GOD not turning away from Him.
Mr Rudd’s criticism of those Christians who disagree with his liberalism was undertaken – with much applause by the studio audience – by comparing attitudes to slavery as being on par with attitudes to homosexuality: it’s a cultural thing, a societal thing, after all the “human condition and social conditions change”. But the Bible – the Word of God – remains consistent, irrespective of time and culture.
Days of Noah (approx. 2400 BC)
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5
Sodom and Gomorrah (approx. 1900 BC)
Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD. Genesis 13:13
And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. Genesis 18:20
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." Genesis 19:4-5
Laws of Moses (Israel in the wilderness, approx. 1440 BC)
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. Leviticus 20:13
King Jehoshaphat of Judah (approx. 870 BC)
The remnant of the sodomites who remained in the days of his father Asa, he expelled from the land. 1 Kings 22:46
Isaiah (approx. 750 BC)
For Jerusalem has stumbled and Judah has fallen, Because their speech and their actions are against the LORD, To rebel against His glorious presence. The expression of their faces bears witness against them, And they display their sin like Sodom; They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves. Isaiah 3:8-9
Jesus (Israel approx. 30AD)
Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the centre of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the centre of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more." John 8:2-11
Paul and Roman Corinth (circa. 50AD)
Roman culture was very open, very pluralistic and very pagan. Homosexuality was accepted in Roman society, just as prostitution, and temple/cult prostitution was. Yet Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians notes that,
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Such were some of you, but you were sanctified”. Sanctified i.e. “set apart to be holy”. They were these things in the PAST but no longer. They accepted Christ, they accepted Paul’s Gospel, they REPENTED, they changed and they turned their backs on the previous lifestyles – and turned to GOD stopping their unrighteous lifestyles.
John and Revelation on Patmos (circa. 80 AD)
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons [Gr. pornos – fornicators] and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practises lying. Revelation 22:14-15
2nd Peter
The entirety of the short epistle of 2nd Peter should be read which similarly addresses moral issues related to lust and desire
Mr Rudd – in opposition to what the Bible clearly and repetitively says – says, “No God” I/WE will decide what is acceptable, I/WE will decide what is right, and I/WE will come to You (God) according to the standards and things I/WEsay are fine.
How does God categorise such people? What is the true state of people who purport to be Christians and yet say, “No,” to God?
The Fool – Psalm 14
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. Psalm 14:1
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary says,
The “fool” (nābāl, GK 5572) is neither ignorant nor an atheist. The word “fool” is synonymous with “wicked” (cf. TWOT 2:547). It reflects the wisdom tradition where the “fool” aggressively and intentionally flouts independence from God and his commandments (cf. 53:1; 74:18, 22). The wicked were fools when they acted corruptly, shamelessly (Deut 32:5-6), and in wilful disregard for the ways of God.
Allen Ross in his commentary on the Psalms notes,
The focus of this psalm is on the ungodly, but in a way that reveals what it means to be trying to live independently of God. What the psalm says is that the vast majority of the human race must be classed as fools; they try to deny that God exists, and because they do that, their way is completely corrupt and corrupting. It is one of the strongest passages in the Bible about the complete depravity of the human race … [the] very existence [of the people of God] troubles the ungodly so that they are often persecuted by them … The chief characteristic of the fool is the heart-felt decision to live a godless life, as if there were no God … The negative particle (“there is no”) may indicate that the fool denies the existence of God relative to the speaker, at least in this context. As such the person would be a practical atheist, living as if there were no God. After all, the fool says this in his heart; it is a conclusion based on the will and not the intellect. The fool is one who chooses never to think of a God as being involved with his daily affairs. What proceeds from the heart of a fool is moral perversion, according to the next few verses. The first declaration is that fools “corrupt”. It would be difficult to find a stronger word to use, for this verb means “ruin, devastation, corrupt.” It was used of the complete corruption of the human race prior to the flood (Gen. 6:11-12) and of the LORD’s destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 13:10). Here it refers to moral and spiritual corruption; but the word reminds the reader that the corruption is as bad as it could be, so bad it would warrant the type of severe judgment God has used in the past.
James Boice says,
The psalm is about atheism, of both a theoretical and a practical kind. In the first view are the fool’s words about God. As far as he is concerned, God does not exist. Our text quotes him as saying, “There is no God,” but we should note that in the Hebrew text the words there is are not present. They have been added to the English to make the psalm read smoothly. The fool actually says, “No God!” That is, “No God for me.” So his is a practical as well as a theoretical atheism. Not only does he not believe in God he also acts on his conviction.” … He is a fool because he knows there is a God and yet chooses to deny it. The reason the person is a fool and not merely mistaken is that he knows there is a God and yet chooses to believe and act as if there is none.
And just like Psalm 14, Psalm 53 likewise says,
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good. Psalm 53:1
The King James Version of this verses puts “There is” in italics – indicating that the translators have added these words for clarity’s sake – but they aren’t actually there in the Hebrew. So these verses read, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘No God’”.
So who is the FOOL who says, “No, God?” Who is the one who professes to be Christian whilst passionately saying to God, His Word, His Gospel and His ambassadors - the apostles, “NO!”
Which candidate was the lesser of two evils? The Roman Catholic (Tony Abbott) who believes in purgatory, rather than the sufficiency of Christ and His sacrifice; or the “Christian” who says, ‘No, God … You don’t understand. This is a different time, a different culture and different society. I will believe those things which I say are right, not what You, and not what Your Word says is right’? Well God says,
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!
Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine
And valiant men in mixing strong drink,
Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right! - Isaiah 5:20-23
He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time. Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. Daniel 12:9-10
Mr Rudd said that if his party was re-elected:
within the first 100 days the Labor government will introduce a bill to legalise same-sex marriage.
If such legislation was passed then any criticism of homosexual marriage would become illegal – and the Bible would in-effect be categorised as hate speech. This is but the first step to having the Bible outlawed. The so-called “tolerant” are themselves intolerant of any view opposed to theirs. The so-called “open-minded” are themselves militantly bigoted – accepting no other view as being valid – apart from theirs. The wicked will continue to do wickedly. Mr Rudd claims he is being honest to his so-called “Christian conscience”. A conscience it may be, but Christian? Hardly!
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 (Emphasis Mine)
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth … give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching …1 Timothy 4:1-3, 13b (Emphasis Mine)
Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin. No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after. Likewise also, deeds that are good are quite evident, and those which are otherwise cannot be concealed. 1 Timothy 5:20-25 (Emphasis Mine)
Yes the Gospel is about the Love of God and what He has done to reconcile us to Himself. But there is no love outside of God’s truth, God’s laws, God’s Word. Sin is sin – be that in the Old or New Testaments. There is no change as to what constitutes sin between the Old and New Covenants – not when it comes to the moral laws; there are, however, changes in the way these laws are to be fully understood. Adultery, for instance, is not merely about the act, but lusting after someone, desiring to have them (Mat 5:28); similarly a hatred in which one curses another person is equated to murder (1 John 3:15).
If we have hardened our hearts so much that we accept that which God calls abominable – then can we really claim to be Christians? Can we claim to have been given a new heart, a heart of flesh? Or are we still in our old state, having a heart of stone, a seared heart according to our OWN conscience?
Furthermore, what does it say about the church one attends and the “pastor” (shepherd) who is supposed to be protecting God’s flock. How miserably has he failed? Or how lax are his standards or regard for God that he allows such pseudo-Christians to keep attending, or that he fails to rebuke them. Do they fail to consider the warning that teachers will be judged more strictly by God (James 3:1)? Furthermore, what of Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things [Gr. diestrammena – to distort, pervert, corrupt, oppose, misinterpret] , to draw away the disciples after them.”
The pro-homosexual agenda is already being pushed in many parts of society – and they are even trying to push it in all levels of education, from primary, secondary to tertiary; and all this with the backing and support of Australia’s “Christian” ex-Prime Minister.
And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.” Matthew 18:5-9
Mr Rudd can claim the title of Christian all he wants, but when it comes to the crunch, he does NOT believe the apostles, does NOT believe the Bible, does NOT believe God, and does NOT believe Christ. Such rejection of God’s moral law comes from a LOW VIEW of God. It comes from a view that God is NOT King (not for this Prime Minister, and others like him). The FOOL has indeed said in his heart, “No, God”. The question then, is, the same that was proposed to King Jehoshaphat,
Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord and so bring wrath on yourself from the Lord?” 2 Chronicles 19:2
God is love, God is Righteous, but God is also Holy, Just, Pure, King and Judge. Rejection of God and His Word leaves only the judgment of God and His wrath.
B. Michale Bigg, and his wife, Kathryn, came out of the Word- Faith movement. Michael has a concern for the preaching of the truth (or lack of it) in many of today's churches. He has a desire to assist in the education of the elect and reaching the lost. Brett works in the Information Technology (IT) industry.
