Homosexual thoughts, inclinations, and acts are sin and must be confessed and forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ just like any other sin or sinner must be. Society is constantly pushing for the normalization of homosexuality, but the Christian must remain true to the Scripture. (for a fuller discussion of the topic, see my other article entitled Loving the homosexual to Healing with Truth.) The following list highlights some of the biblical truths regarding homosexuality. Continue reading →
This article briefly considers homosexuality, both biblically and scientifically. For a more thorough treatment of the subject, you can download my series under the same title at www.trinitynorman.org/resources/.
The Scripture clearly teaches that while all sin is sin, some sins are more sinful than others. Matthew 12:30-32 speaks of the unpardonable sin, in contrast to every other sin which can be forgiven by faith in Christ; Matthew 23:23 speaks of the “weightier provisions of the law;” John 19:11 says that in comparison to Pontius Pilate, Judas has the “greater sin;” James 1:14-15 distinguishes between temptation, lust, conceiving, and sin. Sin can refer to full mental indulgence or the physical carrying out of that which is conceived. While the mental envisioning of say, adultery, is sin, the carrying out of the physical act worsens such sin. To wit, the thought of murdering someone is sin, but the greater sin is to carry such thought to its fullness and commit the physical act of murder. Continue reading →
Genesis has been a battleground for some time, and today is no different. This is particularly true of Genesis 1-3, which is the account of the creation and the fall. When I first began studying the Scripture, I recognized the importance of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but in retrospect I did not fully appreciate the magnitude of their significance. As I studied other areas of the Scripture and began learning the breadth and depth of God’s revelation, I saw that without the truthfulness and perspicuity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, every major theme of Scripture lay in jeopardy.
Probably the most hotly debated issue is whether or not the days of Genesis 1 are lunar days or indefinite periods of time or even actual days that are representative of longer periods of time. In other words, did God create the world in six days (closely approximating our days) or is the simple language of Genesis concealing a deeper esoteric meaning only fully revealed to scientists quite apart from the Scripture? Even some evangelical scientists like Hugh Ross, who describes himself as a “progressive creationist,” still accept certain cosmological theories as fact and seek to interpret Genesis through that prism”. Continue reading →
Science cannot say that there is no God, no evidence for God, or that God is not knowable because He is by definition beyond the detectability of laboratory experiments, and His existence offers the best inferential answer to explain some observable data.
As far as Richard Dawkins’ naturalistic assertion “that what is knowable is what is observable,” we may respond to that dictum in the following ways. First, science has a long history of discovering things that existed long before they were observed through the five senses, one example being the atom. Second, science often concludes by inference that some material entities exist, such as genes, electrons, and other planets. Similarly, we know God presently by inference and spiritual experience, but He will one day be observable and knowable to all. Therefore, to believe in His existence today is reasonable, and I believe the best explanation of certain observable phenomena—the universe, love, morals, etc.
 See Antony Flew’s book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, (New York: Harper One, 2007).
Francis Schaeffer (1912 – 1984) was a Christian pastor and apologist. He is responsible for helping countless pastors and Christian leaders to think more broadly and deeply about God and our world. He considered himself an evangelist. The following is a timely quote by him from almost thirty years ago.
“Make no mistake. We as Bible-believing evangelical Christians are locked in a battle. This is not a friendly gentleman’s discussion. It is a life and death conflict between the spiritual hosts of wickedness and those who claim the name of Christ . . . It is a conflict on the level of ideas between two fundamentally opposed views of truth and reality. It is a conflict on the level of actions between a complete moral perversion and chaos and God’s absolutes. But do we really believe that the part we play in the battle has consequences for whether or not men and women will spend eternity in hell? Or whether or not in this life people will live with meaning or meaninglessness? Or whether or not those who do live will live in a climate of moral perversion and degradation? Sadly, we must say that few in the evangelical world have acted as if these things are true. Rather than trumpet our accomplishments and revel in our growing numbers, it would be closer to the truth to admit that our response has been a disaster.”
 Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), 31-32.
Today longstanding shared presuppositions about reality continue to evanesce. We not only think about different things, but we think differently. The scientistic worldview that continues to expand legitimate science beyond its legitimate domain normalizes relativism. This relativism is not arrived at through philosophical reasoning, but rather by viewing life as either only understood or best understood by what science can tell us. Thus, each aspect of life, marriage, morals, child rearing, etc., are merely experiments, and as experiments, they are neither right nor wrong, but rather they either work or do not.
Christian apologist and evangelist Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) wrote similarly about the importance of this shift, “So this change in the concept of the way we come to knowledge and truth is the most crucial problem, as I understand it, facing Christianity today.”
 The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy, Book One: The God Who Is There, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 6.
The mantra of our day is equal rights and free speech unless of course one is expressing biblical morality. Equal rights really are more equal for some than for others.
“[I]n 2002, police were called to a disturbance in Brighton, England, in which an elderly man had been assaulted, knocked to the ground, and pelted with soil and water. The police arrested the man, and he was eventually convicted of harassment. His crime? Displaying a placard that read, “Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism.” No action was taken against his assailants. His right to protection from physical assault was regarded by the authorities as less important than the right of homosexuals to protection from criticism.”
 Simon DeBruxelles, “Preacher Fined for Anti-Gay Sermon,” The Times, April 25, 2002, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-278222,00.html. Accessed at http://www.kairosjournal.org/document.aspx?DocumentID=6145&QuadrantID=4&CategoryID=6&TopicID=43&L=1 9-24-13
Humans are created in the image of God with soft-libertarian (incompatible) free will. This means that humans can choose, within the range of choices, to act or refrain, and whatever they do in fact choose they could have chosen otherwise. Many have argued that it is impossible to create such a being and guarantee that he will never use his freedom to do wrong—sin; thus, God could not be in sovereign control, nor could He guarantee that created man would never sin either in the Garden of Eden or eternity. It is obvious to all that man did choose to sin, and that all subsequent humans inherit a sin nature, with the exception of the God-Man our Lord Jesus Christ. However, many have asked me how can it be possible to guarantee those in heaven will never sin if Adam had libertarian free will and chose to sin? Stated a little differently, is it possible for God to create a truly otherwise choice human being who will never choose to sin, and if it is possible, then why did He not so create Adam and Eve, which would have avoided sin and its consequences. Continue reading →
Elsewhere, I develop this more fully as well as lay out historical, constitutional, and intellectual arguments for an alternative to the “separation” model for governing the relationship of church and state, which I call The Proportional Accommodation and Appreciation Model. This article focus is only the moral argument. Continue reading →
I begin by quoting the statement he used from my article and then note his assessment. My response follows.
You quoted me, “the gospel, according to Calvinism, is that God ‘loves to save some sinners and equally loves to damn most sinners to eternal torment.”
You said that my statement was “patently false” and that I had “wrongly characterized… brothers and sisters and actually obscured the discussion instead elucidating it.”
My response to him was, I use the word “love” in the context of speaking of God’s relationship with the non-elect because this is the word Calvinism uses ubiquitously. Please feel free to look at any major Calvinist’s systematic theology. They work arduously and relentlessly to demonstrate how God loves the non-elect (though differently). There are entire books written by Calvinists seeking to communicate this. Consequently, I use the word love to discuss this point because Calvinists do. Continue reading →