Sometimes we wonder if there is a double-standard with God based on a couple of passages. One is I Corinthians 5:9-13 as Paul deals within tolerated sin within a congregation. One part of the argument makes it sound like it is okay for some of the world to live one way while Christians are held to a different standard. The other is Romans 2:13-15 where Paul speaks of those who are a law unto themselves, not knowing the gospel of God.

A Law Unto Themselves

We have a tendency to think of God’s word as two parts – the old and the new. This is reinforced by Hebrews 8, where the author speaks of a first and second covenant. The first covenant was specifically between God and Israel based on the obedience of Abraham (see Galatians 3:16), and it was delivered at Sinai after the escape from Egypt. The Old Testament then primarily focuses on that relationship between God and Israel, but Christ came for all nations.

In Hebrews 1:1, we are told that God once spoke to His creation in a variety of ways, and this is evidenced in passages like Genesis 4:3-4, Genesis 5:24, Genesis 6:8-9, Genesis 11:5, and many more, even carrying into the books of history and prophecy. We cannot know how God dealt with every godly individual, but He made Himself known to those who would follow Him, so how does this fit with the passage in Romans 2:13-15?

Romans 1:18-24 describes how much of the Gentile world had originally rejected God despite their opportunity to know Him, and Romans 2:11 reinforces the concept that God does not demonstrate favoritism. Verses 13-15 then refer to a general sense of morality contained within all mankind. Cornelius of Acts 10 is a good example of this. To be a law unto themselves is not citing a self-creation of standards as much as it is naturally following God’s code of morality without being consciously aware of that adherence.

Our Application

In Romans 2:2, we are reminded that God’s judgment is true and just. If I know what God expects of me, then I have the responsibility to follow it. In this context, God has the same expectations for everyone – whether they choose to follow Him or not. How does the reconcile with I Corinthians 5:9-13? Paul is simply reminding us not to be harshly judgmental with those outside the church who may be unaware of God’s expectations, but we should, in fact, be concerned with sin within our walls.

God cares for His entire creation. Remember Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute; Ruth the Moabite idol worshipper; the Assyrians in Jonah; Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel; and many more examples. John 3:16 reminds us that Christ came for all men, and we should have the same concern. Galatians 3:23-29 makes it clear that God sees no racial or gender-based boundaries, and John 14:6 records Jesus stating that all can come to the Father through Him. God’s way is open to all. There is no double standard for Christians and non-Christians. He is no respecter of persons, and He wishes all to repent and follow Him.

By Tim Smelser

Tags: controversy, scripturality, judgment

The Metropolitan Community Church has sponsored several billboards that encourage the view that the Bible condones some homosexual behavior and that various Biblical character were, in fact, homosexuals. The Metropolitan Community Church is not radical by any means in Christian terms – they hold fast to many Bible fundamentals and even speak out against certain homosexual acts. However, they do pose the question over whether or not two members of the same sex can live in a relationship blessed by God.

Examining the Evidence

Jesus affirms a gay couple in Matthew 8:5-13. The argument is that the centurion and his servant are a gay couple based on some of the Greek words used here. When he appeals to Jesus, he uses a word that can mean servant, boy, or child – and the context may implicate a gay relationship based on other references in classic Greek literature. In scripture, though, this is not how the word is traditionally used. See Matthew 12:18, Luke 1:54, Luke 1:69, and Acts 4:25. In all of these, the same Greek word is used and translated as servant, and no physically intimate relationship is implied in any of these. These servants are dear to – but not lover to – the Master. It is consistent to scripture to interpret the centurion and the servant in this way.

Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve in Ruth 1:14. Here, the cleaving is referred back to Genesis where a man is to leave father and mother to cleave to his wife. The question is, did Ruth cleave to Naomi as Adam to Eve? Psalm 102:5, II Kings 3:3, Deuteronomy 28:21, and many other passages use this exact word in a way that no sexual union is implied. Ruth chooses to not forsake Naomi and demonstrates a strong commitment. However, no intimacy is inherently implicit in the word used.

Jesus claims some are born gay in Matthew 19:10-12. Here, some of Jesus’ audience is bemoaning the commitment involved in marriage, and, in this context, Jesus speaks of people who have been born or have chosen to become eunuchs. The claim is that eunuchs were historically gay, but Jesus is talking about marriage and celibacy in these verses – not sexual preference. Some may find it preferable to avoid marriage if the commitment is to difficult, and the alternative is celibacy. No hint of sexual preference is brought into the context here, and there is no basis on the claim that Jesus is claiming people can be born gay. This same reasoning falters in Acts 8:38-39 where it would be argued that the church accepted gay individuals in membership.

David loved Jonathan more than women in II Samuel 1:26. David does, in fact, profess a love for Jonathan in this verse. Proverbs 17:17 says that a friend loves at all times. Proverbs 18:24 speaks of a friend that is closer than a brother. These relationships of empathy and friendship may be irreplaceable by a member of the opposite sex. Yes, David and Jonathan shared a closeness that David had never shared with a female companion. However, no sexuality or physical intimacy is inferred here. It has to be read into the context.

Conclusion

Other problems crop up in justifying homosexual behavior through these verses. None of these examples picture individuals in monogamous, committed relationships. For example, David and Jonathan both had wives and children. Ruth would marry Boaz. The centurion could have been a pedophile based on possible translations of the word used for servant there. Matthew 19:12 cannot cover homosexual women.

Finally, it is cited that there are very few passages condemning homosexuality – only six or seven at the most. Because of the lack of emphasis, it must not be important to God. However, likewise, murder is only expressly condemned seven times in the Bible as well. In the beginning, God made us male and female, His design is for man and woman to live in a faithful and committed heterosexual relationship. If we are claiming to live by the Bible, we should not use it to justify something that is not there.

By Tim Smelser

Tags: scripturality, controversy, doctrine

Recently, a small set of billboards have cropped up around the country claiming the Bible accepts homosexuality as a lifestyle. Three verses are cited – II Samuel 1:26, Acts 8:26-40, and Matthew 8:5-13. Unfortunately, none of these passages back up the claim.

II Samuel 1:26:

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

This is the most convincing of the examples because of the lack of nuances in the English language when it comes to "love." The Hebrew word here is 'ohab, which carries with it an idea of affection or deep friendship. It does not necessitate a sexual relationship. David's use of the kindred term 'ach or "brother" here reinforces a family-like relationship rather than a sexual one, and this brotherly relationship is, to David, deeper than any lovers he has taken to this point.

Acts 8:26-40

... And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship ...

The argument here is that a eunuch is likely gay.

This just doesn't line up with the standard definition of "eunuch."

eunuch |ˈyoōnək| |ˌjunək| |ˌjuːnək|
noun
a man who has been castrated, esp. (in the past) one employed to guard the women's living areas at an oriental court.

Matthew 8:5-13

... And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, saying, "Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented."
And Jesus saith unto him, "I will come and heal him ..."

Was this servant really the centurion's gay lover? The Greek word for servant here is ophelimos, meaning one who is helpful or profitable. This is obviously an employee/employer relationship and nothing else. He must have been a good servant, but nothing else is implied here.

The Harmony of Scriptures

I Corinthians 14:33:

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

This quote specifically refers to a confusing and contradictory atmosphere in worship, but I think it speaks to a broader truth. There is no duplicity in God. His will is consistent, so if we're going to justify homosexuality through David (accepting that he was a man "after God's own heart" in Acts 13:21-23), we have to reconcile this with Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

(Please note the distinction that God calls out the action. He does not call the person an abomination. There is a difference.)

When it comes to the New Testament, remember I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Even if the eunuch or the centurion were gay before accepting Christ, Paul makes it pretty clear in this passage that such lifestyles are left behind afterwards. We were these things until we were washed, sanctified, and justified.

Conclusion

We are not to judge others unfairly (Mathew 7:1-2). We are treat all people with kindness and respect (Galatians 6:9-10), and Jesus always began teaching people where they were developmentally. However, respect for an individual does not necessarily mean approval of all his or her choices. The Bible's message is one of love and peace, but we cannot haphazardly lift scripture out of context for personal justification – whether we are trying to justify doing what we want, hating who we choose, or loving in ways God has not ordained.

By Robert Smelser

Tags: my thoughts, scripturality, controversy

Daniel 9 has been called the “dismal swamp of Old Testament criticism.” There are numerous takes and explanations to the vision of Daniel 9, including a church-age approach, among these being various Messianic approaches, millennial and pre-millennial interpretations, and various church-age interpretations. In this lesson, we’re going to look at this prophecy in context of Jesus statement that He had fulfilled all things written concerning Him and His kingdom and look for a simple, valid explanation to these difficult verses.

The Vision of the Seventy Weeks

The vision comes during the first year of the reign of Darius. Some scholars accept the theory that Darius and Cyrus were one and the same. Both names may refer to the same individual. Historically, those in Jerusalem were carried away in 605 B.C., and now Darius comes into power 539 B.C. Here, Daniel is reading of the captivity from Jeremiah 25:11, realizes the time of captivity should be ending soon, and prays to God, making confession for the sins of his nation. He pleads for God to listen to his prayer, forgive the past, and restore His people.

In Daniel 9:20, Daniel’s prayer is interrupted by another vision of the angel Gabriel, and the angel says he has come to give Daniel understanding of what is to come to pass. He says that seventy weeks are declared to make an end to sing, make reconciliation, bring righteousness, seal up the past, and bring the anointed one. These weeks are divided up into other events, some tragic, leading up to wrath poured out upon the unfaithful.

The Context of Law

Back in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, we have recorded the blessings and curses of the covenant. Based on the loyalty of the people various results are numerated. In Leviticus 26:23-25, the ultimate consequence is being stripped from the Promised Land, a sword of vengeance, a seven-fold punishment. In verse 34, it is written that the land will have its Sabbaths (see also II Chronicles 36:17-21), and verse 40 promises that the people will one day confess their sins and those of their fathers – which is exactly what Daniel is doing in the ninth chapter of his book. Also, we learn in Isaiah that God is going to use his servant Cyrus in chapter 44:28 to restore Jerusalem and the temple.

Numbers As Symbols

Seventy weeks are seven sets of seven days. We have noted that God would smite His people seven times, and we know that the Sabbaths revolved around the number seven: the seventh day, the seventh year, and the foty-ninth + fiftieth year. This time period is difficult to assign a literal period to, so, in light of the importance of seven in Jewish theology, it is logical to consider the seventy years and the seventy weeks as symbolic period of time.

Seventy years would be ten sevens. Ten cycles of Sabbath rest. The seventy weeks would be seven times seven times ten. (Remember Jesus and Peter on the topic of forgiveness: seventy times seven.) Ten sevens point to Jubilee, a time when the land rested and freedom was granted to those under bondage.

These numbers demonstrates a period of absolute completeness. There is no sensible way you can assign literal years to these numbers and assign them to fitting events. These numbers have been used symbolically in other locations, and it makes sense to view them as symbolic now.

The Goals of the Seventy Sevens

What is to be accomplished in this time period of “ten Jubilees?” Six things are mentioned beginning in verse 24. A finish transgression and an end to sin are promised. Only one brings a true end to the consequences of sin. Binding up and removing sin is only accomplished through Christ’s sacrifice. Atonement for sin will come. Again, in the scriptures, there is only one who brings absolute atonement. This time will bring everlasting righteousness. Vision and prophecy will be sealed up or brought to completion. In Luke 24, Jesus says His life has fulfilled all things written concerning the Messiah. He says early in his ministry that He has come to fulfill, or accomplish, the law. Finally this period will anoint the most holy. Again, Jesus seems a logical conclusion to this statement. He, being seated at the right hand of God, is anointed prophet, priest, and king.

This whole passage pretty conclusively points to the ministry of Jesus, and this fits in with the rest of the prophecy. The anointed one is cut off and Jerusalem is destroyed (the abomination of desolation). Jesus offered Sabbath to His followers, offering rest. In Romans, we are described as free from sin. The Sabbaths and Jubilee years were times of rest and deliverance, and Jesus’ sacrifice releases us from the debt of sin and frees us from the captivity involved. We are granted inner peace and eternal rest.

Conclusion

God’s plan for man has always been restoration and freedom, and the final Sabbath rest is still awaiting His people. God’s plan is cohesive and builds up to the ministry and sacrifice of Christ. When we read these passages, we can see history unfold in God’s plan, and we can understand our Lord is one who keeps His promises for the restoration of His people.

By Tim Smelser

Tags: controversy, prophecy, jesus, daniel

It is the time of year when we start to see things like “Happy Birthday Jesus” on church signs and bulletins. We’ve discussed before the importance of making sure we do things God’s way rather than man’s way, and, even among the secular world, many do understand that what is typically portrayed as the “Christmas Story” is not what happened.

The Evolution of Christmas

Starting in Matthew 1, we have one account of Jesus’ birth. Luke chapter 2 does much the same with a few additional details. Many elements are familiar, such as the shepherds whom the angels appear to. These come to Jesus’ birthplace. Eight days later, He is circumcised. At least forty-eight days later, He was presented in the temple, and the wise men visit after this, seeing a young child in a house – Jesus is now at least two months old.

The actual year, season, and date are completely unknown. Judging from New Testament clues, the “first Christmas” could have been in late autumn. The climate was mild in that the shepherds spent the night with their flock.

Man has romanticized and built up ritual around this story, and there was even early controversy in the church over what date Christmas would be observed on. (Some churches rejected 12/25 in favor of a January or March observance. The date was actually picked to serve as competition with pagan rituals observed on 12/25. Saint Nicholas passed away in early December around 400 AD, and his death was commemorated with the exchange of gifts.

Paul & Holidays

We have many traditions that have pagan or religious origins (All Hollow’s Eve, birthday candles, St. Valentine’s Day, etc.). In Galatians 4:8-11, Paul basically says that observing special days is not wrong, but these should not be seen as religious acts of worship. There is a separation between secular and religious celebrations.

Christ’s Established Memorial

In contrast to the unknowns surrounding Christ’s birth, we are given explicit details regarding the observance of Christ’s death. We are told when to observe; we know how we should observe; we know the manner and attitude to be held. God’s word makes it clear that the focal point of Christ’s life is His death rather than His birth.

In I Corinthians 2:11, Paul explains that we know nothing of God except what the Spirit has revealed to us. I don’t know what you are thinking or what makes you happy unless you tell me. The same is true for God. Leviticus 10:1, II Samuel 7:5, and I Kings 12:33 all serve as examples of individual who step outside of God’s desires, and it is not pleasing to Him when this happens.

Conclusion

Isaiah 7 records God asking Ahaz to request a sign confirming His faithfulness to His people. Ahaz feigns false faith in denying a sign, but the Lord provides a sign nonetheless. The sign is Christ, the virgin birth, the one named Immanuel, and God tells of a wonderful kingdom established and ruled by this Messiah. Isaiah 9:6 tells us of a Wonderful Counselor, a Mighty God, an Everlasting Father, a Prince of Peace whose reign will never fail. It is a grand story, but it is not the “Christmas Story.”

Christ’s birth was glorious. His coming and birth is the subject of many prophecies. It is appropriate for us to study and revere His birth, but we should do this at any time – not just once a year. We cannot disregard what God has commanded and substitute our own traditions and assume we please God. We have not the authority to dictate to the Creator what we feel should be pleasing to Him when He has told us what He desires from us. Christ’s coming and death cured the problem of sin, and we should be always thankful for that gift. Let us celebrate Christ the way God wants us to – every day of our lives.

By Tim Smelser

Tags: christmas, controversy

Beginning in Ephesians 5, we’re going to look at our song service and the use of instrumental music in our worship to God. In Ephesians 5:19, Paul instructs the congregation to speak to one another, singing and making melody in the heart. Also, in Colossians 3:16, our song service is described as a time when teaching and admonishing is taking place.
x

Parallels With Psalms

While these verses are similar, Paul uses deliberate wording that is similar to the Psalms when songs of praise are described therein. Psalm 33:2, for example, states to sing praises unto Him with a harp. Psalm 144:9, Psalm 98:5, and Psalm 146:7 are additional passages using similar wording. In all of these, there is a function, a means, and an object.
x
Back in Ephesians 5:19, there is a function: singing; and object: the Lord; and a means: with the heart. This is also true of Colossians 3:16, and these passages illustrate a difference between the Old and New Testaments.
x

Spiritual Versus Physical

Hebrews 9:9-11 and Hebrews 8:5 emphasize the reliance of the Old Testament on things made by hands. It was a shadow of things to come, and this can be seen in those Psalms’ reliance on man-made instruments. Passages like Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 10:9, and Galatians 3:24-25 help us understand that the Old Testament is no longer over us. Likewise, the ways and means of worship in the Old Testament have passed away.
x
In John 4:19-23, a Samaritan woman questions Jesus regarding worship, and Jesus de-emphasizes the physical and emphasizes the spiritual in His response. See also Hebrews 12:18-22, Hebrews 13:15, I Peter 2:5, and Romans 2:28-29. All these emphasize spiritual concepts over material concepts, and the Hebrews 13 reading describes what comes from our mouths as a form of sacrifice.
x

Conclusion

We should no more want to use instrumental music than we should want to sacrifice bulls and goats. As with sacrifice, instrumental worship is tied to the Old Testament. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 expressly command us to sing to God with our hearts – not with anything else. There are no examples, commands, or implications of using instruments to worship God anywhere in the New Testament.
x
Nadab and Abihu, in Leviticus, did not respect worshipping God in the way He commanded, and He eliminated them as a result. Even early church influences (whether we agree with all there doctrines or not) such as John Calvin, John Wesley, and Martin Luther disapproved of instrumental music in worship. New Testament Christianity has a model to follow, and our worship is to be centered on what pleases God rather than what pleases us. Are we singing praises to God from the heart, or are we – with or without instruments – putting on a performance? If our focus is on God more than selves, then we can more easily lay aside personal preferences when it comes to worshipping Him.

By Tim Smelser

Tags: controversy, worship, scripturality

There are a lot of questions and a lot of speculation regarding the origin and role of Satan. There are two passages we’ll being with. I John 3:7-8 identifies Satan as a sinner from the beginning, and Hebrews 2:14 describes him as one with power of death. Each step in the fall of Satan is a step toward Christ’s goal to defeat evil.

When entering into this study, some of what we will be drawing out of scriptures will be speculation. The Bible does not give us every detail about our adversary, but there are lessons to learn from an examination of this material.

Satan’s Progression

Created. Satan is a created being. Colossians 1:15-17 makes it clear that all, seen and unseen, were created by God through Christ. Also, the last chapter of Genesis 1 reinforces the totality of God’s creation. It is safe to draw from these passages that Satan too was created – possibly as an angelic being.

Sin & Fall. Jude 5-6 warns of the fact that those chosen of God can fall from grace, and the author goes as far as to illustrate angels that have been cast away due to disobedience. II Peter 2:4 reinforces this illustration. I Timothy 3:6 describes pride as the sin of the devil. In Ezekiel 28, God is condemning the king of Tyre of exaulting himself. Notice verses 13-19, and you will see some descriptions that may be referring back to Satan’s fall. Isaiah 14:12-19 also uses very similar language. These come together to paint a composite picture of angels that have rebelled and have been cast away.

Cursed. Genesis 3:14-15. Though cast down, Satan is apparently still active, and he is also depicted as being in Heaven before God. Job 1:6 and 2:1 descibe Satan coming among the sons of God. Furthermore, in Zechariah 3, Joshua is being symbolized as a high priest with Satan set as His adversary. Satan set himself as adversary to God’s plan to reunite man and God.

Defeated. Matthew 4:1-11 records Satan’s defeat in tempting Jesus. Matthew 12:25-29 illustrates Jesus’ intention to defeat Jesus as does Matthew 16:18. Luke 10:17-19, John 12:30-31, John 16:33 reinforce this effort. Finally, Revelation 12 paints a vivid picture of Satan being defeated at every turn.

Bound. Revelation 20:1-3 illustrates Satan being restrained, and Romans 16:20 gives a specific example of a congregations whose works will harm the devil. Still, passages like James 4:7 and Ephesians 6:11 warn us that Satan is still active in this world. Though restrained, he is a formidable foe.

Cast Away. Revelation 20:10 records the final defeat of Satan as the final judgment comes. Matthew 25:41 speaks of eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Conclusion

The Bible may be scarce in detail, but we can see a story here of one created being who wished to elevate himself to equality with God. He became God’s adversary, was cast away from Heaven, still active in the world, but destined to defeat at the hands of Christ. Christ has made it possible for us to resist Satan, and we can choose to do so if we choose Christ over the temptations of His adversary.

By Tim Smelser

Tags: satan, controversy, examples

In these chapters, we sometimes tend to pass over some of these passages and note that some of these verses do not apply to us anymore. We’ve gone over I Corinthians 12-14, looking at what we can learn from these chapters, and, in this lesson, we are going to look at the nature of spiritual gifts, look at their purpose, and examine what the “partial” and the “perfect” are from this passage.

The Nature of Gifts

In I Corinthians 12:8, many of the spiritual gifts are specifically named (in context of 12:1). These are grace gifts, bestowed by the Spirit.

• Romans 12:6-8 - Paul emphasizes the role grace plays in the bestowment of these gifts.
• I Peter 4:7-10 - Again, Peter brings God’s grace into the gifts.

The argument is made that, since the enumerated grace gifts from Romans and I Peter, are still done today, those of I Corinthians must be also. However, in context, the gifts of Romans and I Peter are not miraculous gifts while the gifts of I Corinthians are. These are not parallel passages, and comparing these gifts is comparing apples to oranges. Specifically, in I Corinthians 13, Paul names miraculous knowledge, prophecy, and tongues, as those passing away.

Clarifying “Tongues”

What are “tongues?” In the charismatic moment today, many would say speaking in tongues is speaking in a language that is purely spiritual and foreign to any mortal. What we see in the Bible, though, is that the tongues of the New Testament are in fact human languages that the speaker had no prior knowledge of.

Acts 2:4-8 - The apostles are gifted hear with the ability to speak in the languages of their listeners, and this amazes the hearers. John 18:20, Matthew 12:46, Matthew 10:19-20 - all of these occasions use the same “speak” as in Acts 2:7 when the apostles “speak” in tongues. It is just the use of language to communicate. Acts 2:4-6, 11 - Luke uses the Greek for language and dialect interchangeably through this chapter. Much of the vocabulary describing the tongues of Acts 2 is also used in I Corinthians 13.

Acts 10:46-48 - If these “tongues” are ecstatic, how would have Peter’s companions known those in Cornelius’ household were magnifying God. Also, in I Corinthians 14:21, Paul quotes Isaiah 28, saying that “strange tongues” will be used to communicate, and “strange” is used like the “strange woman” of Proverbs – one that is foreign or unknown.

Interpreting means to translate from one language to another. It is taking a meaning one understands and providing meaning to another. Interpreting is not giving meaning to that which is meaningless. For example John 1:42, Hebrews 7:2 - In both of these examples names are being interpreted based on the language their names were in.

What is the Perfect?

The partial are those miraculous spiritual gifts whose time is limited. In I Corinthians 13:10, Paul references the coming of the perfect as that which would cause these to pass away. Many interpret this as being Jesus.

• II Timothy 3:16-17, I Corinthians 13:9-10 - perfect = complete, entire, or whole.
• Some think it is the maturation of the church, the Second Coming, or the completion of God’s revelation.

Through I Corinthians 13, Paul has two main points: love never fails, but miraculous gifts will. Why? Gifts only provide a partial picture, and a point of completion is coming. He uses a maturation process as an illustration of this concept. His second illustration is the use of a dim mirror to try to see something clearly.

What was becoming clearer and helping the first-century Christians mature? It is reasonable to conclude that he is speaking of the revelation of God’s word. In Romans 16:25-26, I Corinthians 2:7, Ephesians 1:9, Ephesians 3:3, and many others passages speak of a mystery that is being revealed. Now take II Peter 3:15-16. Peter references a collection of Paul’s epistles as well as other scriptures. The revelation was already in the process of being compiled and completed.

Returning to I Corinthians 13, Paul uses “in part” at least three times. The gospel was being revealed in pieces. Once the message was fully revealed, the fragmented manner of instruction would no longer be needed. Everything Christians would need would be recorded in whole, no longer a dark mystery but a clear image of that which makes us complete.

Conclusion

II Peter 1:3-4 - All things that we need for spiritual growth is given. We have no need for these spiritual gifts to confirm or add to our faith. The blessing of being Christians today is the fact that we have a complete word to study from and that our knowledge can be complete should we put forth the diligence to learn and apply that word.

By Tim Smelser

Tags: corinth series, miracles, scripturality, controversy

People who believe in intelligent design are complete idiots.

At least that is what many journalists, lawyers, educators, and proponents of creation through evolution want to portray. It takes massive amounts of intellect to comprehend to wonders of nature and how it all came to exist as a result of dumb luck with no reproducible cause. On the other hand, any simpleton can believe in a God.

Really, if God is removed from the equation, what more reasonable explanation can we come up with? A random explosion? What caused it? What put those forces in motion to lead up to the explosion? How far back can we go before we run out of answers?

Assuming the massive explosion, where did life come from? Are we now proponents of the most simplistic Aristotelian view of spontaneous generation – that organic matter just somehow sprung out of molten rocks? Where did the energy of life come from? How was this energy being continually produced with no outside force, somehow contradicting the second law of thermodynamics?

Regardless of the answers, theories, and suppositions, believing in creation through evolution requires – wait for it – faith! It is the "evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). The advent of life from nothingness is no more reproducible in a lab than is God. Whether you want to call it faith or not, believing in either force of creation requires a belief in something intangible, and there is nothing scientific at all about that.

So is believing in God all that stupid? I don't know, but given the choice of believing my existence is the result of a freak incident of which I am an insignificant event or believing that I am made by a Creator that cares for me (I Peter 5:6-7), I know what my choice of beliefs is. This choice may be called foolish, but I Corinthians 1:25 claims the foolishness of God surpasses the wisdom of men. In this case, I think I have to follow the example of the apostle Paul and become a fool for the sake of Christ (I Corinthians 4:10).

By Robert Smelser

Tags: creation, my thoughts, controversy