By John D. Ferrer
Marriage is under fire… again.
The red wave in November might have helped put out the fire, but not when the wave is just a trickle. Unless something wild happens in Arizona and Georgia, the Democrats will retain the Senate majority. Republicans will gain a slight majority in the House of Representatives, but that doesn’t start till January. That leaves a one-month window for a democrat-majority House and Senate to cram everything they can into law before New Year’s. One of those cram jobs is the “Respect for Marriage Act.”[i]
Following Senate majority leader Chuck Shumer, Democrats are expected to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act.” The bill briefly mentions interracial marriages, which no one is disputing. that’s been legal in every state for decades now. That’s not the contentious part. This bill is written in direct opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act[ii] (1996), and intended to build on the momentum of the Obergfell decision (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Broadly speaking, the Respect for Marriage act would guarantee that any type of marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in every state. If you stop and think about that, it can get pretty absurd pretty quickly. Here’s the official summary of the bill.
Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.
117th Congress, H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Summary[iii]
Democrats seem to have a winning issue here though. The “marriage equality” rhetoric plays well to progressives, the LGBT lobby, and many libertarians. That means more publicity, votes, and money. As legislation, the bill already passed the House, and it has the votes to pass in the senate. It should have stalled out in the senate, for missing the 60 votes needed for cloture (ending debate/filibuster). But the 50 democrat votes are now joined by 12 Republicans supporting the bill.
- Roy Blunt of Missouri
- Richard Burr of North Carolina
- Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
- Susan Collins of Maine
- Joni Ernst of Iowa
- Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
- Rob Portman of Ohio
- Mitt Romney of Utah
- Dan Sullivan of Alaska
- Thom Tillis of North Carolina
- Todd Young of Indiana
This means, the Respect for Marriage Act can be put to a final vote, passing with a simple majority (51 votes). It will become the law of the land unless something drastic happens like senate democrats changing their vote, or a state election being overturned.
WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
Those 12 republican votes are a little surprising, because republicans have mostly opposed redefining marriage. Plus, an earlier version of the bill raised concerns about religious freedom. The bill looked like it would force people to violate their conscience or their religion. Even the most liberal republicans and RINOs would have to reject that. Remember the cake-baker case[iv]? What about the flower-shop case[v]? Or the wedding-planner case[vi]? Without a doubt, there are left-wing legal teams determined to force Christians to violate their conscience and their religion (not to mention sacrifice free enterprise and freedom of speech). So, no matter what lobbyists may say, religious freedom is a live issue facing active threats.
That, however, was the old version of the bill. A new version[vii] was amended to protect religious freedom, at least for individuals and communities. With that revision in place, those 12 republicans were free to dissent from Republican ranks.
But does it protect religious freedom? A little, but not nearly as much as it may seem. It protects religious freedom at an individual and community level (like churches), but only generally, and only when it doesn’t include the state. It says:
“In General – Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the [US] Constitution.”
117th Congress H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Sec., 6, line 22[viii].
“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”
One big problem with this amendment is the squishy phrase: “In General.” It refers to a general principle, and since the principle applies only generally, that means many times it doesn’t apply. Simply put, “generally true” means “often false.” In legal terms, squishy words like that tend to become escape clauses. They’re loopholes, so litigious activists can get around basic rights.
Plus, you can’t build much on squishy words. They aren’t absolute, universal, or even easy to clarify. So, it’s not a strong foundation for legal protections. Anyone who’s life and livelihood is on the line (cake-bakers and wedding planners included), they have only a cold reassurance that “maybe federal law will respect your religious freedom.”
Another liability with squishy legal terms is they can squishify and dissolve whatever they touch. Whatever follows from “In General” is only generally true, so there can be exceptions. Would your case be an exception? Who knows? Instead of clear, firm, and absolute statements protecting people’s religious freedoms, this amendment offers only a generality, a great big “Maybe?!” That’s little reassurance for the next small-business owner facing a class-action lawsuit with the full-force of the LGBT-lobby against them. A squishy fortress is no fortress at all.
IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS
Another big problem with the amendment is that there’s not a single word protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in the form of state laws and elections. Voting is free speech. You can’t be legally forced to vote against your conscience. If the people across the state were to vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment or a particular law, that’s an expression of free speech. The Respect for Marriage Act threatens to strike down any competing state-level constitutions or laws, never minding the voice and conscience of the people who voted that legislation into existence.
Suppose for example, Iowans were to pass a law, across the state of Iowa, reflecting their deeply held beliefs about adoption practices and gay couples. If that law ran head-on into the Respect for Marriage Act, then the federal law would have right of way in the collision. The federal law would be violating people’s freedom of speech (in voting) and freedom of religion (in voting their conscience).
IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE
Setting aside the shaky amendment, there’s a deeper problem with the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s a glaring misnomer. It’s not respecting marriage at all, not unless we abandon the standing institution of marriage from the start of human history till about five minutes ago. Al Mohler calls it “Orwellian” because it hides a profound disrespect for marriage behind a sneaky politispeak title: “Respect for Marriage Act” (see, Al Mohler, The Briefing[ix], Nov. 17, 2022 – 23:42)
This Act treats marriage as merely a social construct that people can define and redefine at will. It’s as if states can create a new category of marriage, at will. But that framing runs contrary to human history, natural law, not to mention Scripture. Marriage isn’t a social construct, it’s more like a natural law, or even a force-of-nature. It’s built-in. It’s something we discover as a facet of God’s creation. We didn’t create marriage. God did (Genesis 2:19-25; Matthew 19:4-6). It’s also a gracious gift from God. We’re in no place to take God’s gift of marriage and say, “God, you didn’t design it right; here let me fix it up for you.”
Ethically speaking, we’re playing God if we think we have the authority to redefine marriage according to trending fashions. It’s pretty disrespectful towards God and towards marriage, to invent other partnerships that history, nature, and God never called “marriage” and think we have somehow expanded the institution of marriage to include them. We can play around with words all we want, but the institution of marriage precedes us. It’s bigger than us. And it comes from God. So, it isn’t subject to our language games. We can’t redefine marriage any more than we can replace the wings of a plane mid-flight.
IT’S OPEN-ENDED
It’s been said that people should be careful they’re not so open minded that their brains fall out. The same applies to an open definition of marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act fortifies an open view of marriage to where any state can change their definition and all other states would have to accept it, no matter how ridiculous that redefinition may be. Imagine if Utah reinstated polygamy. Or, if Texas lowered the age of marital consent to 12 (no offense Texas). Or, if California approved bigamy (2+ marriages at once). Or New York granted marriage status to any two roommates seeking tax benefits. Or if Florida granted dolphins “person” status so people can marry them. Or if Oregon allowed twelve different people to “identify” as just two people in marriage – every other state would be forced to accept any or all of these arrangements.
Bear in mind, marriage is what it is, regardless of terminology. Every state would have to affirm a lie, accepting as “marriage” what, in reality, is not a marriage. Every state in the union would have to adjust their health codes, family laws, child-protective services, domestic abuse laws, employment ethics, tax codes, health insurance, medical standards, adoption laws, housing and real-estate categories, and everything else impacted by these alternative “marriages”. All that because a federal law is demanding that everyone in every state: “Obey, or else.” Even if we set aside the religious, and ethical problems with this legislation, it’s so monstrously impractical it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY
To be clear here, I don’t think society should prevent two mentally-fit unmarried adults from marrying each other. Even if they’re gay, bi-, or trans, they have the same natural right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. No one is stopping gay people from participating in their equal right to marry; and marriage is with someone of the opposite sex. That’s what marriage has meant for thousands of years, across all cultures, and all established world religions, to where it’s been a cultural universal and a common-sense admission by everyone everywhere till about 5 minutes ago. It’s redundant to even call it “traditional marriage.” It’s just called marriage. We’ve had to clarify in recent years that we (Christian conservatives) mean the same thing by “marriage” that almost everyone across history has meant by “marriage.” We mean it in the traditional sense. We don’t mean it in the recently revised socially-constructed sense. We’re talking about the long-tested and well-proven institutional bedrock for societies across every remotely successful civilization in history. We’re talking about the sacred social institution whereby women are protected, men are disciplined, and children are raised more effectively than any other family model. Even polygamous cultures treated marriage as one-man plus one woman; they just allowed the wealthier citizens to have more than one marriage at a time.
We already had marriage equality before worldly forces began playing language games with the term “marriage,” and before subversives began launching an open assault on the nuclear family. Not only did we have marriage equality, we had civil protections and privileges for marriage, we had respect for marriage, we even had healthier marriages and stronger families before all this.
If we Christian conservatives were willing to do the hard-work to protect and preserve the better parts of family-friendly faith-based culture, we might not be in this predicament. But there’s no sense in bemoaning past mistakes. we can’t change them. We can however learn from our mistakes, so we don’t have to repeat them.
At this point, the Respect for Marriage act is Exhibit Z in a long line of evidence proving how worldly forces are dead-set on subverting institution marriage and with it the nuclear family. Fellow believers and social conservatives have an upward hill to climb here. But God is still sovereign. And there’s still time for your state representative to take courage and do the right thing. Pray hard folks. Get the word out. And maybe write your local representative and tell them to vote against this Disrespecting Marriage Act.
What follows is the text of the Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404). Accessed 20 Nov 2022 at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text?r=947&s=6
H. R. 8404
TO REPEAL THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND ENSURE RESPECT FOR STATE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATE
July 20, 2022
Received; read the first time
July 21, 2022
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
AN ACT
To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.
SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Chapter 115[x] of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:
Ҥ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
“(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—
“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or
“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.
“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.
“(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.
SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
Ҥ 7. Marriage
“(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
“(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.
“(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.
SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2022.Attest:
Footnotes
[i] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
[ii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396/text
[iii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404?r=947&s=6
[iv] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
[v] https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2019/91615-2-0.html
[vi] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-10/303-Creative-cert-stage.pdf
[vii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf
[viii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf
[ix] https://open.spotify.com/episode/08Prpo2UN4zXtOTROWJBZY
[x] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-chapter115-front&num=0&edition=prelim
Recommended resources related to the topic:
4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek
Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3EYkP9O
The Disrespecting Marriage Act
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy John D. Ferrer
Marriage is under fire… again.
The red wave in November might have helped put out the fire, but not when the wave is just a trickle. Unless something wild happens in Arizona and Georgia, the Democrats will retain the Senate majority. Republicans will gain a slight majority in the House of Representatives, but that doesn’t start till January. That leaves a one-month window for a democrat-majority House and Senate to cram everything they can into law before New Year’s. One of those cram jobs is the “Respect for Marriage Act.”[i]
Following Senate majority leader Chuck Shumer, Democrats are expected to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act.” The bill briefly mentions interracial marriages, which no one is disputing. that’s been legal in every state for decades now. That’s not the contentious part. This bill is written in direct opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act[ii] (1996), and intended to build on the momentum of the Obergfell decision (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Broadly speaking, the Respect for Marriage act would guarantee that any type of marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in every state. If you stop and think about that, it can get pretty absurd pretty quickly. Here’s the official summary of the bill.
Democrats seem to have a winning issue here though. The “marriage equality” rhetoric plays well to progressives, the LGBT lobby, and many libertarians. That means more publicity, votes, and money. As legislation, the bill already passed the House, and it has the votes to pass in the senate. It should have stalled out in the senate, for missing the 60 votes needed for cloture (ending debate/filibuster). But the 50 democrat votes are now joined by 12 Republicans supporting the bill.
This means, the Respect for Marriage Act can be put to a final vote, passing with a simple majority (51 votes). It will become the law of the land unless something drastic happens like senate democrats changing their vote, or a state election being overturned.
WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?
Those 12 republican votes are a little surprising, because republicans have mostly opposed redefining marriage. Plus, an earlier version of the bill raised concerns about religious freedom. The bill looked like it would force people to violate their conscience or their religion. Even the most liberal republicans and RINOs would have to reject that. Remember the cake-baker case[iv]? What about the flower-shop case[v]? Or the wedding-planner case[vi]? Without a doubt, there are left-wing legal teams determined to force Christians to violate their conscience and their religion (not to mention sacrifice free enterprise and freedom of speech). So, no matter what lobbyists may say, religious freedom is a live issue facing active threats.
That, however, was the old version of the bill. A new version[vii] was amended to protect religious freedom, at least for individuals and communities. With that revision in place, those 12 republicans were free to dissent from Republican ranks.
But does it protect religious freedom? A little, but not nearly as much as it may seem. It protects religious freedom at an individual and community level (like churches), but only generally, and only when it doesn’t include the state. It says:
“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”
One big problem with this amendment is the squishy phrase: “In General.” It refers to a general principle, and since the principle applies only generally, that means many times it doesn’t apply. Simply put, “generally true” means “often false.” In legal terms, squishy words like that tend to become escape clauses. They’re loopholes, so litigious activists can get around basic rights.
Plus, you can’t build much on squishy words. They aren’t absolute, universal, or even easy to clarify. So, it’s not a strong foundation for legal protections. Anyone who’s life and livelihood is on the line (cake-bakers and wedding planners included), they have only a cold reassurance that “maybe federal law will respect your religious freedom.”
Another liability with squishy legal terms is they can squishify and dissolve whatever they touch. Whatever follows from “In General” is only generally true, so there can be exceptions. Would your case be an exception? Who knows? Instead of clear, firm, and absolute statements protecting people’s religious freedoms, this amendment offers only a generality, a great big “Maybe?!” That’s little reassurance for the next small-business owner facing a class-action lawsuit with the full-force of the LGBT-lobby against them. A squishy fortress is no fortress at all.
IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS
Another big problem with the amendment is that there’s not a single word protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in the form of state laws and elections. Voting is free speech. You can’t be legally forced to vote against your conscience. If the people across the state were to vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment or a particular law, that’s an expression of free speech. The Respect for Marriage Act threatens to strike down any competing state-level constitutions or laws, never minding the voice and conscience of the people who voted that legislation into existence.
Suppose for example, Iowans were to pass a law, across the state of Iowa, reflecting their deeply held beliefs about adoption practices and gay couples. If that law ran head-on into the Respect for Marriage Act, then the federal law would have right of way in the collision. The federal law would be violating people’s freedom of speech (in voting) and freedom of religion (in voting their conscience).
IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE
Setting aside the shaky amendment, there’s a deeper problem with the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s a glaring misnomer. It’s not respecting marriage at all, not unless we abandon the standing institution of marriage from the start of human history till about five minutes ago. Al Mohler calls it “Orwellian” because it hides a profound disrespect for marriage behind a sneaky politispeak title: “Respect for Marriage Act” (see, Al Mohler, The Briefing[ix], Nov. 17, 2022 – 23:42)
This Act treats marriage as merely a social construct that people can define and redefine at will. It’s as if states can create a new category of marriage, at will. But that framing runs contrary to human history, natural law, not to mention Scripture. Marriage isn’t a social construct, it’s more like a natural law, or even a force-of-nature. It’s built-in. It’s something we discover as a facet of God’s creation. We didn’t create marriage. God did (Genesis 2:19-25; Matthew 19:4-6). It’s also a gracious gift from God. We’re in no place to take God’s gift of marriage and say, “God, you didn’t design it right; here let me fix it up for you.”
Ethically speaking, we’re playing God if we think we have the authority to redefine marriage according to trending fashions. It’s pretty disrespectful towards God and towards marriage, to invent other partnerships that history, nature, and God never called “marriage” and think we have somehow expanded the institution of marriage to include them. We can play around with words all we want, but the institution of marriage precedes us. It’s bigger than us. And it comes from God. So, it isn’t subject to our language games. We can’t redefine marriage any more than we can replace the wings of a plane mid-flight.
IT’S OPEN-ENDED
It’s been said that people should be careful they’re not so open minded that their brains fall out. The same applies to an open definition of marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act fortifies an open view of marriage to where any state can change their definition and all other states would have to accept it, no matter how ridiculous that redefinition may be. Imagine if Utah reinstated polygamy. Or, if Texas lowered the age of marital consent to 12 (no offense Texas). Or, if California approved bigamy (2+ marriages at once). Or New York granted marriage status to any two roommates seeking tax benefits. Or if Florida granted dolphins “person” status so people can marry them. Or if Oregon allowed twelve different people to “identify” as just two people in marriage – every other state would be forced to accept any or all of these arrangements.
Bear in mind, marriage is what it is, regardless of terminology. Every state would have to affirm a lie, accepting as “marriage” what, in reality, is not a marriage. Every state in the union would have to adjust their health codes, family laws, child-protective services, domestic abuse laws, employment ethics, tax codes, health insurance, medical standards, adoption laws, housing and real-estate categories, and everything else impacted by these alternative “marriages”. All that because a federal law is demanding that everyone in every state: “Obey, or else.” Even if we set aside the religious, and ethical problems with this legislation, it’s so monstrously impractical it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY
To be clear here, I don’t think society should prevent two mentally-fit unmarried adults from marrying each other. Even if they’re gay, bi-, or trans, they have the same natural right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. No one is stopping gay people from participating in their equal right to marry; and marriage is with someone of the opposite sex. That’s what marriage has meant for thousands of years, across all cultures, and all established world religions, to where it’s been a cultural universal and a common-sense admission by everyone everywhere till about 5 minutes ago. It’s redundant to even call it “traditional marriage.” It’s just called marriage. We’ve had to clarify in recent years that we (Christian conservatives) mean the same thing by “marriage” that almost everyone across history has meant by “marriage.” We mean it in the traditional sense. We don’t mean it in the recently revised socially-constructed sense. We’re talking about the long-tested and well-proven institutional bedrock for societies across every remotely successful civilization in history. We’re talking about the sacred social institution whereby women are protected, men are disciplined, and children are raised more effectively than any other family model. Even polygamous cultures treated marriage as one-man plus one woman; they just allowed the wealthier citizens to have more than one marriage at a time.
We already had marriage equality before worldly forces began playing language games with the term “marriage,” and before subversives began launching an open assault on the nuclear family. Not only did we have marriage equality, we had civil protections and privileges for marriage, we had respect for marriage, we even had healthier marriages and stronger families before all this.
If we Christian conservatives were willing to do the hard-work to protect and preserve the better parts of family-friendly faith-based culture, we might not be in this predicament. But there’s no sense in bemoaning past mistakes. we can’t change them. We can however learn from our mistakes, so we don’t have to repeat them.
At this point, the Respect for Marriage act is Exhibit Z in a long line of evidence proving how worldly forces are dead-set on subverting institution marriage and with it the nuclear family. Fellow believers and social conservatives have an upward hill to climb here. But God is still sovereign. And there’s still time for your state representative to take courage and do the right thing. Pray hard folks. Get the word out. And maybe write your local representative and tell them to vote against this Disrespecting Marriage Act.
What follows is the text of the Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404). Accessed 20 Nov 2022 at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text?r=947&s=6
Footnotes
[i] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
[ii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396/text
[iii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404?r=947&s=6
[iv] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
[v] https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2019/91615-2-0.html
[vi] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-10/303-Creative-cert-stage.pdf
[vii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf
[viii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf
[ix] https://open.spotify.com/episode/08Prpo2UN4zXtOTROWJBZY
[x] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-chapter115-front&num=0&edition=prelim
Recommended resources related to the topic:
4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek
Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3EYkP9O
Scribes & Scripture: How We Got the Bible | with John Meade & Peter Gurry
PodcastAtheists and skeptics such as Bart Ehrman have enflamed fear and doubt regarding the reliability of the Bible for years by mentioning staggering numbers such as the roughly 500,000 variants found in the Old and New Testament manuscripts. The goal behind these statistics (usually provided without any context) is to undermine our confidence in the Holy Book. Textual critics and scholars, Dr. Peter Gurry and Dr. John Meade are here to set the record straight in their fantastic new book, Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible.
In this week’s episode Frank gets down to the tough questions like; How many variants are there really? How much do these variants change or compromise the reliability of today’s Bible? Should we be concerned about people intentionally changing the original texts? How much of this field is simply guesswork? and Can we still believe our modern-day Bible is both inspired and inerrant? Plus, you’ll get a quick overview of the canonization of the Bible we have today. Why were some books included and others excluded? To hear the answers to these important questions make sure you listen to this fascinating interview. To dive deeper into this topic make sure to order your copy of Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible HERE, or consider inviting Dr. Gurry & Dr. Meade to your church for their Scribes & Scripture: A Conference on the History of the Bible.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST for either of these interviews, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Cómo “mantenerse alerta” hasta que regrese Cristo
EspañolPor Jason Jimenez
Según el Discurso del Olivar (Mateo 24-25; Marcos 13; Lucas 21), Jesús profetizó que el mundo se oscurecería antes de regresar por su Esposa, la iglesia.
Vemos el incremento de engaño y confusión que consume al mundo y las consiguientes amenazas de los países enemigos.
Jesús advirtió: “Se levantará nación contra nación, y reino contra reino” (Mateo 24:7). Jesús predijo que sus seguidores experimentarían una intensa persecución e incluso la muerte para algunos (Mateo 24:9). Pedro advirtió a sus lectores que vendría una severa persecución y que en los “últimos días vendrán burladores, con su sarcasmo, siguiendo sus propias pasiones” (2 Pe. 3:3). Pablo escribió enérgicamente que “en los últimos días vendrán tiempos difíciles.” (2 Tim. 3:1), y que en los “últimos tiempos algunos apostatarán de la fe” y que incluso “prestando atención a espíritus engañadores y a doctrinas de demonios” (1 Tim. 4:1).
Por ello, no debe sorprendernos que las cosas se vuelvan progresivamente más oscuras e inquietantes en nuestra cultura.
Pero aunque las cosas parezcan sombrías, eso no significa que los cristianos deban tener una visión “pesimista” de la vida o ignorar los tiempos que vivimos hoy.
Todo lo contrario.
La Biblia nos dice explícitamente: “Estad alerta, velad” (Mc. 13:33) hasta que Cristo vuelva. Eso no suena a alguien paranoico o que eluda su responsabilidad.
En Mateo 25:14-30, Jesús comparte una parábola de un amo que da una parte de sus talentos para ilustrar el significado de trabajar y esperar su regreso. A su regreso, el amo se encontró con que dos de sus siervos habían aportado rentabilidad a su inversión. Por desgracia, el otro siervo había enterrado su talento, sin producir nada (25:24-25). El amo respondió diciendo: “Siervo malo y perezoso, sabías que siego donde no sembré y que recojo donde no esparcí?” (25:26).
La comprensión de la parábola es muy clara. Jesús te ha dado dones y talentos específicos para que los inviertas en un mayor rendimiento. No debes perder el tiempo o tomar lo que el Señor te ha dado para tu beneficio egoísta. Estás llamado a ser “sal y luz” en la cultura y aprovechar cada oportunidad para reinvertir lo que Dios te ha dado para su gloria y honor.
Pero quizás tu perspectiva de la vida está un poco gastada. Tal vez te resulte difícil tener una mentalidad de “trabajar duro” y “mantenerse preparado” mientras vives el día a día.
Sea lo que sea lo que te hace tropezar o lo que te hace ser ineficaz en tu fe, aquí hay tres preguntas de autorreflexión para reavivar una preparación en tu espíritu para vivir tu vida cristiana con gran anticipación.
¿Anhelas ser santo como Dios?
Dios no te ha llamado a conformarte con el mundo, sino a ser transformado por su perfecta voluntad para tu vida (Rom. 12:2). ¿Y cuál es la voluntad de Dios para tu vida? Ser santo como Él es santo (ver 1 Tesalonicenses 4:3; 1 Pedro 1:15-16).
¿Y tú? ¿Estás demasiado envuelto en las comodidades de la vida que apenas anhelas la santidad de Dios?
En su clásico libro, Pursuit of Holiness, Jerry Bridges expresó esta sensata verdad: “A medida que nos volvemos blandos y perezosos en nuestros cuerpos, tendemos a volvernos blandos y perezosos espiritualmente”.
Sin duda, al reflexionar, descubrirás vetas de pereza en tu vida, muchas excusas que has puesto por razones egoístas, y pecados “respetables” que has justificado, pero que ahora podrían hacerte avergonzar.
Pero no dejes que el peso de tu pecado te arrastre. Juan escribió: “Hijitos míos, os escribo estas cosas para que no pequéis. Y si alguno peca, Abogado tenemos para con el Padre, a Jesucristo el justo. Él mismo es la propiciación por nuestros pecados, y no solo por los nuestros, sino también por los del mundo entero.” (1 Jn. 2:1-2).
Cuanto más diligente seas en confesar el pecado y buscar la santidad, más se usará tu vida para Dios.
¿Qué grado de madurez tiene tu fe?
Un querido amigo me dijo una vez: “La salvación es igual para todos, pero el crecimiento cristiano es diferente para todos”.
Eso es muy cierto.
Entonces, permíteme preguntarte, ¿cuánto tiempo dedicas a leer, estudiar y memorizar las Escrituras?
La Biblia es como cualquier otro tema. No sabrás mucho de ella si no dedicas tiempo a aprender de ella.
Para tener una fe madura, es necesario estar en la Palabra de Dios.
Estar en la Palabra de Dios diariamente agudizará tu fe y te dará la sabiduría necesaria para tomar decisiones sabias. La Biblia te promete que si creces en tu fe, no serás “ocioso ni estéril en el verdadero conocimiento de nuestro Señor Jesucristo” (2 Pe. 1:8).Pablo le dio este encargo a Timoteo, y lo mismo se aplica a ti y a mí: “ Procura con diligencia presentarte a Dios aprobado, como obrero que no tiene de qué avergonzarse, que maneja con precisión la palabra de verdad.” (2 Tim. 2:15).
¿Estás viviendo una vida fiel?
Todo cristiano debe caminar en fiel obediencia a Dios y cumplir la Gran Comisión (Mc. 16:15).
Un gran ejemplo de alguien en la Biblia que vivió una vida fiel es Daniel. Dios llamó a Daniel a resistir un ambiente hostil en Babilonia y a liderar un ataque contra sus falsos ídolos y adoración.
Daniel no rechazó el llamado de Dios sólo porque se sintiera fuera de lugar o superado en número. La Biblia dice que Daniel “resolvió no contaminarse” (Dan. 1:8), sino que permaneció fiel a la ley de Dios.
La valiente lealtad de Daniel a Dios demuestra un deseo implacable de no comprometerse ni ceder a la presión mundana. Su respuesta, que honra a Dios, en medio de la presión y la hostilidad extremas, es el tipo de ejemplo que debes emular en el mundo actual.
Aquellos que desean vivir vidas fieles deben estar dispuestos a entregar sus vidas por el bien del evangelio.
¿Es algo que estás dispuesto a hacer?
Recuerda, amigo mío, que cuando llegues a tus límites y empieces a preocuparte, es Dios quien es fiel y te amará pase lo que pase.
Así que, mientras persigues la santidad, la madurez y la fidelidad, pídele al Espíritu Santo que llene tu vida con más amor, pasión, convicción y hambre de Él.
El Espíritu Santo lo hará si lo pides simplemente con fe.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jiménez es presidente de STAND STRONG Ministries y autor de Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. Para más información, visite www.standstrongministries.org
Fuente del blog original: https://bit.ly/3cOA8GA
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Elenita Romero
Whether Christians Should Study Philosophy
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy JD Kline
Question: I am curious whether Christians should study philosophy.
Answer: At some point, you may have heard it said, “Christians should not study philosophy because the Bible warns believers to beware of philosophy.” Colossians 2:8 describes it as “empty deceit” and of the “traditions of men,” or “worldly” and not of Christ. Some believe the very nature of its discourse will talk its followers right out of belief in God. Therefore, it is believed, that not only is the study of philosophy unbiblical. It leads one to skepticism. I was once told, “All you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.” Or “just have faith.”
However, this is not biblically accurate nor is it necessarily true. In the wrong hands, philosophy can be dangerous. But, in my experience, philosophy has brought me into a closer relationship with God. As the giver of wisdom (Proverbs 2:6, James 1:5), I can know Him more deeply and shed whatever intellectual barriers of reluctance obscuring a head-to-heart connection.
God is not anti-philosophy. God says, “Come, now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). Furthermore, the Scriptures teach us to love the lord, God, with our minds (Luke 10:27); and to destroy lofty arguments raised against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). The Scriptures, in other words, command us to develop our God-given rational faculties and use it to live our lives wisely in pursuit of Christ. We learn from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to persuasively answer for the hope that is in us. Believe it or not, this is the task of philosophy. Listen, now, to the voices of our past.
Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy
The late Norman Geisler states that “We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy”[i] Furthermore, “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”[ii]
C.S. Lewis states, “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were educated. But a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[iii]
Puritan, Cotton Mather once said, “Ignorance is the Mother not of Devotion but of Heresy.”[iv] This may not be about philosophy, specifically, but it is a charge against the anti-intellectual movement within the Church for all time. Therefore, the Church cannot afford to be ignorant regarding philosophy because philosophy leads to knowledge of God while the snake of heresy lies waiting to prey on the ignorant and twist the spirit of our devotion (truth)– for confusion and lies. Beware of those who try to reason you out of philosophy because their philosophy on Philosophy is philosophically ignorant. In their piety, they lead one not into devotion but heresy. Philosophy is a handmaiden for the truth about God.
The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy
Notice, the very question itself demands the use of what it intends to refute. At its core, “why should Christians study philosophy?” is a philosophical question in nature. To answer a philosophical question, then, would require the use of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, to deny the use of reason would require the use of reason to successfully deny it. That is self-refuting. It is like saying, “never say never,” but only, “The reason we ought not to use reason is that there is no biblical reason for it.” False. In fact, we should study philosophy because philosophy informs readers of the Bible on how to interpret and understand the Bible. Have you ever considered the rules for interpreting literature? Philosophy guides the principles and methods we use of interpreting the Biblical text – a discipline called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a philosophical enterprise. We couldn’t do theology, or any of the sciences for that matter, without philosophy. It is foundational to knowledge. Indeed, philosophy permeates every aspect of our lives and how we live it. Even if we don’t realize it, each of us has a philosophy about philosophy and whether Christians ought to study it. So, what is philosophy?
Defining Philosophy
Quite simply, philosophy is the love of wisdom. In other terms, philosophy is learning how to think rightly and logically about what is, such as: what is real, what is true, what is beautiful, and so on. It is the pursuit of truth. Jesus, who is God, is the truth (John 14:7). Therefore, in my view, when one studies philosophy, they are in pursuit of God. What we decide about Him then becomes a matter of faith – to believe or not to believe.
Conclusion
I can go on, but the truth is that much has been written about whether Christians should study philosophy and why. I would be remiss not to direct you to some prominent voices of our own time and allow their work to guide you.
For Further Study
J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with All Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).
Norm Geisler. Why Christians Should Study Philosophy.
Bibliography
Geisler, Norman. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.
Lewis, C.S. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.
Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).
Potter, Doug. Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/
Footnotes
[i] Norman Geisler. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.
[ii] Doug Potter, Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/
[iii] C.S. Lewis. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.
[iv] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012). 16
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Kline (aka, JD Kline) is an experienced chaplain and former pastor. Jason earned his Master of Divinity degree from Liberty University and completed Clinical Pastoral Education training through Atrium Wake Forest Baptist Hospital. Jason’s area of interest is on issues pertaining to moral injury and spiritual hurt. By his personal admonition, he notes that he does not write as a scholar but as a friend. His desire is to pass along what he has learned, as he contends earnestly for the faith. Jason works as an adjunct professor at Carolina Bible College and was trained through NGIM (Norman Geisler International Ministries).
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3EtJphi
Who Created and Fine-Tuned the Universe? | With Dr. William Lane Craig
PodcastIn this mid-week bonus episode of the, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist podcast, Frank sits down with legendary philosopher, Dr. William Lane Craig, for a fascinating discussion on the beginning of the universe. Dr. Craig is perhaps best known for his work on the Kalam Cosmological Argument which offers an excellent philosophical foundation (supported by physics) for a theistic creator. What type of theistic creator might that be? Only one meets the criteria! Listen to this great conversation between Frank and one of his greatest influences, recorded at the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting in Denver, CO. Then go subscribe to the Reasonable Faith podcast to hear more from the brilliant mind of Dr. William Lane Craig.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
A Reflection on Giving Thanks
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
Several years ago, I had the privilege of meeting a World War II fighter pilot. Then in his late 80’s, in 1944 he took part in a key battle of the war in the Pacific, a last-ditch effort by the Japanese to repel the American reoccupation of the Philippine Islands. Known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, it pitted the last remnants of Japanese naval power against a vastly inferior American force, left behind to oversee the American landings while the bulk of American striking power had gone off in search of the enemy. The men who fought that day, on ships and in the air, exhibited much gallantry in facing a determined enemy. Though time had ravaged this man’s body, his mind remained sharp, and before long he was recalling details of that October day those many years ago. As our conversation came to a close, I took a moment to express my thanks for what he did during the war. I thanked him for his service and his courage, and for the opportunity it provided me to live in a more stable and peaceful world.
As I reflected on this later, I realized that his actions in upholding freedom in a war-torn world did not actually involve me. He had done nothing directly for me; I was not yet even born. But I knew that if men and women like him had not risked their lives, and been willing to sacrifice all, I might not ever have been. They had earned my thanks. They, in turn, had people who had come before them, who had done things for them, and to whom heartfelt gratitude would be appropriate. Tracing backward in time, I saw for a moment an endless stream of thanksgiving moving back through the recesses of time to a beginning trapped forever in the mists of forgotten memory.
In that moment, I also saw that my gratitude was personal. It was directed at living, breathing human beings. I did not give thanks to machinery, to the steel that cocooned the pilot in the cockpit of his plane, or to the chemistry that allowed the fuel mixture to propel it forward. Nor did I thank the instruments that provided feedback to him or the gunpowder that charged his weapons. My thanks, appropriately, were directed at people – the ones who forged the steel, who had teased out the secrets of chemistry, who had built the machines and weapons that he used. My gratitude related not to the thing, but to the intelligent source that lay behind it. To a person.
What, I wondered, lies at the beginning of this seemingly endless chain? If gratitude is owed to a person, to whom did the first man and woman, or the first group of humans, give thanks? Evolution? An undirected process that did not have them in mind? And if much of what we are thankful for exists in nature – as part and parcel of the good Earth and all that is on it – to whom does this thanks belong? Giving thanks to inanimate objects is nonsensical, yet the desire to express thanks is universal. We all do it, regardless of to what time or place or culture we belong. I saw in that moment that the whole idea of gratitude, the innate desire to give thanks, presupposes an ultimate source to whom this gratitude is owed.
While the atheist too can give thanks to people who preceded him, how can he make sense of the beginning of this chain of personal thanks? With no one there who created the Earth with all its bounty and splendor, what point is there for gratitude? The Christian worldview, by contrast, does make sense of this. It is right and fitting that we express thanks to those who came before us, for their effort and toil paved the way for the good we now experience. But that chain of causation, the progression of events for which we are thankful, does not begin a month, a year or a even century ago; it continues to a beginning point, and to a source who was both all powerful and yet quite personal.
In the last analysis, it is God – a person – whom we thank for all that is good. Whether he acts directly, or through the things and people he created, it makes sense to express our gratitude to him. And what better time to begin than on this weekend set aside to remember… and to give thanks.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com
Why “Don’t Take God’s Name in Vain” is Not What You Think | with Dr. Carmen Imes
PodcastCould the secret to who we are lay hidden in the ancient past? Dr. Carmen Imes, associate professor of Old Testament Studies at Biola University, says “yes”! Specifically, Carmen directs us back to the events that took place at Mount Sinai, when the nation of Israel truly met their God. In this fascinating interview, Frank discusses issues with Carmen such as: How do the events of Mount Sinai point us to understanding our true identity today?, have we completely misunderstood the commandment ‘Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain’?, and what does it mean to bear God’s image vs. to bear God’s name?
Carmen discusses all of this and more in her recent book, Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters. Carmen also reveals insights from her soon-to-be-released book, Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters (coming June 2023). She unpacks how acknowledging who we are as God’s image bearers directs how we understand our purpose, identity, and significance.
Plus, Frank sits down with Phoenix Hayes, the Creative Director at CrossExamined, to discuss some of the philosophical and moral implications that follow when we divorce our identity and personhood from our biology.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians (including Frank) while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
To get your copy of Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters click here: https://amzn.to/3gahNG5
To pre-order your copy of Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters click here: https://amzn.to/3V57T79
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
La filosofía es para todos
EspañolBy Colin Burgess
Aristotle opened his philosophical work, the Metaphysics, with the following sentence: “All men by nature desire to know.” Nothing could be truer; it is when one begins to ask the “why” questions that one is taking on the intellectual responsibility of constructing one’s weltanschauung, or worldview. One does not take one’s thoughts or beliefs for granted, but rebels against one’s upbringing and no longer embraces them through dogma, adopted as a child, through education and indoctrination, but makes these beliefs one’s own by examining them categorically. This is not to say that the beliefs passed on to us from early childhood are wrong, but those who examine them closely try to give them some kind of justification. Thanks to philosophy we can have a discussion with long-dead thinkers such as Plato, Marx, and the apostle Paul, and by interpreting their views, as accurately as possible, we can see what they were saying as if they were sitting in front of us. By doing this carefully we can abandon the politics and religion of our parents, or examine them more deeply and make them truly our own.
It is often said that children make the best philosophers. Perhaps it is because they ask questions honestly and without censorship. As we grow up, our thoughts tend to reach a state of entropy, and we no longer seek justification for beliefs, but are content to think only as much as is necessary to get through our daily routine, so our minds begin to atrophy. Too often we let celebrities, politicians, clerics and newscasters tell us what to think, rather than learning, for ourselves, how to think, while eating dinner in front of the television. Is this what Socrates meant when he said, “The unexamined life is not worth living”? He did not mean that those who do not examine their thoughts should commit suicide, but that those who do not live an examined life are living without purpose, and are basically marking time, waiting for death.
We may wake up from our intellectual slumber long enough to seek a justification for defending certain social opinions we hold, or at election time when we defend our voting decisions to ourselves, our family and our friends, but then once the dust has settled many of us are too busy or content to sit back and go about our business as normal. Surely it is not due to stupidity, many of these people are our doctors and lawyers, or people highly skilled in their trades. Maybe it is because we do not live in a “food for thought” economy, that no one gives us a cent for our thoughts, so we do not engage in the art of sorting them out simply because there are bills to pay and our children are hungry, and short of a philosophy factory being built there is little chance that many of us, except the select few, will rise to the heights of academia where we will pay them a penny for their thoughts. Some consider themselves philosophers or have taken a module or two in philosophy as part of an academic requirement, but many find philosophy difficult, or even boring.
Many have a misconception of what philosophy is, not realizing that we are all philosophers even if we are not familiar with the terminology; many think that philosophy is about scratching one’s flea-ridden beard, sitting down to ponder obtuse questions that have no definitive answer. While this has been the case in the history of philosophy, it is certainly not normative. While in the discipline of philosophy there is no consensus on many issues, philosophers do try to address very real issues that affect our society today, such as in the fields of ethics and medical research, where there are political philosophers who examine political ideas and their effects on society. Law school is grounded in philosophy, and many lawyers are required to study it in order to reason through a set of premises and formulate well-reasoned arguments. In the sciences, philosophy functions as a tool to define what science is and how we should think about the world being studied.
There is no need to make philosophy out of nothing, many philosophers today stand on the shoulders of giants, and we can see how thinkers of the past dealt with problems similar to those we face today, which saves us the effort of reinventing the wheel, and allows us to continue where they left off.
In a nutshell, philosophy can be summed up into four broad periods: the ancient philosophers, the pre-Socratics, the Socratics, and the medieval philosophers. All of these philosophers dealt with their own experience of the world, and if one reads a tome on the history of Western philosophy, one can get a comprehensive idea, after the fact, of how they tried to deal with the issues of their time. These philosophers, ranging from Aristotle to Nietzsche, grappled with questions related to metaphysics (what is real), epistemology (theory of knowledge), ethics (how we should behave), existentialism (who we are), and logic (how we should think). How one answers these questions will determine one’s views on God, politics, and many other aspects of life, and if one opens an introductory philosophy text, one will eventually see similarities in their views or thoughts to the way the ancients thought, to some extent.
This is not about defending any particular view of ethics, metaphysics, or religion, but about defending and encouraging the art of thinking carefully and ordering our thoughts and being more aware of our beliefs, so that they can be held with a greater degree of intentionality and justification and not taken for granted.
For those who want to briefly examine philosophy without committing to an expensive book on the subject, Douglas Groothuis has written an excellent, concise book summarizing the most famous philosophers and their famous sayings, in Philosophy in Seven Sentences. And for those who wish to explore further, I found Philosophy for Beginners very informative and accessible. While Bertrand Russell has written an excellent history of Western philosophy, Anthony Kenny has written a New History of Western Philosophy, covering both more contemporary and older philosophers.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Original source of the Blog: https://bit.ly/3gm5JkR
Translated by Monica Pirateque
Edited by Elenita Romero
Antichrists Among Us
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Josh Klein
The Church of Satan was started by Anton Lavey in 1966[i] as an atheistic religious organization focused on hedonism and lawful citizenry. Adherents to the Church of Satan claim not to believe in Satan or worship him but to strive for what they call “ethical egoism.” Ironically, Satan’s most effective tool against humanity is not convincing people to worship him, but to worship themselves in leu of the Almighty God.
Whether Lavey knew it or not, in effect, he did establish a church of Satan that worships the very thing Satan wishes it would. It matters not to Satan what people think of him, but if he can get people to believe in themselves and scoff at the idea of God then his mission is accomplished.
It is not this obvious satanic movement that threatens the church of America, but a different, more insidious and pernicious Church of Satan that has snuck into the mainstream religious institutions of the day. The true Church of Satan hides in plain sight. Satan’s real strategy against the Bride of Christ is the same as his strategy in the garden and we must call it out for what it is lest we stand idly by as Adam did and watch people be deceived. You might think this overdramatic, but history and scripture indicate that it is not. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18[ii]), but Satan is building a bride for himself within what people consider to be the church in the West and, save for a few, it is rarely challenged with courage.
The church in America is quickly falling into apostacy. According to a recent study, 60% of self-described American Christians under the age of 40 believe that Jesus is not the only way of salvation.[iii] Which, one would think, would disqualify them from calling themselves Christians, at least that’s what Jesus would seem to indicate when he said no one can come to the Father except through him (John 14:6[iv]).
In many cases these mainline Christian denominations are not merely getting sin wrong, they are perverting the gospel by glorifying sin, reveling in it, and using scripture to double down on a gospel of affirmation rather than repentance and belief in Christ.
Most recently though, a United Methodist Church in Florida hosted an Atheist Drag Queen Pastor[ix] (yes, you read that right)[x] for their service, and, particularly, to share his story with the children in the church.
To the Christian the most alarming part of this video should not be the drag queen standing in the church but the “Pastor’s” use of scripture to justify Ms. Penny Cost’s lifestyle as godly:
If one merely read the words spoken by this “Pastor” one might not see anything wrong with this simple directive towards children. He quotes scripture, directs them to live contrary to the world, and encourages them to live differently. That seems to be in line with historic Christian belief. This is, however, the oldest trick in the Satanic book. That is not hyperbole.
To use scripture in a way that justifies the pride of life and licentious behavior is the very tactic Satan used with Eve in the garden, and the very tactic he used again in the temptation of Jesus. Satan is not afraid to use scripture to get what he most desires. He prowls the sidelines waiting for an opportune moment to devour the weak, and he does just that with the misinterpretation and application of scripture (1 Peter 5:8[xi]). If the Devil can get people to believe they are saved through heretical use of scripture, only to embrace the wrong gospel, his digestion is complete and they are doomed.
Jesus hints at this reality himself when he says that not everyone who says to him, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21[xii]). There are many that will engage in mercy missions, philanthropy, clothing and feeding the poor, that will have embraced a false gospel that does not save. This false gospel is Satan’s go to weapon against the church. Satan does not need Anton Lavey to establish his church. He simply needs to get those that call themselves the church to buy into a gospel of lies and self-fulfillment.
A tail as old as time.
In the garden, the serpent misquotes God to challenge Eve to think only of herself and find fulfillment and hope in creation rather than the Creator (Genesis 3[xiii], Romans 1[xiv]). In Matthew 4:6[xv] we find Satan again using scripture to try to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. Satan quotes Psalm 91:11-12[xvi] seemingly to get Jesus to misapply scripture to inflate his own ego above the Father’s plan. Jesus, of course, does not fall for it.
John Piper puts it this way:
If Satan used scripture to entice Eve, and again to seek to derail the redemptive work of God through Jesus, would he not use scripture to create for himself a church of ineffectual sin laden imposters? This is the spirit of antichrist, and it is taking the American church by storm.
The spirit of the antichrist affirms sin, encourages debasement, and blasphemes the name of Jesus (1 John 1:7, 2:18-22, 4:3). The video above accomplishes all these things in the space of fifty seconds. The Devil’s plans to subvert the church are obvious, but his appeal to the nature and pride of mankind blinds many to it. The misapplication and interpretation of Romans 12:1-2 gives away the Satanic game. We read in 1 John 2:15-24 just the opposite of what this pastor is speaking:
This is a sobering reminder that our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the dark forces of this world (Ephesians 6:12). It is no longer tenable to call this progressive movement in churches Christian. These are not progressive Christians, they are progressive antichristians. They hold on to a form of godliness yet deny its power (2 Timothy 3:1-5), they are swayed by and leading people astray into empty, deceitful philosophies according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world (Colossians 2:8), and they love what is evil and hate what is good (Romans 12:9).
The Satanic church is all around us and claiming Christ as their own in order to obfuscate the gospel. We must not acquiesce or give quarter to such blatant apostacy. Paul says we should have nothing to do with them (2 Timothy 3:5) and Jesus indicates that such men, claiming to be agents of the Lord, will experience an even harsher judgment than others (Luke 17:2).
I want to be clear, my quibble is not against those attracted by this false gospel. My heart breaks for them. The reason the Christian church’s response to such heresy ought to be swift and decisive is for them. Filled with mercy, patience, and grace (Jude 1:22-24). The question they are asking is a legitimate one: “How can I be happy, fulfilled, full of purpose?” The answer is there to be had and confused individuals must be met with love, understanding, encouragement, and most importantly, truth.
We must call these people to repentance; we must not allow them to glory in their sin and pervert the gospel. Winsomeness is not a tool to tolerate blasphemy but to attract those seeking answers. It is winsome to call out error and preach repentance in Christ (Romans 2:4).
The true Church is to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16). Salt preserves the godliness of the generations and light exposes the deeds of darkness (1 John 1).
We can give no quarter to those that would pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a time for boldness in the faith, and that time is now, and if we are ridiculed, persecuted, or derided for our faithfulness to the true gospel then we are in good company (Hebrews 11, Acts 5:42, 2 Timothy 3:11-12, Matthew 5:10-12).
We must start calling these types of progressive churches what they are, and we must not apologize, because it is true kindness to shed light on the deeds of darkness to beseech them to repent and return to the love they have lost (1 Corinthians 5:5, Revelation 2).
I think Kevin DeYoung put it well:
Footnotes
[i] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anton-LaVey
[ii] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18&version=NET
[iii] https://www.christianpost.com/news/60-of-young-adults-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation.html
[iv] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A6&version=NET
[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Partridge#:~:text=Cameron%20Partridge%20(born%201973)%20is,National%20Cathedral%20in%20Washington%2C%20D.C. –
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/11/1036371531/evangelical-lutheran-church-first-transgender-bishop-megan-rohrer
[vi] https://madison365.com/sherman-church-to-celebrate-pride-month-with-pride-month-flag-raising-ceremony/
[vii] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lutheran-church-offers-drag-queen-prayer-time-to-children
[viii] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/neighborhood/katy/article/church-lgbtq-drag-shows-17395546.php
[ix] https://www.mspennycost.com/
[x] https://www.theblaze.com/news/drag-queen-pastor-god-is-nothing
[xi] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+5%3A8&version=NET
[xii] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21&version=NET
[xiii] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=NET
[xiv] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NET
[xv] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A6&version=NET
[xvi] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+91%3A11-12&version=NET
[xvii] https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/satans-bible-knowledge
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3X2WW7X
Escaping to Pandora
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
The Oscar-winning blockbuster Avatar is back in theaters in anticipation of the release of a sequel, once again wowing audiences with its 3D special effects. The plot, an allegory about the evils of corporate greed, thrusts a paraplegic space marine – Jake Sully – into a role pivotal to the future of the native population of a lush moon circling a distant star. Inhabiting his hybrid Avatar body on this distant world, Jake is forced to choose between doing his “duty” and protecting aliens to whom he is growing increasingly attached.
What does the film have to do with Christian apologetics? Very little, on the surface. But stories are often the best way to get a point across. With apathy and hostility two common responses to the Christian message, using a popular film to make an apologetics point can be an effective evangelical tool. Perhaps a film like Avatar can make a point about a very controversial topic: how it is a “loving” God can allow people to spend eternity in Hell.
Making this point involves recognizing that Hell is not a place of torture but is instead a place of torment brought on by separation[i] from an infinitely perfect – and therefore infinitely desirable – Being. Life in our current bodies is, in a sense, like living on Jake’s ship. Our bodies, like Jake’s, are quite limited, and not at all suited for life on the “world” – heaven- that is our destination. The ship we inhabit is capable of supporting us, and for providing the means of transition to a fuller life. In the movie, that transition involves a rather arduous conversion. Anyone on board can conceivably master the means of escape, the “pod” that serves as the interface between the ship and the lush garden world, but using the pod requires self-discipline and training. Not everyone will be willing to undergo the rigors of this process.
We are all free to reject the pod training, but if we do that, we have no choice but to stay within the confines of a room in the ship. With nothing much else to do, and no other way to make it to the garden paradise, we remain trapped on the inside, spending eternity thinking about…ourselves. To get out into the new physical world, by contrast, we need to look outside ourselves. We need to be willing to think of others, and to sacrifice. The struggle is worth the effort: on this other world, there is unlimited opportunity to live forever in a perfected body with others that we know and love. The choice is ours: from inside the ship, we are separated and inward looking; we can never unite with those on the new world.
Contrary to what many modern critics of Christianity believe, God is not in the business of punishing people to satisfy some sadistic desire. But this current life on this beautiful planet we call home is not the destination – it is instead merely the ship we inhabit for a time. The journey may at times be arduous, but it was never meant to be the final destination. In the end, God does all the work in transforming us into our Avatars. But we must willingly enter the pod, and begin the process of shedding our old, selfish selves and looking outward. We must take the step. He will not force it upon us. If we do, He offers unlimited rewards. If we don’t, well… we end up with what we are asking for – agonizing separation from the source of all life and goodness, and ultimately complete loneliness.
But for many, despite the rewards, the cost seems too high. They reject the option of loving God, and loving their neighbor, because they prefer to always be “in control.” “No one is going to tell me what to do,” they say, as they adopt the words of Frank Sinatra’s famous song “My Way” as their theme. Instead of submitting to the One who brought them into being, they instead concentrate on loving themselves, a futile and unrewarding task if ever there was one, never realizing that the best way to achieve happiness is to stop seeking it and concentrate on doing good for others instead. Choosing their own pleasure at every turn, they seldom stop to realize what they are giving up along the way. In the end, those who choose to stay on the ship – to stay walled in and to think only of themselves – cannot complain that God did not force them into the pod, and into heaven. They will have only themselves to blame.
A bit strained, admittedly. And probably not too useful to teach doctrine or present the Good News. But a first step, perhaps, in engaging a nonbeliever by talking about something to which they can relate.
Footnotes
[i] https://crossexamined.org/is-hell-torment-or-torture-and-is-there-a-difference/
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com