A Samaritan at the Pulse

Omar Mateen, a native New Yorker, looked to to world to be a normal family man with a young son. Not many knew that he made several attendances to the Pulse gay nightclub in the city of Orlando, except perhaps by several of the regulars who frequent there. What was his motive? Was he secretly surveying the interior and its patrons as part of a terrorist group conspiracy? While he socialised, danced, and even bought drinks at the bar, was he laying down plans for a future assassin, to take place at exactly the right time for maximum effect, in order to honour Allah and secure a place in Paradise as a deserving Jihad?

Or could he have been a closet homosexual, despite being a husband and father, as hinted afterwards by his widowed wife? Could his secret orientation give him so much bother, shame and a low self esteem? Did he have a secret desire to mate up with one of the slim or well-built men in the club? Or even attempted to chat up a fellow he took a special fancy to, and was instantly fobbed off? As a result of the rejection, did he end up feeding his fantasies of wiping out the lives of other gay men and women? Had his plans of turning his fantasies to reality satisfy the intense rage brought on by his own self-rejection, as well as by rejection from others? 

I guess we would never know for sure what really went on in his mind, having himself been shot dead by a police officer, several hours after the shooting. But it was in the intervening period, when Mateen took a number of clubbers as hostages, that something wonderful took place. During the siege, one surviving member, undergraduate nurse Josh McGill, was close to another club member who was shot three times on the arm, and bleeding badly. So Josh took off his own shirt and used it to make a tourniquet, stopping the bleeding, and accompanied the victim to a nearby hospital. Josh McGill had literally saved his colleague's life by his quick action. 

Undergraduate Nurse Josh McGill

I can't help comparing McGill to that of a Samaritan, recorded in Luke 10:25-37. This story was one of the many parables spoken by Jesus himself. There are strong parallels between Josh McGill's goodness and that of the good Samaritan. There is also a distinct parallelism between McGill's patient and that of the passing Samaritan. The Samaritan's victim was a traveller who was set upon by thieves. He was left wounded with bleeding, and probably dying of his injuries. McGill's victim was also badly wounded by another, and was bleeding to death. The Samaritan bounded up the victim's wounds and took him to an inn, to be taken care of by its staff. McGill had his patient taken to hospital also to be taken care of by its staff. Also, the Samaritan was hated by the religious Jews of his day. Bring gay, McGill would be hated by many church leaders and their members, even by politicians.

Although to some, this can be a difficult question to answer: Who was really doing the will of God, the homosexual club member on a night out, or the pastor spewing hate from the pulpit? I could ask another question: Am I in the wrong to have a profile on a gay website? Someone such as myself, professing to be a Christian believer and is committed to a local church - be also a member of a website dedicated to gay fitness and sports - and also to spiritual and political matters? By reading this admission, how many fellow church members would tut-tut me, along with other readers of this blog?

Being a member of a gay website, with its forums and messaging boards, has given me a massive insight of the relationship between unbelievers and religion. And nothing can make an unbeliever, gay or straight, so hostile to God than organised religion. It is my conviction that religion had sent vast multitudes to Hell, and has left Heaven virtually unpopulated. And there is no better channel than from the mouth of a homosexual who has experienced hate, rejection and prejudice, and has suffered shame, guilt, and fear. It is from the forum posts that I came to learn about one late pastor who led Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

His infamy was borne out of the protest demonstrations whenever a gay pride was marching through a city, and even at funerals of dead U.S. soldiers. Placards lined the streets, shouting GOD HATES AMERICA, along with GOD HATE FAGS (short for Faggots, slang for the stereotype feminised male homosexual) and FAGS CURSED FOR HELL, and other similar placards with angry, hateful logo. Little wonder, under such a cruel upbringing with corporal punishment in abundance, his son Nathan grew up to become a committed atheist. 

The late Fred Phelps

Fred Phelps out on a hate crusade.

Two more church leaders can be included here, and unlike Fred Phelps, they spoke in direct reference to the shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub. One is Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona, which insist that only the King James Version of the Bible is the true Word of God. In reference to the Pulse nightclub shooting, he came up with this statement:

The good news is that there's fifty less (sic) paedophiles in this world.

This is the same church minister who prays for the death of President Barak Obama for giving consent for voluntary abortions. Fortunately, at present there is no sign of Anderson's prayers being answered, as their current President will be out of office by the end of the year. By contrast, my wish is that Barak Obama will never fall victim to premature illness, or end up involved in a fatal accident.

Then there is a quote from Roger Jimenes, pastor of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento, California, and also a believer of the King James Version of the Bible. He made this reference to the same incident in Orlando:

If we lived in a righteous Government, they should round them all up and put them against a firing wall, and blow their brains out.

Charming! and we wonder why gay men in particular hates Christianity. It does make me wonder, if such preachers can spew such statements so freely from the pulpit, how do the members feel? Assuming, of course, that by remaining under the leadership of such men, the whole congregation is in full agreement. It wasn't difficult for me to click on to their websites to find out about the background of such men. I have discovered that both these leaders are as orthodox and fundamental in their credo as any other church leader or elder. They believe in the universality of sin, and the atonement made by the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Salvation is received by the believer through faith as opposed to works, and once saved always saved, with their explanation that since we can't work to gain salvation, we can't work to lose it either.

Steve Anderson - "Fifty fewer paedophiles."

Roger Jimenes - "Blow their brains out!"

These are theological statements which I am fully committed to myself. I too am an advocate of eternal security of the believer, and my understanding of the true nature of sin makes it impossible to uphold the Arminian view that salvation can be lost by the believer. Therefore, in the theological circle, I must stand with them. But by condemning homosexuals as if a separate species to that of the straight community, such leaders ride on high horses to the point that they have become like the Pharisees. If they see themselves as so righteous, then it is easy to look down from their high towers to judge and condemn those who live different lifestyles. Any differences between them and the Pharisees narrows to virtually none-existence, as the Pharisees saw themselves as in favour with God due to being sons of Abraham, and therefore heirs and guardians of the Abrahamic Covenant (Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8, John 8:39).

So as the Jews, and especially the Pharisees, hated the Samaritans for who they were, not being proper descendants of Abraham, so these church leaders hates homosexuals for the same reason - not being of the spiritual descendants of Abraham through faith in Christ. Furthermore, as Roger Jimenes insists, he would not allow any gays into his church when they meet on Sundays, just as the Jews would have kept the Samaritans out of their synagogues.

It is distressing to read about how such advocates of Eternal Security abuse such a wonderful truth to its detriment. One of the main reasons why once saved always saved must be true is because of the very nature of sin. James has written that if someone who keeps the whole Law stumbles at just one point, he is guilty of breaking the whole Law, and therefore must face judgement (James 2:8-11). If a believer can lose his salvation by excess sin or departing from the faith, then Heaven would be totally empty of all redeemed humans. Great men such as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, and all the prophets, along with all New Testament saints, including Peter, James, John and Paul, would all be lost eternally if salvation can be forfeited. In other words, all of these men of faith mentioned would now be in Hell. Such is the devastating reality of Arminian theology.

None of us are aware of what was the spiritual state of Josh McGill's heart on the night he bound up a victim's wounds. But he had compassion, a virtue found wanting in these church leaders. There is a strong likelihood that McGill hated organised religion. On the other hand, he could be a committed Christian himself. What? A committed Christian in a gay club? Well, why not? How could he show the love of Christ to those around him? Is being gay worse than being a murderer? These church leaders seem to think so. But James doesn't agree, as he equalled adultery and murder as both transgressions of the Law. But instead of outright murder, the sin he accuses his readers is that of favouritism, something very common in churches to this day. In most churches, favouritism is tolerated, even practised by the elders. For example, choosing a graduate over a manual worker to preach. But homosexuality is not tolerated at all. Yet James categorises favouritism with murder, and no doubt, homosexuals with adulterers. But both are equally sinful, and no saint can claim total freedom from such sins (1 John 1:8).

To put it in James' perspective: Fred Phelps, Steven Anderson, and Roger Jimenes are murderers, and according to 1 John 3:15, 4:8, no murderer has eternal life in him, neither does such know God, for God is love. I suppose it is possible to be spot on at every theological issue, as these three were, but still remain lost. Could it be possible to mistake intellect with real faith? Because the fruit of real faith is love, very much like the love Josh McGill has shown, even if he's homosexual.

One thing we have seen lately is that a gay man, dressed in a singlet or tank top, has shown a practical love of Jesus Christ, in sheer contrast to the smartly dressed but hateful church leaders of our day.

Is My Love Stronger Than God's?

Anyone who has just read the above title would immediately answer, Of course your love isn't stronger than God's! Who do you think you are?

 

But actually, over forty years of being a Christian believer, such thoughts have crossed my mind. And here I am not referring to God's power, strength, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, his sovereignty, or any of his other attributes - rather, I'm referring to his love. Pardon me for saying this, but God's love has always been an issue I have struggled with. I think this is because it's my natural instinct to exclude my sinful nature from God's holiness. Perhaps its rather like taking an apple from a bowl of fruit. As you turn the fruit in your hand, you come across a hole at the surface, and suspect seeing a maggot inside. Immediately the apple is thrown into the waste bin without taking a single bite. If the affected fruit is so repulsive to eat, then that is pretty well like God finding me repulsive because of my "maggot" of sin within.

 

It was from this Biblical perspective that I understand that just as the affected fruit is thrown out, so likewise, God cannot accept sinners into his Kingdom. And that is the problem - there is sin in me. So God brought a solution to the problem: by sending his Son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty my sins deserve, so that one with the likes of myself can be admitted into Heaven totally free from sin.

 

But there are two ways to resolve that problem: One is to remove the maggot from the apple, then the rest can be eaten. Or re-grow the fruit, ensuring that this time no bug will lay its eggs while in flower. Over the years, by reading the New Testament, the removing of the maggot before eating seems to be the solution. But the truth is, even after the bug has been removed, I would not want to eat the rest, even if I went for the unaffected white flesh by slicing it with a knife. To me, the entire fruit is inedible.

 

So where is the connection here? When it comes to faith in the atonement made by Jesus on the cross, then it is taught by many that only my past sins are forgiven at he moment of conversion. I am aware that I have discussed this already in the last two blogs. But here I would like to bring out a coincidence, known to my own experience, as a result of such thinking. It is the idea that I now have a clean slate. However, it does not stay clean for long. All I need is to harbour an unclean thought, for example, fantasising in sharing intimacy with the beautiful woman nearby who is married to another. It may be a pleasant thought to indulge in - the snag is, adultery is already committed in the heart, breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Confession of the sin does bring forgiveness, but more often than not, many a sin comes and goes unconfessed, and sooner or later the pile is high enough to forfeit salvation, and I would still end up in Hell if I were to die. This is the central teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in which I grew up, and many evangelical preachers teach a very similar idea which is upheld in many denominational churches.

 

The overall picture gotten from this way of believing was that God's love is very weak indeed, while his wrath against sin remains very strong. It is a way of saying that when it comes to loving someone, I can do a better job than God, who despite being adopted into his family, still watches my performance to see whether I'm really worthy enough to enter Heaven after death. One area of Scripture to "prove" whether I'm worthy of eternal life is found in Revelation chapters two and three, where John writes to the seven churches that whoever overcomes shall live and not die, e.g. Revelation 2:11. This has been expounded in both books and Christian tape recordings to churches across the nation, and beyond.

 

Sometimes I'm tempted to feel that my love for my wife and children is stronger than God's love for me. As for my wife, she is human like everyone else, and she has her faults. But would I throw her out of the house, or walk out myself, due to her lack of perfection? No way! I will always love her unconditionally. Neither would I give her laws to live by, if she wants my love. Neither does she feel the need to overcome anything to stay in my love. Rather, I love her as my wife, my nearest and dearest, in in no way would I make her suffer for a moment for any mistakes made, let alone for eternity! As for my daughters, supposing they decide that I was no longer relevant to them, and have turned their backs on me? Supposing that they wanted absolutely nothing to do with me, and they decided to go their own way? Would I stop loving them? Would I condemn them to everlasting punishment? By no means! I will always love them. Since they were born, I have put a portion of my earnings into their bank accounts. And even if they dessert me, I will continue to put money away into their accounts. I would never cease loving them, neither would I lay down the law which they must obey in order to stay in my love, or risk being ostracised. Why are they so special to me? Because they are my daughters. And I think this love I have for my family is from Jesus Christ himself.

 

If I'm a son of God, adopted into his family through faith in the risen Christ Jesus, then the possibility of being disfranchised makes God's love for me not only conditional, but also very weak and fickle. This seems to be heightened by ministers preaching on fear of punishment if I don't hold faithful enough, or not overcoming my sins, or the world. In short, my love for my wife and daughters is stronger than God's love for me. This seems ridiculous, even blasphemous, yet there are people, some I know personally, who believes this very thing, and it's believed on by a great many more.

David Pawson, a strong advocate of probational, or conditional salvation based on a believer's performance.
 

So it looks to me that merely removing the maggot from a diseased apple does not make it fit to eat, so God's forgiveness of past sins only at conversion does not make a believer fit for Heaven. As for a new fruit, unaffected by any bugs, needs to grow in order to be fit to eat, then I myself must be re-born in the spirit to be fit for Heaven, the birth of the new man within. As Jesus himself said on one occasion, unless a man is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God - John 3:3.

 

Yet there are many Scripture verses which seem to indicate that salvation is dependent on the believers performance and faithfulness. One oft-quoted passage is Hebrews 6:4-6. Here, five issues are given, which includes being made partakers of the Holy Spirit, but none describes a true believer who is born from above. In John 16:8-11, Jesus foretold that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. And this is particular with the Jews, who have seen Jesus, watched and listened to his ministry, yet rejected him in favour of established Jewish customs. And in Hebrews 10, there is talk about sinning wilfully after coming to the knowledge of the truth. Coming to the knowledge of the truth, as the Sanhedrin did soon after his Resurrection, does not make them into believers. Their sin was of rejecting Christ in favour of the Temple, a sin which can be classed as "unpardonable." Therefore, it looks to me that being made partakers of the Holy Spirit involves conviction of sin, the truth about the atonement made by the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, and the inner call to trust in him. But rather the Jews, in which the letter was referring to, charged Jesus Christ as an impostor, and returned to the Temple ordinances which initially was a shadow of was what to come, namely Jesus himself. Their sins can't any longer be covered.

Then there are other Scripture verses, such as Philippians 2:12, we are exhorted to work out our salvation with fear and trembling - a text used by one preacher back in 1994 to disprove eternal security - and very nearly caused a riot among his audience. Or the promise to be presented to Christ at the Resurrection free from blemish and accusation - if we stand firm, stated in Colossians 1:22-23. Then reading through the second letter of Paul to Timothy as well as the second letter of Peter, all these seem to present an extremely fickle God whose love is conditioned by performance. So preachers who are famous and well known in the faith, expound fear of eternal punishment unless living a thoroughly holy life, in a way presenting a god whose love is so weak, that one with the likes of myself either tremble at the fear of death, as millions of Roman Catholics did particularly over the Dark to Middle Ages, or prone to turn atheist, like one angry Catholic builder has done, whom I got acquainted with at the sauna.

I think there is only one solution to the apparent contradiction found in the New Testament. That is, when a believer turns to Jesus Christ for salvation, not only does he receive a pardon, the forgiveness of sins, but also a full judicial acquittal, thoroughly explained by Paul in Romans chapters 3 and 4, and endorsed further in chapter eight. These are endorsements made by the apostle after Jesus himself, before his crucifixion, had promised eternal life to all believers, specifically stated in John chapters six, ten, and 17. But there is more. In Paul's letter to the Romans, he explains that a righteousness from heaven is revealed to all believers. That is to say, every true believer in Jesus Christ has the righteousness of God imputed into his account. In other words, God sees us as equally righteous as Jesus himself. That is wonderfully good news!

There is an important point here. If the righteousness of Christ is imputed into my account, then if I lose my salvation, as many in the pulpit insist, then that makes the atonement Jesus had brought about totally useless. Even the Roman Catechism insist that the atonement made by Christ on the cross was not sufficient enough to acquit the sinner and made him fit for heaven. So the Catholic believer has to partake in the Presence of Christ at the Eucharist every Sunday and holy days set by the Church. Not to mention, in addition, devotion to Mary and the reality of Purgatory, a temporary Hell where the believer has his sins purged out before entering Heaven. In reality, Christ's mission some two thousand years ago was an absolute failure - with not one person saved at all.

So what of these  portion of Scripture which looks like "Problem Passages" to the likes of me who believe in eternal security? Do they contradict the great truths of judicial acquittal? No, not at all. The account settled with God is to do with the heart, the part of me no other man can see. But what other men do see is my attitude, the way of expression, and the things I say and do. And this is why I believe that God is very concerned about the way I live as a believer. My very existence as a believer before death is to reveal the love of God to other men, so they too can believe and be saved. People will not be impressed with my faith if I behave sinfully like other men. Rather, I am to make my calling in Jesus Christ sure, in the sight of other men, so that they may glorify the Father who is in Heaven.

And where Peter's second letter is concerned, this involves false teachers. These come in many different forms. But their central core of teaching was that the sufficiency of Christ's atonement made on the cross was not enough to justify the believer, therefore the saint must add works to make sure he is fit for Heaven. The direct result of such teaching was that it tended to make the person sin even more, and to bring out excuses for such bad behaviour. This is the denial of the Lord who had bought them, and severely rebuked by Peter. Anyone reading about the history of the Roman Church and the terrible deeds done by many of her Popes and clergy in the centuries past will testify to the value of Peter's letter.

Just as removing the maggot from a diseased apple does not make it fit to eat, so trying to reform myself does not make me fit for heaven. Instead, I had to be reborn in the spirit, making me a new man, born of God and bestowed with the righteousness of Christ, in the same way a fresh, unaffected apple has to be grown and cultivated in order for it to be fit to eat. The maggoty apple is thrown out. Likewise, when I die, my regenerated spirit goes to be with the Lord, while my sinful flesh is taken to the grave for burial.

Judicial Acquittal

For much of my life the Internet had been non-existent. I was able to live quite well without it. Then in July 2008 I bought a laptop, and straightaway I had the Internet line installed in my home and well, I have been addicted to it ever since.

Then over a week ago the computer went really crazy, and unable to deal with the problem, I called one of my mates who attend the Kerith Centre (formerly Bracknell Baptist Church) whose life and full time job is computers, and he took my ailing laptop to his own home to track down the cause of the problem. After a thorough search, which included examining the hard disc, he traced the cause to a virus I have unwittingly let in during a former browsing session. I asked how this can be, as I have a fully operational security system in place.

He explained that if an email is opened which contains a link, the virus is let in when clicking onto this link, and the security is powerless to catch it, as I gave permission to allow the infected program to run. The link was attached to a website through which I donate to a Third World charity, leaving me to speculate whether the offender was attempting to worm his way to my bank account.

This is a frightening situation. It means nothing is safe. To think Paul the Apostle was right when he wrote that the love of money is the root of all evil, it goes to show how one can steal what does not belong to him, leaving the victim in total despair while the perpetrator gloats over his dishonest gain. It seems certain that Jeremiah was right when he stated that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9.)

But at least I now have access to a computer, a desktop complete with a bulky tower, lent to me while mine is repaired. With this, I can carry on blogging.

As I have stated in previous blogs, one of my favourite passages of Scripture is Romans chapter eight, which contains the verse; In all things God works for the good for those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. V.28. During the five days I had no computer, my evenings were spent praying, meditating and reading the Bible and associated books. It was during this time that I felt God speaking to me in a powerful way. Although I was aware of Judicial Acquittal, the Biblical meaning of the word Justification, the reality of this truth had never thoroughly sunk in, even over forty years of being a believer. But this truth is the reason why I'm such an advocate of Once Saved Always Saved. During those evenings I was reading an illustration about myself who was overdrawn by 10,000 dollars, and the Bank was to call me to attend a meeting in the branch where my account was held. But as the Bank was about to 'phone me, Ross Perot, a billionaire, phones the Bank with the request to join his account with mine. This means that all the money Perot has is now also in my name and I have full access to it. Not only is the overdrawn balance fully paid up but I have unlimited access to funds of which I have not earned a single penny. In short, Ross Perot's account was imputed or credited to my account.

Another illustration was that I am standing in Court, charged with a crime. I was faced to pay a hefty fine of £10,000 or go to jail. Since I don't have £10,000, the judge passes a lifelong jail term and Security staff were about to escort me to the cells when a rich cousin of mine arrives and pays the fine! Now I am free to go home instead. Furthermore, I have done nothing to earn a single penny of the fine paid by my cousin.

But the tragic story is, I could plead my guilt and insist I serve jail time. Thus, even if the penalty is fully paid, I'm still led to the cells. Tragic isn't it?

Tragic it is, and many choose to serve their jail time than to walk out free! The penalty paid I'm referring to is the price Jesus Christ paid Infinite Justice when he died on the cross.

When Jesus died on the cross, the sins of every person born were transferred to him, for he died for the sins of the whole world. Paul wrote that in Christ the whole world was reconciled to God, not counting their sins against them (John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Colossians 1:20.) Therefore whenever a person puts his trust in Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Court declares him "not guilty." All his sins are wiped away, without a single work done by the sinner to earn this forgiveness. But furthermore, the righteousness of Christ is imputed into the believer's account. Therefore, if Jesus Christ has lived a perfect, sinless life, then God will never see the sins of the believer again, as he is declared righteous. How terrific is the Grace of God!

Here is where the true Gospel differs from that of Roman Catholicism, Arminianism or that of religion as a whole. If, after believing, sins can accumulate to the point of loss of salvation (as James Arminius taught, for example) then Jesus Christ did not lead a perfect life, neither is the atonement made on the cross sufficient enough to impute righteousness on the sinner. The believer is declared righteous by God.  If so, then the believer's sins will never be held accountable ever again. Religion says that one has to work to become righteous. By contrast, the Gospel says that a sinner who believes is declared righteous, and God will never see his sins again, having thrown them all away as far as east is to the west.

These were the truths God spoke to me about in the last few days while there was no computer in the house. The fact was, I had an idea of these truths for a very long time. But having grown up as a Roman Catholic, and as a child, taught that grace was infused (meaning grace given for working to attain righteousness before being fit for Heaven) - it also took me a very long time to undo all my childhood teachings of the subject, and although I was saved the moment I believed in 1973, understanding Judicial Acquittance was something I would gradually become familiar in the years to come.

But despite such wonderful truths, multitudes are either willing to remain in their guilt, or don't know any better, or as I wish to specify here, being well educated and having knowledge being a block to believing.

While this blog is written, at present the BBC is currently broadcasting a series presented by the ever-so-lovable Professor Brian Cox, The Wonders of Life, with his enthusiasm on Evolution by Natural Selection. Cox's youthfulness, good looks and brains to match has, according to what I have read, become a darling among female viewers while the male population in general concentrate more on absorbing his rather academic presentation.



Brian Cox

But he, along with Sir David Attenborough, denies a vital truth in the Bible which makes Judicial Acquittal work. That is the truth about Divine Creation and the Fall of humanity, vital truths upon which the whole Bible rests. Brian Cox is a self-confessed atheist, and since he denies the existence of God, the creation and the fall of man, and God's attempt to rescue him from his fallen state, the idea of salvation from sin and being declared righteous by God becomes meaningless. This is a tragedy. Jesus Christ has already atoned for Cox's sins on the cross, and by believing, have access to the presence of the Father. Instead, his head knowledge and atheism will result in retaining his guilt, and to face Judgement. Yet, knowledge in itself can be very good. I have looked into the genome and the DNA operating within the nucleus of every cell in the body. It is a fascinating study - and one which cause me to look upon a creator-God with awe.

But Darwinism is the absolute enemy of the Gospel. And its subtlety makes it all the more dangerous. Here in England, a well educated person receives much more respect from society as a whole than one who is unlearnt. Today at church, I gave a short talk on Judicial Acquittal. As I stood at the front and scanned the audience, I was able to pick out a couple of faces who were guffawing at my testimony. If I had been a "Big Shot" in the Christian faith, I would have drawn serious attention. But a window cleaner? What do I know?

Just before my computer crashed, I heard on the morning news bulletin that our Education Secretary Michael Gove is to make Darwinism compulsory in all UK junior schools (of ages 5-11 years.) My heart sank. Here, young children will be taught a subject that would shut down any belief in the truth of the Gospel. For the sake of education, the truth that their misdeeds were already paid for on the cross becomes a non essential and the Gospel loses its power, and to be seen as a product of a few miscreants or nutcases. That is how most in the academic world sees us now. Rather potty, not malicious but a group whose beliefs are something of a joke and not to be taken seriously.

If only the Gospel, including Divine Creation and the Fall were taught with seriousness in our schools today, both in primary schools and secondary. If far, far more people believed the Gospel and had all their sins forgiven, then how much safer our society would be worldwide? For example, such a perpetrator who wishes to worm into my bank account would be far fewer in between. Internet browsing would be far more relaxing and more enjoyable.

But despite of all this, the Gospel will stand for all eternity, long after all knowledge had passed away.
Judicial Acquittal is the Gospel of God. And everything that is from God will endure forever.

Turning From Sin.

In a few of my last blogs I gave an impression that one does not attempt or try to turn from his sins to know God but to believe in the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This I wrote about the meaning of the word repentance - which literally mean "to change your mind" - in this case from doubting who Jesus Christ was to believing that he is the risen Lord who atoned for our sins by dying on a cross.

So let's take a look of what sin really is, a brat which is a lot more subtle than the overt misdeeds that readily comes to mind - fornication, adultery, murder, stealing, drunkenness, telling coarse jokes, getting into fights and whatever. The sort of things Christians don't generally get up to.

Most evangelical Christians, when asked how one can be saved, normally give this formula: "Repent and turn from your sins and believe the Gospel of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, calling on his name." That seems fair enough. Only that repentance (turning from sin) and believing can be seen here as two separate stages, when the truth is; Repentance simply means to change your mind about Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. In my last blog, A Letter To Church of Christ Members, I gave two examples of this kind of repentance, first to the three thousand-plus Jews who were at the Temple precincts on the day of Pentecost, and then of Cornelius and all who were present in his house. On both occasions, Peter never said, Turn from your sins, especially to Cornelius, who was already seen by God as a righteous man. Yet he had to believe in the resurrected Christ, whom God sent Peter to announce. The same can be said for the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) where Philip arrived at his chariot to find him reading a portion of Isaiah, but was unable to understand it.

Philip and the Ethiopian

There is no hint that Philip instructed the eunuch to turn from his sins, but instead Philip gave an explanation who this servant the prophet was referring to; himself or someone else. When Philip revealed Jesus to him, the eunuch believed and was baptised.

In the dramatic conversion of Saul, he was not told to "turn from your sins" when the Lord appeared to him. Instead, he was asked why this religious Jew was persecuting him. In response, Saul asked, "Who are you, Lord?"
"I am Jesus, who you are persecuting. Is it hard to kick against the thorns?"
Immediately Paul believed and was saved from that moment on. The Lord then proceeded to instruct him what he must do, including baptism. By "kicking against the thorns" Saul was aware of Jesus Christ condemned on the cross. He was also aware that rumours of his Resurrection were widespread. He had heard all about it, but had put it down to a group of fanatics who wanted a way out from the responsibilities in keeping the Law of Moses. When the Lord revealed himself to him, everything about his Resurrection fell into place, and he believed - so much so that he was willing to lay down his own life for this truth.

In Acts chapter 13, we read how Paul performed a miracle in condemning a sorcerer which led to his master, Sergius Paulus, believing in Jesus. It was the miracle by which he was convinced, not a list of his sins he had committed.

And there are more examples of the preaching of the Gospel as found in Acts. In Thessaloniki (17:1-9) Paul spoke to some Jews at the synagogue there, emphasising the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some of his listeners believed, others did not. In verse 18, while Paul was in Athens, some philosophers were discussing about "his strange gods" because of his preaching of Jesus and his Resurrection.

Paul in Athens, preaching Christ Resurrected.

Paul's defence against Festus and King Agrippa was centred on his conviction that Christ died and rose again, Acts 26:8, 23. His only exhortation was to turn from darkness to light, from Satan to God, verse 18, which was something only the power of the Gospel was able to accomplish, the Gospel being that Christ has risen from the dead and believing this brings this deliverance.

So we can see, mainly through the book of Acts, that conversion involves a change of mind about Jesus Christ. But we tend to say to prospective converts that they should turn from their sins and call upon the name of the Lord. Other Christians may even emphasise "the sinner's prayer" which involves asking Jesus Christ into their hearts. Checking over the tales of conversion found in the Bible, I have not come across any of these. The emphasis always seem to be Jesus Christ: His death, burial and rising from the dead. Especially the latter.

As mentioned earlier, sin is a much more subtle brat than what we often imagine it to be. If you were a thief in the past, it is relatively easy to stop stealing. This sort of thing is an overt act done out of choice, and one can choose not to steal any more. But getting sexually stimulated is another matter all together. Not so easy to control. In fact, sexual stimulation is rather enjoyable. Yet is it sinful? Jesus taught that one only has to look at a woman with a lustful heart, and he has committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28.) Or if you call someone a fool, it is murder (Matthew 5:21-22). Can you as a Christian man lay your hand across your chest and honestly plead that you had never felt sexual stimulation over someone not your own wife, or hated another person because he does not meet your expectations? If you can say yes to both these questions, then congratulations! You are well ahead of me. If I were to believe that, because these feelings are very much alive in me, therefore I'm still lost, then such a burden becomes impossible to bear. There is no way that I have assurance of my salvation.

And to be honest, I do still have these questioning thoughts. Thinking that as a believer, God expects perfection in my life, and if and when I feel lusty, I wonder if I'm really saved. That is the reason the statement turn from your sins I have found to be binding, not liberating.

In preparation of this article I read carefully the 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus. Now if there is a book giving such detailed instructions on holy living, then this is it. This is a chapter about sexual relations, and it deals with forbidding having sex with a member of the same family, whether your stepmother, an aunt through marriage or your brother's wife, your nieces or daughter-in-law. Even bestiality is mentioned and forbidden, along with same sex activity (sodomy). All these sins were sentenced with a death penalty. But reading this chapter, I have found that all these sins were overt and of choice. They did not deal with the condition of the heart. For example, one may have a crushing desire for a niece or sister-in-law, but the death penalty would only be applied if one choose to fulfil such desire by carrying out the act itself. So for one to say that in order to be saved, one must turn from sin - if such overt sins of choice were meant, then I can see some justification in this. But if I'm in church and I see someone that stimulates my desire - well, that's quite a different matter, even if I know perfectly well that nothing overt will come out of this. But does this prove that I'm still lost?

Then there is that other form of sin - hatred and murder. As with sexual sins, no Christian in his right mind would go around with a knife under his belt in readiness to stab someone. But before his conversion, he could well have been a gang member toting a knife, although unfortunately, converts from such backgrounds are far and few between! Rather, they tend to end up in prison. But it still remains within his power of choice to put the knife away or even dispose of it once such a gang member experience regeneration.

But Jesus said that only calling someone a fool is enough to call that murder. And I wonder how many Christians have done that throughout their lives, especially as mentioned in my last blog, the anger felt by a driver of a car who was cut up by another driver. Or for that matter, (common here in the UK where many rural roads are narrow and twisting) being stuck behind a slow car driver, trucker or even a tractor, unable to overtake. As the patience of the driver stuck behind runs out, his feelings of frustration and anger starts to mount up, and a torrent of expletives is thrown out of his mouth. If the car is shared with an unbelieving passenger, the driver would have fallen from grace as the passenger sees it. His Christian credentials would never be restored.

Road rage can be the end result of such pent up frustration, when the driver takes physical revenge on the offending driver or vehicle. This could lead to physical murder. The fact is, anyone can hate or feel anger towards another human being, and being a Christian does not free us from such emotion. Therefore to say that turning from sin is essential to salvation has put me under an impossible burden to bear, and such emotional turbulence is enough to question whether I'm really saved.

And we can take this issue of murder even further. According to James 2:11, it looks like favouritism or snobbery is a form of murder. This verse appears after a rebuke against favouritism was delivered. Yet I have seen this sin not only overlooked but condoned in church life over the past forty years. If an elder in the church, or a group of elders evaluate one person over another due to his higher level of education or profession, then isn't this a form of favouritism? And furthermore, this sort of thing is quite acceptable in churches in this country. Therefore this turning from sin to be saved becomes even a greater problem. According to this formula, isn't there anyone in our churches genuinely saved?

The idea that a sinning saint can lose credibility among unbelievers is certainly true. As a believer myself, I want to be honest enough to admit that I am not unfamiliar with such experiences. In James' letter, we read of a believer shutting up his bowels of compassion against the needs of a poor, naked or hungry fellow human. How would the poor man evaluate the believer's faith? Dead, as far as the poor man is concerned.

Therefore, I suppose, sin can be defined as a lack of love for God or fellowmen, particularly believers. We as humans will go through such negative emotions, being natural as they are. Such life experiences has helped me understand the Bible better, and I have found, particularly through the stories recorded in the book of Acts, that faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the key to salvation. It is the sanctification process which follows salvation is where sin can be exposed and dealt with, although all our sins, past, present and future, are totally forgiven by God at conversion. The exposing and cleansing of sins is for the benefit of the believer living in a world of unbelievers.

Hence, we are disciples, or learners. Learning on how our faith in Jesus Christ can make an impact on unbelievers, for the sole purpose of winning them to the Lord, so they too can be saved. And the only answer for dealing with our sinful nature is to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and letting him do a work in our lives which will not only be a fragrance towards God, but also to the world around us.

Judging People?

In last week's blog post, I wrote about an incident which took place during our holiday in Malta. I testified about the meeting of two guys at the pub across our hotel who, after confessing our church allegiance and our faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour, admitted to us with some hesitation that they were Freemasons. I then wrote of my reluctance to judge their group or their attachment to them, with the preference to bring their concentration on to Jesus himself. In other words, to leave the judging to the Holy Spirit.

One reader who read my article wrote to me on Facebook that I should have judged their behaviour and their allegiance to Freemasonry.  His precise words were:
We are not called to judge people however we are commanded to judge their behaviour and to confront them with their sin.

I was somewhat stunned by that statement, but in another way I shouldn't have been. I have seen this sort of thing before. It was the central belief among the elders of a church in Sacramento, California - the Calvary Community Church. The only difference was that the elders in California embraced Eternal Security of the Believer. The guy who replied on Facebook has an Arminian view that one must remain faithful to stay saved. So I need to ask myself: Did I perform my duties rightly? Did I let these two in the Maltese bar slide towards Hell by my negligence to judge? Furthermore, should I bear the guilt? Here we need to go to the Bible to get some answers.

There seem to be a case of a strong conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit found in the second chapter of Acts. Here we have the apostle Peter preaching what could be called the first Christian sermon. His sermon was centred on Jesus being the Christ as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. After quoting the writings of Joel and the Psalms of David, the narrator tells us that the listeners were "cut to the heart" and asked what needed to be done. Along with "many other words" Peter exhorted them to repent and be baptised. We are not told what these "many other words" were, but most likely they were explaining how the Crucifixion of Christ had fulfilled and made obsolete every Temple ordinance. So what did these Jews do? Examine how they had failed to obey the ten commandments? Rather, was the sin that had cut into their hearts the realisation that they were responsible for the death of their Messiah by crucifying him? As a result, they were to believe that the Jesus they had crucified is the risen Christ.

This seem to fall in line with the rest of the Bible. Jesus himself on many occasions, mostly in the Gospel of John, declared to the crowds that unless they believe that he is who he says he is, they shall perish. This is the essence of repentance. To believe in Jesus as the risen Christ. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, wrote that all who believe in his heart that Jesus has risen from the dead and confess him as Lord, he will be saved. And Paul seem to indicate that this is the universal appeal to all mankind - to believe in Jesus as the risen Messiah to be saved.

But what about the conviction of sin our friend on Facebook had brought up, backed by the elders of the Calvary Community Church? Is it necessary to be convicted of sin to bring true repentance? Could be this being the reason why the Gospel of Matthew contains the Sermon on the Mount? And this sermon specifically to bring out the full meaning of the Law and to show the true depth of sin? And then demonstrate himself as the solution to the problem as narrated in John's Gospel. Certainly, these ideas all seem to fit together.

Alongside this, the church in California brings out the notion of true and false conversion, as defined in Matthew 13:1-23. In one of my blogs, 300 Young People Saved - Yippee, Er, Really? published August 29th, 2011, I brought up the Parable of the Sower, and wrote that in the case of the pathway, where the seeds just lay there until eaten by the birds - depicts the unbeliever who forgets the Word of God, represented by the seed. By contrast, the good soil is the believer who receives the Word and in due time produces a crop of fruit. But the two in between - the rocky ground and the growth of weeds depict "false conversion" when the hearer believes for a while then falls away without producing lasting fruit.

At the time I wrote my blog, I actually felt that the elders at Calvary Community Church were right and the two "in between" depict false conversion. But after reading many blogs here on this site, as well as more Bible study, I now accept that among the rocky ground and those producing weeds, there is a chance that true converts exist among them. The reason why I feel this way is to compare Scripture with Scripture. In the parable of the Sower, only those representing the pathway remained lost in their sins. Of both the rocky ground and those producing weeds, these people believed the word, and accepting it with joy. Jesus himself said that whoever believes in him, receives eternal life and he passes from death into life. And those who remain condemned remain in that way because he has not believed in the Son of God. As with the pathway, the word was rejected and forgotten.

Here again, the aforementioned church, along with our Facebook friend, could argue that without the conviction of sin, the resulting conversion could not be true. They would argue that in many altar calls, one would "receive Christ" in a high state of emotion without realising the seriousness of their sin which would call for the need of a Saviour. Unfortunately, they see many such calls responded to without a rebirth, maybe a means to satisfy the desire of a parent or friend, or for a deep feeling of sentimentality brought on by a moving song or testimony. However, the book of Acts records a number of conversions, and it may help to look at these.

In Acts 2 we have already seen that the three thousand Jews were "cut to the heart" after realising that they killed their promised Messiah. We also read of Saul renamed Paul who "kicked against the goads" before his encounter with the Lord on the Damascus Road. This could be the result of a conviction of sin due to hearing Steven's discourse recorded in Acts 7. In the eighth chapter, we have Philip in Samaria who proclaimed Jesus as the Christ. Whether any conviction of sin occurred, we are not told, but many believed and were healed by means of miracles performed there. And this is why ALL miracles were performed throughout the New Testament - to prove that Jesus is the Christ and by believing one can receive eternal life.

The case of Peter and the Sorcerer: the charge against him was about offering money for his share in ministering of the Holy Spirit, not in his sorcery itself. No doubt, the ability to perform miracles would heighten his reputation and would have given a massive boost to his business. The request was denied due to wrong motives. Yet earlier in verse 13 we are told that the sorcerer believed and was baptised by Philip. If his belief was genuine (there is no reason it wasn't) then Peter, in his rebuke, threatened physical death rather than eternal death, so no bad reputation would spread before unbelievers. The same applying to Ananias and Sapphira, whose bodies were destroyed so the church would not suffer a blow to its reputation before men. These two, by believing that Jesus is the Christ, also went to Heaven.

Then there is the case of Philip and the Ethiopian. We meet this eunuch in his cart, reading a portion of Isaiah, the bit about being cut off (slain) and pondering on whether the prophet was referring to himself or someone else. Philip boarded the chariot and explained that Isaiah was foretelling of Jesus being the Messiah, and yes, he was cut off - he was crucified. There was nothing told about the eunuch's conviction of his sin. He simply asked what was stopping him being baptised, and Philip agreed to his willingness to be submerged in water.

The conversion of Cornelius and his household is another case where little, if any, conviction of sin came before conversion. Peter's message was about Jesus, having been crucified, proved his status as the Christ by rising from the dead. Apparently, the Holy Spirit fell on them all the moment they believed.

Acts 13:13 onward is a narration of the history of Israel given by Paul and Barnabas, climaxing in Jesus Christ crucified, and then risen again, proving to be the Messiah. Going through the whole of Acts of the Apostles, the theme is Jesus crucified, then risen again to prove that he is the Christ. And the theme is always believing this and receiving eternal life. The Philippian jailer was another example. Here Paul and Silas were singing praises to God. Then an earthquake occurred which caused all the prison cell doors to fly open. The jailer, believing that all the inmates had escaped, drew his sword in the belief that the Authorities were going to execute him anyway. So he decided on suicide instead. Paul then cried out not to harm himself. Instead he asked what to do to be saved. The jailer was, most likely asking how he could be spared from the Authorities. Paul had deeper, more eternal things in mind. If he believed on Jesus as the Christ, he would receive eternal life. There is, apparently, no narration about his conviction of his sins.

And so it goes on. I have pondered, in preparation of this blog, if England being a Christian country, are most people here are saved, just because having been born here, we have a much greater chance of eternal life than the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or any other non-Christian countries or religions. We celebrate Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter every year. In other words, we believe that Jesus is the Christ, having a miraculous birth, death and resurrection. Really?

Actually, there seem to be a difference between true belief and nominally. The vast majority of the English do not have a new birth. There seems to be a difference between growing up with a background knowledge of Christianity and taking it for granted - from that of a trusting faith that Jesus is the Christ which brings a re-birth of the spirit and adoption as children of God. In fact, in my last blog, I emphasised that higher education and academic achievement has turned much more of the population away from the faith in God than towards it.

So the conviction of sin prior to conversion may be a good thing. But to whom this conviction may be suitable depends on the individual concerned. What I disagree with our Facebook friend and with the Calvary Community Church is about the "one size fits all" concept that no true conversion can take place without the conviction of sin beforehand. Perhaps here in England, a conviction of sin may indeed be far more of a necessity than in the ancient Middle East. But with the two guys at the Maltese pub, I left it for the Holy Spirit to convict their sin of Freemasonry. All I had the privilege was to tell them that Jesus is indeed the Christ, and not to judge them.

Adam and Eve - Historical? You MUST be Joking!!!

It was my intention to write about the truth of pre-Abrahamic Scriptures, as this was on my mind for the past week. The idea was stirred in my heart after the Media delivered report after report of the riots which at first broke out in Tottenham, North London, after a man was shot dead by Police. The riots then quickly spread across London, then into various provincial cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Along with the rioting, shops were ransacked and destroyed and merchandise looted.

Then only yesterday I came across this article in the Saturday's Daily Mail newspaper. Written brilliantly by A.N. Wilson, this columnist believes that the basic reason for the decline of our society is based on the breakdown of the family unit which, he writes, was sustained throughout history by a bedrock belief in the truth of religion. He praises Muslims, Hindus and Jews for allowing their faith to bind families together, yet let out a blast particularly at the Church of England for wringing her hands while congregation numbers dwindle. He then lets rip on the academics, particularly on what he calls "the nuttier fringes of the chattering classes" for leading the nation away from belief in God and the Bible's truthfulness. Two people he names: Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, both having written books debunking Divine Creation and the early history of the human race for the theory of Evolution. They present a very convincing argument in the name of Science that we are here as an end result of a long process of organic evolution covering a time span of around 200,000,000 years. At the same time, these two are convinced that religion is a poison to the fabric of society.

Thus faith in the Bible has been severely knocked, particularly in the early chapters of Genesis. If the Bible is likened to a vessel, say a pail or large bowl, to have the truth of the early chapters of Genesis called into question would result in a hole at the bottom which would render the vessel useless for holding water. Likewise, the Bible has been rendered ineffectual as a book for spiritual and moral guidance. It has become a book for fanciful stories and myth, at best these myths provide some hidden truth on how one should behave, but remains totally insufficient in historical and spiritual content. Yet the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis, contains the very essence for a stable, crime free society - the institute of marriage and the family unit: father, mother and children brought up in a godly manner. Yet our academics, as A. Wilson rightly comments, are responsible for our nation's moral and spiritual decline.

So in this article, I will try to show the historical truth of the early chapters of Genesis, much maligned by the academics, and how it applies to us today.

It is in the first chapters of Genesis where the institution of a man and woman bonded together in a marriage covenant had its origins. Marriage between a man and a woman began with that of Adam and Eve, and has been ongoing ever since, even to this day, whether the Bible is believed in or not. If the Bible is just a book of mythical fables, then why does history itself testify the importance of marriage? Even to the extent that the Church of England itself had its beginnings over the dispute between King Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII over the King's wish to divorce his first wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon.

In this article, I wish to spell out the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, and to do this I need to write two separate blogs, this one and the one to follow, in it I will deal with the Noachian Deluge.

In 1973, when I was young in the faith, a man only a couple of years younger than me approached and asked:
"If Adam and Eve had sons Cain and Abel, who was Cain's wife?"
At that time I was stumped. He was better informed of the narration than I was, simply because as one new to the faith, I only read the story recently. Furthermore, the same question was asked several times by different people in different places.

In the account, we are told that Adam was created from the ground. He must have been created as an adult with full brain powers, for he was able to give names to every animal which passed him by. Each species were a pair, male and female. When Adam realised that he had no mate of his own, he felt incomplete in himself, and God was able to see this. Thus God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep while an operation was performed - exactly the same kind as performed in hospital theatres today where the patient is put under anaesthesia before an operation is carried out. A rib is removed from Adam's body, itself a living thing, and from it God created a woman who is to become Adam's wife and mother of all living.

Adam and Eve, by Michaelangelo, Sistine Chapel in Rome

The supernatural creation of both Adam and Eve as well as a talking snake which tempted them afterward are all easily debunked as a fanciful myth simply because none of these things had ever occurred in our lifetimes. We never experienced any talking animal, let alone a snake! But that does not mean that it couldn't have happened. Why not? Yet the snake has kept on saying the same words for millennia! As we shall see.

The Edenic Lie is closer to reality than we care to believe. The temptation the snake used were twofold, first that God was a jealous liar in declaring that they would die if they ate fruit from a specific tree. Secondly, the snake offered to exalt their status from the one they were already in (the crown and pinnacle of Creation) to one of divinity, with knowledge of what's good and evil, if they would just eat the fruit. In short, eat - and become gods, full of knowledge.

Our quest for education, knowledge and becoming gods are in all of us. It is like this as an individual, a family, group or nation. Hitler and his Nazi Party provides a good example of national superiority. Just as he wanted to bring his Reich into the rest of Europe, including the UK, he also believed in the lie that the Jews were an inferior race to his, and as a result, ushered in the Holocaust, with the needless slaying of six million Jews. It is interesting to realise that Hitler's slaughter of the Jews was the snake's attempt to prevent the Jews in returning to their own land to form the new State of Israel which, in turn, would eventually bring the return of its Messiah and the end of the snake's power.

Just as Adam and Eve disregarded God's commandment to abstain from eating from that particular tree in the belief that they will be exalted, so too the Edenic Lie, as with Hitler, is in all of us. We are more than happy to disregard God and his commandments for the quest of becoming gods ourselves. The theory of evolution, which denies the Biblical record of Creation, is but one proof of man's strong desire for the gradual climb towards divinity.

Therefore, this disregarding of God's commandments for personal exaltation to divinity makes up the threefold nature of sin, what it really is. First, sin is a rejection of God's Holiness. This includes hate, murder, adultery, blasphemy, lying and many other sins. Secondly, sin is a rejection of God's leadership with the desire to lead our lives our own way, independent from God. Idolatry and pleasure-seeking may be classified as this. Thirdly, a rejection of God's provisions where pride in self achievement may play a role in this, along with stealing, dishonesty and greed.

After our first parents fell into sin by eating the fruit and disobeying God's commandments, God made a promise that the woman's seed shall bruise the snake's head, a way of announcing total defeat for the snake. Also the snake shall bruise the seed's feet, which indicate that the battle will not be easy, but will itself involve death of the seed. Further action is also demonstrated with God slaying an innocent animal to clothe the couple. Therefore innocent blood was shed to cover their nakedness, just as the blood of the innocent Lamb was shed to atone for our sins. This was of contrast to the aprons which they made from fig leaves soon after they fell. Aprons made from fig leaves defines Religion, the attempt to reconcile oneself to God by self-effort. When the beast was supernaturally slain and the couple clothed, God totally disregarded the fig leaves. It is worth of note that Adam and Eve did absolutely nothing in gaining their new clothes. God did everything. No one can be saved and be reconciled to God by self effort, not even the smallest made by man. The seed of the woman is, of course, Jesus Christ.

We now see Adam and Eve expelled from the Garden of Eden and Eve becomes the mother of Cain. Then after this, a sibling is born, Abel. We are told that after a period of time (but we are not told how long) both Cain and Abel set up altars. Cain's sacrifice, based on self-effort, was rejected by God. Abel's, based on faith in the Promise, was accepted. In a furious rage, Cain slays his younger brother, whose blood soaks into the ground. Then having received his judgement and punishment from God, we are told that he departed from the Lord, knew his wife and begotten a son, and went eastward to the land of Nod, and there built a city, and called the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

Taking this narration at face value, it's no wonder why skeptics ask, "Who was Cain's wife?" For here we read of only four characters: Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. Abel was killed, leaving only three people on earth. So we see Cain, after the murder, pleading with God: "...that everyone who finds me will slay me...(Genesis 4:14). Everyone? With just his Mum and Dad sharing the whole land? And how on earth could he build a city by himself. It does not make sense! It is the next chapter which gives some answers, and I'm quite surprised to be asked, "Who was Cain's wife?" if only a little research was needed to solve this problem.

Here we read:
And Adam lived 130 years, and begat a son of his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. Just earlier, the narration tells us that Adam and Eve fathered a son, Seth, to replace Abel, because Cain slew him. (4:25). Therefore we can dismiss the idea that the murder of Abel took place a mere twenty years after Creation. It was more likely to be closer to 130 years after Creation. This was the reason Seth replaced Abel as the father of the Messianic line. Originally, the Messianic line began with Abel, but the snake through Cain tried to have this line cut off before the Messiah arrived to bruise his head. The snake, of course, is the Devil.

So we can conclude here that during the 130 years between Creation and the birth of Seth, many other children were born to Adam and Eve. This would have been the fulfillment of the first command God gave to the innocent, unfallen couple. "Multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it." (1:28). Not to have children during the next century of their existence would have been totally absurd! We have no idea how many children Adam fathered between Abel and Seth. But let us assume it was thirty. 15 boys and 15 girls. This would give Eve a rest period of over three years between each pregnancy. We assume that along with Cain and Abel, two baby girls were born. This would give Cain a wife straight away. He would have married his own sister, not only acceptable but a necessity in those days. If each of the thirty other children (i.e. 15 couples) had eight offspring each, this would raise the population to 152 people. And that's a very conservative number. If each of the 120 grandchildren of Adam (60 couples) had eight children, the population would have risen to 480 great grandchildren, plus 120 grandchildren, plus 30 children, plus two original parents, would equal 632 people. If each of the descendants of Adam's sons had much more than eight children each, and there is absolutely no reason not to be the case, the population would be much higher. So by the time of Cain's murder of Abel, it might have been possible that the population could have reached into the thousands.

Therefore it all makes sense. At the time of the murder, Cain had reason to be afraid of revenge, even from his own descendants, but more likely from his nephews and great nephews and nieces. As for building a city, this was probably on the banks of the River Euphrates (not the present river of that name, but the antediluvian predecessor). With the help of his relatives, the city might have started as a few houses along the river bank. But over the next thousand years or so, it could have grown into a sizeable city, perhaps like Ninevah, which took three days to explore. The city of Enoch could have been much larger, perhaps the size of Greater London or Los Angeles. After all, it took the last few centuries for London to grow to its present size.

To conclude this article: The narration of the early chapters of Genesis is perfectly historical, and we can see the effects of this to this day. From the dawn of history the institution of marriage between husband and wife and raising children is not only Biblical, but necessary for the survival of civilised society.

Maybe if our academics promote the truthfulness of Scripture instead of spending their lives debunking it as fable folklore, most likely the riots of last week may never had occurred.