Author Archive: Revraney

In the “Doctrine of Original Sin” from the ‘Works of John Wesley’, Volume 9, Wesley shares the following story. This story illustrates how we can be religious but not holy. God’s desire for us is that we are holy far above being religious.

Wesley writes:
This was a man of honour among the Christians of the Romish Church! And many such are to be found all over Italy, whose trade it is to cut the throats; to stab for hire, in cool blood. They have men of conscience too. Such were two of the Catholic soldiers, under the Duke of Alva, who broke into the house of a poor countyrman in Flanders, butchered him and his wife, with five or six children; and after they had finished their work, sat down to enjoy the fruit of their labour. But in the midst of their meal conscience awaked. One of them started up in great emotion, and cried out, “Oh Lord! what have I done? As I hope for salvation, I have eaten flesh (meat) in Lent!”

For years we were taught the cardinal virtues. They are Prudence, Justice, Temperance or Restraint, and Fortitude or Courage. A new virtue has come forth in our time and has risen above all the others. It is Tolerance.

Tolerance is the buzzword of the day and appears to be the supreme virtue. Today’s tolerance is not the tolerance of your fathers. That tolerance meant to put up with a lot and be patient. Today’s tolerance started out as live and let live, but that has too much of a 60’s ring to it. On the surface it means to accept me for what I am and what I do, no matter what that is. But it means much more than that as well. Essentially it means that nothing is wrong, except of course intolerance (which is evolving a new meaning itself).

All religions and belief systems are the same. All lifestyles are equal and to be celebrated. Value systems are left to the desires of the individual and nothing is an absolute. Not even tolerance is an absolute, we are discovering. The traditional Christian belief system is becoming less and less tolerated – ironically in the name of tolerance. A Christian expresses their belief in the Christian view of marriage and they are a hater and homophobe. So tolerance has an exception. A belief in absolute right and wrong as inherited from our Creator is not to be tolerated because it violates today’s idea of tolerance.

As much as tolerance is lifted up as a lofty value, today’s tolerance is anything but lofty or value. Behind this new idea of tolerance is something more sinister, put in our ears by our enemy and accepted by a society weak in holiness. Today’s tolerance is nothing more than a worldview of leave me alone, there’s nothing wrong with me. But God says, yes there is something wrong with you and I have the cure, I am the cure. God’s motive for saying this is something much greater than tolerance. It is love. Yes, it is love that causes God to tell us something is wrong with us, all of us. Love doesn’t sit by and watch someone continue down a path to destruction without warning and pleading with them to change course; tolerance does.

Our enemy deceives and leads us astray little by little. He can take the song ‘Just as I Am’ and turn it into a lesson on tolerance. We are convinced that God accepts us just as we are, so that must mean we are fine just the way we are. True, God does accept us just as we are and because He loves us He continuously works to change us, conforming us to the image of Christ. What a difference we see in the last two sentences if we will look. God cannot tolerate sin in our lives if He loves us becasue sin destroys. Does love allow you to just sit by and simply watch someone die?

God said, “For the greatest of these is love”, not tolerance.

The day will come, indeed it is approaching, when religion will be looked upon as the cause or source of all our problems. When that happens a new religion, by necessity will rise.

More and more we are told our beliefs are private matters; translation, keep your beliefs to yourself. We hear, “Don’t shove your Christianity down our throats,” even when simply stating our beliefs. By its very nature Christianity is convicting and therefore can be “painful” to hear. It is painful to hear that one has cancer, but it is also the only way to begin the treatment for healing. The ultimate goal is the healing, but the diagnosis must be shared. How absurd it would sound if someone said to the doctor who told them they had cancer and shared their recommended means of treating the disease, “Don’t shove your medical care down my throat.” Because hearing that we are corrupt and in need of Christ’s grace can be painful, we are told to keep it private and more and more that is precisely what we do – hiding inside our churches. Christianity will continue to get blamed more and more for the ills that are present in society.

The world’s other major religion, Islam, has become so associated with terrorism and violence and the desire to force its ways upon all society that it becomes an easy target for blame. In addition there is naturally a divide between Christianity and Islam. I say naturally because if you believe the claims of one you have to reject the claims of the other. Either Christ is the only Savior of mankind or He is not. He claimed He was, so your choices are limited to what C. S. Lewis points out and that is He is either Lord, lunatic, or liar. By His own claims He cannot be just a good man or a good prophet. So the world’s two most popular religions cannot be compatible. this often results in conflict around the world.

As these escalate, and they will, people will cry out for a solution. Religion will be come the source or cause of all of society’s problems. Great numbers of people will turn against religion and it will be subdued and trampled under foot. This will create a void. A void, that ironically can only be filled by some form of religion. Man is by nature a religious creature. God created us to worship and worship we will. but we will not worship the Lord God Almighty because He will be associated with ills of the world. So man will worship himself and more specifically their best amongst them. Thus will the anti-Christ find his way into the world.

Keep your lamps trimmed and ready. There is only one God. There is only one Savior and one means of grace – Jesus Christ.

The big story this week has been the President’s announcement that he support’s same sex marriages. The responses have, not surprisingly, taken us down that familiar road of arguing whether people are homosexual by choice or by genetics.

One local radio talk show personality made the argument that it is ridiculous to believe it is choice. The logic used in this argument was that if it was a choice the person could change their choice and could be changed. Going on, they argued, therefore If I could change someone from homosexual to heterosexual then it stands to reason I could do the inverse – change them from heterosexual to homosexual. Well, what’s to say you can’t?

No case was made to refute the idea that this would indeed be possible – it was just assumed that it was utterly ridiculous to imagine a person being convinced to change from heterosexual to homosexual. The logic used for this argument is awful, almost as bad as ‘If A equals B then B must equal C’. If one’s opinion is that homosexuality is a choice then by default the homosexual chose to change from heterosexual to homosexual. They were indeed convinced (by someone, by circumstances or some combination) to change . Whether you agree with the premise of choice or not, there is nothing in the talk show host’s argument that disallows the possibility to change – in either direction. If you do agree with the premise of choice you have to believe one can change in either direction.

The logic falls apart even further if we examine it deeper. The argument for genetics is that you either are attracted to people of the opposite sex or people of the same sex and it is determined by biology. The assumption that must hold true is that attraction is biological. But is that true? Is that what all of the evidence says?

The basis for this assumption and the reason it is so popular is that heterosexuals seem to be attracted to numerous people of the opposite sex – therefore it is driven, yes, determined by biology. That leads to another assumption, specifically, that this is the norm. I will certainly grant that if it can be established that it is indeed the norm for people (whether heterosexual or homosexual) to be attracted to many different people in a sexual manner the assumptions and ultimately the theory stand on much firmer ground. I am not convinced that this latter assumption has been established.

First, lets discuss the word norm. In many cases people will use the word norm to express what happens in most cases. But this is not an accurate description for this word. In America most people will refer to a soccer match as a soccer game, but it was meant to be referred to as a match. The actual norm is to call it a match. Calling it a game is a derivative or corruption from the norm – even though the vast majority call it a game.

Let us begin with the premise that there is a norm for attraction and that there are certainly corruptions or perversions of that norm. Another big story this week involves a 33 year old female teacher having a sexual relationship with an underage student. People are upset and outraged by this story. The teacher has been indicted for doing something illegal. Very few people do not see this as corrupted or perverted. It would not matter how many of these cases took place we would not see them as normal because normal in this case is not based on the number of incidents but rather on what we believe acceptable, an absolute right or wrong. Thoroughout society we do not believe that it is normal for a 33 year old teacher to be attracted to an underage boy.

While some cultures may differ as to whether a man should have one wife, or two or five for that matter, no culture believes a man should have as many and whatever woman he wants. We do not believe that is normal. If it is purely biological then why not? How does biology provide for a morality; a morality that on some level all people’s agree?

As Christians we believe that man was created a certain way. We then, through rebellion went astray. We believe there are all manner of consequences and effects of that history. As Christians we believe that God made man and he made a companion woman. What if this was the norm? What if when God created man the norm was for a man to be attracted to one woman and a woman to be attracted to one man? What if the fact that we certainly seem to be attracted to multiple people is a corruption or perversion of the norm? We can see other corruptions of our original state of creation – for example, we die.

There is evidence there is a norm and that it is built into us, for example our view that the unnatural attraction of a 33 year married woman to an underage boy is abnormal. Or the universally accepted morals that we live by providing limits. If it is true there is a norm and it is built into us and has simply become corrupted it blows up the assumptions that the genetics argument is built upon. It doesn’t just address the homosexual issue though. If it is true it means it is just as much a corruption of the norm to desire more than one person of the opposite sex as well. While it may be the norm in the sense that is common among people it does not mean it is the norm in relation to how we were made.

Man has gotten it so backwards. We spend the majority of our lives pursuing the ‘feeding’ of ourselves and our families. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a firm believer in the work ethic, as admonished by the Apostle Paul when he wrote, “If a man is not willing to work, then let him not eat.” But I’m talking about something different here.

In Matthew chapter 4, verse 4 Jesus is in the wilderness and what we know as his time of temptation has started. Satan has just encouraged him to turn the stones around him into bread to address the certain intense hunger that was upon Jesus after having fasted. That verse reads like this; Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

Most of the time we read that and think, “well of course, we need the Word of God in our lives along with food and other things.” But is that all it says to us? How many of us are trying to live ‘on bread alone’, or at least something close to that? The bread here could extend to all of the temporal things in our lives, both material and non-material. And what about the second half of the statement? Jesus essentially says man is to live on, or find his life in every word that comes from the mouth of God. For it is the will of God that He commands that gives us life, both spiritual and physical. If we would but understand it we would realize that we could more have life without bread than we could by doing without the word that comes from the mouth of God. All things temporal no more provide life than you and I can breathe life into one of those very stones Satan refers to.

Consider this as well – Jesus is quoting a reference to Deuteronomy chapter 8 verse 3. In that verse the children of Israel are being reminded how God had delivered them with the manna from heaven when they were hungry. God provided the manna from heaven to sustain the children of Israel by His will commanded. John Wesley says this about this reference, “By every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God – That is, by whatever God commands to sustain him. Therefore it is not needful I should work a miracle to procure bread, without any intimation of my Father’s will.” (John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible). Just as the children of Israel were supplied by that which God commanded, Jesus, regardless of what power He had, would live the same way – to live by His Father’s will rather than His own.

All of the things we commonly call sins, every single one of them, is a self-centered perversion of something good.