Young Earth Creation + Marriage = Gospel

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Mark 10:6-9 “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Eph 5:31-32 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

The above verses are related according to a time in history. Is this important, and if so, why?


I believe it is essentially important for several reasons, and the greatest of these reasons is that we need an accurate knowledge of our history less we present a different Gospel. It is no mystery that marriage is a representation of the Gospel (Eph 5:31-32) and that marriage by definition is from the beginning. So why is this important?


We first should have an understanding of why the beginning is so important. The beginning begins in the first chapters of Genesis which include six days of creation of which God calls "very good." (Gen 1:31) Nearly every Christian will tell you he or she believes in creation, but what many also believe is that creation was not done in six, twenty four hour days, but rather creation was a part of a naturalistic process of evolution, and that God watched over this process until its completion. 

I will not go into great detail of what this belief holds to, but I will give an explanation of the two opposing views that Christians hold to. They are typically referred to Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and Old Earth Creationists (OEC).

The YEC are six day creationists, who hold to the literal passages of the Genesis which are six, twenty four hour days. They would be better served to be recognized as six day creationists.They believe this is very clear as the passages of creation all say "evening and morning" of a day. This would give ANY reader an understanding of the text in that a 24 hour day has a morning and an evening. This would also place all that God created in a time span of around 6000 years. We know this by reading the genealogies from a historical Adam and historical time line of the Bible and using simple mathematics to count the years until where we are today. 

The OEC have yoked to the findings of secular scientists and the theory of Darwin's evolution. This secular scientific model places the universe to around 13.7 billions years old, and the Earth at 4.5 billion years old. OEC claims that God orchestrated the process of evolution with the understanding that eventually we would have an Adam and Eve created to complete the Biblical narrative. There is a growing belief in OEC by some who believe Adam and Eve are archetypes of humans and not actual persons. It is my opinion that the secular evolutionary model would take as much faith to believe as the YEC model, since the evolutionary model of "beginning" is a theory of men, and not an observable fact.  

Why is there a problem between the views? I certainly believe the greatest challenge from those opposed to YEC is the correlation of a extended time period and death. If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and creation included species of animals before Adam, then it places to significance for death in the Gospel. If animals preceded Adam through an evolutionary process, then death occurred before Adam's curse of sin.

I understand that some OEC will say that animal death is not the same as the death of humans, and that the passages are referring to spiritual death, but then this is where I believe marriage plays a very important role in not only the Gospel, but the very events leading to the Gospel. The OEC must account for death in their model. They must also account for the fact marriage is from the beginning. 

So lets start from the beginning...God created Adam from the dust of the ground on the sixth day of creation (Gen 2:7)  and gave him a suitable helper. (Gen 2:18) He caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep and created Eve from one of his ribs.(Gen 2:22) Adam proclaimed a vow of what God had done for him. (Gen 1:23) and God cemented this union as the foundation of all unions between one man and one woman. This is the definition of marriage. This is exactly where the Lord Jesus Christ points to marriage definition. Read the beginning verses at the top of this page again. We cannot get around any other way that the Lord Jesus Christ was talking about the beginning.

According to the YEC model, the beginning is on the sixth day of seven in where God rested on the seventh day. There is no other days before these days. The evolutionary model accounts for billions of years before the "beginning". Yet, the YEC model calls for all things of the naturalistic world being created in just six days. If the evolutionary model is correct, then that would place death before Adam and Eve. However, the first recorded death of ANY animal was after both Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I personally believe that we should not put a 6000 years time stamp as YEC claims. While it is true that the geneoligies of Adam are around 6000 years, we simply have no record of the time between the seventh day and the day Eve was tempted (Gen 3:1) Also, was Adam's life span starting when he was created, or when he bit into the fruit? Therefore, I like to put a question mark between chapter 2 and 3 of Genesis. Could this have been millions of years? If both Adam and Eve were "naked and unashamed", then who is to say how long they were content with each other in the very presence of God up until they were tempted by the enemy. Not only that, they had no concept of "death" other than what they knew of the forbidden fruit. It is believed that had they not eaten of the fruit they could have lived for all eternity. 

And that is the crux of the matter. If sin brings death, then death could not have been a part of an evolutionary model since it would require the death of many evolutionary processes of 4.5 billion years. It is also VERY important to note that according to the law of marriage, death is the ONLY way a marriage can end. No where do we read in all of scripture that anything other than death terminates the one-flesh bond of a marriage.

Romans 7:2,3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

I understand that the OEC argument believes that there was death before death came into the world.(Gen 3) They will also tell you “animal” death is not the same as what they believe. Unfortunately, they are false because animal death came first after the Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit.

Gen 3:21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

This was the first spilling of blood required to cover both Adam and Eve. The Lord slaughtered an animal and covered both Adam and Eve.The same spilling of blood was required on the Passover before the Exodus. Blood from an animal was always required for the remission of sins. But glory to God on High, who sent His only begotten Son, the LAMB OF GOD, to shed His blood on our behalf, defeating SIN on the cross and defeating DEATH by rising from the dead.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
Hallelujah!

The following video is from Wretched ministries that illustrates the fact that the Gospel gets watered down by OEC. What is significant is that they are very specific in the narrative that you cannot have the Gospel without the historical Adam and Eve. But would ministries and men such as  Wretched and Albert Mohler understand that OEC redefines marriage?

https://youtu.be/hORqhukBmUk

The claims of the age of the earth cannot help but undermine that marriage can end in any other way then death. As we already know, the Gospel is transformed and watered down by the evolutionary model, and I would suggest that the definition of marriage is also watered down and disclaimed by "Christians". It is a fact that many Christians will make a claim that after the resurrection polygamy was done away with, and that marriage was as it was in the beginning...but when it comes to divorce...they capitulate.   It is no surprise to me that the two greatest obstacles to the Gospel today are seated in how the enemy destroys lives by destroying marriage truth and by using the evolutionary model to discredit biblical creation. We cannot deny the fact that sexual immorality spawns from the total discrediting of the definition of marriage. If marriage is one man and one woman as the Lord said it was from the beginning, and I believe it is, then what does it say to the humankind attempts to discredit the historical Adam and Eve? 

We cannot have the Gospel with out the six day creation model, and we cannot have the Gospel without marriage definition as one man and one woman for life. Scripture does not lie. The Lord Jesus Christ does not lie. You either believe this or you do not. There is no middle ground in either YEC or marriage. I pray you take the time to read the scriptures and soak in the love of Christ. His creation is fearfully and wonderfully made, and you who read this fall into as one of His creation. God bless you!

In Christ's love,

Neil



   

     

Confessions of a Former "Step-dad"

I have a confession to make. I was a step-dad for my part. Most will say that this is a noble choice, to accept and raise children which are not you own. And to be honest, I believe this is a very noble role, only if it coincides with biblical standards. Joseph was a step-dad for his part with taking the Lord Jesus as his child.(Matthew 1 and Luke 2) But even the Lord makes it plain that He would only do that which was the will of His Father in Heaven...(John 5:30) I am not, and never will be against the man who raises a child through adoption or through a new marriage to a widow with children. What I must make clear, and I believe scripture makes clear, is that a step-child through divorce and remarriage should never be tolerable. Ever.

My testimony is dating an estranged married woman with a child. Then I believed the lies that her divorce from her husband (her son's father) and my marriage to her would qualify for me the status of "step-dad". I believed I was taking a noble step in providing for a child which I had no right to provide for in the first place. But was my role noble? Was I obeying the Lord? Did I have a right to raise a child when there is ample scripture to support a restoration of a marriage?

I have decided to tackle the thought that "being a step-parent is a noble thing" head on. I will ask real questions that we must answer as a church and as a society. There is no question that there are millions of step-families across the globe, and these are mostly comprised of divorce and remarriage. While there are many seemingly heart felt stories of wonderful step-parent to step-child relationships, there are as many stories which are true horror stories of abuse and even murder.  For the sake of marriage definition, when I refer to step-parents, I am not referring to legitimate adoption and raising child of a deceased parent.

• If scripture tells us a marriage can only end in death, is there an excuse to form "step-families"? 

No. The answer is clearly no. A divorce never ends the responsibilities of a parent to raise a child just as a divorce never ends the marriage. A child has a father and a mother. There is a sin problem in every case of divorce, and scripture again makes a great case that restoration of a marriage is found in the One who restored us to Him. There are a thousand and one excuses to divorce and remarry, and none of them have a chance in Hell against a new life in Christ. If you were bought and paid for by the blood of the Lamb, you will understand that sin is the problem in any divorce, and that the only remedy for sin is the Lord Jesus Christ.

My excuse to be a step-parent was never found in scripture. I stood in the way from what the Lord wanted first and foremost... a restoration of a marriage. I stood in the way of a father who deserved to be a father to his child. Yes, there was sin that both the husband and wife needed to address, but to say that a marriage ended becasue the timing wasn't right for restoration is making a god in our own image. Looking back I know for a fact that their marriage problems were both of their faults and they both wanted to make excuses for their sins. Regardless, I had no right to interfere with what God can do.

• If a "remarriage" is the sin of adultery, what does that teach our children to accept step-parents, let alone accept a remarriage as anything other than adultery? 

This is very sobering scripture- 

Matthew 18:5-7 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

The moment we tell a child that a marriage can end in divorce, we have already deceived them. Then you want to tell them that he or she will have a step-parent because you are going to remarry into an adulterous relationship? Why do we lie to our children? It is no wonder that many children of divorce NEVER get over the pain of the divorce. In fact, many of them divorce and remarry as adults. It is a common tragedy in society that has often brought on greater tragedy. I seriously believe that the current popular redefinition of marriage, the sexual revolution, and gender dysphoria are directly related to the capitulation of marriage through the widely acceptable divorce and remarriage culture.

That is why I can not understand the conscience of a person who makes a "vow" of remarriage while their spouse of covenant of divorce is still alive. How do you feel justified by your vow when you lied about your first vow? Now you want to make a vow in front of you children and believe God should honor this when you did not honor your first vow? You want your children to believe as you do, rather than what God commands?

• If step-families through divorce and remarriage do not honor God, then what should I do? 

Please understand that these posts are written so that many will turn to the Lord Jesus Christ in faith and be restored through repentance of sin. The greatest sin in these situations is pride becasue we have not obeyed the Lord and trusted His word to remain in marriage covenant. We always think we deserve the best in this life, but often we do not want to accept the consequences of when we disobey His commands. I know many take marriage for granted and thus enter so thinking there are loopholes to escape should things not go as we planned. Shame on the institutionalized church for propagating the lies of loopholes through exceptions and clauses.

I have written past posts which show us what we need to do. Dear Convicted Remarried Believer.
I have also written to clergy who are convicted of performing remarriages.  Dear Pastor
There is always consequences of sin, but is through repentance and faith in Christ where we are not only restored, but God will use this as a bold witness for His glory. Terminating an adulterous union is not only a bold witness to the world, it is a bold and justified witness to your children. You are teaching your children the truth which is only found in Christ. 

I personally responded by seeking forgiveness for those I sinned against. This included the Lord, my son's mother, and her husband and his son, and my son. I also participated in ending the civil side of adultery by divorcing from the adulterous civil union. I am not responsible for either of their further actions to remain in their own sins, but I do pray they both would repent. I have also dedicated a blog to the permanence of marriage and have continued to be a voice for marriage permanence. I also know that I cannot convince anyone in my own power that marriage can only end in death, but have begun to rely on the power of the Holy Spirit through the written word. The Power of the Word For Marriage Truth

I know that the Holy Spirit is behind the words of God to convict and bring many to repentance. Marriage is such a holy word that is a great representation of the Gospel. I pray that the church would speak boldly for marriage truth and I pray too for all those who have continued to remain in their vows of marriage for His glory. Please join me in praying that many would stand up for the truth of marriage so that they will witness the awesome power of the Gospel revealed in those who do solemnly swear...till death do we part.  God bless you!

In Christ's love,

Neil

The Conception Clause

The more and more I read Matthew's Gospel the more I have come to appreciate the timing of what we know to be the "Incarnation" and how this timing relates to the permanence of marriage...one man and one woman for life! I did write a post about this topic on September of 2015 entitled, "Sarcastic Exceptions? The Gospel in Betrothal". In this post I make a claim that it would seem to be a reasonable assumption that the timing of  the birth of the Messiah coinciding within the betrothal period of Joseph's marriage to Mary would have some substantial significance. In that post I wrote:

"There should be very little argument against the Holy Spirit conceiving the Lord during the betrothal period. What seems to be lacking is any commentary as to this timing and how this timing corresponds with what the Lord has to say on divorce. If the Lord chose Mary, why did He choose her when she was betrothed to Joseph? Did the Pharisees of this time know that Joseph was betrothed to a pregnant woman? Did the Pharisees believe that the Lord was a bastard child? What was adoption like in the Old Testament?"

Before you read the remainder of this post, I suggest you read  "Sarcastic Exceptions? The Gospel in Betrothal" in its entirety as I plan to go into greater detail as to the understanding of what the Pharisees knew of Joseph and Mary, Zachariah and Elizabeth, and John the Baptist.

John 7:25 So some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, “Is this not the man whom they are seeking to kill? 26“Look, He is speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him. The rulers do not really know that this is the Christ, do they? 27“However, we know where this man is from; but whenever the Christ may come, no one knows where He is from.” 28Then Jesus cried out in the temple, teaching and saying, “You both know Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. 29“I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me.”

It is very clear that the Pharisees knew where Jesus came from and that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter and Mary. (Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?) We also would not have a hard time understanding that Mary was a relative of Elizabeth and that Elizabeth was married to one of the chief priests in the Temple, Zacharias, who was a descendant of Aaron. (Luke 1:5) The Pharisees would know this information as well.

It would be no mystery to any of the Pharisees of His day that John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth and that he would grow up to be a prophet of the people. But John claimed to be much more, the one crying in the wilderness proclaiming the way of the Lord..even to the point of fulfilling scripture. (Is 40:3) It was John the Baptist who said, "He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30) 

We also know through scripture that the Pharisees of His (The Lord Jesus Christ) day knew the timing of His birth and most importantly, where He was born. It is no mystery that there was a census at the time of the Lord's birth (Luke 2:1-4) and that He was born in the town of His parent's tribe, which was the tribe of Judah in the town of Bethlehem.(Luke 2:4) When they say, "we know where this man is from" they must know too where He was born. There is no mystery to the Pharisees that the Messiah would come from the city of David.(Micah 5:2) Thus, it would be very easy for the Pharisees to trace the birth of Jesus to the city of David, as his age would coincide with the date of His birth during the census (Luke 2:1). 

 Then there is the account of Matthew 2 and more fulfilling of scripture. I believe it would not be a mystery to the whole land of Israel for years that Herod put to death all the boys two years and under in the town of Bethlehem. (Matthew 2:16-18) Would the Pharisees see this fulfillment as a sign of the Messiah? Would they equate this time period with the Nazarene, the man Jesus, knowing that He was born in Bethlehem at this time? Again, we do not have clear scripture telling us the Pharisees knew everything pertaining to the Lord, but that they say, "we know where this man is from". We can certainly deduct from scripture that it was possible that the Pharisees and scribes knew a lot about Jesus of Nazareth, to the point also that He was rejected in His own land for fulfilling even more scripture.

 Luke 4: 16-21 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”

And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

We also know that the Pharisees would know that John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod and beheaded for calling Herod to repent of his adulterous, unlawful "marriage" to his brother's "wife". Mark 6:18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." And that John had already handed over his ministry to Jesus. It should be very apparent to the Pharisees that John the Baptist was paving the way for the Messiah...and the Pharisees did not like it.

Also, we must consider that the Pharisees may have known that Jesus was conceived while betrothed to Joseph. Mary's visit to Elizabeth confirms that both Elizabeth and Zacharias knew that Mary was pregnant with child during the betrothal. While I will be careful not to add to scripture, we can still make a logical deduction that Mary's pregnancy was not a secret. It is obvious that a "righteous" Joseph knew she was pregnant and that he was very troubled by this, though he did want to put her away privately. (Matthew 1:19)We can also make a  deduction that others also knew of this pregnancy to the point that Joseph had to register for the census while betrothed to a pregnant Mary. (Luke 2:5) 



But let us also look in detail at the history of John the Baptist and the manner of his death.  

John 1:19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” ²⁰ And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” ²¹ They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” ²² Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” ²³ He said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”
²⁴ Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. ²⁵ They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” ²⁶ John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. ²⁷ It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” ²⁸ These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

The Pharisees and Scribes were basically asking John if he was the Messiah. When they ask, "Who are you?", we must not assume that they did not know who his parents were. If they knew Jesus' parents, they must have known John's parents. Now of course the scriptures do not account for this, but we need to account for deductive reasoning to understand that the Pharisees knew where John came from and who his parents were, but rather we need to understand whether he did or did not claim to be the Messiah. The Pharisees wanted to know the depth of his ministry and if he was claiming to be the Messiah.

We can deduct from scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ considered John the Baptist to be one of the greatest men born of a woman, and yet he was not even the least of those in heaven. (Matthew 11:11,Luke 7:28) (That alone should tell us that John the Baptist was even greater than Moses...) But what we must consider is how the Pharisees saw John the Baptist.

Luke 20:1 On one of the days while He was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders confronted Him, ² and they spoke, saying to Him, “Tell us by what authority You are doing these things, or who is the one who gave You this authority?” ³ Jesus answered and said to them, “I will also ask you a question, and you tell Me: ⁴ Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” ⁵ They reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ ⁶ But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” ⁷ So they answered that they did not know where it came from. ⁸ And Jesus said to them, “Nor will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

The priest and scribes could not escape the truth that John was a prophet of some sort becasue John had great influence on the people even to the point that condemning John would incite enough anger for the people to stone the Pharisees to death (At least this is what they believed would happen...). The Pharisees had to know the manner of John's death, just as we know the manner of his death. Thus, it was in the priests and scribes favor that Herod beheaded John, rather than their seeking to silence him themselves.  

So what does all this information have to do with marriage? I believe John's death and the timing of Christ's birth was specifically related to why the Lord uses the exception clause in Matthew 5 and 19...EXCEPT FOR PORNIEA. The Lord's appointed earthly father was a righteous man from the tribe of Judah. Joseph forsake the law of Moses for the spirit of the law...love thy neighbor as thyself...and took the pregnant Mary to be his wife. The Lord was conceived during the betrothal year of marriage and the Pharisees and the scribes would need to rest on the fact that Joseph either impregnated Mary during this year, or Mary was raped, or Mary committed fornication willingly with another man...or that Mary was a virgin, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit during betrothal as a sign that God has come down to save mankind by becoming a man!

And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant." (Luke 1:46-48)

Also, this "conception clause" is only recorded in Matthew's gospel, all which include the timing of Christ's birth (Matthew 1), John's ministry, and the Lord's baptism (Matthew 3). It is worth mentioning too that the baptism of the Lord included the Holy Spirit in the dove and the voice from heaven proclaiming the Lord to be the Son of God. It was a voice, which means that those who witnessed the baptism of the Lord also heard the voice. This puts extreme power to the question to the pharisees. "Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” (Luke 20:4)

The Gospel's of Mark (Mark 10:11,12) and Luke (16:18) do not include the "exception clause" for the same reason that marriage is one man and one woman for life as it was in the beginning, just as the Lord states to the Pharisees and scribes (Matthew 19:4-6;Mark 10:6-9) ; those who wanted to trick the Lord. So when anyone uses Matthew's account to validate divorce and remarriage, they are twisting scripture and saying things the Lord and Paul NEVER said! Paul sums up what he believed about what the Lord taught on marriage by what he wrote to the Corinth church: 

But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor 7:10,11)

I am starting to see that the exception clause was specifically directed to the Pharisees and reiterating the fact to them that marriage is one man and one woman for life. The Lord Jesus Christ was conceived during the year of betrothal, fulfilling the coming of the Messiah. John the Baptist was beheaded for calling Herod to repent...and repenting from an unlawful marriage ALL unlawful marriages, requires leaving this unlawful marriage and never, ever calling this unlawful anything other than a state of adultery! If the Lord Jesus Christ considered John to be the greatest man ever born of a woman, then what should we think of the idea of divorce from a marriage that the Lord says no man may put asunder?


In Christ's love,

Neil

Open Letter to the Writers and Signers of A Liturgists Statement

God is love…and God created marriage as one man and one woman for life…for His purpose. Therefore, it is my duty as a blood-bought disciple of Christ to exhort and rebuke those claim to know Christ and yet seek to remain in sin and not call it sin. Woe to you who call evil good, and good evil.  

The recent “A Liturgists Statement” by "liberal Christians" (I use these words "liberal Christians" as loosely as I would use the word "remarriage") was intended to replace the Nashville Statement by remaining in the sin of sexual immorality and “love” the unrepentant sexual immoral rather than call the sexual immoral to repentance. The Nashville Statement was intended to extend eternal love to the sexual immoral by telling them that they are dead in their sins. I believe the “Nashville Statement” and “A Liturgists Statement” are much more similar in context since they both capitulated to the idea that a divorce could sever a one-flesh covenant marriage...more on that later. 

It is first necessary to extend consideration of the language which makes up A Liturgists Statement...

“As floodwaters still rise in Houston, many prominent Christian leaders released the Nashville Statement. This document released a flood of its own, only this time instead of homes flooded with water, it was hearts flooded with grief.”

I really do not believe it was necessary to associate the flood in Houston with the timing of the Nashville Statement. Was this done with the intention to believe that the definition of marriage is not as important as saving lives in the Houston flood?  Even though the Nashville Statement document was incomplete and not completely truthful (Here is my personal Open Letter to the writers and signers of the Nashville Statement), it still had the intention to define marriage as one man and one woman with the emphasis to point people to the truth rather than let them remain in their sins.  In a sense, it was written to save The LGBTQ community from eternal death. If you read it as anything other than this then you are missing the point. If you embrace sexual immortality, then you should feel grief for clinging to your own sexually immoral sins.

“Yet again, powerful people of means use the platform of the Church to demean the basic dignity of gay, bisexual, lesbian, trans, intersex, and queer people.”

I really do not believe you understand the definition of love as the Lord defines love. If the Nashville Statement was centered on the reality that all sexual activity outside of a union of one man (a husband) and one woman (a wife) is immoral and contrary to God’s perfect design, then by no means is this statement “demeaning”. Rather it is the most loving thing you can tell someone who is in sin. Would the loving thing be to give an alcoholic more alcohol, or how about giving an addict more drugs? This is how you understand love? If bisexuality, lesbianism, and transgenderism are sins, then why would anyone who believes they are sins affirm these lifestyles?   

I also take offense the thought that those who wrote the Nashville Statement equate to “powerful people of means”. If you associate "Well-known and Famous Pastors" as those who have power beyond the ordinary "layperson" then you are part of the problem. There are “lesser known people” who believe just as they do that sexual conduct outside of a monogamous marriage is sinful. Also, the Church never approves of sexual immorality and this immoral manifesto, and furthermore, the Church does not approve of the Nashville Statement either. More on that later…

“This isn’t new. “Biblical” morality has been used to justify slavery, resistance to interracial marriage, genocide, and war. The scope of the Bible’s narrative allows a broad interpretation of what is right and moral, and both the church and society at large have moved toward universal justice and acceptance on issues once thought to be “crystal clear.”

This is a fallacious paragraph meant to distract from the true definition of marriage. None of what you wrote here has anything to do with the true definition of marriage as one man and one woman for life. It was merely a means to say in your opinion that since the writers of the Nashville Statement must know little of what the Bible says on other issues, it must be assumed that they know nothing of God’s design for marriage.  If you want to address “Biblical” slavery, resistance to interracial marriage, genocide, and war, then it is best to do so apart from the main purpose of the Nashville Statement and your willingness to redefine marriage.

“In regards to Christians across the spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities, it’s past time to accept and affirm them as they are.”

Past time? And where do you get the foundation of your position? You must first convince me that a “Christian” would own a “spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identifications.” We must assume, simply because you believe it is true, that a blood-bought believer would not see it necessary to believe that sexual activity outside of one-flesh covenant marriage is sinful. If something is sinful, or someone is practicing sin, then I am called to show them that apart from repentance from this sin and faith in Christ they will not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)

“In the same way that we no longer accept the morality of slavery based on its inclusion in our scriptures, we can no longer project first century notions of sex and sexuality on people today.”

Another fallacious statement. If you want to address slavery, then do so apart from your desire to redefine marriage as one man and one woman for life and your desire to live in the flesh rather than the spirit of Christ. Human sexuality was from the beginning (Gen 2:24) as it was one man and one woman for life. This conversation would never take place if marriage, as it was in the beginning, was not a reality.

“The very notion of “orientation,” or even “heterosexual” would be completely foreign to the authors of both the old and new testaments in the Bible.”

Moot point. “Incarnation” is also “completely foreign to the authors of both the old and new testaments in the Bible.” What is not foreign is that marriage is one man and one woman for life…and you can’t change that no matter how hard you try.

“We understand that many of the people on the other side of this debate are loving Christians who really are trying to do and believe what's right–people who are also God's children, beloved and holy. However, this is a time that truth must be spoken to oppressive power systems. For far too long, the Christian Church has oppressed and marginalized people because of their gender and/or sexual orientation.”

No, the problem is that the “institutionalized church”, and in particular, the evangelicals have redefined marriage through the erroneous teaching on divorce and remarriage through the pages of the Westminster Confession of Faith, they have failed in accountability without using church discipline (Mt 18:15-17), and they have successfully duped the sheep into believing that the clergy/laity power system represents the Church. The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ defines marriage as one man and one woman for life (Gen 2:24; Mt 19:4-6; Mk 10:6-9)…and teaches that ALL other relationships which include any form of sexuality are sinful.

“Personal beliefs about human sexuality have life-or-death consequences in our world. “

No, personal beliefs about human sexuality have life-or-death consequences for all eternity.

“The social and systemic persecution of LGBTQ people creates real harm: limited and lost employment, physical assault, discrimination, depression, and suicide.”

Do not confuse the willingness to remain in a sexual immoral lifestyle with the consequences of this lifestyle. Both the LGBTQ lifestyle, and the social and systemic persecution of LGBTQ peoples are sinful because they should not have happened to begin with. You want us to believe that it is “ok” to be sexually immoral and then you do not want to repent of the sinful lifestyle which causes limited and lost employment, physical assault, discrimination, depression, and suicide. It is like sticking your finger in an electric socket and expecting not to get electrocuted. Also, the Nashville Statement is not going to argue the persecution of LGBTQ lifestyle, and they certainly do not condone it either. It is also fallacious to believe that all those who condemn the sin of sexual immorality are the same ones who persecute the LGTBTQ community.

“This is not of God.”

Yes, I would agree that affirming sexual immorality and persecuting those who do is not of God. We simply point people to the truth of God’s word that marriage is one man and one woman for life and that marriage is a representation of the Gospel. That is exactly why I wrote this.

“So, while we expect a flood of statements in response to the Nashville Statement,…”

You may not be expecting a response like this one since I will never sign the Nashville Statement based on the same reasons I would never sign this statement.

…”we the undersigned wanted to add our voice to the chorus of Christians affirming LGBTQ folks–including the Christians among them.”

The term “Christians affirming LGBTQ folks” is like telling me that a square is round and that yellow is blue. Believers of the Lord Jesus Christ do not affirm sexual immorality and nor do they joyfully participate in sexual immorality. Period.  

“We believe that people of all sexual orientations and gender identities are fearfully and wonderfully made, holy before God, beloved and beautiful as they are.”

I truly believe all the words before the first comma…without affirming that God made them with the desire to be sexually immoral...the rest of the sentence is only reserved for those who are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. One is made holy to God only by Christ’s righteousness. One can only receive the Holy Spirit if they repent of their sins of the flesh and live in the spirit of Christ. In other words, a believer’s sexuality is defined in who they are in Christ. While God loves you, He wants to conform you into the image of Christ, and we know that Christ defines human sexuality by what He believes about marriage.

“We believe all people have full autonomy over their bodies, sexual orientations, and gender identities, and the diversity of identities reflects the creative power of a loving God.”

Paul writes, 1 Cor 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.¹⁹ What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?²⁰ For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. 

Also, in the beginning God made one man and one woman. (Gen 2:18-24) The creative power in God is the design of marriage, one man and one woman which gives life. Any other sexual desire outside of marriage does not give life. Human sexuality is designed to create children and make them disciples, and is never to be used for our own selfish desires.

“We believe that God is love, and that ‘anyone who loves is born of God and knows God’. (I John 4:7)”

You want to use scripture out of context to tell the attributes of God, but you do want to use scripture which denies your defending sexual immorality? God loves you so much He “commands” that the best for us sexually is a marriage of one man and one woman for life.  Any deviation from this perfect plan is a perversion of the perfect plan. Anyone who knows God would not deviate from this perfect plan, and to do so is idolatry. So it is impossible for you to love like God loves while affirming a sinful lifestyle.

“God is honored in any consenting and loving relationship between adults, and therefore, all such relationships deserve honor and recognition.”

God does not honor loving relationships between children, just adults? What about a young girl or boy who loves her little brother or sister? What about a mother who loves her child and the child who loves the mother?  Are we talking about love or lust? A man can surely love another man and this is called an “intimate friendship”, but for another man to lust for another man it is called immoral and sinful.

 “We believe that same-sex relationships and marriages are as holy before God as heterosexual marriages.”

Same-sex relationships such as defined by a close intimate friendship is wonderful. There is no such thing as a “same-sex” marriage as this falls into the same category as a square circle. You cannot acknowledge something that simply cannot exist. Again, marriage by definition is one man and one woman for life exactly as it was in the beginning. (Gen 2:24) Unfortunately, like you, the writers and signers of the Nashville Statement cannot even get this right.

“We stand in solidarity with LGBTQ folks, and commit to standing alongside them in the work of resisting those who persecute them.”

If pointing people to the truth so that their souls may be saved on the Day of Judgment is “persecution”, then I would disagree with you. Otherwise, I would never accept persecution of the LGBTQ folks…The question is…would you persecute me if I believe LGBTQ folks need a Savior, and I believe that if they do not repent of their lustful sins, they will not inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Cor 6:9,10)

“We don't believe LGBTQ folks need our approval or affirmation–they are affirmed first and foremost by God. This statement acts as a concreted record of solidarity.”

I believe this is totally contrary to the word of God and that the god you believe in is not the same Almighty Lord of the Bible. God ONLY affirms marriage as one man and one woman for life. (Gen 2:24; Mt 19:4-6;Mk 10:6-9) This would make any other sexual desire contrary to His holy word. This may shock you, but this includes cohabitation fornication, AND divorce and remarriage...unfortunately, evangelicals would have a problem with this information as this “divorce and remarriage” language is not clarified in the Nashville Statement. I believe it is not clarified simply for the same reason you believe sexual immorality is “ok”. 

Just as you want us to capitulate on sexual immorality, the evangelicals have long since capitulated on divorce and remarriage, and closing fast is cohabitation fornication. Since you have also capitulated on divorce and remarriage, the next obvious step is to capitulate on any sexual lifestyle imaginable. The truth is that the real definition of marriage sinks both the “divorce and remarriage” boat, and blasts the “sexual immorality” boat out of the water.

“For those of us who haven’t always been affirming, we repent of how our beliefs and actions caused harm in the lives of LGBTQ people. We also stand ready to welcome other people into repentance as their eyes are opened to the injustice caused by non-affirming theologies.”

What if we don’t repent of your lies? Then what? What becomes of those who believe marriage is one man and one woman for life? Would you call us bigots? I know I have been called a Pharisee by the “divorce and remarry” crowd, but I correct these folks by telling them that the Pharisees allowed for both divorce and remarriage, and the Lord pointed to the beginning when God made marriage and told the Pharisees…

Matthew 19:⁴ And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,⁵ And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?⁶ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

You expect me to accept the sins of the LGBTQ folks when I do not accept the sins of the evangelicals who want to point fingers at the sinful LGBTQ folks when they long since capitulated on the truth of marriage as one man and one woman for life? I reject this lustful, flesh-seeking, worldly manifesto for the same hypocrisy that is written in the Nashville Statement. When the Evangelicals repent of divorce and remarriage which are “states” of adultery, then and only then will they have the power to release a manifesto on the truth of marriage.  

The divorce and remarriage position is so shallow, unholy and flesh laden that it reeks of death. It is a self-seeking, self-fulfillment, self-centered lustful position based on emotions, desires and feelings of the flesh rather than the spirit of Christ. It is not a representation of the Gospel, and it is not a representation of life. So, what do you think that makes your position? 

You want to redefine marriage and put asunder what God has joined together? Go ahead. You want to make a god in your own image? Go ahead. You want to use the Bible as a cut and paste coloring book to appease and affirm your lifestyle? Go ahead. But I must warn you because I love you. This love I have for you is not a fleshy love that is based on a wisp of life, but an eternal love that is based on the grace and truth of Christ. You must repent! 

“We don’t claim righteousness or moral superiority over non-affirming people. Our hearts have been broken by our own actions most of all.”

I claim the righteousness of Christ and I live in the righteousness of Christ. When I sin, I claim that it is sin and not try to hide from my sin. I fail on many occasions, but I will never say that I affirm my sinful actions. The Lord is making me like Him every day. You want to totally deny the work of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to remain in your sin and not call it sin. That is a road that leads to death. 

My heart breaks for the lies propagated by clergy who defend divorce and remarriage and redefine the definition of marriage by their erroneous teaching. My hearts breaks for those men and women who stand fast to their vows know that their prodigal spouses not only listened to the lies, they believe them too. My heart breaks for the people who have been failed by lack of accountability and church discipline simply because the clergy handed over divorce litigation to a corrupt family court system. 

My heart breaks for those who follow death ministries who capitulated on the true definition of marriage. Like you, these ministries claim the name of Christ and claim to have the true definition of marriage. They claim marriage is holy and pure, yet they allow for divorce and remarriage…and when fighting for these “remarriages” they will tell us that it is sinful to end the relationship when the Lord calls the “relationship” an adulterous union. 

Finally, my heart breaks for those trapped in sexual immorality. They have given over to the lusts of their flesh simply because they could not forgive themselves. The Lord Jesus Christ came in power and has all the power to break the chains of sin. If we want to repent and be like Him, then we need to forgive ourselves as He forgave us. If we say that He can never forgive me of the sins of immorality, then we deny His power. And if we say that I know He forgives me but I cannot forgive myself, then we also deny His power.

The power of Christ is to break us and forms us into His image. We can only do this by forsaking the desires of the flesh and live in the spirit of Christ. This is power not of ourselves, rather it is power restored in us through faith in Him. Do not quench the Holy Spirit. Forsake your sins and bask in the mercy, grace, freedom and power of Christ. So that you will be clothed in His righteousness.

In Christ’s love, 

Neil