|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 8, 2009 18:41:36 GMT -5
Kevin makes banners: crytoGod@msn.com
Patrick makes sandwich boards: signs@centurytel.net
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 8, 2009 18:29:20 GMT -5
But even the unconverted feel bad because God has given them a conscience. We feel bad by nature, not by choice. There is no virtue in feeling bad for doing wrong. We are naturally bothered when we do wrong because God has given us a conscience. Both sinners and saints are naturally bothered by their conscience when they do wrong.
The difference between sinners and saints, according to 1 John, is that those who know God keep His commandments and those who break His commandments do not know Him.
The difference between sinners and saints is not how they feel, but how they choose to live their lives.
The unconverted man described in Romans 7 felt bad for his sin, but he was still condemned. The converted man described in Romans 6 found victory over sin through Jesus Christ.
Being bothered by your conscience is not evidence of being converted, but is evidence of being either unconverted or backsliden, because it is evidence that you are rebellious towards God.
There is no assurance in sin. There is only assurance in obedience. "By this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him." The proof that we have saving faith and that we love God is that we keep His commandments.
It is not enough to feel bad for sin. That is by nature, not by choice. We must repent of our sin. That is by choice, not by nature.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 8, 2009 11:07:42 GMT -5
Praise God! You would probably enjoy the entire book when it comes out.
Yes the greatest excuses I hear when preaching is "inability" and "sinful nature". Sinners will say that they can't repent, they can't obey God, they can't help themselves, they are only human, sin is their nature, it is not their fault.
The mind can never come under genuine conviction as long as it holds on to some kind of excuse or justification.
It is a great topic to study.
Yes both traditional Calvinism and traditional Arminianism hold to some type of notion of a "sinful nature". It seems that Augustinian theology has really infected every branch of theology.
Charles Finney's lecture on "Moral Depravity" is excellent. He makes a distinction between physical depravity and moral depravity, something that it commonly confused. Failure to distinguish between the physical and the moral leads to Gnosticism.
Very well said!
An unconverted man certainly does sin knowingly and willingly. If they were blind, they would have no sin. But they clearly know the law of God through their conscience and they choose to do what they know is wrong. All unconverted men live for themselves, instead of living for God.
A converted man should not sin knowingly or willingly. We are capable of doing so, because we have a free will, but we shouldn't. Paul said that he had a conscience void of offense. And the Bible says the blood of Christ does not cover us if we sin willfully. Our life should be a life of holiness and obedience, out of love for God and a desire to glorify Him. But it is a daily choice.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2009 21:39:18 GMT -5
If our will was not free, sinners would never repent and saints would never sin. The fact that sinners do sometimes repent, and that saints sometimes do sin, is proof that our will is free to choose between obedience and disobedience.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2009 21:27:29 GMT -5
Paul says in Romans 6 that we yield ourselves servants of sin or servants of righteousness. It is by free will choice that we are either sinners or saints. By nature we are free to choose between obedience and disobedience. All men have chosen to be sinners which is why we need God's gracious influence to be converted.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2009 21:22:20 GMT -5
This is the appendix of my new book "The Natural Ability of Man".
DOES MAN HAVE A SINFUL NATURE? By Jesse Morrell
Whenever the topic of human nature is brought up, the question about man’s natural tendency is usually introduced to the discussion. Just as natural inability is commonly used by sinners as an excuse for sinning, so also a “sinful nature” is a common excuse that I regularly hear from sinners when witnessing. Instead of taking full responsibility by saying “sin is my choice”, they blame their Creator by saying “sin is my nature”. Instead of humbly admitting that sin is the choice of their will, they comfort themselves by saying that sin is the defect of their nature. For that reason I thought it might be good to comment on that issue here.
Effective communication necessitates definition. Therefore the word “nature” must be defined. Your nature is your constitution, make up, structure, composition, disposition and essence. Human nature would include our faculties of intelligence, emotion, free will, and all of the elements of spirit, soul, and body. Our constitution is physical, spiritual, and mental.
First we must understand that God is the author of our nature. God is the cause of our constitution. Neither Adam nor the devil forms our nature. The Bible says that God personally forms us in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). The work of forming a baby inside the womb is God’s work. That is why God takes personal responsibility for the condition of our flesh at birth (Exo. 4:11).
Mankind is described as being made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas 3:9). That is why when it comes to sin, the Bible says that sin is actually contrary to human nature (Rom. 1:26-27). God wanted mankind to imitate Him in choosing holiness (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:26; Matt. 5:48; 1 Pet. 1:16). God did not design us to live wickedly. Sin is an abuse and misuse of our constitution. That is why the Bible says it is “against nature” to sin. Sinners choose to do “that which is against nature”. Through the freedom of their will they choose to do what is contrary to their nature or design. It was never God’s intention for man to sin; it was not His plan for mankind to be sinful (Gen. 6:5-6; Matt. 25:41; Eph. 1:4). God would have preferred a sinless universe that needed no atonement at all (1 Sam. 15:22). Since sin was contrary to God’s plan or intention for mankind, God has made sin contrary to the design of our constitution.
God also designed our constitution or nature with a conscience so that we have the natural tendency or constitutional bent to obey the law of God. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another…” (Rom. 2:14-15). This is often referred to as “natural revelation” or “the light of nature”. We have a natural disposition, or a constitutional inclination, to obey the law of God. By divine design we have a constitutional bias against sin. God has designed our nature to be in favor of virtue or goodness.
Alfred T. Overstreet said, “God created all men with a good nature. All sin is a corruption of man’s nature, it is a perversion of man’s nature. It is rebellion against our nature – it is rebellion against the ‘law of God written in our hearts’ and against the God who has written his law in our hearts.”1 He also said, “The nature we are born with teaches us to reject evil and choose good… Men must go against their nature to sin.”2
Winkie Pratney said, “Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.”3
Charles Finney said, “The constitution of a moral being as a whole, when all the powers are developed, does not tend to sin, but strongly in an opposite direction…”4
We have been so created by God that we naturally feel the pains of conscience when we do what is wrong and we naturally have peace of mind when we do what is right. When the idea of right and wrong is developed within the mind, we naturally feel good when we choose to do what is right and we naturally feel bad when we choose to do what is wrong. It is not by choice that we feel that way, it is by nature. By design, our sensibilities naturally respond or react when our will chooses contrary to, or in conformity with, the knowledge of our mind.
Even a transgressor can say “I consent unto the law that it is good” (Rom. 7:16) because of “the law of” his “mind” (Rom. 7:23). A sinner can say, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22) which is a classic way of referring to our God given conscience. If the unregenerate did not consent unto the goodness law, they could never be convicted and consequently converted. They could never feel guilt or be convinced that they are justly condemned if they did not consent to the goodness of the law which they have chosen to violate. A man would feel justified in violating a bad law but a man would feel condemned for violating a good law. If the law is wrong, the transgressor is right. If the law is right, the transgressor is wrong. A man can only feel guilty and his mind can only recognize that he was wrong for his transgression if his mind is convinced that the law which was violated was a good law.
Since God has created our nature with a conscience, or a natural knowledge of right and wrong, we naturally approve of the moral attributes of God and other benevolent beings and we naturally disapprove of the moral attributes of the devil and other selfish beings. Epic tales of good vs. evil in both literature and Hollywood depend upon mankind’s ability to distinguish between good and evil and mankind’s natural approval of the good and natural disapproval of evil. Think of any famous tale of good vs. evil, or think of any story that has a “good guy” and a “bad guy”. What was it that made the “good guy” good? It was that he cared about other people. We naturally know what the Bible also says, that love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14). What was it that made the “bad guy” bad? It was that he cared supremely for himself. We naturally admire and respect a man’s good moral character. Through our conscience we naturally know that benevolence is right and selfishness is wrong. It is because of our conscience, or the natural moral knowledge God has given us, that we naturally approval of what is right and good and naturally disapprove of what is evil and wrong.
I remember as a young child on the playground of my elementary school seeing a little boy being picked on by another boy. I remember being naturally outraged at the abuse the child was suffering by the bully. I naturally knew that the way he was being treated by the bully was wrong and consequently I naturally felt upset over it. Having care and concern for the young and innocent is a “natural affection” (Rom. 1:31; 2 Tim. 3:3). These thoughts and feelings I had were not the origination of my own choice but were the result of the design of God. It was by nature, not by choice, that I was disturbed over this unjust treatment. It is natural to be upset over the abuse an innocent person suffers at the hands of a bully; it is unnatural not to be so.
Through the habitual choice of sin a moral being is capable of numbing their conscience. Through continually ignoring your conscience, you can desensitize yourself so that you can have a seared conscience (1 Tim. 2:4). This state of insensitivity is not a natural state, but an unnatural state. It is a degenerate state which is arrived at through habitual choice. God speaks of Israel after they continually rebelled against Him and He said, “Where they ashamed when they had committed abominations? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush…” (Jer. 6:15; 8:12) This state of being is not how God makes us, or how we are born, but how we can make ourselves through our free will. Extreme cases of this degenerate state would be sociopaths and cereal killers. These are the exceptions and not the rule for mankind. The average or normal person does feel good when doing right and feels bad when doing wrong. That is normal or natural and anything else is abnormal and unnatural.
It should be understood that a man is not virtuous because he feels bad for doing wrong. Even the unconverted naturally feel bad for doing wrong. That is a natural reaction that the sensibilities have in response to the consciousness of the choices of the will and the moral knowledge of the mind. Our feelings naturally react when our will chooses to obey or disobey our conscience. Moral character is not determined by the states of the sensibilities but by the states of the will. A man is virtuous if he actually chooses what is virtuous. A man is not virtuous because he has a natural tendency towards virtue. His will is free to live according to his nature or to choose that which is against nature. Man’s character is derived from his will choosing according to, or contrary to, the conscience God created as part of his nature.
We must not confuse character with constitution. Nature and character must be distinguished between, lest we confuse our natural attributes with our moral attributes. Character is determined by our own will. Our constitution or nature is determined by God’s will. Moral character relates to voluntary states, not involuntary states. There is no moral character in man’s involuntary nature. Man did not consent to or choose what type of nature or natural tendencies he would have and therefore his moral character does not consist in his nature or natural tendencies. Man’s natural tendency does not show any virtue in the transgressor, rather, it shows the goodness of our Designer. God has given us our nature and therefore our nature reveals the character of God. God has so constituted man that we naturally know right from wrong, we naturally approve of the right and disapprove of the wrong, and naturally feel good when we do right and naturally feel bad when we do wrong. In this way God has created us with a natural tendency towards virtue.
Some may think that if I am saying that mankind has a natural tendency towards virtue that mankind is not sinful. The truth is that a man is a sinner, who truly deserves punishment and therefore needs forgiveness through the atonement of Christ, because while God has given mankind the natural ability to obey Him, and He has given us the natural tendency to obey Him, we have nevertheless chosen to sin. Despite all the efforts of God, both internal and external to man, mankind has still chosen to rebel against the good moral government of God. All men everywhere have personally and freely chosen to be sinners (Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12.) despite our natural tendency towards virtue and our natural ability to do the will of God. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way...” (Isa. 53:6). “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” (Ecc. 7:29). We have used our natural ability of choice to choose contrary to the design of our nature. All men have deliberately chosen what they have naturally known is wrong. Sinners have abused their constitution and misused their nature. Man, not God, is at blame for sin because sin is the result of free will, not the result of a sinful nature.
Gordon C. Olson said, “Moral beings themselves are the author of their own rebellion, which is an unintelligent abuse of their God-given endowments of personality…. It is man who has abused his God-given freedom.”5 Paris Reidhead said, “Are people in trouble spiritually because they inherit some spiritual defect from their parents or grandparents? No. They are in trouble because when they reach the age of accountability they deliberately turn their own way - they commit their will to the principle and practice of pleasing themselves as the end of their being. That is sin.”6 He also said, "Now remember, sin is a crime. It is the committal of the will to the principle and practice of governing one's life to please one's self. In other words, when the Scripture says, 'all have sinned,' it is saying that upon reaching the age of accountability, every individual has chosen to govern and control his life to please himself... We know that upon reaching the age of accountability, each of us chose as the principle by which we would live: 'I am going to govern and control my own life."7
While it is true that our natural tendency is for virtue as far as our conscience is concerned, but our natural tendency is for self-gratification, as far as our flesh is concerned. Our flesh doesn’t care if we gratify it naturally or unnaturally, lawfully or unlawfully, it just wants to be gratified. The reason many think that we have a “natural tendency towards sin” is because they are thinking of our flesh, but our flesh doesn’t want “sin” as if “sin” was the end in mind or object sought. The flesh wants gratification, whether it comes through sin or through lawful means.
We have a constitutional, natural, God given desire for gratification. The flesh and mind that God has given us has natural desires that can be gratified through natural and lawful means. Sin is the choice of the will to gratify these natural desires through unnatural and unlawful means. F. Lagard Smith said, "We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted." He said that sin is to "pervert... natural, legitimate, human desires."8 Augustine said, "Evil is making a bad use of a good thing."9
A perfect example of this is the narrative of Eve’s temptation and sin. We are told that she was tempted, not because she had a sinful nature, but because she had natural God given desires which the devil tempted her to gratify through forbidden means. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Gen. 3:6). The narrative of Jesus’ temptation in the desert shows the devil appealing to the natural desires that Jesus’ body had (Luke 4:3). This is why we must choose to keep our body under subjection (1 Corinthians 9:27). “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh…” (Gal. 5:17). Our flesh wants us to be self-indulgent and practice self-gratification but the Spirit tells us to practice self-control and self-denial, choosing to our flesh in its proper place and make a proper use of it. Our flesh has its proper place and proper function and its desires have a natural and lawful way of being gratified. Sin is to misuse our flesh and gratify its desires unnaturally and unlawfully.
Michael Pearl said, “The root of all sin is founded in runaway indulgence of God-given desires… Drives which are not in themselves evil, nonetheless, form the seedbed on which sin will assuredly grow… As the body of flesh was the medium of Eve’s sin and of Christ’s temptation, so it is the implement of your child’s development into selfishness – which, at maturity, will constitute sinfulness.”10
Charles Finney said, “The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he yielded to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” 11
An example would be our sexual desires. The attraction between the sexes is considered a “natural attraction”. It is normal and natural and is not in and of itself wrong. God has given us our sex drive. These desires are God given. God intended for man to populate the world. God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiple” (Gen. 1:22, 28). Julian of Eclanum rightly said “that the sexual impulse—that is, that the virility itself, without which there can be no intercourse—is ordained by God.”12 God designed men and women for each other. If a man and a woman commit themselves to each other through marriage, and engage in a sexual relationship with each other within that marriage, they are naturally and lawfully satisfying or fulfilling their God given desires (Heb. 13:4). Natural attraction is a normal state of the flesh, but lust in the sinful sense is a state of the will. It is a sin to intentionally look at a women, whom you are not married to, lustfully (Matt. 5:28) but there is no sin in marital sex or in the fleshly passions which are involved, so long as these desires are fulfilled lawfully and naturally.
When a person engages in any form of sexual immorality, such as fornication, homosexuality, or sodomy, they are choosing contrary to God’s intention, contrary to our design, and are trying to satisfy or fulfill their God given sexual desires in an unnatural and an unlawful manner. Fornication is a sin against our body (1 Cor. 6:18), homosexuality is against nature (Rom. 1:26) and sodomy is an abuse of our flesh (1 Cor. 6:9). Our will is free to choose to gratify our flesh lawfully or unlawfully, naturally or unnaturally.
The fact that our nature or body is susceptible to temptation does not mean that we have a “sinful nature”, a “sinful flesh”, or a “sinful body”. We must distinguish between sin and temptation. The desires of the body are the occasions of temptation (Jas. 1:14-15) but sin itself is a choice of the will (John 5:14, John 8:11, Rom. 6:12; Rom. 6:19 Eph. 4:26; 1 Jn. 3:4). Charles Finney said, “the appetites and passions tend so strongly to self-indulgence. These are temptations to sin, but sin itself consists not in these appetites and propensities, but in the voluntary committal of the will to their indulgence. This committal of the will is selfishness.”13
Sin is contrary to the design of our body. It is an abuse and misuse of our flesh. An example is the sin of drunkenness. Drunkenness is an unnatural state of mind and body. Sobriety is a natural state. Drunkenness is an “induced” state. Liquor and beer require an “acquired taste”. Our body naturally rejects alcohol when the body becomes inebriated or intoxicated. Our body reacts with vomiting and headaches which show that the sin of drunkenness is contrary to our nature, it is contrary to our design, it is contrary to the proper function of our flesh. We have to corrupt our body to enjoy cigarettes or to crave alcohol. Our bodies do not naturally have those enjoyments or cravings. It is through choice that we corrupt our flesh, degenerate our nature, or pervert our body to enjoy and crave these things.
These unnatural desires of the flesh do not, in and of themselves, constitute sin. Drug babies for example cannot be considered “sinful” just because they inherit a flesh that has these unnatural cravings. Sin or sinfulness does not consist in the states of the body or in the states of the sensibilities. All moral character consists in the states of the will. A person could decide to no longer abuse mind altering substances while their flesh is going through withdrawals. If a person’s body craves drugs, but they choose not to gratify these cravings, than they are experiencing temptation but are not sinning.
Charles Finney said, “If these feelings are not suffered to influence the will… if such feelings are not cherished, and are not suffered to shake the integrity of the will; they are not sin. That is, the will does not to them, but the contrary. They are only temptations. If they are allowed to control the will, to break forth in words and actions, then there is sin; but the sin does not consist in the feelings, but in the consent of the will, to gratify them.” 14 Paris Reidhead said, “Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way."15 Winkie Pratney said, “Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.”16
We cannot say that our flesh is “sinful” or that we have a “sinful nature” just because our flesh or nature is susceptible to temptation. It is not “sinful” to be tempted. Jesus Christ was tempted yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Therefore temptation is not sin. Sinfulness is violation of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). God’s law tells us what type of choices we should and shouldn’t make (Exo. 20:3-17), not what type of body or nature we should or shouldn’t have. Therefore choices can be sinful, but a body or a nature cannot be. Our flesh is just dirt (Gen. 2:7, Gen. 3:19) and therefore it cannot be “sinful”. You cannot have sinful dirt. Dirt does not violate any commandment. There is no commandment that says, “thou shalt not be made out of dirt”. Even if there was such a commandment, our violation of it would not be our fault but God’s fault, since it was God who made us out of dirt.
While it is sinful to selfishly live after the flesh (Rom. 8:13), or to be living to gratify our flesh (Rom. 8:7), it is not sinful to have a flesh. We know that it is not sinful to have a flesh because Jesus Christ was sinless (2 Cor. 5:21) and He had a flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). Jesus had the same type of flesh that we have. “For as much than as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same…. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren…” (Heb. 2:14, 16-17). Jesus made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3) which means Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). The word “flesh” is sometimes used synonymous with men (Gen. 6:12, Matt. 16:17). Jesus was morally perfect (2 Cor. 5:21) even before He had a glorified, resurrected, or perfect body, even while he had a body which was subjected to death (Heb. 2:14). We must differentiate between moral depravity and physical depravity and we must distinguish between moral perfection (Philippians 3:15) and physical perfection (Philippians 3:11-12). What is physical relates to the flesh but what is moral relates to the will or heart.
Charles Finney said, “The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man’s nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.”17
The Gnostic’s taught that the flesh was sinful in and of itself which is why they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). Gnosticism attributes moral qualities to states of matter. The Bible says our flesh is an instrument or a tool which we could use for sin or for righteousness. Paul said, “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” (Rom. 6:13) and “…for as ye have yielded your members servants of uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” (Rom. 6:19).
To counteract the Gnostic idea that matter was intrinsically evil, or that the flesh was in and of itself sinful, Paul said that we can choose to sanctify our flesh, to set apart our bodies for the service of God. “I beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Rom. 12:1). “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor.” (1 Thes. 4:3-4). “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thes. 5:23). “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” (1 Tim. 2:8).
We certainly cannot have a glorified body in this life but we can have a sanctified body in this life. That means that we cannot have a physically perfect body in this life (Philippians 3:11-12) but we certainly don’t have to use our body to sin or gratify our flesh through sin. We can sanctify our flesh. We can set apart our body from sin to the service of God.
If we fail to distinguish between sin and temptation, between the physical and the moral, between nature and character, between natural attributes and moral attributes, we will fall into the error of Gnosticism. While I was preaching on North Carolina State University I asked a Calvinist, “Is the body a sin?” He said, “Yes our bodies are made of sin.” I asked, “You can put sin under a microscope and look at it?” He said, “Sure.” While I was preaching on Alabama A&M a man said to me, “You can’t stop sinning. Even waking up is a sin because you wake up in sinful flesh.” While I was open air preaching to students at Tyler Junior College, I said, "Sin is a voluntary choice to violate God's law!" A Calvinist in the crowd responded by saying, "Your body is sin. You are a sinner because you have a body. And so long as you are in your body, you are a sinner!"
After traveling the length and breadth of this nation and talking to thousands of people I have concluded that Gnosticism is alive and well today. The idea that your body is sinful and consequently you cannot be morally perfect until you get a glorified body is pure Gnosticism. Gnosticism fails to distinguish between physical depravity and moral depravity. Gnostic moral philosophy says that sin is a substance of matter and is not limited to free will choices. To view sin as a state of the body, or a state of human nature, rather than a state of the will, is to have a Gnostic view of sin. The whole idea that man has a “sinful nature” or that man’s nature is sinful, that man is sinful through hereditary inheritance rather than through voluntary choice, is nothing more than the remains of Gnostic philosophy surviving through Augustinian and Calvinistic theology. These notions were foreign to the Early Church and even refuted by them, as they were held by the Gnostics only until Augustine converted from Manichean Gnosticism and brought these views with him. Many throughout Church history have publicly refuted these Gnostic views of human flesh and human nature.
Charles Finney said, “To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.”18 A writer in the Early Church said, “… it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault.”19 Winkie Pratney said, “To equate humanity with sinfulness is to make God the Author of His own worst enemy; to make God responsible for the thing that has brought Him unhappiness.”20 Julian of Eclanum said, “God is the Maker of all those that are born, and that the sons of men are God's work; and that all sin descends not from nature, but from the will.”21
Some today may think that sin is natural because they have developed a habit of sinning. Choice creates character and character creates habits. Through the continual choice of disobedience men have made sin “natural” or “normal” for them, in the sense that it has become their habit. This habit of sin, or tendency towards unlawful gratification, is the result of their own will and not the product of the hands of God. Their habit comes, not from their nature, but from their will.
When the Bible talks about the natural man (1 Cor. 2:14) it is talking about a sensual and carnal man. It is someone who chooses to be governed by their passions rather than being governed by their conscience. When the Bible says that sinners are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) it is talking about those who live for the gratification of their flesh. The context of men being under God’s wrath by nature is talking about a former manner of life, addressing a previous lifestyle. "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world... among whom also all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh..." (Eph. 2:2-3) Instead of obeying their conscience, living for God, and putting their flesh in its proper place (a spiritual life), they ignore their conscience and live for themselves by living for the gratification of their flesh (a carnal life). This is a natural life as opposed to a spiritual life. Living a natural or carnal life is selfishly living for the gratification of your flesh.
In summary, our constitution is not sinful in and of itself. Our constitution could be used as a tool for righteousness or unrighteousness. We do not have a constitutional tendency towards sin but towards virtue. We naturally know good and evil because God has written his laws upon our conscience and we consequently we naturally feel good when we do what is right and we naturally feel bad when we do wrong. That is the way God has designed our constitution. Feeling bad is an undesirable state. It is a state of misery. Feeling good is a desirable state. It is a state of happiness. Therefore we are naturally prone to virtue; we have a natural tendency towards goodness. That is, as far as our conscience and subsequent feelings or sensibilities are concerned. Our sensibilities respond to the knowledge of our mind, which is why we start to feel bad when we recognize that we have done what is wrong. Regarding our flesh, it wants gratification. Our flesh feels good if we gratify it lawfully or unlawfully, but if we gratify it unlawfully we start to feel the pains of conscience. Our flesh inclines us towards gratification, but our conscience or intelligence inclines us towards virtue.
It makes sense that if God would give us the natural tendency towards virtue, and a natural approval of the good, that He would also give us the natural ability to do what is good. Or you could argue the other way around. If God gives us the natural ability to do good because He wants us to do what is good, why wouldn’t he give us the natural tendency towards virtue and the natural approval of it? If God wants us to avoid sin, why wouldn’t He give us the constitutional tendency away from sin? Since God wants us to obey His Will, He has given us the natural approval, the natural tendency, and the natural ability to obey His Will.
1. Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 8). 2. Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 6-7). 3. Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78). 4. Charles Finney (Lectures on Systematic Theology, 1851 Edition, published by BRCCD, p. 348) 5. Gordon C. Olson (The Entrance of Sin into the World, pg. 31, 38). 6. Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 64-65) 7. Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 85). 8. F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, page 134-135). 9. Augustine (Confessions and Enchiridion, trans. and ed. by Albert C. Outler, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, N. D, page 326-338, section 36). 10. Michael Pearl (To Train Up A Child, No Greater Joy, pg. 15-20) 11. Charles Finney (You Can Be Holy, published by Whitaker House, p. 215). 12. Julian of Eclanum (Letter to Rome) 13. Charles Finney (Lectures on Systematic Theology, 1851 Edition, published by BRCCD, p. 348). 14. Charles Finney (Lectures on Systematic Theology, 1851 Edition, published by BRCCD, p. 191). 15. Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142) 16. Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 83). 17. Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart) 18. Charles Finney (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Bethany House, p. 261). 19. Early Church writer (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 168, published by The Boydell Press). 20. Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, published by Bethany House, pg. 78). 21. Julian of Eclanum (Letter To Rufus Of Thessalonica)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 22, 2009 15:24:15 GMT -5
There is no atonement system for civil government. A court simply seeks to know whether the law has been violated or not. If it has been, the penalty is executed. There is no atonement in civil court through which the penalty can be remitted or withheld.
The atonement only applies to God's moral government. The atonement makes it possible for our penalty of eternal hell to be remitted, but it does not save us from any civil penalties which we deserve for crimes against the society.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 22, 2009 15:19:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 22, 2009 15:17:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 22, 2009 15:15:43 GMT -5
What does "without God" mean?
We couldn't live or breath without God...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 20, 2009 15:00:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 18, 2009 18:44:12 GMT -5
I hope we can preach together sometime during the Spring semester.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 18, 2009 18:43:24 GMT -5
Glad you read it and enjoyed it. I know this one was very long. I got a little behind on sending out newsletters so this one had a lot in it. I figure people might just take the sections or topics they are interested in and read those parts. I plan on putting all these reports into a book and printing it through www.LuLu.com . It is print on demand, so you don't need to put up any money up front. You should look into putting all your reports into a book and printing them through LuLu Bro Micah.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 11, 2009 1:47:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 10, 2009 14:30:59 GMT -5
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, KEARNEY
This was both a new campus and a new State for me. I praise God that he is opening up more doors which enables us to take the Gospel to new places. On this particular campus we were able to find a very nice hill to preach from. This was an ideal location because it was right near the student union building, it provided us with elevation so we can easily address the whole crowd, and it helped to keep the crowd back so that they did not close in on us. This location also gave us very good acoustics so that we can be clearly heard from all of the surrounding area.
THE POLICE ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY
It was shortly after we started preaching and drew a crowd that the Police arrived on the scene. After realizing that they could not get us to leave, they decided to try to get the crowd to leave. One of the Officers started walking around to the groups that were listening and telling them to leave. Some of the groups actually listened to him! I began to preach against him. “Don’t listen to that Officer. He can’t make you leave. He is helping you to hell!” The crowd seemed shocked that I would publicly preach against the Police Officer who was standing right there. But this helped to keep the attention of the crowd so that the Officer was not successful in diminishing the crowd.
DID JESUS GIVE US A LICENSE TO SIN?
Many of those on campus were claiming to be Christians. But their form of Christianity was compromised and corrupt. One individual told me, “Jesus died for my sins, so I can live however I want!” The Bible explicitly says that the blood of Jesus does not cover us if we continue to willfully sin. The blood of Jesus covers us if we forsake our sins. Jesus did not die to give us a license to sin. If Jesus gave us a license to sin, then Jesus is the friend of the devil and the enemy of God! But this is unthinkable! Anyone who simply studies the teachings of Jesus can clearly see that He was against sin! It is unthinkable that Jesus provided an atonement so that we can be forgiven while we continue to sin. Jesus Christ provided an atonement so that we can be forgiven when we forsake our sins!
IS A BELIEVER STILL SAVED IF THEY COMMIT MURDER?
The professing Christians on the campus particularly objected to our message of repentance and holiness. They defending sin by saying that no man can stop sinning. This lead them to believe that a person is saved while they are still sinning. They believed that there was no sin that could cause a believer to lose his salvation. I asked them if a believer committed adultery and murder, like King David did, would they perish if they did not repent? They actually said that a believer is still saved while they are committing adultery and murder! It seemed to me that the so called Christianity that this campus was used to was anything but real Biblical Christianity.
“YOU ARE INSULTING US”
The abbreviation of the University of Nebraska, Kearney is “UNK”. Many of the students proudly proclaimed, in multiple instances, that “You can’t spell DRUNK without UNK”. Apparently this campus was known for being a party school. We publicly confronted and boldly condemned the sins of the campus, calling them to repent for the remission of sins. Some of the students said, “You are insulting us”. I said, “I am telling you the truth about your character. If telling you the truth about your character is insulting to you, change your character!”
MOST HATED PERSON ON CAMPUS
One of the students said to me, “Do you realize that you are the most hated person on campus right now?” I responded, “No I am not, Jesus is!” The students do not know me enough personally to personally hate me. They hate me for preaching what Jesus preached. Jesus told us that since the world hated him, the world would hate us. And Jesus said that the world hated him for telling them that their works were evil. Many of the students flatter themselves and say, “I don’t hate God” or “I don’t hate Jesus”. But if a person loves God, they would keep His commandments. Anyone who loves sin must hate God, because if you love what is evil you will hate what is righteous. I told the crowd that even while they might hate me, I love them. I love them enough to warn them about hell, to warn them about sin, and to call them to Jesus, despite all of their mocking and ridicule.
“YOU HAVE A DEMON!”
As I preached against sin, calling the sinners to repentance and to put their faith in Jesus Christ, somebody in the crowd shouted out “You have a demon!” This was a first for me. But it reminded me of what they said about John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. When a man is truly full of the Holy Ghost, a sinful world will accuse him of having a demon. When men are in sin, and the devil comforts them, they think it is the Holy Ghost. And when men are in sin, and the Holy Ghost convicts them, they think it is the devil.
HASTINGS COLLEGE
This particular campus was actually a private Presbyterian School. But right in front of their student union building is a public street with a public sidewalk. A few years ago my friend tried to preach from that sidewalk but was told by the Police that it was owned by the campus. That was a mistake that cost them financially through a lawsuit my friend filed. Now men can preach from that public sidewalk without being threatened by the Police.
CHRISTIAN IN NAME, NOT CHRISTIAN IN PRACTICE
While this was supposed to be a Christian College, and many of the students claimed to be Christians, the reactions and behaviors which I saw during the preaching was no different than what I see on secular campuses from professing pagans. These students were defending homosexuality, abortion, fornication, drugs, filthy music, etc. The name “Christian” doesn’t mean much today. Interestingly enough, they said that they were Christians while they were defending their sin, but they said that we were not Christians because we were condemning their sin.
OPPOSITION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
The supposed Christian administration of this supposed Christian College actually told the students not to listen to us preach. One of the administrators was out there telling the students to leave. I rebuked her for helping these students go to hell. Why should anyone be told not to hear the Gospel? The administration will never tell the students not to listen to MTV, but they will tell them not to listen to Gospel preachers! This is very sad.
DRESSING STUPID
During one of our days at the campus, many of the girls were walking around in very strange, weird, and silly outfits. I asked one of the girls, “Why are you girls dressed like that”. They said, “We have to dress stupid to join the sorority clubs.” I said, “You’re telling me that you have to be stupid to join a sorority?” That got some laughs. It does amaze me how many are willing to publicly make themselves fools in order to join these boys and girls clubs, but so few are willing to publicly be fools for Christ. Is Christ not more valuable than a little club?
PEACE PEACE WHEN THERE IS NO PEACE
The crowds that gathered were hostile. They viciously opposed the preaching of repentance and God’s call to holiness. I can honestly say that the crowd was made up of sin loving God haters. But while we were preaching, and older man who is apparently an alumni from the College and is now a Pastor of a Church, stood in front of the crowd and started flattering them with compliments. One phrase I remember was, “You are the head and not the tail” which is a common T. D. Jakes line, and also a quote from the Bible. I thought to myself, “This is a crowd of hostile sinners that are defending sin and are attacking the ways of the Lord. Why is this Pastor talking to them as if they were not only alright with God, but as if God was pleased with them?” It reminded me of the false prophets in the Old Testament who told Israel that they were alright with God, and even pleasing to God, when in fact God’s wrath was coming upon them. Yet when the true prophets called Israel to repentance and warned them about God’s judgment, they were accused of being false prophets. Of course when the Pastor finished his little sermon, the crowd erupted in applause and cheers. I was reminded of what Jesus said. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did they of the false prophets before you.
RESISTING THE LOVE OF GOD
Since the topics of our preaching included man’s sin and God’s wrath, and we did not preach exclusively on God’s love and mercy, we were accused of not being loving and not showing the love of God. I said, “If I didn’t love you guys, I wouldn’t be out here at all. If I didn’t love you guys, I wouldn’t be telling you about the consequences of sin and the dangers of hell. Jesus said that as many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore we have been showing you the love of God today, but many of you have been resisting and rejecting God’s love because you will not heed our rebuke and warning.
YOU KNOW YOU ARE EFFECTIVE WHEN….
During one of our outreaches to this campus it began to rain. At the prime during that day our crowd was around 70 people. But by the time it started raining the crowd was around 30 people. I was the only one who seemed to have been prepared for the rain because I brought an umbrella. Nevertheless, the crowd stayed in the rain for a couple hours to discuss the Bible with us! At certain times it was pouring rain very hard, yet the people stayed. Though they were not all receptive to what we were saying, but were still hostile and opposed themselves, they stayed in the rain for hours nonetheless to talk with us about Jesus Christ. When you can get those who are very hostile to true Christianity to stay in the rain and talk with you about the Bible, you know you are being effective.
A STRIP CLUB, NEBRASKA
When we were preaching on the University of Nebraska campus a sinner asked me, “If I invited you to come to a Frat party tonight, would you come and preach to everybody?” I said, “I can’t go to a Frat party tonight because I’m already going to the strip club.” And that is what we did. With our Bibles and some Gospel banners we went to the strip club that was on the outskirts of town to call sinners to repentance. We were able to preach to waitresses and strippers as they walked from their car to the club. We also were able to preach to the patrons as they made their way into the den of iniquity. One man stayed outside and listened to the preaching, heckled us, and asked us questions the entire time we were there! That is pretty good considering the fact that we were competing with strippers! Amazingly, some of the men objected to us using the word “whore”. Apparently you can’t even call a whore a whore anymore. One man in particular said that his girlfriend was in their and threatened to beat us up if we called her a whore! I thought to myself, “If he really cares about her, why doesn’t he care that she is a stripper!”
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, IOWA CITY
This is a campus that hears preachers at least once a year. There is a grassy lawn area on campus known as the “Pentacrest” which is known for being the preaching spot. But when I walked around campus to check out the area, the lawn area didn’t seem to have much student traffic. There was a brick sidewalk on a different location on campus that did seem to get a great deal of traffic during the class change. I decided that was where we were going to preach. The buildings in the area gave good acoustics and there was even a wall for me to stand on while speaking.
HOMOSEXUAL PRIDE
I had heard that this area had a very large homosexual population and that the University especially did. It was not long after being on campus that we encountered some unashamed homosexuals. After being on campus with a Gospel banner, before we really got into the open air preaching, there was a homosexual couple that stopped right in front of us to make out. That shows you the unashamed and blatant sinfulness of this campus.
After we started preaching and drew a crowd, a man in the crowd opposed me and claimed to be a Christian. I decided to put him to the test. Before the whole crowd I asked him, “Is homosexuality a sin?” He said, “I have friends that are homosexuals.” I quickly responded, “But God doesn’t!” While it is common to hear people say that “God is the friend of sinners” that is simply no the case. A sinner is the enemy of God. A sinner is at war with God. A sinner is under the anger and wrath of God. It amazes me that professing Christians will proudly proclaim that they have homosexual friends, when this is a claim that God Himself cannot make. But if this man was truly the friend of homosexuals, he would have publicly proclaimed that it was a sin, that it leads to hell, and that it needs to be repented of.
WHY SINNER’S GET ANGRY
It is very common for us to deal with angry crowds because we are publicly exposing and condemning their sin. We believe that it is necessary to expose and condemn their sin, so that they need their need for God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ. But when you call someone out on their sin, they have the opportunity of receiving it or of trying to justify themselves. As we were preaching and sinners were getting angry, one of the students who I did not know rebuked the crowd and said “the reason you get angry is because you want to justify yourself”. That was a good point. Men want to think of themselves in the best light possible. Whenever any evidence is brought before their mind, which does not put them in the best light, they get angry because they want to be justified in the way that they live their lives. But it is through the disturbing and painful process of the self-awareness of our sinfulness, that we are brought to true repentance and conversion to Christ.
SINCE JESUS DIED, LET’S KEEP SINNING
One student asked me, “But didn’t Jesus die for our sins?” I said, “Yes he did.” He said, “Well, if Jesus died for our sins, why can’t we keep sinning?” The problem was that he was taught a faulty atonement view. He thinks that he can keep racking up a debt and Jesus will keep paying the bill. If this were true, there would be no need for repentance at all. I explained to the crowd that atonement was a substitute for our penalty, so that the remission of our penalty was possible. But God does not actually repent the penalty for our sins until we forsake our sins. Salvation became available at Calvary but salvation does not become actually until conversion. God will not turn from His wrath until sinners turn from their sins. Again, Jesus didn’t die to give us a license to sin. Jesus didn’t die so we can have the mercy of God while we continue in our sins. Jesus died so that we could be pardoned by God, if and when we give up our rebellion against Him. While the atonement is one condition of God’s mercy, repentance and faith are also conditions. Until the conditions of God’s mercy are met, which are repentance, atonement, and faith, God does not grant His mercy to any sinner.
REACHING MY TARGET AUDIENCE
I regularly hear from students this question, “Why are you hear? Nobody agrees with you? Everyone is mocking you.” My response is, “You guys are my target audience. If I wanted to preach to those who agreed with me, I would have gone to Church. But I came here to preach because I know that there are people here who disagree with me. Those who disagree with me are my target audience. I want to persuade the minds who are in opposition. I want to hear the objections that you have against Christianity so that I can address them. Because you guys have been opposing me and disagreeing with me all day, you have encouraged me to stay all week! There is obviously a need on this campus.”
THE PUBLIC TRIAL OF JUDGMENT DAY
During the open air meeting, a student asked me why there was going to be a Judgment Day at all. Why doesn’t God just send the wicked to hell, and let the righteous into Heaven, without a Judgment Day? Since God already knows what our sins are, and we already know what our sins are, what is the need for the Day of Judgment? I explained that God is the Ruler of the entire universe. The authority and influence of His Rule depends upon the impression that His subjects have of His justice and goodness. If God sent criminals to eternal prison, without a public trial, without publicly brining before the entire universe the evidence of the crimes which have been committed, His universe could question the goodness and justice of souls being damned. But when this public trial reveals all the evidence of their crimes, God will be seen as completely justified in eternally condemning them. His righteous universe will reflect upon the goodness of God, that He is protecting them from such wicked and selfish souls. Without a public trial, His justice and goodness could be questioned. But through a public trial, His justice and goodness will be clearly seen.
FIRST TIME OPEN AIR PREACHING
My friend and host, Darin, came out with me all week to campus. He open air preached for the first time during our first outreach on campus. He took over the crowd and ministered for about thirty minutes. When I first started open air preaching, it was hard to preach for ten minutes. Preaching for thirty minutes you first time is very good! So far on this tour we have seen three people open air preach for the first time in their lives. I pray that God will continue to send forth laborers into the harvest field!
Darin’s Pastor also came out with us. He allowed us to park our 5th wheel trailer at his church during our time there. He used to do a lot of open air preaching on campus back in the 80’s. He also started doing some open air preaching again while we were there! It is always encouraging when I see Pastors involved in evangelism, because they are the leaders of their flock. The best way to get a Church involved in evangelism is to get their Pastor involved in evangelism.
FOLLOWERS OF JOSEPH SMITH
As I was preaching to the crowd I saw two “elder” Mormon missionaries walking our way. I thought that they might be up for a discussion so I began to preach, “Only Jesus Christ can save your soul. Not Mohammed, not Buddha, not JOSEPH SMITH! Only Jesus Christ.” That got their attention enough for them to stop and listen to me, but they did not engage me in any dialog. They did however give their camera phone to a student in the crowd and that student asked me, “What do you think about Mormonism” as he filmed my answer for them. I rebuked Mormonism. I said that they were not real Christians, they were make believers. They follow a false Jesus, who is the brother of Satan. They believe their underwear is holy. They expect to have celestial sex for all of eternity, to populate the planets that they will be gods over, so long as they are good Mormons in this life. They believe that God used to be a man, who was promoted to Godhood because he was a good Mormon. And the true Mormons practice polygamy. The Mormons did not respond, but they did laugh and was grateful to the student who filmed it for them. I thought to myself, “This is great. They asked me what I thought about Mormonism. I gave it a good rebuke. They filmed it. And now they will probably show it to their Mormon friends!”
THE FRIENDS OF JUDGMENT
My sandwich board says, “Warning” and then lists different names of different sinners and ends with “Judgment Is Coming!” One student, trying to be funny, said “When Judgment arrives, will he bring his friends with him?” I paused, thought about it, and said, “Yes. Death and Hell will be accompanying Judgment. When there is judgment for sin, there is death and hell.”
QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED
After the preaching one day I was able to talk in length to one student one on one. After discussing the question of God’s existence and other issues, he said, “But there are just so many unanswered questions that I have about God.” I said, “That is precisely what you would expect from an infinite God. You would expect that there would be questions which you cannot answer.” He seemed satisfied with that answer.
He also questioned the motives of those who wrote the Scriptures. It is very common for College students to tell me that the Bible was written by power hunger politicians who wanted to find a way to control the masses using fear. That shows the biblical and historical ignorance that many of these students have fallen into. I explained how the prophets in the Old Testament who typically hated and often times kills. Jesus Himself was hated and killed. And the Apostles severely suffered and lost their life for their testimony. These were the men who wrote the Bible and their testimonies put them at odds with their family, with the religious world, and with the governments they were under. It is being historically and intellectually dishonest and illogical to say that these men just made up the Scriptures because they were seeking political power and wanted to control the masses using fear. The truth is that they had radical experiences with God, God gave them a message, and they faithfully proclaimed it to the masses who persecuted them for it. If they were seeking fame, fortune, or power, they would have abandoned Christianity as soon as Christ died. It can only be rationally concluded that they were honest, sincere, or genuine, and that their testimonies are credible.
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
I was very excited to arrive in Kentucky because there was a new sandwich board and some boxes of new tracts waiting for me. The new sandwich board reads, “God Punishes Sinners With Hell Fire”, “Jesus Died For Hell Deserving Sinners”, “Repent Sinners Go And Sin No More” and “Stop Sinning Jesus Said Be Perfect”. The new tracts are called “THE TRUTH about God’s moral government and you” and explains how all men have chosen to be sinners, our punishment is eternal hell, the atonement substitutes our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted, and how God will turn from His wrath if we turn from our sins.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO FOLLOW JESUS
It seems everywhere we go we run into Calvinism or its influence. Many in the crowd confessed to being Christians, but our greatest opposition came from those claiming to be Calvinists. We were preaching that we should turn from our sins and trust in Christ and that Jesus Christ, who did not sin, is our example to follow. One of the so called Christians said, “You can’t follow Christ” because he realized that following Christ meant you give up your sins and he didn’t believe it was possible to forsake all your sins. What a terrible theology it is that makes following Christ impossible and forsaking your sins unnecessary. If it is impossible to live without sinning, then Jesus isn’t really our example and we really can’t follow Him. A Christian is someone who follows the example of Christ. The idea that we can’t live without sinning would destroy Christianity itself!
FALSE ACCUSATIONS “YOU’RE A PHARISEE”
Whenever a person preaches a message of total repentance and radical holiness, they will be accused by the compromised Church of being a “Pharisee”. While we were preaching, we were told that Jesus Christ rebuked people like us, because we were telling sinners to give up their sins and that is what the Pharisees did. People seem to think that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they were obeying God and keeping His commandments. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus did not rebuke the Pharisees for being holy, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for being hypocrites. They looked righteous on the outside, but on the inside they were wicked. To call someone a Pharisee because they are living victorious over sin, and are calling others to repent of their sins, is to greatly distort the real situation that was going on with the Pharisees in Jesus’ day.
One of the problems with the Pharisees was that they taught the commandments of men as if they were the commandments of God. On this campus we encountered some real life Pharisees. Those who didn’t believe that it was possible to live free from sin had such a standard of what sin was, that it was impossible to live without it! I talking to one man and explained how temptation is not sin. Sin is the choice to obey temptation. He said, “No. Temptation is a sin.” If temptation is a sin, then of course nobody can avoid sin, not even Jesus Christ! The Bible says Jesus Christ was tempted in all points like we are, yet without sin. Therefore temptation is not a sin!
These Pharisees on campus even said that “natural attraction is a sin”. I argued that natural attraction is not a sin, but is a good thing that was given to us by God. It is not a sin to be attracted to another individual, but it is a sin to intentionally lust or to act on that attraction unlawfully. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind to gratify a natural desire in a forbidden, unnatural, and unlawful way. Sin is the choice to actually gratify that natural desire in a forbidden, unnatural, and unlawful way. We have the free will choice to gratify our flesh lawfully or unlawfully. No man can escape temptation in this life. But we never have to choose to sin in this life. We can live holy lives that are pleasing and glorifying to God.
CAN STRIPPERS BE CHRISTIANS?
The students on this campus seemed to only have exposure to a very compromised form of “Christianity” so called. We were told that you do not need to forsake your sins to get saved, that you can continue in sin and still be saved, and that you can even be an adult xxx stripper and still be a Christian! But these same people accused us of not being Christians because we were calling sinners to repentance and warning them about the wrath that is to come! According to this, you can be a Christian and live in blatant open sin, but you cannot be a Christian if you are calling sinners to repentance. In this view, John the Baptist was not a Christian because he called sinners to repentance, but King Herod might have been even though he was sleeping with his brother’s wife! We are living in a truly apostate age.
THEY STAYED IN THE RAIN
Though many in the crowd was very hostile to our message, when it started to rain they stayed! Whenever this happens I think to myself, “This ministry is truly effect. Not only do we get college students to talk about the bible for hours (something very hard to do), but even when it starts pouring rain they will still stay and talk for hours!”
SAVE YOURSELVES!
I said to the crowd, “Save yourselves!” One of the Calvinist Christians said, “You can’t!” I said, “I was quoting a Bible verse!” If a person’s theology is contradicted by merely quoting a Bible verse, they really need to change their theology!
I was very pleased to be able to preach repentance for the remission of sins on this campus, warning sinners about the Judgment that is to come, and how God can have mercy upon them through the atonement of Jesus Christ if they simply give up their sins. This campus seemed to have heard a false Gospel, one where God forgives you without repentance and does not condemn you if you sin. It was good for this campus to be exposed to the real Christian message since they were used to “compromised Christianity”.
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY
In the past this campus has not allowed open air preachers on to their premises. This year we faxed the University a letter explaining what our legal rights where and how we were planning on preaching on campus. The administration allowed us to preach on this campus without any legal problems.
THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION
I was preaching hot and strong. “God is angry with the wicked every day. The wicked will be cast into hell. God is calling all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day when he will judge the world in righteousness!” Whenever the seed of the Word is sown, the devil comes to sow tares amongst the wheat. One person stood up and told the crowd, “God is love! Everybody sins!.. Be a Jew, be a Muslim, it doesn’t matter!” It is a very common idea that because God is love we can sin and live however we want to live. But if God allowed us to sin and do whatever we wanted to do, He would not be loving. A loving God would give us a law for our well-being. And a loving God would enforce and maintain His law by executing penalties upon transgressors. It does matter to God how we live, because God is love and wants the best for His entire universe.
THE UNIVERSITY WAS CLOSED MINDED & THE HOMOSEXUALS WERE INTOLERANT
The opposition on this campus was tremendous. This might be because the students are not used to getting preachers come through since the administration previously did not allow it. We had many groups out there protesting us. One man was a Satanist priest with a Satanic Bible. Another group claimed to be Christian. But the worse out of all of them was the homosexual group. They came out and would chant their little saying, “We are here. We are queer. We are fabulous, don’t _____ with us”, trying to drown out the preaching. Then after opposing us so viciously, they actually accused us of being intolerant! There was not a single minute of us preaching on campus when this homosexual group showed any tolerance at all towards our Christian message. It is during experiences like this that I realize just how hostile the world really is towards God. Men truly are sinners, rebels against God’s moral government.
THEY CALLED IT A RIOT
The opposition was so great on this campus that we decided the entire SOAPA Conference should go out there together one day. We had a large group of preachers all flying many Gospel banners. Before we even arrived the homosexuals were out their in full force to oppose us. We didn’t even have to start preaching and the campus was in an uproar. Though it was not really a riot, the students started referring to this event as “The GSU Riot”. We certainly turned that campus upside down for Jesus. The Gospel causes no small stir.
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN BIRMINGHAM
I had never preached on this campus before and was excited about doing so. After driving around campus I found the student center where I thought it would be a good place to preach. I found a nice wall to stand on with shade from a tree, with surrounding benches and walls where students could sit. I thought it was a great place to preach and so I started to do so.
UNINFORMED POLICE
After only a few minutes of preaching a Police Officer arrived. He told me that the campus was “private” and therefore could not do this here. I knew that he was mistaken and so I asked to talk to his superior. Shortly after I made the request some more Officers arrived who told me that the University was public but that I needed a permit to do what I was doing. Five feet or so from where I was standing was a city sidewalk. I told the Officers that I would just move to the city easement to avoid the hassle of getting a permit. They had no problem with that.
I began to preach from the sidewalk and the students started to gather. One of the Officers didn’t like what I was saying so he tried to persuade me not to preach in such a way. He said, “I’ve already given you permission to be here”. I explained to him that I did not need his permission to be here. The constitution is all the permission I need. And while he may not like what I am saying, I have the right to say it and I will continue to do so.
ONE STUDENT REPENTS
One student came out to protest me with his homemade sign that said, “God loves me, you, and this crazy guy too.” He stood next to me for a little while but then he put his sign down and simply stayed and listened. I talked to him afterwards and he told me that after listening to me preach for a couple hours, he realized that I was not crazy but was right. He said I was making some really good points and what really got through to him was when I said, “turn or burn”. He was used to compromise lukewarm unholy Christianity and he really liked my “radical message”. I talked with him some more and we prayed together as he repented of his sins.
NOBODY WANTS YOU HERE! CAN YOU PLEASE COME BACK?
My message was not a very popular and well accepted message on the campus. Those who want to continue in their sins do not want you to call them to repentance. Those who want to rule and govern their own lives do not want to hear about their responsibility and accountability to God. People in the crowd told me, “You should leave. Nobody wants you here.” When I told the crowd, “I had such a good day today, I am coming back tomorrow” the crowd erupted in cheers! They seemed very happy that I was going to return to campus.
THE NECESSITY FOR GOD
During my second day on campus I decided to start at square one and talk about the existence of God. I explained that there was a metaphysical necessity for God, an axiological necessity for God, and an epistemological necessity for God.
The metaphysical necessity for God is that the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. The nature of reality (metaphysics) requires the existence of God.
The axiological necessity for God is that, apart from an infinite transcendent mind, there can be no moral absolutes. Without a superior and infallible mind who governs over us, the final court of appeal would be our own finite thinking and understanding. We could not be absolutely sure of moral law, since the views and opinions of men’s minds different and vary so widely. There must be an infinite, infallible, superior, transcendent mind that governs over us, that gives us moral revelations through our conscience, if we are to have any certainty regarding absolute moral law. Axiology (morality) requires the existence of God.
In one of my dialogs with an atheist I asked him, “were the crusades wrong? He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the witch hunts wrong?” He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the inquisitions wrong?” Again he said, “Yes”. Then I asked, “Where does morality come from?” He didn’t know what to say. If he said morality comes from the minds of individuals, how could these individuals have been wrong if they thought this was the right thing to do? If he said morality comes from society, how could these societies be wrong since this is what they thought was right to do? If there is no transcendent God, who infallibly knows what is right and what is wrong, who writes His law upon our very own conscience, all we can have is relative or subjective morality, but nothing that is absolute or objective. We all know right from wrong because God, who infallibly knows what’s right and what’s wrong, has revealed it to us.
Besides, if we are random accidents of the Universe, instead of precious and valuable creations of God, what would make our well-being absolutely valuable? We could arbitrarily say that we are valuable, but this is not the same as being intrinsically valuable. The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the intrinsic value of well-being. If you take away the intrinsic value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.
The epistemological necessity for God is that, if we are not created and designed by God, how can we trust the accuracy of our five senses, or believe in the reliability of our reason or conscience? Apart from the presupposition of Divine Design, we cannot put any confidence in the accuracy of these means of acquiring knowledge. They could be flawed, inaccurate, and completely deceptive, if we are the result of mere “time and chance”. One atheist told me, “I don’t believe in the accuracy of my five senses.” I said, “You don’t stop at red lights?” I said, “If you don’t believe in the accuracy of your five senses, I sure hope you don’t have a driver’s license!” I went on to say, “Every time you get up in the morning and go to the mirror brush your hair, you are believing in your sense of sight and the sight of others.” Everyone believes in the accuracy of their five senses, but apart from Divine Design, we cannot account for them. Epistemology (study of knowledge and justified belief) necessitates the existence of God.
CAN YOU EMPIRICALLY PROVE GOD?
Atheists will often pride themselves as being “empiricist” and demand that everything be proven empirically. An atheist asked me, “Prove to me empirically that there is a God?” I said, “Empiricism is limited to what you can touch, taste, see, and smell. God is a spiritual being and therefore is naturally outside of the limitations of empiricism. Just as the origin of life, or the origin of species, is outside of the limitations of empiricism. But empirically, we have only seen life come from life. We have never seen life come from non-life. Intelligence comes from intelligence. Sentient beings come from sentient beings. If we are going to limit ourselves to empiricism, we cannot say that we came from nothing or that we came from some unconscious, unintelligent, impersonal cause.”
IF CHRISTIANS LIKE YOU ARE IN HEAVEN
Most of the professing Christians that these students have encountered are soft on sin. They will say things like, “Nobody is perfect” “We are only human” “You can’t live without sinning” “God understands” “God accepts you as you are” etc. Very seldom does a sinner encounter someone who tells them that God is angry with their sin and wants them to give it up. The modern Church can get along with the world because it is friendly towards their sin. But whenever you become the enemy of sin, you become the enemy of the world.
Sinners were telling me, “If Christians like you are in Heaven, I don’t want to go there!” I started responding with, “If sinners like you are in Heaven, then I don’t want to go there! Heaven will be Heaven because there is no sin there. Heaven will be fully of peace, happiness, bliss, and well-being, because everyone in Heaven will obey the law of God. If God let sinners into Heaven, they would ruin the place! I wouldn’t want to go to Heaven if sinners like you were there!”
CAN GOD BE GOOD WHILE CONDEMNING SINNERS?
It is common for students, who want to feel comfortable in their sin, to say things like, “I don’t believe in a God who would condemn anyone to hell. My God is a loving God. He wouldn’t damn anyone!” My response is, “You are right. Your God would never send anyone to hell, because He couldn’t! He is a figment of your imagination!” Then I’ll state, “If you don’t believe in a God who would send sinners to hell, then you don’t believe in a good and intelligent God. A good and intelligent God would give us a law for our well-being and, out of His regard for His law and His love for His universe, would punish transgressors in order to uphold and maintain His law. If there is no hell, God is not intelligent or good.”
HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
I made sure to tell the students, “God wants to have a relationship with you. You were created to have a relationship with God. But sin separates you from God. You cannot know God while you are breaking His commandments. But if you give up your sins, you can have pardon through the atonement of Jesus Christ and enter into a relationship with God!”
REASON SINNERS ARE THE OBJECTS OF GOD’S WRATH
Part of theodicy is explaining to sinners exactly why they are the objects of God’s wrath. I explained, “The reason that you are under the wrath and anger of God is because you are the cause of sin. Sin is not self-existent. Sin is caused by a sinner! If a person took a truck and started running people over, the driver would be the object of the public’s anger. The driver would be the one punishable, not the truck! God is angry with sinners and sends sinners to hell, because sinners are the cause of sin! Machines are not punishable because machines do not have a conscience and a free will. Men are subject to punishment because men have a free will and a conscience.”
I went even further on this point and explained how they were properly the objects of God’s wrath. “There are three reasons why you are under the wrath of God. 1. You have a conscience. You are not ignorant. You know better than to sin. If you didn’t know any better, you could not be responsible or account. It wouldn’t be your fault if you were ignorant. But God has written His moral law upon your very heart so that you have a conscience! 2. You have a free will! You are not some helpless victim who was born a sinner and can’t stop sinning. God has given you the ability of choice. You can freely choose between obeying God or disobeying God. 3. You have used your free will to disobey your conscience! You have freely and deliberately done what you knew was wrong! Crime merits punishment. You rightfully deserve to be punished.”
GOOD NEWS & BAD NEWS
I told the crowd, “I have some good news and I have some bad news. What do you want to hear first?” The crowd said, “The bad news.” I told the crowd, “The bad news is this: you deserve hell! You all deserve to burn in hell. The good news is this. You don’t need to receive what you deserve. God has mercy. Mercy is when God withholds what you deserve. You deserve to be punished, but Jesus Christ provided a substitute for your punishment so that your punishment can be withheld! If you turn from your sins and trust in Christ, you don’t have to receive what you deserve! God promises wrath for those who continue in their sins but God promises mercy to those who give up their sins!”
WHO ARE YOU?
Students will often say things like, “Who are you?” and “Who do you think you are coming out here and telling everyone that they are wrong?” I have started to say, “I am the Conscience of the University of Alabama. I am here to tell you right from wrong and many of you students are living wrong! It is a good thing that I am here. Who else would tell you that sin is wrong if I wasn’t here?” Students usually think this is funny but they also get my point. Christians ought to be the conscience of society. We ought to publicly proclaim the goodness of the law of God and our obligation to it. We ought to confront sin and call sinners to repentance as our Master did.
AREN’T ALL SINS EQUAL?
In an attempt to feel better about themselves, sinners will often say “all sins are equal”. I think their logic goes like this, “Adultery is just as bad as lying. Lying really isn’t that bad. Therefore adultery isn’t that bad.” If they can minimize the wickedness of their sin, they lessen the weight of their guilt upon their minds.
While it is true that all sins are equal in their nature, it is not true that all sins are equal in their guilt. All sin is the choice of the will to rebel against what is known to be good and right. That is the nature of sin. Adultery, murder, and lying are all choices of the will to do what is known to be bad, instead of choosing what is known to be good. The nature of sin is the same. But not all sins are equal in their guilt.
For example our obligation to God is greater than our obligation towards man, because God’s more valuable than man. We are to love God supremely and love our neighbor equally. The “greatest commandment” is to love God, therefore to violate that moral obligation would be a “greater sin” because it is against the greater commandment. It is a worse sin to sin against God than it is to sin against man.
Also, some individuals have more moral knowledge than others because they have been exposed to more moral light. The Bible says that teachers will have a stricter judgment, that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for those who hear the Gospel and reject it, that the one who delivered Jesus to Pilate had the greater sin, etc. Guilt is in proportion to knowledge. Those with greater knowledge have a greater obligation, and consequently when they violate that greater obligation they have committed a greater sin and have a greater guilt and will therefore have a greater punishment.
GOD IS A GOOD RULER
I explained to the students that because God is good, “God does not accept you as you are” and “God does not forgive you no matter what”. A good Ruler will only pardon a criminal if the criminal is repentant. If the criminal is still planning on committing crimes against the society, it would be unsafe and unwise for any ruler to pardon him. In order for pardon to be safely and wisely extended to a criminal, the criminal must have a change of mind about committing crimes. God is too loving and too wise to forgive any sinner unless that sinner first forsakes their sins. Before the remission of sins must be repentance from sin.
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ALABAMA
This is the second year in a row that I have been able to speak on this campus. I preached on this campus last year around the same time. The administration and the Police are both very good at respecting and allowing the exercise of free speech on this campus. The only thing that has changed this year from last year is that they no longer allow you to hold banners with poles because the poles could be used as weapons. This is a concern in case the crowd turns violent I suppose.
EVOLUTION HAS KILLED MILLIONS
A key objective to open air preaching on a University is to spark dialog with the students. Crowds gather to see the engaging debates. A fairly sure way to spark this type of engagement is to bring up the theory of evolution. I’ll say something like “No wonder many of you students live like animals, you believe in EVILution!” I will then go on further to attack evolution by saying, “The full title of Charles Darwins ‘Origin of Species’ in the 1800’s was ‘The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle For Life’. Darwin’s idea of the “favored race” was white people, whom he supposed was more evolved than black people. The reason that his theory spread like wild fire when it was first introduced was not because it has all sorts of scientific evidence behind it, but because America was looking for a justification for slavery.” I go in for the kill by saying, “The theory of Charles Darwin gave birth to the Nazi holocaust. The entire idea of the ‘Arian race’ presupposes the evolutionary process, that one group can evolve to be superior to the other, or that one group is inferior to the other. Hitler did not believe that Jews, blacks, and others were as evolved as the German people who had white skin, blue eyes, and blond hair.”
CALLING A SINNER A SINNER
I have found it interesting that whenever a person proudly confesses to sinning and I refer to them as a “sinner”, the crowd will say “you can’t say that! Who are you to judge?” But when I say that Christians are not sinners, Christians are saints, the crowd will say, “Everybody is a sinner!” One girl on campus said that everyone was a sinner so I told her, “You just judged everyone! I only judge those who confess to sinning, but you just judged the entire campus!” One of the students in the crowd said, “Wow. He just turned that around on them! He completely turned the tables and flipped it around. He just schooled them.” It is interesting how those who say you can’t call someone a sinner will, in the next breath, say that everyone is a sinner.
HOW CAN WE HAVE FREE WILL IF THERE IS A HELL?
One student argued that the existence of hell and the existence of free will are incompatible because if God tells us to love Him or go to hell, it isn’t really a free choice. I explained how we are free to choose between doing right and doing wrong, but free will is not freedom from consequences. The fact that some choices have negative consequences does not make the choice any less free. I do not do heroin because it has negative consequences, that doesn’t mean that I am not freely choosing to live sober. Negative consequences for bad choices do not make good choices any less free.
I admitted that if God forced us to love Him, it would not be love because it is not free will. I asked the student, “Do you love God?” He said, “No I don’t.” I said, “There, you just proved that God does not force anyone to love Him. You are free to love God or not. The fact that you don’t love God is proof that God does not force us to love Him.”
STUDENT RECOGNIZES TRUTH
While I was preaching to the crowd, one man in particular came and stood next to me. When I would quote Bible verses he would say, “That’s right” and after making certain points he would say, “That’s true too”. He was obviously a Christian who read his Bible. Many so called Christians oppose us, thinking what we are preaching isn’t Biblical, because they do not really know their Bibles. This man however realized that we were preaching the truth and was grateful that we were there.
PREACHING THE MERCY OF GOD
It seems that because we preach about the wrath of God, people accuse us of not preaching the mercy of God. This of course is not true. We preach both about God’s wrath and about God’s mercy. We preach both about damnation and salvation. The audience seems to have selective hearing, or possibly what they need to hear the most is what sticks out to them the most.
I preached the mercy of God saying, “The only reason that God didn’t kill you and send you to hell the very first time that you sinned is because God is merciful and wants to give you time to repent. If you died and went to hell the very first time you sinned, that would have been justice. God would have been justified. God prefers mercy over justice and that is why He is giving you time to repent.”
ALABAMA A&M UNIVERSITY
I had never before preached on this campus and was not sure if any open air preacher ever has. I was told that the School was public but that it was also a “tough” school that might be dangerous. Usually School that have never had preachers in the past do not know what to do when they arrive. For that reason I had my mp3 watch recording the audio as soon as I arrived.
Walking around campus wearing my sandwich board, I looked for a busy location where I could preach. In front of a large building there was a stair case that has a group of students hanging out. As I walked by they started reading my sandwich board which led to a discussion with the group. Before long there was a nice size crowd of students gathered around and we were on our way to having a great open air meeting.
ARRESTED FOR FREE SPEECH ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
After preaching for about twenty minutes the campus Police arrived. The Officer said “You are in the wrong place” and then said “you are loitering”. I said “What do you mean I am loitering? I am on a public university.” He said “You are on a private university”. I said “I thought A&M was public” He said, “its private”. I said, “Isn’t it a state university?” He said, “Let me ask you this question. Do you have a reason to be here?” I said, “Yes free speech”. He said, “Free speech doesn’t allow you to be here. So you need to take you free speech off this campus now. Right now.” I said “Ok” and turned on my video camera. With the video going I asked “Are you telling me this is a private university” and he said, “I’m telling you’re about to go to jail if you don’t do what I tell you.” I said, “What am I going to go to jail for?” He said “pick your sign up” and I said “I’ll leave, I’ll leave. What am I going to go to jail for?” One of the students said, “Ya’ll better mace him” and then the Police immediately arrested me. As they walked me to the Police car in hand cuffs one of the girls in the crowd said very proudly, “I am the one who called them!”
In the Police Station they said I “almost caused a riot” and that I would be charged with “loitering”, “disturbing the peace”, and “disorderly conduct”. After filling out all of the paper work for my arrest, they tried to get a statement from the girl who originally called them. They said that she was not cooperating with them and therefore they were going to let me go. They released me, without charging me, with a trespass warning saying if I return to campus I would be arrested immediately.
THE LOCAL NEWS COVERS THE STORY
I knew that the Officer that arrested me obviously had no idea what he was doing, since the campus actually is a public university. Therefore I wanted to give the Administration another chance of letting me on campus before contacting my Attorney’s. I uploaded the video of the arrest to YouTube and emailed as many people as I could that worked at the A&M campus. In the email I told them that if I was not allowed back on campus I would pursue a lawsuit and I gave them a link to the arrest video.
WAFF 48 News heard about what had happened to me on campus. They watched the YouTube video of the arrest and contacted me. After doing an interview with them the story aired on the Friday evening news. It was good coverage and I uploaded that video to YouTube as well.
CONTACTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
The administration of A&M contacted me right before the story aired Friday evening. They apologized for the situation, affirmed that A&M was a public campus, and requested to have a meeting with me about my return to the University. We schedule a meeting for Monday which went very well. At the meeting they once again reaffirmed that their campus was public, that they don’t want to infringe the rights of the community, and that they were sorry for the situation I had with the Officer. They asked when I wanted to come back on campus. I told them that anytime this week would be fine. They said that they normally have a ten day waiting period for any event that occurs on campus, but that because of the situation they will waive that requirement for me. I am still waiting for them to contact me with the exact date and time that I can come back on campus to preach.
Lawsuits are a very long process that requires time and money. I filed lawsuits back in 2004 which were not settled until 2009. While a lawsuit is in process, you cannot preach in the location that is in dispute. You also have to return to that location for depositions, settlement meetings, and then finally trial. For a traveling evangelist, it is costly to return to some of these areas. For that reason I try my best to avoid lawsuits all together. My strategy with this case was to get invited back on campus without needed a lawsuit and my plan worked! Praise God!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 10, 2009 12:44:36 GMT -5
Great post!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 9, 2009 17:23:34 GMT -5
THE NECESSITY FOR GOD METAPHYSICAL, AXIOLOGICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL
Preached in the open air at the University of Alabama, Birmingham
During my second day on campus I decided to start at square one and talk about the existence of God. I explained that there was a metaphysical necessity for God, an axiological necessity for God, and an epistemological necessity for God.
The metaphysical necessity for God is that the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. The nature of reality (metaphysics) requires the existence of God.
The axiological necessity for God is that, apart from an infinite transcendent mind, there can be no moral absolutes. Without a superior and infallible mind who governs over us, the final court of appeal would be our own finite thinking and understanding. We could not be absolutely sure of moral law, since the views and opinions of men’s minds different and vary so widely. There must be an infinite, infallible, superior, transcendent mind that governs over us, that gives us moral revelations through our conscience, if we are to have any certainty regarding absolute moral law. Axiology (morality) requires the existence of God.
In one of my dialogs with an atheist I asked him, “were the crusades wrong? He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the witch hunts wrong?” He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the inquisitions wrong?” Again he said, “Yes”. Then I asked, “Where does morality come from?” He didn’t know what to say. If he said morality comes from the minds of individuals, how could these individuals have been wrong if they thought this was the right thing to do? If he said morality comes from society, how could these societies be wrong since this is what they thought was right to do? If there is no transcendent God, who infallibly knows what is right and what is wrong, who writes His law upon our very own conscience, all we can have is relative or subjective morality, but nothing that is absolute or objective. We all know right from wrong because God, who infallibly knows what’s right and what’s wrong, has revealed it to us.
Besides, if we are random accidents of the Universe, instead of precious and valuable creations of God, what would make our well-being absolutely valuable? We could arbitrarily say that we are valuable, but this is not the same as being intrinsically valuable. The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the intrinsic value of well-being. If you take away the intrinsic value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.
The epistemological necessity for God is that, if we are not created and designed by God, how can we trust the accuracy of our five senses, or believe in the reliability of our reason or conscience? Apart from the presupposition of Divine Design, we cannot put any confidence in the accuracy of these means of acquiring knowledge. They could be flawed, inaccurate, and completely deceptive, if we are the result of mere “time and chance”. One atheist told me, “I don’t believe in the accuracy of my five senses.” I said, “You don’t stop at red lights?” I went on to say, “Every time you get up in the morning and go to the mirror brush your hair, you are believing in your sense of sight and the sight of others.” Everyone believes in the accuracy of their five senses, but apart from Divine Design, we cannot account for them. Epistemology (study of knowledge and justified belief) necessitates the existence of God.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 7, 2009 3:16:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 5, 2009 21:04:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 31, 2009 23:33:08 GMT -5
What is conversion? Isn't conversion when a person's heart turns from sin and turns to God?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 27, 2009 14:20:29 GMT -5
These are some more points that deal with the topic of this thread:
1. Gnosticism teaches that sin is a substance of the flesh, instead of a free will choice as all of the Early Church taught. Sin is violation of God's law and God's law only tells us what type of choices to make, not what type of body or nature to have.
2. Men are sinners, not because of the type of body that they inherit at birth (Gnosticism) but because of their own free will choices. A sinner's problem is not his body, though it is fallen, but his problem is his own heart, because it is wicked. The will of a sinner is at odds with the law of God. Men absolutely must be born again, not because they passively and involuntarily inherited some sinful substance, but because they have actively and deliberately chosen to break God's law.
3. That is why at regeneration we do not get a new body, we get a new heart. Jesus taught that sin comes out of the heart (Mark 7:21-23). Therefore if you are going to live a holy life, you need to get a new heart, not a new body.
4. Ephesians 2:3 in context is talking about those who choose to live for their flesh. The natural man is someone who doesn't live for God, but lives for the gratification of their flesh. When it says that they are, by nature children of wrath, it means that they are children of wrath because they choose to live for the gratification of their flesh (selfishness).
5. True conversion is when a person's heart changes. When their selfish heart is removed and a loving heart takes it's place, a heart that loves God supremely and loves his neighbor equally. Even though a Christian still has a fallen or physically depraved body, which is subjected to disease and death, if he has a loving heart he is morally perfect because love is the fulfillment of the law.
6. If men are sinners because they passively and involuntarily inherit some sinful substance, they are victims and not criminals. As victims, they would DESERVE God's pity. But if men are sinners because of the choices they make, choices which violate God's law, then they are criminals who DESERVE punishment.
7. If men are sinners because they inherit a sinful body, then sinfulness is not their fault. If sinfulness is not their fault, they do not deserve punishment and therefore do not need Jesus Christ. The logical conclusion of having a "sinful body" is that you really don't need Jesus Christ. But if sin is their own free will choice, then sin is their own fault. If sin is their own fault, they deserve punishment. And if they deserve punishment, they need Jesus Christ. Therefore only if sin is their own free will choice do they need Jesus Christ.
8. If we inherit a sinful flesh, or a sinful body, then sin is not our fault but is God's fault. It would be God's fault because God is the one who actively and personally forms us in the womb. Therefore if we inherit a sinful flesh, or a sinful body, then God is the author of sin.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 27, 2009 14:20:07 GMT -5
Romans 7 is a narrative Paul gives which shows the struggle of a sinner who is under the conviction of the law. It shows the battle between the desires of his flesh, to live for self gratification or selfishness, and the desires of his mind, his inner man or conscience. The inner man, or conscience, wants to do good, but he is still doing wrong because he is not yet converted.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 27, 2009 1:52:50 GMT -5
Some people believe that sin is a substance, not a choice. They believe that it is a quality of matter, not a state of the will. I once asked a Calvinist “Is this body a sin?” They said, “Yes, our bodies are made of sin”. I asked, “So you can put sin under a microscope and look at it?” He said, “sure”. Here are some points to consider as to why our flesh, or body, is not sinful.
1. God is the author of our flesh (Exodus 4:11, Isaiah 44:2, Jer. 1:5).
2. Sinfulness is violation of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). God’s law tells us what type of choices we should and shouldn’t make (Exo. 20:3-17), not what type of body or nature we should or shouldn’t have.
3. Our flesh is just dirt (Gen. 2:7, Gen. 3:19).
4. Our flesh is the occasion of our sin, or the source of temptation (James 1:14), but sin itself is a choice (John 5:14, John 8:11, Rom. 6:12; Rom. 6:19 Eph. 4:26).
5. The body needs to be kept under subjection (1 Corinthians 9:27).
6. It is sinful to live after the flesh (Rom. 8:13), or to be living to gratify our flesh (Rom. 8:7).
7. But it is not sinful to have a flesh, because Jesus Christ had a flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7).
8. Jesus had the same type of flesh that we have (Heb. 2:14; Heb. 2:17).
9. Jesus made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3) which means Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). The word “flesh” is sometimes used synonymous with men (Gen. 6:12, Matt. 16:17).
10. Jesus was morally perfect (2 Cor. 5:21) before He had a glorified or resurrected body.
11. The Gnostic’s taught that the flesh was sinful in and of itself (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7).
12. Our flesh is an instrument or tool which we could use for sin or for righteousness (Rom. 6:13, Rom. 6:19).
13. Our flesh can be sanctified (Rom. 12:1, 1 Thes. 4:4, 1 Thes. 5:23, 1 Tim. 2:8).
GOOD QUOTES RELATED TO THIS TOPIC:
GOD IS THE CREATOR OF OUR FLESH OR NATURE WE ARE BORN WITH
"If a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” Justin Martyr (First Apology Chap. 43)
“Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.” Irenaeus (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
“If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man’s nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.” Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)
“To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.” Charles Finney (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Bethany House, p. 261).
“… it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault.” Unknown (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 168, published by The Boydell Press).
“To equate humanity with sinfulness is to make God the Author of His own worst enemy; to make God responsible for the thing that has brought Him unhappiness.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).
“The next dogma deserving attention is the position, that mankind derived from our first progenitor a corrupt nature, which renders obedience to the commands of God impossible, and disobedience necessary, and that for the mere existence of this nature, men ‘deserve God’s wrath and curse, not only in this world, but in that which is to come.’ If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and ‘bound over to the wrath of God.’ Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of ‘every soul of man.’ As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses. It does not help the matter at all, to say, that this nature is derived from our progenitor: for the laws of generation, by which this corrupt nature is derived from that progenitor, are sustained and continued by God himself… If, then, the above dogma is true, man in the first place, is held as deserving of eternal punishment for that which exists wholly independent of his knowledge, choice or agency, in any sense, direct or indirect, He is also held responsible for the result, not of his own agency, but for that which results from the agency of God.” Asa Mahan (Doctrine of the Will, published by Truth in Heart, p. 115).
“Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).
THE DESIRES AND APPETITITES OF OUR FLESH: GOOD OR EVIL? SIN OR TEMPTATION?
“Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142)
“Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 83).
“God created us to exist in a constant state of desire and appetite… The infant cannot think of terms of duty, responsibility, or moral choice…. The self-centeredness of infants has all the appearances of a vice. But they are acting on natural, God-given impulses to survive and seek their own pleasure…. They do not have the intellectual and moral capacity to say “No” to appetites and impulses. They cannot yet be held responsible. They begin life in innocent self-centeredness…. But the growing child or adult who doesn’t rise above self-indulging desires has fallen from God’s intention and design. The root of all sin is founded in runaway indulgence of God-given desires… Drives which are not in themselves evil, nonetheless, form the seedbed on which sin will assuredly grow… When does this innocent, natural selfishness of a child become sin? In other words, when is a child to blame? Keep in mind that a child will not come under condemnation until his moral faculties are fully operative… When a child goes against his conscience, however limited and incomplete his understanding may be, he is then guilty. The degree to which his understanding has developed is the degree to which his actions can be called sin…. As the body of flesh was the medium of Eve’s sin and of Christ’s temptation, so it is the implement of your child’s development into selfishness – which, at maturity, will constitute sinfulness.” Michael & Debi Pearl (To Train Up A Child, No Greater Joy, pg. 15-20)
“The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he yielded to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” Charles Finney (You Can Be Holy, published by Whitaker House, p. 215).
"We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted." Sin is to "pervert... natural, legitimate, human desires." F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, page 134-135).
"Evil is making a bad use of a good thing." Augustine (Confessions and Enchiridion, trans. and ed. by Albert C. Outler, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, N. D, page 326-338, section 36).
“If these feelings are not suffered to influence the will… if such feelings are not cherished, and are not suffered to shake the integrity of the will; they are not sin. That is, the will does not consent to them, but the contrary. They are only temptations. If they are allowed to control the will, to break forth in words and actions, then there is sin; but the sin does not consist in the, but in the consent of the will, to gratify them.” Charles Finney (Systematic Theology pg. 191).
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 26, 2009 20:42:07 GMT -5
Sounds great!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 19, 2009 0:27:51 GMT -5
NEW FACEBOOK ACCOUNTDear Friends, Many of you were my "friends" on my previous facebook account. Unfortunately my previous account has been disabled by facebook because I was sending out too many friend requests... I have now started a new account and wanted to invite you to once again be my "friend". I'll be posting regularly about where we have been and what we have been doing. I'll also upload pictures and videos of the ministry. I have found that this has been a great way to connect to others. I pray that you will be encouraged by what we are doing for the Lord. My New Facebook Account: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=719005083God Bless, Jesse Morrell www.OpenAirOutreach.com
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 16, 2009 9:20:52 GMT -5
This was an email I wrote to a friend who had some questions. Regarding perfection, I believe that it is possible for a Christian to sin (1 Jn. 2:1) and that it is possible for a Christian not to sin (Matt. 5:18; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Jn 2:1). God will not make anyone stop sinning, it is our own free choice to sin no more (Jn. 5:14; 8:11). Neither in this life, nor in the next life, will God force anyone to be morally perfect. Moral perfect must be our own choice if it is going to be our own moral character. And those who do not stop sinning in this life will not be morally perfect in the next life (Rev. 22:11). In order to get saved, we must repent of all our sins. But after that, we still have the ability to sin. If we sin, God is still omniscient and sees us if we sin. God is not blind when we sin, He sees us if we sin ( Prov. 15:3; Eze. 8:12; 9:9; Jer. 32:19; Mal. 2:17; Heb. 4:13). If a Christian, for example, looks at pornography, they have for the time being lost their salvation. They are temporarily under the condemnation of the law or the wrath of God. They are no longer Christians because they are no longer following Christ. You cannot be a Christian, while you are watching pornography, anymore than you can be a Christian while you are making pornography! The Bible says no sexually immoral person will inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19), and the blood of Christ does not cover us if we willfully sin (Heb. 10:26-31). They must be restored through repentance (Luke 13:3, James 5:19-20) like King David regained his salvation after committing adultery and murder when he repented (Ps. 51). We needed to turn away from our sins in order to get saved and therefore we must stay away from sin in order to stay saved. That is why when I meet those going into bars and clubs to get drunk and pick up women, and they say that they are Christians, I can tell them that they are going to hell. They might have been Christians at one point, but now they are backsliden and need to repent and be forgiven. Even Christians have the free will ability to get drunk or to fornicate, but nobody is saved while they are sinning. God forgives us of our sins only after we forsake our sins (Isaiah 55:7). Anyone who is in sin is under the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18) but if we give up our sins God will pardon us. Hope that helps. Jesse Morrell www.OpenAirOutreach.com
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 7, 2009 15:15:06 GMT -5
I believe that all sin is punishable and all sin must be repented of.
If some sins lead to hell, but not all sins lead to hell, then we do not need to repent of all sins. We only need to repent of some sins. But the Bible only teaches total repentance, not partial repentance. If we do not repent of all sin, we do not repent of sin at all.
Some sins cost people their lives. We are not supposed to pray for the dead. But we are supposed to pray for those who are still alive, who are still sinning, but who's sins have not yet cost them their lives and souls.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 6, 2009 14:09:52 GMT -5
I really like both of those posts!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 24, 2009 1:56:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 9, 2009 23:25:32 GMT -5
I agree that time is an attribute of God's nature. If God was not naturally a sequential being, God could not be naturally a personal being or a creative being. The faculties of personality (will, emotion, thought) all require succession. And creation is activity which requires succession. God was able to create the universe because God is a sequential being, because time is a part of His nature.
And I agree that God cannot lie has more to do with his character than His ability. God is omnipotent and God has free will, but God is utterly unwilling to sin. Just like Joseph said, "How can I do this thing and sin against God?" This was a reflection of his character, not his ability.
But how could God foreknow with certainty the outcome of a contingency? That is like saying, "God knows with certainty that an event, which may or may not occur, will occur." That is a contradiction. If it may or may not occur, it cannot be certain.
A contingency is an event that "may or may not happen". A free will choice is a contingency. How could God foreknew, with eternal certainty, the outcome of a contingency or a free will choice?
And if God foreknows all future events, then all future events are certain, and therefore no future events are contingent. And if no future events are contingent, no future events are free.
If God foreknew from all of eternity all events, how could God plan anything at all.
If God foreknew from all of eternity that you would die tomorrow, how could God save you?
|
|