|Turbo Charge Your Church||by R. David Pogge|
Many Protestant denominations have accepted worldly wisdom in an attempt to appear more sophisticated and enlightened so as to attract a more intellectual membership. They don’t realize that “worldly wisdom” is actually “stupidity with a good press agent.” There are many things that secular society erroneously believes to be true because it wants to believe they are true. It makes people happy to believe those lies. That’s why these secular beliefs are so popular.
Sadly, many Protestant churches have been tricked into believing that modern man really is smarter than God, and have modified their doctrines to align with these popular secular beliefs.
It has been widely taught in public schools for generations that the Earth formed gradually over billions of years, life spontaneously arose upon the barren planet, and every living thing on Earth, including man, evolved from that first primitive life form. This is claimed as unquestionable scientific fact. Anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is branded as an anti-science fool. Therefore, many churches have rejected the Biblical account of creation by calling it allegorical, and have accepted Darwin’s theory as the real truth, in an attempt to appear wise.
The real truth is that the evolutionary explanation of the origin and diversity of life could not be more un-scientific. Creationists are not anti-science—evolutionists are anti-science.
The theory of evolution is the creation myth of atheists. It seeks to explain our existence apart from God. If God didn’t create us, we don’t have to obey God. If God didn’t create us, it logically follows that God doesn’t have to exist. If God doesn’t have to exist, it logically follows that there is no reason to believe that God does exist.
Creation is the compelling evidence that God does exist, did create the world, and cares about what goes on under the sun. The theory of evolution is the atheists’ strongest argument against God. That’s why it is important for churches to take a strong stand against the theory of evolution. That is easily done because there are strong scientific arguments against the theory of evolution.
Asking “What is the best argument against evolution?” is like asking, “Which is the deadliest snowflake in an avalanche?” Certainly there is no single snowflake that is lethal all by itself. It is the aggregate power of all the snowflakes that demolishes the things in the path of an avalanche. The best argument against the theory of evolution is not one single fact—it is an overwhelming aggregation of many facts. The strongest argument against the theory of evolution is the simple fact that there are so many scientific arguments against it!
As the author of far more than 500 scientific essays pointing out the scientific evidence against the theory of evolution, I could write so much about the scientific absurdity of the theory of evolution that it would dwarf all the rest of this book; but this chapter is an overview of the many secular fallacies that have crept into the church. It would diminish the importance of all those other issues if I included hundreds of pages of scientific evidence against evolution here. So, to avoid unbalancing this book, I won’t present an avalanche of data against the theory of evolution—I’ll just describe a few of the deadliest snowflakes and hope that you will go to my website (http://www.ScienceAgainstEvolution.info) to dig through the avalanche of evidence against evolution.
One of the first things students learn in their elementary school science class is the set of three necessary conditions for fire. You need to have (1) fuel, (2) oxygen, and (3) heat. Take away any one of these three things and the fire will go out.
In the same way, the theory of evolution depends upon three necessary conditions. If any one of the conditions is false, then the theory of evolution can’t be true. In fact, none of the three conditions is true, so the theory is triply false. Those three necessary conditions are (1) life happens, (2) mutations improve it, and (3) there is enough time for the first two things to happen.
Evolutionists always try to separate the spontaneous origin of life (abiogenesis) from evolution because, if they don’t, the theory of evolution is (literally) dead on arrival. Abiogenesis is a non-starter, so evolutionists claim that anyone who includes the origin of life in the theory of evolution is stupid and doesn’t know what he is talking about. In debates, they try to define the theory of evolution so narrowly that it doesn’t involve abiogenesis; but that doesn’t stop them from including abiogenesis in the section on evolution in biology textbooks.
The theory of evolution is supposed to answer the question, “Where did we come from?” The evolutionary answer can’t begin with pre-existing life. It has to start with a barren, lifeless planet. Evolutionists don’t want to talk about how life began because all of their fanciful explanations defy the laws of science. Their “scientific” arguments are foolish—and they know it.
Some evolutionists really get mad when I point out that there are only two scientifically documented cases of inanimate material coming to life—Pinocchio and Frosty the Snowman! There is truth in humor. It makes them mad because they can’t say, “Oh yes there are documented cases!” There are no documented, or even plausible, scientific examples of how inanimate chemicals combined to form the first living thing. Their “scientific” explanation for the origin of life is not based on successful experiments, or actual observation. Their “scientific” explanation is based on wishful thinking. Their frustration at their own inability to give a plausible answer manifests itself in anger.
You instinctively know that life is more than just the proper mix of chemicals. All the right chemicals, contained in a membrane, are like a computer without software. Life is a process, not a material. Life requires a material substrate in which to exist; but life is more than just assembly of cells. It is a functional system that grows and reproduces.
The theory of evolution is based on the notion that the proper mix of chemicals somehow spontaneously came to life. There is no scientific basis to believe this could possibly happen, and many scientific principles explain why it could not. More than fifty years of failed origin-of-life experiments that have proved that life can’t originate spontaneously.
Since the first of the three necessary conditions is not fulfilled, the theory of evolution is disproved without further discussion. But—just for the sake of discussion—let’s imagine that the impossible did happen, and the first living thing arose through some unknown natural process so we can examine the other two criteria.
If the first living thing came to life through some unknown natural process, what did it do? Somehow, it had to process energy to grow and reproduce itself. Without replication there can’t be any evolution. If the first living thing did not reproduce itself, it would still be the only living thing on Earth (if it could survive), and we would not be here to ponder it.
What did the first living thing eat? Why did it reproduce? How did it reproduce? These are just a few of the unanswerable questions about the first living thing. An evolutionist has to accept, by faith, that the first living thing did somehow stumble upon functional metabolic and reproductive processes. Those are pretty big snowflakes all by themselves, but let’s not worry about them.
If it replicated itself perfectly, it would still be the only KIND of living thing on the Earth. There would be more than one of them; but they would all be the same thing. There would only be one species on Earth. Evolution depends upon imperfect replication. The foundational principle of the theory of evolution is that mutations produce lots of different random variations, and natural selection filters these variations, keeping the most beneficial ones.
Evolutionists make up stories about how a light-sensitive spot accidentally appeared on a primitive living thing. Even though it had no imaging capability, and no image processing capability in its rudimentary brain, it somehow provided a survival advantage. Eventually, a bunch of lucky accidents cause it to form a lens over the light-sensitive cells, and an optic nerve accidentally sent data to the brain, and image-processing algorithms accidentally evolved so that the living thing could see and recognize food, and move toward it, and see and recognize predators, and move away from them. It was just a lucky accident that the brain guessed which things were food and which things were foe. The lucky ones lived long enough to reproduce. The unlucky ones didn’t.
It was just a lucky accident that we evolved blood, and a heart to pump it through our accidental lungs, to all the rest of our body. It was just luck that blood has the characteristics that it clings to oxygen in an oxygen-rich environment, and releases oxygen in an oxygen-poor environment. And clotting just happened to evolve so that the blood doesn’t flow out through small wounds, but doesn’t clot in the small arteries and veins preventing the blood to flow internally. And the circulatory system just happened to cooperate with the immune system, carrying white blood cells to the infection site.
The more you think about all the lucky things that had to happen to produce all the components of every biological system, which accidentally work together to provide needed functionality, the more ridiculous it becomes. If you really believe in that much luck, you should buy a lottery ticket.
It is a statistical fact that, given enough time, improbable things will happen. If someone honestly shuffles a deck of cards and asks you to guess which card is on top, you probably won’t guess what it is. But, if you have thousands of people all trying to guess the top card, some of them will. Some of them will even guess the top two cards correctly. If many millions of people tried to guess all 52 cards in order, sooner or later, someone would. Actually, it would probably be much later! But given enough time, it could happen.
Of course, this experiment depends upon the ability of the subjects to communicate their guesses to the person conducting the experiment. Suppose they use a telephone to do that (to eliminate any chance of peeking). What is the probability that a subject could tell the experimenter over the telephone all 52 cards in order if the telephone didn’t work? In this circumstance, probability no longer matters. The subject can’t even tell the first card correctly if the phone doesn’t work.
It is foolish to try to compute the probability that a cell will spontaneously form and come to life, or that an optical system, or circulatory system, will evolve on its own, because it isn’t a question of probability. It simply isn’t scientifically possible. Therefore, it can’t happen by chance, no matter how much time is available. The theory of evolution fails the second criterion.
Evolutionists believe (by faith) that innumerable impossible things aren’t really impossible—they are just improbable. And, given enough time, even the most improbable thing will happen. So, if we grant the false premise that impossible things are actually possible (but extremely improbable), the Earth has to be very old for all these improbable things to happen by chance. Is the Earth old enough?
That’s a difficult question for several reasons. The time required depends upon how improbable an outcome is, and how often experiments are conducted. How long will it take to toss a coin and have it come up heads 28 times in a row? You can estimate the time only by knowing the probability that a coin will come up heads, and how often the coin is tossed. Even then, you might be unlucky, and it might take even longer.
What’s the probability that a cell will accidentally become light-sensitive? How many cells are produced per minute? One has to guess these things. The time required will depend upon the guesses. So, creationists and evolutionists argue about mutation rates, and the number of mutations necessary, because they make different guesses about how improbable impossible events are. Since it is foolish to try to calculate the probability of something that is impossible, you should not even try.
Evolutionists seem to be comfortable with the notion that the universe is about 15 billion years old, and the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Is that enough time for the impossible to happen? Of course not! Things that are impossible won’t happen no matter how long one waits. So, the age of the universe, and the age of the Earth, are irrelevant.
But evolutionists think that billions of years have gone by, and that billions of years are sufficient for all the required mutations to happen by chance, so we must address the issue. Is it plausible that the universe and the Earth are that old? I’ve published nearly 60 articles about the age of the Earth 1 showing that the Earth can’t be that old.
Perhaps the most compelling of all those articles showing the Earth can’t possibly be as old as evolutionists say is my article on U-Series Dating. 2 It shows that, after 1.7 million years, all of the uranium-234 that exists today should be the result of decay from uranium-238, so everywhere on Earth the ratio of uranium-234 to uranium-238 should be the same value (specifically, 1 to 18,089) because equilibrium between decay rates of the two uranium isotopes should have been reached by now. But a peer-reviewed article about an attempt to date cave paintings using uranium isotope ratios accidentally reported that the measured ratios range from 74% to 786% of what they should be. Further investigation showed that this was not an isolated incident. The usual explanations for the unexpected values are “contamination,” or unknown “natural processes” which have caused the ratio of uranium isotopes to be out of equilibrium.
Of course, the most reasonable explanation for disequilibrium is that there has not been sufficient time for uranium-234 and uranium-238 to reach equilibrium. In other words, the age of the Earth must be MUCH LESS than 1.7 million years. That’s not nearly enough time for all the various kinds of living things to have evolved from the first living organism.
Students are routinely told that radiometric ages are consistent and accurate. Neither of these statements is true. The methods aren’t accurate because they depend upon assumptions about initial concentrations which cannot be independently verified (except for carbon 14 dating of items of known historical age). The methods aren’t consistent because the measured ratios of isotopes are not the result of the passage of time—they are the result of different initial concentrations.
Inconsistencies in radiometric dates are often blamed on contamination or human error. The moon rocks brought back by the Apollo 11 astronauts were among the most carefully analyzed rocks in the history of science. The age of the Moon is said to be 4.43 billion years old. But the rocks brought back by Apollo 11 were dated a total of 116 times. Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The dates ranged from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years. 3 The 10 dates that fell in the 4.3 to 4.56 billion year range were declared to be valid (and the 106 other dates were ignored) because of evolutionary prejudice.
Radiometric dating is based on incorrect assumptions. That’s why it gives irrelevant ages. Radiometric dating of rocks does not prove the Earth is old.
When you put it all together, and realize that life doesn’t happen spontaneously, complex biological systems don’t arise by chance, and the Earth can’t possibly be as old as evolutionists would need it to be, it is clear that all three of the theory of evolution’s necessary conditions are false.
If any one condition is false, evolution can’t be true. In this case, it’s one strike and you are out. But evolution swings and misses all three times. No runs, no hits, just error after error. The theory of evolution loses.
Guilt is what God uses to bring your sins to your attention so that you can repent of them, and have them forgiven.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [1 John 1:9, KJV]
To do that, however, you have to stop doing that sin. Enlightened folks find this to be an unsatisfactory solution because they are searching for a way to be free from guilt and still enjoy the pleasure of sin.
The enlightened solution is to transfer the stigma from sin to the guilt it produces. That is to say, don’t hate the sin—hate the guilt that comes from the sin. You don’t have to get rid of the sin—you just have to get rid of the guilt.
They say all you have to do is to be “nonjudgmental” and all your guilt will disappear. Being “nonjudgmental” means to them, “don’t make any value judgments.” Accept sin. Abandon your principles. Don’t expect much of yourself and you won’t be disappointed.
In 1969, Dr. Thomas A. Harris, MD, wrote a book titled, I’m OK—You’re OK with the subtitle, “A Practical Guide to Transactional Analysis.” It is still in print. Amazon describes it this way:
Transactional Analysis delineates three observable ego-states (Parent, Adult, and Child) as the basis for the content and quality of interpersonal communication. "Happy childhood" notwithstanding, says Harris, most of us are living out the Not ok feelings of a defenseless child, dependent on ok others (parents) for stroking and caring. At some stage early in our lives we adopt a "position" about ourselves and others that determines how we feel about everything we do. And for a huge portion of the population, that position is "I'm Not OK -- You're OK." This negative "life position," shared by successful and unsuccessful people alike, contaminates our rational Adult capabilities, leaving us vulnerable to inappropriate emotional reactions of our Child and uncritically learned behavior programmed into our Parent. By exploring the structure of our personalities and understanding old decisions, Harris believes we can find the freedom to change our lives. 4
This sounds good. Intellectual nonsense always does. Intellectual nonsense is carefully crafted to appear to be very smart. Harris promises “the freedom to change our lives” simply by accepting “the structure of our personalities and understanding old decisions.”
In other words, you can change your life without changing. All you have to do is to love yourself the way you are, blaming all your bad decisions on heredity and environment. It’s not your fault. You’re OK. You have nothing to feel guilty about. Just keep telling yourself that until you believe it, and the guilt will disappear.
It is a very appealing doctrine, so some Protestant churches wanted a piece of that action. They went looking for a Bible verse that could be twisted to support nonjudgmental acceptance of sin, and they found it in Matthew 7, verse 1.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. [Matthew 7:1, KJV]
Taken out of context, it sounds like Jesus says it is virtuous to be nonjudgmental. If you read the whole passage, you will see that Jesus says just the opposite. Here’s the whole passage:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. [Matthew 7:1-6, NIV]
Jesus isn’t talking about how to treat dogs and pigs—He is talking about how to interact with other people. Does Jesus expect you to decide which people are dogs or pigs without being judgmental? Jesus wants you to get to the point where you will be able to see, and remove, the speck (the sin) in your brother’s eye (that is, in his life).
Jesus isn’t promoting the idea of “I’m OK—You’re OK.” In fact, He is saying just the opposite. His point is that you weren’t born OK and your neighbor wasn’t born OK. You need to get yourself OK so you can help your neighbor get OK. Just a few verses later He says,
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. [Matthew 7:15-20, NIV]
How can you watch out for false prophets if you aren’t supposed to judge them? Don’t be fooled by what they say. Be fruit inspectors. Judge them by the fruit they bear.
If you do dare to call sin by its right name, you will probably be called “judgmental” and “unloving.” That’s because the “enlightened” view of love is totally messed up. The “enlightened” definition of love is “unconditional acceptance of sin.”
Presumably, you are reading this book about how to turbo charge your church because you think your congregation needs revival. (You are being judgmental—and that’s OK!) You must know there is something wrong with your congregation; but you don’t know what it is, or what to do about it. I don’t know what that is, but please allow me to suggest a possibility.
Is there one Bible verse that everyone in your congregation can quote from memory? Is that one Bible verse John 3:16?
When the TV camera pans across the crowd at a football game, isn’t there usually someone holding a sign that says, “John 3:16”? That suggests that the person holding the sign believes that if someone reads just one verse in the Bible, it should be,
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 3:16, KJV]
How would you summarize this verse in just three words? Most people would say, “God is love,” or “God loves you,” or “God loves everyone.” In other words, “I’m OK—You’re OK.”
But what do the next three verses say? Can everyone in your congregation quote them? I’ll bet not.
Does your congregation even remember the context in which Jesus spoke John 3:16? It was when Nicodemus came to Jesus are night. The whole story is in John 3:1-21. The three verses following John 3:16 are,
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [John 3:17-19, KJV]
Verse 17 says that God didn’t want to condemn the world; but verse 18 says that He reluctantly did condemn the world already because, as verse 19 says, when Jesus came into the world, the world chose evil rather than good.
Please try this experiment. Ask someone without a Christian bias (a Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist) to read John 3:1-21 and ask him, “Which one verse best summarizes what Jesus was trying to tell Nicodemus?” He will probably choose either
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. [John 3:3, KJV]
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [John 3:5, KJV]
It is unlikely that any unbiased person would say that John 3:16 is the best summary of what Jesus said.
Nicodemus was a member in excellent standing in the church—and Jesus told him he had to be born again because he was lost. Nicodemus was a descendant of Abraham. That made him a “child of God.” Nicodemus was trusting in that relationship to be saved. Jesus told him that even though God loves the world, many will be lost “because their deeds were evil.”
Is your congregation proclaiming the same message Jesus gave to Nicodemus? Or is it just saying, “God is love”?
When secular Christians say, “God is love,” they are really saying, “God doesn’t give a hoot.” Secular Christianity has created a loving God who doesn’t care about anything. You can eat unclean food because God loves you so much He doesn’t care what you eat. Break the Sabbath commandment every week if you want because God loves you so much He will forgive you. Most of all, He doesn’t care a bit about what you do in the bedroom with anyone of any sex!
I can remember a time when it was shameful for an unmarried woman to get pregnant. Actually, it still is shameful—but not in the eyes of secular society. I could quote current statistics about births to unwed mothers, but they would be obsolete by the time you read this. Besides, you see the birth announcements in the newspapers listing just a mother’s name, or a couple with two different last names. You know that is now socially acceptable for a couple to live together before marriage, and maybe never even get married. The modern mantra is, “If it feels good—do it!” There is no denying that sex feels good.
In recent years, homosexuality has reached honored status in America. At the 2012 Democrat Convention, “marriage equality” was one of the party planks. Democrat politicians used the phrase, “no matter who you love,” at every opportunity. That’s their diplomatic way of saying that people should be applauded for their sexual deviancy because it is evidence of their progressive, enlightened attitudes. At the 2013 VMA awards show, the music video “Same Love,” which glorifies homosexuality, was given the award for “Best Video with a Social Message,” and the MTV crowd roared in approval.
The secular Thought Police have been very successful advancing their agenda by defining the terms to their advantage. They use terms like, “gay rights,” and “abortion rights.” As soon as one starts a discussion about “abortion rights” one has accepted the premise that women have a right to kill their babies. All that remains to be discussed is whether or not taxpayers or the Catholic Church should have to pay for it. Terms like “abortion rights,” “gay rights,” and “marriage equality,” are used to unfairly bias the argument. Who can be against “rights” or “equality?”
Anyone who dares to say anything against these bogus rights is judged to be acting like they are morally superior by judgmental people who think they are the ones who are morally superior. The secular Thought Police won’t tolerate any disagreement, which they consider to be intolerance. Intolerance isn’t tolerated by those who claim to be tolerant!
Tolerance of sin is not a virtue. It is the first of three steps toward immorality. At first, homosexuality was tolerated. Then homosexuality was accepted. Now homosexuality is celebrated. Fifty years ago, who would have thought that there would be Gay Pride parades? When television was invented, who would have thought it would be used to broadcast a program called, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?”
Now there are churches that ordain gay and lesbian priests. They are proud of their progressive position. The real question is, “Is God proud of their progressive position?” Will God really pour out His Holy Spirit on a church that endorses homosexuality (or any other sexual sin)?
A common refrain at the Democrat Convention was, “It doesn’t matter who you love.” What if a priest loves an altar boy? Why is homosexuality embraced by open-minded, clear thinking, enlightened people; but pedophilia is not? Why aren’t there Pedophile Pride parades? Just wait. There soon will be. Pedophilia will be the next “civil right.”
If public schools give out condoms so that teenage boys can have sex with teenage girls, why is it so scandalous when teenage boys have sex with their adult teachers? Isn’t it better for a boy to have his first sexual experience with an experienced woman? Isn’t that the most effective way to teach sex education? Won’t he treat his future girlfriends with more respect if he has been taught the proper techniques by an experienced woman?
That may sound shocking and disgusting to you. It certainly does to me. But we can’t ignore what is happening right before our eyes. Every argument that can be made in favor of “gay rights” can be made for “pedophile rights” or “incest rights,” and it probably will be. If a boy loves his mother, why can’t he make love with his mother? Why shouldn’t a girl’s first sexual experience be with her father, uncle, or brother if it really doesn’t matter who she loves?
The simple truth is that God decides what is moral and what isn’t. Morality isn’t defined by society. God is going to judge everyone according to His standards, not ours. Therefore, it is important to know what His standards are.
Some people claim that Jesus abolished the Old Testament laws at the cross. Jesus didn’t abolish the commandment against adultery. He said,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30, NIV)
Paul supposedly freed us from the law; but that’s not what he told the Romans: The first 17 verses of Paul’s letter to the Romans consist of a friendly greeting, and an expression of his desire to come and see them in person. Immediately after these required formal pleasantries, Paul got right down to business and said,
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32, NIV)
Paul told the Romans as plainly as he could that all forms of sexual impurity, sexual perversion, and idolatry are sinful and must no longer be practiced. Furthermore, he said the fact that the pagan Romans didn’t have the Hebrew Scriptures to tell them what was sinful was no excuse. Their behavior was so obviously sinful that they should have known it without being told. That’s why God was punishing them through natural consequences.
In particular, Paul said, “Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” What is the penalty that homosexuals receive for committing indecent acts with other men? Do I really have to tell you?
Occasionally nationally known preachers have suggested that AIDS is a punishment from God. Whenever they do, the liberal news media and daytime talk shows crucify them, accusing them of being unenlightened, bigoted homophobes. AIDS activists are quick to claim that AIDS isn’t a gay disease.
If AIDS isn’t a gay disease, why does the gay community clamor for more AIDS research and no other medical research? Why doesn’t the gay community lobby for more research into cancer, heart disease, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, or diabetes? The truth is that gay activists want to find a cure for AIDS because AIDS is often contracted most often by homosexuals.
Gays say we urgently need to find a way to stop the spread of AIDS—but we already know how to do that. If you don’t get blood from an infected person, if you don’t share a needle with a drug addict, if you don’t have sex before you get married, if you marry a virgin, and if you both remain faithful to each other, there is little or no chance that you will get AIDS, and you won’t pass it on to your unborn children. We already know how to stop the spread of AIDS. We don’t need any more research.
When gays say, “We need to find a way to stop the spread of AIDS,” they really mean, “We need to find a way to continue sinning without suffering the natural consequences of sin.” Even if researchers discover a vaccine that allows them to sin without the natural consequence of AIDS, it still won’t allow them to sin without eternal consequences.
Paul also told the Romans, “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” That’s still true today in our society. Some people today not only approve of homosexuality, but consider it worthy of honor.
Let’s not get so distracted by homosexual sins that we forget about a major consequence of heterosexual sin—specifically abortion.
Certain politicians say abortion is a right that should not be denied to women. Women want to have abortions. Abortion is their God-given right that should not be taken away by right-wing Christians.
Seven-year-old girls, playing with their Barbie dolls, don’t say, “When I grow up, I want to have an abortion!” An abortion is not something to be desired. Women don’t really want abortions. What those women really want is sex without consequences. An abortion isn’t the answer because it has consequences of its own.
Abortion advocates are quick to argue that abortion should be legal in cases of rape. Really?
First of all, if you look at the number of abortions performed in the United States, and believe that a significant number of them are the result of rape, we must have tremendous number of unreported rapes. If that is the case, we should be dealing with rape, not abortion.
Second, rape is terrible whether it results in pregnancy or not. To think that an abortion will solve all of a woman’s problems resulting from being raped is terribly naïve.
Third, women who are raped often feel guilty and ashamed, as if it were their fault, when it probably wasn’t their fault at all. It doesn’t help to replace a woman’s false guilt (thinking she encouraged the rape) with real guilt (knowing that she intentionally murdered her baby).
A woman who turns to Jesus after an abortion can find forgiveness if she repents of her sin; but a non-Christian woman will be haunted by guilt for the rest of her life.
According to the popular song, “Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all.” Secular society tries to find comfort in ignoring sin and guilt, loving yourself just the way you are. Secularized Protestant churches have adopted pretty much the same philosophy. Love yourself because God loves you no matter how much you sin.
The Bible teaches that man caused death through sin. Evolution teaches that death caused man through natural selection. Did man cause death, or did death cause man? You have to choose one or the other.
If you choose to believe in evolution, then you have to believe that death was in the world for millions of years before Adam and Eve evolved. Therefore, the story about death being the penalty for sin isn’t actually true. If death isn’t the penalty for sin, then Jesus’ death on the cross didn’t actually pay the penalty for your sin. If evolution is true, then Paul was wrong when he said,
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” [Romans 5:12, NIV]
And if Paul was wrong about that, he was wrong when he said,
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. [Romans 5:17-19, NIV]
If you throw out creation, you have to throw out Jesus’ atoning sacrifice because the sacrifice is based on the Genesis account of creation.
Theistic evolutionists say, “God could have used evolution over millions of years to create man.” Yes, He could have—but He says He didn’t. He says He created the world in six days. Furthermore, He says He is going to re-create us instantly at the second coming. Should we believe He will instead recreate us over millions of years using evolution? If He can recreate us instantly at the second coming, why would He have taken more than six days to create the world in the first place?
Theistic evolution is bad theology combined with bad science. Evolution is unscientific. It is foolish to concoct a nonsensical theology to agree with the irrational, unscientific theory of evolution.
Guilt is simply the Holy Spirit making you aware of your sin so that you will repent of it and be forgiven. If you ignore your feelings of guilt, you will continue to sin, not repent of it, and not be forgiven. Ignoring guilt does not make the consequences of sin go away any more than sticking your head in the sand makes danger go away. The danger is still there, whether you can see it or not. To ignore guilt is to ignore danger.
You can’t really be guilt-free by ignoring it. The only way to be truly guilt-free is to repent, confess your sin, ask for forgiveness, and receive the peace from God that comes with forgiveness.
God does love you—but that doesn’t mean He will bless you and save you if you continue to sin. You need to “admit it and quit it.”
Sex has some emotional baggage that goes along with it. It is heartbreaking for a girl when a boy she has kissed breaks up with her; but it is so much more painful when a boy she has had sex with breaks up with her. He pressured her into giving him the pleasure he wanted, then he discarded her when he got tired of her. That’s emotionally crushing. If she gets a disease, or gets pregnant, that’s even worse. Girls don’t usually pressure boys into having sex; but it does happen sometimes. When a boy gets dumped, it hurts! When a boy becomes a father before he is ready, it complicates his life (whether he runs away or not).
It is easy to tell “loving lies,” and condone immoral behavior. It is hard to tell teenagers (or anyone else) they should not have sex outside of marriage. It may seem loving to tell homosexuals that God approves of their lifestyle. The cold hard truth is that He doesn’t.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? [1 Corinthians 5:1-2, NIV]
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [1 Corinthians 6:9-11, NIV]
Paul cannot be any clearer than that. But notice that he is careful to emphasize the sanctifying power of God, which can give the victory over all kinds of sins. You should be sure to emphasize that God does pardon past transgressions if the sinner truly repents.
God told Ezekiel,
When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself. [Ezekiel 3:18-19, NIV]
Yes, this advice was given specifically to Ezekiel; but do you think God is not saying the same thing to your church? Will God hold your church blameless if you do not proclaim the penalty for disobedience?
The Lord Almighty has declared in my hearing:
Woe to those who call evil good
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
This goes straight to the basic premise of this book: God will not empower a church that has adopted anti-Christian doctrines that call evil good and good evil. Failure to take a moral stand (or worse yet, taking an immoral stand) prevents the Holy Spirit from empowering your church. The Holy Spirit will not help a church proclaim a message opposed to the word of God.
If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. [Mark 3:25]
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. [Revelation 22:18-19, NIV]
Doctrine matters. God will bless a church that preaches the truth—not a church that preaches smooth things that itching ears want to hear.
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. [2 Timothy 4:1-5, NIV]
Your church must preach the truth about immoral behavior—including this truth:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. [1 John 1:9, NIV]
Your congregation needs to take a strong stand against one-sided teaching of evolution in the public schools.
You should not push for teaching creation in public school. In fact, you should not want any aspect of Christianity taught in the public schools because they won’t teach it any better than they teach math and English! Christianity is too important to be taught badly by amateurs!
Instead, demand that schools fairly present the scientific arguments for and against evolution without bringing Genesis into the conversation.
God will not send the Holy Spirit to empower a church that is ashamed to defend God’s literal seven-day creation.
For your congregation to experience true revival and reformation, it has to stand up for truth. It cannot accept the notion that everyone can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Your congregation cannot abdicate its responsibility to call sin by its right name.
This means your congregation has to take a strong stand against all the popular sexual sins, including sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, and incest. God does not excuse these sins just because He loves sinners. Without experiencing repentance and forgiveness, people who commit these sins will be lost. If you don’t speak out against these sins, your children will not consider them to be sins, and may choose to engage in them.
Your congregation must encourage unmarried couples to abstain from sex, and not to end an unwanted pregnancy with the murder of an innocent baby. There would not be any debate about abortion laws if nobody had an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Moral education is a far better solution than making abortion illegal.
|Back to Chapter 3||Table of Contents||On to Chapter 5|
2 Disclosure, July 2012, “U-Series Dating”, http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v16i10f.htm
3 Disclosure, June 2008, “The Age of the Moon”, http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i9f.htm