[todaysdate]
By Corbin Croy
An Open Letter to Christians Against Gentiles Being Allowed In The Church
Dear Christian,
God gets to say who gets into the Kingdom of God, not man. God sets the rules, not us. It is not up to us to question him, but to meekly accept his divine word. God has made it clear, “Israel is God’s elect.” Now we do not deny that God has also revealed himself to the gentiles. Through Noah God has saved the whole world. And through our election as priests we bless the nations. And we know that through God’s son all people can now come to God, but this man himself says that he came only for the lost sheep of Israel.
The idea of gentiles being allowed in the church goes against God’s natural order. For in all things nature selects those most suitable for the task. Everyone has a role assigned to them by God, and so only God can assign some to be priests and some to be workers. If everyone was a priest then there would be no election. God has elected the Jews to be his geople, and this is in line with the natural order.
Those who support Gentile-inclusion, or LGBT inclusion (femaLe-Gentile-roman/Babylonian-samariTan), make the wildest and most outlandish claims to support their self-assertive cause. At the end of the day it is so easy to see how everything they say boils down to one fundamental idea and that is that they can assert their identity and their beliefs over what God has plainly and clearly laid out in Scripture. God is the one in control, and he is the one who has chosen his people. This has been known for thousands of years already. And now, just because a few people are “uncomfortable” with the way God has set things up they think that they know better than God. It has been established since the writing of the Torah that Israel was God’s elect people.
One of these men claims to have had a vision. Was this vision of God letting gentiles into the church? No. It was a vision of a voice telling him to eat unclean animals. Now why he assumes that this vision comes from God is not clear. If I hear a voice telling me to do something that God clearly does not want me to do then I would not assume that it was God. Just as the devil tempted Jesus and just as the devil can appear as an angel of light, I would never think that God was telling me to disobey his unchanging Word.
But let us assume that this did happen. This man receives no further instruction by God as to what this “vision” means. So why are we not in response to this vision simply giving up on our dietary obligations? In fact, our Lord even suggested we do just that. Instead we are throwing out the entire Mosaic Tradition! That seems a bit extreme. I have heard this man several times myself, in person, and I can assure you that he takes great liberty in “interpreting” what God has told him. His stories are inconsistent with one another, and lack coherency at times, which suggests to me that he feels entitled to re-interpret God’s clear instructions for his own whims and desires at that time.
Do not be led astray by vision casters. God’s word has already been given to us and those who think they can add to it are doing nothing other than speaking for God. There have been plenty of false “visions” in the past, like Kings who hire their own prophets to tell them what they want to hear. This led to our own exile and occupation. Let us not fall into the trap of following “visions” that tickle our itching ears. Let us hold true to the word of God and be faithful so that one day he can restore His People and give us back our land.
Another man claims that LGBT (femaLe-Gentile-roman/Babylonian-samariTan) inclusion fulfills prophecy! If there was ever a false prophet it would be this man. He speaks of a future, “After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the gentiles who bear my name”, but he entirely misconstrues the meaning of that prophet and actually changes the words to suit his own needs, so that he can achieve his desires. Once again, we see how prideful and incredulous these hyper-spiritualists are. They show no respect for God’s holy word. It does not change, and we do not have the right to change it to suit our needs. This man was even the Lord’s brother. How our Lord would be appalled, who said himself that not one dot of the Law would be abolished, and here is his very own brother trying to undo everything our Lord taught.
And finally there is a man who I am afraid myself to write about. I am afraid for I am unsure how I can resist from falling into sin and anger in writing about him. This man calls himself our brother, but he went around persecuting us before his “conversion.” He has done nothing but agitate the true and Christ-centered church, by trying to make *his* gospel the official teaching that represents our Lord, but no words of his were ever found on the lips of our savior. If this man were not a respected Jew, I might consider him to be an anti-christ, for he has done more to destroy the Way of Jesus then anyone else since our Lord ascended to heaven. He thinks that he can change his name, like our ancient patriarchs and that this makes him an apostle, but he is a fraud. He shows little interest in aligning himself with the central Church where Christ walked and taught. He has no allegiance to Christ homeland or the body of believers which exist in the area where Christ ministered. We are the ones who carry on his teachings and this man does not write to us, nor does he ever stay to be discipled by one of our esteemed apostles. He has only been in touch with us for a couple of weeks and then he went off and began to cause trouble.
What is the real issue? Circumcision. We have pleaded with the Gentile believers to simply be circumcised, and then they can be allowed into God’s people. It is their life choice to not be circumcised. We have done all we can to help them. God’s word is clear. I will admit that I wish all people can come and participate in God’s church, but I cannot simply let my desire determine who God is, or what he has told us. God has given them a choice. It is not our fault that they have chosen to be the way that they are.
I know that the idea of being circumcised as an adult is not an appealing idea, but this is what God requires. For some the pain might be too much to bear, and God is not calloused to their needs. If the pain of circumcision to too much then there is an option to be completely castrated. The process of castration is quicker and the healing is faster. When you are circumcised as an adult mistakes are more likely and lifelong damage can be done to cause discomfort and pain. Castrations are simpler and the pain is not as long lasting. If the Gentiles were truly serious about following God then they should have no objection to either of these options, but because they are self-seeking and self-assertive they think that they should have the right to impose themselves on what God has already laid out.
God loves the world, and elects his people. God has compassion for those who choose not to be circumcised, but it is their choice to not be and so a Just God must honor their choice. God is eager and wanting to welcome Gentiles who circumcise themselves and follow Mosaic code into the Kingdom of God, but for those who think that they can re-interpret our Lord or not take seriously was God’s word says then they run the risk of offending God and treating too lightly His Holiness. All options and accommodations have been given to the Gentiles. It is they who are unwilling to join us, and remain outside of God’s covenant.
And it is the hyper-spiritualists who are in danger of stepping out of this covenant as well! They think that they can appease God’s word by using the word “circumcision”, but changing its meaning! You do not get to redefine “circumcision” and then act like what you doing is not what God intended for circumcision. Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin from the penis. Some have tried to say that our circumcision is done in the heart and that as long as our hearts are circumcised then the obligation of circumcision is fulfilled. But was Abraham told this? No. To assume this is to speak for God from your own personal motive to make Christ more appealing to adults who simply do not want to go through the discomfort of adult circumcision. It is watered down Christianity.
To make matters worse they do not hide their affront to God’s holy word. They boldly claim that they are freely and intentionally doing as they please, simply because they believe that since they are living holy and righteous lives then God will accept them. This is the pinnacle of hyper-spirituality. It says, “God accepts me, because I do X or Y or Z. I am righteous. I do good. I love my neighbor, and so on and so on” But it does not honor God and his sovereignty. We are nothing! We do not get to say how or why God chooses us. He gets to say that. And it is up to him to elect His People, and he has made that choice, and in that choice he has graciously chosen to allow the Gentiles to be circumcised and to show compassion on the whole world through the priesthood of the faithful Jews. The Jews are God’s elect, not the Gentiles. To say otherwise is unchristian.
I ASSUME this is satire.
yes.
Either satire or very very confused
it could be both ;p
Oh dear. Well, God offered His Torah to others first who rejected it. The Jews were the ones who accepted it – Abraham at first. It wasn’t that God elected the Jews, the Jews elected to follow God, and then were thereby “chosen” to abide 613 commandments while the gentles are to follow 7, otherwise known as the Noahide laws. Any gentile following the 7 Noahide laws has their place in the World to Come (as Jews say) or Heaven. Circumcision is a Jewish covenant, not a gentile one. People do it now as a matter of course because it’s healthier, but it is not a requirement of gentiles. These are the things we’re taught as Jews. (Your mileage may vary :>) http://www.torah.org/features/secondlook/chosen.html
Cool. It’s actually satire, and not meant to be a “real” argument as to why Gentiles should not be allowed in the Christian Church. It is meant to parallel the Christian controversy of homosexual or LGBT inclusion. The basic premise being that many of the arguments we use today to exclude gays from the Church could have been used in a similar fashion to exclude Gentiles from the Church at the time of Acts 15; the Jerusalem council. Since Christianity is 99% Gentile at this point it’s meant to show how *some* of the arguments against homosexual inclusion are absurd.
What a giant straw man. Of course churches let people in who struggle with all sorts of sins. But if those people come in shaking their fists at God à la Romans 1 and mock his word, then of course they shouldn’t be members, let alone leaders. That’s the difference.
Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Since this is satire, it is unclear to me who you think is shaking their fist at God. Can you clarify? Are you saying that homosexuals are shaking their fist at God?
Yes. Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:26–27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
So let’s imagine that the Bible says, “Rock-n-Roll music is from the devil, because the temponic rhythms are similar to African drum beats which worship demons.” Would you consider this to be true for Rock music today?
Now, I’m not trying to question our trust in the Bible, but I’m trying to understand how context bound instructions are to be handled. Let’s say that at *one-time* Rock music was heavily influenced by “African drum beats” and this was connected to demonic activity, but Rock then became its own thing and the whole “African drum beat” thing just kinda vanished. Would you really still think it was from the devil?
It just seems to me that Paul is giving a context-bound instruction here. These are people “consumed” with lust for each other. I simply don’t see this as being indicative of gay love. Maybe there is something about homosexuality that I do not know, but no homosexual has appeared to me to be a repressed heterosexual who must over-saturate himself with licentiousness in order to maintain his sexual predilections. Furthermore, I have never chosen my sexuality and so it seems natural to me that another person can simply have the same experience but for their own gender. Maybe you can enlighten me as to why you think homosexuals are shaking their fists at God apart from what the Bible says, because it is really the Bible that we are trying to understand. Logically, it is easier not to use fallacious reasoning.
Hi Corbin,
I don’t think your music analogy applies at all.
Re. “choosing” your sexuality: People may not choose to be greedy, lustful, covetous, etc. but they are still sins.
Re. fist-shaking (my euphemism for rebellion), Romans 1 is quite clear. While Paul goes on to list many sins, he uses homosexual behavior as his “exhibit A” in air-tight language. Adding “love” to the equation doesn’t make it OK, and the passage doesn’t even hint at any qualifiers regarding relationships. This isn’t temple prostitution or pederasty.
Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:26–27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Also, the rest Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:
– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
– 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
– 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.
* The three general types of pro-gay theology people:
1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)
http://wp.me/p1wGU-3P7
None of what you said makes a case for homosexuality being a “dishonorable passion” apart from the Bible itself. Since you are concerned about Biblical context, I would expect you to be interested in having non-Biblical sources to make your case so that way you could determine whether or not those commands were contextual or universal. What evidence do you have to think that homosexuals are dishonorable, licentious, or repressed heterosexuals?
I’m a Christian. If the Bible speaks on a spiritual topic then I need no other sources. But of course, the physical and emotional consequences of LGBTQX behavior are extremely well documented.
Example: Gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men . Meditate on that for a moment. How evil and vile do you have to be to knowingly risk infecting others with a deadly disease, just because you don’t want to wear a condom when having sex? That is one of the most profoundly selfish acts imaginable, yet the mainstream media and “comprehensive sex education” classes never tell you about these things.
Also see http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/trans-regret/
BTW, I appreciate your general sentiment about reading in context. That’s my #1 lesson to offer people. I have written and taught many times about how people abuse Phil 4:13, Jer 29:11, Matthew 7:1 and so many others simply because they didn’t read what came before and after.
What a wonderful satire. Enough truth to make me wonder, “hat the Hell?” I compare, scoff, deeply agree, and process it just as I imagine the listeners of Jesus’ Parables must have. Well done. This is what life is like. A marble cake of BS and Wisdom.
LOL ok then, interesting read at least. Of course after reading comments I better understand the point that is trying to be made. I have to give an A for imagination and thought in this satire. However the premise, based on comments, I would say is off, and that I strongly disagree with were you were going.