Home »

Search Result

Search Results for Race


"Laughter doeth good like a medicine." I just had a good laugh.
Thanks to Edgar Carlisle
What the Bible Says, Good Samaritan's Penny Pulpit by Pastor Ed Rice
What the Bible Says, Good Samaritan's Penny Pulpit by Pastor Ed Rice
What the Bible Says, Good Samaritan's Penny Pulpit by Pastor Ed Rice
Show all results in articles 


Bills Lake Baptist Church Wednesday Evening Service July 21, 2021 II Corinthians 8:1-2 Grace giving Russell Kidman Comments can be posted on the channel's discussion page.
Mr. & Mrs. Rosario The wedding ceremony of Luis Orlando Rosario and Miranda Grace Pennachietti, on July 17, 2021.
Daily Devotions - His Grace is Enough (July 15, 2021) 2 Corinthians 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my ...
Run the Race Video Credit- Bible Baptist Church National City, CA.
God's Grace God's Grace Sunday Evening Service Michael Weaver Music Credits: Never Alone is in the Public Domain: ...
Show all results in videos 


A theologian considers the fate of the unevangelized and the “pseudoevangelized.”What about those who have never heard? Like the problem of evil, the question of what happens to those who die without an opportunity to respond to the gospel can be a thorny issue for evangelical Christians. We wholeheartedly affirm the love God has for all his creatures. We also emphasize the exclusivity of the gospel message—that salvation is found in no one else but Christ (Acts 4:12)—and stress the need for all people everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.But what happens to those we fail to reach with this good news? Theologians usually lump the answers to this question into one of three options: exclusivism, inclusivism, or universalism. Most within our ranks embrace exclusivism, claiming that those who die without placing conscious, personal faith in Christ face eternal separation from God in hell. Our unease with this tragic end serves to catalyze our missionary and evangelistic efforts.Over the past few decades, a minority of evangelical theologians have gravitated toward some form of inclusivism, the idea that some individuals can be saved by Jesus without ever having consciously believed in him. Some inclusivists teach that God saves those who have no knowledge of the gospel on the basis of what they do with general revelation. Others in this group suggest that God saves people according to his foreknowledge of what they would do if they had the opportunity to respond to the gospel.Some self-professed evangelicals are universalists who believe Jesus will eventually save all people, regardless of whether they believed the gospel in this life or not. Insisting that Jesus is the only Savior, these universalists go to great lengths to distinguish their position from forms of religious pluralism ...Continue reading...
More than half of Hispanics in California say they would vote to recall Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to an Inside California Politics/Emerson College poll published Tuesday. The poll of 1,000 registered voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%, showed Californians are split on the issue with 46% in favor of […]The post 54% of Hispanics Will Vote to Recall Pro-Abortion Gavin Newsom, Race a Dead Heat appeared first on LifeNews.com.
On “Worldview Wednesday,” we feature an article that addresses a pressing cultural, political, or theological issue. The goal of this blog series is to help Christians think about these issues from a biblical worldview. Read our previous posts on the Center for Biblical Worldview page.“What if the word ‘homosexual’ was never meant to be in the Bible?” That is the question the new documentary 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted a Culture is dedicated to answering.The documentary explores the linguistic history of the word “homosexual” and its appearance in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible, first published on February 11, 1946. In short, the film seeks to show that the RSV’s use of the term “homosexuals” instead of “sexual perverts” is an inaccurate translation of the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. (It is worth noting that although recent editions of the RSV have reverted to using “sexual perverts,” many other translations still translate it as “homosexuals.”) According to the documentary, homosexual sex is biblically permissible, and the RSV’s “mistranslation” has influenced subsequent English translations of the Bible, resulting in Western society believing that “sexual and gender minorities must choose between their faith and their identity.”The filmmakers insist 1946 is “not an attack on Christianity or the Bible” but rather “a quest to discover biblical truth and honor God’s Word.” However well-intentioned the film might be, its ultimate claim does not stand up to linguistic and historical critique. 1946 undermines biblical sexual ethics under the guise of honest hermeneutics.Evaluating the “Mistranslation” Allegation Alan Shlemon from the Christian apologetics ministry Stand to Reason writes that, despite 1946’s captivating premise where power-hungry white men oppress “sexual minorities” through Bible translation, “Even if the film’s claims are true, it doesn’t matter. The entire documentary is a non sequitur.”There are many reasons the film 1946 fails to be intellectually compelling, including:subsequent Bible translators did not use the RSV’s English translation unchecked;the prohibition of homosexual sex is found elsewhere in the Bible and is well-attested throughout church history, not just since 1946; andone young seminary student, whom the film follows, would not have had the expertise to truly dispute the RSV translation committee.Despite these realities, the documentary is often cited as proof that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and that the church should re-examine its view on sexual ethics. To address the film’s claim that same-sex relations are not prohibited in the Bible, we will answer three questions:What do the allegedly mistranslated words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 mean?What is the biblical sexual ethic?Why is the biblical sexual ethic good news for everyone?By answering these questions, Christians can refute the radical claim that the Bible permits homosexual sex with knowledge, clarity, grace, and love.1. What Do the Allegedly Mistranslated Words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Mean?1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states:Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (ESV, emphasis added)The contested phrase translated “men who practice homosexuality” comes from the Greek “ο¿τε μαλακο¿ ο¿τε ¿ρσενοκο¿ται,” transliterated as oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai. The phrase oute…oute means “neither…nor,” so the verse is saying “neither _____ nor _____ … will inherit the kingdom of God.” So, we must fill in the blanks. What do malakoi and arsenokoitai mean? In his book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon explains that the term malakoi can carry a variety of meanings depending on the author and context. Often it meant “soft” or “effeminate.” In ancient usage, malakos could range from those who had a penchant for “soft” or decadent living, to those averse to the rigor of a philosopher’s life, to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Thus, while at first glance it might seem challenging to know exactly how Paul is using the term in this passage, context is key. Based on the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9—a list of unrepentant sins displayed by those who will not inherit the kingdom of God—and Jewish understanding of the term at the time, Paul’s intent is clear. As Gagnon summarizes, “In 1 Cor. 6:9, malakoi should be understood as the passive partners in homosexual intercourse” (p. 312).So, if Paul’s use of malakoi referred to the passive partner in homosexual sex, what about the active partner? To address this question, Paul uses the term arsenokoitai, a compound word formed by combining arsen (“male”) and koites (“bed”), the same words found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (passages which clearly prohibit homosexual relations). This word has a decidedly narrower meaning than malakoi. In fact, a survey of ancient literature shows arsenokoitai always refers to men having sexual intercourse with other males. As Gagnon points out, this is true of the earliest attestations of arsenokoitai after the New Testament, including the Sibylline Oracles (2.73), Hippolytus’ Refutation of All Heresies (5.26.22-23), and Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel (6.10.25). According to Gagnon, Paul’s use of arsenokoites instead of paiderastes shows that he was not just discussing the practice of pederasty (a man having sexual intercourse with a boy), but also a man who was the active partner engaging in sexual intercourse with another adult male (p. 325). In summary, based on the historical and literary contexts of the terms and the literary context of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, malakoi and arsenokoitai clearly refer to passive and active partners in homosexual sex.2. What Is the Biblical Sexual Ethic?The mere suggestion that Scripture might not prohibit homosexual sex is understandably tantalizing, for many reasons. At one point or another, we have all wished that one of the sinful behaviors prohibited by the Bible was permissible in our specific case. These activities, although condemned by the Bible, nonetheless appeal to our hearts.Tragically, we have inherited our penchant for forbidden things from our first parents. When Adam and Eve attempted to “become like God” by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden, the consequences of their disobedience to God affected not only themselves but all their offspring (Gen. 2:17, 3:16-19). One consequence is that our hearts are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9). Even if we feel in our hearts that something is right, that thing could very well be wrong. Proverbs 3:5-8 cautions us:Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones. (Emphasis added)Sadly, humanity’s struggle with God’s design and intention for sexual desire is yet another consequence of the fall.The Bible’s sexual ethic is clear. From the beginning, God intended sexual desire to motivate men and women to enter into the sacred covenant relationship of marriage, which is reserved for one man and one woman and is intended to be for life (Gen. 1:27, 2:24). Jesus confirmed the creation design for marriage when He condemned divorce (Mark 10:6-9). According to Scripture, the proper context for sexual activity is within the marriage covenant. All sexual conduct outside of marriage is prohibited, including impurity (Gal. 5:19, Eph 5:3, Col. 3:5), illicit heterosexual relations (1 Cor 6:18, Col. 3:5, 1 Thess. 4:3-5, Heb. 13:4), and homosexual relations (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Jude 1:7).As Family Research Council’s Biblical Principles for Human Sexuality explains, church history reveals one unified position about sexual ethics—that of strict condemnation of any type of sexual activity outside of marriage. It was only after the sexual revolution of the 1960s that some American churches—those that had previously embraced theological liberalism—changed their interpretation of the Bible and began to approve of homosexual sex and same-sex marriage.3. Why Is the Biblical Sexual Ethic Good News for Everyone?The Bible’s high standard for sexual ethics can seem unattainable, causing us to despair. But the Bible brings good news of redemption and promises salvation to anyone who puts their faith in Jesus Christ. In Christ, we are given victory over sin and receive power from God to flee temptation. That is why Paul urges the Corinthians to “flee from sexual immorality” later in the same passage of 1 Corinthians 6 (1 Cor. 6:18). He was urging them to walk in the freedom that Christ had already won for them!When 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is read in context, we learn that it is a passage of hope, not condemnation. Paul writes:[D]o you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11, emphasis added)In the last sentence, Paul reminds the Corinthians of the new life they have received in Christ! Even though some of them had previously lived immoral lives, the blood of Christ’s sacrifice had washed them, sanctified them, and brought them into a right relationship with God. The Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics is good news because it reveals God’s design and plan for marriage, relationships, and sexuality. It is even better news for those of us who struggle with sexual sin because, through “participation in the spirit” (Phil. 2:1), we can “say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age” (Titus 2:12 NIV).In Matthew 11, Jesus says, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest… For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (v. 28). Throughout the centuries, millions of us who follow Jesus have found comfort in this precious promise. For those who grapple most acutely with the burdens of living in a sexually broken world, Jesus’ promise of rest still stands. Amid life’s most trying struggles, trust Him with your hopes, desires, fears, and questions. Jesus is faithful, trustworthy, and true (1 Thess. 5:24, Rev. 19:11). He completely saves those who believe and empowers us to live the life our loving God designed us to live.
Critical race theory (CRT) is all over the news today. Whether it’s in our schools, universities, workplaces, or government offices, the Left is pushing this woke ideology rooted in Marxism across the nation. CRT ideology fosters discontent, divisiveness, and disloyalty to America instead of the unity and equality that it claims are its goals. Those on the Left who promote CRT are not content with spreading it to our schools, our workplaces, or our government—they are now targeting our military, the institution sworn to protect and defend our Constitution. The Left’s promotion of critical race theory in the military can dangerously affect our nation’s security. Ever since the Biden administration came to power, the promotion of critical race theory has accelerated in the ranks. In February, following the Capitol riots, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered a “stand down” in the military searching for “extremism” in the ranks, creating the Countering Extremism Working Group to implement his orders. According to Lt. Gen Jerry Boykin (ret.), Secretary Austin based this initiative on the assumption that the military is riddled with “white supremacists,” an assumption rooted in CRT. Space Force Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier saw the result of this stand down firsthand. He spoke out against CRT, saying he had received a training booklet—the fruits of Secretary Austin’s order. The booklet gave multiple, one-sided examples of extremism, including the January capitol rioting, but failed to mention the violent civil uprisings during the summer of 2020. He also said that his base’s inclusion initiative asked them to read a book called So You Want to Talk about Race? The book suggested social justice groups and political figures for readers to support, and it called the U.S. a “white supremacist” nation throughout the book. “The diversity, inclusion and equity industry and the trainings we are receiving in the military ... is rooted in critical race theory, which is rooted in Marxism,” Lohmeier said. Because of Lohmeier’s comments, General Stephen Whiting, head of the U.S. Space Operations Command, removed Lohmeier from his position as commander of the 11th Space Warning Squadron. After Lohmeier’s removal, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) called for whistleblowers to speak out about CRT. They set up a link where service members can anonymously write about their experiences with woke ideology in the military. According to Sen. Cotton on Washington Watch, they have received over 300 “serious, credible complaints.” For example, a young cadet “did not realize the Air Force was such a racist institution when she enlisted, and she never would have enlisted if she knew that was the case.” Another service member said that “he was [so] tired of these indoctrination sessions…as opposed to tactical and operational excellence that he planned to leave when his enlistment contract is up.” Cotton said that the CRT indoctrination “silently corrode[s] morale and cohesion.”As Sen. Cotton pointed out, the danger of CRT is that it fosters divisiveness and distrust among our troops. The precious time that our soldiers could be spending on training for war readiness, lethality, and mutual trust is instead being wasted on ideology sessions espousing that the nation for which they fight and the Constitution they have sworn to defend is inherently racist. Why would soldiers risk their lives to protect a cruel, oppressive country? “Our military’s strength depends on the unity of our troops and the knowledge that America is a noble nation worth fighting for,” Sen. Cotton pointed out. “Critical race theory teaches that race is a person’s most important characteristic, and that America is an evil, oppressive place.”Instead of fostering unity among troops who need to fight together against the enemy, CRT is teaching our soldiers that their white comrades oppress their fellow soldiers of color. As FRC’s own General Boykin said, “All this is doing is driving a wedge between members of the military. And there’s nothing more important on the battlefield—not weapons, not the technology—[than] the cohesion and the morale of those men and women who are out there fighting. They make the difference. That’s how you win on the battlefield.”If the Left continues to push CRT in the military, morale and patriotism in the ranks will likely continue to plummet, and our military’s effectiveness will suffer because of it. We need our troops to love their country, believe in the Constitution, and implicitly trust their fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen. As Sen. Cotton said, “The military’s strength is not its ‘diversity’ but its ability to weather adversity through unity. We need to teach our young troops ... to befriend, fight alongside, and, if necessary, die for their comrades on the battlefield — not to obsess about skin color.”Jenna Gulick is a Development intern at Family Research Council.
Show all results in news 

FamilyNet Top Sites Top Independent Baptist Sites KJV-1611 Authorized Version Topsites The Fundamental Top 500

Powered by Ekklesia-Online

Locations of visitors to this page free counters