Tag Archive: family

Does the Bible address polyamory/swinging?

An open marriage is generally defined as a marriage in which one or both spouses are allowed by the other spouse to have sex with other people. The two primary types of open marriages are polyamory and swinging. Polyamory is when the extra-marital affairs purportedly involve emotional love. Swinging is when the extra-marital affairs only involve recreational/casual sex.

No, the Bible nowhere explicitly addresses polyamory, swinging, or the idea of an open marriage. The idea that one spouse should consent to the other spouse having sex with other people is absolutely foreign to the Bible. The Bible speaks of sex within marriage as pure (Hebrews 13:4). The Bible speaks of sex outside of marriage as immoral and adulterous (1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 10:8; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3).

The question is sometimes raised as to whether a polyamorous relationship should be considered adultery if the other spouse allows, approves, or even participates in it. The answer is an unequivocal yes! God is the one who defines what marriage is and what adultery is. God, in His Word, has declared sex outside of marriage to be adultery (Exodus 20:14). A spouse’s giving permission to sin does not overrule God’s Law. We do not have the authority to create exceptions to what God has declared to be sinful.

Aside from the biblical declarations that they are sin, polyamorous relationships cannot fulfill what the Bible says a marriage is to be. A married couple cannot be “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24) if multiple “fleshes” are involved. A married couple cannot fully love one another if that love is divided among other people. There cannot be true intimacy if what is supposed to be intimate is shared with others. Polyamory is not marriage. In no sense is a marriage supposed to be open to sexual activity outside of the marriage.

Polyamory is, in reality, “poly-lust-ory.” There is nothing loving about it. This perversion of marriage is confirmation that “every intention of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually,” and that, without God, “everyone does what is right in his own eyes” (see Genesis 6:5 and Judges 21:25).

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling legalizing gay marriage. Across the Atlantic, in mid-July 2013, the Queen of England signed into law “The Marriage Bill,” which allows same-sex couples to marry legally. Around the world, at least fifteen other nations have legalized marriage between same-sex partners. Obviously, the societal definition of marriage is changing. But is it the right of a government to redefine marriage, or has the definition of marriage already been set by a higher authority?

In Genesis chapter 2, God declares it is not good for Adam (the first man) to live alone. All the animals are there, but none of them are a suitable partner for Adam. God, therefore, in a special act of creation, makes a woman. Just a few verses later, the woman is called “his wife” (Genesis 2:25). Eden was the scene of the first marriage, ordained by God Himself. The author of Genesis then records the standard by which all future marriages are defined: “A man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

This passage of Scripture gives several points for understanding God’s design for marriage. First, marriage involves a man and a woman. The Hebrew word for “wife” is gender-specific; it cannot mean anything other than “a woman.” There is no passage in Scripture that mentions a marriage involving anything other than a man and a woman. It is impossible for a family to form or human reproduction to take place asexually. Since God ordained sex to only take place between a married couple, it follows that God’s design is for the family unit to be formed when a man and woman come together in a sexual relationship and have children.

The second principle from Genesis 2 about God’s design for marriage is that marriage is intended to last for a lifetime. Verse 24 says the two become “one flesh.” Eve was taken from Adam’s side, and so she was literally one flesh with Adam. Her very substance was formed from Adam instead of from the ground. Every marriage thereafter is intended to reflect the unity shared by Adam and Eve. Because their bond was “in the flesh,” they were together forever. There was no escape clause written into the first marriage that allowed for the two to separate. That is to say that God designed marriage for life. When a man and a woman make a commitment to marry, they “become one flesh,” and that is why they say, “Till death do us part.”

A third principle from this passage about God’s design for marriage is monogamy. The Hebrew words for “man” and “wife” are singular and do not allow for multiple wives. Even though some people in Scripture did have multiple wives, it is clear from the creation account that God’s design for marriage was one man and one woman. Jesus emphasized this principle when He appealed to the Genesis account to counter the idea of easy divorce (Matthew 19:4—6).

It should come as no surprise that the world desires to change what God has instituted. “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Romans 8:7). Though the world is attempting to provide their own definitions for what they call “marriage,” the Bible still stands. The clear definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life.

The decision whether to have an abortion is painful, complicated, and difficult. If you are willing to listen, we’d like to present some reasons why you should not have an abortion. There are good reasons, spiritual, practical, emotional, and factual, why you should not have an abortion. If you are looking for help regarding abortion, please contact “If Not For Grace Ministries” (www.infg.org) for free resources and counseling.

An abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life while it is still in the womb. We know it is life because it grows and develops. We know it is human because basic biology teaches us that like produces like. God established this truth in the first chapter of Genesis when He commanded that all living things were to reproduce “after their kind” (Genesis 1:11, 24, 28). Since the parents are human beings, the unborn life within the mother is also a human being. So abortion is the intentional extermination of that unborn human being. That is one good reason to not have an abortion.

Every woman’s situation is different, and abortions are sought for many reasons. To arrive at a reasonable answer to why a woman should not have an abortion, she must ask herself the reverse of this question: Why should I have an abortion? Why should I terminate my child’s life while it is still in the womb? At this point, pro-choice advocates often create a smokescreen by introducing the issues of rape and incest. While both rape and incest are horrible crimes and should be punished by law, the fact remains that the percentage of women seeking abortions for either of these reasons is extremely small. And this smokescreen does not address the fact that, regardless of how or why a child was conceived, he or she is as fully human as any other child. The circumstances of conception have nothing to do with the viability of the infant. If abortion is the willful murder of an innocent, growing fetus, then it is still murder even if the child was conceived through violence or incestuous relations. Murder of the innocent does not erase the devastation caused by evil.

When we remove the smokescreen, the possible reasons for seeking abortion are down to two: personal preference or to save the life of the mother. Since even fewer cases exist where abortion is required to save the life of the mother, that argument gets far more press than it deserves. Modern medicine can do miraculous things in treating pregnant women without harming their babies, so this issue is nothing more than a red herring meant to distract from the real issue: personal preference. In recent years, the medical argument has been stretched to include the idea of “mental health of the mother,” which is a vague term that can include any feelings of fear or ambiguity the pregnancy may have evoked in a woman. This argument is merely an extension of the smokescreen and needs to be categorized as such. Some women are convinced that their lives and futures will be ruined to carry this child to term. However, crisis pregnancy centers partner with mothers throughout pregnancy and help them choose the best options for both mother and baby. These options can include aid if she keeps the baby or adoption assistance if she decides to go that route.

Due to rampant sexual immorality in our world, unplanned pregnancies abound. When modern culture decided to separate sexuality from morality, the problems got worse. God never intended any such separation. He created sex for the marriage relationship and for children to be welcomed into that marriage, regardless of whether or not they were a surprise to the parents (Genesis 1:23–24; Psalm 127:3). Scripture is clear that every human being has intrinsic value simply because every human being is a unique creation of God. There may be accidental parents, but there are no accidental children (Psalm 139).

A man and a woman can partner with God in the creation of a unique human being, but the man and woman are not the creators of that human being. As many infertile couples can attest, desire for children plus sexual activity does not necessarily produce a child. God says that life is in His hands. He takes strong issue with those who believe they have the right to murder innocent children. In fact, God brought harsh judgment upon nations who offered their babies to false gods (2 Chronicles 28:3; Jeremiah 19:5; Ezekiel 20:31). Why do we imagine He is not equally outraged when we offer our babies to our gods of culture, money, fame, or convenience?

So the final answer is that a woman should not have an abortion because it is the murder of an innocent human being. God’s command against murder precedes the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses (Genesis 9:5–6). This was a universal decree for all humanity. God is the only Giver of life, and only He can dictate when that life should end. Murder is the most arrogant sin a human being can commit because it requires the murderer to usurp God’s right to determine the lifespan of another person. Murder sets a human being in the place of God. In Genesis 9:5 God says, “For your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. . . . From each human being . . . I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.” Those who willingly participate in an abortion must answer to the Creator of that life.

However, abortion is not the unpardonable sin. When Jesus offered Himself on the cross in our place, abortion was among the sins He suffered for. He took murder, rape, incest, and abortion upon Himself and paid the price we owe God (2 Corinthians 5:21). When we come to Jesus in faith, confessing our sin and turning away from it, God offers a full pardon. He considers His Son’s death and resurrection as sufficient payment for violating His commands. But He also does not take that payment lightly. Forgiveness does not offer us an excuse to continue heaping sin upon His Son’s shoulders (Romans 6:1–6).

Even when the sin of abortion has been washed away by the blood of Jesus, the effects remain. Women who have had abortions often suffer years of shame and regret. Some have fertility problems later on, caused by violating their bodies in the unnatural act of tearing a growing fetus from its mother’s womb. Many women who have had abortions live every day with the knowledge of what they have done and are haunted by thoughts such as, “He would be six years old today,” or “She would have graduated high school this year.” Those who naturally miscarry have some of those same thoughts, but they come without the guilt and regret abortion brings.

Abortion can seem like a quick and easy solution to the problem of an unplanned pregnancy. But sin is never the best way. Never. Sin has eternal repercussions that it never advertises up front. Sin costs more than we want to pay and hurts more than we thought it would. You should not have an abortion because you and your baby deserve better than that. Seek God’s answers instead.

School prayer and Bible reading was abolished in 1962. See the amazing statistical evidence of why prayer and the Bible needs to be reestablished in the schools. The statistics for violence, morality, household stability and more are staggering. You’ll be shocked knowing just how bad it is.

Abortion is Murder

This s a very short, very simple post. It, as always, is brought in form of a question. I would like hearing responses from both sides on this issue.

My question is simply this – “If abortion isn’t murder, why is it considered a double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed?”

Please, let me hear from you….. or, submit this question to planned parenthood and see if they’ll answer this question…….

Any study of denominationalism or church history is sure to lead, sooner or later, to the terms High Church and Low Church. Originally, these terms defined movements within the Anglican Church, but the meanings have broadened to apply to non-Anglican churches, as well.

The terms have to do with worship procedures, specifically, the use of ritual, liturgy, and accoutrements in worship. Leaders of a High Church congregation place a “high” emphasis on ceremony, vestments, and sacraments. Leaders of a Low Church congregation place a “low” emphasis on such things and follow a freer worship style.

Anglican, Episcopal, Catholic, Orthodox, most Methodist and Lutheran, and some Presbyterian churches are considered High Church. Their worship services are characterized by liturgical readings and rituals, their clergy wear special clothing, and they follow a calendar of annual religious observances.

Baptist, Independent, Pentecostal, Quaker, Amish, some Methodist and Lutheran, and many Presbyterian churches are considered Low Church. Their worship services are characterized by congregational involvement, a relatively unstructured program, and an evangelical approach.

The distinction between High Church and Low Church did not appear until after the Reformation, of course. Then, the question arose: as the Protestant Church rejected Roman Catholic doctrine, how much Catholic procedure should be retained? Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli took opposing views. Luther considered that, as long as a rite was not specifically forbidden in the Bible, it was permissible for the church to practice. Zwingli’s view was that, if a rite was not specifically commanded in the New Testament, then it should not be practiced in the church.

Luther’s position led to what is now known as High Church practice. Zwingli’s view, which led to the Low Church movement, is expressed in the Westminster Confession: “The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture” (21.1). In other words, unless a practice is explicitly prescribed in Scripture, then the church should avoid it.

John Wesley, an Anglican, was sometimes accused of being Low Church because of his open-air evangelism and his training of clergy outside of standard church channels. Wesley himself denied such charges, always emphasizing his commitment to the rituals of his church. To this day, the Wesleyan and Methodist traditions are an interesting mixture of High Church liturgy and Low Church evangelicalism.

Low Church members often accuse the High Church of being “too Catholic.” High Church members sometimes look down their noses at the Low Church for being “unsophisticated.” Both sides should guard against spiritual pride (James 4:6). In truth, neither being High Church nor Low Church guarantees the proper worship of God. “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Some Bible interpreters believe that there will be absolutely no chance for salvation after the Rapture. However, there is no place in the Bible which says this or even hints to it. There will be many people who come to Christ during the Tribulation. The 144,000 Jewish witnesses (Revelation 7:4) are Jewish believers. If no one can come to Christ during the Tribulation, then why are people being beheaded for their faith (Revelation 20:4)? No passage of Scripture argues against people having a chance to be saved after the Rapture. Many passages indicate the opposite.

Another view is that those who hear the gospel and reject it before the Rapture cannot be saved. Those saved during the Tribulation, then, are those who had never heard the gospel before the Rapture. The “proof text” for this view is 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11, which says the Antichrist will work miracles to deceive “those who are perishing” and that God Himself will “send them a powerful delusion” to confirm them in their unbelief. The reason given is that “they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (verse 10). Granted, those who are hard-hearted toward the gospel before the Rapture are likely to remain so. And the Antichrist will deceive many (Matthew 24:5). But “those who refused to love the truth” does not necessarily refer to people who heard the gospel before the Rapture. It could be anyone who wholly rejects God’s salvation, at any time. So, there is no clear scriptural evidence to support this view.

Revelation 6:9-11 speaks of those martyred during the Tribulation “because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained.” These martyrs will correctly interpret what they see during the Tribulation and will believe the gospel themselves and call on others to repent and believe as well. The Antichrist and his followers will not tolerate their evangelism and will kill them. All of these martyrs are people who were alive before the Rapture, but who were not believers until afterward. Therefore, there must be opportunity to come to Christ in faith after the Rapture.

This articulate post is a “must read” for all citizens of these United States. It should weigh upon the conscience of every Christian.

Two Heads are Better Than One

Remember this?

His “Just Words” speech should have informed one-&-all, right then, that words were all he had

Instead, it was hailed as incontrovertible proof of his future magnificence as president. And yet, after his “uhmm-errr-ahhhhh” fest in yesterday’s press conference, to say that he’s lost whatever shred of magic or credibility he once had would be a galactic understatement, at best.

A better description of it would go somewhere along these lines:

boom 444

Plenty to cover here, so let’s go through these in no particular order:

View original post 593 more words

For believers in Jesus Christ, the question of whether or not a Christian education is important seems obvious. The answer would be an emphatic “Yes!” So why ask the question? It’s because the question comes from a myriad of perspectives within the Christian faith. Maybe the question should be “who is responsible for introducing my child to Christianity?” or “should my child’s education be done in a public, private or home-based system?” There is no shortage of opinions on this topic, some very strongly held and endlessly and emotionally debated.

As we begin to search for a biblical perspective, we come to the definitive Old Testament passage on educating children found in Deuteronomy 6:5-8: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.” Hebrew history reveals that the father was to be diligent in instructing his children in the ways and words of the Lord for their own spiritual development and well-being. The message in this passage is repeated in the New Testament where Paul exhorts parents to raise children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). Proverbs 22:6 also tells us to “train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” Training includes not only formal education, but also the first instructions parents give to a child, i.e., his early education. This training is designed to plant the child firmly on the foundation upon which his life is based.

As we move to the subject of formal education, however, there are misunderstandings that need to be addressed. First, God is not saying that only parents are to educate children as many would assert, and, second, He is not saying that public education is bad and we are to educate our children only in Christian schools or home schools. The principle found throughout all of Scripture is that of ultimate responsibility. God never directs parents to avoid education outside of the home; in fact, it isn’t even addressed. So, to say that the only “biblical” method of formal education is home schools or Christian schools would be adding to God’s Word, and we want to avoid using the Bible to validate our own opinions. Just the opposite is true: we want to base our opinions on the Bible. We also want to avoid the argument that only “trained” teachers are capable of educating our children. Again, the issue is that of ultimate responsibility, which belongs to parents.

The issue in Scripture is not what type of general education our children receive, but through what paradigm that information is to be filtered. For example, a homeschooler can be given a “Christian” education but fail in life because he or she does not truly know the God of Scripture and does not truly understand scriptural principles. Likewise, a child educated publicly can grow to understand the fallacies of the world’s wisdom by seeing its failure through God’s Word which has been diligently taught to him at home. Information is being sifted through a biblical lens in both cases, but true spiritual understanding only exists in the latter. Similarly, a student can attend a Christian school but never grow to understand God in an intimate, personal relationship. Ultimately, it is the parents who are responsible for shaping and molding the child in a way that will succeed in accomplishing true spiritual education.

In Hebrews 10:25, God gives Christians the command, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” The body of Christ is an integral part of the education of children, assisting parents in nurturing and educating children in spiritual matters. Exposure to something outside of the family structure, in this case sound biblical teaching from church and Sunday school, is good and necessary.

So, no matter what type of institution of learning we choose, parents are ultimately responsible for their children’s spiritual education. A Christian school teacher can be wrong, a pastor and Sunday school teacher can be wrong, and parents can be wrong on any particular viewpoint theologically. So, as we teach our children spiritual things, they need to understand that the only source of absolute truth is the Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, perhaps the most important lesson we can teach our children is to follow the example of the Bereans who “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11), and to test all things they are taught—from whatever source—against the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

“Marriage equality” is the latest catchphrase to be thrown into the  gay marriage / same-sex marriage debate. The term “marriage equality” is an  attempt to reframe the conversation and ascribe a certain level of irrationality  to those who oppose same-sex marriage. To oppose the recognition of homosexual  unions as marriages is one thing. But it is much more difficult to oppose  “equality” in marriage rights. What American would deny equality? However,  attaching a new label to the cause does not change the core issues in the  debate. If “marriage equality” means “gay marriage,” Christians should be  opposed to it.

Why are Christians opposed to marriage equality? The  question itself is misleading. Not all Christians are opposed to marriage  equality, gay marriage, or whatever else it is called. Many Christians support  gay unions being legally recognized as marriages. Such Christians generally hold  that sexual morality should not be legislated and that, in a free society,  people should be able to marry whomever they want. Biblically speaking, this is  a tragic mistake.

The Bible is abundantly clear that homosexuality is an  unnatural sin (Leviticus  18:22; Romans  1:26-27; 1  Corinthians 6:9). The Bible presents marriage as God’s invention, and God  has defined it as a covenant between a man and a woman for a lifetime (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians  7:2-16; Ephesians  5:23-33). Biblically speaking, a homosexual union is not a marriage. It does  not matter if the government legislates a new definition of marriage. It  does not matter if society is overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage. A  homosexual union always has been, and always will be, a perversion of God’s  creation.

In modern societies that are increasingly secular and  non-Christian, the marriage equality debate is eventually going to be won by the  gay rights movement. Barring national repentance and a revival of the Christian  faith, gay unions are going to be officially recognized as valid marriages, with  all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. But, whatever society does, it  cannot change the fact that followers of Christ are to align with, and submit  to, His Word. And His Word unequivocally declares that marriage is between one  man and one woman. As Christians, we accept the fact that we live in a secular  and ungodly nation, but we esteem the unchanging Word of God over society’s  modulating mores. “Let God be true, and every human being a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Christians do not need to fight  against homosexual couples being granted civil unions and the governmental  benefits such unions provide. Tax breaks, inheritance rights, hospital  visitation rights, etc., are not addressed in the Bible. But, when it comes to  the definition of marriage, Christians should stand firm. God created  marriage. No human being has the right or authority to redefine it. No matter  what governments and societies sanction, homosexual unions will never truly have  equality with heterosexual marriages.