Category Archives: Theology

Regarding my first day of living in a Sodomite Nation

Fields of the Wood

When I was 21 years old (10 years ago, if you’re counting)… my country’s highest court decided that it would decriminalize a criminal activity, namely the practice of having sexual relations with one or more people of the same gender. But now that 10 years have gone by, today I woke up for the first time in a true Sodomite Nation. A nation where my federal government has now declared sodomy an honorable enterprize to be worthy of reward, benefit, and equal protection under the laws of this land.

Thankfully, today, I was able to visit the “Fields of the Wood” during lunch on a work trip in Murphy, NC. There stands a gigantic, monumental display of the 10 commandments. (See the photo) It is ironic that, in our nation’s capital, displays of the 10 commandments remain – even in the courts of injustice. It is so unfortunate that we have now seen the day that 5 of the 9 justices sought to once again bring our constitutional republic under the rule of judicial fiat by striking down an act of government that is guaranteed by our constitution. That act (DOMA) was voted on and approved by every representative branch of our government and stood for nearly 2 decades to try and preserve true and good morality in our land as this radical minority sought to corrupt us, even coming after our children. But as of yesterday, it was stuck down in the most heinous and immoral manner by 5 unaccountable judges.

I’m reminded of the title of a book/movie that was made some years ago… “A Series of Unfortunate Events”. Not that it has anything to do with sodomy. But its title sums up nicely what these United States are going through… a series of unfortunate events. Why are they unfortunate, you ask?

Because they are the steps of judgment that God takes an idolatrous nation through as He gives them over to their wickedness and foolishness. Make no mistake, these unfortunate events are not simple rebellion. They are God’s decreed end for those peoples who reject Him and turn to their own ways – believing they can do whatever is ‘right in their own eyes.’

So make no mistake about what I believe as a Christian. Even though I live in a Sodomite Nation, I still believe that all homosexuals deserve to die for their deeds. I still believe that all homosexual couples do not love each other with a true love. Their love is cheap and destructive, not only to each other, but even more to all those children who are adopted by them.

But Glenn, why are you singling out homosexuals? Why not all the other sins the Bible talks about? Well, that’s pretty simple… because the homosexuals have chosen to single themselves out and celebrate this new national day of history. I simply seek to say these things to dishonor their pride and immorality – because it is dishonorable. As a Christian, I struggle with sins too, but I don’t celebrate it. I ask others to pray for me and I seek to kill my sin daily with the help of God’s Spirit living in me, making me more and more righteous in union with Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.

As we all seek to understand the implications of living in a Sodomite Nation, never forget what came to all those nations before who turned to greater and greater idolatry and evil. Never forget how Lot felt in Sodom (Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless – for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard). And most importantly, never forget what happened to Sodom, to Egypt, to Babylon, to Greece, and to Rome. They all fell under God’s hand and they all drank the cup of God’s wrath when they had filled it up.

So I end with this: Don’t think there is hope for those who continue to reject God. They can never be saved. But, while it is still called today, remember this:

“Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, ‘Today,’ saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.'” (Hebrews 4:6,7)

Concerning Same Sex Adoptions

Yesterday, a friend’s question on social media in response to an article I shared about children in same sex households provoked the following thoughts on the issue of adoption, even dealing with single parent adoptions and the detriment to the child (not to mention the selfishness they expose). Here is the article I shared:

Here are my thoughts on the issue of same sex couple adoption and single parent adoption, as well as the destructive force they (in particular same sex couple adoptions) have on children and on society:

Yes, I am opposed to single parent adoptions. Though, I will firmly argue that a single parent is less destructive than homosexual parents – who effectively guarantee the perversion of the child’s mind from naturally understanding God as their Father and the Church as their Mother. For no one can have God as their Father if they do not have the Church as their mother.

Further, at least a child with a single mother or father can have a motherly or fatherly figure (respective of the one missing) enter their lives through other relatives or friends or future marriage. Same sex couples are claiming to be married and in need of no other member of the opposite sex to be required in the household (though I’m sure some single parent adopters have thought the same thing, wrongly).

Now, I say this not to disregard the grace of God in saving people out of their twisted thinking and broken upbringings… I am saying this as a point of genuine natural law and civil society. As Christians – by conceding this to be acceptable – we further degrade and destroy our society and our witness to those who would seek to understand what a true human society should look like.

For those of you who might think that (simply) 2 is better than 1… This thinking ultimately breaks down because all children in America today (who are not being held captive by criminals of course) have plenty of people helping to raise them in their lives – whether it is school teachers, grandparents, neighbors, fellow church members, etc.

This issue, from a Christian perspective, has everything to do with nature, the created order, and human salvation – and NOT anything to do with having enough people to help a child have some kind of ‘better’ life. For a child who has a better life and ends up not worshiping God will receive more damnation in hell than the child who was poor and needy, yet still did not believe. For we are all going to be judged according to our deeds – either for rewards in heaven or punishments in hell.

By nature – on the adoption issue – any child raised in a single parent or same sex couple situation is going to be devoid of any real life experience of how God created them to grow up naturally – thus the basic problem of allowing either kind of people to adopt. Therefore, as Christians, to have any part in “okaying” or affirming such practices in adoptive circumstances is to rip apart the very fabric of our civil society. It not only harms the child, but it also puts one more stumbling block in the way of that child growing up to see these two fundamental truths of reality:

  1. No one can have God as their Father who does not have the Church as their Mother. (Galatians 4:26)
  2. Marriage between a man and a woman has always stood to show this mystery – the relationship between Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:32)

And as we all should recall here… Jesus said, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke 17:2)

Reading Genesis as History: Implications for Science and the Age of the Universe

UPDATE: The Conference went great and as many of you might have seen below in the comments, I posted a link to my talk on “Reading Genesis as History”. The entire talk with Q&A are available for your free viewing at the following location. Enjoy!

I will be presenting at this year’s online Apologetics conference. Click on this link and see the schedule for the conference. Thursday’s (April 19th) sessions are free to the public and that is the day I will be presenting – at 8 PM EST. My topic is entitled, “Reading Genesis as History: Implications for Science and the Age of the Universe.” Please do consider attending and check out the other topics that are going to be discussed and make sure you check them out too!

Suffering in the Spirit: Death, Adoption, and Groaning

How can Christians have confidence in the truth of the gospel when their present situation is so different than what the Bible says they have been given in Christ? In this sermon we see the connection between the believer’s present suffering and future glory. The Holy Spirit, Paul tells us, connects us with our future resurrection even in our present struggle with sin, the curse, and death.
The text for the sermon is Romans 8:10-27. It was delivered by me at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Cleveland,TN on June 26, 2011. The previous message can be found here.


What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis? (Part 3)

The following series of posts are my brief answer to this question. Today I share with you part 3 of my answer:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

In conclusion, there are many things that could be said about modern science and what earth geology may or may not tell us about the age of the earth. But one thing is for certain, modern science does not regard Scripture as a reliable historical source of information and thereby neglects to address the many issues of history that the Bible does clearly speak to: 1) the reality that a global flood happened around 4500 years ago that altered the planets geology and ecology in a catastrophic way. 2) Adam and Eve were the first two humans, thus making man’s fossil record is no older than 6,000 years according to the genealogy of the Bible. 3) God created every living creature according to its own kind (the study of Baraminology). This makes the evolutionary claim of a ‘tree’ of common descent – starting from a single celled organism to what we see today – completely untenable. All of this simply means that the modern scientific ‘evidence’ for an old earth has presupposed the wrong starting points and is therefore completely unreliable to tell us the age of the created universe.

Given my argumentation above, I believe that a strong case can be made for a Biblical understanding of the creation of the universe as taking place in six 24-hours days and having occurred roughly 6,000 years ago. I commend this three part series as food for thought as you continue to study the Scriptures and submit yourself to God’s worldview.

This post concludes my three part answer to the question: What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis?

What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis? (Part 2)

The following series of posts are my brief answer to this question. Today I share with you part 2 of my answer:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

My first contention, mentioned at the end of Part 1, pertains to human testimony and God’s ultimate revelation of the creation account from Adam to Noah to Abram to Moses. Some theories, such as the framework theory, conclude that the creation account is structured in light of the Sinaitic covenant in which Moses was writing Genesis as a ‘preamble.’ In contrast though, it has been noted by some that the book of Genesis is structured in accordance with the word ‘generation.’ This then could easily imply that writings (before Moses) were in existence as historical record in which Moses was God’s instrument of compilation. Now, I acknowledge that all of these things are theories, but it only makes good sense that God’s people would have actually had records of God’s work before Israel was constituted as a covenant nation at Sinai. With this alternate theory stated, it does not follow that the best theory of the books origin is as a mere ‘preamble’ to the Sinaitic covenant for Israel. This makes a framework theory of Genesis chapter one unnecessary because it was not strictly written as a critic of the ancient-near eastern pagan worship that Israel had seen in Egypt. Further information provided to us in Exodus clearly affirms that Israel maintained their faith in the Creator God as their cries to Him were heard. If Israel did not know of the previous covenants before Sinai, then why is it that the Hebrew midwives feared God? (Exodus 1) Why is it that God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob when the people cried out to God in their slavery? (Exodus 2) The only way to explain these things is to conclude that the information in Genesis was readily available to the Israelites well before Moses ever came on the scene. Thus, in conclusion, it does not follow that the framework theory of Genesis chapter one is the primary meaning or purpose of the creation account. Instead, we must consider the evidence that shows the Genesis creation account is a historical record of creation, just as the rest of the book of Genesis is a historical record of the genealogies of God’s people leading up to Joseph in the land of Egypt.

My second contention deals directly with the meaning of the word ‘day’ in the Genesis account. I do acknowledge that the meaning of the Hebrew word for ‘day’ can mean something other than a 24-hour period, but I intend to show that an alternate meaning of the word is not necessary or encouraged by what is written in the Genesis account of creation or the account at Sinai. First, any other scholarly reading of the rest of the book of Genesis lends itself to an understanding that God created each thing, in each day, with respect to the human concepts of ‘morning and evening.’ In other words, no one questions the other occurrences of the words ‘day’, ‘morning’, or ‘evening’ in other places within Genesis. Thus, one does not need to imagine much beyond a normal earth day cycle for the meaning of the word ‘day’ in Genesis chapter one. This is more clearly seen in what follows with chapter two of Genesis – there the seventh day may be viewed as an un-ending day in which God rested from all His labor. This understanding of the seventh day must be contrasted with the six days of creation to understand that they were in fact finite periods of time. ‘Morning’ and ‘evening’ do not occur on the seventh day. So if we cannot then conclude that the days were 24-hour earth days, what were they? Well, as another theory (the Day-Age Theory) often states – with the sun, moon and stars not appearing until the 4th day, we do not know how long the days were since we tell time based on the earths rotation around the sun, etc. But this argument fails to take into account the language of ‘morning’ and ‘evening.’ Not only does it fail to take into account the language of Genesis one, but it also fails to account for the testimony of God at Sinai where He says, in the Ten Commandments, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” The reason for this statement is not to newly structure the nation of Israel in their work week. Instead, it is to re-affirm the covenant of creation in which man was always to work six 24-hour days and then to rest on the seventh in anticipation of entering God’s un-ending rest once man had completed his work to fill the earth and subdue it. In other words, God created the world in such a way that man would understand how he was to work. This then leads me to my third point of contention.

The testimony of God in creation was given for the purpose of revealing himself primarily through mankind as His image-bearer. This means we must understand that an ‘old earth’ theory decentralized the glory of God in the creation account by opening up our minds to the idea that history went on for thousands of years before the glory of God was displayed in man as the image bearer. Note how the Apostle Paul speaks of these things, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” (1 Cor. 11:7, emphasis mine) God is not playing some hide and seek game about why and for what purpose He created the universe in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh. Jesus himself points out that man was not made for the Sabbath, but that the Sabbath was made for man. (Mark 2:27) Thus, once again, we see the anthropocentric nature of the creation account in Genesis chapter one. An old earth makes no sense of God creating mankind as his image bearer. As many scholars know, the context and meaning of ‘images’ in the Ancient near-east would have meant that God did not place an image bearer in his creation for thousands or millions or billions of years! This is tantamount to God saying that He himself was not King of His creation! Are we as Christians really willing to say that about God?

Lastly, I would like to close by arguing my fourth point regarding the nature of the living things that God created. It is clear, from Genesis chapter two, that God created the creatures of the earth, especially man, in physically mature states. It was not as though the ‘chicken came after the egg’ in God’s account of His creation. It only stands to reason then that God would have easily created the universe in a short period of time, but in a physically mature state that could easily have the appearance of age without actually having existed for for more than 6 days.

To be continued… on Monday, Part 3 will be published.

What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis? (Part 1)

The following series of posts are my brief answer to this question:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

As far as my history goes on understanding the Genesis creation account, I was raised to believe in a ‘literal’ interpretation of the book of Genesis. This meant that I was taught that the creation days, in Genesis one, were six 24-hour days during which God created the entire universe. Now, it is that view that I have always believed and it is that view that I hold today. But I must note that my traditional understanding of ‘literal’ interpretation has shifted. I am very strongly convinced that we should use the word ‘literal’ to refer to the meaning that the author originally intended. Thus, I do disagree with my upbringing on the idea that a ‘literal’ interpretation always means that we are to accept the words at face value according to how we understand the space-time-matter universe today. A good example of this would be where Scripture talks about the stars falling and the sun and moon during black and not giving light (e.g. – Matt. 24:29, Acts 2:14-21). In places such as these, cosmic catastrophe language is being used ‘apocalyptically’ in order to ‘reveal’ something about a given time period where the order of things are changing and God is judging nations and peoples in righteousness. So, where does that leave us in terms of the questions of Genesis chapter one and its meaning?

I think I can safely say that most scholarly interpreters of Genesis chapter one do not categorize the language as apocalyptic language. But there are several views that do say that the language of Genesis chapter one is different from the rest of the chapters in the book of Genesis. Two of these views are the Framework Theory and the Day-Age Theory. These views will be briefly interacted with in the following paragraphs as I seek to articulate my own view of the Genesis creation account.

To start with, when defending a ‘young earth,’ or ‘young age’ view (as I prefer to say ), one must deal with several issues in order to rightly clarify and establish what the Bible teaches about the creation account – that God took six 24-hour earth days to create the entire universe. Therefore, I would like to defend four basic premises in what follows: 1) Human testimony of God’s act of creation existed before Moses wrote or compiled the information contained in the book of Genesis. 2) The meaning of the word ‘day’ in Genesis one is to be understood in light of the words ‘morning’ and ‘evening.’ 3) The creation account is uniquely anthropocentric and the rest of the Bible acknowledges this as an important key to understanding the purpose of creation with respect to mankind. 4) A physically ‘mature’ creation is the norm for the entire creation account.

To be continued… on Thursday, Part 2 will be published.

2 Peter’s Response to Rob Bell

This is what I consider to be a properly customized form of 2 Peter chapter 2 for the recent clarity that has come to the Christian community about the destructive heresy that Rob Bell has began to teach in public and in writing. Take these words to heart and pray that Rob Bell might somehow escape from his folly and the destruction that is promised to all false teachers in the Church:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

This false teacher among you is Rob Bell! He is like an irrational animal, a creature of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which he is ignorant. He will be destroyed in the very destruction that he denies will come upon the ungodly, suffering wrong as the wage for his wrongdoing. He counts it a pleasure to revel in public and in online videos about how joyous it is to question what has been clearly revealed in the Scriptures. He is a blot and blemish, reveling in his deceptions, even while he administers the Supper in his own mega-church. He has eyes full of pastoral unfaithfulness, an insatiable wolf among sheep. He entices unsteady souls with his teaching, his videos, and his books. He has a heart trained in greed. An accursed child indeed! Forsaking the right way, he has gone the wrong way. He has followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, failing to listen to God’s clear message! In the end, Balaam had to be rebuked for his own transgression by a dumb ass that spoke with human voice to restrain the prophet’s madness!

Rob Bell is a waterless spring. He is a mist driven by a storm. For him the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, he entices by sensual passions of their own flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. He promises them freedom, even in their unbelief, but he himself is a slave of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after a person has escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for Rob Bell never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to him. What the true proverb says has happened to him: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the pig, after washing itself, returns to wallow in the mire.”